1650: BCFC vs. BCHC

vbimport

#1

i observed that the “updated writing strategies” are not that great on the BCHC f/w! :confused:

i noticed the following:

  1. at least 3 out of 5 times, my 8x certified TY02 would burn at only 4x! SB on, WOPC on.

  2. inkjet printable 16x TDK’s from costco (CMC MAG M01) would burn TERRIBLY (not to mention that CMC is #$^* already), but the burns were significantly worse than with BCFC f/w. QSuite would not recommend burns at 8x! with BCFC f/w, 8x burns would have been borderline, but still acceptable!

i flashed back and forth at least 6 times and was able to confirm my findings. especially the surface scanning results were very interesting b/c i used the SAME blank disc for the QSuite surface scan and only changed the f/w versions.

does anyone else have issues with BCHC? i’m now back to my BCFC f/w…

CKA


#2

No issues here!

I have burned many TYG02 (106) with excellent results and no speed drop using various combinations of SolidBurn and WOPC. I have also seen improvements in the write quality of OPTODISC 0R8, both Samsung and DataWrite branded, and the TDKG02 that failed to burn completely with BCDC and BCFC now burn fine.

The only negative I have experienced is slower burn times, by about 30-40 seconds when using SolidBurn.

I haven’t tested QScan with BCHC, but I find it next to useless anyway. Some TYG02 I burned at 12X reported way off spec TE and FE but burned amazingly well; ie 2 PIF max, 8 PIE max, 3 PIF average.

BCHC has had mixed results allround, with some reporting no change, others improvements and some, like you, negative effects.

Nothing wrong with CMC BTW, although if you expect TY-like results then you’ll always be disappointed!


#3

thanks for your input! i wouldn’t mind slower burns as long as i WOULD get better burn results overall…

nah, i don’t expect TY-like results with CMC, but a quality score of “0” when tested with CD-Speed with horrendous spikes after the 3.5 GB mark is definitely not “TY-like” LOL.

maybe it’s just my burner :sad: .

CKA


#4

Maybe this might be a dumb question but are you using CloneDVD2 (Slysoft) for your burning app. Is so are you using Solid burn on and OS on? If you are there might be another reason for your bad scans.


#5

clonedvd2? ieuw :Z hahaha (just my personal opinion). SB is always on and OS off. i burn mostly with VSO’s copy2cd. but burning with nero 7 gives the same results, so i don’t think that it’s software-related in my case…

CKA


#6

I experienced very similar results after upgrading my 1655 to BCHB firmware and after reflashing and retesting several times I decided to go back to BCGB. Once again all my media burn at or above their rated speed with very good quality. BENQ seriously dropped the ball on this latest update.


#7

Where did you find the BCGB firmware??? :eek: :confused:

sorry, I thought you were talking about the 1650! :doh: :doh: - please ignore my post… :o


#8

I also use the VSO copy2dvd engine alot, (Pattin-Couffin) There is no problem with it. But I did have problems with the BenQ firmware and CloneDVD2 @12X burn with SB on.


#9

The same FW (BCHC) gave me the same problem as you guys. A drop down to 4 X (up to the end of the burn).
The software I use is ONES. Since I flashed back to BCFC it is running fine again!!


#10

The same problem here.
I was doing good with BCHC last two weeks up to this day, when it went crazy with no aparent reason. I tried to burn 4 Verbatim MCC 004 (Prodisc) at 12X with different settings, SB on/off for unknown, WOPC on/off, and each time it was burned @4x (about 15 minutes for 4GB).
Interesting thing is that these MCC 004 were added to list of learned media though SB was OFF for KNOWN media and on for unknown. I wonder if it could be that these Verbatims were fake? I burned a couple of the same Prodics Verbatim MCC 004 last week and there was no problem whatsoever. Actually they were burned very good, they had 3 times less pifs.
I had the same problem last week with just one Maxell disc which was recognized as YUDEN000 T02, and it was also added to list of learned discs.

Anyway, after that, I flashed to BCFC and I tried 5th MCC 004 from the same spindle and it was burned normally @12x though the quallity was more or less the same as with BCHC.
Here are the scans.
BCFC: WOPC on, SB off for known & on for unknown
Burned @12x
Burn time: ~7min
BCHC: WOPC on for the disc with 1600 pifs
and off for the one with 900 pifs
SB on for unknown, off for known
Burned @12x
Burn time: ~15-16min

Software used: Nero 6.6.1.4.





#11

i think bcdc is the better…


#12

pal, don’t just throw something into open space – please elaborate!

CKA


#13

bottom line for me:
my 1650 even with f/w BCFC didn’t give me scans like my 1640 with the latest f/w (BSPB). so it’s on its way back to newegg for replacement!!! man, i’m disappointed. it seems that there is quite a bit of drive variation out there (maybe quality control issues???). maybe i should try liteon’s new drives hehehe.

CKA


#14

I give up on BCHC with my Verbatim 16x. I just got a black 1650 OEM from Newegg to replace my 1620. Burned 5 MCC004s (of two different batches) on BCHC and none were able to burn under 15 minutes when I put at 12x or 16x burn speed in Nero.

Switched back to BCFC and got this as the first 12x burn using Nero 7.2.0.3, burned in a time of 6.43.



#15

The interesting thing is that my 1650@BCFC only manages x12 on Verbatim MCC 004 x16 +Rs, whereas the 1655@BCGB manages to burn these at x16 in times ranging from 6:10 to 6:30 with all settings on. I usually burn DVD images feeding from my fastest unfragmented drive (Western Digital Raptor 74GB SATA150 8MB 10K RPM) under minimal system load conditions, and using ImgBurn v1.3.0.0 (in combination with the Elaborate Bytes latest engine v6.0.3.1). The 1655 seems to be producing better results with quality media, but both drives still manage to overspeed Datawrite Classic x4 DVD+R (RICOHJPN R01 002) up to x12 with great results. This is a massive overspeed with quality scan scores ranging from 95 to 98, on discs that don’t cost a lot of money. So I’m happy with BCFC and BCGB and will be sticking with them until BenQ can sort this latest firmware mess out.


#16

Im still on BCDC just because it works well withTY T02.
http://forum.cdfreaks.com/showpost.php?p=1416918&postcount=522


#17

I’m still on BCDC because it works well with… everything I throw at it…! :bigsmile:


#18

since 1650 and 1655 share the same chipset, i ASSUME that you are a “victim” of quality control. in theory, both drives should perform the same.

it’s like with my 2 1640s: the first one burns well, the second one is a “wonder” drive. media from the same batch consistently give me better burn results on the second drive. although it’s not a world of difference, it’s still noticable.

i’m waiting for newegg’s replacement now. let’s see how the 2nd 1650 drive performs…

CKA


#19

Where do you get BCFC?


#20

BCFC was originally on my drive, and tdb (the dangerous brothers) even have an RPC1 version of the BCFC f/w on their website.

check out here: http://tdb.rpc1.org/#DW1650

CKA