My old BenQ burns better than my new 111L?

I never get a perfect burn with my 111D@111L 8.19, even with MCC003 or anything (unless the original T.Yuden which I never tried). I always score 94-95 with MCC003 and 90-94 with others, either scanned by BenQ 1620 or my Pionner 111L. Many cheap DVD+R even scored 0-50 with my 111L, which never happens with my old BenQ 1620.
When I still got my Benq 1620, I usually scored 97-98 many times easily with MCC003, BenQ media (Daxon) or even cheap DVD+R.
I know this is a Pioneer forum, but let’s be objective, does BenQ actually burn better than Pioneer because of WOPC ?

If so, I’m thinking of switching this 111L to my niece which got my BenQ 1620 recently.

Another example, I just burn Ritek Excellence 16x at 8x (RicohJpn), and I only score 33 with huge PIE and PIF. Great !!! I never got such a low score with BenQ 1620, even with the cheapest DVD+R I can get in the market.

I hope you’re not comparing scans done on the 111L with those done on a Benq.

The 111 range , like all Pioneers , is not a reliable scanner.

Pioneer drives as well as any other drive you can buy these days are of variable quality, and you can get lucky or unlucky.

Both my BenQ DW1655 drives are as a general rule better DVD burners than all the other drives in my collection; there are specific media that burn slightly better at speciic speeds on other drives, but none of the other drives burn as well in general.

I have two Pioneer 111 series drives and they both have some quirky behaviour, but they have different quirks - so different that they might just as well be totally different drive models. Neither of those drives burn as well as my BenQ drives.

Just because other people get excellent results with Pioneer 111 drives doesn’t mean that you will get excellent results with your particular drive(s). And the reverse is also true - just because other people get bad results with a drive doesn’t mean that you will also get bad results with a drive of the same model.

Due to cost savings in drive production these days, I’m beginning to think that it’s at least as important to be lucky (or not unlucky) with your particular drive as it is to select the right drive model or brand.

As [B]TimC[/B] said, just be careful that you use the same exact drive for performing scans if you want to compare burn quality. Even using two different drives of the same model can be misleading.

Serville -

You have cross-flashed your Pioneer DVR-111D to DVR-111L Buffalo v8.19 Firmware. Buffalo has released two Firmware updates since v8.19 was first released – v8.26 and v8.29. There are reasons they released the newer firmware updates – to include more Media and improve Media write strategies.

If your are desiring to obtain the best Burn Quality possible with your DVR-111D@DVR-111L it would be desirable to install the most current up to date Buffalo Firmware available (Buffalo v8.29).

BeLooken

There have been some misperceptions when people try to compare old burns with new burns, and stating that the older burner gives better result etc etc.

You cannot compare burns on previous media made by your 1620 since media production from different spindles might be different. Even that, each media in the same spindle might also be different in terms of quality. If you want a somewhat fair comparison, burn some media from the same spindle in your 1620 and 111.

But nevertheless, yes my Pioneer 111 is not better than my BenQs.

Frankly I’m very confused and uneasy right now.
I don’t know what to believe, and whether I should give my concern about the scan report. Should I ?
Something I know for sure is, I feel extremely anxious to put my data on disk right now. The error report keeps popping in my mind everytime I want to burn a new disc.

I burnt another disc just for testing yesterday. I also upgraded the firmware to 8.29. The disc is Ritek Excellence 16x (RicohJpn R03) from my old spindle, which is actually proven to be realiable with my old BenQ 1620. I only remember my BenQ 1620 usually gave me total PIE errors about 50-100.000, PIF max around 2-10 and total PIF about a couple hundreds (I think). Quality score around 96-97.
Now with my 111L, the PIF is absolutely ridiculous. I know Pio 111 is not a reliable scanner, but I also notice from other people that the PIF report in Pio 111 is actually quite comparable to BenQ drive. Just take a look my graph below. I don’t know how to interpret this.

Graph 1 : Disc Quality —> a total wreck !!!
Graph 2 : Transfer rate —> actually quite good. Is this a proof that the disc quality scanning is totally unreliable ?
Graph 3 : ScanDisk Read Test —> perfect 100%
Graph 4 : ScanDisk PI/PO Test —> problematic

Graph 5 : Now this is another disc which is also a total wreck. Please note that it only scans upto 97% because I realize there is some noticeable dye problem at the end of the disc. But my point is, the Read Test & PI/PO scanning of this disc tells a different story.
While ScanDisk Read Test is 100% perfect upto 97%. Scandisk PI/PO Test shows a total wreck upto the same point (97%).

Can someone help me interpret the results ? Is it possible that transfer rate and read test fail to show these huge problem ???

Frankly I’m tempted to buy another BenQ 1650/1655 just for my peace of mind. Giving up my old 1620 is a big mistake.






I did a comparison scan earlier today between my 111L & Benq 1650. The PIEs were much higher but the PIFs were similar. That was on a good burn on MCC004 media done on the Pio.

Clearly something wrong with your burns.

Burn @X12 with the 111. Due to the writing strategies, difference in burning times will be merely a few seconds between X12 and X16, and at X12 quality will improve.

Anyway, the 111L produce good burns and overspeeds DL media very well to X8 with very nice resulting scans.

First burn at X16, second at X12



Sad, but I agree wholeheartedly. I’ve bought three DVR-111s, and only two are keepers–the third is the most finicky, stubborn, quirky, ill-tempered and all-around mediocre burner I’ve ever owned.

[on_topic:] Those scans look plain horrid. They look so bad that I don’t think I believe them. If I had your Pio, I would give it a known-good 80-conductor data cable and jumper it as master (no slave present). Check out the burst rate, uninstall any Nvidia storage drivers, etc. Try burning a DVD from a batch you started with the DW-1620 and are familiar with, and scanning it on the BenQ to see if the results are comparable to what you experienced in the past.

If you cannot get to the bottom of it relatively quickly, return the drive for a replacement or exchange it for a different make/model. It isn’t worth your time.

As a personal note, I find that all my BenQs (1620s, 1640 and 1650s) outperform my 111s in the following areas: scanning, digital audio extraction, DVD ripping, CD-R burning, general hardware compatibility, and overburning. The only thing the Pios do better is produce high quality burns on decent +R and +R DL media (at least as reported by Nero CD/DVD Scan). Still, that’s enough to keep a Pio in my machine while the BenQs are gathering dust in the closet. Of course, YMMV. :slight_smile:

Update:

It looks like my Pio is quite fussy with media. The last 2 Verbatim I burnt yesterday only scored around 90-94 with PIF max around 15.
And I tried another Ritek just now. It’s Ritek Excellence DVD-R 8x burnt at 8x. I thought I would get another nightmare just like my Ritek Excellence DVD+R 16x burnt at 8x (graph above) , but to my surprise the result is the best burn I have never imagined. Look at the graph below. In disbelief, I burnt another disc just to make sure, the result is also another perfect burn. So far, this is the best media I have ever used for my Pio. I think I will stick with this media. For the first time I feel a little relieved.



only if you know how long they would last, pp had bad experience with that media

@Serville

Those Ritek G05s , whilst they burn OK , are prone to early failure. Rescanning mine after only a few months showed severe deterioration with very high PIEs. Total failure is likely to occur within a few months after that so I’ve been forced to reburn all of my G05s to quality media.

BTW the PIEs on yours are far higher than I’d accept on a new burn.

Too late. I’ve bought a 50-pack, but fortunately I was fully aware about its questionable durability when I almost bought a 100-pack. In my doubt, I chose to be wiser and choose Verbatim DVD-R (MCC04) for the other 50-pack, even when it didn’t fare as well as those Ritek G05 in my test. I guess I will use Ritek G05 for misc stuffs then. Meanwhile, I’m waiting for LiteOn 1800. I’m not too happy with my Pioneer performance. Too bad I gave up my trusty BenQ 1620 to my niece. It burns almost any media fine…much less fussy like my new Pioneer. I hope LiteOn 1800 will be better and start selling next month.

In my opinion pioneer drives tend to be better at burning -r media rather than +r which would explain why your getting good results with g05 discs after burn.
The 111 is a good DL +r burner though.

It’s funny though. I bought several cheap DVD-R/+R from various brands just to see what they look like, and I think you’re right that my Pio seems to like -R better than +R. Even with these cheap medias, on average -R burns better than +R. This is strange for me though, as I read many people say their Pio likes +R better.

Pioneer burns verbatim dvd+r (MCC 004) good
verbatim 16x dvd-r is mostly mcc03rg20

my pio is on a 40-pin cable

my scans of MCC004:
1st is made in india
2nd is made in taiwan



Your problem is the choice of media. Ritek is to be avoided and MCC 03RG20 is mediocre on all my burners other than the LG 4167 at 8X. Change to +R and try MCC 004 and TY 8X.

I assume you initial referrence to MCC 003 was in error.