i just checked the very good reviews upon the last BenQ1620A / Philips 1640P (same hardwares..). http://www.cdfreaks.com/article/159
and of course the excellent (!!) CDRInfo ones too (confirming too) : http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/Reviews/Specific.aspx?ArticleId=10450
a constant :
seems *very* good for audio extraction !
- NO cache under EAC ==> very good!
especially for *SECURE MODE* (11.6x average!... the mode personnaly i always use..) ) => quicker than even a Plextor Premium apparently (and all Liteons too.. traditionnaly not bad for speeds too.. but having all, classic, "cache".. so slower under EAC..)! :) )... that are all at max average about 9x in SM... -already very good for secure mode..!) .
- absolutely fabulous for *copy protected* audio stuffs apparently!!.. may be always nice those days too...if want to rip something at all, very often now(!)
- The scratch CD read quality seems to be quiet good too, especially for burners(!!).. according to CDRInfo tests
On that point, though, i saw a review on cdrlabs, for the BenQ1620 that was more mitigate (to read scratched cds)... but cdrlabs "tests" were far less precise than CDRinfos's ones.. but : ?..
So... what do you think about those new burners BenQ1620/Philips1640 so?!
Toshiba dvd-rom are traditionnally *great* for DVD rips (and 1912 too apparently, yes.. :)) ), but NOT really at all for audios rips, no?! i have a 1612 for exemple.. a true wonder for DVD rips, yes, but *really* picky with CD AUDIo (very sensible to scratch)... not that speedy (at all :) ), AND totally bad for audio protections (like every dvd-rom traditionnaly though.. burners are far better against copy protections apparently..always(!) ). no?!
nb; i always *love* my 1612 fr everything else though (noise, standards cd reads, dvd rips..).. but not especially audio so... apart on excellent sources of course -extractedf quality is then perfect too, ok, but... not for difficult audio rips so... and even here, not ultra speedy either so.. and from what i read, all the other Toshibas are more or less like that so... 1912 seems to do 27.6x under cdspeed dae (burst) test i saw somewhere (corrected! that was under the nice quick cdrlabs review given above -thx!!- 27.6x was for CD DAE test speed.. for CD SPEED was 24.41x... certainly an effect of the interesting EAC "no cache" too so -?... 1612 was 23x under CD Speed... and not above about average 5.5x under EAC secure mode.... ;)