Sony DRX-810UL (BenQ EW164B) - FW400 vs USB2.0, BEFB vs BEGB

vbimport

#1

[qanda]This thread is about the Sony DRX-810UL. Click here to see full specs[/qanda]Hi guys, just wanted to share some results on SL media (MIT-Prodisc MCC004) burned on a crossflashed Sony DRX-810UL that is now a BenQ EW164B using the two most popular/RPC1-available EW164B firmware (BEFB and BEGB) on the two available interfaces on the DRX-810UL, FireWire400 and USB2.0 (the EW164B is USB2.0 only).

I tested using 4 discs, all burned at 8x either on FW400, USB2.0, using firmware BEFB and BEGB. The BEFB tests were done using a single image while the BEGB tests were done using 2 images that are almost similar in size. Scanned both on the EW164B (BEGB@8x) and an S203N (SB02@16x).

BEFB vs BEGB on SL media - it’s quite obvious using the screenshots below which produces better results with the test media. I found out that the FW400 burns result in marginally higher PIEs and Jitter under BEGB, but better PIFs as compared to USB2.0. BEGB also gives out lower values overall except for Jitter as compared to BEFB. I guess I’ll be sticking with BEGB because the PIE/F results are better and since the drive will be used primarily for SL media burning and scanning, which makes the DL PTP detection bug a non-issue, and the difference in Jitter values are too low to influence me otherwise. On the other hand, using a bit of math, the 15-20% increase in PIEs when using FW400 as opposed to USB2.0 is worrying when the PIEs reach the 100k+ mark, which recent MCC03RG20 usually exhibit normally. Quite some food for thought but any thoughts, reactions, or corrections would be greatly appreciated. Being a relative n00b to other veteran BenQ users, I’m open to anything. :wink:

So here are the results:

Pic 1. BEFB burn scanned on EW164B, FW400 (left) vs USB2.0 (right)


Pic 2. BEGB burn scanned on EW164B, FW400 (left) vs USB2.0 (right)


Pic 3. BEFB burn scanned on S203N, FW400 (left) vs USB2.0 (right)


Pic 4. BEGB burn scanned on S203N, FW400 (left) vs USB2.0 (right)


There are differences in the scanning results between BEFB and BEGB, which is shown below for comparison.

Pic 6. FW400: BEFB and BEGB comparison scan (BEFB burn)


Pic 7. USB2.0: BEFB vs BEGB, comparison scan (BEFB burn)


#2

[quote=evo69;2145375] I found out that the FW400 results in marginally higher PIEs and Jitter, but better PIFs as compared to USB2.0.[/quote] The only way that FireWire could be better than USB (or vice versa) is if one interface causes much more buffer under-runs than the other interface and consequently more relinks, which on some drives result in more PIF.

What you are seeing is most likely normal variation in media, normal variation between burns, and normal variation in scans.


#3

[QUOTE=DrageMester;2145381]The only way that FireWire could be better than USB (or vice versa) is if one interface causes much more buffer under-runs than the other interface and consequently more relinks, which on some drives result in more PIF.

What you are seeing is most likely normal variation in media, normal variation between burns, and normal variation in scans.[/QUOTE]

Shoot. So this is normal? :doh: There goes a whole afternoon’s worth of experimenting. :stuck_out_tongue: On the BEGB vs BEGB thing, are my “observations” valid?


#4

[quote=evo69;2145385]On the BEGB vs BEGB thing, are my “observations” valid?[/quote] I’m fairly sure that BEGB and BEGB will produce similar results. :stuck_out_tongue:

Different firmware versions may well produce different results, but it’s easy to jump to conclusions prematurely based on too few observations.

Honestly, I haven’t analyzed the differences above, but I’m always skeptical about claims based on limited testing (even when I test something myself) when measurements are inherently variable.


#5

I suggest you look at some examples of scan variations I posted earlier to get an idea of just how much scans can vary:

http://club.cdfreaks.com/f96/precision-accuracy-reliability-disc-quality-pi-po-jitter-tests-163379/index5.html#post1535342 (posts #118, #119 and #120).


#6

[QUOTE=evo69;2145385]Shoot. So this is normal? :doh: There goes a whole afternoon’s worth of experimenting. :stuck_out_tongue: On the BEGB vs BEGB thing, are my “observations” valid?[/QUOTE]I think you meant BEFG vs BEGB but hey go ahead if you had plans i’ll look at them :slight_smile:


#7

[QUOTE=DrageMester;2145392]I suggest you look at some examples of scan variations I posted earlier to get an idea of just how much scans can vary:

http://club.cdfreaks.com/f96/precision-accuracy-reliability-disc-quality-pi-po-jitter-tests-163379/index5.html#post1535342 (posts #118, #119 and #120).[/QUOTE]

The variations are indeed obvious… I’m not placing my complete trust in these scans, just sharing them as I was looking for a firmware that fits my demands, and I think I’ve arrived at a conclusion. :wink:

Oops, I meant BEFB vs BEGB… Forgive me lol! My eyes are failing me, I’ve been looking at scans all day long! :smiley: Maybe I’m taking this all too seriously eh?

I need some rest… :stuck_out_tongue: