4comments

Epson WorkForce Pro GT-S55 Desktop Document Scanner Sort-Of Review

by Sam Glover on January 30, 2013 in Legal Technology

See our Law Technology Buyer's Guide for our top technology recommendations.

epson-workforce-pro-gt-s55

The Epson WorkForce Pro GT-S55 is almost identical to its predecessor, the WorkForce Pro GT-S50. In fact, according to Epson’s own spec sheet (pdf), there is only one difference: ultrasonic double-feed detection.

Otherwise, the GT-S55 and GT-S50 are the same scanner. So, instead of doing a full review of the GT-S55, let’s just decide whether ultrasonic double-feed detection is worth $170, because that is the approximate difference in price between the two scanners on Amazon.

Correction: As far as I can tell, there is actually no difference between the GT-S50 and the GT-S55 on specs. I misread the above-linked spec sheet, which actually compares the GT-S50 to the GT-S80. If you want ultrasonic double-feed detection, you will need to get the GT-S80.

Ultrasonic double-feed detection

First, what is ultrasonic double-feed detection, and why might you want it? On the one hand, it is exactly what it sounds like: a fancy way to figure out whether the scanner has sucked in two pages at the same time. If you want a more detailed explanation, this dynamic fellow has a gripping explanation on YouTube. From what I can tell, it is sort of like putting a tiny dolphin inside your scanner that chirps every time it detects more than one page with its ultrasonic super-powers. (I should commission the The Oatmeal guy to draw a picture of that.)

My first document scanner, a ScanSnap S500, did not have any kind of double-feed detection. Knowing that, I usually counted the number of pages before I scanned and checked to make sure the same number of pages were actually scanned. This kind of double-checking is fine for small documents, but incredibly inconvenient when you have a stack of discovery documents to get through. After a while of not finding any double-feeds, I grew to trust the scanner. So I stopped double-checking. Then the inevitable happened: I found a scanned document with a page missing. Shortly afterward, I started noticing my scanner picking up two pages at a time fairly often. I replaced the paper-picking assembly and started double-checking again (and added a 7-day “buffer” bin to my scanning workflow), but I stopped relying on that scanner shortly afterward.

Then I got an S1500, which came with ultrasonic double-feed detection. It worked like a charm (although the interface for correcting double-feeds was inscrutable), so I stopped worrying about double-feeds, and just scanned happily along.

So is ultrasonic double-feed detection worth the extra cost?

The fear of going back to constantly wondering whether I would one day open up an0ther document only to find a missing page — probably the missing page — is not worth saving $176. Not to me, anyway. I would absolutely spring for the more-expensive Epson WorkForce Pro GT-S55. If scanner reliability is mission-critical (i.e., you are going paperless in any significant measure), you’ll want the double-feed detection, too.

Who should buy the Epson WorkForce Pro GT-S55?

As with the GT-S50, the GT-S55 is a solid, reliable document scanner with TWAIN support. However, take the TWAIN support out of the equation, and the ScanSnap S1500 — and now the iX500 — is a better option. The scanner is easier to use, the software is more intuitive and flexible, and the ScanSnap is just a better all-around package. Unless you need TWAIN.

So if you don’t need TWAIN (i.e., you do not know what TWAIN is), get a ScanSnap. However, if you do want TWAIN, the GT-S55 is probably the best choice.

And, I suppose, if you don’t care whether you miss a page now and then, go ahead and save a few bucks on the GT-S50.

Read the comments below or add one of your own.

Todd Hendrickson January 31, 2013 at 9:01 am

My first desktop scanner was one of the original ScanSnaps. Worked great for years. The price was reasonable considering you received a full license of the indispensable Adobe Acrobat Pro. After 7 or 8 years, the ScanSnap just would not feed reliably, even after replacing all the “consumables” such as rollers, pads, etc.
I decided to check out the ScanSnap competitors and Epson Workforce GT-S50 Sam references. The price was excellent and I couldn’t see paying the price for another ScanSnap when 40% or more of the price was attributable to a license for software I already had.
The Epson’s software is not as elegant as the ScanSnap (at least from an Apple perspective), but I grew to appreciate the ability to set multiple scanning options.
I haven’t experienced the double feed problem, but I can definitely appreciate the piece of mind that would come from the double feed detection.
If you are considering a ScanSnap (and already have a copy of Adobe Acrobat Pro) take a look at the Epson line. You won’t be disappointed.

Reply

Sam Glover January 31, 2013 at 9:47 am

After 7 or 8 years, you weren’t using the same copy of Acrobat that originally came with your ScanSnap, were you?

Reply

Carey March 27, 2013 at 12:26 pm

I based my purchase of the GT-S55 partly due to your review and comment on the Ultrasonic Double-Feed Protection. That link you gave to YouTube convinced me of it’s reliability.

Unfortunately, the GT-S55 does NOT have Ultrasonic Double-Feed Protection. If you need that, then buy the GT-S80 or the GT-S85. I should also have read the linked spec sheet a little closer, as it is clearly for the GT-S80.

Caveat Emptor

Reply

Sam Glover March 27, 2013 at 12:35 pm

Wow, I have no idea how I screwed that up, but I have updated the review. Are you planning to return the scanner?

Reply

Keep the conversation going; leave a comment below!

If you want us to post your comment, make it coherent, relevant, and non-spammy. (Links in comments are no-followed, which means you won't get SEO juice for linking "California DUI Lawyer" to your website.)

When you post a comment on this blog, you grant us the right to modify or delete your comment, but we have no duty to do so.

Previous post:

Next post: