C't test results. burners.

by **MediumRare** on Mon Oct 04, 2004 8:05 am

alexnoe wrote:These are 2 flavors of new ones... my printable discs are X47B, my nonprintable ones as well.

That's new to me.

I'll have a closer look at my X47B's when I get home tonight. Unlike the c't results, they've been excellent @8x on my LiteOn SOHW 1213S@1633S (at least if KProbe scans and reading performance on other drives are any indication).

G

by **jsl** on Mon Oct 04, 2004 8:08 am

alexnoe: If you check both media before you burn them they should have exactly the same media code.
The first half byte is the book type (0=DVD-ROM, A=DVD+R). The last three bytes on the first line just specify the data end zone.

About the C't test: Quite big differences between the BenQ and NU tech drive although Bxyz and Gxyz versions of the firmwares should be essentially the same or?

by **alexnoe** on Mon Oct 04, 2004 8:28 am

Argh...indeed, you are right. I thought I had used non-recorded media in both cases

OO

But then, the big difference in the write quality is even worse, if those discs are not even different

by **dolphinius_rex** on Mon Oct 04, 2004 10:26 am

alexnoe wrote:Argh...indeed, you are right. I thought I had used non-recorded media in both cases OO

But then, the big difference in the write quality is even worse, if those discs are not even different

Even T.Y. has such quality variations now... this is especially noticable with drives like the BenQ 1620a with a WOPC. Each disc is recorded a little differently. Although the firmware officially supports TYG02 at 16x, individual discs will burn at speeds of anywhere from 4x to 12x, usually making a couple stops along the way.

Although the quality is usually still good regardless (with the right firmware version!).

by **Halc** on Mon Oct 04, 2004 2:44 pm

I got my c't 21/2004 issue as well. Some tidbits:

BURNERS

+ The best DVD+R 16x / DVD+R DL burner was not the inventors of the plus format, but Pioneer! It was the only drive to score usable burns on all 16 and DL + media. The trick? It burned 2 of the 3 media at 4x. Still, if one considers the average user, that's what the drive SHOULD do: burn at the highest SAFE setting and not with the higest settings that produces useless burns.

+ Nec is a very good -R burner, no doubt about that. It only stumbles by trying to burn 8x DVD-R MCC 02RG20/Taiwan at 12x. It's indirect lower level measures are also consistently among the best for -R media. On +R media it is so good, it hurts (burns at 8x). Only fails by trying to burn 8x DVD+R TY T02 at 16x and trying to burn MCC DL media at 4x. If those results are discarded, it's so much better burner in total than any of the others (IMHO).

+ LG is the leasty noisy burner/reader of them all. Not surprisinginly, LiteOn burner is subjectively more than twice as loud (something which is a proud tradition for LiteOn).

+ For DVD playback Nec is clearly the most silent (dvd at 1x). Pioneer is close second, but others come far behind.

- LG, BenQ and Pioneer are not very good at +R 8x media, because they try to burn them at 12x or faster, resulting in really unhealthy looking measurements from the discs. Probably they are much better at 8x, but 12x surely wasn't usable with those firmwares tested.

- Both Philips and BenQ fail on Philips 16x DVD+R (burned at 16x). I find that quite amusing :)

- LiteOn based burners fail on so many burns/media it is not even funny anymore. They really need to start getting their act together. Either they should delay their launches 6 months and ship with actually working firmware, or then just manufacture better hardware.

= If I would buy a single burner based on that test, it would again be Nec 3500. While LG, Pioneer and BenQ look promising, they are trying to push the limits by burning too fast for their own good. For average users (who will burn at max speed without thinking) they are not good choices. LiteOn I wouldn't recommend to anyone. People should just stop buying their crap and they would be forced to come out with a burner that just works. Now their burners are interesting activity generators (patch this, patch that, hack this, hack that, try this disc, don't try that, etc. ad nauseum)

MEDIA

+ Looks like MCC DL media was some kind of test media for DL burning for most manufacturers. It's results are so consistently good across the board.

- With three total failures (not even CATS could read the burns) and other burns being below spec of marginally usable, I consider Ritek DL media to be pretty much useless with those firmware revisions tested.

- Not a single 8x -R or +R media is ready to be overspeed burned succesfully on all drives to 12x or 16x. Some drives succesfully overspeed burn some media, but none of the media is overspeed burned succesfully on all the drives. Neither is none of the drives able to succesfully overspeed burn all the media. In short, overspeed burning is really only for thrill seekers, who don't give a toss about burn quality. IMHO.

SUMMARY
It was interesting to see that the results of firmware are so important on burn quality. Much more so at 16x and 8x than at 4x/2x.

Also, DL at 2.4x is usable with MCC media. This was quite a surprise to me. I was really expecting mediocre results with most. The scans look actually almost good (not superior though).

All in all, a very informative test again. I hope c't will continue to investigate burn quality in the future as well.

by **dolphinius_rex** on Mon Oct 04, 2004 3:13 pm

Yes, it is quite impressive how well MCC's DVD+R9 media worked. I also agree that Ritek's media is still not peforming as it should.

It's unfortunate that it is impossible to do this level of testing while keeping up to date on firmwares. I'm sure newer firmware from both Pioneer and BenQ (not sure if LG and NEC released new ones since then or not) would change some of the results quite a bit!

by **alexnoe** on Mon Oct 04, 2004 3:23 pm

When the LG 4120B b0rked on TDK 8x -R media, LG just limited it to 4x writing in the next firmware.... to bad that other manufacturers don't set write speed according to media capabilities. As to the LG 4160B, they've tested with A300 firmware, which is also out-of-date...

by **elec999** on Fri Dec 03, 2004 7:50 pm

At the moment, what may be considered the best burner.
Is it Plextor. I have no idea about Benq, nor Lg. I own a Pioneer 107 and the quality is questionable.
Thanks

by **Gabe** on Tue Jan 11, 2005 9:21 am

Overall:

MSI is the best writer in the test, Toshiba and Samsung are the worst.

But I think, all manufacturers have a lot of work to make their writers good

by **dolphinius_rex** on Tue Jan 11, 2005 2:21 pm

Wow... I've never found myself disagreeing with C't before, but the results if those tests for the BenQ don't seem right. With B7P9 Taiyo Yuden 8x DVD+Rs burn rather well at 16x, and so do RicohJPNR02 discs... The comments on Maxel discs are right on though!

by **MediumRare** on Tue Jan 11, 2005 6:52 pm

Well this time Gabe beat me to it with an excellent overview

but I think there's enough additional information in the post I've been preparing that it's worthwhile adding.

I've been putting this off for a while (getting back into step after a holiday trip to Canada) but here's my summary of the latest c't DVD-burner test- again with 16x drives. The test is in issue 2/2005 om sale in Europe since Monday.

They tested 10 drives, but as usual some differ only in firmware (the effects of the firmware may of course be very significant!):
- BenQ and MSI
- Ricoh and TDK (based on NEC ND-3500A)
- Sony and Waitec (based on LiteOn)
Although Samsung and Toshiba have a cooperation agreement, their tested drives are completley independent developments.

DVD results are based on Audiodev CATS DVD Pro scans. CD burns were spot checked with TY 48x media scanned on a Plextor PX-712A with Plextools Pro. All were very good in quality, so this aspect was not used in any ranking.

Media
They had a close look at the 16x and DL media. All drives burned the Verbatim DL media well (LG, Sony and Toshiba tried too hard and should be restriected to 2.4x rather than 4x) but most had problems with Ricoh.

The Ricoh media is manufacture using the "inverse stack" method in which 2 halves are glued together. This supposedly reduces productions costs but requires that the halves be positioned very precisely for gluing. The optical properties differ from the Verbatim media (2P method), so that separate strategies are required in the firmware. Very few drives can handle them at present:
- BenQ and MSI abort the burn after the first layer
- Sony and Waitec completed the burn, but the second layer wasn't readable
- LG, TDK and Toshiba had much higher error rates on layer 2
- Plextor, Ricoh and Samsung were OK.

The physical properties of the 16x media were analyzed by Audiodev from unburnt discs. c't has again defined a weighted mechanical quality index based on
- radial runout (RRO)- deviation of center of recording tracks from geometrical center
- axial focus error (AxialN) and radial tracking deviations (RadialN)
- Push-Pull-signal (PPb) and deviations (PPb DV) indicate quality of pressed tracks and uniformity of information layer

The Verbatim (MCC) discs are very good, whereas the Ritek's are more problematic and Philips has massive AxialN/RadialN problems. This shows up in the burning results below!

Code: Select all: DVD+R 16x DVD+R 16x DVD+R 16x Bound Traxdata Philips,Fuji MCC (Verb.) Ritek R04 Philips C16 MCC 004 AxialN [mu] 0.2 0.235 0.280 0.200 RadialN [nm] 25 64.7 125.4 32.2 RRO [mu] 70 45.9 29.0 12.2 PPb 0.3-0.6 0-34-0.42 0.31-0.41 0.39-0.45 PPb DV 15% 10.9% 18.7% 7.5% Mech. Index/ Grade 26 / 0 -61 / - 81 / ++

Drives
As before, I'll tabulate the quality index along with the rating (see http://www.cdrlabs.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=101936#101936 for a description of this index and the rating). I'll try to answer specific requests for more information as time allows.

The first table contains model and firmware and the c't rating for various categories:

Code: Select all: DVD Burns Speed Quality Reading Noise Model + Firmware 8x /16x /DL 8x /16x /DL DVD / CD VideoDVD/CD BenQ B7P9 ++ / ++ / + - / - / - 0 / + 0 / + DW-1620 Pro LG A100 + / - / ++ - / -- / - + / + 0 / + GSA-4163B MSI M1.4 + / ++ / 0 0 / 0 / 0 0 / + ++ / 0 DR16-B Plextor 1.02 + / 0 / ++ - / -- / + ++ / ++ -- / - PX-716A Ricoh 2.B9 + / 0 / + - / 0 / 0 0 / 0 ++ / 0 MP5316 Samsung TS05 0 / + / 0 -- /-- / 0 + / - 0 / 0 TS-H552 Sony BYX2 0 / 0 / + 0 / - / - - 0 / + 0 / 0 DRU-710A TDK 2.C8 + / 0 / + - / - / 0 0 / 0 ++ / 0 AID+1612N Toshiba TU31 0 / 0 / + -- / -- / - - 0 / + ++ / 0 SD-R5372 Waitec BSX1 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / - Action 16

The other 2 table contains the actual and recommended burning speed for the various media (NO means "don't use"). The recommended speed is based on details of the scans, e.g. increased error or jitter rates in the outer (high speed) regions suggest that a lower burning speed would be better. In some cases, the media deviates from the ideal case, so a speed reduction won't help much. The second line shows the c't quality index and grade (# means POFs occurred).

Please note that the rating is based on the highest speed at which the drive wanted to burn the disc. This means that a drive will get a poor grade if the strategy is too optimistic (or aggressive?) even though it might show much better results at lower speeds.

First DVD+R DL and DVD+R 16x media

Code: Select all: DVD+R DL DVD+R DL DVD+R 16x DVD+R 16x DVD+R 16x MCC (Verb.) Ricoh Traxdata Philips,Fuji MCC (Verb.) MKM001 RicohJPN D00 Ritek R04 Philips C16 MCC 004 Model BenQ 4 / 2.4 Err / NO 16 / 12 16 / 8 16 / 12 DW-1620 Pro 44 / 0 - / -- -126 / --# 8 / - 56 / + LG 4 / 2.4 4 / 2.4 4 / NO 4 / 2.4 16 / 4 GSA-4163B -411 / --# 22 / - - / -- -346 / --# -521 / --# MSI 2.4 / 2.4 Err / NO 16 / 12 16 / 4 16 / 16 DR16-B 52 / + - / -- 39 / 0 -156 / --# 68 / + Plextor 4 / 4 4 / 4 12 / 4 8 / 4 16 / 8 PX-716A 50 / + 49 / 0 -291 / --# -599 / --# -119 / -- Ricoh 4 / 4 2.4 / 2.4 4 / 2.4 8 / 8 16 / 8 MP5316 58 / + 8 / - 41 / 0 67 / + -7 / -- Samsung 2.4 / 2.4 2.4 / 2.4 12 / 6 16 / 4 16 / 6 TS-H552 18 / - 41 / 0 -351 / --# -300 / --# -481 / --# Sony 4 / 2.4 2.4 / NO 8 / 4 12 / 4 16 / 8 DRU-710A -17 / -- - / -- -320 / --# 17 / - -220 / --# TDK 4 / 4 2.4 / NO 4 / 2.4 8 / 4 16 / 6 AID+1612N 52 / + -49 / -- -79 / --# 37 / 0 -119 / --# Toshiba 4 / 4 2.4 / NO 12 / 4 8 / 4 12 / 4 SD-R5372 -157 / --# -427 / --# -406 / --# -542 / --# -430 / --# Waitec 2.4 / 2.4 2.4 / NO 8 / 6 8 / 8 16 / 8 Action 16 58 / + - / -- 47 / 0 53 / + -349 / --#

Second DVD-R 8x and DVD+R 8x media

Code: Select all: DVD-R 8x DVD-R 8x DVD-R 8x DVD+R 8x DVD+R 8x Maxell Plextor TDK Ricoh Plextor MXL RG03 TYG02 TT G02 RicohJPN R02 Yuden000 T02 Model BenQ 12 / 4 16 / 8 8 / 8 16 / 4 16 / 12 DW-1620 Pro -6 / -- -382 / --# 63 / + 16 / - -5 / -- LG 8 / 4 8 / 8 8 / 6 12 / 4 12 / 4 GSA-4163B -19 / -- 75 / ++ -563 / --# -476 / --# -194 / --# MSI 12 / 4 12 / 12 8 / 8 12 / 4 16 / 16 DR16-B -36 / --# 49 / 0 72 / + 39 / 0 60 / + Plextor 8 / 8 14 / 12 12 / 4 12 / 4 14 / 12 PX-716A 57 / + -71 / -- -291 / --# -104 / -- 28 / 0 Ricoh 16 / 8 12 / 8 8 / 8 12 / 4 16 / 6 MP5316 -156 / --# -236 / --# 66 / + -420 / --# -348 / --# Samsung 8 / 4 8 / 4 8 / 4 8 / 4 8 / 6 TS-H552 -608 / --# -197 / --# -500 / --# -82 / -- -355 / --# Sony 8 / 6 8 / 8 8 / 6 8 / 4 8 / 8 DRU-710A 38 / 0 85 / ++ -242 / --# -40 / -- 59 / + TDK 16 / 6 12 / 8 8 / 8 12 / 4 16 / 4 AID+1612N -213 / --# -116 / --# 70 / + -221 / --# 6 / - Toshiba 2 / NO 12 / 8 8 / 6 12 / 4 12 / 4 SD-R5372 -294 / --# -467 / --# -41 / -- -552 / --# -508 / --# Waitec 8 / 8 8 / 8 8 / 6 8 / 6 8 / 8 Action 16 60 / + 76 / ++ -282 / --# 46 / 0 58 / +

Some remarks:

The lead time in a print magazine is significant, so updated firmware is available for some drives in the meantime.
Many manufacturers overestimate their drives and try to write 8x media too quickly.
The capability of some drives to burn DVD+-RW at 6x or 8x was not tested (no media)
The Waitec showed the best writing properties, although at lower speeds (this used to be characteristic of LG ). MSI is also good and faster.
Plextor delayed the release of this drive to optimize the quality. They should have optimized a bit more. Other than DL, only the Maxell DVD-R was OK:
The LG 4163 is not just an updated 4160. It has a revised construction with a more powerful spindle motor that allows it to reach full speed more quickly on 16x media. However, the firmware is so immature that not a single +disk was OK and only the TY 8x DVD-burn was acceptable.
8x Ty DVD-R were the best media. The 8x RicohJPN R02 did not do well. This surprises me because they had a better showing in the past and I personally have very good results with this media.
Samsung and Toshiba were terrible- hardly any burns at all succeeded

Again, a lot of time went into this summary. Next time I'll try to get it done more quickly. :wink:

G
edit: see also some results with updated firmware.

by **Scour** on Tue Jan 11, 2005 6:53 pm

Hello!

I´ve got the c´t 2/2005 now, too. And I´m shocked about the results, but they tested the media with the CATS-system and the results are fact and more applicable than tests with a 60-80 $-drive.

by **Alexo** on Wed Jan 12, 2005 8:50 pm

Scour wrote:I´ve got the c´t 2/2005 now, too. And I´m shocked about the results, but they tested the media with the CATS-system and the results are fact and more applicable than tests with a 60-80 $-drive.

A summary, perhaps?

by **Scour** on Thu Jan 13, 2005 3:51 pm

Alexo wrote:
Scour wrote:I´ve got the c´t 2/2005 now, too. And I´m shocked about the results, but they tested the media with the CATS-system and the results are fact and more applicable than tests with a 60-80 $-drive.

A summary, perhaps?

Look at the topics from Gabe and MediumRare, that is the test from c´t

by **frank1** on Sat Jan 22, 2005 7:11 am

Hello to everybody!
I am new here and would like to know if there is anyinformation in the c't tests:
- concerning the new TA (time analyser) test in Plextools
- made with the new Plextor PX-716A burner ?

by **MediumRare** on Sat Jan 22, 2005 2:55 pm

The Plextools Time Analyser is apparently not reliable. This item is new for the PX-716A. It analyzes the jitter at 3 positions on the disc and displays the deviations of the signal lengths in a histogram. c't found the results to be too imprecise. They varied from run to run.

I'll go into a bit more detail here. The last c't burner test (in 2/05) had a page on "do it yourself" quality measurements. Calibrated lab measuring devices like the Audiodev CATS DVD pro used in their tests are (financially) out of reach for the (normal?) end user. The diagnostic capabilities of some drives allow at least a rough picture of the burn quality- e.g. relative comparisons (disc A is better than disc B on this drive)

They seem to prefer the Plextor for measurements (2x speed). In addition to the Time Analysis, the Plextools allow PI Sum 8 measurements @2x (alexnoe has an interestng alternative to this), jitter but with an arbitrary scale, and a "Beta-Graph" which corresponds to the signal asymmetry (ASYM) from Audiodev. The asymmetry indicates the difference in signal level between short and long pits and should be smooth. They found that the amplitude of jumps in the "Beta" values were ca. only 1/10 as large as in the correspondig Audiodev traces.

They also tried CD-DVD-Speed with LiteOn-based and BenQ drives. A scan is faster but not as "accurate" as Pextools. The jitter measurements differ from their lab values- they're sometimes lower, sometimes higher.

The error scans (PI) resemble the Audiodev measurments only roughly. The results depend on the reading properties of the drives (the errors aren't on the disc- they're in the system disc + PUH + speed). Sometimes a scan on the burner shows very low error levels although the disc is outside error specs (calibrated Audiodev measurement) and may not be readable on other drives. At least the burner should be able to read the disc in the future though.

G

by **Justin42** on Sun Jan 23, 2005 2:44 pm

I am not an expert at all, but why does c't test media burning faster than its rated speed? Sure, it's a nice convenience, and apparently more and more manufacturers are supporting it to some extent, but is it fair to say a drive is bad because it does poor quality 16x burns on 8x media, for example?

I've never understood what is so important that you need to burn past the media manufacturer's own guide for rated speeds... Hell, with some manufacturers you're lucky to get a good burn AT rated speeds! ("gee, little Bobby/Susie's first steps!! I can be watching them in 7.4 minutes instead of 8.5 if I crank this burn speed up!!"

)

by **MediumRare** on Sun Jan 23, 2005 5:07 pm

Justin42 wrote:I am not an expert at all, but why does c't test media burning faster than its rated speed? Sure, it's a nice convenience, and apparently more and more manufacturers are supporting it to some extent, but is it fair to say a drive is bad because it does poor quality 16x burns on 8x media, for example?

Well, they test it at the maximum speed that the drive's manufacturer allows- most users would probably rely on this judgement of a drive's capability. In all fairness, they do specify a recommended burning speed as well.

Personally, I'd like to see more tests at other speeds as well (and for more than one disc or drive of a given model for that matter). But there are limits to the resources a magazine can invest in these tests.

Justin42 wrote:I've never understood what is so important that you need to burn past the media manufacturer's own guide for rated speeds... Hell, with some manufacturers you're lucky to get a good burn AT rated speeds! ("gee, little Bobby/Susie's first steps!! I can be watching them in 7.4 minutes instead of 8.5 if I crank this burn speed up!!" )

I tend to agree with you for personal use (see this post for example). However it's always interesting to see just where the limits of a drive/medium are- it's a game

. And someone has to find these bounds so that we can stay on the safe side for important things.

G

by **eleewhm** on Wed Feb 02, 2005 3:52 am

how about BenQ tool Qscan measuring the TE/FE values.....

i have posted some C16 results by Qscan and reults at the end of the 4GB marks just shoots up

by **dolphinius_rex** on Wed Feb 02, 2005 4:40 pm

wow Eleewhm, I don't know anyone else with PHILIPSC16 Rev 00 media

(other then the 2pcs I have on my desk here that is :wink:

)

Can you re-do the test with Rev 01?

by **MediumRare** on Sun Feb 06, 2005 12:33 pm

c't has another DVD-Burner test in the latest issue (4/2005) on sale in Europe on Monday. This time they tested 5 burners with emphasis on 16x capabilities. Most of these drives are revised versions of previously tested ones.

- The LiteOn 1633S can be flashed with 1653S firmware, but it voids the guarantee
- The Philips 1645K uses the same hardware as the 1620 and 1640. These can be (officially) upgraded with the new firmware.
- The Shuttle drive uses Philips/BenQ hardware. It's firmware revision reflects BenQ's nomenclature.
- The NEC 3520A uses a different control chip than the 3500.
- How the Samsung TS-H552U differs from the TS-H552B (other than firmware) wasn't mentioned.

I won't discuss features and maximum burning speeds of these drives (this information is readily available online) but will summarize the c't test results.

Media
Primarily 16x media was tested, since it is becoming more readily available.
The 16x DVD+R media from CMC and Ricoh are new on the market. Their physical properties were analyzed by Audiodev from unburnt discs. The c't weighted mechanical quality index is based on these results (see table). 16x DVD-R media or faster rewritables were not available at the time of the test, so 8x Taiyo Yuden were used.

Code: Select all: DVD+R 16x DVD+R 16x Bound Memorex Ricoh CMC Mag M01 RicohJpn R03 AxialN [mu] 0.2 0.211 0.299 RadialN [nm] 25 53.6 66.5 RRO [mu] 70 19.3 43.4 PPb 0.3-0.6 0-44-0.49 0.42-0.51 PPb DV 15% 5.5% 9.3% Mech. Index/ Grade 59 / + 3 / -

Both media types have large radial tracking deviations in the inner region. The Memorex/CMC discs have good physical properties, but still lag behind MCC

Drives
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 SL / DL DVD / CD VideoDVD/CD LiteOn CS09 -- / 0 0 / + - / -- SOHW-1653S NEC 1.04 0 / 0 0 / 0 + / 0 ND-3520A Philips 3.2 + / - 0 / 0 + / 0 DVDRW1645K Samsung US03 - / - + / 0 - / - TS-H552U Shuttle G7P9 + / - 0 / 0 - / 0 CR40

The other table contains the actual and recommended burning speed for the various media (NO means "don't use"). The recommended speed is based on details of the scans. The second line shows the c't quality index and grade (# means POFs occurred).

Please note that the rating is based on the highest speed at which the drive wanted to burn the disc. This means that a drive will get a poor grade if the strategy is too optimistic (or aggressive?) even though it might show much better results at lower speeds.

media tests:

Code: Select all: DVD+R DL DVD+R DL DVD+R 16x DVD+R 16x DVD+R 16x DVD-R 8x MCC (Verb.) Ricoh Memorex MCC (Verb.) Ricoh Plextor MKM001 RicohJPN CMC Mag M01 MCC 004 RicohJpn TYG02 Model D00 R03 LiteOn 4 / 2.4 2.4 / 2.4 16 / 4 16 / 4 16 / 4 8 / err SOHW-1653S 18 / - 23 / - -262 / --# -105 / -- -60 / -- - / - NEC 4 / 4 2.4 / NO 12 / 2.4 16 / 8 4 / 4 12 / 8 ND-3520A 55 / + -87 / -- -226 / --# 30 / 0 67 / + 23 / - Philips 4 / 2.4 2.4 / NO 16 / 12 16 / 12 16 / 4 16 / 16 DVDRW1645K -105 / --# -186 / --# 41 / 0 44 / 0 -74 / -- 60 / + Samsung 6 / 2.4 2.4 / NO 16 / 2.4 16 / 8 16 / 4 8 / 6 TS-H552U -863 / --# -13 / -- -403 / --# -227 / --# -225 / --# 18 / - Shuttle 4 / 2.4 Err / NO 16 / 8 16 / 12 16 / 12 12 / 12 CR40620 20 / - - / -- 19 / - 45 / 0 48 / 0 41 / 0

The LiteOn drive is OK with DL media- (including Ricoh) , but miserable with SL- 16x is too fast. That the TYG02-burn was aborted @8x is strange- earlier versions (e.g. 1633S or Sony 710A or Waitec) did well with this media (my comment).
Samsung tries to burn DL at 6x but is incapable of decent results at any speed with these. The extreme jitter values (25% max, 16% ave) are only part of the cause for the worst c't quality index I've ever seen (-863).
NEC is the only drive with good DL results at 4x. The conservative strategy with unkown media codes (e.g. RicohJpn R03) gives good results, but at only 4x.
Philips and Shuttle are the best burners in the test- 6 of 7 16x burns were good. Ricoh DL needs further work, CD burning quality is now qood (greatly improved).

My personal facit is that, bsed on this test, the Philips/BenQ drives are by far the most mature drives for 16x burning.

G

by **MediumRare** on Sun Feb 06, 2005 12:37 pm

c't 4/05 also has a (just text) note on how 3 drives from the previous test perform with new firmware. The context implies that they did do new AudioDev scans.

LG GSA-4163B, Fw A102
+R 16x: Ritek R04: ok at 12x, Philips C16: use 4x. +R 8x Yuden000 T02 now as good as -R TYG02. +R 16x MCC 004 and 8x RicohJPN R02: no change
Plextor PX-716A, Fw 1.04
+RDL does MCC at 6x in 18:45, 2nd layer not as good as @4x but still OK. -R 8x TYG02 now good at 16x; +R 16x Philips C16 now OK at 16x. Poor results with MCC004, Ritek R04, MXL RG03 and Yuden000 T02.
Toshiba SD-R5372, Fw TU53A102
-R 8x MXL RG03 OK at 8x; +R 16x Philips C16: use 8x; +R 16x MCC 004 and 8x RicohJPN R02: rotten (use 4x); +R-DL: use a different burner

G

by **alexnoe** on Mon Feb 07, 2005 7:20 pm

+R 16x Philips C16 now OK at 16x

Impossible. PHILIPS-C16-1 is recognised as 12x compatible

by **RJW** on Tue Feb 08, 2005 4:09 am

Then again what revision did they use ?
This media has multiple revisions and some drives can burn one version at 16x while some others just end can not burn faster.
I have seen comments befor about people from how did you do that on this media because speed was higher as they them selves encountered and allways in the end it proofed out it's a different revision.

And it seems that they didn't post revision codes this time. They should.
Actuallly they should post even more. Since that way it's much easier to see what's going on if someone forgets again to update the revision code (MCC/MKM) when they did tweak the media.

by **frank1** on Wed Feb 09, 2005 4:47 am

Do you have any further information about the new BenQ DW1640 burner
making high spikes of POE errors at the layer brake
even on Verbatim MKM-001
like it is reported here:
titel: " BenQ 1640 new firmware and Verbatim, very bad mix! "
http://club.cdfreaks.com/showthread.php?t=138150

C't test results. burners.

More comments on issue 21/2004 16x burner test

New reviews in c´t 2/2005

5 burner tests in c't 4/05

some results with updated firmware

Who is online