Wich Scan lies?Benq or Plextor?

vbimport

#1

Well…here is the problem.

On a store, i start to talk, or chating about Media and records ( freak one).

The emplyer, nicely, did ofered me a Imation +R 8X, to test and send a e-mail to him.

Of course i said ok :iagree:

So i choose the Plextor to make the job! :flower:

Ok, there it is the result:

On Plextools:

I could consider a nice burn.

It was done at 8X. PR & AS ON.

The ID for the media is:

** INFO : Hex Dump Of ‘Media Code’-Block Listed Below
** INFO : 4-Byte Header Preceding ‘Media Code’-Block Discarded
** INFO : Format 11h (Method 1) - ADIP Information
0000 : a1 0f 02 00 00 03 00 00 00 26 05 3f 00 00 00 00 …&.?..
0010 : 00 00 03 4d 42 49 50 47 31 30 31 52 30 34 01 38 …MBIPG101R04.8
0020 : 23 54 37 12 02 42 6e 02 a8 6b 15 15 0b 0b 08 08 #T7…Bn…k…
0030 : 01 19 1b 0c 0c 0c 0d 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 …
0040 : 01 00 38 38 02 2d 65 1c 06 2e 23 10 04 1e 1d 01 …88.-e…#…
0050 : 00 00 02 2d 65 1c 06 2e 23 10 04 1e 1d 01 00 00 …-e…#…
0060 : 02 00 54 70 02 2f 64 67 20 14 0b 0b 01 20 00 00 …Tp./dg … …
0070 : 00 00 02 42 5d 66 20 14 0b 0b 01 20 00 00 00 32 …B]f … …2

Ok.

Than i did a scan on my Benq 1640, for 2, and the result is this:

Serious, i don`t remenber, to have such diferent results with both drivers…

I ask you, cdfreaks, your opinion :bow: :bow:

Mordorr

P.S. - TA TEST result: GOD - BAD - GOOD


#2

I would have asked this in the Blank Media Forum…people own drives of all makes in there. :slight_smile:


#3

Hmmm, interesting scans. It’s a hard one to interpret either way, best option would be further testing on another scanner (Lite-ON maybe?) but even that may not prove conclusive.

Or if that is not possible, try Beta/Jitter tests on the plextor to see if that shows any problems.

Oh, and neither drive is [I]lying[/I].


#4

Humm…i see.

Please my apoligizes, [B]Arachne[/B], for the wrong place.

[B]TL0[/B]

I agree. I did repeat twice, the scan, on the Benq.

Too bad i sell my Lite-On 832S… :doh:

Tomorow i will do a Beta/Jitter tests…

This is too weird…because i did have a good vibe on this new Media…

Tks. Mordorr


#5

@Mordorr, one important difference between the Plextor and BenQ scans is, that the scanning speed is very different.

The Plextor is scanning the entire disc at 2x CLV, while the BenQ scans at 8x CAV which is four times as fast at the outer edge of the disc!

For most discs (but not all discs), this will magnify any problems at the outer edge of the disc. If you were to run a Sum8 or Sum1 test on your Plextor drive at 8x, it might show the same behaviour as the BenQ scan. This can be done by altering the read speed after the scan has started.

You could also try to lower the scanning speed of the BenQ to 4x CLV, and see if the scan becomes closer to what the Plextor shows.

In my experience scanning slower than 4x on a BenQ 1655 actually makes PIE/PIF levels increase, so scanning at 1x or 2x might not provide you with any more confidence.

But all drives are different, even two drives of the same model, and even the firmware version can make a difference, so don’t expect scans on different drives to agree all the time! :disagree:


#6

A bit off-topic, sorry :flower:

Is it the same also with liteon drives? I mean scan slower than 4x.


#7

I think I remember doing a 2x scan on my LiteOn SHW-1635S, and the result looked more or less like the 4x scan. I don’t think I have tried performing a 1x scan on my LiteOn - it’s bad enough that I have to do this sometimes on my NEC 4551 in order to get a reasonably reliable scan.

Suggestion:

If Mordorr and a moderator of this forum agree, the thread could be moved to the Media Testing/Identifying Software forum under the Blank Media forum?

E.g. Jan70 is currently online, and could do this.


#8

Thread moved :flower:


#9

Thanks :slight_smile:


#10

[B]DrageMester[/B] sugest:

If Mordorr and a moderator of this forum agree, the thread could be moved to the Media Testing/Identifying Software forum under the Blank Media forum?

Of course i don`t :flower:

Ok,

Jitta test:

Im sorry but cant read this information…any help?

and a new scan at 4X with the Benq :bigsmile:

Thank you all for the fastest answers! :disagree:

Mordorr


#11

And here it is the result on Benq, at 4X CLV:

[B]DrageMester[/B]:

:bow: :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow:

Thank you all!

A good opinion will be send to the store, tks to ALL of you :clap:

Mordorr


#12

very intresting thread!


#13

I had some talk with [B]DrageMester[/B] about higher scanning speeds several days ago, in another thread. I like to select my media (and media/burner combination) by performing high-speed scanning (in a Benq 1650). The results can be misleading (probably false negatives) in many instances, but I kinda feel confident if the 12X scanning is good at the end of the disc, I think it’s an indication that the physical characteristics of the media are excellent. So I favor discs that pass this test, rather than going for the ones that give the best PIE/PIF scores at 'standard" scanning speeds. Maybe this is foolish, I don’t know :bigsmile:

Im am NOT saying, though, that it’s a good thing to always scan at higher speeds, at least not to determine if the burn is good or not. And certainly not in all drives.

Whatever. In this case above, though there is probably nothing wrong, I would not select the discs/batch for my personal use. Though I have used lots of MBIPG101 R04, passing 12X 1650 scanning with flying colours, but they were TDK branded. There has been several reports in the BM forum (from [B]Dakhaas[/B] mainly) that these MBI can be very different depending on the brand…


#14

[B]SantaKlaus[/B]

Tks for the feedback.

My only experience with MBI are the Memorex +R 4X. They are very good.

This was the first one, at rated speed, 8X ( Memorex 4X could be record at 8X ).

Its the kind of media, that i will use to backup data taken from internet :bigsmile:

For Movies, i still have many Verbatim, TY and MCC… :flower:

Mordorr


#15

Both drives are correct.

Looks like the difference between an 8ECC scanner & a 1ECC scanner.

Please confirm whether your plextor is scanning using 1ECC summing, or 8ECC summing for your PIF levels.

Speed difference also, as mentioned above :wink:


#16

I’ve stopped scanning long time ago! :wink:


#17

Please confirm whether your plextor is scanning using 1ECC summing, or 8ECC summing for your PIF levels.

I think i didn´t get very well the question sorry.

For PIF, inPlextools i put SUM1 test

For PIE i use SUM8 test

I think, i can`t control the speed on Plextools, for the scan, but in the optios, is set to “Good Acuracy”.

I hope did answer your questions, [B]debro[/B]. :flower:

And i think i will start to use 4XCLV on the Benq…more minute, less minute, the truth is more “acurate” :bigsmile:

Thank you all! :clap:


#18

Your Plextor is using 1ECC summing for your PIF
Your Benq is using 8ECC summing for the PIF.

That is the major difference in the scans.

If you multiply the Plexies PIF’s by approximately 8 then you should get your BENQ’s PIF results :wink:

The fact on how it’s managed to hit 22 PIF though on the benq is beyond me. Potentially the plextor is a better reader, or perhaps just a speed issue.


#19

Don’t get caught in the “accuracy” trap. :wink:
Scans cannot be accurate in any way as we’re not measuring anything on the disc, we’re only looking at how well the disc can be read. For the 1000st time, I remind that PIE/PIF errors are [I]reading[/I] errors. They are not “on the disc” [I]per se[/I]. They are a result of the reading process.

Personally I think along the same lines as [B]SantaKlaus[/B]: discs/burns showing good scans at higher speeds are most certainly better discs/burns.
So I’d say that if you need to lower the speed to have a good scan, you’re doing things backwards so to speak, i.e. changing the testing method to get the result you want. What you [I]should[/I] want is good results without changing the testing method. So my opinion is: change the burning speed, the firmware, the discs, whatever, but don’t scan at slower speeds just to see a good scan! :disagree: