Which Drive For Scanning

vbimport

#1

Which dvd writers are the best for error scanning both on dvd and cd media ?? I know about the Benq 1640 and the Liteon SOHW-1693S (think thats the correct drive) what other ones are there or are they the only two i should be looking at ? are the rebadges as good at scanning as well, im guessing there are but i ask incase they use different firmware. What other Benq or Liteons should i be looking at that do the same.

All im looking for really is a excellent scanner, being able to do good or excellent burners on both cd and dvd media is a plus.

The Liteon SOHW-1693S i know i can defos get that.

Thanks


#2

Maybe the best is plextor 716


#3

Plextor is not a option, it cost too much to buy just for scanning and a backup burner.


#4

Very simply, the Liteon drives are more precise when scanning for PIF while the BenQ drives scan at 8X because they are less precise. One would take the Liteon if precision was paramount while choosing the BenQ if willing to give up accuracy for speed.

Both drives are very fast rippers with modified firmware and will bitset and both are very good burners with quality media.


#5

So the Benq is faster when scanning but less precise than the liteon. Is there much difference between the 73s and the 93s, the review of the 73 said poor cd writing quality where as the benq 1620 and 1625 had excellent cd writering in the reviews,then again i do really only want it for scanning and as a backup writer, bit of a put off about the cdr writing although i still use my Plex 2410A cd writer for cds, dont even use my 109XLC1 for cds. The review for the 73s also said the dvd writing quality is as good as other drives. And the drive can do cdr scanning as well i guessing.

Maybe it might be the Benq. I thinking maybe lossing a tiny bit of precision is worth it for better cd and dvd writing quality. But then maybe the Liteon seen as its only for scanning, but then again i thinking as a backup writer…
oh desitions,decisions…


#6

So what do you mean by “more precise”?

Both drives report what they see, so do you mean that the LiteOn results are more repeatable (less variations between scans), do you mean that the LiteOn scans are closer to PIE/PIF values scanned in other drives, do you mean that LiteOn scans are closer to Audiodev CATS, or do you mean something else? :confused:


#7

The liteon scans 1ECC bloc at a time while the benQ scans 8 ECC at a time. That’s why Liteon is more precises and need a slower scan speed.


#8

How does the NEC 3540 compare?

I have been testing the NEC 3540 vs BenQ 1640 and see the error scans to differ quite a bit on the same disc. The NEC might throw the odd spike whereas the BenQ won’t. Also, the PIE/PIF numbers are higher overall. I’ve set the 3540 to 8ECC in the registry, so I expected similar result. Also, given I can set it to 1ECC or 8ECC, does that mean I can set the NEC to 1EEC and it should give the same results as a LiteOn?

Thanks.


#9

All right, I know about the 1 ECC vs. 8 ECC difference and I agree that 1 ECC scanning is the right way to scan according to specs. What if anything does this have to do with scanning speed however?

Also AFAIK the LiteOn drive will sometimes skip samples during scanning, but I don’t think the BenQ skips samples, so that would count in favor of the BenQ.

I have neither a LiteOn or a BenQ, but normal scans are soooo slooooooow on my Plextor PX-712A. If I had to choose a new drive just for its scanning abilities, I would choose the BenQ 1640 with the Plextor PX-716 as a close second (more expensive, much slower scanning, but is has the unique TA scanning).


#10

MMMMMMMMM… interesting.

At least i now know what drives im looking at before i buy.


#11

The reviews of the 1693 show no benefit at all to the 1673 and in many cases the 1693 is cheaper. Get the a693 if you go Liteon, it is a better burner and will have more support as it is a current model.

Scanning with any NEC or Pioneer model is frought with peril and, in many cases, just as bad as scanning with a ROM drive. The numbers are out of proportion, the errors are inconsistent and often you need to do a real scan to see what you really have.

Some die hards just insist that those of us who campare these scans to real scans just “have a bad drive”. Hogwash.

Scanning for errors with the equipment we have is hard enough without the problems inherent with using a drive not really designed to scan.