New Firmware BenQ DW1655 BCHB support and discussion thread

vbimport

#1

BenQ DW1655 BCHB: http://support.benq.com/files/storage/Firmware/DVDRW/DW1655/BCHB.zip

Release Reason (5/2/2006):

  • Update Writing Strategy

#2

Hehe I didn’t even get a chance to fill up my learned media from the last update. Thanks BenQ.


#3

MKM 001 is still at 2.4x only.

Is BenQ being

[B]1[/B] oblivious,
or
[B]2[/B] bullheaded?

Place your bets, please.


#4

Is that with OS enabled? They’re not going to overclock any media without OS turned on, are they?


#5

Yes, OverSpeed does not affect DL media.


#6

Thanks zevia. I didn’t realise that. :slight_smile:


#7

With or without OverSpeed.

I can imagine the absence of OverSpeed implementation for DL media [together with MKM 003 and RITEK D03 availability] as the internally accepted excuse at BenQ. Technically, they have delivered on the promise of 8x DL burning, just not for 95% of the DL media out there.

From a user’s point of view, it’s a giant, inexplicable step back from DW1640.

Especially ugly since we know DW1655 can do it.


#8

I take it you swapped write strategies with MKM003? Excellent result, no less.


#9

Yes, thanks to ala42 and MCSE!

I’ve since moderated my stance and now stick to 4x burning of MKM 001, but with a good pack 8x is no sweat for DW1655.


#10

Thanks zevia for the update I was wondering is MCSE! being updated to include support for this new version of BenQ 1655 firmware?.


#11

agent I just notice your last post talking about MCSE! is it already include the new BCHB version?.

Edit: Obviously not because the last response on MCSE! thread is belong to one week ago.


#12

since you have various burners, i am wondering what you are using for dl medias.

from my limited experience with 1655 (still owns it), dl burning was not its best ability; my old 716a did better & for ritek d01, old nec 3500a did even far better job. i think single layer is what 1655/1650’s strength not rw or dl burings…at least from my experience.


#13

I believe ala42 likes to work on MCSE on weekends, but given that this release happened on Monday, I’m sure he’ll be inundated with requests and release an update sooner. :slight_smile:


#14

That would be great since one the best advantage of having MCSE! embadded in BCHB is to increase the reading speed (15.5X).


#15

I stick with MKM 001s, mostly because they are easy to find for about $2 a disc and the rest of DL media is either less available or simply not worth buying at their current prices.

I did look at how different burners perform with DL media from the same 10- and 20-packs and there aren’t many differences. Pioneer 109/110, Plextor 716, LG 4163, BenQ 1640/1655, Sony 820A, and Lite-On 165P6S all do about equally well at 4x, 6x, and sometimes 8x, depending on the pack. There is quite a bit of quality variation between individual packs of MKM 001 obtained from different sources.

DW1655 doesn’t strike me as inferior to any other drive I have in DL burning.


#16

agent what is your experieces with burning DL with 1655 do you get any coaster regardless of media brand?.


#17

No coasters.

Some ugly scans from RITEK D01s, but very nicely readable at full speed, as shown here: http://club.cdfreaks.com/showpost.php?p=1259564&postcount=38

It’s a paradox. A horrible scan with PIFs reaching 40s, yet displaying a full-speed transfer curve. Makes me mistrust DW1655’s scanning capability.


#18

The high reported errors could be influenced some by the jitter level (12%+ jitter and Benqs report abnormally high errors). In a drive more tolerant of high jitter such as a Liteon, you would probably not have seen errors that high. Under ‘normal’ jitter levels, Benqs make fine testing drives, over 12% jitter and reported error levels are not trustworthy.


#19

Thanks agent I am also prefer to use NEC 4551 or better BenQ 1640 for DL job even though I have not had reasonable experiences with using 1655 for DL burning.


#20

The 12% rule doesn’t always apply. Besides, I can’t say that I trust jitter measurement any more than PIF counting.

Here’s a disc with average jitter of 13.2%, reaching 16.5%, yet reasonable PIF counts, to illustrate my point.