User review: Plextor PX-850A with PlexUtilities_1.1.7

I performed the attached scans using the new PlexUtilities (which, BTW did not even recognize my old PX-716A whatsoever), as opposed to other quality

checking tools, in order to give the reader a peek of what they can and cannot expect from the so-far crude, buggy, and limited PlexUtilities.

The automatic update of PlexUtilities to version 1.1.7 was used to generate the posted BLER scans, but appears indistinguishable from 1.1.4. As it presently

stands, the PlexUtilities are a real dog compared to the earlier PlexTools Pro and PlexTools LE. very little information, no drive settings (other than Spin

Down and Suspend power management tools, the user settings of which appear to be lost upon each system reboot).

A drive firmware update from the shipped version (1.03) to 1.04 is available. As I'm evaluating the unit pending the (possibility) of return to the

retailer, I have yet to update the firmware, leaving it as it stands. If the version 1.04 level firmware is a *big* deal, my apologies to Plextor ...

With no provisions in the PlexUtilities_1.1.7 for being able to change DVDR book-types (as existed in the PlexTools Pro and PlexTools LE), I was further

frustrated to find that the PX-850A has limited (or possibly no) provision for performing such with the usual alternate tools. While perhaps less necessary

for recently manufactured DVD video players, it's a function that I once had, and wouldn't mind keeping, just the same.

Book Type modification does not come up as an option in the final version of Nero 6 (6.6.1.5.a). The "Extra-Bitsetting" function of the latest Nero

CD-DVD_Speed_4.7716 comes up grayed-out. Maybe ImgBurn_2.42 will be able to accomplish this - maybe not. I'd rather stick with my familiar Nero 6 for my

CD/DVD burning, however. Even the utility for changing DVD book-type on the LiteOn iHA322 does not work, either (reporting that the Plextor firmware is

incompatible). This drive may not be easily tamed ...

However, my hope has remained that Plextor, having modified the LiteOn firmware (in order to allow for the use of their PlexUtilitie), might have also taken

the time to achieve somewhat better performance from the resident hardware, and/or impose a higher level of quality control on their re-branded units. It's

hard to say, since LiteOn does not publish much in the way of specifications for the iHA322, whereas Plextor indeed does publish more in-depth engineering

specifications. So, I paid about $50 for the retail Plextor over the $25 retail LiteOn, and am still hoping that this 100% premium in cost *might* translate

somewhat in unit performance and/or reliabillity - since the dog-ish PlexUtilities is only slightly more impressive than LiteOn's drive utility offerings -

rather disappointing.


The above tirades out of the way, on to the meat of the matter (CDR and DVD+R scans using genuine, high quality Taiyo Yuden recordable media.
All of the CD-Rs and DVD+Rs were burned with the PX-850A (Firmware version 1.3), Nero_6.6.1.5.a on WinXP SP3, passed Nero's optional "Verify" test, and have

not demonstrated any data integrity problems.
The scans were generated with a read speed equal to their write speed, and represent the same file content in both the CDR and DVD+R cases.


[1] CD-Rs (TY-CDR80ZZ100SBZM, 52X, Silver Laquer)

Interestingly, the C1 errors are continuous and *horrible* at 8X (relative to results at even higher write/read speeds). There were no C2 errors.
[See attached: "PX-850A_TY-CDR80ZZ100SBZM_Write8X-Read8X.PNG"]

Writing/reading at 16X improved matters considerably.
[See attached: "PX-850A_TY-CDR80ZZ100SBZM_Write16X-Read16X.PNG"]

And writing/reading at 24X performed even better ...
[See attached: "PX-850A_TY-CDR80ZZ100SBZM_Write24X-Read24X.PNG"]


[2] DVD+Rs (Sony_DVD+R_YUDEN000-T02-000, 8X, Silver Laquer)

While still on it's last legs, my PX-716A was used to burn this DVD at 8X that is here scanned at a read speed of 8X with the newer PX-850A.
See: [PX-716A_Sony_DVD+R_YUDEN000-T02-000_Write8X-Read8X.PNG]

Brand new out of the retail box, self-diagnostics complete (reporting a "CD Decay" aging metric for the Laser Diode of 0.60% for CDRs and 0.04% for DVDRs),

while showing a lower quantity of PIF errors than the DVD+R burned on the (near-terminal) PX-716A, the PIE errors actually look somewhat worse (although are

roughly comparable on an average basis) on the DVD+R burned with the PX-850A.
See: [PX-850A_Sony_DVD+R_YUDEN000-T02-000_Write8X-Read8X.PNG]


Conclusion:

While the PX-850A (at $50) cost only half of what my PX-716A (at $100) cost, the best-case performance of the PX-850A appears to perform on a level only

comparable to the last gasps of my old PX-716A. And, the PlexUtilities are a real disappointment when compared to the older PlexTools Pro and PlexTools LE,

which are (I believe) no longer usable.

I want to believe that spending *twice* as much as the $25 retail cost of the LiteOn iHA322 would have been has been worth it - but this hope is not well

supported by the resulting (attached) scans. In fairness, I don't know how these things would look with the LiteOn iHA322 (maybe twice as bad? ... ...

Alas, they don't make much of anything like they used to.

"Bending over" for that gold-plated Plextor panache' may have lost luster.

CaptainNemo

.

Glad you figured things out for yourself. I'm personally fascinated by the number of people who are obsessive about Plextor, and won't simply accept the fact that the company no longer exists. It's a shell that rebadges other people's drives. Why is anyone even bothering with them anymore? Just let it go and move on with your life.

Sorry about formatting funnies in the above message ... *~<|:-0

My PX-850A is an internal parallel IDE item,
and is definitely a re-branded LiteOn iHA322
(with unknown firmware mods by Plextor).

It shows a manufacturing month of Feb 2009.

If I keep the drive, and get significantly
different results with the version 1.04
firmware update (as opposed to the
shipped version 1.03), I will re-post
with the good news ...

My OS is WinXP Pro SP3 plus a handful of
user-selected hot-fixes released since SP3.

My system board is an ASUS P5GC-MX/1333
with BIOS #407 (released Nov 3 2008).

CaptainNemo
.

negritude -

If I had know what a disappointment the PX-850A's
new "PlexUtilities" would be, I think that I would
have bought the (likely essentially identical) LiteOn
iHA322 at one-half the price of the Plextor PX-850A.

The only other distinct difference between the
$25 LiteOn iHA322 and the $50 Plextor PX-850A
is that Plextor bundles it's version with "Roxio
Creator 10 CE" - for which I have no interest.

Maybe I could sell my Roxio flab-ware for $25
and recoup the extra $25 expenditure involved
in purchasing the Plextor (not likely to happen).

I emotionally converted to "Plextorism" several
years ago with my first PX-716A (which did a fine
job and endured a lot of use). While gaining an
illustrious name, thus inflating the performance
expectations of a lot of people. My second PX-716A
(one of the last new retail units available back then)
died after significantly less use, however, though
it did nearly as good a job (while it lasted) ...

I guess that I have, reluctantly, now converted
to a CD/DVD burner brand "Agnosticism" ...

CaptainNemo
.

yeah it's just a newer version of Kprobe that the same author (Karr) made i believe. He is also a member here.

Kprobe > http://club.cdfreaks.com/f96/big-kprobe2-thread-93944/

I'd like to make clear that my beef is not with Kprobe's author
Mr. Karr - it is with Plextor for not providing more comprehensive
Utilities to accompany their new re-badged LiteOn optical drives.

Mr. Karr might be interested (since Plextor seems not to be)
to know that the Plextor version of his Kprobe has bugs
when run on WinXP Pro SP3:

[1] "Basic Information - System Info" does not work at all.
It provides an error message that states "Invalid Image Size";

[2] "Power Control - Power Condition Settings" (the one and
only drive setting that is provided within the PlexUtilities)
wipes out the user settings, and reverts to the original
default factory settings every single time the system is
shut down or restarted. This is quite irritating, indeed.

Plextor has not to date posted the PlexUtilities_1.1.7 update, or
their PX-850A Firmware Version 1.04 on their US/Americas site.

Nevertheless, the Online Update function in the PlexUtilities_1.1.4
does find and download the PlexUtilities_1.1.7 Update (which does
not address either of the bugs reported in my post directly above
regarding Plextor's version of Kprobe. No release notes aprovided,
and I was unable to discern any difference between the versions.

The Online Update function in the PlexUtilities also finds and down-
loads a newer Firmware Version 1.04 (my PX-850A manufactured
in February 2009 shipped with Firmware Version 1.03). With no
information about it at the Plextor web-site, and no release notes
provided upon downloading the update, I have dared to install it.
The installer states that the update is intended only for the 850A,
so (presumably) it is not relevant to (or intended for) the SATA
version (PX-850SA).

In order to try to assess whether this Firmware Version 1.04
would make any difference in the amount of PIE/PIO errors
on a genuine Taiyo Yuden 4.38 GB DVD+R (YUDEN000 T02),
I used a brand new blank disc just acquired from Rima.com.

I purchased the 100 (8X) TY 02s on the premise that "slower is
safer". Ironically, it seems that the PX-850A actually has more
errors at *lower* spin rates. This is evidenced by the fact that
the C1 errors when burning TY CDRs in my original post actually
progressively *decrease* as the burning speed is increased from
8X to 16X to 24X. Similarly, the PIE errors on the DVD+Rs (the Sony
TY02 scan attached to my original post, as well as the new TY02
scan attached to this post) consistently appear to be the highest
in the early phases of the (8X) burning process, when the linear
velocity of the disc is at it's lowest levels. The attached DVD scan
(with a read speed of 8X on a DVD+R written at 8X) shows no
improvement over the previously posted results whatsoever.

Conclusion: Having no interest in the bundled Roxio Creator CE 10,
and finding the PlexUtilities to be nothing close to the functionality
of the previous PlexTools (Pro and LE versions), next time - if I buy
a drive this cheaply manufactured - I might as well buy the LiteOn
(at $25), rather than pay Plextor twice as much ($50) for the same!

OVER UNDER SIDEWAYS DOWN

In the olden days, "slower was better", and I probably burned
out a lot of the life in my PX-716's burning LED making discs spun
at 8X with good media - to do a good job and all that. I even just
purchased 100 TY 02 DVD+R blanks (max 8X burn speed) assuming
that they would be best for my ailing (now dead) PX-716A as well
as this new PX-850A item.

In a prior post in this thread I posted PlexUtilities CD Disc Quality
(C1/C2) scans (where the test read speed is equal to the burn speed),
finding that C1 errors are continuous at 8X, better at 16X, and better
still at 24X. Exploring this further in an attempt to discover how slow
to NOT let this drive go in terms of writing speed, I found the following
(using exactly the same Nero cached CD files for all three discs). All CD
discs are the same TY 52X CDs used and described in the previous post.

24X (rated at 3000-3600 CAV on my now deceased PX-716A) -
Results are the same (average) level for C1 errors, or 0.05
(see "CFK_PX-850A_TY-CDR80ZZ100SBZM_Write24X-Read24X.PNG").
Total burn time = 3:47. Spin rate starts at about 10X.

32X (rated at 3180-4800 CAV on my now deceased PX-716A) -
Results are better with an average C1 error level of 0.03.
(see "CFK_PX-850A_TY-CDR80ZZ100SBZM_Write32X-Read32X.PNG").
Total burn time = 2:56. Spin rate starts out at about 14X.

48X (rated at 3180-7200 CAV on my now deceased PX-716A) -
Results degrade significantly (though not as horrid as at 8X),
with an average C1 error level of 0.37.
See "CFK_PX-850A_TY-CDR80ZZ100SBZM_Write48X-Read48X.PNG".
Since the total burn time is less than 20 seconds faster at 2:44,
with a spin rate starting at about 20X, it's clear that (on average)
burning is ceasing to occur any faster - yet results are over 10 times
worse. As a result, I did not bother to test at 40X after seeing 48X.

Conclusion: Burning CDs at 32X (initial spin rate of 14X) provides
the best results. Hopefully (since buying 100 TY 02s that the burner
will burn at a maximum of 8X), the DVD burning at 8X is not a whole
lot worse than at 16X ... ! I have some pretty decent 16X Fuji DVD+Rs
that I will try, but I don't have any 16X TY 03s to compare at 16X.

Evidently this "Plex-On" is not able to control burning integrity
over wide ratios of spin-speeds, so they have aimed the accuracy
towards higher speed removable media types. I guess that the
silver lining here is that I will wear the burning LED out less while
burning CDs at 32X - that might be a good thing, as who knows
how long this re-badged (and retail priced doubled) LiteOn will
last, anyway ...

So, is one $50 rebadged "Plextor" in your hand better than two
LiteOn iHA322s in your bush? I think next time I'm going to go
for quantity, rather than fantasize about some rhetorical "quality".

You don't get what you don't pay for - and sometimes you pay
double for that, as well. I wish I had better things to say ... *~<|:-0

I'm not sure about what you are concluding here, but if you think that the 8x burning of CD-R media resulting in higher C1/C2 than at faster burning speeds can somehow be translated into 8x burning also being worse than higher burning speeds for DVD media, then that is an unfounded conclusion and is most probably wrong for most drives (I don't have a PX-850A).

You need to experiment with burning DVD media to reach any conclusion about best burning speed for DVD+/-R, and not base your conclusion on results obtained with CD-R media.

Rebadged plextors are Picking LiteOn drives to rebadge is even worse. You've seen the results... and if you spent only $25 for a poorly-performing LiteOn you wouldn't be kicking yourself in the head as you are now. Yes, these new rebadged drives are lackluster, and produce mediocre burns.

Drage has pointed out a flaw in your conclusion though, and I agree with him. An 8x CD burn that results in a bad scan can't be compared to an 8x DVD burn - 1x CD speed is only 150KB/s while 1x DVD speed is 1385KB/s. I have seen results from LiteOns of that series that write to 8X DVDs well at 6-8x, and create acceptable quality discs even when oversped to 12x. I'd only recommend low-speed CD burning on CD-RW drives only, and recent LiteOn DVD±RW drives are well-known to produce hideous CD burns.

I'd doubt it if you could sell your Roxio Creator 10 CE for $25 though. I honestly don't know of anyone who'd buy it for more than a few bucks.

If you still want a real Plextor, there are still a few new ones on eBay, and they are still overpriced. I've heard the latest TLAs perform way better than the earlier made units and are tougher. Those are the real Plextor units, unlike these new crappy ones.

DrageMester and evo69,

It was interesting to see your posts, as I did perform a
couple tests with 16X DVD+R media burned at 8X and 16X,
but found the results consistent with the CD trends, and
(having, as mentioned, just purchased 100 TY 02 8X DVD+Rs)
a bit depressing. See below for the results measured.

Note: To explain my reasoning (which seems sound to me).
My post noted that the quantity of C1 and C2 errors progressively
decreased as the CDR burn speed increased from 8X to 32X.

In response to DrageMester's comment, "if you think that
the 8x burning of CD-R media resulting in higher C1/C2
than at faster burning speeds can somehow be translated
into 8x burning also being worse than higher burning speeds
for DVD media, then that is an unfounded conclusion.".

Prior to the tests posted here, I was certainly hoping that the
levels of DVD+R burning errors would *not* show a similar trend.
However, after owning two PX-716As that generated the lowest
quantity of C1/C2 (CDR) and PIE/PIO (DVDR) errors at the lowest
spin velocities, and seeing the results of the TY CD-R tests posted,
some general things (that seem to ring true) occurred to me:

[1] As an optical drive synchronizes the pulsing of the burning LED
with specific physical locations on a spinning disc of any type, accurate
control of the effective "spin speed" (linear velocity at the location
on the burned disc upon which data is written) has to be maintained
over a wide ratio of velocities (maximum final burn speed divided by
the initial beginning spin speed). To accommodate a wide range of
various burn speeds, the manufacturer has to engineer a motor
velocity controller servo that can function or such wide ranges (or,
compromise performance at one range of speeds in favor of better
performance at another range of speeds). However, it is true (as
DrageMester notes that strong evidence of such compromises being
struck in the case of CDR burning do not *necessarily* translate to
the burning "regimens" that the manufacturer chooses in the case
of the burning of DVDRs.

[2] While it is certainly true (as evo69 notes) that DVDR burn speeds
are a factor of 9.23 that CDR burn speeds (for the "[N]X" multiplier),
it is also true that a 4.37GB DVDR contains around 6.23 the number
of discrete locations on which data is written as does a 702 MB CDR.
The sizes of lead-in/lead-out areas, etc. may skew this factor a bit.

[3] It's my humble (and certainly non-expert) understanding is that
C1 and PIE errors are "input-parity" errors, whereas C2 and PIO errors
are "output-parity" errors (thus constituting a more serious error type).


Results with DVD+Rs:
The general trend measured with two burns on 16X DVD+R media
(the first written/read at 8X, and the second written/read at 16X)
appears to confirm that the general trend noted with CDR burning
(that there is a higher burning speed that outperforms a lower speed).

(Aside from the 98 TY 02 8X DVD+Rs that I am now the frustrated
owner of), the only 16X DVD+Rs that I have around are Fuji branded
Prodisc-RO5-001s. I suspect that these items have not the glowing
reputations that TY 02s or TY 03s enjoy, but I will say that both of
my PX-716s did an outstanding job burning them. I don't recall the
existence of *any* PIO errors being present on any of them after
burning (literally) hundreds of them. So, I figured that the PX-850
(touted by Plextor as being able reliably burn many different brands
of removable optical media) might be able to come close to the PX-716.

See: "A_PX-850A_Prodisc-RO5-001_Write16X-Read16X.PNG" below.
The burn velocity began at around 6.6X and ended at 15.3X. Average
PIE was 1.39. Average PIO was 0.06. PIE errors peaked at around
15%-20% of the 3.8 GB of data burned. Note also that near the outer
areas of the disc at higher linear velocities the PIE errors (in a manner
familiar to these processes) begin to increase. There certainly are PIO
errors, indeed (where my two PX-716As produced essentially none).

See: "A_PX-850A_Prodisc-RO5-001_Write8X-Read8X.PNG" below.
The burn velocity began at around 3.3X and ended at 8.0X. Average
PIE was 1.44 (roughly the same) Average PIO was 0.24 (a factor of
FOUR times that found at 16X). Once again, PIE errors peaked around
15%-20% of the 4.0 GB of data burned. Note the rather prolonged and
high number of PIO errors that occurred at 1.0 GB of the 4.0 GB burned.


Bottom Line: With the new retail PX-850 that I purchased (and
I do hope that such is not the case should you also imbibe) burn CDRs
at 32X, and burn DVD+R at 16X, or suffer the slings and arrows of
less than stellar motor velocity control circuitry at work. The quantity
of C2 and PIO errors (for CDRs and DVDRs, respectively) generated
by this model (even when using genuine TY removable media) seems
to be a particular concern, as well. I miss my PX-716As ...

In fairness, my PX-716As cost about $100 each in their time, and these
re-badged LiteOns presently retail these drives for about $25 each
(unless one pays Plextor $50 for what may well be essentially the same).

"You don't get what you don't pay for" ...
Maybe I can save the dough to pony-up for something better next time.

.

I hope you're not drawing general conclusions from just two burns, one at each burning speed.

In the examples above, the PIF in the second burn (8x) are most likely dominated by the peak at 1 GB.
This is quite likely a media flaw in the surface or dye of that particular disc.

DrageMester and other Readers,

Thanks for the info(!) about the peaks in PIF errors that appear
in the range of 0.5 GB to 1.0 GB in my most recent two scans using
Fuji-branded Prodisc-RO5-001 16X DVD+Rs, and the possibility that
they are a result of "a media flaw in the surface or dye" of those
particular DVD+Rs.

Indeed, they do *not* occur at the very beginning of the burning
process - where the linear velocity (with respect to the individual
physical portions of the disc to be written upon) is at a minimum
(3.3X speed when burning at 8X, and 6.6X speed when burning
at 16X). They occur in the range of 15%-20% of the process where
I did not note the value of the disc's spinning speed.

As a further note: my ability to monitor and report the disc's
"spinning speed" is based on the numbers that the PlexUtilities
application interface reports within the process of *reading* the
disc. While in all cases of the scans that I have performed and
posted the (nominally represented and designated) read speeds,
they have been the same as the write speeds (i.e., read at 8X in
the case of being written at 8X), it is not clear (and is therefore
an unknown) whether or not the trajectory of "spinning speed"
is identical in the case of the drive's write and read processes.
This might seem likely, but - it is not an established fact.

Your point about not "drawing general conclusions" from a limited
number of tests is well taken. My postings (while reflecting some
feelings on my part of disappointment in measured performance
of the new retail PX-850 that I received) are not meant to be
interpreted as a "last word" on the performance of the model
PX-850 in a more statistically significant sampling of individual
drives as well as removable media types. It is possible that
(not unlike the situation that existed with PX-716As) some
drives are better than others (I got lucky twice, but have a
friend purchasing around the same time who was not, and
sold his first PX-716A, continuing until he found one that did
perform better, and at the level that my own PX-716A did).

It is also possible that I have received a defective PX-850A drive.

In fairness, I have run the Nero 6.115a "Verify" written data on
all of the burned discs (the scans of which have been posted),
and none of them have contained errors (according to Nero).
If anything, Nero's testing has "erred" on the conservative side
(where some earlier burned discs on which Nero *did* report
a problem have not turned out to impede the accurate reading
of the files contained on those discs). I realize that there exist
multiple error correction and recovery techniques and algorithms
(including redundancy of the data on the disc and other measures)
that exist for the purpose of "error recovery" in the case of ISO
(and probably UDF) compilations as well as CD Audio compilations.

Therefore - if I were to have a defective drive - an integral part of
exercising the warranty in order to receive a fixed/replacement
unit would be to find discs burned by the drive to clearly show
unreadable (an non-recoverable) sectors on the disc.

With all that said (and with the provision that the engineering
details of all these matters combined are indeed complicated),
my concern about the possibility that this "Plex-On PX-850A"
(rather than being able to provide equal performance within
the entire range of the various "spin speeds" in writing/reading)
may (in lieu) be engineered for higher performance at higher
speeds (in the cases of burning both CDRs as well as DVDRs)
may not be entirely unfounded.

(With the acknowledged proviso that these test results are of
limited number on a single received drive), I would still point out
the following trend that I appear to find in the measurements
that I have performed. I am interested in any further thoughts
on the part of you, other more, informed folks, who might offer
information that would put my concerns about lower-speed
performance on the PX-850A to rest. The fact that further tests
would certainly not be a bad thing to do, or that (perhaps) my
test sample size is simply inadequately small, is understood!

[1] The Sony branded YUDEN000-T02-000 burned at 8X with my
previous PX-716A, when read by the PX-850A, does not show any
particular prevalence of PIE errors near the beginning phases of the
disc. See: "PX-716A_Sony_DVD+R_YUDEN000-T02-000_Write8X-Read8X.PNG"
attached to my original (1st) post on this thread.

[2] Another Sony branded YUDEN000-T02-000 (the next DVDR
on the same spindle), when burned by the PX-850A at 8X does
show a prevalence of PIE errors on the disc in the physical location
corresponding to the beginnings of the burning process.
See: "PX-850A_Sony_DVD+R_YUDEN000-T02-000_Write8X-Read8X.PNG"
atttached to my original post.The (average) PIF (heretofore
in this thread erroneously identified in places by me as "PIO")
errors are one-half (at 0.01) that of the disc burned on my
(albeit aging) PX-716A (at 0.02).

[3] In the test performed using my new TY 02 DVD+Rs from Rima,
burning/reading at 8X using the PX-850A, there is an increased
(albeit not profoundly increased) level of PIE errors (relative to
the 16X test appearing in "[4]" below) in physical regions nearer to
the beginning portions of the disc. (Average) PIF errors are equal.
See:"PX-850A_DVD+R_YUDEN000-T02-000_Write8X-Read8X.PNG"
found in my 5th post on this thread.

[4] In the test performed using the very next disc from the spindle
of my new TY 02 DVD+Rs from Rima, burning/reading at 16X using
the PX-850A there is a decreased (albeit not profoundly decreased)
level of PIE errors (relative to the 8X test appearing in "[3]" above
in physical regions nearer to the beginning portions of the disc.
See the (heretofore not posted) "PX-850A_DVD+R_YUDEN000-T02-000_
Write16X-Read16X.PNG" scan attached to this post for comparison.

[5] The most recent tests burning with Prodisc-RO5-001 16X media
show a similar (albeit not profound) trend in the error scans that
were performed at (in order of their appearance below) 8X and 16X
with regards to the density of PIE errors in physical regions nearer
to the beginning portions of the disc. Additionally, the average PIF
error levels (over the entire disc) are 4 times higher when burned
at 8X than they are when burned at 16X (0.24 as oppese to 0.06).
See my 7th (and most recent) previous post to view these scans.

Given the clear trend where it came to my PX-850A burning TY CDRs
(of progressively lower PIE and PIF error rates occuring as the
write/read speeds are increased from 8X to 32X), and with the
proviso that DVDR burning speeds are 9.32 times higher (for the
same "[N]X" identifing number) that that of CDR (with around
6.32 times the date to be written on these disc types noted),
it seems to me that it may be a reasonable concern that the
PX-850A may not perform as well at 8X burning of DVDRs as it
does at 16X burning of DVDRs. This concern seems borne out
to (some) extent with the (albeit) limited number of tests.

Whether or not these measured PIF as well as PIE errors exist
at a level of serious concern for ongoing disc data integrity
when using this drive (in the absence so far of any evidence
of corrupted data as read by my PX-850A) is precisely the kind
of perspective that I seek from sharing my results in this thread.

The intention of all these detailed posts is not to engage in a sort
of "magisterial speech" (as if my humble level of knowledge about
these things qualified me to inform without the desire to, myself,
be informed in the process of the making of this thread). And I
do not mean to "CDfreak-out" as a "Chicken Little" doomsayer
based on a limited number of tests using this PX-850A drive.

I welcome the knowledge and expertise of the readership in the
presenting of your general knowledge, observations, etc. as it
relates to my (I would actually hope) perhaps unfounded concerns.

Any other folks out there who have performed CDR/DVDR burning
quality error tests using the PX-850A (or PX-850SA) with similar
(or other) removable media?. I will watch the "Post Your PX-850
Scans Here" thread as well as this one with that hope in mind.

.

CORRECTION of my previous, most recent (8th) post:

Please pardon my "senior-moment" ... The TY 02 DVD+Rs in the
PX-850 Drive with Nero 6.615a is able to burn at an 8X rate
ONLY. Therefore, the most recently posted scan image, named:
""PX-850A_DVD+R_YUDEN000-T02-000_Write16X-Read16X.PNG" (which
I had incorrectly named, then today accesssed in my most recent
post) was (as I correctly recall now) the results generated
by the PlexUtilities on the DVDR disc that was BURNERD AT 8X,
and read at 16X within the test. My apologies. Below you will
find a correctly revised version of all affected text with my
most recent (8th) post on this thread:

<< [4] In the test performed using the very SAME disc from the spindle
of my new TY 02 DVD+Rs from Rima, BURNING AT 8X, AND READING AT 16X
WHEN PERFORMING THE TEST using the PX-850A, there is a decreased
(albeit not profoundly decreased) level of PIE errors (relative to
the 8X test appearing in "[3]" above in physical regions nearer to
the beginning portions of the disc.

See the (heretofore not posted) "PX-850A_DVD+R_YUDEN000-T02-000_
Write16X-Read16X.PNG" scan attached to this post for comparison.
NOTE: THE FILE SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROPERLY NAMED:
"PX-850A_DVD+R_YUDEN000-T02-000_Write8X-Read16X.PNG" >>

In light of this revision of information, the differences between
"PX-850A_DVD+R_YUDEN000-T02-000_Write8X-Read8X.PNG" and
"PX-850A_DVD+R_YUDEN000-T02-000_Write8X-Read16X.PNG" reflect only
the effects of *reading* a single DVD+R that was written at 8X
at the read rate of 8X (average PIE = 0.52, average PIF = 0.01)
as well as at 16X (average PIE = 0.76, average PIF = 0.01).

A fair amount of the increase in average PIE when read at 16X may
well be a result of the (not so unfamiliar) characteristic of errors
increasing near the *later* phases of the (in this case), reading
process ONLY, as can be seen in the scan. The average PIF is equal.

Therefore my inferences described within (and drawn from) sections [3]
and (the above revised) [4] in my most recent 8th post on this thread
are NOT valid as related to the *burning* process, and instead, relate
only to the *reading* process, lending a bit less support to my
concerns expressed in relation to the PX-850A'S DVDR burn quality.

In closing, DrageMester's thoughts about not drawing conclusions
in relation to DVDR burning performance based on a few scans is a
valid and prudent one. I wish that I had some TY 03s (16X) with
which to perform further DVDR burning tests. However, I've spent
all my dough on the drive and a couple spindles of 100 TY CDRs
and TY 06 (8X) DVD+Rs, and have only a few of the Prodisc-RO5-001s
left in my supply ... The CDR burning behavior at various speeds
may (or, perhaps) may *not* bode ill for the DVDR burning behavior.

That's about it. Sorry about the (corrected) mistakes in my posts.
I've intended to clearly present the information that I do have,
and am interested in the thoughts and/or measured results of others.

Over and Out ...

.

Holy Smoke, Captain Nemo - is somebody paying you by the word for posting here on CDFreaks?!

If you want people to read your posts through to the end, you may want to be briefer in future posts.

Chuckling, the Cap'n responds:

No, DregeMester, nobody pays me for these masochistic exercises!
I've always been a thorough and conscientious fellow about the
clarity and accuracy of my communications. My words turn into
sentences, my sentences into paragraphs, my paragraphs into
pages ... It's nothing new for me, and there may be no cure ...

Your point about those words even being read is well taken.
I even exhaust myself when I try to read my own posts ...
It's the story of my life - the more I talk, the less people listen.

Try this: (My) PX-850A seems to be a disappointment when burning
CDRs at lower speeds, and this (may) also be the case for DVDRs.

Congratulations if you (dear reader) have made it this far ...

Regards

Will the 850SA overburn DVD+R? I know there's not a lot of burners out there that will overburn these days. I hope Plextor is still one of the few drives that can do so.

It's annoying having to use a DL disc for a 4.38GB file(s), because then I'll either have to find more data to fill up 7.96GB or somehow compress the file by a few MB just to fit.

I don't think that we will see any drives that will support overburn, the last the last ones were the true benq and the plextors.

What qualifies as a real Plextor anyways? Is it anything before the PX-850A model or is there something else to avoid?

I've always liked the Plextor brand. But I'm not so sure I want a LiteOn drive in Plextor clothing.

"True" Plextor drive are of Plextor design and their main electronics uses a Sanyo-Microprocessor. Such drives offer the extras Plextor drive are known for, together with full operability with PlexTools: disc quality check features, GigaRec, VariRec, Autostrategy, Overburning +R, just to name a few.
In contrast re-labelled drives are simply drives designed by a third party but produced for Plextor with the Plextor logo on the Bezel. These drives do not offer the extra features (or only to some extent) and do not fully interoperate with Plextools (for this reason , the new PlexUtilities was created).

Drives of "true" Plextor design are: PX-708, PX-708A2, PX-712, PX-714, PX-716, PX-755, PX-760.

All other drives are re-labelled drives of some kind. This does not make these drive bad. But you can't expect them to be better than the originals. In case of the LiteON-re-labelled models - as the 850 - the higher prices Plextor asks can be seen somewhat justified by the existence of PlexUtilities. Since everyones darling for disc quality scanning "DiscSpeed" just went commercial: Just compare what a regular LiteON plus an license of Opti Drive Control costs compared to an 850 including PlexUtilities.

You forgot to mention the Plextor CD-RW drives of original design such as the PlexWriter Premium2 and PlexWriter Premium which support the PlexTools scanning functions, and all the earlier PlexWriter drives of original design that don't support the PlexTools scanning functions.

Yes. Since the question was based on a curent CD/DVD drive I thought I'd leave out the CD-only drives because they're likely not the focus of the question.