CDRLabs.com

Do you think Lite-On is the most media compatible drive out there?
They do come up with a firmware update every three weeks or so...

Hello!

I don´t think so. It´s only a sign, that LiteOn have Problems with many media, when they sale a new writer.

Not only one media-manufacturer releases every 3 weeks new media.

In a review from 11 pieces od 52x-writer the LiteOn was re4al bad in writing quality; the only writer, that was more worse was a Sony (build by LiteOn)

What review are you talking about?
And what other manufacturers release a new firmware in a rate that could compete with LiteOn?

I think that it is the most media compatible because of it's terrific handling of low-end media such as ritek and others.

Scour wrote:Hello!

I don´t think so. It´s only a sign, that LiteOn have Problems with many media, when they sale a new writer.

Not only one media-manufacturer releases every 3 weeks new media.

In a review from 11 pieces od 52x-writer the LiteOn was re4al bad in writing quality; the only writer, that was more worse was a Sony (build by LiteOn)

My reply is : some manufacturers should upgrade more often their Firmwares .
It would be pleasant if you could Give us the link for the review ( ? ) .
By the way , you confuse media compatibility and writing quality ( it is not the same thing ) .

[quote="vbl117
My reply is : some manufacturers should upgrade more often their Firmwares .
It would be pleasant if you could Give us the link for the review ( ? ) .
By the way , you confuse media compatibility and writing quality ( it is not the same thing ) .[/quote]

This review is not online, only in a magazine. If you want the review really, i can scan the magazine and email it, but the language is german.

Media compatibility means: Writes various media at high/highest speed

Write Quality: The burned media has low error-rate


But I don´t want to burn all media at highest speed, when the burned media is bad readable or unreadable; do you think not so?


NEC, Sony and Asus need to upgrade their FW´s more often, that´s right. But I don´t think, it´s a good sign, when a manufacturer update the FW every 3 weeks. In this manufacturer sale writer with good FW, he don´t need that. It´s a sign, that something is wrong with the old FW.

When a manufacturer releases FW all 2-5 month, that can mean, he really makes new FW because of new media. Plextor. LG and Cyberdrive do it so

cu
Scour

Scour wrote:This review is not online, only in a magazine. If you want the review really, i can scan the magazine and email it, but the language is german.

scour- I think you mean c't No. 7/2003. c't is the German computer magazine, and I have great respect for it's tests.

I was somewhat perplexed by this one, though: LiteOn and Sony did not do well. In particular, the LiteOn LTR52246S, firmware 6S0C, was tested with Verbatim DLP 48x, burned @52x and the Sony CRX220E1, firmware 6YS1 with Traxdata 52x (Ritek). Both produced rather high BLER counts- average/peak 14/110 and 49/297 respectively. On the other hand, there are reports in this forum, e.g. Spazmogen, with much better results for the LiteOn combination, so I'm not sure what to make of this.

Further comparisons are a bit difficult because the media used varied from drive to drive. If possible the packaged media was used, otherwise Verbatim DLP 48x, TDK 48x, Traxdata 52x (Ritek) or Fuji 52x- whatever was accepted @52x.

A further LiteOn reseller is Traxdata: CDRW522452 plus, firmware 6SG1 with Traxdata 52x (Ritek) media. They did OK, although not tremendously great with their own media: 7/39. The best results in the test came from Cyberdrive CW099D, firmware 120M with Verbatim DLP 48x: BLER 1.3/20.

So from this test, LiteOn is not the "most media friendly" drive. My personal experience with the LTR48246S is much more positive, though. See the media thread.

You may be right about the firmware update frequency, but I would certainly prefer frequent updates (even if they just fix things done "in a hurry") to non-existent ones, e.g. Artec.

G

Scour, If something was wrong with the drive (LiteOn) we would have seen it at the reviews or people's opinions. Suff like: Last sector is damaged, can't read cdrws etc. (just think of errors you've experienced).

All i know is that a lot of users around here have commented remarks such as "after updating Firmware my 40X rated cds are burned at 52X" (and with nice quality. resembling 40X writing).

Hello!

Look at these results BLER(Block Error Rate):

LiteOn 52256S:max 109/average 13,5
Sony CRX220E1: max 297/aver. 48,4

Cyberdrive CW099D: max 20/aver. 1,3

LG 8520: max 24/aver. 1,4


Note: The Sony and LiteOn was tested with more media than the other writers, because they had to find media, that both drives burned as less at the max. BLER-Spezification


And now i want to know, if you would buy a writer with so bad writing-quality?

I don´t

Well if you would like, i'll ask comrade cfitz to post some media benchmarks with average/max of 0.03/7 with some TYs (though i know TYs aren't available to all of us i've seen some fine results with Ritek media).
And i'm sure that the review of the LiteOn drive which you've introduced us with was made with one of the initial firmware versions.

Scour what media was used in those tests?

I agree that the Lite-On's writing quality is pretty crappy with some media, but it is alright overall.

Ian wrote:Scour what media was used in those tests?

I agree that the Lite-On's writing quality is pretty crappy with some media, but it is alright overall.

These the media i know:

LiteOn-media, that include in the package, from Ritek

Fuji 48x (maybe Taiyo Yuden?)

Verbatim DataLifePlus (Mitsubishi Chemicals 48x); this is the only one with BLER under 220

Well, I'll wade in here with my tests on Fuji (TY) & Verbatim DLP.



Fuji 48x rated (burned @52x) with 6S0C firmware:


Fuji 48x rated (burned @ 48x):



Also see: http://www3.sympatico.ca/brad.ormsby/LI ... .html.html


Verbatim 48x rated (@52x) Also with 6S0C Firmware:


Verbatim 48x Rated (burned @ 48x):



Also see: http://www3.sympatico.ca/brad.ormsby/LI ... x.dat.html

Fuji (TY) is the most stable with 6S0C that i've found when burning @ 52x. Verbatim is a close 2nd.


How about some Optimum 48x brand discs @ 52x? 6S0A firmware

http://www3.sympatico.ca/brad.ormsby/LI ... um48x.html



I've done a few testt with Sony branded discs, but have not put the scans online yet. They're a distant 4th place.

Thanks for the scans, Spazmogen.

I probably would not have bought a LiteOn based on that article, but I've had one for 6 months and my experience (@48x max) is much like yours. Like I said, I was a bit perplexed about the results shown.

I'm not sure whether the Fuji's used in the c't test are TY- InstantInfo says Fuji.

G

Hello!

This tests from Spazmogen were made with the LiteOn-drives?

The tests from c´t were made with the best equipment in the world of CD-Media, with CATS-SA3 and Philips CDM4-Single-Beam-drive. at Audiodev in Sweden.

I´m sure the CATS-system has more accuracy than a drive for 50-60 €

Scour wrote:This tests from Spazmogen were made with the LiteOn-drives?

The tests from c´t were made with the best equipment in the world of CD-Media, with CATS-SA3 and Philips CDM4-Single-Beam-drive. at Audiodev in Sweden.

I´m sure the CATS-system has more accuracy than a drive for 50-60 €

That argument might fly if the LiteOn showed worse performance than the CATS system, but it's harder to support when the LiteOn shows better performance. Possible, but harder, and I would say the burden would be on you to prove that Spaz's results are wrong. Just saying his drive is cheaper isn't sufficient.

cfitz

Hello!

I think that the CATS-system have for all drives equal chances and has for all the same conditions

Here are tests for the accuracy of LiteOn-OEM´s, because no LiteOn were tested:

http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/Article ... E1&index=2

http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/Article ... l1&index=3

And i don´t think that a LiteOn-drive have the accuracy like this system, that is used by ca 80-90 % of all test-labors. Do you really think that 50-60€-drive is good like this professional labors???

Scour wrote:And i don´t think that a LiteOn-drive have the accuracy like this system, that is used by ca 80-90 % of all test-labors. Do you really think that 50-60€-drive is good like this professional labors???

You are missing my point. I'm not saying that the CATS system is a poor quality system. Frankly, I know essentially nothing about it and can't comment on its quality, but I would assume (or at least hope) that given its price and target audience that they did a reasonably good job building it.

What I am objecting to is your implication that Spaz's results must be wrong because they were measured on an inexpensive drive. Your implied assertion is that the error levels Spaz's drive reports must actually be higher than what it reports because you read an article somewhere else that showed higher levels on different discs burned in different burners tested with different, more expensive equipment. How does that follow?

And if the error levels in Spaz's drive are actually higher than what it reports, then apparently the drive is not recognizing some errors and therefore must be allowing them to pass through uncorrected (if it doesn't recognize them then it can't correct them). Is Spaz getting corrupted files and noisy audio CD's? I doubt it, so I guess that there actually aren't errors sneaking past the drive of which it is unaware.

Again, I admit that it is theoretically possible that the drive is recognizing and correcting errors that it doesn't report in its error testing function that WSES/CD Doctor/K's Probe use. But this is where it is up to you to prove this, and not just speculate.

cfitz

Finely said.
It seems hard to agree with such testing (the magazine) since even with earlier firmwares LiteOn's performances with TY media was excellent.

Harrier wrote:It seems hard to agree with such testing (the magazine) since even with earlier firmwares LiteOn's performances with TY media was excellent.

Don't forget that they used Fuji media, not TY. The Fuji available in Germany is made by Fuji, not TY!

What I'm really curious about is why their results deviate so much from what we've seen here, even with the same firmware. I don't think that the test apparatus has that strong an influence on the results. I'll send an e-mail to the magazine and try and get some more information.

G

[quote="cfitz
You are missing my point. I'm not saying that the CATS system is a poor quality system. Frankly, I know essentially nothing about it and can't comment on its quality, but I would assume (or at least hope) that given its price and target audience that they did a reasonably good job building it.

What I am objecting to is your implication that Spaz's results must be wrong because they were measured on an inexpensive drive. Your implied assertion is that the error levels Spaz's drive reports must actually be higher than what it reports because you read an article somewhere else that showed higher levels on different discs burned in different burners tested with different, more expensive equipment. How does that follow?

And if the error levels in Spaz's drive are actually higher than what it reports, then apparently the drive is not recognizing some errors and therefore must be allowing them to pass through uncorrected (if it doesn't recognize them then it can't correct them). Is Spaz getting corrupted files and noisy audio CD's? I doubt it, so I guess that there actually aren't errors sneaking past the drive of which it is unaware.

Again, I admit that it is theoretically possible that the drive is recognizing and correcting errors that it doesn't report in its error testing function that WSES/CD Doctor/K's Probe use. But this is where it is up to you to prove this, and not just speculate.

cfitz[/quote]

I don´t say that Spazmogens reports wrong checks because it´s made with an unexpensive drive; but maybe the LIteOn reads self-burned media better than an other drive from an other manufacturer. CD-CATS isn´t made by LiteOn, Plextor, Teac, so every manufacturer from CD-RW-drives have the same conditions.

I don´t speculate, the test results from CD-CATS are fact. Can you otherwise prove, that the results from WSES have more accuracy than CD-Cats?

Who manufactured the CATS they're using and what reader does it use?

Scour wrote:I don´t say that Spazmogens reports wrong checks because it´s made with an unexpensive drive;

What were the following?

Scour wrote:This tests from Spazmogen were made with the LiteOn-drives?
<snip>
I´m sure the CATS-system has more accuracy than a drive for 50-60 €

Scour wrote:And i don´t think that a LiteOn-drive have the accuracy like this system, that is used by ca 80-90 % of all test-labors. Do you really think that 50-60€-drive is good like this professional labors???

It sure sounds like you were doubting Spaz's results, and doing so because he is using an inexpensive drive.

Scour wrote:CD-CATS isn´t made by LiteOn, Plextor, Teac, so every manufacturer from CD-RW-drives have the same conditions.

No, but it still includes a reader, and the reader is part of the test equipment and influences the results to at least some degree. At one point they used a Kodak transport:

http://www.opticaldisc-systems.com/96Se ... News40.htm

I don't know what they are using these days, but I seem to recall reading that they had a Teac mechanism at one point as well. I won't swear to that, though.

Scour wrote:I don´t speculate, the test results from CD-CATS are fact.

Scour, I never accused you of speculating about the test results from your magazine. Your speculation is that Spaz's test results are suspect because they are measured on a LiteOn, and an inexpensive one at that. That is speculation because you have offered no evidence, let alone proof, to defend your view. Stick to the argument.

Scour wrote:Can you otherwise prove, that the results from WSES have more accuracy than CD-Cats?

I don't need to, since I never stated that. All I said is that you have no standing to support your implication that Spaz's test results are wrong. Again, stick to the argument.

Look, I really don't care for these "my CD-RW drive is bigger than yours" arguments. They are pointless. Get whatever drive you want and be happy with it. It makes no difference to me one way or another. Furthermore, I never said that the results from your magazine are wrong for that particular test under those particular conditions with those particular drives, media and test equipment. All I am saying is don't criticize others' test reports unless you have solid evidence to justify doing so.

cfitz

Hello!

It seems to be a long thread, i think. I only had school-english, it is real complicated for me to understand all what you write.

Maybe we should end this discussion. You have your opinion, i have my opinion and experience. And my opinion is, that CD-Cats is the system with more accuracy.

but... but... my CD-RW is bigger than yours!!!

OK, we'll leave it at that.