CD Freaks presents: The Samsung SH-S223F DVD Burner Review

vbimport

#1

CD Freaks are proud to present, the Samsung SH-S223F review.

You can read the review here

Please feel free to comment on the review in this thread and also, submit your own tests.


#2

Thank you Dee-27.

Very poor cd burner :(, also poor with +R :(, better with -R.


#3

Well excellent stuff Dee-27 :clap: :bow:
If you exclude Rewritables & Ram disks.(I don’t have any.)
Almost my experiences to a T.
I do wonder if these reviews are conducted on virgin drives.
I ask this simply as I have found drives often improve with “bedding in”.
About time new f/w was released too.
This would hopefully redress some of the shortcomings.


#4

Nice review, but you could be more direct when it comes to the results.

I wouldnt say ‘quality could be better’ when the result is so bad, it can’t get any worse (like C2 errors on A-grade Verbatim, Daxon and TY CD-Rs).

Seems to be a totally crappy burner with stock fw.


#5

Thanks for the review, Dee :flower:…I think I’ll be sticking with my 182D’s/203N for now hehe :slight_smile:

[QUOTE=soulsurvivor;2123241]…as I have found drives often improve with “bedding in”.[/QUOTE]

Funny you should say that, I found the same with my 203N, which after several burns started to settle in and give great results.

Regarding the 223F, it’ll be interesting to see what a few firmware updates may help with.


#6

[QUOTE=Arachne;2123251]Thanks for the review, Dee :flower:…I think I’ll be sticking with my 182D’s/203N for now hehe :slight_smile:

Funny you should say that, I found the same with my 203N, which after several burns started to settle in and give great results.
[/QUOTE]

:disagree: my liteon & samsung preformed bad from the first day, and now after a few months the do the same thing when they burn, so they only do one thing now (that’s reading:bigsmile:).


#7

[QUOTE=vroom;2123253]:disagree: my liteon & samsung preformed bad from the first day, and now after a few months the do the same thing when they burn, so they only do one thing now (that’s reading:bigsmile:).[/QUOTE]

Interesting! I have to say though, burning the first couple of MIDs with my own Sammy, I wasn’t impressed at all…but a few more burns of those same MIDs, and as if magically, the drive gave beautiful burns.

But as they say, all drives are different I guess :slight_smile:


#8

[QUOTE=Arachne;2123255]Interesting! I have to say though, burning the first couple of MIDs with my own Sammy, I wasn’t impressed at all…but a [B][U]few more burns of those same MIDs[/U][/B], and as if magically, the drive gave beautiful burns.

But as they say, all drives are different I guess :)[/QUOTE]

Sticking to the same MID is something I do.
There maybe something in this worth encouraging.
Hence so many drives.
But each drive doing one thing.


#9

All drives are different. I hadn’t counted before, but just did. There were 79 discs burned for this review and what you see is the best of them. I wouldn’t normally burned so many discs for review but, i was so surprised at the results and, the drive contained a MTK chipset (reported to learn how to burn) so i gave the drive a reasonable amount of burns to get it right.
Such a pity as the 203 series was so good.

I will try and revisit this drive when a firmware update is released.

@Womi
I prefer to keep my comments constructive. :slight_smile:


#10

[QUOTE=Dee-27;2123275]
I will try and revisit this drive when a firmware update is released.[/QUOTE]

That would be great, Dee, if you have time :slight_smile:

Indeed, from the Scans thread, it’s not only Dee’s review drive that performed poorly in some areas :iagree:


#11

[QUOTE=Dee-27;2123275][B][U]All drives are different. I hadn’t counted before, but just did. There were 79 discs burned for this review and what you see is the best of them.[/U][/B] [/QUOTE]

:eek: 79 discs :o


#12

The scans of 223F are awful the most times. The good thing is that all the discs as for films producing are playable without a hitch. It needs a better firmware anyway but I wasn’t as much satisfied as most with 203B’s performance as well. I think LG62N and 7203S are the best drives I have used after 4163B with the first closer to its brother. I have played on air directly from DVD! over 36 TV shows that have been burned with 7203. This says a lot for me.
@Dee
Thanks for the review.


#13

[QUOTE=Womi;2123249]I wouldnt say ‘quality could be better’ when the result is so bad, it can’t get any worse (like C2 errors on A-grade Verbatim, Daxon and TY CD-Rs).
[/QUOTE]
Exactly. This Samsung is a very bad burner. At least with present fw version. :doh:


#14

When we say a bad burner this means that the files burned are in danger or that they can’t be read?


#15

[QUOTE=sverkalo;2123313]When we say a bad burner this means that the files burned are in danger or that they can’t be read?[/QUOTE]That is an excellent question IMO.
Here on CDF we are very fussy, perhaps to fussy about a drive and we sometimes lose objectivity.

Let’s first look at the facts.
Apart from one disc (the overburned CD-R) all the discs in the review and, all the discs i burned were readable in the (read back drives). Some of the burned discs when read back caused the reading drive to slow down (not a good sign) but technically the discs were readable. How long they will remain readable is unclear. So therefore, this drive technically, is not a bad drive. It certainly doesn’t create quality burns like most of us would like, but that alone does not make a drive bad.

Most people who buy this drive will never run a Disc Quality Scan, so providing the discs that this drive burns are readable on the target drive. Most people will be happy.

Personally, i would not trust a CD-R that has C2 errors, or DVD+R/-R with such high PIE/PIF errors and Jitter. But technically, as far as the tests run in this review are concerned, most of the discs burned were within specification.


#16

[QUOTE=Dee-27;2123323]That is an excellent question IMO.
Here on CDF we are very fussy, perhaps to fussy about a drive and we sometimes lose objectivity.

Let’s first look at the facts.
Apart from one disc (the overburned CD-R) all the discs in the review and, all the discs i burned were readable in the (read back drives). Some of the burned discs when read back caused the reading drive to slow down (not a good sign) but technically the discs were readable. How long they will remain readable is unclear. So therefore, this drive technically, is not a bad drive. It certainly doesn’t create quality burns like most of us would like, but that alone does not make a drive bad.

Most people who buy this drive will never run a Disc Quality Scan, so providing the discs that this drive burns are readable on the target drive. Most people will be happy.

Personally, i would not trust a CD-R that has C2 errors, or DVD+R/-R with such high PIE/PIF errors and Jitter. But technically, as far as the tests run in this review are concerned, most of the discs burned were within specification.[/QUOTE]

I guess you’re right.
But the people who buy this drive will sure start complaining when their TY CD-Rs dont play in most Audio Players, especially not in Car ones :iagree:


#17

[QUOTE=Womi;2123330]I guess you’re right.
But the people who buy this drive will sure start complaining when their TY CD-Rs dont play in most Audio Players, especially not in Car ones :iagree:[/QUOTE]

Surely a combination of this review + the ODD’s poll would alert most potential users to the likely problems.
To say nothing of this thread.
Of course you will still get those who purchase anyway & then moan.


#18

[QUOTE=Dee-27;2123323]
[B]Most people who buy this drive will never run a Disc Quality Scan[/B], so providing the discs that this drive burns are readable on the target drive. Most people will be happy.

Personally, [B]i would not trust a CD-R that has C2 errors, or DVD+R/-R with such high PIE/PIF errors and Jitter[/B].[/QUOTE]

:iagree:

If you have time fix this [B][U]CR-R writing quality could be improved.[/U][/B]


#19

Some nitpicking:

With drives that offer way >16x speeds i think it becomes more and more important not to forget 16x writing. I mean yes, it’s nice to see it works at 22x but such almost always it comes at a cost (higher Jitter, higher Errors, else). So my main concern would be: Will this work nicely at regular speeds? For people who’re looking for a stable ‘no worries’ drive sticking with 16x speed and feeding it good media is an easy way to go (and a stadard recommendation on CDF), but with this test can they tell this drive is for them for that use?


#20

Did I miss something here? The test was performed with SB00 firmware but Samsung’s new firmware (ST00) for this drive has been available at least since July. Based on data quality tests here on CD Freaks and my own testing, the burner performs substantially better with ST00. Was the new firmware not available when the tests were done? I’d love to see the same tests performed with the new firmware.

(I’m a newbie on this list , so if I missed something, please let me know.)