LiteOn SOHW-1673S/1693S good for quality scans?

vbimport

#1

I’ve just picked a LiteOn 16x/16x DVD writer for a nice price (not sure if it’s the 1673S or 1693S). Is that drive good for quality scans? Most ppl here seem to use the 832S but that one is hard to get for a good price (also the Sony clone).

Will my scans be comparable with the ones in the tests here? Or are the older LiteOn drives better for those scans?

I need a quick answer if possible as I have a chance to get an 832S, but it would cost more than the 16x. I need the drive for quality scanning ONLY. I got several writers for burning.


#2

No problems with scanning with this drive. In fact I use it in my upcoming Pioneer DVR-109D review :slight_smile:


#3

Sounds good. Then I guess for 36,- EUR I got the right drive for scanning. My AOpen 1648AAP delivers too strange results with CDSpeed.

Thanks for the answer.


#4

4804Man,

can you detail how the results are strange with your 1648/AAP?

Also, do remember, that drives (when not broken in their read error reporting) report what they see.

They don’t report errors on the disc, but errors that they themselves make in reading the disc.

The amount of errors varies from drive to drive (model to model and to a smaller extent, unit to unit).

IMHO, LiteOn models at least since the 1xxx series can sometimes report suspiciously low levels of read errors on discs that are bordering on unreadable on almost any other mainstream dvd reader.

So, take the results (with any single drive) with a grain of salt.


#5

Yep

You need to be exceptionally careful when checking a disk on the same drive (or type of drive) as the disk was burnt on.

Because when you read back a disk using the same drive as it was written in, your drive willl have exactly the same head alignment as it was written with, thus you get the best results.

Especially if you change disks stratagies in the firmware, which can make your drive scan the disks great, but be utterly incompatable with every other drive on the planet.


#6

The 1648/AAP only produced useful scans with 8x. Slower reading speeds ended in chaos scans with incredible ammounts of errors. But even at 8x some discs produced horrible error scans while runnig fine in all my drives. So there can’t be that much errors. Even the 1648/AAP itself gave a perfect reading speed graph. But when doing a quality scan the error rates were weird. So I don’t trust that drive because the results are hardly comparable from disc to disc. It was impossible to see tendencies from the scans.


#7

4804Man,

do you have a sample scan from 1648/AAP that is “untrustworthy” or produces “incredible amount of errors”?

I’d like to see such graphs and study them myself (I also have the drive and don’t have such problems, at least not yet).

Also, do understand that read error rates (PIE/PIF counts) and speed transfer tests do not necessarily correlate.

A disc can be borderline unreadable in a drive and still produce almost a perfect transfer rate graph.

Do NOT use transfer rate graphs to asses burned disc readability/compatibility. It can be very misleading (even more so than looking blindly at error rates).

Thanks for your help!


#8

I’ll have to do some scans for ya. I cancelled the scan after 5% of the disc produced that much errors. The disc runs fine in all my drives. No problems to read it. If there were really that much errors it would be unreadable.


#9

4804,

the errors are not on the disc.

One drive can pronounce the disc unreadable for itself, while the same disc may work without significant problems in other drives.

This is the basic nature of dvd burning. There’s no mystery about it.

I’d very much like to see some of the problem scans if you can upload them.

Thanks.