Why nero gives higher quality scores to benq?

look at these 2 results from philips and benq… its clear that philips’s pie and pif numbers are better than benq but nero gives lower score… is there anybody who knows the reason why nero gives higher points to benq ??

Hi :slight_smile:
That BenQ scan looks familiar. :bigsmile:
The Philips drive is really a Lite-On & would be much happier as that. Note that the Philips just like Lite-On doesn’t measure jitter. Probably a factor here.

The Philips SPD2400 is a rebadged Liteon SHW-1635S. Liteon burners use a 1ECC scanning interval, while BenQ burners use 8ECC. This is relevant for the quality score in Nero CD-DVD Speed. Check out the chart in the following posting for details: click

thank you very much zebadee :slight_smile: and packetloss… everything is clear now :wink:

I would use the BenQ1650 for burning and the Philips (Liteon) for scanning. Scanning with different drives and trying to make sense of comparisons only leads to confusion. Stick with the Liteon and ignore the quality score of 95 - PIF figs of 2 or less are excellent

actually, the liteon DOES indicate that the disc has lower quality since, as someone mentioned before, it uses an 8ECC scanning interval for error checking while BENQ only uses 1ECC. In other words, the Liteon reported a max of 16 PIFs while the Benq only reported 4 PIFs max.

the ECC difference is the ONLY reason the QS is different - the QS is only influenced by PIE/PIFs, not by jitter.

:rolleyes: …or more likely the other way around.
Before you post anything more on this subject please make a good read here.

ok…i read there…heres what it said:

“- Nero CD-DVD Speed’s quality score is based on Max PIF.”

therefore what i said was [mostly] right, has nothing to do with jitter (i said PIE tho, doesnt have anything to do with PIE either). So how bout u read there too before posting anything :stuck_out_tongue:

wrong way round.

The recognised max for the BenQ is 16 and 4 for the Liteon.

no…i meant that on the BenQ scan, there were 4 PIFs reported max, and on the Liteon scan, there were 2*8ECC = 16 PIFs reported max.

maybe I shouldnt have used the word PIF…is there a better word?

and i believe that the “recognized max” that you are talking about is 32 PIFs, not 16, for the BenQ.

I think that the QS score is only determined by PIF for CD Speed but that was not my point. I love the BenQ as a burner but would not use it for scaning if I had a Liteon available. It is not a question of which scan is better but which is more accurate. Try scanning the same disk with a BenQ a number of times over a period of time ( say a month) and then do the same with a Liteon.

yeah…from what i hear lite-ons are better scanners. of course, for a cheapo like me, the benq scanning is sufficient. Theres no way in h$#% i would buy a liteon drive for the sole purpose of error scanning, since the 1655 can do just about everything else the same as or better than liteon dvd burners.

how you define a better scanner is very subjective, my new benq seems to suit my needs very well, a slower scan with a liteon would be less useful

a scan showing more errors can be an indication that scanner isn’t reading the disk as well as one which shows fewer errors


I used the word “Recognised” because we are now in 2006 and not 2003. Unless I’m mistaken ( I haven’t used a BenQ for scaning for quite a while) CD Speed goes red at 16 not 32. So yes the technical max is 32 but the recognised max - if you use CD speed is 16 for a BenQ ?

To me how long a scan takes is not important - I just scan on a spare machine.

I went off scanning with BenQ when I found that disks which would still play well were being reported as coasters by a BenQ1620. The liteon seemed better able to discriminate between the bad and the really bad.
I must admit that I haven’t yet done any testing with a BenQ1655 - perhaps it is better now?

Anyway, to me, one aspect of “better” means being able to get similar scan results when scanning the same disk several times.

With new and good burns it makes no difference but with older and poorer burns I believe the Liteon is a more useful scanner

hm…not sure… i usually dont get that poor PIF values to see when CDSpeed goes red for me :stuck_out_tongue:

CD Speed goes red starting at 16 PIF.
It is a limit decided by the author, from experimentation I guess, inferior to the theoretical limit of 32 .

On the other hand, as it uses ECC 8 or making a total of 8 blocks, 32 could be any of the following situations

  • 8 blocks with 4 PIF
  • 2 blocks with 16 PIF, and 6 blocks with 0
  • 1 block of 32 PIF and 7 blocks of 0

Only the first situation is acceptable. This is one point where ECC1 method is more accurate.

ok…thanks for clearing that up! :iagree:

I do not use my Litey for error counting anymore … an average scanning interval of 1.21 ECC means that >20% of all data hasn’t been sampled by the drive.

So much for accuracy … my BenQ’s always deliver 8.00 ECC as scanning interval.

Interesting - could you explain more ? how have you determined this ? I would be interested in checking this myself.