[moved]Anyone have NEC-burned dvds scanned with Benq or Liteon?

Does anyone have any scans of dvd’s burned with NEC, but scanned in a Benq or liteon?

Usually, I get about 1million PIEs when scanning my Verbatim -R MCC’s in my 3550A.

I just want to see the difference between a benq scan and a nec scan of the same disc, preferably an MCC disc. :bow:

Which MCC media ID do you need?

Here are some scans, not of the requested MCC discs 'cause I haven’t burned any of those in my NEC 4551 yet, but of Plextor 16x DVD+R (YUDEN000 T03).

The fugliness of the write graph at the end is probably due to the limitations of an external enclosure when burning at 16x. It doesn’t seem to have affected the burn quality though.

All the NEC scans are made with PIF per 1ECC, so they are in theory directly comparable to LiteOn and Plextor scans.

[ol]
[li]Disc Quality Scan in LiteOn SHW-1635S @4x[/li][li]Disc Quality Scan 1ECC in NEC ND-4551A @1x[/li][li]Disc Quality Scan 1ECC in NEC ND-4551A @5x[/li][li]Disc Quality Scan 1ECC in NEC ND-4551A @8x :eek:[/li][li]Disc Quality Scan 1ECC in NEC ND-4551A @12x[/li][/ol]

…continuing my last post…

Here are some more scans of the same disc. The KProbe scan should in theory give the same results as the LiteOn Disc Quality scan above.

My Plextor PX-712A is quite a picky reader, but this can be a good thing when trying to sort between good and excellent burns. This is not an excellent burn compared to other media I have burned, but it is a nice acceptable burn.

This burn of the Plextor 16x DVD+R media in the NEC 4551 @16 is better than any burn of these discs in my NEC 3500 and better than in the Plextor at 12x. But that is of course not what you asked. :slight_smile:

I’m not posting Read Transfer scans, but they are all perfect!

[ol]
[li]Disc Quality Scan 1ECC in NEC ND-4551A @16x[/li][li]KProbe in LiteOn SHW-1635S @4x[/li][li]PxScan in Plextor PX-712A @2x[/li][li]PxScan in Plextor PX-712A @12x[/li][/ol]

i have mcc 03rg20 and 02rg20, but any mcc -r will suffice. i just wanted to get a general idea of the difference in scans-- i.e how much error inflation there is for NEC

I will get some scans up tomorrow; keep in mind that what you really want is one of your discs scanned on a Liteon. Even so, you should get a relative idea of what to look for with my 3520 burn.

Here you go. Burned on an NEC 3520 with 1.UE and the second burned on an NEC 3500 with 2.TC. both at 8X.

MCC 02RG20 seems to have that bump at the beginning when burned at 8X and at the end when burned at 12X on NEC.
Other drives seem to also have this bump at the beginning or the end. LG 4163 does not.



try scanning at 8x or 12x and burning slower(8x)! and forget PIE’s
and my best burns with 3550, scanned with benq have been with
mcc 004(+R) burned at 8x! Does ok with TY -r’s at 8x.

NEC scanning is not reliable. Those who do so anyway will do so at 5X and, as indicated above, will ignore PIE and try to make some sense out of PIFs.

my benq 1620 @8x and nec 3550 @8x or @12x PIF’s scans superimpose and correlate
quite well! My 3550 scans are consistent. I scan at 5x with my other nec’s,
but rarely. Kinda hard to scan 200 disks in one benq in a few days.

Yo-

Has anyone but chas0039 and I - noticed that all of the CDF reviewers use only Kprobe and Lite-On DVD-RW’s for their scans-

Maybe there is a reason - like accurate, reliable, etc -eh?

Mike

We’re so old-fashioned. :rolleyes:

Mainly because there were no other scanning drives available. BenQ came on the scene with their 16xx series drives with scanning capability much time after the review format was established, mainly by OC-Freak. NEC is just an infant in the scanning game and not really serious about the results, just a fad for them to sell more drives… Plextor was not a drive that all the reviewers had at their disposal plus, the time it takes to put together a review coupled with the slow scan speed of the Plex drives made using them prohibitive, so they were not an option.

“Accurate and reliable” is quite the subjective analysis… funny.
I have a few different LiteOn scanners here that have somewhat different things to say about the same burns.

Speaking solely for myself here.

I agree, some older Liteons were “interesting” when it came to scanning. Other than TY -R, BenQ seems OK but the Liteon still has it beat with the more precise error interval. But given that all of our scanning is only good for comparitive purposes, either one will sufice.

Aaaaaaaah! :iagree: :iagree: - I’m always glad when I read such statements! :clap:

Let me quote Jan70 (and, implicitly, Spath):

“the errors reported by a CATS’ drive (or a PC drive) can not only differ from the ones reported by another consumer drive, but also from the ones reported by the same drive with another firmware, or by the exact same consumer drive at another time. Obviously, severe physical defects will always cause errors, but all errors are not caused by physical defects, and the same physical defect can cause different amounts of errors on different consumer drives. This is why you should never compare PI/PO plots obtained with different PC drives.”

“Correctness is something absurd, which corresponds to a popular idea that each ECC block of a disc contains a precise number of PI/PO errors, and that measurement tools try to find out this absolute value. Let’s repeat it one more time: PI/PO errors are not on a disc. PI/PO errors are the result of a calculation and they depend not only on the disc but also on the drive and on many other physical parameters, thus no PI/PO value is more correct than another. Just like PC drives, CATS will show slightly different results each time you run a test on the same disc, and none of them is wrong : they just correspond to what the error correction block calculated at that particular time.”

Source: CATS vs. Home-made scans

First my benq is too picky for one liteon guy, (I thought picky was good when
scanning), next I get lucky enough to get a nec 3550 that gives decent results scanning(better than my 3540)(PIF’S only/3550), using the benq I superimposed PIF from the NEC graphs, good science/not bad science! But then I had a real hard time with quantum mechanics and 3 blackboard equations in physics! Now expecting the graphs to match would have been bad science. Later when I add a benq 1650 and a liteon 1693 or 33
I will do the same thing again.
The QS’s were close!
My experience with Liteon in general and my PC business has not been
a good one.

benq 1620/nec3550