Can someone tell me which is a better scan?

vbimport

#1

i just burned two copies of Bulletproof monk. i wanted to know which is better so i can verify if the firmware upgrade was worth it:

the first was scanned with B7P9
the second was scanned with B7T9

Edit: also, i wanted to know if the scans are good at all :slight_smile:


#2

Wow I’ve never seen PO failures with a benq. Lots of PO failures and Quality scores of 96 and 97???


#3

Wow I missed the PO’s, didnt expect that…


#4

The PO errors are because of the Ritek R03.
I’ve got that same media and have similar (slightly worse scans).
Mine play fine in all DVD players, they just aren’t as pretty as some better media
@esonique: both scans are good and very similar, so I would stick with the newest firmware.


#5

G_Ivan Awfulitch

i normally get around 93-98 on my quality. maybe my cdspeed is a little broken:)

Xterminator

i will conducting alot more scans, im very interested in seeing if i can get numbers like some of the other scans i’ve seen that have a quality of 90 or more.
i’ve often wondered why i have so many failures but a high quality rating?


#6

I have R03’s but no PO’s, and I have never seen a good score when there are PO’s.


#7

here’s a few for you.
http://club.cdfreaks.com/showpost.php?p=827851&postcount=713
I think the Ritek R03 quality varies some


#8

i dont know how or why its happening. im new to this:)
i just ordered some TY’s, when they arrive maybe it’ll sort this mess out. i ordered them from rima.com so i hope they are fine.


#9

From what I have read on this forum, the quality score is only based on the PI Failures.


#10

Well, were are the PO errors?


#11

my bad…that was the wrong set of scans!
I’ll have to go hunting for them.


#12

The score IS based on PIF’s, which is of course the bottom graph. The reason you still have such a high score is because your PIF’s are only spiking to 4 and at most some hit 6. When scanning with a BenQ drive, the amount of acceptable PIF’s goes up to I believe 16.(And you are only hitting 4 & 6) Now if you had scanned the disc with a Liteon drive, the highest acceptable PIF level would have been 4.


#13

Still doesnt explain how a burn with so many PO failures can get a good score, as it is basically a coaster.


#14

Let’s first analyze this by ignoring the PO Failures, since they represent a major anomaly.

I too use Ritek R03’s and I too saw similar improvements in the scan when I went to B7T9. In particular, your average “PI Errors” has been cut in half - from 27.05 to 12.87. Similarly your PIE total went down from 393,162 to 169,152. Your PIF’s are slightly better and this is reflected in your quality score of 97% versus 96%. And your jitter is also a bit better with B7T9. In particular, the max jitter is reduced from 13.3% to 10.2%.

So there is little doubt that B7T9 is the better firmware for this media.

Both scans look to be very good scans, and are similar to what I get with my Ritel R03’s (but without the PO Failures). Those PO Failures should NOT be counting! They are COMPLETELY out of character for that type of scan.

If you have time, there are a few additional tests I’d like to see done:

  1. Rescan the disc at 4X and save the results

  2. Then rescan it at 16X and save the results.

  3. Finally, use CDSpeed to do a surface scan of the disc. To do this, click menu item “Extra->Scandisc…” to bring up the Scandisc dialog box. Next, check the “Surface Scan” box near the lower-left corner, and click “Start” to do the scan. This will do a sector-by-sector surface scan of your disc, and show the results graphically by lighting a green box for each good sector. The boxes MUST all be green; if you get a red one, you truly have a bad disc. If the scan is all green then your disc is good and the “PO Failures” count is quite possibly bogus.

Post all three results to this thread so we can see them.

There was a claim made recently in the NEC forum stating that the BenQ “PO Failures” count is not reporting reliably. http://club.cdfreaks.com/showpost.php?p=834642&postcount=501 But this was with respect to -R media, and you’re using +R media so I don’t know if it is related or not.

Since this situation is unusual, it would be interesting to scan this disc on another system equipped with either a BenQ 1620 or with a LiteOn burner, just to get another opinion.

Here are a couple of other things to consider:

  1. IDE Drivers: Try and use only the Microsoft ones. NVidia, Via, and even Intel IDE drivers have been known to cause all kinds of problems with respect to DVD writing.

  2. Your IDE cable: It should be a flat 80 conductor cable rather than an older flat 40 conductor cable. You should generally try and avoid round IDE cables, unless you are certain that you have a good one.


#15

I think I know why there are PO errors… Position 4439MB - Disc End 4482MB. I guess the scan poped “No additional sens information” error (or not)… but before that PO errors occurred.


#16

You’re right… it doesn’t. I didn’t notice the PO Failures. I thought it was a similar question to THIS, but it isn’t.


#17

Yep, this behaviour in CD/DVD Speed Q-test has happend to me also. :rolleyes:

i. I agree partly, nVidia and VIA based mobos can sometime have issues with default IDE drivers. But some members have also solved their problems with IDE drivers from nForce and viaarena.com, when even M$ drivers didn’t work.
And the only known problem on $ntel´s mobos is AFAIR IAA ($ntel Appl. Accel.).

ii. IDE cables. I run all my 4 DVDRW´s on older high quality 40 conductor IDE cables…
This (always repeated) “80-conductor” mantra, has no technical ground.
Note. Situation changes ofcourse if your DVDRW shares IDE channel with a HDD.

:wink:


#18

I think there is a good technical reason for this. The extra conductors add shielding and help keep noise down. Apparently users with noisy power supplies can have problems that clear up when you switch cables.

There was a post about 4 months back from a fellow who couldn’t get 16X burns. BenQ tech support asked him to install the cable that shipped with the drive and his problem went away.

So just because it didn’t make any difference in your system, I wouldn’t discount this altogether.


#19

ok now theres a problem i think, when i try an scan at 16x i get this error box: error!
NO ADDITIONAL SENSE INFORMATION (000000)

but here are the others. my surface scan and a scan at 4x:




#20

That’s a good point.

esonique, the next time you scan this disc, could you watch it and see where the scan actually is in real time when the PO Failures count up? Is it right at the end, and did you perhaps get any popup error message from CDSpeed complaining about “No Additional Sense Information”?