The 203B does report C2 - it's simply among the very best CD readers/rippers

I had read that the Samsung drives don’t report C2 errors, both in the FAQ and in some posts around. This seemed to include the 203B.

Also, when scanning some slightly scratched CDs with it, no C2 errors appeared in CDSpeed though the discs scanned were reported by my other drives as having some C2 errors.

Nevertheless, as EAC declares that it does report C2, I digged the matter a little deeper.

After having thoroughly checked this drive as a ripper in secure mode with EAC (C2 feature enabled), with numerous “test & copy” with the aforementioned CDs and some additional heavily damaged CDs, I could safely assume it reported C2 100% accurately with this software. No reading error whatsoever was skipped, all were corrected, all CRCs matched and this was checked against Accuraterip. :eek:

So I scanned one of the heavily scratched CDs. Hello C2 reporting (see posted scan).

My conclusion is that the 203B is one of the very best CD readers around. It does reports C2 accurately, but it’s so good a reader that it can show C2-less scans with marginal discs that other scanners will declare bad, with several C2 errors. I have no idea if this is due to the quality of the optics, an outstanding error correction algorithm, whatever, it’s impressive, and a litle confusing.

So the 203B can still be considered, IMO, as an unreliable CD scanner, because no C2 in a CD scan with the 203B doesn’t necessarily mean that the disc is in good condition, though the scan is actually accurate! :doh:

On the other hand, as a CD ripper, it’s certainly one of the best choices for people who rip damaged CDs. :cool: - it beats all of my other drives in this area. :cool:

Great findings Francksoy, I use EAC all the time and have yet to try the Samsung 203.

From your report it looks like a real winner for ripping!

I wonder how it would do with the hardest cd’s, karaoke ones?

What kind of C2 errors are we talking about here? E12, E22 or E32?

Other than that, yes it indeed looks like the Samsung 20x drives are very good CD readers.

Hi,

Will fix the message about C2 reporting in the FAQ :wink:

So the 203B can still be considered, IMO, as an [I]un[/I]reliable CD scanner, because no C2 in a CD scan with the 203B doesn’t necessarily mean that the disc is in good condition, though the scan is actually accurate! :doh:
Not to forget C1, where also only a subset is reported.
Would you mind posting an advanced scan done with a Benq of the same disc?

Michael

Nice findings Francsoy. :clap:

AFAIK only BenQ’s are able to report that in CD/DVD Speed. (Drage might chim in for details and/or other drives.)
On Sammy S203* drives start button is greyed out when choosing Advanced Disc Quality tab.

Adding a CD marker test (six lines from centre to outher edge of CD dye).
:wink:




Very interesting results pinto2, thanks for taking to the time to make that, and to Francsoy for starting this very interesting thread.

I also have a BenQ 1655, any requests so I can contribute?

Something to keep in mind:

Reporting C2 errors during reading/ripping and reporting C2 errors in disc quality scans use two different mechanisms, so a drive can support one and not the other, or both, or neither.

Hi :slight_smile:
According to Samsung the 203 supports both.
It is also AFAIK the only SATA to do HTOA.

Heyyo zebad did you run the HTOA yourself or read about it and if so where please.

It really is. :iagree:
I already ordered a second unit, because it’s both a great CD ripper AND the best audio CDR burner I ever had (perfect jitter up to 40X burning!). :cool:
Actually I’m far more impressed by its CD/CDR strenghts than by its DVD+/-R burning quality (when you throw jitter into the mix, 203B DVDR burns don’t look all that good anymore in my book).

Excellent question. I’m not sure I can give a foolproof answer as far as the 203B is concerned. :frowning: (though E12 have never been considered or reported as “C2” by any drive AFAIK, only E22+E32 are).
As it reads CD much better than my Benq 1650s, and these Nexperia Benq drives are the only scanners which report separately E12/E22/E32, it’s gonna be extremely difficult to determine what the 203B reports in scans. I’ll leave that to more knowledgable members. :o

Mmmh, maybe waiting for more findings from the experts would be wise. But mentioning that the 203B works flawlessly with the C2 feature of EAC would indeed be a great add to the FAQ. :cool:

Would you mind posting an advanced scan done with a Benq of the same disc?
Upcoming. :slight_smile:

Indeed! :iagree: That’s why I’m not sure what this drive actually reports in scans as “C2”. Could be, like the Benqs, only E32. But I don’t know how to determine this :confused: (see my reply above [B]to hwp[/B]). All I can say is that it works great and 100% accurate with EAC.

Thanks! Very interesting! :slight_smile: I also tested this, but it came out with zero C2 errors, both in EAC and CDSpeed scans. Maybe my marks were too thin for this outstanding CD reader, I’ll try again with thicker marks. :stuck_out_tongue:

Hi :slight_smile:
I did it myself.
I think it is here. Maybe the 203 near thread.

:cool: sorry i missed it :flower:

http://club.cdfreaks.com/showpost.php?p=1884207&postcount=1511

Feed it with Verbatim MCC03RG20 and you get jitter avg 7,5-8,5% at high speed burns. Jitter gets a little higher from 12x-18x but nothing alarming. Pretty much 100% consistant :wink:

Thanks for the info about audio. I consider all my drives good readers but nice to know i have an ace :smiley:

…Perhaps i should get rid of the Optiarc and make room for another 203, hmm :wink:

Here you are sir. :slight_smile:
But I’m not sure we can draw ay conclusions from the comparison, as EAC tests proved me that the Sammy is a way better CD reader than the Benq 1650. Much less errors are reported while ripping…



@[B]all interested in EAC/203B[/B]: This drive has an annoying quirk with EAC default settings for reading speed: once it has slowed down because of a difficult to read area, it doesn’t speed up again, turning the ripping operation into a sluggish thing! :doh:

I found a workaround: just uncheck “Allow speed reduction during extraction”. Ripping is still flawless ( :eek: ) and no more speed issues. :wink:

Thanks for the hint. :slight_smile: Does this mean that in you experience, this burner does better with -R than with +R, jitter wise? I don’t have any -R around anymore I think…

I don’t know of any drive except Nexperia based BenQ drives that can report E12 (in Advanced Disc Quality Scans). I think that true Plextor drives might be capable of this (based on comments by Alex Noe the author of PxScan) but if they can there aren’t any tools to show E12 with these drives.

That’s why I’m not sure what this drive actually reports in scans as “C2”. Could be, like the Benqs, only E32.
In my experience most drives that report C2 with CDSpeed only report C2 failures, i.e. E32.

A notable exception is Pioneer drives (at least the 111 series) which seem to report C2=E22+E32 according to my tests but with some added “noise” thrown in (random C1/C2 spikes), so they aren’t reliable for CD scanning.

If the Samsung reports the same as LiteOn drives (likely since they are both MediaTek based), then they would report C1=E31 and C2=E32 (i.e. only C1 failures and C2 failures are reported). This is merely conjecture however.

Sorry for [I]off topic.[/I] :wink:

Yes, we have experienced something similar on DL stamped movie discs.
No solution found sofar in this aspect though. :sad:

[B]On topic.[/B]

Interesting… (look at my scans posted above). :slight_smile: