In House Review - Samsung TS-H552U Double Layer 16x DVD±RW

[Ian]

CDRLabs has taken an in depth look at Samsung's new double layer DVD burner, the TS-H552U. While affordably priced, the TS-H552U sports some pretty impressive specs. The drive is capable of 16x DVD±RW and 4x DVD±RW writing speeds and has a maximum DVD read speed of 16x. More importantly, it's one of the first drives to feature 6x DVD+R DL writing speeds. The TS-H552U also includes features like 40x CD writing speeds, 32x rewriting speeds and support for technologies like Super Link.

In this review we'll take a look at some of the features found on the TS-H552U and see how it compares to some of the 16x DVD±RW drives from the competition. Are 6x DVD+R DL writing speeds enough to put Samsung's new drive on top? You'll have to read the review to find out.

[url=http://www.cdrlabs.com/reviews/index.php?reviewid=259]
Samsung TS-H552U Double Layer 16x DVD±RW[/url]

This is also the first of many reviews from Shaun. If you have any comments or questions about the Samsung TS-H552U (or you want to tell Shaun what a great job he's done), please post them in the forum using the link provided below.

[Scour]

Hello!

Good review of a bad writer, Shaun.

A question: You write that it burns the TYG01 only at 2x, but in the quality scans you write 4x?

My conclusion for the Samsung: Very bad writer, not even worth it´s low price.

PO with many media, even with Taiyo Yuden

[dolphinius_rex]

Deffinately not a good burner!

Hey Shaun, you might want to change the term "PO Error" to "PO Failure" in your quality test section.

Also, you've given the same scores for Verbatim burned at 4x as at 6x (I think they're both the 6x scores).

On the whole, a VERY good review! Especially for your fist one Keep up the good work, and thanks for not being afraid to test more then just a small handful of media!!

[shaun]

I'll get the screw ups fixed up immediately.

As for PO Errors instead of Failures...that was a decision on my part because of the original layout of the .htnl (failures didn't fit..lol). Point taken, it will fixed for the next review.

As for testing media...I can only tip my hat to the master of all testing Some day I aspire to have the patience and diligence you have DD when it comes to testing EVERY disc ever made...lol

Thanks for the compliments...

[dolphinius_rex]

I'll get the screw ups fixed up immediately.

As for PO Errors instead of Failures...that was a decision on my part because of the original layout of the .htnl (failures didn't fit..lol). Point taken, it will fixed for the next review.

As for testing media...I can only tip my hat to the master of all testing Some day I aspire to have the patience and diligence you have DD when it comes to testing EVERY disc ever made...lol

Thanks for the compliments...

The reason I make the distinction between PO Errors and PO Failures is that having those quantities of PO Errors means very little, but having even 1 PO Failure is a critical error on the disc. It is the same as for instance, calling "PI Failures", "PI Errors" instead...

fyi: It's not patience, it's obsession

[shaun]

Errors changed to Failures, eventhough it played around with the asthetics of my review (trying to be very Fenq Shui you know ). So many large PO Failures made some of the tables very hard to line up...ugh

Thanks for all the feedback so far. I am know going to begin blaming any and all errors on my editor

[Ian]

Thanks for all the feedback so far. I am know going to begin blaming any and all errors on my editor

[dolphinius_rex]

Errors changed to Failures, eventhough it played around with the asthetics of my review (trying to be very Fenq Shui you know ). So many large PO Failures made some of the tables very hard to line up...ugh

Thanks for all the feedback so far. I am know going to begin blaming any and all errors on my editor

I suggest shrinking the font a little bit for that bottom line, and a little bit more then that for the PO Failures number itself. It should help quite a bit I think

[shaun]

shaun wrote:
Thanks for all the feedback so far. I am know going to begin blaming any and all errors on my editor

notice my intentional spelling mistake (k)now was not picked up by the editor...LOL

[Scour]

http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/Reviews ... 9&PageId=0

They did also a review of the 552U.

This drive is real bad, maybe the baddest drive you can get

[Ian]

notice my intentional spelling mistake (k)now was not picked up by the editor...LOL

Gah.. I have to edit your forum posts now too?

[Ian]

http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/Reviews/Specific.aspx?ArticleId=12979&PageId=0

They did also a review of the 552U.

This drive is real bad, maybe the baddest drive you can get

The odd thing is, CD Freaks did a review of the external version (TS-H552U) and the results weren't as bad. Then again, they used an older firmware.

http://www.cdfreaks.com/article/184/1

[Scour]

http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/Reviews/Specific.aspx?ArticleId=12979&PageId=0

They did also a review of the 552U.

This drive is real bad, maybe the baddest drive you can get

The odd thing is, CD Freaks did a review of the external version (TS-H552U) and the results weren't as bad. Then again, they used an older firmware.

http://www.cdfreaks.com/article/184/1

I read it, but the results from Shaun and Cdrinfo are similiar, like the test in the c´t-magazine.

Never saw a good Samsung DVD-writer, and in the Cdfreaks-forum you read bad experience with Samsung-drives