Page 2 of 2

PostPosted: Wed Feb 26, 2003 6:52 pm
by eliminator
ditto !
I'm stickin to whatever the latest CD-RW will turn out to be ... dvd burners / formats are still being developed :wink:

Re: Lite-On's Drive

PostPosted: Thu Feb 27, 2003 9:10 am
by Spazmogen
BuddhaTB wrote:... as 48x burns produce less C1 errors than 52x burns.


It seems to depend on media quality. TheWizards thread is even more valuable now.

For 52x writing:

The best I've tried is 48x Fuji (TY) there was very little difference in the C1 error rate between 48x & 52x.

Next I'd use Verbatim 48x (Made in Mexico). The C1 rate nearly doubled from 48x to 52x, but it was still acceptable. You will never get a C1 error free burn.


Great review Ian!

PostPosted: Thu Feb 27, 2003 9:56 am
by jase
lppnet wrote:If the writing quality is not acceptable then why choose for the faster drive. No point right. I think it gives you more trouble to find the suitable media.


I agree, I was just pointing out though that the LiteOn is beaten on speed. But yes, I'd still favour the LiteOn over the Artecs/Aopens etc of this world.

Re: Lite-On's Drive

PostPosted: Thu Feb 27, 2003 12:43 pm
by BuddhaTB
Spazmogen wrote:It seems to depend on media quality. TheWizards thread is even more valuable now.

For 52x writing:

The best I've tried is 48x Fuji (TY) there was very little difference in the C1 error rate between 48x & 52x.

Next I'd use Verbatim 48x (Made in Mexico). The C1 rate nearly doubled from 48x to 52x, but it was still acceptable. You will never get a C1 error free burn.

For my TDK drive and 48x Fuji Media, the difference of the C1 errors between 48x and 52 burns is very, very small. I think it was between 2-4, so there's really not too much of a difference, but I'm happy to leave it at 48x.

PostPosted: Fri Feb 28, 2003 1:11 am
by Spazmogen
I agree. LTR-52246S 6S0C firmware.

Here's 48x Fuji burned @ 48x:
Image
C1 error 5

now the 48x disc burned @ 52x:
Image
C1 error 7

hardly a difference at all.

PostPosted: Fri Feb 28, 2003 1:23 am
by eliminator
Very nice - thanks ! 8)

PostPosted: Fri Feb 28, 2003 7:44 am
by vinnie97
Jase, I meant in the realm of what cdrlabs.com has reviewed thus far. I have not seen (or at least don't remember seeing) a review of the Artec.

PostPosted: Fri Feb 28, 2003 3:02 pm
by eliminator

PostPosted: Sat Mar 01, 2003 12:34 am
by vinnie97
Sorry, I should've specified a 52X recorder.

Damn my inspecificity! :oops: