% of 99's on a 1640

I was just wondering: With the right media, how often should you expect a score of 99?

I have gone through about 15 TY02s without a score > 96. I have tried all the combinations - WPOC On/Off, SB on/off, and even T03 strategy via MCSE.

So sad. I long for that 99. :sad:

Thanks for your input.

  • Bill

I suppose if you had a really great batch of discs you could potentially get ‘99 scores’ with most of your burns, but don’t get obsessed over not getting perfection in your scans. There are all kinds of variables that can come into play - every burner is going to burn slightly differently, every burner will scan slightly differently, every disc/batch of discs will burn differently, some peoples’ computers can effect the burns (CPU usage, excessive heat inside the tower, etc.), etc., etc.

As long as your overall scans are fairly low in PIF errors and can be read fine, I wouldn’t worry about it. It’s entirely possible that you have a batch of TY discs that are not quite as great as others, but if you are getting scores in the 90’s then I’m sure they’re fine discs. My first and only TY burn so far on my Benq 1640, Fuji TY T02 8x with WOPC on, scanned as a ‘99’ with 48 PIFs. Scanned it 5 minutes later and it gets a ‘98’ with 52 PIFs. On my other burners I’ve gotten a couple burns better than that, but most of my TY discs get 200-1000 PIFs with scores in the mid 90s. It makes no difference if I get a burn with 50 PIFs or 500 PIFs (unless almost all 500 PIFs are in one spike on the disc). Both discs will perform exactly the same, don’t get too caught up in perfection.

QS depends on many things:
-quality of media
-quality of writer
-quality of READER! this is just as important as the first two!

Remember, your burns could easily be 99s, but just the reading ability of ur burner could be @ fault. I had a 1620 like that, I thought it was a shitty burner until I tried its burns in a confirmed excellent reader…

So, all of the last 50 YUDENT002 I’ve done have been either 98 or 99, with >40% scanning a 99. Same with TYG02. Test ur burns on another reader and see if the 1640 is a reliable scanner.
If you really want to get the most from ur DW1640, eliminate all sources of EMI inside the computer; route cables properly, use a spacious case, enable downspread freq modulation on SATA drives & CPU, etc
It all adds up.

Thank you both for your input. I have been getting 97’s on my RICOHJPN01 and MMC03s but reading (here) that TY02’s are the best +R, I ordered a stack from Rima in hopes of getting that perfect score.

I’ll play a bit more and see what I can come up with.

Thanks again!

  • Bill

It really is burner dependant. My first DW1640 was consisntently getting 97s with Fuji Film 8x YUDENT02’s, my replacement DW1640 is so far consistently producing 99s with the exact same batch of media. So there clearly is variability in burners, even though it’s the same model.

I can confirm this.
I sent back a 1640 (July 2005, Malaysia) because of inexplicably bad burning results w/ TYG02 media, first burn w/ the replacement drive (August 2005, Malaysia) was a 99, same media!
The question is whether a “problem” drive is not up to par as a reader OR as a writer OR both.
But, let’s face it, we all want a drive that writes AND reads well, as a good drive should! :wink:

Yes, I agree as well – you should be getting 99% with TYG02. If you aren’t then I’d consider sending the drive back for a replacement. My 4th BenQ 1640 is finally burning 99% Yuden T02 with the Philips firmware at 12x. :slight_smile:

@bill - I’ve had 98 with RicohJPNR01 and 99 with MCC 003.

Agree with above. There are a lot of variables. Best you can do is to eliminate all the potential issues as listed above. Don’t forget to defrag your drive and not to multitask while burning to give yourself the best opportunity to score high.

I’ve had two 99% Quality scores, and these were with Taiyo Yuden T02’s burned at 8X and 12X, though the data burned was only 3819 MB and 2773 MB respectfully, so who knows what a full burn would have brought. One was with stock BSLB and QSuite settings and one was with MSCE modified BSLB T02 -> T03 write strategy all else default setting. All it takes to get the 99% is to keep your PIF’s at 3 max and under. You can have a couple hundred PIF’s and still score that 99%.

The majority of my Quality Scans are 98%. I’m pretty darned happy, though I’d still like to get a 100% one day!

I had a dream last night, that I got a 99 QS! :o

My 1640 consistently gives me a small peak before and after the 1GB mark! Regardless of the media! With T02 I get incredible burns, but never makes it to 99 because of that.

I have 3 1640s they all read different but burn very well. ON some media PIE is 75% different on the same disc. PIF and jitter 18% on the same disc.

i think demanding 99% is over the top as i dont think that a disc with 99% is necessarely always better that a disc with a score of 97% as you all know it only takes the max pif which could just be caused by the reader.

I for one have noticed on my 1620 that pif spikes aways ocure in simular positions on different media burnt with different drives these do not bother me.

I judge the quality of my discs not just on the max PIF i take by observing the PIE,PIF, and jitter statistics one can draw a better picture of the quality of the disc burnt.

Now regarding RMA’ing a drive because your not getting 99% in Nero cd speed this to me is outrageous and completely Unfair on BENQ.

BENQ make and sell dvd writters that are as cheap as any other drive out there yet the features and funtionality of there products are unparalleled for the price.
Now people RMA drives because OF MAX PIF only.
Which bassically means that theoretically there are people out there that could have a disc with a total of 5 pif’s in one spike and thus rma the drive because nero cd speed disc qulaity % fails to recognise all the factors that make a good burn.

People believe that ty media is so perfect that if your not getting 100% quality scans then there is something wrong with the drive.

The fact is I have offcial ty t02 +r media and some batches of it gets many more pif spikes than cheap non verbatim mccoo3 discs when burnt @8x.

What i am saying is that perhaps the batch of ty media you got is not perfect but still amazingly good enough to last for the next 20 years or so.

Very well said Chilledoutuk.

Personally I really wouldn’t worry about achieving a 99% quality score. Anything in the 90s is good and as long as the transfer rate curve is good, the burn is good. Getting too obsessive over a “perfect” quality score is not very realistic given the huge variability when it comes to burning DVDs.

It’s probably a moot point anyway because I doubt BenQ would RMA a drive that burned 96% instead of 99% - they would not even replace mine that is stuck at 4x (not “defective” enough).

I gave up and bought a new one that worked. :slight_smile:

I always suggest buying from a vendor that will let you return and not make you go to BenQ directly.

A lot of people scan discs straght after they have been burnt without any verification or speed curves (ie the scan is the first read after the burn).

In my experience the the first read of a burnt disc is always a bit better quality and then it seems the effect of the reading laser on the first read reduces quality slightly (were talking minute here but enought to drop a scan from 99to 98%) to a more stable more representive level for the quality of the disc.

I would much rather a burn with a quality score of 97% with average jitter of say 7% than a burn with 99% and jitter say 8%

The dw1640 and solidburn seems to outperform all my other drives when it comes to jitter by close to 1% which to me is impressive.

Just so it’s clear, I wasn’t saying one should RMA their drive because it’s not producing 99 QS scans. I actually RMA’d as my drive would produce horrific results with TYG03 media (ie: PIF’s in the 1000’s :sad:) I’ve actually yet to try 16x w/my TYG03’s, but it has burned other -R media at 16x with good results.

The problem with “Quality Scores” as they relate to the BenQ 1640 is the heavy weighting on the score by PIF spikes. In a drive like the 1640 which is only capable of Sum-8 PIF scanning, if you have 5 consecutive ECC blocks with 2 PIFs per block, it might show as a “spike” of 10 PIF, and CDSpeed will reduce the “quality” score accordingly. Yet, the software will give a better score to a disc that has a PIF spike of 8 PIF, even if all PIFs are contained in a single ECC block.

In that case, the so-called Quality Score is not only wrong, but misleading. 8 PIF in a single ECC block is out-of-spec for recordable DVDs and, therefore, technically a coaster. Until BenQ allows for Sum-1 PIF scanning in their drives, these quality scores are contrived and artificial.

ftp1020 thats a really good point and i think i will scan more with plextools and my plextor 716a with sum 1 from now on as like you said it quite simply is more acurate and very much more relevent.

Yup … 8ECC for PIF is quite useless when you get over a PIF maximum of 4 …

I am really amazed by the low disc jitter that is produced by the 1640 with SB enabled … from my point of view, jitter is one of the most important parameters when it comes to writing quality … and it is one of the most underestimated as well.

For me, low jitter (preferably < 9%) is as important as low PIF …

No, no… PXScan/PXView! Not Plextools!!! :disagree: Plextor is a greedy, greedy company that sometimes produces great burners. Besides, PXScan’s resolution allows for more accurate graphs.


Despite what I said about QS, I really like my 1640 and I really like using CDSpeed (which I can’t use with my Plextor because of Plextor Inc’s greed) for fast and reasonably accurate scans.

I used to think that PIEs were the be-all and end-all, but thanks to CDFreaks, I now know better. On DVD-VIDEO, PIF and Jitter are the real players. Still haven’t quite figured out how beta comes into it, though… :stuck_out_tongue: