My first "proper" CDR scan :)

vbimport

#1

I believe I said to Greg that I’d post one when I got a BenQ. :slight_smile:

It was also a test to see which of my DVD burners burned CDs better, since I have no room for my beloved LG CD burner.

The LiteOn ones I did didn’t scan too prettily, but here’s one burned @32x on my LG4163B.

I’m thinking the LG is OK for burning CDRs, what do you guys think?

:slight_smile:


#2

That’s a nice scan to me!


#3

Hehe, cheers, Rapid Fire :bigsmile:…my 1693S doesn’t seem brilliant at CD burning (“fair” is how I’d describe it). Obviously they’re readable, but they don’t scan too well.

I was kinda surprised by the 4163 with CDRs - I knew it was excellent with good quality DVD R media, but hadn’t had chance to scan the CDRs burned on it.

:slight_smile:


#4

Yes i’ve the 4163 too and it does a very good job with cd-r’s a legendary drive.
Oh and i see you’ve made a change, it’s not more the museum Litey… :wink:


#5

I’ve also found the 4163B to do a good job with CD-R.

Presumably these are the Verbs from Currys/PC World.


#6

Until I bought the BenQ, I couldn’t tell reliably which drive was better for burning CDRs. And nope, Tim - this is an unbranded TY from SVP. The Currys/PCW TY Verbs will be tested and scanned on Wednesday (when I’m next here at my mum’s). :slight_smile:

True, Rapid Fire - the 4163 is indeed a legendary drive. And I see you remembered my 1693S mistake :bigsmile:


#7

Hi :slight_smile:
@ you know who you are, don’t you? :iagree:
Becoming a technophile now are we? :stuck_out_tongue:
Never scanned CDR with BenQ as they don’t support C2 error reporting. (In a sense they do, but this is so inaccurate that the disc needs to be virtually useless). :iagree:
Doesn’t your ‘Litey’ do scanning? :confused:
Moderator last month, a geek this. What’s left? :bigsmile:


#8

hmmm someone will be slapped soon :bigsmile:


#9

That was soooo what I didn’t wanna hear about my lovely BenQ :sad:

LOL yeah, the Litey scans, but it’s pretty much useless for scanning CDRs (DrageMester knows the tech info on this better than me)…which is part of my reason for buying the BenQ.

What’s left…hmmm, let me see…mwahahahahaha! :bigsmile:


#10

That’s not a very good scan. :disagree:
.
.
.
That’s an outstanding scan! Especially jitter is amazing, since my tests show that 7% is the lowest jitter the BenQ 1655 can report (presumably the same goes for other BenQ 16xx drives).

I too am dissapointed at how LiteOn DVD burners burn CD-R media, but they are excellent for other tasks.

The scan below performed on a LiteOn 1635S will give you a small clue as to why I consider LiteOn DVD burners useless for CD quality scanning. :wink:


#11

Scanned @12x?

Do I’m wrong to do all my CD scans @ maximum speed?


#12

Damn that’s what i’d call a good scan! :bigsmile:
And the BenQ does report C2 errors lookin here


#13

Hi :slight_smile:
This keeps raising its head every now & then. You’ll note that I said BenQ doesn’t do C2 error reporting. Then went on to say that wasn’t strictly true. But C2 errors have to be so bad before the BenQ registers them that the disc is likely to be unuseable anyway. So what’s the point. BenQ claim that their DVDRWs do not support C2 error reporting. Nero InfoTool also reports BenQ drives as not supporting C2 error reading. If the point of scanning is to get an accurate picture as to disc quality. When it comes to CDR, BenQ drives are not the way.
You can easily get C2 errors to show when scanning CDRs. Just take a sharpie & mark the data side. Make sure this disc is of no value, it shouldn’t be useable after this.



#14

From my comparative tests of CD quality scanning, I suspect that the BenQ drives report only E32 errors as C2.

Usually E22 errors should be included in C2 (some sources say that E12 should be included as well, but I don’t know of any drive that does this). E32 should be reported as CU, and may also be counted as C2 in some drives.

I don’t think Nero CD-DVD Speed has the ability to display CU separately from C2, however.

I’m not completely sure about the BenQ in this regard, but it does show significantly fewer C2 than my NEC 4551 and Plextor PX-712 when scanning the same disc with deliberate defects.

So there’s a chance that the BenQ CD scans don’t show E22 errors but only E32 errors, which usually is the same as uncorrectable for an Audio CD. For data CDs there is a third layer of error correction, so CU isn’t the end of the world - but you definitely don’t want so see any on a good burn!

I have been thinking about putting together a thread comparing different drives CD scanning capabilities, but laziness has won so far. :bigsmile:

See my example above as to why using a LiteOn DVD burner for CD quality scanning is more or less useless.


#15

To better prove my point!
The same disc scanned at 48x in the 1635S shows a C1 maximum of 2 and a total of 7, but I don’t think there’s any reason to waste bandwidth by posting that scan after you have seen my scan at 12x above.

Not wrong, but it’s not my preferred scanning speed.

Unless the drive has some specific problem at that speed, I prefer to scan at 32x because that scanning speed is available for all CD media on most drives, and the disc is spinning well below maximum RPM.

Scanning CDs at 48x is comparable to scanning DVDs at 16x as far as RPM goes, and there’s no drive where the standard scanning speed for DVDs is 16x!

On my BenQ 1655 I prefer scanning at 24x because 32x is slightly less reliable for jitter scanning - mainly due to the scanning dips/slowdowns.

On my NEC 4551 I prefer scanning at 8x. 32x is OK most of the time, but sometimes I get random C1/C2 spikes in the hundreds when scanning at 32x.
All other scanning speeds except 8x are more prone to these random spikes.


#16

Thanks for clarification DrageMester :slight_smile:


#17

Some good info there, DrageMester :iagree: :slight_smile:

LOL @ the Litey scan…message received loud and clear :bigsmile:


#18

A picture is worth a thousand words! :slight_smile:


#19

Hi :slight_smile:
As ever I appreciate your input Dragemester. Put simply my post was saying that for most users & especially when using CD/DVDSpeed. C2 errors are not to all intense purposes reported. Even in the link that is relating to Erik Deppe.
"Basically there are two ways of reporting C2 errors:

  1. the standard MMC method which can be used in conjunction with audio CD ripping. BenQ DVD burners do not support this method.
    This is the method which InfoTool reports.

  2. a vendor-specific method which can only be used for disc quality testing.
    This method is supported by BenQ drives so the results from the Disc Quality test are correct."

1: Points out there are differences as to what BenQ uses to report when compared to Info Tools. Hence Info Tools show BenQ as not supporting C2.

2: I believe, but feel that if to get the scans that Erik shows (& this I can duplicate) usually means disc is useless.

So as I understand it Erik is saying (despite BenQs claims that their drives don’t support C2 error reporting) that BenQ drives do. But will only (if you like) report extreme errors. The terminology may not be correct, but I guess you get my drift. This as I understand it is what your saying. That the point at which BenQ is reporting errors is just not showing in scans. Yet still present. Hence scans are accurate in so far as they can be.
I may be missing something here but why bother scanning CDRs in light of this. Surely a simple TRT is going to be as good, if not just as valid.


#20

Why scan CD-Rs on the BenQ if it doesn’t include E22 in C2 reporting?
Because you get C1 (E11+E21+E31) errors as well as CU (E32) and Jitter.

Please keep in mind that I’m not saying that the BenQ definitely doesn’t include E22 when reporting C2, I’m merely saying that I suspect this based on comparative scans in other drives.

No quality scan is complete without performing actual reading of the disc, which for data CDs can be accomplished by Read Transfer scans, ScanDisc or similar method.

For CD media using CD-DA (Audio CD) or Mode 2 Form 2 (VCD, SVCD, CD-i), I don’t think a Read Transfer test or even ScanDisc is enough, since these formats are for content where errors may be ignored or masked, so depending on the drive the Read transfer test might complete seemingly without problems even though there are C2 or CU errors.

For anyone who wants to dig deeper into C1/C2/CU, E11/E21/E31, E12/E22/E32 here’s a couple of good links:

Media Sciences FAQ for CD

Writing Quality C1-C2 Errors