

|
||||||||
|
dolphinius_rex wrote:
Unfortunately, I used my last CMC MAG AF1 on my previous review, so I had no more for use in this review (and it's not available for purchase anymore). As for CMC MAG E01, I some INCREDIBLE results from it for the most part... although the quality of CMC can vary quite a bit! The Memorex Director's Cut media I tested wasn't able to even finish the burn without failing! So I suppose you could say I received my best and worst scores (or very close to them at least) from CMC MAG E01
Qyngali wrote:Nice review, just a small correction/addendum. It does report C2 errors with Nero CD/DVD Speed, but not with EAC. This was confirmed by Erik Deppe over at the cdfreaks forum.
Q.
Scour wrote:Maybe you only scan with a Benq and a Liteon-drive, the graphs are easier to read (for me), and you save much time.
Can you tell us, what´s the next drive you want review?
dolphinius_rex wrote:
Well, in THEORY, I'll have 2 PX-716SAs running for my next review, so it'll go a little faster that way (that's *IF* I can afford the other one....). Next time I'll be scanning with just 3 models of drives, The PX-716SA (hopefully 2 units), the BenQ DW1640, and some LiteON drive, hopefully not my SOHW-832s which I would like to retire to a garbage pile soon.
As to why I do this... I like the third opinion on the disc, and I REALLY like the Beta testing done by the PX-712/716 drives.... but if it becomes a major issue I might stop doing PIE/PIF scanning with them, and cut 1.5 hours of testing time into .5 hours only (per disc).
The next drive I'll be reviewing? Not too sure yet. Possibly a new LiteON drive.... we'll have to see!(yeah, I really don't know yet)
Superb work and a new milestone. You may have covered more discs than Benq’s own team did.dolphinius_rex wrote:Next time I'll be scanning with just 3 models of drives, The PX-716SA (hopefully 2 units), the BenQ DW1640, and some LiteON drive, hopefully not my SOHW-832s which I would like to retire to a garbage pile soon.
As to why I do this... I like the third opinion on the disc, and I REALLY like the Beta testing done by the PX-712/716 drives.... but if it becomes a major issue I might stop doing PIE/PIF scanning with them, and cut 1.5 hours of testing time into .5 hours only (per disc).
Scour wrote:Can you in the next review the pics of Benq or Liteon direct include into the performance-page and for the Plextools-scans include a link to the pics?
Muchin wrote:1. The default speed of PxScan to perform PIE/PIF plus beta/jitter scanning is 2X, but one may edit the batch files to do PIE/PIF error tests at max speed (the simplest way is to add “jitterbeta” command to the fast_scan.bat file, in case you don't know). In doing so, one is also rewarded with PIE/PIF error counts comparable to those given by CATS for some discs at least, besides saving much time.
Muchin wrote:2. You have scanned all the discs with four drives for the sake of completeness. IMO, you may do the tests with a pickier drive first, if the scans are bad, there is no need to examine with other drives. In this way, you may cover more discs and the information is no less useful.
Muchin wrote:I would suggest LiteOn 167T DVD-ROM drive if you want to replace LiteOn SOHW-832S. CDRinfo and I myself have made some comparisons between 167T and CATS device in PIE/PIF error testing, and I am satisfied with the results of scanning with 167T at 8X speed, cutting some time again.
dolphinius_rex wrote:Muchin wrote:1. The default speed of PxScan to perform PIE/PIF plus beta/jitter scanning is 2X, but one may edit the batch files to do PIE/PIF error tests at max speed (the simplest way is to add “jitterbeta” command to the fast_scan.bat file, in case you don't know). In doing so, one is also rewarded with PIE/PIF error counts comparable to those given by CATS for some discs at least, besides saving much time.
This is something I considered when setting up my original testing model for my reviews. But since 2x is the default with Plextor, I'm sticking with that, just like my LiteON scans are done at 4x, and my BenQ at 8x.
dolphinius_rex wrote:As for CATS, like CDRInfo I also have access to my own CATS tests, but it probably takes a lot more work on my part to get them doneIn any case, I'm not totally convinced about reaching CATS like scores on any drive for a majority of media... it's just that some drives get lucky sometimes in some circumstances. The only two exceptions to this is the Plextor's Beta scores, which, when tested at 2x, come very close to CATS scores, and BenQ's Jitter scores, which when tested at 8x, come just a point or so higher then CATS scores. Which are both reasons why I use the drives.
dolphinius_rex wrote:Muchin wrote:2. You have scanned all the discs with four drives for the sake of completeness. IMO, you may do the tests with a pickier drive first, if the scans are bad, there is no need to examine with other drives. In this way, you may cover more discs and the information is no less useful.
Well, 4 drives is not my usual model... I just included comparions of the DW1620 vs. DW1640 in this review so that I could decide how close one scanning results were to the other, and show other people as well. As for a picky drive to scan with first.... what's a picky drive? The PX-712a/PX-716a? A LiteON? a BenQ?? All three of these drives have different perspectives on discs, and I've seen all 3 drives give a bad score to a disc the other 2 have given a good score to!. I like sticking with a 3 drive perspective, since it gives an idea of real world performance, rather then just a bunch of numbers most people have a hard time inturpretting beyond 280/4.
dolphinius_rex wrote:Muchin wrote:I would suggest LiteOn 167T DVD-ROM drive if you want to replace LiteOn SOHW-832S. CDRinfo and I myself have made some comparisons between 167T and CATS device in PIE/PIF error testing, and I am satisfied with the results of scanning with 167T at 8X speed, cutting some time again.
Sorry, but I'm certainly not satisfied with using a LiteON DVD-ROM as a serious scanning device. And yes, I have seen the comparison, and initially I was also excited about it... but the consistancy in LiteON DVD-ROM's has been shown time and time again to not be there. And besides that, I don't even consider LiteON DVD-RW drives to be serious scanning devices either
dolphinius_rex wrote:Qyngali wrote:Nice review, just a small correction/addendum. It does report C2 errors with Nero CD/DVD Speed, but not with EAC. This was confirmed by Erik Deppe over at the cdfreaks forum.
Q.
I'm having a very hard time getting the drive to report C2 errors... maybe I need a newer version of Nero CD/DVD Speed? In any case, it didn't report them on any of my tests... and to be honest, originally it had been stating that it could read C2 errors, and someone corrected me to have it say it couldn't![]()
I'm going to leave it as is for now, until I can produce a scan with C2 errors detected
Scour wrote:Hello!
I give Benq a chance, my 1640 is ordered
Thanks to Dolph for so many scans and transfer-rate-tests
dolphinius_rex wrote:Well, when CDRlabs, CDFreaks, and CDRinfo, all agree it's one of the best drives, or even THE best drive available.... you can't be risking too much I don't think
I don't know what that guy is smokin' Dolph but no BenQ DVD writer(DW800A-1640) can report C2 errors or damaged sectors.
Basically there are two ways of reporting C2 errors:
1) the standard MMC method which can be used in conjunction with audio CD ripping. BenQ DVD burners do not support this method.
This is the method which InfoTool reports.
2) a vendor-specific method which can only be used for disc quality testing.
This method is supported by BenQ drives so the results from the Disc Quality test are correct.
Well.. if you go by Erik's comments, then Dolph is correct. The drive does not report C2 errors when ripping audio CD's.. with EAC or otherwise.
Nice review, just a small correction/addendum. It does report C2 errors with Nero CD/DVD Speed, but not with EAC. This was confirmed by Erik Deppe over at the cdfreaks forum.
2) a vendor-specific method which can only be used for disc quality testing.
This method is supported by BenQ drives so the results from the Disc Quality test are correct.
Qyngali wrote:In other words, Nero CD/DVD Speed reports C2 errors wit han audio cd when running the Disc Quality test.
If you don't believe EAC
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests
All Content is Copyright (c) 2001-2025 CDRLabs Inc. |