Please Post your NEC 4550A Scans

Burned at 16X
Scanned at 5X
6:01 Secs.

Overall, i’d consider that a good burn. Given the 4550’s problems with PI/PIF scanning. Although i’d also say that usually the drive scans PIF quite well, and usually only has problems with PI reporting.

Now I am getting a read on these burns, with your input I feel better about this drive. The movies all play great, no pixelation or skipping (60" Sony HD ) and the fact that it was a 16x burn gives me some hope of the burns getting better slowing the speed. I have found that 5ECC is the best scanning speed for this drive.

Here’s one!


@jake8131: the above is a great burn for the 4550A, one of the best I have seen, I am going to burn a Yuden000-T02-000 now I will post results after the scan, for most of my burns I have been using Verbatim MCC003, MCC004 MIT at 16X. I will slow this one down to 12X and scan at 5x.

Is it just me, or it seems that this drive performs particularly strange when scanning at 5x?

The drive seems to behave better when scanning at 1x (ok this makes some sense) or 8x as a matter of fact (now this is weird) than when scanning at 5x?! :confused:
This looks almost like the drive reads better at 8x than at 5x??! :confused:

Has anyone else noticed this, or this is just a coincidence … or maybe it is just my unit??

I would really like to see scans that were burned with the Nec 4550 and scanned with the same drive. I already know that the 4550 is an erratic scanner but I am looking for a scan setting that will be efffective.

My 3550A, which I guess is very similar to the 4550, also scans a bit weirdly at times.
As mentioned, PIFs are fairly consistant, PIs fluctuate a bit more. I’d have to say they don’t seem random though.

I just got the drive, so I haven’t been able to do any thorough testing.
But I burned this Maxell DVD+RW 1-4x (Philips 041 media) @4x, and I reckon it came out OK.

As the results show (attachments), 5x gives lowest PI for me, while Max (slightly over 12x in this case) gives lower PIFs.
8x is worse than both 5x and 12x.
In general the drive seems to read better at high speeds, except when it comes to PIs at the end of disks.

This is 4x +RW though, might be different for other speeds or media types.
I will test more next week when I can get some good media.
It is ridiculously expensive to buy blank DVDs in Sweden. But, that’s another story.

I’ve burned 6 of these DVD+RWs, several times, and I’ve found that I might as well use Max when testing.
Sure, it will give higher PIE at the end, but, it seems to be about as consistant as 5x. 8x seems worse.
5 looks best in my pictures though :slight_smile: (Even if Max arguably gives best numbers)
But yeah, would be nice to have a “standardized speed” to post results in.

My new 4551, which is identical to the 4550 except for LabelFlash, seems to show a similar quirk - except that it scans some media (YUDEN000 T03) worse at 8x than at any other speed. I’m scanning and scanning while scratching my head, comparing with scans performed on a Plextor drive and also some scans from a BenQ 1620 in order to determine which speed is more “accurate”.

Right now it seems that 1x and 12x are the most dependable, with 5x in third place and a toss-up between 8x and 16x for the most strange scans. 1x is of course too slow for everyday scans, but it helps to form a baseline for the drive’s scanning ability.

This is very similar to my experience. I only got the drive yesterday, but I’ve been scanning like a mad-man to get a feel for this drive’s behaviour.

I have been considering creating a separate thread for discussing only the scanning behaviour of the 455x (and 355x?) series drive, but I want to perform more scans before starting such a thread and thereby embarassing myself with some controversial and unpopular opinions. :slight_smile:

Do it. I think its a great idea, we have to get a consistant scanning interval for this drive so we can compare burns to a degree.

I’ve tried everything here. All speeds, 8ECC, 1ECC…

PIE were always reported in an inconsistent fashion, i.e. very different for each pass with the same disc.

I’ve given up since long. :rolleyes:

This said, if you want to open a thread about it, DrageMester, I’ll glady participate. I kept all these test scans I’ve done when testing the drive.

OK. I’m in the same boat. BUT HOW DO YOU GUYS GET SUCH LOW PIE? Mine are always around a million.

I threw my 3550a into my external enclosure cuz i’m using a laptop
Because of this setup, I can only burn at 4x max speed, which takes 13 minutes to burn. Even if i bump it to 6x burn speed, it still takes 13 minutes to burn. So clearly the usb is the bottleneck.

Anyway, when scanning an MCC dvd burned in the nec, 5x gives awful scans- PIE/F’s off the charts. 8x gives much better scans. Both scans are done at 1ECC.

See what I mean below… both scans are of the same disc.
Which scan should I trust? It seems 5x scan speed has more jitter or something?
Also, unlike everyone else’s, why do my PIE’s start out high and decrease as read speed increases? Does it have something to do with burning at 4x speed?

I´m using a NEC 4551 and i get the most reliable Scans at 16x scanspeed.

Here a comparison between the LiteOn Scan and the NEC 4551 Scan

Datawrite Grey
ProdiscF01 Dye
Burnt @ 8X
Scanned @ 5X

This is my first ever burn with this drive after a lot of problems with my previous writer so I’m quite pleased (I think). :smiley:

I think my 4550 does not like the MCC 02RG20 - I will replace it immediately as I have about 500 DVD-R MCC 02RG20 and it will be cheaper to replace the drive instead the Media! b.t.w. they work fine on my old LG-4160B

Those are really horrid scans, do the discs play? I have to think that the scanner is not picking up all those inaccurate results, did you check the dye side of the discs for spotting or scratches? The only other thing I can think of is a confict with Nero. Did you try scanning those discs on another burner?

alan i could be wrong but look at the label. They look like create discs. I doubt they play.

see my scans above 5 posts…

i think my 3550a doesn’t like the MCC 02rg20 either… :frowning: :frowning: