Samsung SH-S203D: Scans and discussion here

vbimport

#41

[Kinda OT][QUOTE=Albert;2059447]Actually, there are a few users that use their Samsungs exclusively for scanning[/QUOTE]Woa. :eek: As cd pirate put it last week, this scanning nonsense has reached whole new levels recently.

The Samsung 203B/N and 203D/P, being incredibly good readers, dramatically under-report PIE/PIF errors on marginal of bad burns. Not ‘under-reporting’ in the sense that the reports would be incorrect (which is about impossible to demonstrate), but in the sense that discs showing an excellent PIE/PIF scan in these drives can nevertheless be very poor discs, that other drives will have issues to read or even reject. And I have the scans and TRTs to prove it. :bigsmile:

Use these 203 models as testing drives at your own risks. Only sound testing use of these 203 Sammies is to compare burn A with burn B, both being made with the same media, or to check (with TRT) that the disc will be fully readable in the Sammy itself.

From what I’ve seen in the 223 thread, it behaves differently and could be an interesting scanner. Probably a lesser reader, then, we can’t have the best of both worlds… :bigsmile:

And about jitter: yes, jitter is very important, sometimes even more important than PIE/PIF values. The fact that many users are not interested in it, has more to do with history and habits (CDFreaks original home-scanning drives were Lite-On drives, and these couldn’t report jiter until recently) than with actual methodology. Maximum jitter should be 9% according to ECMA documents. Most CDFreak members are willing to accept higher jitter values, but will reject out-of-specs PIE or PIF, though it has never been shown that slightly out-of-specs PIE/PIF values would impact reading more than slightly out-of-specs jitter values. :disagree:

It’s all about assumptions and conformism. People like to stick with habits, whatever real-world and sound methods show…

There. That’ll do. I’ve ben a pain in the a** again. :wink:

[/OT]


#42

[quote=Francksoy;2072207]
The Samsung 203B/N and 203D/P, being incredibly good readers, dramatically under-report PIE/PIF errors on marginal of bad burns.[/quote]The scanning capabilities of Samsung drives are extremely variable. Perhaps depending on build date, place of manufacturing, phase of the moon etc.
My own 203B for example shows “worse” scans than my Benq 1650 or my Liteon 165P6S. See screenshots below

Use these 203 models as testing drives at your own risks. Only sound testing use of these 203 Sammies is to compare burn A with burn B, both being made with the same media, or to check (with TRT) that the disc will be fully readable in the Sammy itself.
Agreed. At least the scanning results should be compared with the scans obtained by other “known good” scanning drives.

Liteon scan here




#43

[QUOTE=mciahel;2072314]The scanning capabilities of Samsung drives are extremely variable. Perhaps depending on build date, place of manufacturing, phase of the moon etc.
My own 203B for example shows “worse” scans than my Benq 1650 or my Liteon 165P6S. See screenshots below[/QUOTE]Sorry for the long delay mciahel, but your input pushed me to perform additional cross-checks with my own units, and browse the 203B results thread again.

I think your 203B unit is a specially fussy scanner compared to the majority. Maybe there are other units like that out there. I haven’t studied the whole 203B results thread, but I haven’t seen indications that your case would be something frequent, on the contrary it seems like most 203B units are extremely tolerant…

Well the important thing, anyway, is that we agree about Sammies being questionable scanners as a “main” scanning unit. May I ask you, BTW, if your 203B unit is a consistent scanner? Both my own 203B units are, as is my 203P.


#44

Verbatim (MIJ) -R 16x @ 20x








#45

Philips -R 16x @ 16x







#46

Imation -R 16x @ 8x :Z






#47

Imation :Z -R 16x @ 16x :Z










#48

Verbatim -R (miJ) 16x@12x





#49

Phillips -R 16x @ 18x the funny thing is the booktype, both IMGBurn & nero cd/dvd speed show dvd-rom:eek:.


ATAPI DVD A  DH20A3P XV68 (ATA)
Current Profile: DVD-R

Disc Information:
Status: Complete
Erasable: No
Sessions: 1
Sectors: 2.279.938
Size: 4.669.313.024 bytes
Time: 506:41:13 (MM:SS:FF)

TOC Information:
Session 1... (LBA: 0)
-> Track 01  (Mode 1, LBA: 0 - 2279937)
-> LeadOut  (LBA: 2279938)

Track Information:
Session 1...
-> Track 01 (LTSA: 16580608, TS: 0, LRA: 0)

Pre-recorded Information:
Manufacturer ID: CMC MAG. AM3

Physical Format Information (Last Recorded):
Book Type: DVD-ROM
Part Version: 0
Disc Size: 120mm
Maximum Read Rate: 2.52Mbps
Number of Layers: 1
Track Path: Parallel Track Path (PTP)
Linear Density: 0.267 um/bit
Track Density: 0.74 um/track
First Physical Sector of Data Area: 0
Last Physical Sector of Data Area: 0
Last Physical Sector in Layer 0: 0











#50

Verbatim -R MIJ 16x @ 12x






#51

Verbatim -R MIJ 16x @ 16x






#52

TY +R 16x @ 16x






#53

Verbatim MIJ -R 16x @ 8x






#54

Verbatim MIJ -R 16x @ 12x






#55

Verbatim MIJ -R 16x @ 16x






#56

Verbatim MIJ -R 16x, i selected 18x but never went that high.






#57

TY +R 16x @ 8x
Very high jitter, i expecting better results.








#58

TY +R 16x @ 12x







#59

TY +R 16x@16x (went down to 4x:sad:)






#60

TY +R 16x@20x