Who to believe? (BenQ scanning vs. Lite-On scanning)
| BenQ / Philips Writer Discuss, Who to believe? (BenQ scanning vs. Lite-On scanning) at CD, DVD and Blu-ray Writers forum; First disc, MCC 003 burned by BenQ DW1655. First scan by BenQ DW1620. Second scan by Lite-On SHM-165P6S. The two scans are roughly in agreement. Attached Images 2576.MCC_003[1655@12].png (45.8 KB, 571 views) 2576L.MCC_003[1655@12].png (43.2 KB, 572 views) __________________ Frequently used/favorite : BenQ 1640 1800 LG H22N H42N Sony BWU-100A Occasionally |
-
Posted:
26-02-2006
- # 1
First disc, MCC 003 burned by BenQ DW1655.
First scan by BenQ DW1620.
Second scan by Lite-On SHM-165P6S.
The two scans are roughly in agreement.__________________
Frequently used/favorite: BenQ 1640 1800 LG H22N H42N Sony BWU-100A
Occasionally used/retired: BenQ 1620 DQ60 1655 1680 LG 4163B 4166B H10N H50N H55N Lite-On 165P6S 18A1P 20A1P NEC 3540A Pioneer A09XL 110 111D 112D Plextor 716A Samsung S182D S203B Sony 820A
- Today (MyCE Staff)
- Posts: 15,596
- Posted:
26-02-2006
- # 2
Second disc, an identical MCC 003 burned by Lite-On SHM-165P6S.
First scan by BenQ DW1620.
Second scan by Lite-On SHM-165P6S.
What the heck has happened here?__________________
Frequently used/favorite: BenQ 1640 1800 LG H22N H42N Sony BWU-100A
Occasionally used/retired: BenQ 1620 DQ60 1655 1680 LG 4163B 4166B H10N H50N H55N Lite-On 165P6S 18A1P 20A1P NEC 3540A Pioneer A09XL 110 111D 112D Plextor 716A Samsung S182D S203B Sony 820A - Posted:
26-02-2006
- # 4
Definitely not vice versa, as you can see in the first pair of scans. Lite-On has no problem whatsoever reading the BenQ-burned disc. In fact, it reports fewer PIEs and PIFs than DW1620.Quote:Originally Posted by chok0benqs dont like reading liteon burnt discs and vise versa.
The question is, can DW1620 [and other DW16xx drives that produce similar scans] be trusted to provide reliable results?__________________
Frequently used/favorite: BenQ 1640 1800 LG H22N H42N Sony BWU-100A
Occasionally used/retired: BenQ 1620 DQ60 1655 1680 LG 4163B 4166B H10N H50N H55N Lite-On 165P6S 18A1P 20A1P NEC 3540A Pioneer A09XL 110 111D 112D Plextor 716A Samsung S182D S203B Sony 820A - Posted:
26-02-2006
- # 5
This is the second MCC 003 disc, burned by Lite-On SHM-165P6S, scanned and then read by BenQ DW1655.
The scan indicates a very marginal disc that should be barely readable even at 8x [the scanning speed], but the transfer rate shows a disc readable at 16x with no errors or even slowdowns.__________________
Frequently used/favorite: BenQ 1640 1800 LG H22N H42N Sony BWU-100A
Occasionally used/retired: BenQ 1620 DQ60 1655 1680 LG 4163B 4166B H10N H50N H55N Lite-On 165P6S 18A1P 20A1P NEC 3540A Pioneer A09XL 110 111D 112D Plextor 716A Samsung S182D S203B Sony 820A - Posted:
26-02-2006
- # 6
If you look closely after the write speed bump LiteOn does something while writing that BenQ doesn't like. The question now is.. does LiteOn do something while burning that is out of the specs or does BenQ have trouble reading something that is within specs.
In such situation I always belive the drive which shows a less good scan.. also this is a reason why I don't trust LiteOn scans very much because it is a too good reader.
The transfer rate is normal as a slowdown only occures when a POF happens.. If a POF doesn't happend there is no need to slowdown (everything got corrected by the error correction).__________________
NecDump, WOPC Tool, BQFlasher 0.7.2 (+source), DVDScanner, DVDWrite,... - Posted:
26-02-2006
- # 7
Quikee, I agree with most of what you said, but here's some more food for thought.Quote:Originally Posted by QuikeeIf you look closely after the write speed bump LiteOn does something while writing that BenQ doesn't like. The question now is.. does LiteOn do something while burning that is out of the specs or does BenQ have trouble reading something that is within specs.
In such situation I always belive the drive which shows a less good scan.. also this is a reason why I don't trust LiteOn scans very much because it is a too good reader.
The transfer rate is normal as a slowdown only occures when a POF happens.. If a POF doesn't happend there is no need to slowdown (everything got corrected by the error correction).
We are now looking at a TYG02 disc burned by Sony DRU-820A, scanned by BenQ DW1655 and then by Lite-On SHM-165P6S, followed by a transfer rate test by BenQ DW1655.
First, there is a power adjustment point at 120 MB where BenQ's scanning gets thrown off by something and shows a tall PIF spike reaching up to 24, which is not present in the Lite-On scan.
Second, BenQ reports 172 POFs in 8x scanning, yet blows through the entire disc in 16x reading without slowdowns in places where you would expect them to happen.
Lite-On, on the other hand, exhibits no such unexplained phenomena.
Oh well, it's late... maybe it will make some sense in the morning.__________________
Frequently used/favorite: BenQ 1640 1800 LG H22N H42N Sony BWU-100A
Occasionally used/retired: BenQ 1620 DQ60 1655 1680 LG 4163B 4166B H10N H50N H55N Lite-On 165P6S 18A1P 20A1P NEC 3540A Pioneer A09XL 110 111D 112D Plextor 716A Samsung S182D S203B Sony 820A - Posted:
26-02-2006
- # 8
I have had a similar experience to agent009 with my 165P6S and DW1650. Using MCC 004 discs I had a good scan with the burner (165P6S) but a horrible one with the Benq with the PIFs and PIEs rising sharply at exactly the same point just below 1GB into the burn(scans below). Not happy with these result I then scanned the disc with my NEC 3450a (result in next post).
The conclusion has to be that the Benq is finding errors that are a "Benq thing" and that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the burn. - Posted:
26-02-2006
- # 10
I have also seen a number of media/burner combinations where the BenQ scans are way out of line with expected results. I have concluded that BenQs do not always provide reliable results with media burned on other burners. Nor do they provide reliable results with TYG02 burned on BenQ.
Trust the Liteon. Remember, scans are not a measure of burn quality as much as they are a measure of comparison between different media on the same burner or the same media on different burners. To accomplish this the scanner needs to be the constant in the equation.__________________
Still a few bugs in the system... - Posted:
26-02-2006
- # 11
Still a good burn is always a burn that gives good result on all scaning drives (and a scaning drive must not give bad(false) results on in specs problems). In this case the disc itself might be good quality (if quality is defined as longetivity)... but compatibility might suffer.
On the other hand quality in terms of longetivty can only be measured using multiple scans where disc is constant, the drive is constant and the time between 2 scans is relatively long. A single quality scan in this case is still inconclusive.
chas0039: What do you think? =) What is the type of quality we all measure today? It can't be logetivity and it can't be compatibility because both are inconclusive using only 1 drive, 1 disc and 1 scan IMHO.__________________
NecDump, WOPC Tool, BQFlasher 0.7.2 (+source), DVDScanner, DVDWrite,... - Posted:
26-02-2006
- # 12
On all the discs burned by the LiteOn, the jitter is VERY high. It's well known that BenQs choke on high jitter when scanning. 15-16% jitter is WAY to high IMO considering DVD specs place the maximum jitter at 8 or 9%.
If I owned that LiteOn and it was producing similar results on alot of media, it would be heading straight to the trash can.
Last edited by RangeRoad; 26-02-2006 at 16:44. - Posted:
26-02-2006
- # 13
My thoughts exactly. And the upward shift in PIE/PIF in the BenQ scans happens at the exact same spot that the jitter increases sharply!Quote:Originally Posted by RangeRoadOn all the discs burned by the LiteOn, the jitter is VERY high. It's well known that BenQs choke on high jitter when scanning. 15-16% jitter is WAY to high IMO considering DVD specs place the maximum jitter at 8 or 9%.
This shift in jitter (and PIE/PIF) also happens at the exact same spot as the LiteOn OPC stops and restarts, presumably with a changed laser power level.
With the evidence given I would say that the LiteOn burner is burning with sub-optimal quality, but the LiteOn and NEC drives are better at handling these somewhat problematic discs.
Scanning for jitter on another drive would help to decide whether the sharp jitter increase is "real", if you have another BenQ or Plextor 712/716/755 drive to scan with.__________________
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup. - Posted:
26-02-2006
- # 15
I have to admit I am a newbie as far as jitter goes, but I have never seen any problems resulting from jitter. My reading on the matter indicates it is a problem related to audio only; am I correct? Also, is it possible that 8X reading increases jitter?Quote:Originally Posted by DrageMesterMy thoughts exactly. And the upward shift in PIE/PIF in the BenQ scans happens at the exact same spot that the jitter increases sharply!
This shift in jitter (and PIE/PIF) also happens at the exact same spot as the LiteOn OPC stops and restarts, presumably with a changed laser power level.
With the evidence given I would say that the LiteOn burner is burning with sub-optimal quality, but the LiteOn and NEC drives are better at handling these somewhat problematic discs.
Scanning for jitter on another drive would help to decide whether the sharp jitter increase is "real", if you have another BenQ or Plextor 712/716/755 drive to scan with.__________________
Still a few bugs in the system... - Posted:
26-02-2006
- # 16
Some picky standalones have trouble with 13+% jitter. All I know is that DVDRs burned in BenQs, Pioneers, and Plextors usually do not produce jitter above 12%.Quote:Originally Posted by chas0039I have to admit I am a newbie as far as jitter goes, but I have never seen any problems resulting from jitter. My reading on the matter indicates it is a problem related to audio only; am I correct? Also, is it possible that 8X reading increases jitter? - Posted:
26-02-2006
- # 17
I am in the minority in that I believe that errors increase over time and, all things being constant, a disc with fewer errors will last longer as will a disc burned at a slower speed. I have no clue as to how long "longer" is so I don't know if the quality I look at is meaningful or not, especially given that I will only be around for 34 years and my equipment for even less. We are all waiting for the NIST testing to finish so we can see what the real lifespan is for each media ID.Quote:Originally Posted by Quikee
chas0039: What do you think? =) What is the type of quality we all measure today? It can't be logetivity and it can't be compatibility because both are inconclusive using only 1 drive, 1 disc and 1 scan IMHO.
When I scan I am not concerned about whether my Liteon is a better reader than a BenQ as I am not measuring readability. I am looking for consistency and this is an area where BenQ has trouble.
When I scan, I am looking for a comparison with other scans, from the same media, so I can see if I am getting burns as close to perfect as I can. As all my burns play with no problem (RW excepted) I am measuring to achieve the lowest number of errors, both PIE and PIF. This is the basis of my rating system from a year ago. Now when I pick up a media to burn, I can go to my chart and see which drive/firmware will give me the best burn.__________________
Still a few bugs in the system... - Posted:
26-02-2006
- # 18
The forum has determined that the scan speed for 5 and 6 series drives is 8X not 4X as the two speeds return virtually the same results. My 1693 also is the same on both speeds. Some 1693s are not so I stay at 4X when I post. When my 165P6S arrives, I will post those scans at 8X to stay with the forum standard.Quote:Originally Posted by BK24Also drop your read speed in the Lite On to 4x.__________________
Still a few bugs in the system... - Posted:
26-02-2006
- # 19
High jitter negatively impacts a drive's ability to read a disc, and this gets worse the faster you try to read the disc.Quote:Originally Posted by chas0039I have to admit I am a newbie as far as jitter goes, but I have never seen any problems resulting from jitter. My reading on the matter indicates it is a problem related to audio only; am I correct? Also, is it possible that 8X reading increases jitter?
If you have a disc with very high jitter you will often be able to detect this in a Read Transfer test, because the drive may slow down or re-read some sectors.
When you perform PIE/PIF scans, the level of PIE/PIF will usually increase when the jitter increases if you scan at high speed. This is clearly seen in the BenQ scans of the LiteOn burned discs above, and I see it frequently when I perform quality scans at 12x in my Plextor PX-712A drive, but I rarely see it when scanning at 2x.
I am not an expert in how this affects playback in standalone players however, but I presume that every player has a jitter level that it is "comfortable" with and if your disc has jitter above that level, the player will experience problems.__________________
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup. - Posted:
26-02-2006
- # 20
It's true that the forum has decided on 8x scanning for this reason, but scans at 4x and 8x are not always equivalent - I have some rare cases of PIE levels increasing at the end of a disc in 8x scans but not in 4x scans on my LiteOn 1635!Quote:Originally Posted by chas0039The forum has determined that the scan speed for 5 and 6 series drives is 8X not 4X as the two speeds return virtually the same results. My 1693 also is the same on both speeds. Some 1693s are not so I stay at 4X when I post. When my 165P6S arrives, I will post those scans at 8X to stay with the forum standard.__________________
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup. - Posted:
26-02-2006
- # 21
I am aware there are exceptions. I didn't mean to imply that they are identical.Quote:Originally Posted by DrageMesterIt's true that the forum has decided on 8x scanning for this reason, but scans at 4x and 8x are not always equivalent - I have some rare cases of PIE levels increasing at the end of a disc in 8x scans but not in 4x scans on my LiteOn 1635!
Thanks for clarifying this.__________________
Still a few bugs in the system... - Posted:
26-02-2006
- # 22
So for real world use, a transfer rate test at 2X would find any problems that might show up on a home player. This makes sense and follows given that I never see any real world problems playing. Since everything I watch is at 1X and jitter shows up at high speeds, it looks like I can ignore it.Quote:Originally Posted by DrageMesterHigh jitter negatively impacts a drive's ability to read a disc, and this gets worse the faster you try to read the disc.
If you have a disc with very high jitter you will often be able to detect this in a Read Transfer test, because the drive may slow down or re-read some sectors.
When you perform PIE/PIF scans, the level of PIE/PIF will usually increase when the jitter increases if you scan at high speed. This is clearly seen in the BenQ scans of the LiteOn burned discs above, and I see it frequently when I perform quality scans at 12x in my Plextor PX-712A drive, but I rarely see it when scanning at 2x.
I am not an expert in how this affects playback in standalone players however, but I presume that every player has a jitter level that it is "comfortable" with and if your disc has jitter above that level, the player will experience problems.
More evidence as to why scanning is not all you need, transfer rate is valuable as well.__________________
Still a few bugs in the system... - Posted:
26-02-2006
- # 23
I don't think you can deduce that a standalone player will play the disc OK if a 2x Read Transfer test in your pc drive is successful.Quote:Originally Posted by chas0039So for real world use, a transfer rate test at 2X would find any problems that might show up on a home player. This makes sense and follows given that I never see any real world problems playing. Since everything I watch is at 1X and jitter shows up at high speeds, it looks like I can ignore it.
You would be comparing two completely different drives, and you would be leaving little or no margin of error by running a transfer test at only 2x on the pc drive.
That does not imply however, that I think you need to have a perfect Read Transfer test at 16x in your pc drive in order for your DVD to be playable in a standalone player!__________________
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup. - Posted:
26-02-2006
- # 24
Thnx chas0039.. I appreciate your answer.
This makes perfect sense and I agree. Except maybe burn speed.. I don't know if the burn speed impacts the surrounding dye or not. If the surrounding dye isn't impacted then is merely a compatibility issue and not really a quality issue (whatever quality is).Quote:Originally Posted by chas0039I am in the minority in that I believe that errors increase over time and, all things being constant, a disc with fewer errors will last longer as will a disc burned at a slower speed. I have no clue as to how long "longer" is so I don't know if the quality I look at is meaningful or not, especially given that I will only be around for 34 years and my equipment for even less.
Here is a problem... it breaks your "constant" rule as disc you use won't be the same as discs they use regardless of the same MID. They can draw some conclusions but as always the conclusion will be only theirs not general.Quote:Originally Posted by chas0039We are all waiting for the NIST testing to finish so we can see what the real lifespan is for each media ID.
Yeah but how to say a drive is more consistent than another one.. it sure isn't simple. In this case I would trust BenQ because of obvious problems on OPC point. Still... only in terms of compatibility and not logetivity. On the other hand I also trust LiteOn in terms of longetivity.Quote:Originally Posted by chas0039When I scan I am not concerned about whether my Liteon is a better reader than a BenQ as I am not measuring readability. I am looking for consistency and this is an area where BenQ has trouble.
IMHO. for measuring of longetivity a better reader is a better drive for scanning. It will show you a better picture of what is really a read error caused by a problem from surface of the disc (I think I will start to trust LiteOn drives again after consideration =) ).
In terms of compatibility a drive which isn't good at reading will tell you if the disc is burned "correctly" or within the specs.
The problem is that a single drive can't tell you both as both statements are mutually exclusive.
Does any of this make sense?
You are excelently organised.Quote:Originally Posted by chas0039When I scan, I am looking for a comparison with other scans, from the same media, so I can see if I am getting burns as close to perfect as I can. As all my burns play with no problem (RW excepted) I am measuring to achieve the lowest number of errors, both PIE and PIF. This is the basis of my rating system from a year ago. Now when I pick up a media to burn, I can go to my chart and see which drive/firmware will give me the best burn.
__________________
NecDump, WOPC Tool, BQFlasher 0.7.2 (+source), DVDScanner, DVDWrite,... - Posted:
26-02-2006
- # 25
Does it make sense? I'm not even sure I understand what you mean!?Quote:Originally Posted by QuikeeIMHO. for measuring of longetivity a better reader is a better drive for scanning. It will show you a better picture of what is really a read error caused by a problem from surface of the disc (I think I will start to trust LiteOn drives again after consideration =) ).
In terms of compatibility a drive which isn't good at reading will tell you if the disc is burned "correctly" or within the specs.
The problem is that a single drive can't tell you both as both statements are mutually exclusive.
Does any of this make sense?
Are you saying that a good reading drive will tend to show you problems that are inherent to the disc, in other words problems that will exist in any drive for that disc. While a bad reading drive will show you that a disc can be read in most drives, since even a bad drive can read it?
If this is not what you're saying, then please clarify!__________________
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
![[buck]'s Avatar](http://static.myce.com/forum_avatars/avatar108512_1.gif){kind=avatar}
