OEM Benq 1650 vs. latest Lite-Ons

Okay, I am really in a quandry here. I am looking for a drive that is a fast ripper and a great/reliable scanner. I really could care less about burning as I have another drive dedicated for that. I have heard great things about both options. Anyone able to shed some more light on the subject and help me narrow it down or can they list advantages and disadvantages of each drive. Both are very well priced at newegg.

BenQ 1650/1655 is the faster ripper for dual/double layer discs compare to the 6S Lite-On.

But they both are great burners so just pick one, or both. :slight_smile:

What is your other burner anyway?

In my opinion the BenQ DW16xx drives are not reliable scanners if you use them for scanning DVDs burned on certain other burners, such as e.g. LiteOn, LG, NEC and Plextor drives. If you’re going to use your new drive for that purpose, I suggest you get one of the LiteOn 6S series drives instead, because they don’t care which drive was used for burning a disc.

If your new drive is only going to scan discs burned by the same drive, a BenQ DW1655/1650/1640 drive will work just fine, but it’s still a close race bbetween the BenQ and LiteOn 6S series drive if you consider all aspects of the drive.

[B]Major advantages/disadvantages[/B]

BenQ:

  • Great burn quality with DVD media
  • Very good burn quality with CD media
    = Consistent scanner of DVD media burned in similar BenQ drives
  • Unreliable for scanning DVDs burned on certain other drives
    = OK for scanning CD media
  • Read problems with DVD media burned in some drives

LiteOn:

  • Great burn quality with DVD media
  • OK burn quality with CD media
  • Consistent scanner of DVD media regardless of burning drive
  • Useless for scanning CD media
  • Some models can read and write DVD-RAM

Nice comparison, DrageMester!

I observed that 8x Plextor and LG (and maybe in NEC and LiteOn) burns are consistent with Plextools/KProbe, so your statement would be better if you add something like “especially with high speed burning”. :wink:

I have a Pioneer 111D on the way. I’ve always had great luck with Pioneer burners. Even my current 109 (which is considered by many to be a questionable burner) has been a champ ever since I got it.

I realize I will probably get pounded for this but here goes…

Yesterday I had occasion to do a 12x test burn of some MAXELL 003 in my Lite-On SHM-165H6S drive. I did a CD-DVD Speed Disc Quality Scan after the burn in the 165H6S @ 8x CAV which is considered a “reliable” speed for scanning. I was pleasently surprised by what the results showed.
Out of curiosity I then did the Disc Quality Scan in my BenQ DW1655 at 8x CAV to see what the 1655 thought of the burn. WOW! Here is a prime example of what DrageMester is saying above and what others have complained of with the BenQ as a scanning drive.

Media: Maxell branded MAXELL 003
Burn speed: 12x
Scan speed: 8x CAV

Pic 1: SHM-165H6S
Pic 2: DW1655

The wrinkle to this story will be shown in my next post.



Thanks! :slight_smile:

I observed that 8x Plextor and LG (and maybe in NEC and LiteOn) burns are consistent with Plextools/KProbe, so your statement would be better if you add something like “especially with high speed burning”. :wink:
I didn’t want to write a long list of the kind of burns that are reliably scanned and the kinds that are unreliably scanned, because at this point in the process it’s merely confusing to go into too much detail IMO.
[B]Too much detail:[/B]

The BenQ 1655 is not reliable IMO for scanning burns at 12x or 16x in LiteOn 5S and 6S series drives, and usually it gives comparable results for 8x and slower burns, but not always.

Burns in the older Plextor PX-712 can be reliably scanned in the BenQ drives, but burns in the newer PX-755/760 are not scanned reliably in the BenQ drives from what I have seen (I don’t have these newer Plextor drives myself).

Burns in NEC drives at any speed (above 4x) can give strange results when scanned in BenQ drives, and the BenQ scan can disagree with other scanning drives about which Z-CLV zone has the lowest PIE/PIF.

There are also medium-to-low speed burns on my Matshita UJ-840S laptop drive, that are not scanned reliably on a BenQ DW1655 - the BenQ disagrees with all my other scanning drives about which Z-CLV zone has the lowest PIE.

This is not a comprehensive list of the scanning problems I have seen with BenQ drives, but it’ll have to do for now.

I don’t think that level of detail will help [B]Jesterrace[/B] at this point in the process, and that’s why I avoided it in the first place. :wink:

I have always wondered about the reasons why the BenQ would give these weird results
on burns done with other drives sometimes and not other times. The Lite-On never seemed to care about what drive was doing the burn and its reputation as a “fair” scanner was earned.
I had the thought that while we all do our scanning at either 4x, 5x, 8x, and even 12x depending on scanning drive, this has been born mostly from the need for speed. We just don’t have the time to do the scanning at 1x. However we all should realize that 1x is the specified scan speed we should be using in a perfect world.

Here is the wrinkle I mentioned in the earlier post.

I decided to redo these scans of the same disc in the same two drives mentioned previously and do them at 1x CLV in both drives for consistency.

Media: Maxell branded MAXELL 003
Burn speed: 12x
Scan speed: 1x CLV

Pic 1: SHM-165H6S
Pic 2: DW1655

I make no claims here, I am posting this because what I see speaks volumes.
I would like to see others do this same testing and let’s see what comes to light.



[B]pchilson[/B], thanks for sharing those results with us! :slight_smile:

It’s true that the ECMA standards specify a 1x scanning speed, but I don’t agree that this is necessarily the speed that should be used in a perfect world. The reason I don’t agree completely with this is, that modern 16x DVD burners are designed to read at medium-to-high speeds, and some of them read significantly worse at low speeds. I have found this to be true for my LiteOn drives (DVDs), my Plextor drive (CDs) and my BenQ drive (DVDs) - for some but not all discs; the slower reading speeds are not optimal.

That being said, the slow scan on the LiteOn drive shows that the BenQ drive isn’t just dreaming up the strange shape of the PIE/PIF scans - it is reacting to [I]something[/I] on the disc.

As I said above, I have some cases where the BenQ scan disagrees with all my other scanning drives about which Z-CLV zones have high/low PIE/PIF values, even for relatively slow burns on some drives and even for some burns with jitter far below 12%

So I still don’t consider the BenQ to be a reliable scanner for discs burned in certain other drives. This doesn’t mean that the BenQ scans are always wrong - it just means that I don’t trust them without a second opinion from another scanning drive.

The LiteOn drives being such good readers (but not at 1x) unfortunately means that some scans can look good on a LiteOn, but look mediocre on some other drives. For this reason I have started scanning my DVDs at both 8x and 12x on the LiteOns, because the 12x scan will usually show a problem for those discs that have mediocre or poor scans in other non-BenQ drives.

Somehow I feel that this discussion should have taken place in one of the previous threads in the Media Testing/Identifying Software forum, but these things happen!

If this scanning discussion should go any further, perhaps we should take it to the following thread in that forum:

Precision, accuracy, and reliability of disc quality (PI/PO/jitter) tests

Hehe. so who started it? :stuck_out_tongue:
I knew this will happen and I tried not to start it. Look at my post#2 which has no comment on scanning. :bigsmile:

Your findings are your findings and I would not dispute that with you. What I will do is show you what my SHOW-1693S says about this.
You can see that the 1693 also sees these “areas” but at the higher scan speed instead of the slower scan speed.

Again,
Media: Maxell branded MAXELL 003
Burn speed: 12x
Scan speed:

[ul]
[li]Pic 1: 4x CLV
[/li][li]Pic 2: 1x CLV
[/li][/ul]

And feel free to move these posts to a location of your choosing. If I post to the other thread without context it will be quite meaningless…



pchilson, thanks for sharing the scans!

The BenQ drive is pretty consistent when scanning at various speed (1x-8x) but I didn’t know that the Lite-On 6S is not when scanning at lowest speed. Did you try scaning at 2x on your 6S?

Although I have a 111 drive but I don’t burn much with that drive. However, my observation from the Pioneer 111 scan thread, it looks like BenQ 1640/50/55 works fine scanning media burn on the Pioneer. And as said, the BenQ is the faster ripper so there you go. :wink:

That is the “speaks volumes” I was refering to in my second post… :wink:

No I didn’t but I might to see what it shows…

While it’s been said a thousand times before, Benq drives overreport error levels with jitter levels over 12%. Below that point and the errors reported are at least as trustworthy as the next drive. pchilson, interesting comparisons, and as you can see in your Benq scans the ‘12% jitter rule’ is obviously in effect and skewed the reported error levels. Lower jitter and the errors would have been reported much lower.

These discussions always become a slippery slope because it then becomes a quesiton of accuracy of reported jitter, which drive is most ‘accurate’ in both jitter and error levels, etc. I’d certainly question the accuracy of 1x Liteon test, but who knows, it may be an indication of some underlying issue. And when Benqs report high error levels in conjunction with high jitter, the errors reported need to be taken with a large grain of salt or ignored completely. Fortunately jitter that high is a rarity when discs are tested in my Benqs, occasionally some of my Liteon and NEC burns have jitter levels approaching 12% but most are at least 1-2% below that point, and jitter levels have improved alot with more recent firmware releases for my Liteon 160P6S.

Here are my experiences:
I use my BenQ 1620/1650 as well as my LiteOn 1693 for scanning media written in my Plextor 755A.
Here my scans: http://club.cdfreaks.com/showthread.php?t=187098

As far as I can tell, you can trust the Benq for media with lower jitter. In this case the Benq and the Litey produce similar results.
But if I write the discs @12 or @16, which results in higher jitter, you should trust the scanning abilities of the LiteOn.

On the other side, lower PIE/PIF doesn’t mean a disc has better quality, as we all know.
The Benq reacts to high jitter. [B]Why shouldn’t your standalone DVD-Player too[/B]?
I see in my transfer rate tests, that my Aopen DVD-Rom does, it produces speed dips on burns with jitter above or around 12%.

Best wishes.

So it sounds like one of the late model Lite-On drives would be the better of the two drives for ripping and scanning. These discs will be burned with a Pioneer 111D with V1.23 Dangerous Brothers firmware, so I don’t know if the Benq 1650 would have issues with them. As far as ripping goes if it is comparable to my Asus E616A DVD-ROM then that is good enough for me. Anything faster is just a bonus IMHO. :wink:

Anything further to add to this? Anyone know if the Benq has issues with discs burned on a Pioneer 111?

I have both the Litey & BenQ as well as the ASUS - I’d take the Lite-On over the BenQ for ripping & scanning CDs, BUT it is also the slowest ripper of all my drives (running with stock f/w PSOA). The BenQ is a faster reader, but is more apt to have errors on problem CDs. Actually my Benq 1670 is right behind the ASUS for accuracy then the Lite-On.

As for DVDs, the only scratched DVD I have is a problem only for my standalone player. There the speed difference in ripping between the four drives isn’t as noticeable.

I’m not really concerned with CD scans since I only use CDs to backup music and take with me in my car. Occasionally I will use them for data but not very often. DVDs on the other hand I back up in very large numbers, so it would be nice to scan some of my older discs (particularly my Ritek G03/G04 discs burned 2-3 years ago) so I can have a heads up on what I will need to reburn in the near future.