FW vs CMC MAG F01 on BENQ1620?

I have a spindle of CMC MAG F01 4x DVD+R’s and I am trying to find the best FW to use with the BENQ1620 drive?

From what I read these are my options:


I also read that these 4x DVD+R’s can be overburned to 8x.

I would like some feedback from all the guru BENQ1620 owners.

Thanks inadvance for your time!

haven’t tried it with t fw but p worked fine and burned well at 8x. only way to know is to try it. even if it doesn’t burn at 8x it should burn at 4x quite well

Simple try the latest B7T9 firmware burn a disc at 8x and then run Nero CD/DVD speeds disc quality scan and check the results or post them here if you want others to comment on them if your not sure.

You can always try the other firmwares too and compare and contrast the scans from each one.

8T8…yes, I am aware of this…I just want to tap others and see what their results have been that is the best way to make an informed decision and not waste media in the process…it is a smart preventitive measure.

If no-one else posts media for comparsion try the advanced search in the forum and limit it to this sub forum and search for the CMC MAG F01 media code though I guess most people probably just posted screenshots from CD/DVD Speed so the search wont pick them up so its probably the hard way and slog your way though the big media thread to see others results no doubt someone tried it in this thread.


Okay, here is my contribution… :wink:

Brand: Memorex, 25pcs spindle
Type: DVD+R 4x
Write speed: 8x
Firmware: BenQ B7P9

Comment. Excellent burn.
Don´t know that much about different BenQ 1620 firmwares. I´m quite new on this drive. :slight_smile:
And yes, (before someboby remarks it) I know I can use BenQ for quality testing… :stuck_out_tongue:

8T8…Thanks…I scoured these forums previously using the advanced search feature…I found a few entries for both the B7T9 and B7P9.

Pinto2…thanks for the great contribution…I think the B7P9 is the way to go for this media as it is most compatible so far with a variety of media.

Who is the manufacturer of your CMC Mag F01?

I have experience with HP and with Khypermedia, both with the same identifier code, but I’ve found that the HP discs burn with less errors. I’ve always been able to get good results overspeeding them to 8X.

Here’s a scan of an HP disc I just wrote at 8X. I’ve scanned the same disc at both 8X and then at 16X. I admit to being a bit shocked at how good this scan looks at 16X.

Looks like the BenQ really burns off nicely with CMC Magnetics media. :smiley:

I don’t think so. I have no luck with CMC media. i’ll post a scan in a sec.

The media branded as CyQ’ve 1x-8x, and is identified as CMC MAG E01.

This is the 2nd burn of the same compilation @4x. The quality score dropped right after 3900M. for the first burn, i did a data verification, and the last file didn’t even match the original one. even worse, i can’t read the first burn with the drive that burned it.:a

i’ve bought 3 benq’s, incl. a 822a, for my friends. they’re all working fine. i still trust benq drives, but maybe it’s the media or my outdated pc (P3 550 /w 512 sdram).

Spartane…I have a 50 pk spindle from OM that has this code on them. They are rated at 4x. You can find out more info at videohelp.com

Here’s a direct P9 to T9 comparison, quality is 95% in each but the P9 has 2580 PO errors. Could someone explain with PO errors like that the quality factor isn’t affected??


Yes I would like to know the difference as well?

Those PO errors are VERY bad (think coaster).

Notice the final reported scan speed in the first (B7P9) scan of only 0.56 times as compared to the more normal 7.92X in the B7T9 scan. It would seem that perhaps the drive slowed down in an effort to read through those errors. What’s worse, these PO Errors are NOT being reflected in the quality scan. I suspect this might be some sort of a firmware bug in B7P9.

What speed were these two discs burned at? There have been reports of errored discs with great scans (by me as well as by other people), but they were usually burned at 4X speed, and they usually showed zero PO Failures - even though there was a hard sector error that showed up on a surface scan.

NorseMyths, if you still have that bad B7P9 disc, could you perhaps do a CDSpeed surface scan on it and upload it for us to see? In case you don’t know, you can do this by clicking menu items “Extra->Scan Disc…”, and then checking the “Surface Scan” button on the lower left, and clicking “Start”. This will show us the sectors that are actually bad (in red).

Also, did you get many discs like that bad B7P9 one? And if so, would you say the problem has completely gone away with the B7T9 firmware?

This is great info…should I be using the CD-DVD Speed program…if so what option should I select in order to scan…I burned a movie at 4x on this media. However at 8x it errored out as seen in my previous post.

That sounds like they’re generic discs, so they could be made by anyone. In any case, I suspect they’ll burn just fine at 8X, but you’ll need to try a few just to make sure.

Here’s another scan of a CMC MAG F01 disc, again burned at 8X, but this time it’s by Khypermedia, so the quality won’t be as good. Again I’ve provided an 8X and a 16X scan.

Notice the PO Failure count of 1 when scanned at 16 times. This is undoubtably caused by one of the nasty PIF spikes near the end of the burn. Fortunately, it’s not a coaster since it reads fine when we slow the scan down to 8X. What it does show you is the difference in quality between the two disc manufacturers.

Now you know why I was so pleased that the HP disc scanned so well at 16X.

I recommend you go with B7T9 unless you have reason not to. Software bugs are always fixed in the more recent revisions, and the development group will not always admit to the fixes. My recommendation would be to run the B7T9.EXE executable file rather than use the “B7T9.CVT” data file, since your drive now thinks that it’s a “B” version. And there’s always the possibility that the executable might do a bit more than simply updating the drive’s firmware.

Next, if you don’t already have it, you should download the latest CDSpeed from the following link:


Before using CDSpeed, I recommend you consider changing the “quality check” graph colors from the default “Legacy” color to “Bright” so that you can see the color coding easier, since the color will help you interpret the value of your scan. You do this by clicking menu items “File->Options” and then selecting “Disc Quality” along the left. You’ll then see a “Colors” section to the lower right with a pulldown box labelled “Theme”. It will have “Legacy” currently selected. Change it to “Bright”, and CDSpeed will use different colors in the PIF area (green, light red, and dark red) to help you determine the health of the burn.

At this point you can do a couple of things:

  1. You can tell CDSpeed to write its own test data to a DVD. You do this by clicking menu item “Run Test->Create Data Disc”. By default, CDSpeed will write the disc at its highest speed (8X in your case). Be careful, since there’s no warning - the disc burn process will start immediately after you click “Create Data Disc”.

This process has a few advantages as follows:
a) It will always fill your DVD with data and hence test out the whole disc.
b) It will write the data independant of other software programs on your system, thus keeping things simple.
c) It will show you the write speed of the data in real time as it’s writing, and it will save this write information in one of the many random test files that it will write to. Later, when you do the “Quality Scan”, it can retrieve this data and merge the write graph information into the read graph.
d) It will also save the DVD writer name and its current firmware version number on the disc for later retrieval when a “quality scan” is requested.

The sole disadvantage is that this process costs you a disc.

  1. You can do a quality scan of almost any disc with data written to it. You do this by clicking menu item “Extra->Disc Quality Test…” and then clicking “Start”. You should probably leave the Speed setting either at 8X or at maximum (currently the same as 8X). For now, you should probably avoid 16X scanning, since its use is still fairly new and it’s somewhat difficult to properly interpret the results.

To be completely sure that your data is good (at least good enough to be read back on your 1620), you could also do a surface scan (as detailed previously in this thread), and it should be completely green for an acceptable disc.

Hope this is useful.

Spartane…wow thanks for sharing…I am looking for the B7T9.exe file now and will try this burn at 8x again. I will also check out the cd speed and make those changes. I might skip making the data disc as I don’t want to just waste a disc, at least for right now. I will let you know what happens.

Spartane I just ran a quick scan on a disc that was rated 4x CMC MAG F01 (Value Disc) and burnt at 4x…I had a quality score of 99! Now onto B7T9.

General Information
Drive: BENQ DVD DD DW1620
Firmware: B7P9
Disc: DVD+R (CMC MAG F01)
Selected speed: 8 X
PI errors
Maximum: 32
Average: 16.16
Total: 5898
PI failures
Maximum: 2
Average: 0.03
Total: 6
PO failures: 0
Maximum: 12.5 %
Average: 4.81 %
Scanning statistics
Elapsed time: 0:51
Number of samples: 407
Average scanning interval: 8.01 ECC
Glitches removed: 0