I don't understand Dolphinius answer :-D
My point was and still is as follows:
1) Because the drive chipsets, PUH and mechanics are different between LiteOn and Optorite drives.
2) Because the software implementation of error reporting between UM doctor Pro II and kProbe is different
3) Then testing with both drive/software types would show a wide range of results between media readability and enable one more easily to extrapolate probable (more universal) readability results.
Now the issue is that as long as one uses only UMDP2/Optorite drive X, what one is actually testing is readability in that particular Optorite drive.
Of course the same could be said of other sites that only use a certain LiteOn/kProbe combo, but that's not the point.
The point is that CDR-Info could once again show others how things can be done better by providing side-by-side results using two different drives and scanning software. The results will vary and that variation, possible patterns in them, is what should interest us.
At least to me, having analyzed dvd readability issues for quite some time, those results would be very telling and more trustworthy than the general "hey, let's quickly scan using whatever LiteOn dvd-rom drive we find and whatever kProbe settings we know how to use and using random testing speed" :)
I think I understand the issue reasonably well on low level details as well as on implementation level, so please no "meant fo newbies" blanket answers :)
The only downside I see with using double scanning tools is the extra work and I can completely understand if it is not done for that reason. I mean the test pattern CDR-Info already uses is extremely cumbersome and beyond the capabilities of all other sites currently.
PS Of course low level measurements from the burned disc along with low level data from the burner/reader would be even better, but most of us don't have a spare Datarius/Cats/Koch lying around in some corner :)