WARNING: Do Not Use A Nexperia BenQ To Scan 116/216 and 117/217 DVD-R Burns!

WARNING:

I’ve just come to realize that, based on posts in the 116/216 and 117/217 threads, Nexperia BenQ drives are NOT accurate scanners of Pioneer 116/216 and 117/217 DVD-R burns. Do NOT use a Nexperia BenQ to scan DVD-R burns from these drives.

The Nexperia BenQ is still fully accurate for scanning DVD+R and DVD-ROM (bitset) burns.

The Nexperia BenQ is also fully accurate when scanning DVD-R burns from the 115/215 and earlier models.

Mind providing a few examples of this [a few links to other people’s scans]? :slight_smile:

[I know and have seen what you are talking about; I also know that there are other minds on the forum that will want to see the evidence for themselves without searching ;)].

Example Number 1:

http://club.cdfreaks.com/f87/how-does-dvr-216-stack-up-dvr-115-a-277781/#post2296379

Look at the POFs on the BenQ scan of the 116 burn. Notice that those POFs don’t show on the Lite-On scan of the same disc, nor do any show with scans of the 112 burns.

Example Number 2:

http://club.cdfreaks.com/f87/pioneer-dvr-117d-results-discussion-270005/index2.html#post2296483

The difference between the two scans isn’t some slight variance, it’s more like the still irreconcilable gap between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.

That’s the old NEC chipset spikes that we spotted a long time ago, for some reason the BenQ drives tend to see those spikes like that.
I think somebody said it might be where the speed breaks or WOPC kicks in but for the most part it was decided to ignore the spikes because for most burns they didn’t seem to pan out to actual playability.
I used to see those when scanning my NEC 4100 and Pioneer 111 when I used my 1640 or 1655 to scan the disks.

[QUOTE=Dartman;2297779]That’s the old NEC chipset spikes that we spotted a long time ago, for some reason the BenQ drives tend to see those spikes like that.
I think somebody said it might be where the speed breaks or WOPC kicks in but for the most part it was decided to ignore the spikes because for most burns they didn’t seem to pan out to actual playability.
I used to see those when scanning my NEC 4100 and Pioneer 111 when I used my 1640 or 1655 to scan the disks.[/QUOTE]

The problem is I haven’t seen evidence of this with the recent NEC chipset Optiarc drives, nor Pioneer drives with NEC chipsets like the 112/212 and 115/215. Also, if you actually pay attention to the scans I linked to, you’re not just getting spikes, but POFs and/or completely horrible looking scans with insane PIE/PIF. This goes WAY beyond a few spikes. You can’t just ignore the scans, because the scans are so bad that they don’t tell you anything useful, and therefore, you might as well not use the BenQ to scan at all. That is the point.

If it’s a chipset issue, then why don’t the Optiarc AD-7200A/S and AD-7240S drives cause this problem?

If it’s a generic Pioneer problem, then why doesn’t it happen with the DVR-115D/215D or DVR-112D/212D?

[QUOTE=negritude;2297868]The problem is I haven’t seen evidence of this with the recent NEC chipset Optiarc drives, nor Pioneer drives with NEC chipsets like the 112/212 and 115/215. [/QUOTE]x12 drives show similar behaviour: http://club.cdfreaks.com/f87/pioneer-112-112d-112l-pif-spikes-should-not-ignored-226064/

Michael

Those spikes also appear on MediaTek scans, but that’s not the same as what I’m talking about here.

Once again, the difference in scans that I’m talking about is NOT simply about spikes.

I’ll say it AGAIN, this is NOT just about spikes.

Can anyone hear me out there?

a less-aggressive Example Number 3 (Courtesy of NewFish)

http://club.cdfreaks.com/f87/pioneer-dvr-216-d-xl-s16j-247332/index27.html#post2297951

The BenQ obviously does NOT like something about this burn, while both LiteOn drives and the Plextor say it’s nearly great. It does not report any POF in this instance, but it definitely doesn’t match the other scans.

For now I think I must disagree with the conclusion that BenQ drives should not be used to scan Pioneer 116…217 burns.

The first example provided by me, is to a disc that my BenQ drive has some issues reading - several major slowdowns, so POF are not unrealistic on that disc.

The second example is a disc that fails to read in the BenQ drive - a sign that the drive has major issues with that disc, and that it isn’t just a question of unreliable scanning.

Remember that POF is not something that exists on the disc, but is something experienced by the drive when reading that disc.

I have provided some examples in other threads where e.g. a NEC ND-4551A drive produced discs that have unreadable sectors in two BenQ DW1655 drives and in some other drives as well, and with major slowdowns in some LiteOn drives.

For now I will consider this to be an example of how bad relinking by a burner will freak out some reading drives more than others.

BTW it has already been proven (by me) that POF reporting by BenQ DW1655 drives is not reliable, but that doesn’t mean that it should always be disregarded.

I don’t have the links handy since I’m currently at work.

Well all I can say is they used to show the big spikes sometimes at almost regular intervals so whatever is going on it’s been seen before and I’m sure if we did some googling more of this would pop up from when the 4551 and 111 were current.
Like DrageMester says sometimes it counts, sometimes it doesn’t. I always figured as long as it plays OK through my pickiest dvd player it’s a good burn no matter what the scan says. Scans don’t always pick up everything that might make a burn good or bad.
I’ve had some excellent looking scans from the 811 drives I used to have that wouldn’t play right in anything, and others that scan badly and play fine.

[QUOTE=DrageMester;2298026]For now I think I must disagree with the conclusion that BenQ drives should not be used to scan Pioneer 116…217 burns.[/QUOTE]

That wasn’t the conclusion I stated. I stated that it shouldn’t be used to test DVD-R burns from those drives, not all burns from those drives. This issue is DVD-R specific.

[QUOTE=negritude;2298358]That wasn’t the conclusion I stated. I stated that it shouldn’t be used to test [B]DVD-R[/B] burns from those drives, not all burns from those drives. This issue is [B]DVD-R[/B] specific.[/QUOTE] Yes I know, and for now I disagree with that conclusion, since I don’t think the evidence supports it.

I think it’s a matter of some drives really not liking some burns by some other drives.

[QUOTE=DrageMester;2298362]I think it’s a matter of some drives really not liking some burns by some other drives.[/QUOTE]

So, the fact that the drive doesn’t like the burns, what can that tell you if all the other drives you test with disagree with that one?

In other words, you disagree with the conclusion, so when you have a BenQ that gives you a crazy crack-pipe result, what do you say to yourself? How is the result useful to you?

I authored an article, way back in Sept 2006. It compared various popular scanning drives at the time.

There were many different views on the conclusion of this article. But i still stick to my original feelings about using BenQ drives for PI/PIF scanning. I wouldn’t trust a BenQ scan. :slight_smile:

Just my opinion.
http://www.cdfreaks.com/reviews/Home-PI_PIF-scanning---Who-to-believe/

[QUOTE=Dee;2298374]I authored an article, way back in Sept 2006. It compared various popular scanning drives at the time.

There were many different views on the conclusion of this article. But i still stick to my original feelings about using BenQ drives for PI/PIF scanning. I wouldn’t trust a BenQ scan. :slight_smile:

Just my opinion.
http://www.cdfreaks.com/reviews/Home-PI_PIF-scanning---Who-to-believe/[/QUOTE]

I see the conclusions drawn by that article to be a bit…off. You’re right, the sample is too small, plus, it’s widely accepted that for scanning, only a DW1620 or a DW1640 with BSLB/BEFB is going to be fully consistent. It’s not about trusting your scanner – I don’t trust any drive completely – but about knowing how your drive works and being able to compare it’s results to other drives.

The point I’m trying to make here, which has nothing to do with BenQ bashing, is simply that, unlike in most cases, where BenQ and Lite-On scans are fairly comparable, in certain instances BenQs have difficulty reading certain kinds of burned discs, and the results should not be used. We know, for example, that a BenQ can’t properly scan discs burned in an LG GSA-H10N/H11N/H12N drive. So, we don’t use it for that. Simple. No trite dismissals or broad denunciations, you just say it doesn’t work so well for that specific task, note it, and move on.

You should not use “we” because everyones view is different. We as a group have very limited amount of things that “we” will all agree on.
The article is not “off” It was based on what was available at the time (including the firmware). If it’s “off” as you put it. IT is only off in the sense that all these drives were consumer drives and there was no way to calibrate the drives used.

Today, nothing has changed. Conclusions are formed on ones own experience with the scanning hardware used.

Perhaps it would have better if i had said above, that i would not trust my “own” BenQ drive for scanning.

You’ll always be “on” in my book, Dee … that goes for Liggy, too! :slight_smile:

[QUOTE=Dalen Quaice;2298458]You’ll always be “on” in my book, Dee … that goes for Liggy, too! :)[/QUOTE]
Do I need to worry now? :confused:
:bigsmile:

I decided to publish a test I did using 8 BenQ drives to scan a burn on the LG H55N drive:

http://club.cdfreaks.com/f91/lg-gsa-h55n-l-post-your-scans-questions-here-214441/index35.html#post2298792