LG GSA-4163B vs. BenQ DW1620: I am (favorably) impressed

Always amazing to see how personal some people take mechanical stuff when it comes to favorite brandnames. No reason to censor, however. The poster has clearly explained at what speed the scans were made, and why. Quite informative, thanks.

How can some people get mad when their “brand” of dvd burner is put down? How sad.

I found 1620pro to be faster at -R,+R and 4163B better quality scans.
I am not a technician, I don’t know exactly what PI etc. means, but I do like
the 1620pro capability to overspeed but that happens to +R(at least to maxell -R I tried).

I just followed the link from BenQ forum. I think it is still valid to compare 8x and 12x burns. (But the author could have given more emphasis on this difference.)

One thing I feel weird is that… in my experience, BenQ 1620 is good for both 8x and 12x but the quality of burns differs more than what we see in this post. That is one major reason why I settled at 8x burn for most media except TY T02 and G02. (Though I must admit my experience is limited, MCC003, CMC E01, TYG01, and etc.)

Well I have just started comparing most of the media I use and I have found the following to be the case, compared to NEC 3500 and LG 4163.

All three drives do very well with TYG02 at 8X. All three drives do very well with Ritek R03. The LG is very good with the MCC at 8X, the NEC is very good at 4X and the BenQ is just good at 12X. The NEC and the LG do very well with the S03; BenQ has PI in the 100s compared to the other drives in the 20-30s. My NEC does very well with TYG01 at 8X (this media does not do well at 4X so no test on the others). Both the G05 and the W11 do very well on both NEC and LG with no test yet on BenQ.

I know there are holes in the comparisons and some things are unequal.

BenQ seems to rate most of this media higher than rated. They put the G02 at 16X, the MCC at 12X, and the R03 at 12X.

My general conclusion: BenQ is overly aggressive in the max rated speed (I would stick to 8X as noted above) and TY is a very good choice here as is, suprisingly, Ritek R03. When the BenQ drive burns at higher than rated speeds, the quality of the burn suffers ( no surprise there), but not the PIF. Also, an interesting note: in almost all cases, even when the PI errors were much higher than the onther drives, the PIF errors were still very low, comparable to what is seen with TY media and low PI.

I am done comparing and I looked at my MCC media at 8X as well as the Ritek W11.
The scans with the MCC at 8X were no better than at 12X with PI errors in the 200s. I also found that what others have reported is true concerning W11. They are not very good at all with PIF errors in the double digits.

In summary, for my media, the only two media that are acceptable are the Ritek R03 and the TY G02. I have seen other media from TY that do equally as well. The scans I already get from NEC and LG with these media are very good so there is no advantage to the BenQ drive over either of these drives with my choices of media.

Given that all my media from here on out will be TY, this will be a useful drive. Otherwise it is nothing special.