CDRLabs.com

My LIteon LTR-52327S died when it was 11 months old. I RMA'ed it to newegg and in exchange received Liteon SOHR-5238S.

I was curious how the new drive compares with the old.
I tested the SOHR drive with TY (Fuijifilm) and Ritek (Maxell 48x) using KProbe.

TY results were excellent - C1 max = 7, C1 ave < 0.2, C1 Total <= 800.

But Maxell (Ritek) results were very disappointing:

When reading MAxell CDs written by my old LTR...7S drive, the results were comparable with TY:

C1 ave < 0.4, C1 Total < 2,000

But reading Maxell CDs produced by my new SOHR drive the results were:

C1 max = 28, C1 Ave = 6.7, C2 Total = 27,000

C2 = 0 though.

I upgraded to the latest firmware from ...05 to ...06 -- same exact result.

Resume: MAxells CDRs from the same box were burm much better by LTR 52327S.

Now, I would just assume that this SOHR drive just worse that my old LTR (at least for Ritek). But here is a twist. I had one blank CD which came with the SOHR retail package, labeled "Liteon Professional CDR", golden top. That CD was identified as Ritek by SMART-Burn software. (Exactly the same information as for Maxell 48x CDRs). But when I burned it, the results were very surprising: almost as good as TY !!

C1 ave = 0.2, C1 Total = 1,400
C2 = 0

I thought I was crazy and tested Maxells again... Again, C2 ave = 6, total, 27,000.



Has anyone else tested their SOHR with Ritek ?

sohr5238s SUX. i burned princo and enclosed-with-burner-liteon brand, analyzed with kprobe 2 in ltr52327s i already own 7 of,.

tried 5 different pieces of princo:

burn with sohr, read with 7s:
princo: C1 max 210, total 65,823.

princo: burn and read with 7s: C1 13, total 6123

burn and read with sohr reads its own princo burns differently:
C1 max = 9, total = 1877.

read 7s burn in sohr: C1 max 13, total 3109

i think sohr improved read ability, destroyed write quality. i will be sending back for AOPEN 523252, which is the best burner on the market for write quality plus media compatibility... according to cdrlabs reviews.

and whats with the high status of plexwriters, when the write quality is the lowest of any cd burner across most media! People, the ONLY thing that really matters is WRITE QUALITY and MEDIA COMPATIBILITY. what does it matter if you can write a poor disc 15 seconde faster. talk about give it to me now no matter what the cost mentality of our times!

i'm tired of reading all posts only testing things like how nice it looks, what free software it comes with, if it writes 10 seconds faster, how fast it rips audio, cpu usage (come on, its never anything on a modern computer!), read speed (theyall read "fast), DAE speed (they all read "fast)

and then if at all, put the crucial factor, write quality, buried under all this useless CRAP! Then rate a plextor that burns most media poorly at the top because it says PLEXTOR.. theyre all getting paid to lie i say!

Brilliant. Just brilliant. You rant and threadcrap, and then you use PRINCO CD-R discs?
You're not being too objective, you know. Try some TY and Maxell CD-Rs, and see.

evanrabby:
You already made your point on this same topic in THIS thread.


I think we'd all appreciate it if you went to: http://dictionary.reference.com/ and checked your spelling before you submit your posts.

I agree with Bhairav, try some different discs and post your results.
Even I had to change from Verbatim's to TY Made Fuji's due to their superior construction.

Also try updating the firmware in your drive.

Princo is not what many people around here consider a high quality product.

yeah, i dont care about spelling, sorry. Mabe it offends people so i will spell absolutely flawlessly from now on. I don't need dictionary.com. However, i refuse to capitalize my i's.

of course i updated firmware, and even tried both old and new firmware, to the same result (4s06 and 4s07).

yes i know princo sounds bad, but these were actually the best media for reading compatibility, on older machines i have used, and the score i posted for them on the 52327s was fine. I am out of media, and these are just what i have right now.

i do CDR duplication, and test every brand i get carefully. i mainly burn audio cds, and test them on several older machines for compatibility. tomorrow i will get my order of 1,000 ritek cdrs to test. Mabe people don't like ritek either, but i have had good read tests on previous ones. we'll see.

OK, i have also used TY (excellent under 1,000 C1 but not best read compatibility), ritek, CMC (HP version, some in same spindle good, some bad, i'll not be using them again), and moser baer (excellent actually, 3 to 6k C1, max 12). I'll post my results with these here in a day or so.

the idea is to be able to use less expensive media if the burner can burn them with good results and they are read on tha largest number of players, and if one burner handles all media within good limits and another does poorly with many of them, then thats a worse burner by definition.

ok, riteks i received do the same thing as princo, 79 minute disc, all blanks clean, dust free and just taken out of a spindle from underneath first disk on stack, spindles stay covered when not in use.:

7s write, and read with kprobe 2, 3 different ritek silver/silver:
C1Max total
8 2663
7 2297
7 2804

sohr read what 7s wrote above in order:
8 2789
8 2686
read#2 with same disc#2 right above:
38 3391, C2: 108 Max, total 644, mostly at last 3rd of disk.
3rd disc not read with sohr

sohr reads mostly ok with disks wrote by 7s, shows signs of occasional
erratic read results on multiple trys reading same disc.


NOW SOHR-5238s writing:
sohr write, read with 7s with kprobe twice:
250 91677 C2max 2, total 14
183 51064 C2max 1, total 13
higher C1 for first 10 min., fall to 10 and rise again steadily after 60 min.
sohr shows far worse handling of ritek cdr than 7s, though only when read by 7s.

sohr write, and read, with kprobe 2, 74 minutes disc:
15 6241
same disc read with 7s twice, steady fall at start 5 min, rise at end at 6
min:
54 25594
63 25886
sohr shows worse write quality when reading it's own burn, still far worse when read by 7s! Notice i shortened burn length and 7s read still shows poor.

sohr write, and read, 80:34 minute disc (slight overburn):
99 8333 (mostly at end C1 rose above 5 average, C2 max 118, 448 total as well just right at end of disc.
read this disc with 7s:
272 68313 some C2 at end, max 2 C2 total 20, rose above 10 average in steady curve after 60 min.
sohr doesent like overburn even 30 seconds! Write of course 'failed' at end, which is usually just leadout failure and doesen't effect audio data on 7s burners:


7s write and read, 80:34min disc (slight overburn), read 3 times:
10 2907
9 1468
8 1462
sohr read same disc 3 times:
10 3595
9 1992
12 3709
sohr reads mabe a little worse than 7s, but overburns are working fine as they always have on '7s. Write 'fails' but probably just leadout, as it reads back fine as always over 2 years of 52327s use.

81:37 minute overburn on 7s, read twice(substantial overburn):
10 2151
9 2255
read in sohr twice:
9 2855
9 2855 (amazing, same read result 2x, statistical rarity!)
sohr reads overburn a little worse mabe, but overburning was fine on 7s, poor on sohr!


NOW: taiyo yuden, 79 min disc:
sohr write and read twice:
12 1937
12 2031
7s read above disc twice:
15 3773
16 3769

2nd taiyo written in 7s:
7s write and read twice:
9 1972
9 1941
sohr read above disc twice:
11 1758
10 1844
according to 7s read, even taiyo yuden burns mabe a little worse, though i only had 2 pieces i had found to test.

conclusion: sohr-5238s is less able to write well over 3 different media than ltr-52327s. Something has changed making 'sohr worse than old liteon! Since i do cdr duplication and prefer to use cheaper media if i can get good results, so do my customers like to save money but still get excellent results, i will be using my old ltr52327s and purchasing my 12 new ones for my duplicator from anitec.ca[/url]