BenQ 1620 and Audio Extraction (DAE)?

CD, DVD and (Ultra HD) Blu-ray Writers BenQ / Philips Writer
#1

Hi,
a few moments ago, i posted here a post about the BenQ 1620/Philips1640 AUDIO rip speeds under EAC in Secure Mode !
Apparently, my post was too long and obscure and i got no real clues… :slight_smile:

I try again today, but more simply maybe :

Does anyone has ever tested his BenQ 1620 under EAC ( http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/ ) , using SECURE MODE and those settings : Secure with NO C2, accurate stream, disable cache (“drive caches audio data” box checked under settings).
And could post here his results !..

I rip exclusively under EAC/Secure mode, with the precise settings above, and would be very interested to know the exact results BEFORE, using those settings so (for various reasons… :slight_smile: ), that are quiet common those days… and important imo. :wink: :wink:

PS:
Moreover, i read that comment somewhere else about that drive (always under EAC) :

BenQ DW1620A

  • Accurate stream: Yes
  • Cache: No
  • C2: No
  • Drive Read Command: MMC1
  • READ offset (EAC): +618
  • WRITE offset (EAC): +66
  • Gap: A / Secure
    - Special: Problems with reading and writing discs (detect offset for example). Can hang EAC sometimes.

Could anyone comment on the “can hang EAC sometimes too” and the “detect offset for exemple” ?!

Using exclusively EAC, i would be more than interested to be sure about that BEFORE (no bad surprises so… for dedicated audio rips in secure mode whatever no protected Or protected audio under the same BenQ1620 exlusively too so) , if you see what i mean !!.. :slight_smile: :wink:

TIA (Thanks in Advance) again obviously ! :slight_smile: :slight_smile: :bow: :bow:

Nb:
that can be important here so, really (!)

#2

I think you are making two trips to the same place, but this is just option.
The reason for it is the BenQ streaming technology.
Have you ever noticed that BenQ is shockingly slow on rip (read) speeds?
I mean that when compared to their competitors.
If I rip from a Sony reading from a scratched disc, it will either lock up solid, or do a fast-n-dirty job giving me corrupted results.
If I rip from a BenQ reading from a scratched disc, it will go slower, and slower, and slower, but the results are as good as the extraction/repair software I used previously.
My guess from this comparison is that the BenQ streaming technology has some kind of error-correction in hardware, but not C2–something else.
I just read from a horribly scratched DVD with a lot of junk on it and the results, while not perfect, were very, very graceful. The audio did not skip and there were no checkers.
Possible that the incompatibility with your extraction software is that you’re doing the same thing that has already been done in hardware?
It’s just my guess.
I know that when I rip from a scratched disc, under most software programs, the BenQ will kick down the speeds considerably and the light goes nuts.
Side-by-side test with a Sony, and the Sony blazes right over the error with no downshift in speeds.
By evaluating this comparison, in my opinion, the BenQ has made the troublesome repair software obsolete.
Try a side-by side quality test. See if all that work you had to do previously isn’t made obsolete by BenQ’s streaming tech.
I’d love to hear of your results.

#3

I have used it under EAC (prebeta 4, I haven’t tried it under prebeta 5), it works quite well. I have only had it hang EAC when attempting to use EACs “detect offset” function.

I have never had it hang in reading or writing.

Its error correction is very good and audio protection ripping is also very good, this is one of the major reasons I selected the BENQ drive. You may also want to read the reviews of the drive both here and at CDRinfo.com. Although I am dissapointed in the lack of standard C2 reporting, this doesn’t really cause any problems in EAC except to make secure rips slower.

The alternative is to use “test and copy” if you rip tracks rather than the entire CD. This method is fast and gives the same level of security in a rip.

Regards,
Bob

#4

I have this problem, too.

Where did you find this information? All I could find was the READ offset, in the AccurateRip database.

#5

Exactly here : http://www.digital-inn.de/showthread.php?t=27901
Official EAC forum… :wink: (and that’s also what scared me a little too / the comment line /reading/writing/offset “problems” and “can hang sometimes”… coming from the same person/place so(!) )…

–
Thank you, bobnick and danielwritesback, for your replies so far (&boombass too so /offset).
Daniel, your comment on the error correction level and speed is very interessant, ty ! on the other hand, i don’t have yet the Benq1620 myself, and that’s why i asked here BEFORE buying it, to be definetely fixed on those (possible) two very important issues/questions for me :

  • secure rip speed (with the exact settings above…)
  • that 'problem" with writing/reading/OFFSET detection so(!)
    … i can’t do tests myself so, Daniel, alas… and that’s why i asked before, precisely(!)… but you’re comment on that is very complementary… more than i required initally, but yes, very interesting too /error correction abilities and conduct with scratched cds so, ty! :slight_smile:

Bobnick, thanks a lot for your precision with read/write & general behaviour under EAC issues so : no problems for you so : only with “DETECT OFFSET” (the one/test in the settings so -?) now, apparently… and that last point confirmed by Bombass too so… weird indeed then :confused: (expecially when others have been able to extract that offset value so -how did they succeed that so - ex stats above?) …now, is this just with the setting test “detect offset” in the menus -? i read that on the url above, so i don’t know exactly myself… “at worst”, i use “create cuesheets” and “test and copy” tracks myself (aka extraction and comparison “CRC” infos for each tracks)… are “CRC” infos extractions ok too? if those functions are ok in day to day use, i guess that’s ok then though… but the question is too if you are able to extract at least ONE time the correct OFFSET from the setting test so ; just ONCE is enough too i guess then… and apparently, the person from who i copied/pasted the drive settings above succeeded in that at least once so…
"- READ offset (EAC): +618

  • WRITE offset (EAC): +66 "
    -?

Now, just to be fixed too about the real speed in secure mode so ;
could one of you just quickly take one audio cd, and rip it very quickly, let’s say only first track and last track, and tell me the average (avg) extraction speed for each track ? With those settings so :
Secure with NO C2, accurate stream, disable cache (“drive caches audio data” box checked under settings).
(i insist with those settings for very specific reasons, but i’m not sure i can develop here… :wink: ). And yes, with those settings, whatever the drive, the C2 errors are not used anyway so… so, not a real problem (for me) with the benq1620 for that… but i would really like to have a quick view on the final speed so(!). I do know that CDRInfo Secure test gave 11.6x (avg) (that is excellent…even more with no C2 internally used by definition so)… problem, i’m almost certain they didn’t check the box 'drives caches audio" in the settings for that… if someone could do the same test with that box checked (what i need here to have an idea of what i’m looking for so (!) ), TIA so !.. :wink:

#6

Ugh. I’ve just ripped the first and last tracks of a disc, with your settings indicated above (Secure with NO C2, accurate stream, disable cache (“drive caches audio data” box checked under settings)).

The first track had an average (final) ripping speed of 1.4X, and the last track was 2.1X! This can’t be right. It’s far, far away from the 11.6X mentioned above. And just to confirm, the “Drive caches audio” box was checked.

I just got EAC to analyze my drive’s features, and it reported (after some time) that there is NO caching, no C2, and YES to Accurate Stream. So, I have unchecked “Drive caches audio” and repeated the above test.

The first track finished with a speed of 2.0X, and the last track with 3.7X. Better than before, but still too slow!

What’s up? I’m using EAC 0.95b5, the latest version. Maybe it just doesn’t work well with my DW1620. :frowning:

#7

Hi,
yes boombass, i think you have indeed a driver/soft(?) problem here :confused: :o ; such low speeds are all the same really not possible with such a drive imo… reminds me a similar problem with someone with a Plextor Premium (one of the dae ‘rolls’…), that started ripping at about 2.3x only too… those kind of drives are doing minimum 5/6x at start up so… even with those ultra-conservative/slow settings so…

i don’t know where your problem can come though.
configured as master and alone on map would be better?
other aspi? nvidia ide drivers?
(?)

Other numbers from others here would be interesting for direct comparison though (i already saw numbers in the thread i pointed out above, but others could be collected here so… with luck -!)… :bow:

#8

Boombass,
did you try to reinstall a good ASPI ?

Try that :

v1.8 not tested, but v1.7 tested and approved multiple times for similar problems.

Try and say if better ! (?)

#9

I haven’t done anything different, but I’m getting some better times. I was ripping through my Bowie collection when I started getting the slowdown, and as soon as I got out of the Rykodisc reissues, the speed started going up again. I’m now getting rips that are minimum 10X, which is not bad.

@sunset2004: I’ll try the ASPI, but I’m pretty sure I’ve used ForceASPI 1.8 on my system. Who did the testing?

#10

Avoid ASPI 4.7. The API was changed from 4.6 to 4.7, and thus 4.7 is known to exhibit a lot of compatibility problems.

#11

For extreme accuracy in writing +R and CDrom, it’s BenQ
For extreme accuracy in reading CDROM, +R and DVDrom, it’s BenQ
For extreme speed, it’s your second optical drive used in addition to the BenQ, and this will probably be a DVDrom or DVD-CDrw. Then, you can duplicate on-the-fly too.
Oh, and your second drive can be used to read those pesky -R discs (those that the BenQ is allergic to). :wink:
Anyway, go with the dual drive setup. It’s a real treat.

#12

Daniel (or smone else!), just for comparison’s sake, could you do just a quick audio rip with the EAC settings i talked about above (with a standard clean enough CD, not a specially scratched!! :slight_smile: ), just as Boombass did above, with your drive(s)?.. :bow: :iagree:

#13

According to EAC detect read features the DW1620 does not cache audio data so how come you suggest that the drive caches audio box should be checked? For a 74 min CD I got ~7.5x for the first track and ~14x for the last track if the drive caches audio box is unchecked and ~5x for the first track and ~10x for the last track if the drive caches audio box is checked.

#14

Yes, I was able to reproduce the behavior you described.
And I just erased a huge, long wided bunch of blather to replace it with:
You need to complain to the software author to add Phillips/Benq.
Crude DAE software at cdspeed2000.com gets 32x to 40x because it is written to the BenQ.
Ordinary rip software gets 8x to 16x max.
Same problem on DVD
Shrink gets 2.4x on the majority while some go 16x for DVD.
Alternate software always goes 4x to 16x (never 2.4).
Yes, a scratch can kick the BenQ into super slo-mo temporarily, but it takes unsupported software to make it do that for an entire disc.
There are two hardware methods kick-DOWN (slowing motor audiable) and re-read (blinkity blinkity blinkity, clickity, clickity clickity). Other than that, it is software.
That’s what I found out. Software error.
We should also complain to BenQ and Phillips for a read-compatability firmware update.
Nero CD-DVD speed quality test goes horribly slow on supported media for a 45 minute wait while unsupported blazes through in 4. The version of Nero CD-DVD speed written for Phillips/BenQ, while on quality test, blazes right through at max.
There you go. Software support.
There’s nothing wrong with the hardware other than Phillips/BenQ is not currently top-of-mind for software authors. On our support campaign, let’s give the name as Phillips/BenQ. That’s because after contacting a software author by phone, I got the following response: “BenQ? Who? How do you spell that?” I said: “Phillips.”

#15

Yes, all that is very… interesting Daniel.
Very “cd/dvd quality” AND (especially) software dependant so (for the adequate excellent error correction & ‘speed’ assured too so)… interesting to know too so(!!). Now… personnally, for audio rips, i exclusively use good “old” & trusty EAC (secure and/or test&copy, etc)… for almost everything (even burns with perfect cuesheets too now hehe)…i don’t give a (.) to every others rippers… so, if ok with EAc = perfect for me, the rest… i don’t need to curse other (inferior -or at least not better at all… as far the contrary as not been demonstrated so far…) audio softwares so, cool… :wink:

As for dvd rippers softwares… that problem with shrink is noticable & interesting too so… :confused: … Now, knowing that so, why not give a try to DVD Decrypter now, then ?!?.. :slight_smile: :slight_smile: . Seems to work very correctly with it apparently(!) :
http://www.extrememhz.com/dw1620-p8.shtml
And for some simili-Shrinks usages, a thing like that is interesting too imo : http://len0xmirror1.serveftp.net/~len0x/tutorial/AutoGK.html before going even deeper with other doom9 very possible other packs so… also based on DVD Decrypter too usually (for ex)… :wink:

So, software may be important too then, interesting, yes…(!)

PS:
Thks a lot jsl !
Yes, so those numbers are confirming the ones i already saw in the url i gave above so : http://www.digital-inn.de/showthread.php?t=27901 (simply here with a more standard cd audio, longer than just 39’ like in that other thread so… for outer tracks :slight_smile: ). those numbers are also confirming the numbers found on the cdfreaks review (for the Philips1640), when they found 11.6x avg (on a 77’ audio cd!!.. maximum outer tracks speeds and then avg too then, obviously) : they did the test with the (in)famous box unchecked obviously so… last tracks rips speeds are similar so. "demonstration done’ so… :iagree: :cool:
as for results with the box ‘checked’ : excellent too so !! (about on par with a Plex Premium etc so… but, here, too, with the exceptionnal and assured perfect compatibility “on the fly” of the BenQ/Philips with ALL the most annoying current (& quickly growing…) cd audio protections too so… those speeds assured with or without the most annoying audio protections so… with correct quality standard cds at least so… now, maybe (much) slower (but perfect rip quality assured too due to the very good native error reading abilities even without C2 so…) with badly scratched ones so, ok… np -correct me if i’m wrong in that ‘conclusion’ here so… :slight_smile: ).

As for the reason of the “cache box checked”… i’m not sure i can develop a lot on that here… :stuck_out_tongue: :slight_smile: just one comment though : that is a standard among some “audio communities” nowadays if you see what i mean… yes, that certainly can appear like a (totally stupid/unecessary) pain in the (.) from a distant Point of View so (expecially when your drive has no cache ‘on paper’ like that so…!!), but those settings are just the ones used for maximum security and uniformity among all rips (reason? simple & pragmatical enough too : real C2 and “no cache” abilities (as detected by the quick EAc test…) are very difficult to verify (for a 100% accuracy in practice)… and be sure about… a lot of ‘no cache drives’ claiming they use “no cache” (under EAc quick test…) are proving wrong under Feurio! burning software test for ex!, etc… same for C2 “real” abilities so… very few drives “with” C2 are really accurate using it… so those “communities” decided to be on the safe side so, with those “global” settings so… but yes, those settings can be annoying with the best and very rare & verified hardwares with real “no cache” and “perfect C2 corrections” so, ok!!.. the legendary Plextor DAE quality doesn’t come from nowhere for that too, for exemple… for the connoisseurs… among the very very few to have real excellent and trusty C2 corrections so… for ex… :wink: ).

Voilà voilà … thx! :wink:

#16

You have to compare apples with apples. The mode of ripping used by cdspeed2000 DAE is not the same as secure mode in EAC. Secure mode in EAC reads small segments of the disc twice in succession, dramatically slowing it down. Cdspeed2000 reads the whole disc once to get the speeds quoted.

EAC’s 'Burst" ripping mode is equivalent to the ripping mode used by cdspeed2000. Burst needs to be set under EAC > Drive Options > Extraction Method.

In this mode EAC will rip the Floyd Wall Disc 1 starting at 12 finishing at 25 total rip time 1:35.

If you use burst for “test and Copy selected tracks” to obtain the equivalent to secure mode the rip peaks at 30.6 with total time of 3:17.

For a longer disc under burst mode ripping the entire image of “Alkan 12 Etudes Opus 39” by Jack Gibbons, length 78:39, the rip starts at 12 ends at 29.6 for a total time of 2:39.

Thus EAC is quite competitive when used in an equivalent ripping mode.

I haven’t looked into the Nexperia chipsets speed response to disc quality but generally these processes are controlled from within the drive and don’t require support in the ripping program. Some drives allow some control of their speed from the ripping program but I don’t think that it applies in these circumstances.

Regards,
Bob

BTW
The start and end speeds quoted are from EAC’s ripping display. The speed indicated by EAC is not the instantaneous speed but is the average speed of the rip up to that point. So in the Alkan above, the average speed of the whole rip is 29.6 - quite quick.

As a comparison, I did a transfer test on the Alkan CD in Nero CD/DVD speed, Nero CD speed starts at 17.63 (probably faster because of its pretest spinup), ends at 41.49 for an average speed of 31.31 - not much faster than EAC despite the help from the pretest spinup.

#17

CDspeed’s DAE had a display where it was reading each track twice.
And there was some note about quality verification.
I’m sorry to hear that it was a fake display.
I thought it was really doing something worthwhile.
Oh well, back to listening to the radio.
Fundamentally, the very complex tape deck always worked better–I just never could push the button in time!! :wink: Maybe there were just way too many quickly blinking lights to look at? :wink:
Either way, I’m still recording onto mylar. I can’t wait for Blu-Ray to get here so that I can record onto much more expensive corn starch! Yay!!! Hoorary! Hurry up Blu-Ray. It rhymes. I gotta quit at this point. . .

#18

When the verify option is checked, CD DAE does read the disc twice. It does so in much the same way as EAC when EAC is used in “test and copy selected tracks” with the Extraction Mode set to “burst”.

As a comparison, I ripped all the tracks of the 78:39 length Alkan Etudes disc in both applications:

In CD DAE verify mode (read twice) total rip time is 5:43. The speed displayed in the CD DAE rip is the average speed of each single rip. A few calculations will show the story. I would not call it a “fake display” under any circumstances, it is quite accurate. CD DAE may be a basic ripper but it is certainly not a primitive one.

In EAC “burst” “test and copy” mode the total rip time is 5:25, so it is actually faster than CD DAE by a narrow margin when doing the same task.

I recorded piano for many years on a number of open reel tape decks, mostly Revoxs up to a halftrack A700 but one memoral machine (more on a spiritual basis than performance basis) was a Crown 800 Pro - how I wish I had kept that machine, a true collector’s item. I recently found (at the back of a cupboard!) 5x 10.5inch, nab hubbed, 3600foot reels of TDK Audua tape - four of them still sealed in the original boxes, they must be 30 years old - it would be interesting to see how well they have held up. Watching those big spools turn at 15ips could be more mesmerising than any flashing light apart from a tape saturation indicator and they were by no means enjoyable!

Regards,
Bob

#19

I had EAC hang a few times when testing this drive - but I think it is a CD-R/RW issue. I haven’t had any hangups with pressed discs.
I had a REALY bad disc with a lot of holes eaten into it and my BENQ 1620 ripped it in 2 hours while my older LG DVD drive took almost 11 hours. The BENQ ripped version had fewer errors also. I am realy impressed by it’s error correcting abilities.

#20

I had an old Rogers/AKAI open reel, and the tapes dating to 1962 were in absolutely perfect condition. I listened to groovy Hawaiian music from the 60’s, but the happy singers choir made me so happy too, that I almost puked. It should not be too difficult to record this onto CD, but I am sure that the CDs will never outlast that old tape–but CD players will outlast the tape player. They’ve got us trapped, don’t they?

On a lighter note, I have noticed that the BenQ has a far more effective error correction on reads than most drives. Somehow this does not involve C2, so it is a non-standard interface, badly, but functionally supported by most software.

I am sure that BenQ is working on a bios update to partially fool this software, while most software writers (RecordNow and DVDdecryptor already have support) are probably working on supporting the current product. A soon-to-be-released version of Nero will have full support with Phillips/Benq.
However, since BenQ is currently the industry leader in read and write quality, I sure hope they continue to produce such wonderful hardware, and merely help software writers adapt rather than going with the lesser “standard” approach. My 2 cents, anyway.
Complain, complain, complain to the software authors. :wink: