New 1640 and TYG02

I’ve just retired my old 1620 and replaced it with a 1640, far from seeing an improvement in my burns, they actually seem to have got worse.

Burning TYG02 at 8X on my 1620 (B7V9), I would typically see PIE ave 1.93, max 9 and PIF 0.05 ave, max 6, jitter 8.0 ave, 9.0 max.

Burning the same batch of media on my 1640 (BSLB) at 8X I get PIE 21.4 ave, 52 max and PIF 0.02 ave, 5 max, jitter 8.21 ave, 9.4 max.
This is with solidburn on for known and wopc on, which gave the “best” results.

Both scans give a quality score of 97, but I’m not happy with this huge increase in PIE. Unfortunately I invested in a couple of hundred of the TYG02’s as they burned so well in the 1620, so I would be grateful for any advice that might help me improve these PIE scores (apart from simply chucking the 1640 and going back to the 1620!).

Lots of people have seen different results with TYG02 and TYG03. My experience with the BenQ’s is that it’s not so much the writing part but the reading ability of the different drives when it comes to -R media, for reasons beyond me +R seems to scan the same in all my drives, I’ve had two 1620’s and two 1640’s, all of them would write TYG02 very well but would have huge differences when the same disc was scanned on a different BenQ drive. Maybe try scanning that same disc on your 1620 or a Lite On just to compare and see if it is the reading part of the drive. If it is you are not alone. This is just my opinion btw.

Hm…all I can say is that it did seem the BenQ1620 did much better with many more media types, especially with overspeeding y000t02 and tyg02 and still getting great results. BSLB is (for some at least) the most stable of the current 1640 f/w’s. Perhaps you could check the dye sides for specs of dust or other particles, then if there’s any, blow off the dye side with canned air or an anti-static feather duster (but I don’t know where you could find that). At least for some burns, that can be a factor. Something else to try, anyway. :iagree:

What is the branded ty media?

Don’t know where you live, but here in Europe we can get Verbatim (pastell) and Plextor TYG02’s.

Here is what I meant in post #2
Unbranded TYG02 (123) burned @12x with 1640 BSLB and scanned in both the 1640 and 1620. Which is burner/scanner is right?

Is it me or people are getting slightly obsessive with their scores/scan? I know it’s but as long as it plays everywhere you need them, what’s the problem? Almost all players can deal with ~300PIE/30PIF average, and while I admit it’s not acceptable, complaining because score is only 97 when I never got that (I’d need to buy TYs for twice the price of Memorex/Maxell) is :eek: to me :wink:

Slightly obsessive? I buy a supposedly superior burner that seems to give PIE errors ten times worse than the model it replaced on exactly the same batch of top-grade media, why shouldn’t I be just a bit peeved about that?
On the face of it, I have just spent money on something that gives inferior results to the equipment I already had.

Many of us here try to get the best burns we can, although you can present various practical reasons such as long term disk longevity, the satifaction of knowing you’ve got it right is also a big factor.

I remember my first clueless burns on Bulkpaq orange, and being mystified and frustrated when they stuttered and skipped on my stand alone. I’m afraid my days of being satisfied with crappy burns as long as they play on my standalone are long gone.

Kentucky, Only Verbatims we get here are MCC’s on SL’s.

Mmmmhhh. You compare 1620 scans and 1640 scans if I get it right.

Noticed Crossg example above? Get my point?

You could re-scan one of your 1620 TYG02 burns in your 1640, to rule out a scanning discrepancy between the two drives…:wink: - I remember that my 1620 was a far too optimistic scannerw with some MIDs.

Rest assured, it’s not only you :wink:

But here Merovingian has a point when saying he buys a new, supposedly better drive, so he expects at least the same performance. :slight_smile:

You could re-scan one of your 1620 TYG02 burns in your 1640, to rule out a scanning discrepancy between the two drives

Yes, I did absorb nytral’s point, and have a retro-scanning session planned for tonight, this pesky working for a living really gets in the way of my DVD scanning obsession :slight_smile:

I suppose for completeness I should scan burns from each drive on the other to see if the difference (if any), is consistent.

It was Crossg’s, not nytral’s :wink:

this pesky working for a living really gets in the way of my DVD scanning obsession :slight_smile:
LOL :bigsmile:

Oops! sorry about the wrong quote attribution!

Tested some 1620 burned TYG02’s in the 1640 last night and the results follow Crossg’s experience, much lower PIE on 1620 for the same disk. It seems that in reality my new 1640 is burning about as well as the 1620 did, so at least I don’t feel as though I’ve wasted my cash now :slight_smile:

I realise that domestic burners are hardly calibrated scientific instruments, but I wonder just how much variation there is between drives for error reporting? Given the 1620/1640 difference (at least with -R), I wonder what the drive to drive variation in the same model is?

Crossg, I notice you say that you had two 1640s and two 1620s did you ever compare scans of the same disk from both of your 1640s?

For awhile I had two 1640s, an OEM and a retail, manufactured about 4 months apart.

The OEM one consistantly reported 0.5% higher jitter than the retail. My OEM also burns my TDK TTH02 with two huge PIF spikes in the same place every time that the retail never did. I tested about 10 discs from the same spindle and they all produced the same result: the OEM burned two big PIF spikes that retail didn’t.Too bad I sold the retail… :sad:

So yes, in my experience BenQ drives to vary quite a bit.

You should feel pretty lucky after seeing my scan…

The weird thing is the sharp fall of PIE at exactly 1GB. All discs I burnt recently are like this. I wonder if it’s writing or reading problem?

This variation makes me think of all of those lucky guys getting 99% quality burns in the “hall of fame” threads, are their burns really that good, or do they just have 1640’s that are particularly optimistic error readers?

HUGE (I mean with different brands/models). That’s a mess actually. Welcome to the real-world of scanning madness :bigsmile:

There is no such thing, and this is linked to the fact all drives report differently: PIE/PIF errors are not on the disc per se, they are READING errors. A combination of the disc quality and the reading quality. So better readers generate less of these errors during reading. So better readers give better quality scans…

If I scan a -R in my 1640 say 5 times, the pie reported can (not always) vary from 10K min to 30K++ max. Pifs only vary a tiny bit though. +R shows much more consistency.