C't test results. burners.

[Bhairav]

Hello!

Thanks to MediumRare for this post. I´m looking forward to buy the magazine tomorrow, but it´s nice to see the results today

I read at Cdfreaks that c´t uses not the DL11, ala42 told me that the DL11 is much better than the DL10. Same problem with the Pioneer.

Oh, cool. Thanks for the heads-up, Scour.

[Scour]

Hello!

In the new c´t (streetday 14.11.05) are a DVD-writer review:

LiteOn SHW-16335
NEC ND-4550A
Panasonic SW-9585-C
Philips DVDR1648P
Pioneer DVR-110
Sony DRU-810A

Sony and Philips are rebadged Benq 1640.

I wonder why the c´t test the Panasonic, only Laptop-drives from Panasonic are avaible in Germany.

Hope, that MediumRare is working on a post

[MediumRare]

Yeah, I'm working on it. But I have to get my (overdue) tax return done first so it'll be another day or two.

There aren't really any surprises, other than the poor "climatic stability" of the Verbatim 8x DL +R media. They recommend not to use it for archiving important information.

I wonder why the c´t test the Panasonic, only Laptop-drives from Panasonic are avaible in Germany.

Apparently Panasonic is supplying some OEM units to system integrators. The drives are available only through their industrial division.

G

[Scour]

Apparently Panasonic is supplying some OEM units to system integrators. The drives are available only through their industrial division.

G

But when the end-user can´t buy them, why did Panasonic send a drive for the review?

[dolphinius_rex]

Apparently Panasonic is supplying some OEM units to system integrators. The drives are available only through their industrial division.

G

But when the end-user can´t buy them, why did Panasonic send a drive for the review?

Probably not just end users are reading C't, so they were probably making sure their potential customer base had copies of the final report

[frank1]

In this post:
http://club.cdfreaks.com/showpost.php?p ... stcount=30
you can read this:
« A new Test from Germanys PC-Magazine CT #25 2005 say:
DVR-110 has bad reading and burning quality !
The reading and burn quality from DVR-110D with FW 1.08 (that Test was 8 weeks ago) is much better! »

Could somebody please comment that statement about the new Pioneer burner ?

[Scour]

Probably not just end users are reading C't, so they were probably making sure their potential customer base had copies of the final report

Don´t sure if I get it right? Do you mean companies those looking out for a drive to rebadge?

[dolphinius_rex]

Probably not just end users are reading C't, so they were probably making sure their potential customer base had copies of the final report

Don´t sure if I get it right? Do you mean companies those looking out for a drive to rebadge?

I was really meaning companies that make Laptops that might be looking for potential drives.... but basically the same sort of thing yeah.

[Scour]

I was really meaning companies that make Laptops that might be looking for potential drives.... but basically the same sort of thing yeah.

Some laptop-drives from Matsushita are avaible in Germany, but not half-height drives.

And I´m not sure if any company looking for good drives and tests, they maybe only ask "What price?" and decide.

[MediumRare]

Once again c't has tested some more DVD-Burners and media in their latest issue 24/2005 on sale in Europe since Monday. Since I've (finally) finished with my taxes, I can now get this summary up.

Media
The only new media type is the 8x DVD+R DL media from MCC/Verbatim. The physical properties were analyzed by Audiodev from unburnt discs. The c't weighted mechanical quality index is based on these results. Even though there's only one entry, I'll still make a table media summary with the usual information.

Code: Select all

                                DVD+R DL 8x   
                     Bound      Verbatim     
                                MKM003(000)
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. c't incorrectly lists the MID "MKM 01RD30" in their results table.

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 are excellent mechanically, although the second layer has somewhat high radial deviations. The climatic stability is not good. After 100 hours at 80° C and 85% rel. humidity, the max. PI Sum 8 values on both test disks increased by at least a factor of 10: from 48 to 537 and from 33 to 962. Recommendation: do not use for important data.

Drives
c't put some emphasis on DVD-RAM this time. In the past, this has meant LG in Germany (the GSA-4167B was in the previous test lot). They actually managed to get 3 new drives which support DVD-RAM. As mentioned in the discussion in the last few posts, the Panasonic drive isn't available to normal consumers in Germany. It may show up as Matshita in some complete packages, though. Also LiteOn and BenQ are planning support for DVD-RAM, but the drives aren't available yet.

Unfortunately there are no error scans on DVD-RAM media: there is no independent lab in Europe capable of doing such tests. We pretty well have to trust the built-in defect management (or transfer rate graphs) until something becomes available.

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. I've added a column regarding DVD-RAM support this time. The quality and speed ratings for DVDs are now combined in a single grade.

Code: Select all

                       DVD Burns      Reading      Noise        RAM/Drivers
Model +  Firmware     R / RW / DL     CD / DVD     CD/VideoDVD

LiteOn      YS0G      - /  - / 0       + / 0       - / 0        No
SOHW-1635S

NEC         1.06      0 /  + / .       + / -       0 / --       Yes / No (OEM)
ND-4550A

Panasonic   B100      - /  - / -       + / 0       + / ++       Yes / Yes
SW-9585-C

Philips     P2.2      + /  - / +       + / ++      - / +        No
DVDR1648P

Pioneer     1.22      - / -- / 0       0 / 0       0 / +        Yes / No
DVR-110

Sony        1.0A      0 /  - / +       + / ++      + / 0        No
DRU-810A

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. The second line shows the c't quality index and grade (# means POFs occurred).

For RW's, they did a burning cascade in 10 steps (ca. 450 MiB, then 900, 1350 etc.). A number in parentheses, e.g. (3) indicates a recommended speed from the third burn on. In such cases, it's worthwhile doing a couple of complete burns to stabilize the properties of the information layer before productive use of the discs.

First: RW and DL Media

Code: Select all

             DVD+RW 8x     DVD-RW 6x      DVD+R DL      DVD-R DL   
             Ricoh         Verbatim       MCC (Verb.)   MCC (Verb.)
            RICOHJPN W21   MKM 01RW6X01   MKM003(000)   MKM 01RD30 
Model
LiteOn          8 / NO        6 / 6         8 / 4         4 / 4
SOHW-1635S   -661 / --#      48 / 0       -15 / --       68 / +

NEC             8 / 8(2)      6 / 6         8 / 4         6 / 4
ND-4550A       46 / 0        70 / +        28 / 0      -222 / --#

Panasonic       8 / 8(3)      6 / 4(3)    2.4 / 2.4       - / NO
SW-9585-CS     48 / 0      -175 / --#      48 / 0         ? / ?

Philips         8 / 6         6 / 4         8 / 8         4 / 4
DVDR1648P      10 / -       -20 / --       66 / +        76 / ++

Pioneer         8 / 4         6 / 6(3)    2.4 / 2.4       8 / 4
DVR-110      -524 / --#     -88 / --#      78 / ++     -469 / --#

Sony            8 / 4         6 / 4         8 / 4         4 / 4
DRU-810A     -160 / --       23 / -        43 / 0        73 / +

Next: 16x +R and -R Media

Code: Select all

              DVD+R 16x    DVD+R 16x      DVD-R 16x    DVD-R 16x     
              Verbatim     Sony           Sony         Taiyo Yuden   
              MCC 004      SONY D21(000)  SONY16D1     TYG03
Model
LiteOn         16 / 8        16 / 8        16 / 12       16 / 12
SOHW-1635S   -316 / --#      38 / 0        19 / -        32 / 0

NEC            16 / 12       16 / 12       16 / 16       16 / 12
ND-4550A       25 / 0       -72 / --       54 / +        33 / 0

Panasonic      16 / 8        16 / 8        16 / 12       16 / 12
SW-9585-CS   -122 / --#      17 / -     -1243 / --#    -532 / --#

Philips        16 / 12       16 / 12       16 / 16       16 / 16
DVDR1648P      34 / 0        40 / 0        78 / ++       81 / ++

Pioneer        16 / 4        16 / 12       16 / 16       16 / 12
DVR-110      -146 / --#       1 / -        55 / +       -56 / --#

Sony           16 / 12       16 / 12       16 / 16       16 / 12
DRU-810A       50 / +      -181 / --#      57 / +       -64 / --#

Some remarks:

• LiteOn has the fastest writing times for -R media. In general it writes too fast (as usual) and has high jitter values. Has the best CD reading properties (e.g. almost all copy protected audio CDs).
• 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,
• Panasonic uses ZCLV (not CAV) and the zone boundaries show up on the scans! The fastest zones have some horendous jitter values (up to 36%!!). It doesn't handle DL media well.
• Pioneer 110 is identical to 110D with added DVD-RAM capability- including poor firmware. The new fw is not better than 1.08 in the previous test- RW and DL results appear to be even poorer.
• Philips is the best drive in this test. It and Sony use the same hardware as the BenQ 1640. Philips results are better than Sony because of SolidBurn support. It also improves on BenQ's results for DL media. RW results are not as good as other media (no SolidBurn here).

Interestingly, not one drive achieved a 16x recommendation for DVD+R media.

G
edit: changed MKM 01RD30 to MKM003(000) in the physical properties table.

[Scour]

Hello!

Again good work, MediumRare

Unfortunality the 8x +R DL is the only DL-media that was tested for stability, so we don´t know whether the other DL-media is better or not.

Looks like RW is a problem for most burners

"Interestingly, not one drive achieved a 16x recommendation for DVD+R media"

What ? I don´t understnad this, at cdfreaks the most members think that +R is superior to -R

[dolphinius_rex]

What ? I don´t understnad this, at cdfreaks the most members think that +R is superior to -R

That's because people over there are more likely to have read the "DVD+R is superior to DVD-R" article posted on CDFreaks' front page a while back ago.

[frank1]

Thanks a lot again MediumRare for your new contribution.
I am waiting for this summary of the c't mag tests because I think they are the only one worth to believe in
among the huge amount of others "unclear" (not scientific at all) tests published


From all this I understand that for the moment
the NEC 4550 (FW 1.06) has better burning results for DVD R's than the Pioneer 110 (FW 1.22)
despite the fact they have the same LSI chipsets.
So my question is:
is this statement about compared burning quality of NEC 4550 and Pioneer 110 right ?

[Francksoy]

Thanks MediumRare

[Francksoy]

the NEC 4550 (FW 1.06) has better burning results for DVD R's than the Pioneer 110 (FW 1.22) despite the fact they have the same LSI chipsets.

But neither the same hardware nor the same firmware

[Scour]

That's because people over there are more likely to have read the "DVD+R is superior to DVD-R" article posted on CDFreaks' front page a while back ago.

Don´t know what Philips spend to the guy who write this article, but it must be a lot .

@Francksoy

That´s it. Other FW, maybe other PUHs, and other strategy. But I like Pioneer´s 6-8x Z-CLV more than NEC´s 4-6-8x-Z-CLV; Pioneer is much faster @8x than NEC

[dolphinius_rex]

That's because people over there are more likely to have read the "DVD+R is superior to DVD-R" article posted on CDFreaks' front page a while back ago.

Don´t know what Philips spend to the guy who write this article, but it must be a lot .

Yeah, I wonder too.... the article is here by the way if you want to take a look:
http://www.cdfreaks.com/article/113

I think many of the points are valid, but some how came to be unimportant in the long run.

[Scour]

I think many of the points are valid, but some how came to be unimportant in the long run.

Yeah, +R is theoretical better. But as long as I don´t see real-world-practical advantages, I don´t believe that +R is better

[Francksoy]

But I like Pioneer´s 6-8x Z-CLV more than NEC´s 4-6-8x-Z-CLV

Hi Scour

Depends on media, here with TYG02 no problem, but with MCC 02RG20 the Nec first 4X step gives much higher quality (half the PIFs numbers than a Pioneer burn). Both have an edge for different discs. But I can tell that my 4550A is now my main burner.

And I repeat myself just in case: even the HARDWARES are different. The ONLY common thing is the chipset....

+R, -R? The way I see it, it looks more like a religion war. +R don't do better in stability tests, and that's all I need to know.

[RJW]

Hmm that article of cdfreaks is based on limited info* and older theories.
* He probally got much better documentation on +R as -R.
Really Philips does there job really well incase of supplying information if you know were to look.

Infact one of the real reasons (COSTS) wasn't named if I'm right. Yes +R are cheaper to make.

[Scour]

Hi Scour

Depends on media, here with TYG02 no problem, but with MCC 02RG20 the Nec first 4X step gives much higher quality (half the PIFs numbers than a Pioneer burn). Both have an edge for different discs. But I can tell that my 4550A is now my main burner.

+R, -R? The way I see it, it looks more like a religion war. +R don't do better in stability tests, and that's all I need to know.

Hi Francksoy

I´m not sure whether the speed is responsible for better results with 4x when using the NEC, I think the writing-strategy is the problem.

Glad to see you´re happy with your 4550, it looks like a good "Burn-all"-writer

RJW wrote why the author thinks that +R is superior to -R, but I agree with you, it´s like a religion war.



@RJW

You think about the CSS-code that -R have after the production?

[dolphinius_rex]

Infact one of the real reasons (COSTS) wasn't named if I'm right. Yes +R are cheaper to make.

That's odd.... since Taiyo Yuden charges about the same for 8x DVD+Rs as they do for 16x DVD-Rs. Also, I've been told by one of the manufacturing companies I deal with that DVD+R is more expensive for them to make, but they sell it at the same price as DVD-R because the market demands it. This could possibly be due to the volume production of DVD-R, compared to limited production of DVD+R though, since I know the manufacturer makes about 10:1 of DVD-R to DVD+R. I wouldn't be surprised if Taiyo Yuden is the same way though.

[RJW]

Infact one of the real reasons (COSTS) wasn't named if I'm right. Yes +R are cheaper to make.

That's odd.... since Taiyo Yuden charges about the same for 8x DVD+Rs as they do for 16x DVD-Rs. Also, I've been told by one of the manufacturing companies I deal with that DVD+R is more expensive for them to make, but they sell it at the same price as DVD-R because the market demands it. This could possibly be due to the volume production of DVD-R, compared to limited production of DVD+R though, since I know the manufacturer makes about 10:1 of DVD-R to DVD+R. I wouldn't be surprised if Taiyo Yuden is the same way though.

Yes incase of Taiyo Yuden and quite some other manufacturers the reason is volumes !!.


So why is +R cheaper.

1 These days - lower royalties costs, http://www.digitimes.com/systems/a20051110A7035.html
( Current prices are unknown to me.)
2 One less production step. The CSS-code like Scour allready pointed out.

(3) Some manufacturers of manufactureing equipement have claimed that +R has a lower fall out rate dureing production and that it's easier to produce. However some newer info that has come to me suggest that it might be a question of the manufacturers of the machines and allready the experience with cd-r's which will lead to that some manufacturer makes a machine better for +R and another makes a machine better for -R.
So That's why it is listed between () .

(4) In the past -R stampers were haveing higher costs because of the 2 lasers which were needed but with newer techniques (MCC !) it can now be done with a single laser like +R. So again ()

However most manufacturer make much more -R which means that in the end prices turn the other way arround in real life. Specially in the case of TY !!

[MediumRare]

Sorry I couldn't get back into the discussion earlier- just got back from a weekend of Bulgarian dancing .

the NEC 4550 (FW 1.06) has better burning results for DVD R's than the Pioneer 110 (FW 1.22)

Yes, at least as far as c't results go, that is the case. The NEC did pretty well all around.

"Interestingly, not one drive achieved a 16x recommendation for DVD+R media"

What ? I don´t understnad this, at cdfreaks the most members think that +R is superior to -R

Personal experience may vary, of course- it should always have high priority in your purchasing decisions.

The discussion has progressed on this, but here's why I made that statement: have a look at the c't recommended speeds for the media in the last table (they were all burned at 16x). In general, these are higher for -R media than +R, and not one +R disc+burner made it to 16x. The recommendation is based on the error, asymmetry and jitter values- if these increase significantly at the end of the burn (where the linear velocity is highest), reducing the speed will help.

c't has speculated a number of times about the possible cause. In the previous test, they noted that the jitter tended to be greater for +R media.

G

[Francksoy]

with MCC 02RG20 the Nec first 4X step gives much higher quality (half the PIFs numbers than a Pioneer burn)

I´m not sure whether the speed is responsible for better results with 4x when using the NEC, I think the writing-strategy is the problem.

My comment wasn't clear I think.

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.