Which current drives are full supporting the CDSPEED -> Disc Quality (jitter too)

Hi All,

I’d like a new DVDRW drive what supported the CD-DVD SPEED (v4.51.1) -> Disc Qaulity -> all features (cd: C1, C2, Jitter - DVD PI + Jitter).

According to my recent infos, the BenQ drives has only the full support, but I hope other brands are exists… :confused:

Please help me!

Thanks in advance! :bow:

There is no perfect scanning drive.

Your choices are BenQ DW1620/40/50/55 [not DQ60, not DW1670], any recent Lite-On burner, and Plextor PX-716/755/760.

I don’t believe BenQ reports C2 errors on CDs, but other than that, it’s probably the best overall quality scanner.

Lite-Ons don’t report jitter. Lite-on is my second choice for a quality scanner.

Plextors will report everything you ask for, but in three separate passes. Think an hour and a half per disc for a high-precision scan, three 30-minute passes at 2x. Not supported by CD-DVD Speed.

Get a BenQ, it should be the closest match to your requirements.

Thanks for your reply Agent009!

I’m using a BenQ 1640 at my workplace and that can measure the C2 errors on CD.
The jitter meausre is very important for me, cause I write some audiophile CD-R.
I would like to use only the CD-DVD Speed, cause this is smart and fast.

I know the BenQ can be a good choice (1655), but I hope I can select from few types… (maybe I found a better one :iagree: )

Anyone has another tips?

BenQ DW16** drives will report C2 errors when scanning CDs in CDSpeed!
They just don’t report C2 errors when reading a disc, unlike some other drives.

I think that Plextor drives (PX-712/716/755/760) are the best overall scanning drives, because they can scan both CDs and DVDs reliably, and they can scan for more things than any other drive including the BenQ. But they are also incredibly slow DVD scanners, so they are not my first choice for everyday DVD scanning.

Many people think that BenQ drives are not the most reliable scanners when scanning DVDs burned in some other non-BenQ drives such as LG, LiteOn, NEC and recent Plextors.

So my overall favourite DVD scanner would be a LiteOn DVD burner, even though they don’t report jitter, because they don’t seem to favor discs burned in one type of drive over another.

BenQ DVD burners are very good CD scanners and so are Plextor DVD burners (PX-712/716/755/760) and Plextor Premium CD-RW burners.

But a LiteOn would be my first choice as a DVD scanner.

You shouldn’t rely on a LiteOn DVD burner for scanning CD media however, because LiteOn DVD burners report unrealistically low C1 and C2 compared to other more reliable CD scanners.

There’s a chance that jitter scanning will be made possible on existing LiteOn 5S/6S drives, because insiders at LiteOn have talked about the possibility of implementing this over in the LiteOn forum.

No promises have been made however!

Agreed. But Plextors can perform scans that no other drive can offer, such as Parity Outer Errors (Burst scan), Bytes corrected per ECC block (Basic scan), and Beta a.k.a Asymmetry (Jitter/Beta scan).

Thanks for your reply DrageMester!

So, the 2 most important features for me:

1 - Able to scan my written Audio CD-R (by Yamaha or PlexPremium) with CDSpeed -> C1+C2+Jitter
2 - Getting an average DVD writer (my Philips DVRW416 is too slow nowdays :sad: )

As I read your opinions, the BenQ DW1655 is the best choice :smiley:

Yes, or the BenQ DW1650 (same as 1655 but without LightScribe).

…Unless you’re serious about the “Getting an average” DVD writer part. :wink:

Or you could get the slightly older BenQ DW1640 if you can accept burning DVD+R media at 12x or slower. The BenQ 1640 can burn DVD+R at 16x but it’s burn quality at 16x speed is not as good as the 1650/1655 nor is it as good as the 1640 at 12x.

You already have a very good CD scanner in your Plextor Premium, but you need to use PlexTools or PxScan/PxView to make those scans, since Plextor drives are not supported for Quality Scanning in CDSpeed.

Jitter scans in Plextor drives can be very hard to read however, so the BenQ will definitely be an improvment for scanning jitter on CD media.

In case you don’t already know this, the lowest jitter that can be reported by a BenQ when scaning CD media seems to be 7% and that is actually achievably with the right combination of burner/media and burn-speed. Look here for examples.

[B]…average…[/B], yes, looks like funny, you’re right…
I was inexact…

The DVD-writing speed is not too important for me, but my old Philips is 4x DVD+R and the main problem is the DVD+RW feature…it’s only 2.4X… :doh:
If the choosen DVDRW can 8x DVDR and 4x DVDRW that will be enough for me :bow:

I don’t like write with more than 6x to a DVDR, cause I don’t like the changing of speed during write… :a

I think the BenQ 165x will be the winner…

That’s interesting, I shall keep my eyes open to see how that one develops. Thanks for the info :wink:

You can read about the possibility of getting jitter scan capability on the 5S/6S drives by in this thread (post #231 and forward).

I am curious.

What kind of mechanisms do Benq drivers use to discriminate non-Benq drivers’ DVD?

Any proof? :confused:

I don’t think the BenQ drives have any kind of mechanism that deliberately tries to discriminate non-BenQ drives! :disagree:

There are a number of examples of discs burned in non-BenQ drives that scan excellently in other drives, but have bad or strange scans in BenQ drives.

This suggest that there might be something in the way the BenQ performs scans, that make discs burned in other drives look worse than discs burned in BenQ drives.

This opinion is definitely not shared by everyone on this forum!

Some of those who disagree with my opinion argue that the BenQ reacts negatively to high jitter (>12%) and this makes BenQ drives show elevated PIE/PIF levels when scanning discs that have jitter higher than 12%.

Since this argument is based on jitter measurements performed on BenQ drives, it’s very hard to know whether the BenQ is reacting negatively to high jitter thus causing reported PIE/PIF to increase, or whether the BenQ reacts negatively to something else, which causes it to report elevated levels of jitter and PIE/PIF.

Do you see the subtle difference?

I don’t get it.
Because the first and second paragraph is discordant. :confused:

In Taiwan’s forum, there are many pics show that better result by non-Benq’ burned than Benq its own.

My point is that BenQ haven’t deliberately made their drives scan in such a way, that discs burned in many other drives look bad.

But something in the way the BenQ drives scan, has the unintentional effect that this seems to happen in my opinion.

I don’t doubt it.

But the reliability of a scanner shouldn’t be measured by how it behaves when it reports results consistent with other scanners, but rather by how it behaves when it disagrees with other scanners.

Because then it becomes an issue of whether the scanner is “useful” - i.e. can the scanner be used for judging whether to burn media at one speed or another, judge whether to burn media in one burner or another, or judge which media to burn in a certain burner.

If a scanner cannot be used for any of the three purposes above, only one purpose remains - scanning the same disc at intervals to see if any degradation occurs over time.

My current opinion is that I don’t trust BenQ scans for any of the first three purposes, unless the disc has been burned in a BenQ (or clone). I’m still open to changing my point of view, if I see some compelling evidence to trust the BenQ scans more than other scans, but I haven’t seen it yet.

I do trust BenQ scans of discs burned in a BenQ however!
Just remember that a PIE/PIF scan is never enough by itself to judge that a disc has good quality.

Thank you for your explicit reply. :iagree:

So is there any details about so-callled unintentional effect ?

And I am doubtful about the world “trust” can be used on a home usage drives.As I know to now, no home usage drives can be fully concordant with DVDCATS’ data, even Plextor.

By your words, you means Lite-on and Plextor’s scan can be more trusted than Benq? why…? why not because the others is untrusted? :confused:

I agree that only limited trust can be given to scans performed on consumer drives, but some drives can be trusted less than others.

Some people would say that every drive just reports what it sees, and although there is some truth to that, I find it to be too simplistic in some cases.

I suggest you read the Which Drive Do I Trust? thread in this forum, where this topic is discussed a lot!

I think this thread is getting too off-topic with our discussion, so if you want to discuss this further, then please do so in the Which Drive Do I Trust? thread or in a new thread if you prefer that.

Thanks for reply. You are so kind and I will take some time to read the thread. :flower: