1633S Good for Scanning?

vbimport

#1

After reading so much stuff in the NEC forum I ended up getting a 3500 and now I’m looking for a good Liteon drive for scanning. I can get the 811S and the 1213S both at the same price but after reading all the threads on the 1213S it sounds like crap but there’s not as much bad stuff about the 1633S crossflashed or stock. So my question is would it be worth my while to get the 1213S and cross flash it to the latest 1633S firmware or stick with an 811S for Kprobing?


#2

Get the 1213S and cross flash it. Yes the firmware still needs some work but it will still be better than the 811S and the 1213S can rip DL media faster than the NEC, when read speed patched.


#3

Yah, I agree w/ CK… I wouldn’t say that the 1213S is bad, per se. When flashed to a 1633S, it’s actually fairly good. Certainly better than the 811S. The problem w/ the 3S drives, at least the early ones (dunno if this is still true with the ones produced later), is that they’re too variable in quality. Some units (like the one that CK has) are just horrible and can’t do a decent 8x even when flashed to a 1633S firmware. And then there are some units (like the one that I luckily have) that are wonderful (my 1213S@1633S can burn 4x media at 12x without problems (using BS01, before they restricted 12x/16x overspeeding a bit) and can burn 4x media oversped to 8x faster and better than my 832S with every single media type that I’ve tried… so much so that I’ve uninstalled my 851S@832S and replaced it with my 1213S@1633S–my computer doesn’t have enough drive bays)… sooooooo anyway, the 3S series is really just luck of the draw, but even if you are unlucky, it’s still better than the 811S, hands down.


#4

How did you achieve it? You just bumped the write speeds or did you do some strat replacing? Or maybe both?

I have, among others, these 4x media:

  • PRODISCS03 4x -R
  • PRODISCR02 4x +R
  • CMCMAGF01 4x +R
  • CMCMAGAF1 4x -R

I’ve a 1213s. What would be the best way to burn those medias @8x:

  • Use the latest firmware for the 1213s;

  • Crossflash the 1213s to 1633s and use latest firmware;

  • Bump the speed on stock write strats;

  • Replace write strats (which would likely work best?)


#5

Great, thanks for the replies! I’m not too concerned with write quality since I have the NEC and an old Pioneer A04 still kickin around. It’s mainly for doing my own Kprobes since I can’t completely rely on results submitted by members, although a great resource and gives a decent indicator or media quality, results vary from user to user so at least this way I can see what works well for me.


#6

@johnzap
The trick with the 3S series is that you cannot just bump the speed. You must use a strategy that supports the speed already.

R02 should be R03 or T02
F01/01 is already 8x or F01/00 to F01/01

And I don’t know about the -R.


#7

This is going a bit off-topic from the original post… but oh well… :wink:

1/ 1213S firmwares are bad. I’ve done a total of 1 burn with any 1213S firmware…

2/ All of the 8x burns are included in the recommended tweaks file. So far, the ones that I’ve done (this is limited by what media I have in my collection)…
*CMC MAGR01@M01@8x (2.4x oversped to 8x… PI avg < 1, PIF total < 300… but then again, my discs were HP-branded and HP CMC media seem to be among the best)
*RICOHJPNR01@R02@8x (typical Ricoh, what’d you expect?)
*YUDEN000T01@T02@8x and @12x (@12x only worked well with BS01)
*PRODISCR02@R03@8x and @12x (@12x only worked okay with BS01)
*RITEKR03@YUDEN000T02@8x
*RITEKG04@G05@8x

3/ As you can see from above, everything involved a strat swap. The only non-strat-swapped speedup that I’ve been able to pull off was CMCMAGR01@4x, up from 2.4x.

4/ If you don’t believe my 4x@12x, here’s my YUDEN000T01@12x (see attachments)… though remember, YMMV, because rdg was never able to reproduce these kinds of results (though Kennny was able to).





#8

Wow, that scan of the 4X@12X is awesome. How does the TY Yuden T02 work with this drive?


#9

I have only two T02 discs. One disc was wasted doing a test that I shouldn’t have done. The other is sitting on the proverbial pedestal, unburned, waiting for me to get up the courage to use it up… which might not happen for a while. :stuck_out_tongue:


#10

Thanks Codeguys, for the insightful replies.


#11

Only possible with BS01 f/w the 12X burn with those results?


#12

In my experience, yes, only with BS01. Also, based on what I’ve seen, it also requires a bit of luck, too, to have both good media and a good, well-calibrated drive… so YMMV.


#13

Is Liteon going to be coming out with a new drive in the near future, or is the 1633S going to be the top drive for a while?


#14

I hope they will make a decent firmware for the 1633S.


#15

Depends on your deffinition of “near future”. The new “5” series drives are due out at some unknown point. But before that will be a “3” model with 4x DL and one with 8x DL. But don’t hold your breath. :wink:


#16

I’ve got some interesting Kprobe results from my 1213s.

Scenario: RICOHJPNR02 (Platinum 8x branded) burned @12x on the 1213s, stock TS0D firmware (crap firmware, I know, but that’s not he point of this post).

The disk was scanned on the 1213s, then the drive was flashed with the BS0C 1633s firmware (OP settings: increase speed, enable auto-bitsetting, enable x-flash) and the disk was scanned again. Finally the drive was again flashed to TS0D (1213s) and a new scan was performed on the same disk. A Nero DVD speed was also perfomed on a NEC 3500AG. All the results can be seen below.

First the KProbe result done on the 1213s:

The KProbe done on the 1213s@1633s:

The KProbe with the drive flashed back to 1213s:

And finally the Nero DVD Speed scan performed on a NEC 3500:

Some comments from me:

  1. I was quite surprised to see such dramatic changes on the scans results, done on the same drive with “just” the firmware changed.

  2. The 2 scans performed with the 1213s firmware are basically the same so it’s obvious the drive is consistently reading the same.

  3. From the Nero scan it looks like the disk is very poorly burned on the post 8x area therefore it looks like the KProbe results done while @1633s are more reliable.

What do you guys think? I want the LiteON primarily for KProbe testing so which firmware should I use for that? The 1213s one which obviously supplies much better looking scans or the 1633s which appears to be more accurate?

And are you also as surprised as I am to see such differences reported from the same drive? :confused:


#17

Some additional comments from my previous post:

  • I now understand why sometimes people post such beautifully looking scans and others complain their scans are crap. Maybe the first would be complaining the same if they had the same scanning conditions as the second one.

  • I also now understand why people sometimes post great looking scans but the disk is not readable or skips, etc. Probably the scanning drive is not reporting accurate results.


#18

Probably the scanning drive is not reporting accurate results.

Terms like “accurate” do not apply here. Each combination of drive and firmware reports exactly what is occurring. This is why we are always telling people not to compare scans done in different drives or firmware versions, except as a measure of which is best able to read the specific disc in question.
So in the above example of 3 scans, all 3 are “accurate”.


#19

I think the 1213S has a scanning problem rather than a reading or (even) burning problem. Here is a disk burned with the 1213S fw TS09. First scan with fw TS09:

Here is a scan of the same disc on the same drive after cross-flashing to BS0C (1633S):

Transfer rate tests are impeccable with both firmware versions, as are the results with my (picky) LTD-163 DVD-Rom (16x !!). So I think that my scans using the drive as a 1633S are more representative of the readabilty on other drives. I’ve observed similar behaviour with most discs I’ve burned!

G


#20

I understand and agree with you. Maybe the term “accurate” is not correct. The thing is: is the disk properly written in the sense that most drives will read it without much trouble (notice that the NEC had to severely slow it down to complete the scan)? In that sense what scan would appear to better reflect this? It looks like it is the one performed on the drive @1633s? The KProbe scan (12x area) done on this one also appears to be more in line with the NEC scan. Notice the sharp rising mountains which also show clearly on the NEC scan. The 1213s scans don’t appear to reflect this as well and the PI error level on these scans appear abnormally low considering the trouble NEC had to read the disk and the much higher number of errors the @1633s drive is reporting.