Need help with BenQ 1650 firmware

Hello everyone!!!

I’ve been browsing the forum plus other sites as well for the past week and decided to hunt down the BenQ 1650. After an insane drive around So Cal I found me one and used the BQflasher to flash the Norwood Micro to a BenQ 1650. My problem is that I’ve a big batch of CMC MAG dvd+r (imation brand) and Sony D21 dvd+r (GQ) and can’t figure out which firmware to use. I’ve tried the BCIC firmware but kept getting 95% Quality scans and lower for the Sony D21 and BCIC just won’t burn the CMC MAGs. I then reverted back to BCDC and was getting 95-97 Quality scans for abit, but now it seemed to have leveled off at 96%. Also, BCDC won’t burn the CMC MAGs as well. I’ve been jumping back and forth between the BCDC and BCIC firmwares because they seem to be the most popular, however, I’m just not satisfied with the 95-97% quality scans after seeing people get 98+ quality scans (envious).

Can anyone please help me out with some “experienced” suggestions? My PIE averages around 12 for BCIC and 6 for BCDC, PIF averages 1, max 10 for BCIC and average .05, max 8 for BCDC. Jitters are around 12 on the BCDC and under 10 for the BCIC. I have SB on, WOPC On, and overspeed off. So far all my CMC MAGs have been coasters, but the GQs are running strong.

I know it really depends on the media, however, I got over 200+ sony d21s and 300+ CMC MAGs and really don’t want to dish out mula on new media until these are gone. Also, I’m a bit afraid of crossflashing it to a 1655, but if the BCIB firmware is really hotstuff, then I will do for the sake of the perfect burn.

Thanks for the help.

Welcome to the forum :slight_smile:

Numbers without actual scans don’t mean much (a couple of graphs would be far more useful) , and [B]the so-called quality scores mean exactly nothing most of the time.[/B] :wink: - you can just consider that anything over 90 should be good, and forget about about comparing 92 with 95 or 98 or whatever, this is just sport and[B] has nothing to do with actual quality in most instances[/B]. A single PIF spike can lower the quality score on a disc that would actually be considered as a better burn, when taking the whole picture into account, than another disc showing a higher QS.

Now to your f/w question:
If these CMC of yours are CMC MAG E01, the ONLY firmware that has correct strategy is BCDC, because all further f/w versions have a WOPC bug for CMC MAG E01, i.e. WOPC doesn’t kick in before 2.8GB, which is totally nuts for these discs. It can work OK with some discs, but the slightest variation of quality in the blanks will bring marginal or plain bad burns.

Personally I burn everything with BCDC because all other f/w versions had annoying quirks, BCHC being the worst. BCFC and BCIC can bring marginally better PIE figures with premium media like MCC004, but it’s purely cosmetic in my book. A good burn is a good burn, there’s no [I]real-world[/I] need whatsoever to over-analyse your scans for insignificant PIE variations.
And as noted above, these f/w have an improper writing strategy for CMC MAG E01.

I don’t have any experience with D21, sorry.

Thanks for the response Frank. I would post the scans however, I have well over 30+ scans for each firmware versions BCDC and BCIC and their RPC1 versions as well…that means approximately 100+ scans. And yes I keep the scans for comparisons. So giving out those numbers are basically the general sums of the firmware scans. What I noticed was that BCIC gives me 400 or less PIF total while BCDC gives me 700+ PIF totals. My questions is should I stick with BCDC RPC1 (What I have right now) or should I switch back to BCIC, BCIC RPC1 or another firmware? Using already mentioned media. Also, do anyone know how BCIB for 1655 compare to the firmwares for the 1650?. Thanks in advance.

P.s. Bought me a Pioneer dvr-111dbk to compare with the benq 1650. gonna see how it goes on the 50 or so test runs I’ll run it through.

Go with the firmware that yields the lowest number of PIF. BUT… Also do a read test using the benchmark feature in CD Speed, because a PIE/PIF scan does not actually test the readability of the data. If you see any large speed dips in the scan and it does not have smooth read curve, then you have a poor burn.

thanks Dalen, appreciate the input. What if there are small dips in the read speed every couple of gigs? Also, I do use the read test from nero, I do both read test and c1/c2-p1/po test. They check out fine for both BCDC and BCIC. I might go back to BCIC for less PIF, but BCDC gives me less PIE.

Ideally there should be no speed dips… first off, I’d suggest turning WOPC off before you do a read test as it seems to often change results with the 1650. I also find that true with quality tests.

Personally – just my opinion – I toss out any disc that has multiple speed dips if it contains something that I’m really interested in keeping. If it contains something that I’m just marginally interested in or uncertain about, I’ll keep the burn.

Here is a good read test… note the smooth as a baby’s behind read curve. :slight_smile:

with BCIC firmware, what PIF max do you usually get? and also, when benchmarking it, I usually don’t get a speed drop, I’m talking about the spikes when I do a quality check, its usually right at the .5 gig, 2g, and 4gig mark. let me get a quick scan so I can show you.

and here is the read test on that dvd

I don’t burn Sony D21 so it is hard to compare. I would normally consider a disc a “keeper” if the PIF is less than 1000 (or slightly over) and the read curve is clean.

The read curve there looks a bit dodgy to me, so I’d probably toss the disc and reburn if it were important material… again, just my opinion.

Sweet thanks for the input Dalen.