How can 2 burners tell such a different story? Is my drive a bad reader?

vbimport

#1

I apoligize if this is not appropriate, and could possibly fit in the latest “716 quality” scans thread, but I felt a need for a new thread because I’m comparing a Benq to a Plextor here.

Alright, now time to get to the point. I recently purchased a new Plextor 716 from Bestbuy (TLA:0203) and I’ve made a few burns. On one particulay scan, I felt the results were rather spectacular. I burned a 8x DVD-R Taiyo Yuden, and scanned it with the Benq 1620 first, was happy, then scanned it with the 716 (High Accuracy). I know this has been long debated, but which one should I trust? How can 2 burners tell SUCH a different story? Any advice/ideas would be helpful. Should I return it?


#2

If all your BenQ vs. 716a scans look like that (try pressed media), I’d say the laser pickup on the 716a was fogged or scratched or … something. It’s probably going to have trouble reading whatever you put into it - RMA it. I had a 712 that was an OK burner but read about 50% more PIE/PIF than its RMA replacement does.

Besides, if that’s what your 716 really does to TYG02 media (assuming the 1620 is lying), you don’t want to keep it! The only real risk in RMA-ing is that you get a TLA0000 “pre-owned” by zevia or Jamos…

Speaking of … I don’t think North America owes any thanks to Plextor for putting those shit TLA 0000s on the market when they wouldn’t do it anywhere else. And I’m not buying that line about contractual agreements “forcing” them to unleash a clearly defective product on an unsuspecting consumer public. Abusing their own fans like that wasn’t funny and won’t be forgotten.


#3

Does dvd burners have a breaking-in period just like new cars?

On my first two 716a I tried burning 16x immediately and resulted a coaster like hostile_monk plextools scan. On my last 716a tla 0202 I tried more conservative. We know that all 716a burns excellent @4x and 8x, so what I did was first I tried Ricohjpn R01 @4x, then MCC003 @8x, all excellent. Then I pushed it with MCC004 @16x. Maybe worth a try? If the result (plextools pi/po scan) is still bad, exchange it.


#4

Thanks for all of the suggestions. I will try scanning a pressed dvd with both, and “breaking” it in seems to be a good idea too. Both times I’ve tried MCC03, the burn is limited to 6x at about the 1.5GB mark, and remains that way throughout the rest. (Powerecord?) Needless to say, the scans aren’t pretty. I’ll post some scans of that when I get home. Don’t you find it out that the Benq PI error rate levels remained below 20 (And a quality score of 99) and the plextor reported errors as high as 800?


#5

Interesting. I had the feeling that my 708 needed also a break-in phase when it was new. (Meanwhile quite a while ago)


#6

I’m happy hat it was not me who started this thread, but I experienced the same problem with some of the scans of these two drives. Before I go on it’s important to declare that it was just a couple of discs. I’d get to a conclusion that they don’t really like each other’s burns, but most of the time scans are pretty similar.

First pair of scans and transfer rate tests belong to a YUDEN000-T01 disc, burned by the BenQ DW1620 Pro @8X. Just to compare I added a scan of this disc that was performed by a Pioneer A07 with DVDInfo Pro. The disc plays fine in my SONY standalone even at the outer region.







#7

Second set belongs to a RICOHJPN-R02 disc burned by BenQ @12X.





#8

And finally these scans of a YUDEN000-T02 which was burned by my Plextor PX-716A @16X but PR and AS ON.






#9

Thanks erdoke. It shows that we can’t compare scans because of different hardwares (optics etc) and softwares (plextools, CDSpeed etc).


#10

True, but the Plextor owner must go by what the Plextor software claims about the disc it just scanned. I think Erdoke’s and Hostile_Monk’s PX716a’s look to be truly lousy at reading - one of Erdoke’s Plextools scans even showed POFs (in red). If that doesn’t matter to the owner, then fine, but if I got Plextools scans off great media that looked like either of those, I’d RMA it in a heartbeat.

A diagnostic self-test - after interpreting the blinks - would probably settle this.


#11

I’ve never done that, or heard of it? How would I go about it?


#12

Do you have a PX716a manual? It’s in there, near the end. If not, I’ll post the info for you later.


#13

Self test: http://www.plextor.com/english/support/faqs/HW00008.htm


#14

Well, I guess you just didn’t get the point of my posts. I emphasised that these are rare exceptions and most of the time scans of the two drives are very similar. As you could see the BenQ read through the disc flawlessly which has POFs according to the Plex. It also plays fine in my standalone. All that matters for me (as an “owner”) is this.
My Plextor burns fine with many types of media and has no problem creating excellent quality discs @12X speed shown below. Would you RMA this drive? :wink:



#15

I actually got those POFs in one of my burns, but I burn the same media again and it was fine. I think (positively) is the media. I didn’t run the self test yet :eek:


#16

Good point about the media - there are occasionally a dud or two per spindle. If the spindle has been improperly stored or handled, the whole thing can be bad, too.

Erdoke, I guess you didn’t read my first post :bigsmile: in this thread where I said,

If all your BenQ vs. 716a scans look like that…

And you posted three other scans using 3 different media (2 different TY’s and a Ricoh) where your 716a read a PIE MAX well over 100 each time. You bet I’d RMA it!!!

But I see your point about inconsistent comparisons.


#17

No, you don’t. :slight_smile:
I posted problematic discs/scans. Sure they report PIEs above 100. (BTW it is OK up to 280, or not?)
I play with this drive a little more if you don’t mind, it has 2 years warranty. :bigsmile:


#18

I’m taking it back to bestbuy tomorrow, maybe I’ll have better luck. Should I try TLA:0202 this time? Should I lay them all at one on the floor and…“Inny meany miny mo”


#19

i see no major differences btw my 0101 and 0202 (no thorough testing done though).

go for an 0202 or 0203 if you can find it…


#20

he already got 0203 (first post).

hostile_monk, do you have other media to test? perhaps TY T02 or MCC004?