Home News Reviews Forums Shop


LTR-52327S burning tests...

Burn baby burn!

LTR-52327S burning tests...

Postby rdgrimes on Mon Jul 07, 2003 11:22 pm

Just got my newest drive in, for burning tests on about a dozen different types of media:
http://club.cdfreaks.com/showthread.php ... adid=71991
rdgrimes
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 963
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 10:27 pm
Location: New Mexico, USA

Postby Ian on Mon Jul 07, 2003 11:48 pm

Thanks rdgrimes.

I ran some kprobe tests awhile ago with the QV3H firmware and the results were very similar to that of the 6S. I still haven't had a chance to go back and test the writing quality with the QS04 firmware yet though.
"Blu-ray is just a bag of hurt." - Steve Jobs
User avatar
Ian
Grand Poobah
 
Posts: 14882
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2001 2:34 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Re: LTR-52327S burning tests...

Postby tlotz on Tue Jul 08, 2003 12:10 am

rdgrimes wrote:Just got my newest drive in, for burning tests on about a dozen different types of media:
http://club.cdfreaks.com/showthread.php ... adid=71991

rdgrimes: are some, or all of the CD-RW discs you tested virgin discs (never written to or erased prior to test burn)? Since I found that write quality is *much* better with a virgin CD-RW disc burn than in all later CD-RW burn cycles, it is important to know that info so I can properly interpret your results.
tlotz
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Thu Jan 30, 2003 2:48 am

Postby rdgrimes on Tue Jul 08, 2003 12:18 am

I have seen no significant difference on the 6S and 7S drives when comparing fresh discs and erased discs. The Memorex US RW disc was fresh... :( and so was the Verbatim US RW. The other RW's (HS) were used several times. I have seen slight differences between quick-erased discs and full-erased. I always use full-erase.
rdgrimes
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 963
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 10:27 pm
Location: New Mexico, USA

Postby KCK on Tue Jul 08, 2003 12:32 am

With all due respect, until you deliver the whole story, let's distinguish fresh discs from non-virgin ones; three quick/full erasures should suffice. 8)
KCK
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 471
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 12:55 pm

Postby aviationwiz on Tue Jul 08, 2003 12:37 am

I posted it over there and I will post it over here as well:

Being read in the ltr-52327s it looks terrible. Being read in the ltr-52246s it looks pretty good. What are we supposed to trust? I don't suppose you have a premium that you could test it on as well?
User avatar
aviationwiz
Plextor Fan(atic)
 
Posts: 4069
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2002 2:55 am
Location: Home of the Red Tail

Postby rdgrimes on Tue Jul 08, 2003 10:41 am

let's distinguish fresh discs from non-virgin ones

With all due respect, I'm not testing the media in this instance, so it's fairly irrelevant as long as I'm using the same disc in both scans. The purpose is to look at the drive, not the media.
rdgrimes
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 963
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 10:27 pm
Location: New Mexico, USA

Postby dolphinius_rex on Tue Jul 08, 2003 2:19 pm

to me, it looks like the 52327S's burn quality is superior to the 52246S's, but the error correction is inferior... have to wait for a good review of the drive before we know for sure.
Punch Cards -> Paper Tape -> Tape Drive -> 8" Floppy Diskette -> 5 1/4" Floppy Diskette -> 3 1/2" "Flippy" Diskette -> CD-R -> DVD±R -> BD-R

The Progression of Computer Media
User avatar
dolphinius_rex
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 6923
Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2003 6:14 pm
Location: Vancouver B.C. Canada

Postby Halc on Tue Jul 08, 2003 3:25 pm

To me it looks like 52327S is more accurate in it's C1/C2 counts, because they more accurately reflect the results from Plextor Premium which has been shown according to the C't magazine to give results close to AudioDev calibrated test gear.

This is IMHO, based on the information available, the more likely conclusion.

Believe me, I wish it wasn't as I own LiteOn 6S series myself :)

regards,
Halcyon

PS We still don't know the exact workings and error count routines of Kprobe...
User avatar
Halc
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 599
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2002 9:13 am

Postby rdgrimes on Tue Jul 08, 2003 4:32 pm

I feel the burn quality is improved, and on a wider range of media. I suspect that the running laser calibration has been tweaked to accomplish this. My 6S has never completed lead-out at full speed, and often downshifts at 45-47x speed to complete the burn. This drive runs full speed all the way through, and completes ALL 52x burns in 2:37-2:40 with lead-in and lead-out included. I do find the US RW performance to be a bit troublesome, but HS RW performance is greatly improved.
I've yet to run a set of reading tests on this drive. I was hoping that Ian would save me the trouble.
rdgrimes
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 963
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 10:27 pm
Location: New Mexico, USA

Postby dodecahedron on Tue Jul 08, 2003 4:41 pm

to me, Halc's arguments sound more convincing.

if rdgrimes would do a comparison similar to that in the link posted above, but instead of bunrning a CD in the 7 drive and reading it in both 6 and 7 drives, instead burn the same data on 2 discs (same media), one on the 6 and one on the 7, and then read both in the same drive (for this particular comparison, doesn't really matter which drive is used for testing...)

rdgrimes...pretty please :) :wink:
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the land of Mordor, where the Shadows lie
-- JRRT
M.C. Escher - Reptilien
User avatar
dodecahedron
DVD Polygon
 
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2002 12:04 am
Location: Israel

Postby rdgrimes on Tue Jul 08, 2003 6:20 pm

I don't really need to do the test to say that the 6S will not burn at 52x on any of the chosen media, and will produce C2 errors 1/2 of the time at that speed. Or that the quality of the burns will be lower on the 6S compared to the same thing burned in the 7S then read on the 6S. I know my 6S very well. So, what am I offered to do the chore for you? :lol:
I'd do the test with burning at 40x to try to eliminate the differences between the drives at 52x burn speed.
rdgrimes
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 963
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 10:27 pm
Location: New Mexico, USA

Postby aviationwiz on Tue Jul 08, 2003 6:27 pm

But what we're after is the quality at 52x. Not 40x.
User avatar
aviationwiz
Plextor Fan(atic)
 
Posts: 4069
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2002 2:55 am
Location: Home of the Red Tail

Postby rdgrimes on Tue Jul 08, 2003 7:17 pm

@ dodecahedron

Here's a test for you:
http://forum.cdfreaks.com/showthread.ph ... post441355

It appears to suggest that the 2 drives report errors similarly, at least more alike than different. On the RitTEC media, the 6S has a VERY slight advantage at 40x. I assure you there is no point in doing a test at 52x, but I will try one at 48x and post it only if the 6S completes the burn at 48x
rdgrimes
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 963
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 10:27 pm
Location: New Mexico, USA

Postby dodecahedron on Tue Jul 08, 2003 8:22 pm

rdgrimes wrote:I don't really need to do the test to say that the 6S will not burn at 52x on any of the chosen media, and will produce C2 errors 1/2 of the time at that speed. Or that the quality of the burns will be lower on the 6S compared to the same thing burned in the 7S then read on the 6S. I know my 6S very well. So, what am I offered to do the chore for you? :lol:
I'd do the test with burning at 40x to try to eliminate the differences between the drives at 52x burn speed.


i'm not sure i understand you.
i believed, from many posts on the forums, that the 52246S has very good media compatibility and will burn at 52x on many different brands. from your quote it appears that this is not so ???

i would gladly do testing myself, had i the drives, which i do not (alas :( )

thanks for doing the additional testing at my request :)
from them i gather the following:
the 7 drives reports a higher number of errors than the 6 drive, perhaps by some 50% ?
however this appears to be very consistent, so it doesn't matter from a practical perspective (for comparisons), as long as one knows on which of the drives the testing is being done.
also, at least for the 40x test on the media you made, it appears that the 52246S drive's burn quality is slightly better than the 52327S drive's.
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the land of Mordor, where the Shadows lie
-- JRRT
M.C. Escher - Reptilien
User avatar
dodecahedron
DVD Polygon
 
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2002 12:04 am
Location: Israel

Postby rdgrimes on Tue Jul 08, 2003 8:25 pm

I was able to squeeze a full-on 48x burn out of the 6S, so heres a full-CAV burn comparison on the 2 drives:
http://forum.cdfreaks.com/showthread.ph ... post441375

My conclusion is posted at the end of the 48x test, but let me say here that I now feel the 2 drives are reporting errors in much the same way. If the 7S is sacrificing some read-quality in exchange for better high-speed burn quality, I can accept that. But there's no question in my mind that this 7S beats the pants off the 6S at 52x, and has a slight edge at 48x, on a wide range of media. And the 7S does not have to cheat by lowering the burn speed, it flat out hauls ass no matter what you feed it. (technical term for finishing the burn at full speed).
rdgrimes
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 963
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 10:27 pm
Location: New Mexico, USA

Postby dodecahedron on Tue Jul 08, 2003 8:36 pm

OK.
now we see that on equal grounds (same test machine) the 7S burn's quality is better than the 6S. :D

i agree with your commentary at the end of that post.

good job, well done and thank you again. :D :D :D
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the land of Mordor, where the Shadows lie
-- JRRT
M.C. Escher - Reptilien
User avatar
dodecahedron
DVD Polygon
 
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2002 12:04 am
Location: Israel

Postby rdgrimes on Tue Jul 08, 2003 8:41 pm

I also wanted to add that the more media I test, the more I feel that every drive not only has a preferred media for burning, but for reading too. And they may or may not be the same media, but often are the same. The same is true for burn speed, a drive may have a slight reading preference for specific media that is burned at a specific speed.
This certainly does not help us in figuring out what drive is "better", or what media is "better" or what speed, etc., etc. But it does teach us that you have to get to know a drive's "preferences" to get the best performance out of it, and it also explains some of the seemingly contradictory error scans that we see. It also makes it critical to control all the variables as much as possible when making comparisons.
rdgrimes
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 963
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 10:27 pm
Location: New Mexico, USA

Postby rdgrimes on Tue Jul 08, 2003 8:46 pm

we see that on equal grounds (same test machine) the 7S burn's quality is better than the 6S.

Actually, the 6S appears to have the edge at P-CAV, and the 7S has it at CAV. But the honest truth is that all of those burns are perfectly "good" discs for every-day purposes. But if I want to burn something at 48x-52x, I know which drawer will be opening. :wink:
rdgrimes
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 963
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 10:27 pm
Location: New Mexico, USA


Return to CD-R/CD-RW Drives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

All Content is Copyright (c) 2001-2017 CDRLabs Inc.