Which one is the real one?

I´ve recently purchased a BenQ DW-1620 OEM, because of everything I´ve read here. I´ve crossflashed it and now I have B7P9 firmware. I´m using ritek G04 , labeled by Ridata, as long as I had some in stock. I´ve made disc quality scans for each burn and I´m not to happy with the results. I´ve made them all at maximum speed. But I´ve just made one at 4x speed and I´ve seen totally different results in PI errors, although puntuation is similar. Which one shows the real quality burning?
And, last question: is it normal that increasing in PIE form half-CD? It´s happening me in almost every burning. (I have defragmed my hard-disk and have no program working background).
Thanx in advance.

If you have done some reading here, you would have known that the Benq is a better +DVDR than a -DVDR burner, unless you would buy some real quality media.
Go out and buy some Fujifilm TY02 media and your happy again. Take a look at the thread where media scan are posted.

Yes, I´ve read that, in the same way that I´ve read that with B7P9 this recorder does quite good with DVD-R too, although not that good with low speed burnings. Anyway, I don´t intend to see same results as in Taiyo Yuden. But I would like to know the real quality of my burnings, and I see too much difference between those scans of the same burning. So I only want to know which one of them show that, specially in video DVDs.
Thank you anyway

PS.- I´m happy even with a Princo. Well, maybe not that much :slight_smile:

Sometimes it hard to tell what’s cause of a bad burned disk. It could be the media it self, a bad flash, the burning program.Try to update the firmware to B7T9. Were those disks burned at 8x speed. Scan all disks at 8x speed for better comparison with other burnings. But why make it so hard on yourself, why didn’t you buy +dvdr?, is there a reason??

No reason at all… except that I have 100 dvd-r on stock from my old rip burning :slight_smile: Just using them until I receive +R´s and, as long as G04 are supposed to be a good media and seeing tests´results other people got with them, I thought I´d get better burnings than I´m having.

well…you could update the firmware to see which firmware gives you hte best results.
You can always go back to the older firmware. I think media can difference from quality. I had very variable results with Ritek R03. The burning quality is depending on some many variables so it not just putting 1+1=2 together. Maybe some other software is influencing the burning process,…who knows. You just have to experiment a bit to see what works best for you.

I´ve tried some burnings with B7t9, that´s the eason I´m trying with b7P9: no great difference with these media.
But one thing that maybe I didn´t explain myself, as long as English is not my mother tongue. Both tests are from the same DVD, the same burning: only difference is the speed of the test. In which one should I trust when there´s a lot of difference between them: in 4X or maximum?

The burn looks a little bit grungy, but both scans look pretty much the same to me, because the most important thing is the PIF’s. The PIF maximum is 8 for the 8X scan and 7 for the 4X scan - for all practical purposes, they’re almost the same. These equate directly to the very good CDSpeed quality scores of 95% and 96% - essentially the same score. CDSpeed says you’re safe if the PIF max is below 16 - and you’re less than half of that. The PIF count for both is a bit high at 7599 and 6405 (I like this to be below 2000), but again both are almost the same.

I don’t like the clustering of PIF’s around the 3.5 gig point - probably more than half of the 7000 total is positioned in here. It almost looks like a disc defect or maybe even a fingerprint. But the PIF max value suggests that this is well within managable limits.

It’s natural for the PIE’s to go up when you scan faster - particularly in the areas that are weak to begin with (in your case, near the end of the disc). Try scanning this disc at the full 16X and you’ll see that the PIE’s will jump even more - again normal. Chances are that, although the PIF’s will jump as well at 16X, they’ll likely hold together well enough to avoid any PO Failures count (which is a strong indicator of a bad burn).

Finally, consider staying with the latest firmware (B7T9) unless you have good reason not to. Firmware bugs are fixed as the BenQ engineers find them, and if you’re running an older version you won’t have the latest fixes. Scans aren’t everything, so as long as your scans are reasonably close, you’re usually safest with the latest firmware.

Thanx a lot for your answer, Spartane. I thought both type of errors had the same importance. Good to know the more important ones are the PIf, as long as the higher number of thm in comparison to other DVD-Rs are in PIE. Take this one, a B7T9 burning, as an example:
lots of PIE and a Maximum PIE of 564 at the end, though 2089 PIF with a maximum of 10. The Valoration is 94. Isn´t PIE too much and too high for that valoration?

The “PI Errors” represent all of the errors as they are read off the disc. In your example, there are over one million PIE’s, and they peak to 564 which is a lot (I like the total to be under 100,000 and the peak below 100). Fortunately, a DVD disc is written with two separate levels of error-correction data. The first level of error-correction data is applied against the PIE’s and it will attempt to correct all of the errors.

Unfortunately, DVD pits are so small, that this “first level of defense” error-correction data will not be 100% successful in fixing everything, although it can get REALLY close (say under 50), with premium discs. Errors that are NOT corrected are called “PI Failures” because the first line error-correction logic FAILED to correct them.

These PIF’s represent ALL of the remaining errors. At this point, the PIE’s have become irrelevant, since the first line error-correction logic has already been applied against them. In your case, the 1,000,000+ PIE’s have been reduced to a mere 2,089 PIF’s peaking to a maximum value of 10. This is VERY GOOD because it means that nearly all of those PIE’s were VERY correctable.

The “second line of defense” error-correction data is, in turn, applied against the PIF’s. Since this represents your “last chance”, it must be 100% successful. If it’s not, then you will get the dreaded “PO Failures” box counting up errors. PO Failures should always stay at a count of zero, or you likely have a coaster.

CDSpeed produces a quality score based totally on the max value of the PIF’s. In your case, this peaked to 10 somewhere near the middle of the burn. A peak of 10 will always give a quality score of 94%.

Hope this helps!

Edit: One last thing - your scan looks a bit strange. The speed keeps dipping down on a recurring basis. This is normal for higher speed scans - both 12X and 16X will do this. But it does NOT normally happen for a maximum (8X) scan. You might try to close down all applications, remove any disc from the burner, and repeat your B7T9 flash.

Done in safe mode, and now there´s no dipping down :slight_smile: Anyway, I thought maximum, at 16X, that´s why I used that speed :o
And it´s incredible: I´ve read lots of posts here, those in de Media Tests forums explainin what where PIE and PIF, what were the standards, saw lots of scans… more posts here… and never get it. You have explained it very very clearly.

Of course it does!

Thank you a lot

PS.- Last small question. These tests, more exactly, the valorations they give, are realiable? I mean, if a burning gets a puntuation of 95 or so if a good standalone player should play it with no freezeing or so. Or, until I see it, I won´t know it.

Never assume that because a disc scanned in Nero CD-DVD Speed received a high quality score (95 or above, or whatever) that it will play in a given home DVD player. NEVER.

Sometimes discs with very high quality scores have errors or bad sectors on them. Transfer rate tests and surface scans have revealed this before. The only way you can know whether or not a burned disc will play in a particular home DVD player is to actually play the disc in that home DVD player. The error scans just can’t tell you that.

Glad the reflash fixed your problem!

Previously, CDSpeed did not provide either 12X or 16X scanning capabilities for the BenQ 1620. This capability was added in VERY recently by Erik Deppe, the author of CDSpeed. He has stated that it was added with the intention of scanning pressed discs, and that’s why the maximum is still 8X rather than 16X. But 16X scanning DOES works with copied discs (although it continually pauses the burn, similar to what was happening with you at 8X before you reflashed). Many of us have used 16X scanning to try and help us measure marginal burns, since it provides a “worst case” scenario. But this capability is so new, that none of us are really sure whether we should depend on it or not…

The 1620 obviously HAS the capability of reading at up to 16X, but its firmware :Z limits this 16X capability to reading pressed discs :Z . So discs we write are only read back at 8X maximum. This creates the :frowning: very annoying :a situation of being able to write a disc in about six minutes, but only being able to verify the data on the disc in over nine minutes. This is one MAJOR advantage that the NEC 3500 has. It can read back complete copied discs in about 5:00. Many of us are hoping for an eventual hacked BenQ 1620 firmware to work around this limitation.

And it´s incredible: I´ve read lots of posts here, those in de Media Tests forums explainin what where PIE and PIF, what were the standards, saw lots of scans… more posts here… and never get it. You have explained it very very clearly.

I explained it the way I think it works, but my explanation is probably way over simplified.

Thank you a lot

You’re welcome!

PS.- Last small question. These tests, more exactly, the valorations they give, are realiable? I mean, if a burning gets a puntuation of 95 or so if a good standalone player should play it with no freezeing or so. Or, until I see it, I won´t know it.

Unfortunately, you cannot depend on a scan to tell you whether or not it will work. All the scan will tell you is whether or not you’ve got a BAD burn - it will NOT tell you whether a burn is good.

I burn most of my stuff with Nero, and if I have the time, I always tell it to do a verify after write. Again, if I have the time, I try and scan the disc to make sure that the burn is not a marginal one. So I often end up writing it once and reading it back twice. That’s why I dislike the BenQ group’s decision to limit the reading speed to only 8X. At this point, about the only thing I can be relatively certain of, is that I will most likely be able to read the disc back successfully on my BenQ 1620.

Well, so crossing fingers until I see any DVD Video :slight_smile:
I´ve seen those two DVDs whose scannings I´ve posted and they play perfectly, so those blocks of PIFs didn´t affect performance.
thanx again for your time and explanations.
See you here :slight_smile: