QScan gives inconsistent results



I just received my 1620 yesterday. I have been playing around with BenQ’s new QScan tool and have been getting inconsistent results. For example, the “Smart Scan” test will tell me that a disk is unsuitable for use at a certain speed, however when I do a “Normal” QScan on the same disk, it tells me that the disk is suitable for use at that speed.

I am guessing that this is because the Smart Scan only looks at one certain point on the outer track, while Normal Scan tests the whole disk? I would tend to trust the Normal Scan results more because it evaluates more areas of the disk. What do you guys think?

Has anyone used this tool long enough to determine that when Smart Scan says that a disk is NG but Normal Scan says it is OK… should I believe the Normal Scan result and burn the disk at the higher speed?

BTW, This is a fantastic tool. BenQ has really come up with a good idea here. It works pretty well for a first release, and I am sure that BenQ will improve it.


Yes, we are all having the same results. Smart Scan needs some fixing. I use Normal only.


Same results here on my TY 02’s, but they all burn at 16x just fine.

On my verbatim 16x I have scanned about 15 of them and they all say they are ok for 16x.

Anyway a great and welcome tool that should improve with age.


Are you saying that Smart Scan says “Not Recommended” at 16X on your Ty 02’s, where Normal Scan says OK for 16X? Or?
Or are you just going ahead and burning your Ty 02"s at 16X no matter what the scan?
What kind of Disc Quality scores are you getting in Nero CDSpeed?
My (Fugi) Ty 02’s are all over the place in Normal Scan.
I burn mine at QScan’s “Normal” suggested speed and usually get 92+ scores. With one 16X burn, I got a 74 disc quality score, but the disc plays fine.


Sorry, hope I didn’t confuse anyone.

I usually do a normal scan and have had them fail 16x.

Then I have burned them at 16x no problem, My lowest quality score on a TY02 was “92”
and my highest burn time was 6 mins 6 sec.
Last few burns were 5:57 and 5:55


Is the Q-scan graph always under the 350 mark when you scan at 16x?
At what speed does it go always under that amount?


After using QScan a bit more, I think that can can answer some of my own questions from the first post.

I think that the reason the tests give inconsistent results is that they are all done on different areas of the disk. Smart Scan only looks at one certain point on the outer track. Quick Scan only tests a few tracks near the outer edge, but in a different place on the disk than Smart Scan. Normal Scan tests the whole disk. When you have disks that have a lot of variation (like the el-chepo CMC MAGs) it is easy to see why the different tests report different results. I think all of the tests are reporting correct results, they are just testing different parts of the disk.

I have noticed that the Teons that I bought from Staples (CMC MAG) show a lot of variation, especially at the rated speed of 8X. Even the disks that pass the Normal test show a lot of sharp peaks and valleys in the TE and FE curves (lowering the speed to 4X helps out a lot). These disks show different results for the different QScan tests.

However, the Fuji disks (YUDEN000 T02) that I got at BJs show nice smooth curves on the graph (much better quality and consistency in manufacture). These disk tend to show closer results for the QScan tests (because the results are almost the same in all areas of the disk).