a drive for scanning CDs

Hello,

I need a good drive to scan my CDs (not interested by DVD scanning at all)... I already have a Px716 but it somehow causes problems on my PC (I'm a mac guy using a PC for flashing drives and EAC...), which is sad cause I feel it was a reliable scanner... I already have a Px premium but it does not seem to give realistic results (got it used, it is certainly a bit too "used" lol)... Apart from that I have an Asus E616A2, Pio 111 and an optiarc 7173, but I don't even think using them to scan CDs...

so I was looking for a liteon CD-RW, but I wondered if any of the last liteon 52X CD-RW would suit me?
I could get the SOHC-5236V (or 5239) or the LTR 52327C ... what would you recommend?

Thanks!!!

I would actually recommend a BenQ DW1655/1650 because of the advanced disc quality scanning feautures introduced in Nero CD-DVD Speed 4.7.0.0.

Using the Advanced Disc Quality feature you can scan for these parameters at the same time: E11, E21, E31, E12, E22, E32, BLER, Jitter

This is currently more advanced than what you can get with any other consumer drive, including Plextor drives which I would have recommended as #1 if you had asked me before CDSpeed 4.7.0.0.

Unfortunately, BenQ drives are getting hard to find in many places.

Hi,And what about its restricted capabilities to report C2?

Michael

That doesn't apply when you use the Advanced Disc Quality scan.

This is what CDSpeed 4.7.0.0 reports on BenQ DW1655/1650 drives:

Disc Quality
Reports: C1, C2, Jitter
C1 = BLER = E11 + E21 + E31
C2 = E32

Advanced Disc Quality
Reports: E11, E21, E31, E12, E22, E32, BLER, Jitter
BLER = E11 + E21 + E31

In my opinion a useful C2 scan should show C2 = E22 + E32 because you don't want any E22 errors on your disc, but that's not how the non-advanced Disc Quality scan works with BenQ drives and some other drives as well.

Okay. Then this is not a matter of the drive, but something that has to be optimized in CD Speed

Thanks,
Michael

Liteon SOHR-5239V vs. Benq DW-1650
(CD Speed scan for Liteon drive was verified with Kprobe)
Same disc of course...

Transfer Rate tests would be nice, and in this case even a scan on your Sony DW-G120A might shed some light on the huge difference between the BenQ and LiteOn scans.

EDIT: According to the BenQ scan the jitter is very high on this CD, which could explain the difference in BLER.

I'm guessing that the LiteOn only shows E32 as C2 errors, but since I don't have a LiteOn CD-RW drive handy right now, I can't be sure.

And another disc:

Good idea, as the Sony is picky with poor CDs. "Turbo" button was used for TRT.
Hm. This is known for DVD media, but not proven for CD media yet
Another Hmmm. In http://club.cdfreaks.com/showthread.php?t=182063 the Litey detected some C2, the benq didn't see.

thanks a lot for your answers... I must says I'm even more confused now ... I mean I get your points... I wish I could find a PX712 or 708 to serve as a scanner only (the 716 causes a problem on my network connection -something unbelievable in my experience- but I guess this 5 years old PIII is a bit too old now lol)... but as you can imagine, I'm lookin for a cheap alternative... after spending some weeks here I thought liteon CD-RWs would be good scanners... but I wasn't sure...

and apparently I can get a 1650 locally...

I wish we could compare your scans with one made with a plextor... I would choose the drive with the closest results to the plextor lol...

What's your point?

I already know that LiteOn CD-RW drives usually show significantly lower C1 than many other CD scanning drives such as e.g. BenQ, NEC, Optiarc and Plextor, and I'm fairly sure that they report C2 = E32 and ignore E22 errors.

I also have some scans performed with a LiteOn CD-RW drive performed with an earlier version of CDSpeed that shows far lower BLER than scans of the same disc in my Plextor PX-712 and NEC ND-4551 drives.

So does that make the LiteOn CD-RW drives better scanners than BenQ drives, NEC drives and Plextor drives?

In my opinion, no. It might mean that they are better readers, however.

And with the Advanced Disc Quality feature in CDSpeed 4.7.0.0 I think that the BenQ is now superior, unless and until I see compelling evidence to the contrary.

EDIT:

I could test some comparative scans performed in some of my drives, including the Plextor PX-712A and BenQ DW1655 if you like, but it'll have to wait at least until tomorrow because it's getting kinda late here.

---

Last edited by DrageMester; 03-11-2006 at 00:40.

consistency in shape. I don't mind, if I have to multiply the figures obtained with the Litey by a factor X to get the Benq figures. This happens with discs, I consider as "good". The second disc, although not very good, comes near to that. I have some better discs there.
That's why I consider the Liteon CD-R scans in the reviews posted on CDF as useless
as does the Benq in the standard QS. And then, the Litey often reports more C2 than the Benq.
I didn't state that. But are the other drives better scanners? I don't think so, as any drive has its deficiencies. Maybe the Benq has also problems scanning CD discs with high jitter, similar to DVD media.

Michael

that is what makes choosing a drive difficult to me...

until now I had this PX 716 I was using in a USB 2 enclosure to scan with Plextools from virtual PC (quite slow and cumbersome of course)...

In my mind it was kind of a reference point... if a CD had C2s, it was very bad... if C1 was low, it was a good disc...

now that I'm tired of using it through my mac, I discover that I need to find an other drive to make my scans... so either I manage to get an older PX708/712 (certainly my best solution and hoping it will not interfere with my setup) or I get a BenQ (I think I may like lightscribe sometimes lol) or a Litey (cheaper but giving less impressive scans -I mean less scary scans lol-)

The shape of the C1 graph in the BenQ of the first disc roughly follows the shape of the jitter graph reported by the BenQ drive.

For very high jitter a disc becomes unreadable. Exactly when this happens varies from drive to drive. A drive that has a jitter tolerance of "J%" is not going to show reasonable C1/C2 levels at J% - there is of course going to be a gradual increase in reported errors when the jitter gets close to the J% limit.

Perhaps the jitter tolerance for the BenQ is lower than the for the LiteOn, just like it is for DVD media?

Quote:

as does the Benq in the standard QS. And then, the Litey often reports more C2 than the Benq.

If the non-advanced Disc Quality scan doesn't show C2 the way you want (and I agree with you there), then you should just use the Advanced Quality Scan!

I have seen your C2 examples, and I have some scans performed in a BenQ DW1620 and a LiteOn SOHR-5238S that shows something similar (C2 in the LiteOn, no C2 in the BenQ), but I assure you that the BenQ 1620...1655 can show C2 errors in the non-advanced Disc Quality scan, but only E32 are reported as C2.

Even though your LiteOn 5239 reports fewer errors than the BenQ for some discs, it's quite possible that the reverse could be true for some other discs. This is something that happens all the time when scanning discs in different drives.

Quote:

But are the other drives better scanners? I don't think so, as any drive has its deficiencies.

Yes, I agree that any drive has its deficiencies, but some drives are more useful than others, and we're trying to advice rockit on which drive would be "best" for that purpose... we're probably doing it in a very confusing way!

Quote:

Maybe the Benq has also problems scanning CD discs with high jitter, similar to DVD media.

Yes maybe, or maybe the LiteOn CD-RW drives have very high jitter tolerance.

EDIT:

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockit until now I had this PX 716 I was using in a USB 2 enclosure to scan with Plextools from virtual PC (quite slow and cumbersome of course)... In my mind it was kind of a reference point... if a CD had C2s, it was very bad... if C1 was low, it was a good disc... now that I'm tired of using it through my mac, I discover that I need to find an other drive to make my scans... so either I manage to get an older PX708/712 (certainly my best solution and hoping it will not interfere with my setup) or I get a BenQ (I think I may like lightscribe sometimes lol) or a Litey (cheaper but giving less impressive scans -I mean less scary scans lol-)

(my emphasis)

I don't have any experience in running quality scans on a Mac, or in running quality scans from within a virtual machine, so I can't guarantee that you can get reliable scans from CDSpeed in a virtual machine on your Mac - or even that it will run at all.

it works well, since "virtual PC" can take over the USB connection, so it's like I had a USB drive connected to Win2K... but it's rather slow (the emulated cpu is something like a PII)... so far results from plextools in virtual PC and from my "real" PC (with a PIII) are quite similar when scanning with the PX716... so that's why I think that results are "reliable" (as far as we can say that my PX 716 makes good scans lol)

don't worry you did not confuse me (at least not too much lol)... you just made me realize that maybe instead of looking for a liteon I should be concentrating on getting an older Plextor with Qcheck that hopefully will not make my PIII go nuts... or maybe get a 165x... if you have other ideas, please do not hesitate

Do these advanced features exist in the BenQ 1640?

I don't have a DW1640 myself, but I'm fairly sure the same features exist in the other Nexperia-based BenQ drives, including DW1640 and DW1620.

Same disc scanned in several drives mostly at 32x (except PlexTools scan) but I also have scans at other speeds available.

The disc is a Plextor branded Taiyo Yuden 48x CD-R with a deliberate defect created by using a pen to draw a radial line part of the way from the center and all the way to the edge.

Any drive should experience E22 errors on this disc and probably E32 errors also.

You can draw your own conclusions from the scans.

Cool!

I wonder why so many folks here prefer LiteOn over BenQ for scanning.

well, now I'm confused

thanks for this great job, scanning with amost all the drives I have (except for the BenQ and the liteon)

You have to distinguish between scans of CD(R)s and DVDs. LiteOn DVD burners only report part of the C1 errors on CDs (see this post), but give credible results for DVDs (although some people think they are too tolerant).

LiteOn CD burners work well with CDs, although again some people think they are too tolerant.

G

Same disc as in post #18 scanned in a LiteOn SOHR-5238S and in a LiteOn SOHR-5239V.

These two drives mostly show the disc to be flawless even though it has been damaged by adding a deliberate defect in the form of a black radial line. Only the 52x scan in the 5238S and the 40x scan in the 5239V show any C2 errors (E32).

Thanks, Dragon, for this very clear elaboration

Wouldn't this also mean, that all recent reviews published on cdfreaks.com should be revised, at least those, where these two drives were used to judge the CD-R performance?

Michael

Redoing already published reviews is not something I would expect from any site including CDFreaks.

In the latest blank media review, three scanning drives were used to get a more thorough understanding of the quality of the media: EMTEC CD-R Gold Review

The choice of scanning drives is up to the reviewing team, and since the reviews are carried out by voluntary reviewers using their own equipment, the scanning equipment is limited to the selection of drives that each reviewer has. Being true CDFreaks, the reviewers have lots of drives, however!

I see media quality scanning as a learning process and we're all learning more about how to scan, how not to scan, how to interpret those scans, and what you can and can't conclude from available tests. The available tools and equipment for performing tests is also changing all the time, but OTOH it's also good to have some continuity in the tests over time, such as using scanning drives that don't change all the time, because you can't necessarily compare scans between different drive models.

You may already know that it is my personal opinion based on experience, that you can't get all relevant information about a disc by home scans performed in only a single drive. But any testing including reviews is also a question about how many things you want to test and how much time each tests takes, so it's unrealistic to expect extensive testing of each media *and* lots of media tested in a review. And what would you rather have? I'd rather have lots of media tested in a drive review than having each media tested in lots of different ways.

My crystal ball doesn't tell me what scanning drives will be used in future reviews, so we'll just have to see.

Hi,There shouldn't be a problem adding an "addendum" to the review.
As the reviews are also used as some help if innicent users want to buy a new optical drive, the CD quality part is at least misleading if a half-blind drive like the Liteons you have tested, were used to obtain the results published.

This is another confirmation for the optimistic reporting of errors by recent Liteon CD writers.

Well, I have never seen a Benq or Plextor CD-scan in the reviews. Why? Is there a "rule" for reviewers forcing them to use Kprobe and a Liteon drive for CD-scanning?
I would accept and prefer something like "sorry, i don't have a reliable CD scanning drive, so the scans provided here are only a slight indication" and - of course - no misleading "good CD-R quality" or similar in the conclusion.

There is no need to test with different drives. But as stated above, there is no need to use a half-blind CD-R scanning drive and judge about the CD-R quality of the reviewed drive.
There isn't much left. Benq is gone, Plextor will leave, and Liteon will probably stop making CD writers.

Michael

P.S.: what about moving this part of the discussion to a better location than the Liteon section?