1650 TY02 Quality Score = 99 but terrible PIErrors?

vbimport

#1

This scan is from a new 1650 (external USB Norwood Micro) with BCDC firmware. All burns are done at 4-8x with sony branded TY02 +R media.

The PIF levels are excellent (max 3) and the PIE levels are out of control. What would cause the PIE levels to be so high? Could this be due to the usb enclosure? If it is, why are the PIF levels so good? Could this be a problem with the actual drive?

The transfer rates show that the usb enclosure should be able to handle even a 12x burn, so a 4x or 8x burn should be slow enough for the usb interface to handle.

I have ruled out the media because the same TY02’s from the same spindle burn with very low PIE (max under 10) and reasonable PIF levels on an internal 1650 with BCDC.

Could anyone help me figure out why the PIE levels are off the charts?


#2

I am also having the same problem with my dw1655. TY02 Batch is TG001162 from shop4tech. I bought these a month ago. Dvd does play OK.



#3

That’s because of NERO’s CDSPeed way of calculating disc quality - Don’t pay much attention to that. It calculates quality not based on the totals but individual maximums for PIF. What’s important is that your individual PIF do not exceed 4 - And a few spikes here and there will not be a problem. The PIE totals is not of importance really - do a transfer rate test and rely on that and individual PIF max.

Your first scan’s PIF total is very good. The PIE total is quite high for a taiyo yuden. With good media you should be able to get < 100,000 PIE totals, and with quality media < 30,000. Your scan is not that bad and should be playable fine, although towards the end the maximums raise a little :slight_smile: and that jitter too, ouch! Anyways, taiyo yudens should not be giving these kinds of scan, I use a LITEON burner, so I don’t know whether your drive is accurate in reporting errors or not, have you tried scanning at 4x/2x ? Are the BenQs reliable scanners ?


#4

[B]mayfer:[/B]

How does the disc scan in your internal BenQ?

To remove the external case causing the issue, swap the 2 BenQ drives and try to burn some TYG02 in the drive now fitted internally and see if problem persists.


#5

My 1650 doesn’t like to get too warm.

Haven’t actually tried any T02s but, with MCC004s and T03s last summer on really hot days I had similar results to you.

All was OK when the weather cooled down a little.

Perhaps the 1650 in the external case has this problem :iagree:

To remove the external case causing the issue, swap the 2 BenQ drives and try to burn some TYG02 in the drive now fitted internally and see if problem persists.
This would be a really good way to test it.


#6

mayfer, as has been pointed out above, ‘quality score’ is calculated by the max PIF amount and nothing else. While that’s one important factor, obviously there are other factors to consider such as PIE and jitter levels.

Something that you should know is that Benq drives exaggerate and inaccurately report error levels once jitter approaches 12% and above. In other words, the PIE levels that you are seeing in your scan are almost certainly grossly exaggerated towards the edge of the disc, and you can see how the PIE levels are fine until jitter levels reach around 11% and then they rise along with the jitter. With decent jitter levels it’s no issue. If your disc was scanned in a drive with less sensitivity to high jitter such as a Liteon, you’d likely find that your PIE levels would actually be very good.

Are you seeing this gradual ‘ramping’ of jitter levels towards the edge with most/all of your scans? If you’re seeing it with other media besides this batch of TY, then your drive is probably either a poor ‘testing’ drive, possibly a system-related issue, or it truly is burning with bad jitter levels and is possibly a bum drive. On a couple of other occasions I’ve seen drives behave such as yours, if I remember correctly it was system related in one case and the drive itself in another case. If your above scan is not typical-looking jitter for most of your other scans then it’s probably nothing more than a disc with high jitter.

P.S. - just noticed that you mentioned having an internal 1650 as well. Seeing how it scans in your other 1650 would help a lot in figuring out what the issue might be.


#7

I also would like to add that those are pretty disappointing jitter levels for Taiyo Yuden media - Isn’t the spec at around 12% maximum ? Most of my old batches gave an average of 7.5% sometimes less - I really like to see jitter levels <10%.


#8

Yes, I get jitter levels of 7-8% average on my T02, this is why I bring up the possibility of the drive potentially being a ‘bad testing’ drive, or it could be related to his system and/or being used in an enclosure.


#9

Thanks to everyone for their great advice. I swapped the two 1650’s so the external drive is now internal and vise versa. It seems that the abnormally high PIErrors follow the device. The first scan (with PIE max = 142 and total = 222344) was burned and scanned with the old external (now internal) 1650. The same disc was then scanned with the external drive (old internal) and the PIE readings are drastically different (PIE max = 21 and total = 21940.)

Should I be concerned with the quality of the burns/scans from the 1650 that seems to produce higher error levels? This behavior is not characteristic of Benq drives with TY02 media. Could there be something wrong with this 1650?




#10

How do these discs that are burned in the ‘better’ 1650 scan in each of the drives - do you see the high levels on the ‘worse’ burner? Regardless of which drive you burn the discs on, you should always do direct comparisons of burns testing in only one drive, since every drive tests differently. That’s not to say that you shouldn’t test in both drives, but be aware that they’ll report different levels.

Regarding variances in scans from one drive to another, no two drives test exactly alike, although this is a pretty drastic difference from one burner to the other. It may be nothing more than a matter of one drive being a better reader than the other. At least they both tell basically an identical story when it comes to PIF levels.