CDRLabs.com

an NEC 3540 with auto-bitsetting FW and a BenQ 1640 as a 3rd backup burner which one would you choose? I'm debating whether to wait on the 1640 or just get the NEC now.

Their both good burners. After checking most reviews, I think the 1640 has a clear edge. The 1640 is hitting the market right now, and the price should be pretty low like all other drives (except for that really expensive brand ). My NEC 2510 hasn't failed me yet, but I'm looking forward for a 1640

the benq 1640 is already available. seeing how youre in Canada, NCIX.com has the benq 1640 instock. I'm not sure if its available in the US (im guessing it is somewhere) but NCIX.com also ships to the US and is a very reputable store here in Canada.

ive been an NEC fan since i own an NEC 3520, but i agree, the benq 1640 seems to have a clear edge over the 3540. I'm planning on selling my 3520 and buying a 1640 with my new computer.

One thing about the DW1640, it doesn't seem to overspeed much media when compared to its predecessor (DW1620) or the ND-3540A.

Well went ahead and ordered the 1640 from NCIX I'll get it tomorrow. I'll let you know how it goes. I gues I'll have to put my Liteon 52x in my USB enclosure. Unfortunately Feurio doesn't see my burner in that enclosure but Nero and DVD Decrypter do. Strange but true.

Also forgot to add new FW BSJB just got released for the 1640.

seaegg wrote:Also forgot to add new FW BSJB just got released for the 1640.

i already posted the news in Dolphins test data thread.

btw, i should be getting my 1640 from NCIX tomorrow too =].

Nice

seaegg wrote:Nice

If it works properly, it should solve the only real problem I've encountered with the drive that concerns me to any level... which means I'll have to carefully test it to make sure, because it could be a big change in score (well, maybe 1 or 2 points )

ive been an NEC fan since i own an NEC 3520, but i agree, the benq 1640 seems to have a clear edge over the 3540.

After checking most reviews, I think the 1640 has a clear edge.

Just wondering...in what way does the BenQ 1640 have a "clear edge" over the NEC 3540? From what I've read, the opposite seems to be the case, especially as regards writing quality.

I have both, except my NEC is 3500 rathar than 3540 but I just got Benq 1640. NEC provided me with overspeed burning of almost majority of medias but is slow ripper while 1640 is high speed horse ripper but refuse to burn any media over thier rating speed.

TCAS wrote:I have both, except my NEC is 3500 rathar than 3540 but I just got Benq 1640. NEC provided me with overspeed burning of almost majority of medias but is slow ripper while 1640 is high speed horse ripper but refuse to burn any media over thier rating speed.

I expect that to change in 2-3 days

every one is hopping so. I am awaiting for the news on Monday Aug 15.

TCAS wrote:every one is hopping so. I am awaiting for the news on Monday Aug 15.

I've seen the results already.... it should be enough to appease the people with a lust for overclocking, as well as people who prefer to follow the rated disc speed. In my opinion, this solution is by far the best offered by any drive manufacturer, but I've only got one opinion to give, and it doesn't always agree with the majority

*...um...* Would someone please explain the mystery of "I've seen the results already" and "Monday Aug 15" to me? I must've missed something important!?!

articulate wrote:*...um...* Would someone please explain the mystery of "I've seen the results already" and "Monday Aug 15" to me? I must've missed something important!?!

To find out about the mystery go to the following:

ftp://62.101.64.70/ or if to hard for just go to:ftp://62.101.64.70/dvd-rw/firmware/

articulate wrote:*...um...* Would someone please explain the mystery of "I've seen the results already" and "Monday Aug 15" to me? I must've missed something important!?!

Supposedly on August 15th, a new firmware will be released, which will allow any single layer ±R disc be recorded at speeds of up to 16x, when combined with the new release of QSuite. I know, because I have both already, but not their final versions.

- - thanks for the clarification!

articulate wrote:Just wondering...in what way does the BenQ 1640 have a "clear edge" over the NEC 3540? From what I've read, the opposite seems to be the case, especially as regards writing quality.

From what I seen, the NEC 3540 is a hard competitor against the 1640 in writing-quality. Seems to be that the NEC overspeed more media and is the better one for cheap media.

Bu the Benq is better for quality scans and is very good with very good media.

Scour wrote:

articulate wrote:Just wondering...in what way does the BenQ 1640 have a "clear edge" over the NEC 3540? From what I've read, the opposite seems to be the case, especially as regards writing quality.

From what I seen, the NEC 3540 is a hard competitor against the 1640 in writing-quality. Seems to be that the NEC overspeed more media and is the better one for cheap media.

Bu the Benq is better for quality scans and is very good with very good media.

I have a hard time believing that the NEC 3540 is more forgiving then the DW1640. Out of hundreds of burns with over a hundred different types of media, I've come across only a small handful of discs that could not be played back on my other drives. Although writing quality is not always the best, it's made some discs work that no other drive has pulled off for me.

dolphinius_rex wrote:
I have a hard time believing that the NEC 3540 is more forgiving then the DW1640. Out of hundreds of burns with over a hundred different types of media, I've come across only a small handful of discs that could not be played back on my other drives. Although writing quality is not always the best, it's made some discs work that no other drive has pulled off for me.

NEC are since 3500 drives those burns bad media well. I don´t know exactly how much Benq have improved from 1620 to 1640, but some tests (c´t with Philips and NEC 3540, Cdfreaks 3540-review) show that the NEC is very good for lower-quality-media.

If a disc can be playback it doesn´t mean that this disc is burned well

Overall I´m impressed from the 3540

Maybe some reviews of the 1640 will clear the situation. But Cdrlabs and Cdfreaks taking muuuuch time for review it...

"Bu the Benq is better for quality scans"

?? Why is that? Sure it reports jitter when the NEC does not, but the NEC reports C2 errors on CDs, when the Benq does not. So they both have good and bad points concerning scanning. Actually the C2 feature of the NEC is what made me choose it against the Benq.

Furthermore the NEC allows 16X DVD scanning with reasonable consistency in results. I doubt the Benq allows this..?

I'd like to point, too, that Benq has a long story of reliability issues, that has lead many users to say "Well, yes Benq drives are excellent... when they work". Count me in, my 1620 was as reliable as a mad cow and died in less than 8 months. Yes, when it worked, it was a great drive... but personally I prefer to live with slightly lesser scans but much less headaches.

Francksoy wrote:"?? Why is that? Sure it reports jitter when the NEC does not, but the NEC reports C2 errors on CDs, when the Benq does not.

I'm not sure where you're getting that info, but BenQ drives do support C1/C2 testing on CD's.

Consistency in testing? I don't know any drive that gives 100% consistent results. Comparing the BenQ and NEC is like apples and oranges in this regard.

"but BenQ drives do support C1/C2 testing on CD's"

They do NOT support C2 testing. The feature is mentioned but doesn't actually work.

"I'm not sure where you're getting that info"

From Benq users at CDFreaks and in-depth reviews on the web. I was about to order a 1640 when I discovered this. Maybe they're planning to actually implement the feature with a future 1640 firmware, though, but they didn't as yet with the 1620...

"I don't know any drive that gives 100% consistent results"

Of course. Did I use this "100%" in my post? *You* do - I used "reasonable consistency". And I referred to consistency between different scanning speeds.

"Comparing the BenQ and NEC is like apples and oranges in this regard."

What's your point exactly? For the end-user, scans are mainly for comparing how different medias do on their drive. If drive X allows this at a faster speed with reasonably accurate results when drive Y allows this at a lower speed with no more accuracy than drive X, why on earth could'nt one compare these two features?

Cheers

Scour wrote:Seems to be that the NEC overspeed more media and is the better one for cheap media.

IIRC, neither the NEC nor the BenQ will officially overspeed media (it's an unfortunate change from BenQ from the 1620, which officially oversped lots of stuff). With patched firmwares, both can overspeed just as well, I think.