Benq 1620 burning quality problems, Help!



I burnt some ritek r02 at 4x booktype dvd-rom with my new benq dw1620 fw b7p9,I checked quality with cd-dvd speed and the benq for reading and i found exellent results, something like average pie=5 and pif=0,05. Using a lite-on 811s fw hstq for the same tests i found pie=200 and pif=3. In every test i setted speed=4X. I tried also kprobe2 and it confirmed the bad results… What does it mean? I noticed that the benq starts the test reading at 1,7X and it reach 4x only at last, the liteon starts immediatly at 4X. Some dvd of the same spindle burnt with a nec 3500 gave exellent results on the liteon. Should i give the benq back for a new one? Dma was on during burning and i used the cable found with the retail bundle of the benq


My pc:
athlon 2500xp barton
asus a7v600-x
ide 1: master maxtor 6l040j2
slave maxtor 6lo80l0
ide 2: master benq dvd dd dw1620 vb7p9
slave liteon ltr 523227s vqs0e


Update CD Speed to 3.55, set BenQ scan rate at 8X or Max. If that does not work, re-flash your drive using exe from BenQ global, disable virus, firewall, auto update or flash in safe mode. Make sure no media in drive.
Verify the cable that came with your BenQ is actually an 80 wire cable. It’s been reported & I confirm personally, IO Magic packaged a 40 wire cable with their re-badged BenQ1620.
There has been some discussion regarding Lite-on scans of media burned by BenQ versus BenQ scans of same media. Search forum.
The real test is, does it play in your stand alone with no problems? Or does it copy back to your HD with no errors? If so, the burn is good, especially if done on good media.



I think your drive is just fine. It’s just that it reads better than the Liteon and PIE 300 and PIF is not a case for RMA.

Take it as warning against the Ricoh R02 media which vary vastly from spindle to spindle and from disc to disc.

As dishinit wrote though, if it plays, don’t trash the disc and if you want good scans, dont fill the disc over 3.5 GB


I have the same thing with my BenQ 1620 Pro and 811s. But the discs play flawlessly in my father’s standalone which is very picky about burned DVD’s.
I think the 811s is a bad reader.


Hello everybody, this is a great forum and i am proud being part of it (when time and family responsibilities allow) :rolleyes:

@ SAPA and GrrRON

Same here with my BenQ 1620 Pro and Lite-on 811s :iagree:

CD/DVD speed scan 8x on Benq is quite good, Quality at 99%, PImax at 11, PIFmax at 3, the same disk scanned with Kprobe v2.4.2 on the 811s will give me High PI errors for the first 2-3% of the scan (110-150), then PI errors will stabilise at about 10-20 for the rest of the scan and it will complete on something like MaxPI at 150 & Max PIF at 2.

Although I seem to believe that I cannot compare Benq1620+CD/DVDspeed v3.55 scans to Lite-on 811s+Kprobe v2.4.2 scans, on my 8-10 last burns with BenQ 1620 (B7P9) burning YUDEN000T02 DVD+R´s at 12X, the above senario repeats itself, always the same.

I have read somewhere that when doing a Kprobe scan (Lite-on burners) on a disk burned with a 1620, the PI errors WILL ALWAYS be high but acceptable for the first 2-5% of the scan…

Any more opinions / confirmations on this ?
Does anybody know why this happens ?



The same pattern can be found when comparing the 811S and the 832S …centuries ago :wink:

The 832S gave as few as 3 times less errors.

Imho the simple explanation is that errors are reported when the reader detects them. Good readers easily overcome defects that bad readers report on as errors.

The downside to that is that a disk reported as error free could be rejected by other weaker readers.

This is the reason why I often use my Nec 2500, poor reader, to do a transfer rate test. If this drive can read a disk then all others can. Conversely, if the Benq cannot than no other will.


@dishinit: already done all the test you suggested me, no changes… My standalone player is not a good tester, it reads almost everythings, even dvd that i can’t read on pc…

@all: thanks for the answer :slight_smile:

Anyway, i think i’ll trash lite-on then…
…but, why the same dvd burned with a nec gives so mutch (better) different result on liteons?
Is there an incopatibility between benq burned dvd and liteon 811s?



When I did my comparisson between Benq DW1620 and NEC3500, I tested the Benq written Discs in the Benq and in the LiteOn 832s both with CD/DVD Speed (I know its about Liteon and KProbe, but I think with CD/DVD Speed its the same).
see here:

My Conclusion:
The Scans are basically the same if its a good disc, but if the disc sucks, the errors are 3 times higher in the LiteOn than in the Benq. U can see this good at my the of Ritek R02 @ 8x.



1). I understand that the 1620 is a (far) better reader than any lite-on 811s ever made

2). It really makes sense to scan burned disks with the Burner that the disk was created with (and its supported scaaning program).

Now, here is what REALLY happens and i do not understand why :

why when i burn a disk with 1620 and i scan this same disk with ANY lite-on burner THE FIRST 2-5% of scanning reports high PI errors, THEN it will ease off to Normal (for the disk quality) readings ?


It cannot be that the 811s is a very bad reader the first hundreds of Mb on a disk, and then after that it becomes better … :rolleyes:

It is not THAT important really, but it makes me wonder why… :wink:




First 1-5%

Somebody reported that the Benq starts reading at 1.7X whereas the Liteon does at 4X.

Moreover, if you look on the read speed curve of nearly all scans made with a Benq, you will see a very noticeable drop down at the 0.5 Gb region. My assumption is that this improves reading performance at the beginning of the disc. I don’t have a definitive explanation for this design though. I’ll have to find out whether it’s specific to the drive or to CD Speed. Will make a scan with DVDinfo Pro to check.



Interesting, thanks for sharing.

I also read your post on another thread concerning Benq and the noticeable drop down at the 0.5 Gb region of its read speed curve.

All my BenQ 1620 scans are the same (CDSpeed v3.55).


Hp. _


It would be interesting to see some of these scans (both the BenQ and the LiteOn ones), so that we can talk about this in a little more detail.

There are a couple of things to note here:

  1. The speed is a lot slower at the beginning of any DVD - both for writing and for reading. If the 1620’s write strategy is not quite optimal for this lower speed, then slightly more errors may result. The rapid downslope of these errors might be the BenQ’s walking OPC logic detecting them and then slowly adjusting for them. Since all readers will read slowly during this time (typically 4X or less), it will be easier for them to read through any errors. This situation may clean up over time as newer, better optimized firmwares are released, and the BenQ engineers find more time to address some of the more minor issues.

  2. PI Errors of 150 or so aren’t really all that bad, so they may not matter. What’s really important are the PI Failures (ie) can these PI Errors be easily corrected. That’s why it would be nice to see some of the graphs so we could see what the PI Failures look like during this period.


This is probably the wrong thread to go through this, but then again…

So, here we go :

We will get involved with Taiyo Yuden DVD+R, 8X certified media (YUDEN000T02, white inkjet full printable surface, TG001133 on disk, burned with BenQ 1620, B7P9, using Nero at 12X)

1). BenQ & CDSpeed v3.55 quality scan:

2). DVD-Rom Litey 166S transfer rate test :

3). Litey 811s & Kprobe v2.4.2 scan :

Now, some weeks ago, on a different thread

several people started asking themselves if the Taiyo Yuden DVD+R disks quality is not going down, baesd on high PIE spikes in the beginning of KProbe scans.

>Well, i will not guess anything, I will just ask you though if this is not a Litey - Kprobe scanning thing (and maybe not only with DVD+R´s burned with BenQ 1620 burners, but even with The 1633/1653 lot ).

I am not tryng to rove a thing. Believe me i am trying to learn somethimg here.

Hp. _


Well the beginning PIs are not on par with the rest.
However the corresponding PIFs are not consistent, being at the 1 level.

It seems like the Liteon could not read well the first time (PI) then corrected easily the errors encountered (PIF)

I would then say that the PIF’s compare between the Litey and the Benq making this a good burn as PIFs are more critical than PIs.

I also am learning.


These scans are interesting.

Notice the top scan - the BenQ one. The PI Errors look great - no indication of any reading problems at all. However, take a look at the jitter. It’s not bad at all, but notice that it’s slightly elevated until about the 1 gig point, or about the 25% point.

If you compare this jitter to the higher PI Errors in the KProbe graph, you can see a correlation in that the PI Errors also tend to level out at the 25% point.

So from this comparison, it would seem that perhaps the BenQ 1620 did not write this disc quite as well as it could have at the beginning, and that this weakness does not show up on the BenQ as PI Errors, but does show up on the LiteOn as PI Errors. A weakness is perhaps a reasonable assumption, since jitter should be lower at this point, not higher, because the write speed is slower near the beginning of all burns.

In any case, none of this matters very much, because the “PI Failures” are showing a near-perfect burn - from both the BenQ perspective and from the LiteOn perspective. But it would seem that perhaps there is room for a small bit of improvement.


Back again…cos i reach a conclusion, My lity 811s is not able to return valid QT!
I wasn’t suddisfated about my benq for its result on lity scans while the nec was good! So i gave it back for a new one…result: the same bad test! I changed the ide cable of the liteon with a 80 wire one…and it gave bad results with the nec too…


There was a statement about scanning a disc in the same burner that wrote it.
While that gives you the most optimal playback, it also gives you the least valid scanning possible.

Comparison of scans between two different brands of optical drives was really interesting. But, an excellent disc was used for the comparisons. To me, it would be more interesting if a bad disc was used in this comparison. Have fun!