Transfer rate test - normal?

*Braxas* · 02-01-2005

Just wondering how normal my Transfer Rate test is here.. never really ran one before. Burst rate was up to 23mb/second - I guess that's alright? Trying to figure out if this newish PC is up and running properly for DVD-Burner I guess.

__________________

...I will NEVER buy another Lite-On Product...
BenQ DW1620 DVD-Burner w/B7U9 Firmware
Samsung TS-H492A CD-RW/DVD Combo drive w/TB02 Firmware
Mad Dog Dominator 6-in-1 (NEC ND2510A) w/2.F9 Firmware
Abit AI7 uGuru motherboard
Pentium 4 2.4 Gigahertz
800 megahertz FSB
512 (2x256)megs of Kingston PC-3200 DDR
1 Gigabyte (2x512) megs of Kingmax PC-3200 DDR
1.5 gigabytes total PC-3200 DDR Memory

2x80 gigabyte Western Digital Special Edition 8 megabyte buffer 7200 RPM IDE Hard Drives
Radeon 9600SE 128 megabyte video card

*Inertia* · 02-01-2005

Perfectly normal.

*Braxas* · 02-01-2005

Thanks, Inertia.

__________________

...I will NEVER buy another Lite-On Product...
BenQ DW1620 DVD-Burner w/B7U9 Firmware
Samsung TS-H492A CD-RW/DVD Combo drive w/TB02 Firmware
Mad Dog Dominator 6-in-1 (NEC ND2510A) w/2.F9 Firmware
Abit AI7 uGuru motherboard
Pentium 4 2.4 Gigahertz
800 megahertz FSB
512 (2x256)megs of Kingston PC-3200 DDR
1 Gigabyte (2x512) megs of Kingmax PC-3200 DDR
1.5 gigabytes total PC-3200 DDR Memory

2x80 gigabyte Western Digital Special Edition 8 megabyte buffer 7200 RPM IDE Hard Drives
Radeon 9600SE 128 megabyte video card

*Sapa* · 02-01-2005

Randomly I get 16X transfer rate tests with TY G01 burnt on Nec 2500.
However I can't get it with those burnt on the Benq B7T9

http://club.cdfreaks.com/showpost.ph...&postcount=493

I now have 4 scans like the one attached.
I thought 8X was a maximum with this drive.

Anyone has an idea why this happens ?

__________________
Benq 1620 B7W9 (retired)
Benq 1640 BSPB
Benq 1655 BCGB (MCSE)
LG 4163B A105
Liteon 1633S@1653S CSOP(retired)
Asus 1608P3S@Pioneer111L 8.29 (TDB + ala42's readspeed patch)

*Quikee* · 02-01-2005

Hmmm... 16x transfer rate on a 2500 drive... weird

__________________
NecDump, WOPC Tool, BQFlasher 0.7.2 (+source), DVDScanner, DVDWrite,...

*Sapa* · 02-01-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quikee2

Hmmm... 16x transfer rate on a 2500 drive... weird

What I said was that the Benq does a transfer rate at 16X with discs burnt on a NEC 2500A.

No luck so far with other discs burnt on the Benq itself.

This one ends up pooly but you can see the curve.

Weird enough ! I think this has something to do with the WOPC defeating the speed selection in CD Speed.

Attached Images

BENQ____DVD_DD_DW1620_B7T9_02-January-2005_10_14.png (30.0 KB, 205 views)

__________________
Benq 1620 B7W9 (retired)
Benq 1640 BSPB
Benq 1655 BCGB (MCSE)
LG 4163B A105
Liteon 1633S@1653S CSOP(retired)
Asus 1608P3S@Pioneer111L 8.29 (TDB + ala42's readspeed patch)

*Inertia* · 03-01-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sapa

Randomly I get 16X transfer rate tests with TYG01 burnt on Nec 2500.
However I can't get it with those burnt on the Benq B7T9...

...I thought 8X was a maximum with this drive.

Anyone has an idea why this happens ?

Are you sure that it's TY G01? I tried it and it didn't work. Then I remembered something odd that I had noticed. When Maxell MXL RG02 is burned on either my NEC 2500 or 3500, the MID codes can't be read by the BenQ 1620. This is not true if it's burned on the BenQ. Neither NEC drives have stock firmware, so this might be involved in this odd effect.

DVDInfo reports "Un-supported command: Your Drive does not support the commands required to read MID codes on this media." My TYG01 is Maxell branded and the discs look exactly the same as the MXL RG02 with a yellow gold color. MID codes must be read from the blanks to tell the difference. Do you have both of these media types?

CD Speed can't read the MID code either. The Disc Info Type is DVD-R and the ID: is blank. The result is a 16x transfer rate test using MXL RG02.

Attached Images

Maxell RG02 @8x 3500 TRT BenQ.png (31.8 KB, 183 views)

danielwritesback · 03-01-2005

OH! You've found it! We've all been wondering why the rip speeds would sometimes go maximum on a few discs. The occaisional DVD (any type) and cdr will also do this trick.
It's when the MID can't be read, which includes descriptors of supported speeds.
Wow. That's good to know.

Many thanks!!

*Inertia* · 03-01-2005

You're welcome, danielwritesback.

I had regarded this MID code anomaly as something very peculiar but had not considered its impact until this thread jogged my memory to make the connection.

*ala42* · 03-01-2005

Your conclusion is a bit too fast

. The fact that a disk burned on a NEC having an unreadable MID reads at 16x does not mean that an unreadable MID is neccessary to get 16x read speed. It could also mean the disk must be burned on a nec, or be burned on the weekend, or have good reading quality.

__________________
LiteOn/Benq/LG/NEC/Pioneer/Samsung/Toshiba stuff: MediaCodeSpeedEdit V 1.2.0.10, released October 3rd 2011

*Inertia* · 03-01-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by ala42

Your conclusion is a bit too fast

. The fact that a disk burned on a NEC having an unreadable MID reads at 16x does not mean that an unreadable MID is neccessary to get 16x read speed.

It doesn't prove that it is necessary to have an unreadable MID to read burned media at 16x, but it proves that it works!

Quote:

Originally Posted by ala42

It could also mean the disk must be burned on a nec, or be burned on the weekend, or have good reading quality.

It has already been stated, by both Sapa and myself that NEC drives were involved in this phenomenon. Burns made on the NEC drives with other high reading quality media that have readable MID codes in the BenQ 1620 (all other media in my possession) test at 8x max transfer rate.

It has already been demonstrated (to my testing and satisfaction) that this 16x reading speed can occur if it it is burned on a NEC 2500 or NEC 3500 with a media such as MXL RG02 that does not return a MID code when read by the BenQ 1620.

I will leave the weekend burning and your other possible cause theories for you to follow up. I am done.

danielwritesback · 03-01-2005

Burned on the weekend? That's no good for me. There is simply too much rum in the computer operator for validity of testing. OH!!!! I see!! That might help in making some discs with an unreadable MID code! I'll try that next weekend and see what I come up with.

There is always the possibility of firmware quirkyness with the BenQ. I have re-flashed T9 for the eleventh time because of poor quality issues. Now, it is ramping up to 6x at the very start of a burn and doing perfect 8x burns in 7m20s on junk media at 97%. Excuse me? So, I re-test my rip-quick discs before (the MID is unreadable, BTW) and now they perform normally (guess-O-matic in firmware???). Comparing on a different drive, the scans look like a normal valid 4x scan (so the writing improved). On the 1620, these look just like a CMC scan, so the reading was improved too (but one has to add a "fudge factor" into QC scans now). I believe that firmware quirks are slightly off topic for this thread, but it does leave room for some doubt if one were hunting for that.

**zevia** · 03-01-2005

Hmm... new theory: unreadable MIDs would make BenQ reads 16x... just gotta love this forum.

How about reading a crappy disk with no MID at all? sorry I don't have one so can someone try please? just to prove the theory, also if not to hassle you can try to burn it during weekends.

__________________
Click here to join CDFreaks.com

Join CDFreaks Distributed Computing Team, have fun while helping to save some lives!

My review PC & Specs & Media
Blu-ray to DVD guide

Forum Rules | Blu-ray UDF Driver
BenQ/Philips FAQ and tools: BQFlasher, MCSE, WOPC Tool, WinDWFlash

LG BE06LU11 Blu-ray | LG GGW-H10N Blu-ray/HD-DVD | LG GBW-H10N Blu-ray | Panasonic SW-5582 Blu-ray

*Sapa* · 03-01-2005

Inertia and Daniellwritesback

You have tested this dive very thouroughly ! How didn't I notice that the mid code was not present in all cases (5 cases now and I can reproduce)

- Media was Verbatim Pastel or Fuji both with TY G01 mid code.
- All burned using Nec 2500@2510 with mad dog's 2.f8
- Quality scans were fine (one not nice but wait...) but show no mid code in CD speed.
- Mid code is still there when using either DVD Identifier or DVDinfo Pro (which rules out crappy no-mid media).

Here are info and scan showing all this

Transfer rate test posted here
http://club.cdfreaks.com/showpost.ph...&postcount=493

Region information N/A not a DVD-VIDEO
Media code/Manufacturer ID TYG01
Format Type UDF 1.02
Volume Name XXXXXXX
Application id
Implementation id AHEAD Nero
Recording Date/Time (mm/dd/yyyy) 1/ 1/2005 1:08:21
Format Capacity 4.36GB(4.68GB)
Book Type DVD-R
Media Type DVD-R
Manufacturer Rated Speed 4.0x 5540KBps
Available Write Descriptor CLV 4.0x 5540KBps
Write Strategy Speed 4.0x 5540KBps

Attached Images

Verb_Pastel_G01_Returner_6X_2F8QualB7T9_16X.png (31.9 KB, 144 views)

__________________
Benq 1620 B7W9 (retired)
Benq 1640 BSPB
Benq 1655 BCGB (MCSE)
LG 4163B A105
Liteon 1633S@1653S CSOP(retired)
Asus 1608P3S@Pioneer111L 8.29 (TDB + ala42's readspeed patch)

*Spartane* · 15-01-2005

You can add -R Prodisc S03 to the list of discs burned on the NEC 3500 that do this.

When burned with 3500 firmware "Version 2 Milestone Release - Extreme" firmware http://freeweb.siol.net/tvajng/Quikee_FW.html, the BenQ 1620 cannot read the Mid code - at least with 1620 firmware B7T9. The transfer rate goes to 16X, and it kicks out an invalid sense information error when it tries to read past the end of the disc. The transfer rate is good (until the error at the end).

It happens every time for all Prodisc S03 discs burned on the NEC 3500 and scanned on the BenQ 1620. I overspeed burned these discs at 12X - I did not do any testing at lower burn speeds.

DVD Identifier reports "unsupported medium detected" and does NOT report the media type or name at all.

The discs all read fine in the NEC 3500 and they all read fine in a LiteOn 451. The discs also work in all the set top players I've tried them in, and the quality scans look good.

This looks like a firmware glitch in the 1620 that's being triggered by a NEC writing quirk.

Transfer rate test - normal?

Similar Threads

Search this Thread

People who found this also searched for