Home News Reviews Forums Shop


C't test results. burners.

DVD-R/W, DVD+R/RW, DVD-RAM

Postby Scour on Mon Nov 21, 2005 8:27 am

Francksoy wrote:
I notice better quality (much less PIFs) in the FIRST part of the burn (+/- 1GB) with the 4550A than with the Pioneer. The Pioneer starts @6X and on the scans one can see the PIFs starting higher and progressively get lower until +/- 1GB. From there on, the results are similar between the 4550A and the 110D with these discs.

Let's not forget that 6X writing is, in theory, the maximum possible speed to burn the inner area of a DVDR (yes, even the 16X rated ones) with good quality. NEC chooses security over speed (Z-CLV 4X-6X-8X) and it proves to be, with some media but not all, better than the more 'brutal' 6X-8X strategy of the Pioneer that will give a hard time to some discs in the very first part of the burn.


The Benq 1640 uses P-CAV 8x, starting @ 6,5x and it´s quality is also high with most media, so I guess that starting with 6x is no problem for 8x-media. Maybe the 4x-strategy from NEC is better than at higher speeds.

BTW, the LG 4163 starts with ca 7,4x when it writes a medium @16x :)
Benq DW 1640, LG GH-20N, Pioneer BDR-208
Crucial M4, Sandisk SSD, Plextor M5S, Sandisk Ultra Plus, OCZ Petrol 256GB

cu
Scour
Scour
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 1909
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2001 8:00 pm
Location: Germany

Re: test in c't 24/2005

Postby frank1 on Mon Nov 21, 2005 8:55 am

I suppose that it is: MKM 003
But thanks again for your summary !

Code: Select all
                                DVD+R DL 8x   
                     Bound      Verbatim     

                         not:   MKM 01RD30

                      it is:     MKM 003

AxialN  [mu]         0.2          0.16
RadialN [nm]         25           0.47 (**) 
RRO [mu]             70          43.1       
Mech. Index/ Grade                70 / +     
Writing quality                    0         
Clim. Stability                   --         

(**) The RadialN value reported may be incorrect: it doesn't jibe with previous results or with limits.
Last edited by frank1 on Mon Nov 21, 2005 9:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
frank1
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 334
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 6:59 am

Re: test in c't 24/2005

Postby MediumRare on Mon Nov 21, 2005 9:16 am

frank1 wrote:I suppose that it is: MKM 003

Yes, you're right. It was listed incorrectly in the c't article :o- but MKM 01RD30 is DVD-DL media. I'll change the entry in the summary.

G
User avatar
MediumRare
CD-RW Translator
 
Posts: 1768
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2003 3:08 pm
Location: ffm

Postby Gabe on Wed Nov 23, 2005 10:41 am

Good work, MediumRare =D>

I bought the c´t-magazine, but it´s nice to have the results avaible on every PC with Internet :)
WD: WD6400AAKS, WD10EALS, WD20EARS, WD10EALS
Hitachi: 7K1000.B 1 TB, 7K1000.C 1 TB, 7K2000 2TB, 7K3000 2TB
Seagate: ST2000DL003, ST31000528AS
Samsung HD204UI
LG GH-22NS50
Plextor PX 755 1.04
Benq DW 1670 1.03
Optiarc AD 7173A 1.01
Asus DRW 20B1LT 1.00
Gabe
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 297
Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2002 10:35 am

Postby inspaine on Sat Nov 26, 2005 6:23 pm

NEC does well a writer, but has poor DVD error correction and is loud- not a good DVD-reader, but good CD error correction. The DL media have high jitter values on the second layer- hence 4x recommendation


Hi!
How is the noise of the nd-4550 at lower dvd speeds (any whine or other noises)? compared to the "competing drives" Benq, Pioneer?

Thank you
inspaine
Buffer Underrun
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:02 am

Postby MediumRare on Mon Nov 28, 2005 1:48 am

According to c't, the NEC didn't slow down at all while playing a DVD (movie), but kept the revs up at maximum. Very loud. It was the only drive in this lot that did that. :-? The Panasonic was the quietest, followed by Pioneer.

G
User avatar
MediumRare
CD-RW Translator
 
Posts: 1768
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2003 3:08 pm
Location: ffm

more tests in c't No. 4 / 2006

Postby MediumRare on Sun Feb 05, 2006 7:25 pm

It's been a while, but there's another test of DVD-Burners and media in the latest issue of c't No. 4/2006 on sale in Europe tomorrow.

The same issue has a first look at the Samsung BluRay and NEC HD-DVD drives that Ian reported in last week's news: NEC, Samsung. The print article brings little new information, so I won't say more about it.

Media
They looked at 5 "new" media types- one is a Labelflash variety (almost twice the price of the others :o). The physical properties were analyzed by Audiodev from unburnt discs. The c't weighted mechanical quality index is based on these results. The available information is summarized in the following table:

Code: Select all
                             DVD-R 16x    DVD+R 16x   DVD-R 16x LF  DVD+R 16x     DVD+R DL 8x 
                     Bound   BenQ         BenQ        Fuji Film     Plextor       Ricoh     
                             Daxon 016S   Daxon AZ3   Ritek F1      Yuden000 T03  RICOHJPN D01
AxialN  [mu]         0.2       0.12         0.10        0.09          0.08          0.19
RadialN [nm]         25       34.0         25.0        26.0          20.0          26.0       
RRO [mu]             70       21.0         65.0        19.0          17.0          27.0       
Mech. Index/ Grade             76 / ++      67 / +      84 / ++       88 / ++       60 / +     
Writing quality                 0            -           0             0            --         
Clim. Stability                 0           --           0             0             +       

The writing quality is an average based on the results of the burner tests below and (of course) depends on the firmware used there.

These discs all show excellent mechanical properties (particularly the Plextor media), the compatibility with the tested drives is not so good- the firmware needs work. The TY media are not as "compatible" as the DVD-R variety- even the Plextor drive has problems- but this lies in the firmware (the discs are excellent mechanically).

The BenQ media have similar mechanical properties and burn quality, but the dash discs do much better than the plus variety in the climatic stabilty test. The latter are not recommended for long term storage.

The Fuji LabelFlash even improved in one case after the climatic torture test- but are too expensive for use other than in a LabelFlash drive.

Most of the drives couldn't write to the second layer of the Ricoh DL media- they apparently have problems with the inverted stack production method. In that light, the excellent climatic stability is irrelevant.

Drives
There are 5 drives in the test this time- most with LightScribe (or LabelFlash) and/or DVD-RAM capability.
As usual, I'll tabulate the c't quality index along with the grade (see http://www.cdrlabs.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=101936#101936 for a description of this index and the grade).

The first table contains model and firmware and the c't grade for various categories. The quality and speed ratings for DVDs are now combined in a single grade.

Code: Select all
                       DVD Burns      Reading      Noise       
Model +  Firmware     R / RW / DL     CD / DVD     CD/VideoDVD

BenQ        BCAC      + / -- / 0       + / ++      0 / --       
DW1650

BenQ        BCAB      0 /  0 / 0       + / +       0 / --       
DW1655

NEC         1.07      0 /  + / -       0 / -       0 / --       
ND-4551A

Plextor     1.01      0 / -- / --      + / +       0 / -       
PX-750A

Plextor     1.01      - / -- / --      + / +       0 / +       
PX-755A

The next tables contains the actual and recommended burning speed for these drives and selected media. The recommended speed is based on details of the scans (NO means "do not use"). The second line shows the c't quality index and grade (# means POFs occurred).

As usual, a burning cascade was carried out for RW's (a CD-Speed data disk is used for the +-R results). A number in parentheses here, e.g. (3), indicates a recommended speed from the third burn on.

First: 8x LightScribe, RW and DL Media

Code: Select all
              DVD+R 8x      DVD+R DL 8x   DVD-R DL 4x   DVD+RW 8x     DVD-RW 6x   
              LightScribe   Ricoh         MCC (Verb.)   Ricoh         Verbatim   
              Verb MCC 003  RICOHJPN D01  MKM 01RD30   RICOHJPN W21   MKM 01RW6X01
Model
BenQ            8 / 8         8 / NO        4 / 4          8 / 2.4       6 / 6(3)
DW1650         48 / 0      -125 / --       74 / +       -454 / --      -85 / --# 

BenQ            8 / 8         8 / NO        4 / 4          8 / 2.4       6 / 6   
DW1655         45 / 0      -108 / --#      71 / +         -7 / --       79 / ++   

NEC             8 / 8         8 / 4         6 / 6          8 / 8         6 / 6   
ND-4551A       61 / +      -110 / --#      41 / 0         57 / +        67 / +

Plextor         8 / 8       2.4 / NO        4 / NO         8 / NO        ? / NO   
PX-750A        63 / +      -290 / --#    -258 / --#      -12 / --        ? / ?   

Plextor        12 / NO        8 / NO        6 / 2.4        8 / NO        6 / NO   
PX-755A      -409 / --#     -354/ --#      27 / 0       -302 / --#    -164 / --# 

The Plextor PX-755A was tested without autostrategy.

Next: 16x +R and -R Media. Here the Plextor PX-755A appears twice: with and without AutoStrategy.

Code: Select all
             DVD+R 16x      DVD-R 16x    DVD+R 16x     DVD-R 16x       DVD-R 16x
             BenQ           BenQ         Taiyo Yuden   Taiyo Yuden     Fuji Film
             Daxon AZ31     Daxon 016S   Yuden000 T03  TYG03           Ritek F1 
Model
BenQ           16 / 12        8 / 8         4 / 4        16 / 16        16 / 16 
DW1650         31 / 0        80 / ++       59 / +        60 / +         58 / +

BenQ           16 / 12       16 / 12       16 / 12       16 / 16        16 / 12 
DW1655         43 / 0        43 / 0        31 / 0        50 / +        -76 / --#

NEC            16 / 12       16 / 12       16 / 12       16 / 16        16 / 12 
ND-4551A       -4 / --       19 / -       -17 / --       57 / +         45 / 0   

Plextor         4 / 4        16 / NO       16 / 12       16 / 12         4 / 4   
PX-750A        37 / 0      -695 / --#      48 / 0        37 / 0         66 / +   

Plextor        16 / 8        16 / 8        16 / 8        16 / 8         16 / 12 
PX-755A AS   -252 / --#       5 / -        -3 / --       31 / 0         63 / +   

Plextor no     16 / NO        8 / NO       16 / 12       16 / 16        12 / 4   
PX-755A AS   -459 / --#    -641 / --#      -9 / --       68 / +       -314 / --#


Some remarks:
  • CD-Rs were only tested with a single burn with TY media. Aparently CD's are "unproblematic" and are not given much weight.
  • The new BenQ 1650 and 1655 have similarly good results as the 1640 did. Solidburn allow successful burns of single layer media without strategies implemented in the firmware- albeit at reduced speeds. It does not help with DL or RW media. The differing results between these drives result from the somewhat older FW in the 1655.
  • LabelFlash (NEC) is faster and more resistant to bleaching (light) than Lightscribe (BenQ 1655), but is more difficult to read because the glossy surface loves reflections and fingerprints.
  • NEC does well a writer, but has poor DVD error correction and is loud- not a good DVD-reader, but good CD error correction. It does better with the DL and RW media tested than the other drives. A peculiarity: the discs burned by the NEC did better in the climatic tests than those from the BenQ DW1650. Just what this means remains to be seen. :o
  • The Plextor PX-750A can use the Panasonic drivers to write to DVD-RAM and is OK with single layer media. The results for other media types are terrible.
  • Plextor PX-755A relies on Autostrategy for unknown media types- but does not do a good job with them (in contrast to BenQ). The TY DVD-R were better without AS than with it turned on (as recommended by Plextor). The writing quality is not good with this FW. One of the few things going for this expensive drive is the diagnostics offered by the Plextools (PIE, POE, beta, jitter, focus and tracking error).

Personally, I would have prefered to have some more established media in the tests (e.g. Verbatim 16x). Other than TYG03, this is mostly new and exotic stuff that doesn't allow a fair comparison with previously tested drives.

G
Last edited by MediumRare on Mon Feb 06, 2006 1:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
MediumRare
CD-RW Translator
 
Posts: 1768
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2003 3:08 pm
Location: ffm

Postby Francksoy on Sun Feb 05, 2006 7:52 pm

Thanks a lot MediumRare, always a pleasure to come here to read your transcriptions =D> =D> =D> =D> =D>
A peculiarity: the discs burned by the NEC did better in the climatic tests than those from the BenQ DW1650. Just what this means remains to be seen.


:o :o :o Indeed!
The Music and the Magic: SOYSOY
User avatar
Francksoy
Buffer Underrun
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2005 5:49 am

Postby Scour on Sun Feb 05, 2006 8:07 pm

Hello!

Again Thanks to MediumRare :)

It´s a shame for Plextor, the most epensive writer is one of the worst you can buy.

The 1650 looks better than the newer 1655 :o

BTW, there´s a typo in the media-table, 016S = Benq -R and AZ31 = Benq +R
Benq DW 1640, LG GH-20N, Pioneer BDR-208
Crucial M4, Sandisk SSD, Plextor M5S, Sandisk Ultra Plus, OCZ Petrol 256GB

cu
Scour
Scour
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 1909
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2001 8:00 pm
Location: Germany

Postby dolphinius_rex on Sun Feb 05, 2006 11:25 pm

Scour:

The DW1655 was using an older firmware, so knowing BenQ, it's probably much closer or even better then the DW1650 now.
Punch Cards -> Paper Tape -> Tape Drive -> 8" Floppy Diskette -> 5 1/4" Floppy Diskette -> 3 1/2" "Flippy" Diskette -> CD-R -> DVD±R -> BD-R

The Progression of Computer Media
User avatar
dolphinius_rex
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 6923
Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2003 6:14 pm
Location: Vancouver B.C. Canada

Postby dodecahedron on Sun Feb 05, 2006 11:50 pm

off topic, but what's the differences between the 1650 and 1655, apart from LightScribe? are there any at all ???
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the land of Mordor, where the Shadows lie
-- JRRT
M.C. Escher - Reptilien
User avatar
dodecahedron
DVD Polygon
 
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2002 12:04 am
Location: Israel

Postby MediumRare on Mon Feb 06, 2006 2:02 am

Scour wrote:BTW, there´s a typo in the media-table, 016S = Benq -R and AZ31 = Benq +R

Fixed it- I'd copied the codes from the first table to the 16x table.

BTW- is anyone else seeing line breaks in the first table (I'm using Firefox 1.5.x). There used to be horizontal scroll bars here.

G
User avatar
MediumRare
CD-RW Translator
 
Posts: 1768
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2003 3:08 pm
Location: ffm

Postby dodecahedron on Mon Feb 06, 2006 2:17 am

MediumRare wrote:BTW- is anyone else seeing line breaks in the first table (I'm using Firefox 1.5.x). There used to be horizontal scroll bars here.

really? i don't remember horizontal scrollbars! i'll take your word for it.

anyway, yes, line breaks in 1st, 3rd and 4th tables. FireFox 1.5.0.1
but that's only when the browser window is just the right size for the forum. if maximized then no problem.
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the land of Mordor, where the Shadows lie
-- JRRT
M.C. Escher - Reptilien
User avatar
dodecahedron
DVD Polygon
 
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2002 12:04 am
Location: Israel

Postby MediumRare on Mon Feb 06, 2006 4:24 am

dodecahedron wrote:
MediumRare wrote:BTW- is anyone else seeing line breaks in the first table (I'm using Firefox 1.5.x). There used to be horizontal scroll bars here.

really? i don't remember horizontal scrollbars! i'll take your word for it.

http://www.cdrlabs.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=19686

They aren't there in Opera or IE at work either. I'll try to shorten the lines tonight- so that they don't wrap in 768x1024.

G
User avatar
MediumRare
CD-RW Translator
 
Posts: 1768
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2003 3:08 pm
Location: ffm

Postby dodecahedron on Mon Feb 06, 2006 4:37 am

OK, OK. my memory isn't what it used to by.
cfitz would be doing tsk tsk tsk now if he read this topic. :wink:

thanks for the updates G.
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the land of Mordor, where the Shadows lie
-- JRRT
M.C. Escher - Reptilien
User avatar
dodecahedron
DVD Polygon
 
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2002 12:04 am
Location: Israel

Re: more tests in c't No. 4 / 2006

Postby Muchin on Thu Feb 09, 2006 2:49 am

MediumRare wrote: A peculiarity: the discs burned by the NEC did better in the climatic tests than those from the BenQ DW1650. Just what this means remains to be seen.

How large is the difference? Do they have some details?

Thank you a lot for providing so much of the greatly valuable information.
Muchin
Buffer Underrun
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 2:12 pm
Location: Formosa

Re: more tests in c't No. 4 / 2006

Postby frank1 on Fri Feb 10, 2006 6:00 am

MediumRare wrote:Plextor PX-755A
. . .
The writing quality is not good with this FW
i.e. FW 1.01
We have now firmware 1.02 for the PX-755

The BenQ 1650 and Nec 4551 (1.07) have more evolved firmwares
Last edited by frank1 on Sat Feb 11, 2006 4:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
frank1
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 334
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 6:59 am

Re: more tests in c't No. 4 / 2006

Postby MediumRare on Fri Feb 10, 2006 6:32 pm

Muchin wrote:
MediumRare wrote: A peculiarity: the discs burned by the NEC did better in the climatic tests than those from the BenQ DW1650. Just what this means remains to be seen.

How large is the difference? Do they have some details?

They didn't post many details- just 2 before/after values for max. PI Sum 8 per disc type. Since these are determined on the Almedio AEC-1000 (and not AudioDev), the numbers aren't fully compatible with those in the tables I posted.

I'm infering that the remark applies to the Fuji Labelflash (Ritek F1). Here the best disc goes down from 95 to 43 and the other disc goes up from 29 to 260. The starting values suggest that these are the samples from the NEC and BenQ 1650 respectively.

As far as I can tell, the statement is based on these numbers. There are some other cases where one of the two samples holds up significantly better than the other in the climate test, but the drives used are not listed in the table.

I'll check if the author will supply some more information, but am not that hopeful.

G
User avatar
MediumRare
CD-RW Translator
 
Posts: 1768
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2003 3:08 pm
Location: ffm

Re: more tests in c't No. 4 / 2006

Postby Muchin on Sat Feb 11, 2006 4:21 am

Thank you for your detailed explanation, MediumRare.

I'm infering that the remark applies to the Fuji Labelflash (Ritek F1). Here the best disc goes down from 95 to 43 and the other disc goes up from 29 to 260. The starting values suggest that these are the samples from the NEC and BenQ 1650 respectively.


Does it mean that the rating for one of the disc in climate stability is ++, and the other is ––?
Muchin
Buffer Underrun
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 2:12 pm
Location: Formosa

Postby Scour on Mon Apr 03, 2006 12:38 pm

Hello!

I heard rumors that in c´t 8/2006 is a new test of some writers like LG GSA-H20L, Pioneer DVR-111, Plextor PX760A and Samsung SH-W163.

MediumRare, i hope you working on it ;)
Benq DW 1640, LG GH-20N, Pioneer BDR-208
Crucial M4, Sandisk SSD, Plextor M5S, Sandisk Ultra Plus, OCZ Petrol 256GB

cu
Scour
Scour
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 1909
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2001 8:00 pm
Location: Germany

Postby MediumRare on Mon Apr 03, 2006 1:14 pm

Scour wrote:Hello!

I heard rumors that in c´t 8/2006 is a new test of some writers like LG GSA-H20L, Pioneer DVR-111, Plextor PX760A and Samsung SH-W163.

MediumRare, i hope you working on it ;)

Yes and yes. They tested precisely those 4 drives, and yes, I'm working on a summary. I'll be at least a couple of hours because I'm just installing Linux on my main machine. :D (And I was busy with a display tool for KProbe test results).

G
User avatar
MediumRare
CD-RW Translator
 
Posts: 1768
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2003 3:08 pm
Location: ffm

c't DVD-burner tests in issue 8/2006

Postby MediumRare on Mon Apr 03, 2006 4:49 pm

So as Scour mentioned, c't has another test of DVD-Burners in the latest issue of c't No. 8/2006 on sale noe in Europe. This is only a summary of the test- primarily re. writing quality. There are many more detailed results in the magazine (transfer rates, reading performance, error correction and handling of copy protected CDs).

There are no new media types and only 4 burners in this round. Also, the number of media types tested with the Audiodev CATS-DVD-PRO was limited. Some additional types were evaluated with their in-house Almedio AEC-1000 and with a Plextor PX-716A (CD-Rs) and indicated as a quality index and grade, but without the detailed information from CATS.

The first table contains model and firmware and the c't grade for various categories. The quality and speed ratings for DVDs are combined in a single grade.

Code: Select all
                       DVD Burns     CD     Reading     Noise
Model +  Firmware     R / RW / DL   Burns   CD / DVD    CD/VideoDVD

LG          1.00      0 / - / --     ++      + / 0        0 /0--
GSA-H20L

Pioneer     1.02      0 / 0 / +      ++      0 / 0        0 / +
DVR-111

Plextor     1.00      0 / - / -      ++      0 / +        0 / --
PX-760A

Samsung     TS01      0 / - / -      ++      0 / +        + / -
SH-W163

The next table contains the actual and recommended burning speed for these drives and selected media. The recommended speed is based on details of the CATS scans. The second line shows the c't quality index and grade (# means POFs occurred).

It wasn't indicated this time if a burning cascade was carried out for RW's (a CD-Speed data disk is used for the +-R and CD results).
Code: Select all
              DVD+R 16x    DVD+R 16x    DVD-R 16x    DVD+RDL 8x   DVD+RW 8x   
              Verbatim     Taiyo Yuden  Taiyo Yuden  Verbatim     Ricoh       
               MCC 004     YUDEN00 T03    TYG03      MKM 003     RICOHJPN W21
                             (000)                   (000)        (001)
Model
LG             16 / 8       16 / 12      16 / 16       8 / 4        8 / 4   
GSA-H20L     -287 / --#     40 / 0       61 / +      -12 / --     -55 / --   

Pioneer        16 / 16      16 / 12      16 / 12       8 / 8        8 / 2.4 
DVR-111        61 / +       54 / +      -73 / --      60 / +     -259 / --# 

Plextor        18 / 12      18 / 16      18 / 18      10 / 8        8 / 4   
PX-760A      -273 / --#     23 / -       54 / +       16 / -     -341 / --# 

Samsung        16 / 16      16 / 16      16 / 16       8 / 6        8 / 4   
SH-W163        32 / 0       53 / +       35 / 0       26 / 0     -399 / --#

The next table contains the quality index and grade from the (less detailed) Almedio/Plextor test.

Code: Select all
              DVD-R 16x    DVD-RDL 4x   DVD-RW 6x     CD-R 486x   
               Maxell     Verbatim MCC Verbatim MCC   Taiyo Yuden
Model
LG             59 / +        -6 / --      31 / 0       81 / ++   
GSA-H20L   

Pioneer      -265 / --       49 / 0       83 / ++      77 / ++   
DVR-111     

Plextor        37 / 0        25 / 0       24 / -       82 / ++   
PX-760A     

Samsung      -482 / --     -268 / --      26 / 0       78 / ++   
SH-W163     


These drives have some special features:
- the Plextor PX-760A burns single layer media @18x, but only gains 2-3 seconds in comparison to LG or Samsung, and then only with selected media (TYG03). But the numbers "look better" and more companies (e.g. LiteOn) will follow. The drive has problems with RWs.
- the Samsung drive has a SATA-interface (native, not bridge chip) and performs pretty well the same as its's IDE sibling SH-W162. SATA will become increasingly important as more mainboards discontinue the IDE interface.
- Pioneer (111, not 111D) and LG can write DVD-RAM @5x
- Pioneer is also capable of Labelflash, but hasn't activated it yet in this firmware (licence not yet finalized). Quality is good for DL and better with SL than the 110, but it still has some problems @16x.
- LG does better at 16x than previous models, but has problems with DL.
- all burned TY CDs with good quality
- None of the drives did well with Ricoh 8x +RW.

G
User avatar
MediumRare
CD-RW Translator
 
Posts: 1768
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2003 3:08 pm
Location: ffm

Postby Scour on Mon Apr 03, 2006 6:39 pm

Hello!

Thanks for your work, MediumRare =D>
Benq DW 1640, LG GH-20N, Pioneer BDR-208
Crucial M4, Sandisk SSD, Plextor M5S, Sandisk Ultra Plus, OCZ Petrol 256GB

cu
Scour
Scour
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 1909
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2001 8:00 pm
Location: Germany

Postby dolphinius_rex on Mon Apr 03, 2006 7:24 pm

I'm with Scour, Thanks MediumRare!!

It looks like the PX-760 is a waste of time... all the cool features like 18x recording are flawed at best, and useless at worst. The PX-755 is probably a better choice for Plextor. The DVR-111 might have some hope, but I'm still skeptical about its' overall media support. The Samsung drive was surprisingly fast!! :o
Punch Cards -> Paper Tape -> Tape Drive -> 8" Floppy Diskette -> 5 1/4" Floppy Diskette -> 3 1/2" "Flippy" Diskette -> CD-R -> DVD±R -> BD-R

The Progression of Computer Media
User avatar
dolphinius_rex
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 6923
Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2003 6:14 pm
Location: Vancouver B.C. Canada

Postby MediumRare on Mon Mar 05, 2007 5:48 pm

This isn't exactly burners- but the latest isssue of c't (No. 6/2007) has a test of Inkjet printable DVD's. What they test is the printing properties: things like smear resistance, fading, colour fidelity and printable area, not the media burning quality.

They checked 20 media types with 3 printers (Canon iP5200R, Epson R265 and HP Photosmart D5160).

Personally, I use primarily printable media, but base my choices on the burning properties, not on what they tested here. If there's strong interest, I'll try and post a summary later this week though.

G
User avatar
MediumRare
CD-RW Translator
 
Posts: 1768
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2003 3:08 pm
Location: ffm

PreviousNext

Return to DVD Writers

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot] and 0 guests

All Content is Copyright (c) 2001-2017 CDRLabs Inc.