BenQ or Liteon better scanner?

This subject has probably been beaten to death, but I’d appreciate some fresh input since I’m finding such variance in BenQ and Liteon scan results.

Differences in PIE scanning understood and dispensed with, I’m more concerned about differences in ranking media. For instance, I burned the same movie on Verb +R 16x (MCC 004) and Office Depot +R 16x (Ricohjpn R03) on my BenQ 1650 three times: Verb @ 12x, OD @ 12X and OD @ 8x. I then scanned the three discs using CD-DVD Speed on the BenQ and on my Liteon 160P6S.

Without going into detail on numbers, I’ll say I rank scans first by PIF max (no real contest there since all were acceptable and fairly close), then PIF total and finally PIF avg. Unless PIF results are very close, I don’t pay much attention to PIEs as long as they are well within acceptable limits. All these were OK. Also, I don’t put much faith in the quality score since a single spike that’s well within acceptable limits can lower the score when a solid “carpet” of "1"s (or even more with BenQ) hardly affects it at all. BenQ scans showed all OK for jitter (the OD 8x burn did have a couple of 13.6% “bumps”).

BenQ scans rank the burns in this order:

  1. OD @ 12x
  2. Verb @ 12x
  3. OD @ 8x

The Liteon scans rank this way:

  1. OD @ 8x
  2. OD @ 12x
  3. Verb @ 12x

Not only was I surprised the MCC 004 didn’t come out in first place in scans on either burner, it was hard to believe the last place OD @ 8x on the BenQ scan was first place on the Liteon.

Now, which should I believe? I realize there will often be differences in two scans of the same disc on the same burner. But which DVD scans tend to be more reliable: those done on a BenQ or on a Liteon?

I realize this is only one isolated example, but it’s often typical of overall differences when I scan the same DVDs on both burners.

I can post the scans if anybody is interested.

I’ve had very confilcting results between my Samsung/LiteOns and my BenQs. What made me realize that quality scanning is not an exact science, is that in many cases the same disc scanned under the same system load conditions could give very different results, not only between Liteys/BenQs but even when scanned with the same drive! It also had to do a lot with the temprature of the disc, if I scanned it straight after burning I’d get more PIEs, whereas if I’d let it cool down, then scan it with the same drive, the PIE numbers would drop. And then again, it can be all so media-specific, overall there are many variables to consider… I like the jitter detection of the BenQs, but I somehow trust more the scanning of my Liteys/Samsung (which, as we all know, give consistently lower scores than the BenQs, they hardly ever reach a score above 95, whereas scores of 97 to 98 are common with the BenQs). But which is objectively a better scanner? Probably the LiteOns, at least according to more experienced users than myself.

I’m interested! :wink:

Don’t ask - post! :smiley:

These six scans are posted in the order the BenQ seemed to like them. The BenQ first place scan comes first and is immediately followed by the Liteon scan of the same disc. Basically, both burners found all three discs acceptable, but they disagree on the relative order.

You may have other ideas about how these should be ranked. If so, I’d really like to hear your opinions.

As a reminder, the Liteon liked the Ricoh 8x best, the Ricoh 12x next, and the Verbatim 12x last.







Just a couple of thoughts:

  1. the Liteon drive reports PIF errors with a much finer detail then the benq. The benq only returns PIF error counts for 8 blocks of data at a time, while the liteon reports each block individually. Thats why the liteon’s PIF graphs look much nicer.

  2. The benq isn’t a fan of disks with high jitter. Particularly above 12%. Thats probably why the first scan turned out the way it did. I’d personally try to burn it slower and get the jitter down further (try for sub 10%)

  3. One of the main things I watch out for when burning DVDs is the disk compatibility. If you are pushing a media too hard (burning it too quickly for the stratagy to do a good job) you will often find the first symptoms are that there is a wide variation in scans between drives.

@larc,

these scans are consistent, as the shape of the error graphs is nearly the same. Sometimes, depending on the discs (ex: Sony D21), even these differ much.
See http://club.cdfreaks.com/showpost.php?p=1487031&postcount=649 and http://club.cdfreaks.com/showpost.php?p=1487051&postcount=650

With other media (ex: TY T03), the scans are very close:
http://club.cdfreaks.com/showpost.php?p=1487808&postcount=13 and http://club.cdfreaks.com/showpost.php?p=1487798&postcount=769

Michael

Here are two burns with my NEC ND-7551A laptop drive on cheap/crap media that displays how can three drives give very different scanning results on the same disc. First one was with 1640/1650/SH-W162C, on the second one I updated the firmwrz and swapped the 1640 for the 1655. Note that both discs were cool before each scan:

http://club.cdfreaks.com/showpost.php?p=1402122&postcount=11
http://club.cdfreaks.com/showpost.php?p=1410543&postcount=15

Such varied results on the same disc happened with MCC 004 media too, but I’ve realized that it’s more evident on cheaper media. Can anyone explain such inconsistency?

How come the BenQ scans show more PIE and PIF, but Nero rates the scanned disc with a higher quality number?

In response to the initial question: I think the LiteOn has a better reading and error correction capability.

The BenQ scan may be more useful overall, since a high quality scan on a BenQ may show the disc to be readable on a wider range of drives (meaning older and/or poorly reading drives) than a high quality LiteOn scan. Having said that, I think the LiteOn is more accurate in its scans

Other people have failed previously in attempts to find a formula to interconvert the PIE/PIF values obtained by drives from different makers, for many parameters affect the outcomes. To give an analogy to your tests, we wouldn’t expect every referee to give contesters the same ranking.

Now, which should I believe? I realize there will often be differences in two scans of the same disc on the same burner. But which DVD scans tend to be more reliable: those done on a BenQ or on a Liteon?

If you want to know the readability of the discs, PI/PO error scans with neither of the two drives are reliable, as both tend to underreport the errors and may give false-negative results. I suggest you to do a transfer rate test for such purpose. You may also consider getting a Lite-On DVD-ROM or a bona fide Plextor drive for disc quality test.

First off, to me all of the scans look fine (and very similar), and I wouldn’t be concerned about any of them. The only real difference that I see is that the LiteOn seems to be a better reader than the BenQ. But even then, the CDSpeed quality scores are all 95% or higher on both drives, indicating fine burns throughout. I don’t know if it’s possible to scan at speeds higher than 8X with LiteOn 160P6S, but if it is it might be interesting to see if a CDSpeed 12X or a 16X scan begins to look more like the BenQ 8X scan, as the higher speed begins to tax the drive’s ability to read the disc.

Incidentally, the CDSpeed quality score is directly proportional to the [B]maximum[/B] value of the PI Failures; the PIF total is not taken into consideration. Also, CDSpeed doesn’t even look at the PI Errors when giving its rating - only the peak value of the PIF’s.

Due to scanning differences, CDSpeed allows the LiteOn to hit a peak PIF value of 2 for a quality of 95% while the BenQ is allowed to hit a peak PIF value of 8 for a similar 95% score. From CDSpeed’s perspective, both are generally considered to be roughly equivalent. Similarily, CDSpeed will always interpret a LiteOn peak PIF value of 4 to be a 90% quality score while the BenQ will have its PIF value peak to 16 for the same 90% rating. CDSpeed considers anything at 90% or better to in the “safe” zone.

I notice you’ve only scanned discs burned on the 1650; what about discs burned on the 160P6S - do they scan similarly?

I haven’t tried scanning Liteon burns in the BenQ yet. Frankly, I prefer what I see with Liteon scans (or maybe I’m just more used to them) and don’t usually scan burns from other burners in the BenQ. But maybe I’ll try that when I get a little extra time.

In theory, the Liteon scan would be the one I trust more, as it is a 1ECC scanner, whereas BenQ uses 8ECC. About all the other bases have been covered in terms of interpreting the Quality Score in the LiteOn vs. the BenQ The obvious advantage to the BenQ is that it will tell you the # of POFs and Jitter % under CD-DVD Speed, whereas if you want to know the jitter with the LiteOn drive, you have to rescan the media in a separate application (DVDScan), although I don’t know how accurate the measurements are with it.

I think you’re just more used to the BenQ scans.

It’s my belief, based on personal experience with the BenQ 1640 burner, that the LiteOn might provide a safer scan. Periodically (maybe one in 50 - 100 burns or so), my 1640 will coaster a burn (as verified by Nero). Usually I just throw the disc in the garbage and reburn it, but once in a while I scan it to see what happened.

This situation occurred a few days ago while I was burning a FujiFilm +R Prodisc R05 disc at 12X. I was surprised in that the CDSpeed quality scan was essentially perfect throughout the whole disc - no indication of an error at all. However, a second CDSpeed scan (a surface scan, this time) showed two red spots, indicating unreadable data.

I’ve run into this problem in the past where the BenQ quality scan shows all is OK, yet the disc is actually bad. At that time, I scanned the disc in my son’s system (he has an older LiteOn 451 drive installed), and it clearly showed the bad spot as a single huge PIF spike. There wasn’t even a hint of this PIF spike on the BenQ scan.

So, if you depend on a CDSpeed quality scan for error-checking (probably [B]not[/B] a good idea, at least for BenQ users), then the LiteOn is perhaps a safer bet.

I’d have to say liteon here. My sony drx-800ul reads scratched discs that my benq 1650 cant.

With cd/dvd speed scans i have just become used to the benQ graphs.

BenQ sans 8 ECC whereas LiteOn uses 1 ECC.

For 1 ECC:
max. PIF = 1 -> quality score = 98%
max. PIF = 2 -> quality score = 95%

For 8 ECC
max. PIF = 2 -> quality score = 99%

max. PIF = 9 -> quality score = 95%

Sascha

There is a simple table that explains the Quality Score based on 1ECC or 8ECC scanners: http://club.cdfreaks.com/showpost.php?p=1135247&postcount=896. You can also see the table in the first post of that thread (scroll down until the end).