Home News Reviews Forums Shop


If you had to choose between

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

If you had to choose between

Postby seaegg on Sun Jul 17, 2005 3:31 pm

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.
Scientia Est Potentia
seaegg
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 274
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2001 8:00 pm
Location: Winnipeg, MB Canada

Postby eric93se on Sun Jul 17, 2005 3:46 pm

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 :roll: ). My NEC 2510 hasn't failed me yet, but I'm looking forward for a 1640 :D
Benq DW-1640
ASUS 1608P2 >> Crossflashed to Pioneer 110 -> RAM+Bitsetting+removed riplock+RPC1 :D

Boost Mobile stole my minutes, then would rather loose me as a customer than give back my minutes (thieves).
User avatar
eric93se
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 235
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2003 9:22 pm

Postby rahzel on Tue Jul 19, 2005 3:40 am

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.
rahzel
Buffer Underrun
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 6:31 pm

Postby Gen-An on Tue Jul 19, 2005 9:10 am

One thing about the DW1640, it doesn't seem to overspeed much media when compared to its predecessor (DW1620) or the ND-3540A.
Gen-An
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 310
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 6:20 pm

Postby seaegg on Fri Jul 22, 2005 1:28 am

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. :o
Scientia Est Potentia
seaegg
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 274
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2001 8:00 pm
Location: Winnipeg, MB Canada

Postby seaegg on Fri Jul 22, 2005 1:33 am

Also forgot to add new FW BSJB just got released for the 1640.
Scientia Est Potentia
seaegg
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 274
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2001 8:00 pm
Location: Winnipeg, MB Canada

Postby rahzel on Fri Jul 22, 2005 1:42 am

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 =].
rahzel
Buffer Underrun
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 6:31 pm

Postby seaegg on Fri Jul 22, 2005 1:44 am

Nice
Scientia Est Potentia
seaegg
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 274
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2001 8:00 pm
Location: Winnipeg, MB Canada

Postby dolphinius_rex on Fri Jul 22, 2005 4:17 am

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 :P)
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 articulate on Fri Aug 12, 2005 5:51 pm

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.
articulate
CD-RW Thug
 
Posts: 80
Joined: Tue May 08, 2001 8:00 pm

Postby TCAS on Sat Aug 13, 2005 3:11 am

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
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 981
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2001 8:00 pm

Postby dolphinius_rex on Sat Aug 13, 2005 1:13 pm

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 :wink:
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 TCAS on Sat Aug 13, 2005 2:40 pm

every one is hopping so. I am awaiting for the news on Monday Aug 15.
TCAS
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 981
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2001 8:00 pm

Postby dolphinius_rex on Sat Aug 13, 2005 2:43 pm

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 :wink:
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 articulate on Sat Aug 13, 2005 5:22 pm

*...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
CD-RW Thug
 
Posts: 80
Joined: Tue May 08, 2001 8:00 pm

Postby TCAS on Sat Aug 13, 2005 5:58 pm

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/
TCAS
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 981
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2001 8:00 pm

Postby dolphinius_rex on Sat Aug 13, 2005 6:09 pm

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.
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 articulate on Sat Aug 13, 2005 6:41 pm

- - thanks for the clarification!
articulate
CD-RW Thug
 
Posts: 80
Joined: Tue May 08, 2001 8:00 pm

Postby Scour on Sun Aug 14, 2005 5:23 am

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.
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 Aug 14, 2005 5:36 am

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.
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 Scour on Sun Aug 14, 2005 6:14 pm

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...
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 Francksoy on Sun Aug 14, 2005 11:35 pm

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

Postby Ian on Mon Aug 15, 2005 12:02 am

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.
"Blu-ray is just a bag of hurt." - Steve Jobs
User avatar
Ian
Grand Poobah
 
Posts: 14882
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2001 2:34 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Postby Francksoy on Mon Aug 15, 2005 9:05 am

"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. :roll:

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

Postby code65536 on Mon Aug 15, 2005 10:23 am

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.
User avatar
code65536
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 371
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2004 10:18 pm
Location: .us

Next

Return to DVD Writers

Who is online

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

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