Post your BenQ DW1620 media here

I get the same as you Norse, not much difference in 4x vs 8x. PIFs are almost exactly the same. I guess it means it's pretty consistent reader.

MCC004 16x DVD+R @16x (B7M9)

BenQ 8x (50 spindle Meritline.com) @ 12x (6 min 30 sec burn)



BenQ 8x (50 spindle Meritline.com) @ 16x (6 min 17 sec burn)



Prodisk 8x (25 spindle Meritline.com) @ 12x (6 min 30 sec burn)

Yea, the scans look good. I always thought that PI failures were supposed to be nil, I guess that's what the error-correction fixes..

Sid

Strange.... why do BenQ burns @ 16x produce sudden high spikes in PIF near the end of the disc? The PIE is low enough... but PIF, I feel, is a bit disturbing...

Here is a "That's" Taiyo Yuden 4x burned at 12x with Nero Create Data Disk

I've read others having issues with these disks at 12x and 16x.

I've only burned 2 so far, I will do a 8x later

Taiyo Yuden OEM from Accaproducts

seems that BenQ media has a QC issue for a period of time....will post more info later

I just installed the 1620 OEM burner yesterday. Not sure I have everything in optimum condition just yet. Still waiting for a determination if I have the proper drive cable since I do not know if it is 40 or 80. It is a flat ribbon cable. Any input on this appreciated.

Disc was burned with DVD Decryptor. Media is FujiFilm 8x. Media code shows as Yuden000 T02, which I understand to be decent. Quality score only shows as 70, but I have yet to fully understand the implications of these tests. Any idea why this seems so low compared to others? I've burned 4 discs, all with similar, low, results.

According to DVDDecryptor, the write speed was as follows:

Average Write Rate: 8,642 KB/s (6.2x) - Maximum Write Rate: 17,804 KB/s (12.9x)

Here are results:

Here's an example of the differences I get with 4X and 8X scanning.

I didn't have any scans saved, so I did these quickly. They're not of the complete disc, but both scans are pretty decent until the end of the disc anyway.


CMC MAG F01 4X burned at 4X (B7M9)

Scanned at 4X:



Scanned at 8X:

not exactly sure what the jitter value does or how the scores are given by cd-speed but you cannot compare benq scanning with liteon scanning. it's like comparing apples to oranges.

@krkdnose
i think you have other issues than scanning
make sure you have latest cd-speed and try different media

Those were made with the latest cd/dvd-speed.

I'm not sure what trying different media will show. That scanning at 4X or 8X on some media gives similar results, but scanning on other media doesn't?

I guess maybe scanning faster just amplifies errors (on some media)?

The manual for CD/DVD speed does not seem to cover a DVD disc quality test. After the scan of my first burned DVD, I scanned 3 others. I am having difficulty drawing any correlation between the various statistics shown, and the final "quality score". QUESTION 1: Can anyone point me to an explanation of the results of these scans?

I realize a number of factors could influence the results, but using the same burner, same stack of presumably high quality discs, and the same burning application, the results really seem to be inconsistent. QUESTION 2: Is this normal? If so, it would seem impossible to draw any conclusions about a particular media from a single scan - I've got quality scores from 70 to 97.

QUESTION 3: at what point (quality score, or other variable) would you think it wise to reburn the disc, even if it plays in a set top player and DVD-ROM drive?

QUESTION 4: What really is the most important stat shown in these graphs when drawing conclusions about the quality of the burned disc?

The most obvious correlation I see is between the Maximum PI Falure and the Quality Score.

So, how would the above 4 scans rate? Are they Bad? Good? Average? I have been searching for some explanation of the scan results and have yet to find anything definitive.

well what happened the the first portion of your scan there is nothing there?

Check this link..

http://club.cdfreaks.com/showthread.php?t=80545

Thanks. I gather that PI Error is the same measurement in both, and PO=PIF. In the linked description, OC-Freak says "no large areas" should exceed PI=280 and PO (PIF)=32.

If this is true, the worst of my scans above shows PI=15 (WAY below 280) and PIF = 23 (somewhat below). Can I conclude then that, from a PI Error perspective, this disc is fantastic, and from a PIF perspective, it is somewhat average, and collectively it is above average?????

I would love to see a line, or gradients, showing relativity to the 280 mark, and 32 mark for each variable. I am also beginning to wonder if the quality score would be 0 if those variables reached their max and 100 for PI & PI=0.

One other question, I have twice received an error while scanning that says "No additional sense information". The scan abruptly halts. This happens in exactly the same point on one particular disc, and occured once, but not a second time on another. What is this error, and is it an indication of a REALLY faulty disc?

As I stated in my post, they weren't scans of the complete disc. They were scans of the end of the disc (3.8 GB to 4.32 GB). The first part of the disc scans fine at either speed (4X or 8X). The scans of the end of the disc look the same whether you scan the whole disc or not.

did you burn those with 1620?
its odd that you get very different scans @4x compared to 8x, others state that their scans are very similar

Yes, I burned that disc with my 1620.

I think it's odd as well. That's why I brought it up. Maybe larger errors are more pronounced when scanning at higher speeds? I don't know. I think I'll try it with DVDInfoPro and see if I get similar results.

Well here are some of my scans CMC MAG F01 branded as Memorex DVD+R 4x
Written at 4x


Written at 8x


Taiyo Yuden G02 DVD-R 8x
Written at 8x


Written at 12x


Taiyo Yuden T01 branded as Maxell DVD+R 4x
Written at 4x (the 8x scan was like the others a coaster)


I have some Prodisc DVD+R 8x I must try next but so far I have seen as long as I don't overspeed any media the results are very good.

wow, you have some awful scans with oversped media tyg02 is supposed to do 16x but is known to do fine @12x. I have done cmc mag f01 @8x with decent results.