New Crossflash Patch for 401S/411S@811S

4x1S@811S Crossflashing

I just wanted to draw attention to this new feature in the EEPROM Utility v2, as it's not obvious in the EEPROM Utilities thread title. It uses an algorithm developed by ala42, which creates the missing data that the 811S firmware requires, by using existing calibration data in the EEPROM. The patch also automatically resets the EEPROM to factory default for burn learning, which other patchers do not do.

The patch is very simple to use and can be done directly in the drive or applied to a file and then copied to the drive. Stock 811S firmware can be used (no crossflash firmware patch is required).

Existing 4x1S@811S owner, that used another patch, can repatch their existing EEPROM and do not need an original EEPROM.

This patch also works in XP SP2.

As always, please remember to backup your EEPROM first.

Please post results here. If you have already crossflashed to an 811S (with another patcher), we would love to see your before and after scans.

C0deKing: Uau.. I never tought somebody gives a damn about 401/411 users any more I'll try it out
EDIT: Well it works..

---

Last edited by Quikee2; 27-12-2004 at 15:24.

Well.. the KProbe scan is awful.. as expected with RICOHJPNR01
411 -> 811

Lol, we's tries to do our best mista .

Thanks for the scans. You might want to try HS0K with that media.

No need... It's a bad batch... even my Nec doesn't burn them much better. I'll try a MCC002 with HS0K

MCC002 - Sony Branded - Made in Singapore
@8x with 411@811

Ah...brings back memories of how many RICOHJPNR01s I wasted in using my (now sold) 411S (or @811S) with KProbe that were burned with (gone also) 2500A, which had superior results when scanned in a 812S.

I take it that media usually burns well at 8x in the NEC? It's probably not a fair test for the conversion, being 4x media overclocked to 8x .

C0deKing: MCC002? Well yes it burns ok at 8x with Nec I'll try MCC003 when I have time

@Quikee2
Thanks . You might want to use HS0R for MCC003 and I wouldn't recommend using the "Earlier shift" patch either.

MCC003 - Verbatim Branded - Made in Taiwan
@8x with 411@811

Thanks Quikee2. Not the best. How has your drive performed in the past?

Hope we see some better results than this from others with 4x1S drives. We need to see your results. PLEASE!

Ok guys here is the last burn I did using Ala42's 411@811 patch, the 6x section has gone troppo.

I replaced the EEPROM with the one used for the V4 modd and things aren't any better, so I have put the drive back to a 411S because the 4x burns are really good and so i won't be tempted to try an 8x burn on this old drive again without having to redo the modd.

I was going to try some strat swaps but the drive is basicly a spare now so burning @4x will do it just fine.

edit: Code or Ala if you want me to try some different strats or something else let me know and I will give it a go.

@ ala42

Here are my 1st burn results after applying the modified files; I reset the learnt media as requested. The result is better than the one above, but it still breaks up in my standalone but it will play through the patch of high errors. I will start another burn in a few minutes (since I have some spare time) and post the results after I have scanned and test played the worst areas of the burn.

Thanks for your help

Looking at the 8x section of that burn, it certainly shows that your drive is a very capable 8x writer. The next burn should be better, as the learn data kicks in.

Yep it is weird as a 411S it burns this media beautifully and the Ricoh’s burn great @ 8x in 812S, the pioneer does a good job @ 8x or 12x with the same disc’s so I can’t see it being a media problem?

edit: Just a couple of other points, when this drive is burning @ 4x and 8x the transfer rate goes up and down a little bit, as it does with my other 3 burners including my combo drive but when burning @ 6x it sits firmly on 8375 KB/s so you would think it would do its most constant burning at this speed.

---

Last edited by IceBerg; 05-01-2005 at 04:40.

Ok here is the 2nd burn I will reset the learnt media once again and do a full disc @6x to give the drive a better chance to "learn' how to burn this media correctly @ 6x, as suggested, luckly I have another 70 odd ricohjpnr02 disc's left.

Ok here is a full disc burnt @ 6x, it is fairly good in all sections and with in standards.

Ok 1 more test disc and I think I will call it a day

Ok here is an 8x burn done after that 6x burn it looks fairly good

Had problem uploading image will try again, keep getting error message not a vaild image???

Ok resaved it now it works??

Well, I'm not very happy after 401S@811S using the Eeprom utility

Here is a scan of a DVD made with 401S using Verbatim MCC 2 burned at 4x (latest firmware)


And here is a scan of a DVD burned at 8X with the 401S@811S using the same media and the latest firmware.


I noticed that I got several Buffer Underruns when I burned the last DVD. Could this be the cultprit of the bad scan. Should I revert back to 411S? I have of cource a backup of the 401S eeprom and the firmware.

My second burn after the crossflash 401S@811S, burning at 8X with Verbatim (ID MCC002), and this time it was no buffer underruns.....

Maybe that is the explanation ofthis fairly good scan or maybe it's the learn media function that is kicking in........

Anyway I'm much happier now

The to scans are of the same DVD, but with to different scanning prog

The spikes in your first 811 scan a a bit too regular, so they look like buffer underruns. As you said, the drive has to learn, so bad results on the first disk were ok. Your first burn is ok, these block PIFs are not caused by a bad calibration.
To compare the results with your 401 burned disks, you have to scan all disks with the same firmware.

ala42: thanks for your reply.

If you look at the second burn after the crossflash in post #23, the PIFs result are very good with PIFmax =< 2 and a quality score of 95 with Nero CD-DVD speed. I think eeprom util uses a algorithm that you made ala42 to calculate the calibration data for 6X and 8X burning. Have I been very lucky with the crossflash? In my opinion the PIF results in the scan in post #23 must indicate that the calculated values for 6X and 8X burning in my drive is almost perfect. The PIs are also good but somewhat higher then the results I got with 401S burning (PImax always <15). A PImax 46 are still much better than the standard of 320.

I think I stick with my new 401S@811S. Tank you ala42 and the guys behind the eeprom utility!