Just trying to see what scans you provide that still worked. I use cheap media to high quality media and they vary a lot in scan quality, but some are bad that work and other don't. Just post your scans to compare.
BenQ drives are not very reliable scanners. If they like the media, things are great, but if not, watch out! Here's one example: http://club.cdfreaks.com/showpost.php?p=1259564&postcount=38
An 8x scan indicates a [near-]coaster, but the disc is perfectly readable at twice the scanning speed.
I started a thread in the Blank Media forum about older disc scans, all mine are tested with BenQ 1620 and all discs shown are still fully working.
Wow I thought benq's were good scanning drives, I guess I was wrong. I just went with what I read around here. Anyways what are good scanning drives, are they still liteon's? Also could it be said that if the reading curve is nice and always upward, that the disk is probably readable even though the PI and PO errors\failures are high. Not that any of mine hit more than 150+ though, but I just wanted to know what high scans look like that still worked cause I worry when I give out disks without checking them. Maybe I am worrying for nothing, since those scans are still within the 280/32 scan max. I need to start paying a bit more for verbatim's and not be a cheapskate buying ritek's.
I personally prefer BenQ scanning to Lite-ON scanning, despite the oddities it has. Lite-ON drives are far too tolerant of most problems and seem to only tell you a disc is bad when it is really bad. The scans I posted show that the BenQ is correctly showing potential issues with some discs, but due to the very good error correction capabilities of modern drives, it is not much of an issue practically as you will still find such discs to be usable.This doesn't mean the BenQ is wrong, imo.
Calling the BenQ an "unreliable scanner" is dodging the issue.Error scanning is simply a drive reading a disc, reporting what reading errors it encounters, the number of reading errors it has to correct and the number of reading errors it cannot correct.Each and every drive is different in its reading proficency.Each and every drive chipset is also different in what it was programmed to consider an "error".A transfer rate test is testing the drives ability to read the disc without regard for how many errors it corrects.An error scan is testing the cumulative error count the drive is correcting or attempting to correct.
What we see in how different error scanning capable drives report the "quality" of a disc may in part be due to what the original chipset design is programmed and results interpreted, to consider what a baseline "good burn" should be and to what degree it is holding said result to the "specs".
Now try to "beat" this ...MEMOREX 8x DVD+R Printable, CMC MAG E01, Written at 8x
Writer: Philips PBDV1660G @ BenQ 1650, FW.BCFC, first burn for this media ...SB ON/ON, WOPC ON, OS OFF
The disc also has a 1cm darker band near the end ...
Consider the following two occurrences [which we have instances of with DW16xx drives]:
The drive consistently reports PI failures in 8x CAV scans of a disc, then successfully completes a transfer test of the same disc at full 16x CAV, a more difficult task.
The drive consistently reports no PI failures in an 8x CAV scan, then stumbles in a transfer test, slows down and soon gives up with a fatal CIRC error.
That tells me that the quality scan and the actual reading are doing different things leading to [qualitatively] different results.
If that's not unreliable quality scanning, I don't know what is.
@agent009, I think you mean PO Failures (not PI Failures).
Other than that I agree that there can be read errors which are not reported as POF and sometimes not even as PIF. See this post (and the following posts).
I also agree that the drive can report POF in a quality scan and still be able to read the disc at full speed without a hitch. :iagree:
Dang! You're right!
I should be barred from typing messages before having morning coffee.
So you mean perhaps something like this?