Benq 1650 vs. Lite-On 20A3P for scanning

vbimport

#1

I recently purchased a Pioneer 115D , based on the recommendations here, and it seems like a fine all around burner. This drive replaced my Benq 1650. I have an Asus E616P2, that I use as my reader. I learned (after I got the 115 :o) that it doesn’t scan. I like to scan and test different media occasionally, so I have been thinking about replacing the Asus reader with another writer that is (primarily) a good scanner. I can get a Lite-On 20A3P (as the Optiarc AD-7190A) for $24 shipped, but then I read (been reading and searching till I am cross eyed :confused: ) it doesn’t scan CDs well. Should I just replace the Asus with My 1650? In other words, if the Pioneer 115D is my main burner, would the Benq 1650 be the better “companion” as my scanner/reader/ripper?


#2

Why did you replace the Benq in the first place? I think youd be hard pressed to find a better burner or scanner than the 1650.


#3

A few reasons; the Benq has been in service several years, new drives are SO cheap, and I just wanted to try some thing different! The more I think about it, having 2 burners makes sense, I can get 2 complementary units, and be able to do more things well.


#4

For scanning CD media, you’ll find nothing better than a BenQ DW1650 (or DW1655/1640/1620) combined with the Advanced Disc Quality scanning feature in Nero CD-DVD Speed.

For scanning DVD media I suggest getting a LiteOn drive, preferrably the 20A1 or 20A4 series. The 20A3 will also scan but it doesn’t seem to have as mature firmware as the other series. LiteOn DVD drives are not recommended for scanning CD media, since they don’t report all C1 errors.


#5

Dragemester pretty much said it all, but if you happen to find a BenQ1620 make sure the firmware is updated past B7P9 because B7P9 and its predessors wont scan. The latest is B7W9 and it scans fine. I recently found a new one on Craigs list for a very reasonable price.


#6

To sum up, Liteon best for DVD scanning, Samsung like 203B also good DVD scanner, neither is good for CD scanning. Benq 1650 scans CDs well, DVDs ok, not as good as Liteon? I guess I’ll team up the 115D with my 1650, sounds like it’ll be a decent combo. So you guys don’t scan CDs much?


#7

Hi :slight_smile:
Personally out of BenQ & Lite-On.
I’d go with BenQ.
BenQ can scan DVD’s, both SL & DL.
Can measure Jitter past the layer break.
Will scan & measure Jitter on a single pass.
Can scan CDR’s.
Lite-On’s can scan DVD’s, both SL & DL.
Can measure Jitter (on a seperate run, takes longer), but most can’t cope with the layer break.
Can’t scan CDR’s at all (in any meaningful terms).
Scanner scores : -
BenQ = 5/5
Lite-On = 4/5 with DVD’s 3/5 if inc CDR’s. Therefore should be 3.5/5. :rolleyes:
Note scanning is not that accurate a process, especially on domestic drives.
Not scan is identical, even with the same drive/disc combo.
So should be used either as a rough guide.
Or better yet just for fun. :bigsmile:


#8

[QUOTE=zebadee;2001925]Hi :slight_smile:
Personally out of BenQ & Lite-On.
I’d go with BenQ.
BenQ can scan DVD’s, both SL & DL.
Can measure Jitter past the layer break.
Will scan & measure Jitter on a single pass.
Can scan CDR’s.
Lite-On’s can scan DVD’s, both SL & DL.
Can measure Jitter (on a seperate run, takes longer), but most can’t cope with the layer break.
Can’t scan CDR’s at all (in any meaningful terms).
Scanner scores : -
BenQ = 5/5
Lite-On = 4/5 with DVD’s 3/5 if inc CDR’s. Therefore should be 3.5/5. :rolleyes:
Note scanning is not that accurate a process, especially on domestic drives.
Not scan is identical, even with the same drive/disc combo.
So should be used either as a rough guide.
Or better yet just for fun. :bigsmile:[/QUOTE]

well said :clap::clap:

love the way u explain things :bow:


#9

BenQ drives using the Nexperia chipset (e.g. DW1655/1650/1640/1620) have some strange scanning behaviour sometimes, so I use my BenQ DW1655 as a secondary scanning drive for DVDs, but I trust them less than LiteOn drives (and definitely les than Plextor drives, but they are too slow for everyday scanning of DVDs).

Strange behaviour for DVD scanning include:

  • Showing lots of POF but no actual reading problem
  • Failing to read DVD but showing no POF and no out-of-spec PIE/PIF
  • Showing increases in jitter when other drives show decreases and vice versa
  • Reported PIE/PIF dropping by orders of magnitude if a TRT is performed (even if done only briefly) before scanning

#10

[QUOTE=DrageMester;2002010][B][U]BenQ drives using the Nexperia chipset (e.g. DW1655/1650/1640/1620) have some strange scanning behaviour sometimes[/U][/B], so I use my BenQ DW1655 as a secondary scanning drive for DVDs, but I trust them less than LiteOn drives (and definitely les than Plextor drives, but they are too slow for everyday scanning of DVDs).

Strange behaviour for DVD scanning include:

  • [B][U] Showing lots of POF but no actual reading problem
  • Failing to read DVD but showing no POF and no out-of-spec PIE/PIF [/U][/B]
  • Showing increases in jitter when other drives show decreases and vice versa*
  • [B][U]Reported PIE/PIF dropping by orders of magnitude if a TRT is performed (even if done only briefly) before scanning[/U][/B] [/QUOTE]

Hi :slight_smile:
Well, surprise! surprise!
Been here before.
The anomalies to which you refer (see bold underlined). Are not something I have ever experienced. Then found not to be present in Lite-On’s.
Other than Jitter* [B][U]being somewhat higher, consistantly[/U][/B].
This figure has been consistant for me & usually amounts to around 1% more.
As for the others.
They can & do appear in Lite-On’s too.
Which you prefer is entirely upto you.
If you stick with one.
As it’s all relative.
It doesn’t really matter.
i.e. Comparing one BenQ scan with another or Lite-On with Lite-On.
(Although we all know that this give a variation on a theme too.)
But how when comparing actually manufacturers, you can side on one as “being more accurate” is beyond me.
I prefer BenQ’s because they cover the spectrum more widely.
However it is immaterial as Lite-On have bought out & destroyed the competition.
BTW If it was chipset alone that produced the variations in results.
How come that other MediaTek chipset based drives from other manufacturers, can give similarly supposedly misleading scans?
Scanning is not pure science. (In domestic setups).
It is just a rough guide as to what maybe the disc quality of a particular burn.
So use it as such.
Or as I’ve already said “just for fun”. :bigsmile:


#11

[QUOTE=zebadee;2002031]Hi :slight_smile:
Well, surprise! surprise!
Been here before.
The anomalies to which you refer (see bold underlined). Are not something I have ever experienced. Then found not to be present in Lite-On’s.
Other than Jitter* [B][U]being somewhat higher, consistantly[/U][/B].
This figure has been consistant for me & usually amounts to around 1% more.
As for the others.
They can & do appear in Lite-On’s too.
Which you prefer is entirely upto you.
If you stick with one.
As it’s all relative.
It doesn’t really matter.
i.e. Comparing one BenQ scan with another or Lite-On with Lite-On.
(Although we all know that this give a variation on a theme too.)
But how when comparing actually manufacturers, you can side on one as “being more accurate” is beyond me.
I prefer BenQ’s because they cover the spectrum more widely.
However it is immaterial as Lite-On have bought out & destroyed the competition.
BTW If it was chipset alone that produced the variations in results.
How come that other MediaTek chipset based drives from other manufacturers, can give similarly supposedly misleading scans?
Scanning is not pure science. (In domestic setups).
It is just a rough guide as to what maybe the disc quality of a particular burn.
So use it as such.
Or as I’ve already said “just for fun”. :bigsmile:[/QUOTE]Gotta agree with Drage on those issues. Jitter seems to be more dependent on the individual drives scanning abilities. Personally my 165H6S and my 1640 give almost identical jitter averages, alot of times I ignore the maximum with my 1640 since the 1640 tends to give the odd phantom jump. Personally I generally scan with my 1640 but if the disc was burned by my 203B or certain MIDs I scan with a LiteOn. 203B burns scan well on my Benqs regardless of whether other drives can recognize them or not, whereas my Liteys don’t generally like 203B burns all that much.

As you said though, scanning isn’t a perfect science. The whole point of scanning is to find a combination(scanning and TRT) where you can be assured your burns will work/play for you in your application. Well that and bragging rights for the prettiest scans of course :p.


#12

Yeah, it’s definitely fun, but I’ve learned to make high quality burns from what I’ve learned here :slight_smile: The Benq is back in my rig, next to the 115D, now I see why a lot of you guys run 2 burners!


#13

[QUOTE=filedog;2002185]Yeah, it’s definitely fun, but I’ve learned to make high quality burns from what I’ve learned here :slight_smile: The Benq is back in my rig, next to the 115D, now I see why a lot of you guys run 2 burners![/QUOTE]
There you go, sounds like a winning combo. Pio should do better on most -R and DL media, while the 1650 should handle most +R better. Not sure which is better for CDs.


#14

[QUOTE=chaosoffar2k;2002245]There you go, sounds like a winning combo. Pio should do better on most -R and DL media, while the 1650 should handle most +R better. Not sure which is better for CDs.[/QUOTE]

Hi :slight_smile:
With my 115D/215D, I prefer + media with f/w MCSE patched to allow bitsetting with SL.
The 1650 edges it on CDR’s, just.
But it would not surprise if others found the opposite to the case.


#15

Think [I][B]zebadee[/B][/I] already said it all about scanning… :iagree::clap:

BTW, Pioneer DVR-115/215 is a great burner that burns with a quality MediaTEK drives like Lite-On’s and Sammys never been able to do (even on +R media). :bigsmile:
And with [B]ala42’s[/B] MCSE you can get even more icing on the cake like; RPC1, FB, reflash same (modofied) firmware, aso.