Comparison burn and scans - DW1640/DW1650

Been having some trouble with DW1650 making coasters and generally doing burns on known good media substandard to what I’m used to on the DW1640 so decided to create this thread. However, as fate would have it the DW1650 decided to make a liar out of me and behave itself for the first time during these tests, never the less I’ve posted the results as I thought they might be of interest to others comparing the two drives.

Both burners in same machine on seperate IDE channels.

Data burnt is identical image file.
Burn is @12x with SolidBurn on for known media. SolidBurn ie learning strategy has been used on this media (MCC 004) for more than 5 burns on each drive. All discs from same spindle.

1st scan - burn on DW1640 and scanned on DW1640
2nd scan - burn on DW1640 but scanned on DW1650

3rd scan - burn on DW1650 and scanned on DW1650
4th scan - burn on DW1650 but scanned on DW1640

Reserved for next tests ( solidburn off ) burn with firmware write strategy only


Sorry but I don’t understand: what is wrong in these scans?

As I said, the DW1650 decided to play nice in these tests (for the first time) so there isn’t anything “wrong” as such, but I decided to post anyway.

What is clearly visible though (to me) is the variation between each burners ability to read the others burnt disc with noticeable variations in PIF and Jitter etc, bearing in mind that the burners are for the most part identical (at least mechanically) it’s at least a curiosity to know why.

Prior to those scans the DW1650 ‘was’ producing awful results with MCC 004 and other good media no matter what settings I used or speed I burned at. I just couldn’t get anywher near the same results that the DW1640 could produce. Over the last week or so I’ve thrown out quite a few duds that the DW1650 produced and was about to give up on the burner until I could try it again with newer firmware.

Anyway, make of them what you will. :slight_smile:

Small variances in scanning ability is inevitable between different models - even different drives of the same/make model! The DW1620 reported jitter at least 0.5% higher than the DW1640, for example. This doesn’t make one drive more correct than the other, though.

You should compare burn quality between the two drives by scanning them in only one of the two drives.

These scans seems consistent to me; the only difference is on the absolute values, but the scans are almost identical.

Nothing to worry in my opinion.

103-167 (1640-1650) PIF and then 207-198 for PIF between both burners is not statistically signficant. Otherwise, if you really want to have a better comparison of results, use the same drive to scan as you did to burn the DVD with, as once you move a media to another drive to scan it, you can only compare the scans and that’s all. If part of your concern is the difference in jitter (using your 1st and 3rd scans as examples, as those were scanned by the same drive that burned the media) with respect to MCC004, I can understand, as generally I’ve seen most MCC have low jitter values on BenQ (usually 7.9-9.0% avg.). However, MCC 003 and 004 batches can either be “better than average,” excellent or downright rotten. Based solely on what I see here, I see nothing to worry about, and certainly no reason for something as extreme as a possible RMA.

Well now, I have ‘TWO’ DW1640 drives and I don’t see any real noticeable variations between them, certainly not to the extent I’m noticing between these different models.:confused:

Bit more than 0.5% there. Some of the discs I’ve burned on the DW1650 have produced jitter values of 15.9%. I was so disgusted that I threw them out without saving the scans, wish I had kept them. Even given that there might be variation between models, 15.9% with any sort of minor correction is still horridly outside of spec.

You should compare burn quality between the two drives by scanning them in only one of the two drives.

I’ve done that and then some if you look again. Each burn has not only been scanned on what burned it but has been scanned on the other as well. In other words you have two instances of what you have requested. If you compare scan 1 with 4 and 2 with 3 you’ll have what you want.

However I could always scan the results of a DW1640 and DW1650 burn in another (2nd) DW1640 or NEC 3520A if it will make you happy :wink: