A 48246S that is BETTER than average!

I bought 2 48246S units. One has a pretty standard response to media and the other is much BETTER than average with cheap media! I’m hoping that someone will know if this is because of the difference in firmware, or just unquantifiable luck.

I’ve got a total of 3 Lite-ons:
#0 - an average 48125W (VVS01) (since June),
#1 - the BETTER than average 48246S (VSS04),
#2 - an average 48246S (VSS06 just flashed to VSS09) Serial is about 5000 higher than #1’s; both are Buslink 4848 packages from the same store.

#0’s response to various media looks just like what I’ve seen posted here, and #2 has the same responses.

They burn error free at 48x on Fujifilm 40X (relabelled 24x) TY and some completely anonymous unrated CD-Rs with a CMC Magnetics, Imation ATIP of 97m26s66f.

They both have BAD problems at any burn speed with kHypermedia 32X in the tub of 100, with a CMC Magnetics Imation ATIP of 97m26s66f. Both also have serious problems burning at 40x and 48x with cheap CD-R’s from Fry’s Electronics branded “GQ - Great Quality”, both the 40X and 48X media, both media with the same Lead Data Silver ATIP of 97m26s56f.

In short, a pretty standard 48125W and 48246S, judging by media posts with CD speed pictures.

#1, the 48246S with the VS04 firmware, is another story.

#1 is the same as #0 and #2 on the good stuff, but it also burns those bad kHypermedia 32X at 48X with zero errors! Consistently! Other posts on kHypermedia results look similar to my results - truly bad stuff, so I assume my batch is typical.

#1 also burns error free at 48X on the “GQ - Great Quality” mentioned above. No one has reported on these - which appear to be the Fry’s “house brand”. I’d post a CDspeed run, but I don’t have a site.

I’ve checked that #1 is not underreporting errors on the CDspeed read pass - I get the same results if a given disc is read on #1 or #2, regardless of who wrote it. (#0 is unavailable at the moment).

All checking was done with CD speed’s CD Quality and Scandisc, and was done both immediately after burning and later, when cold. All tests were done with approximately 690 MB worth of JPGs and a 70’ audio CD with many tracks (a stereo test record).

The only glaring difference is that #1 has VSS04 firmware. VSS06 and VSS09 both give the same average results on #2, and #0, the 48125W, is still at VVS01. Of course, the firmware for the 2 kinds of drive are undoubtedly different, but they ought to be at least related.

I have the impression that most firmware updates are just Smartburn data base changes, and as I’ve tried burning the bad stuff at lower speeds with the same result, it seems unlikely that the difference is a Smartburn issue.

Any ideas why #1 is so much better than #0 and #2?

And does anyone have VSS04 for the 48246S available for flashing?

couldn’t you just extract the bin file with mktflash from the 04 and then reflash the 09 one with it ? I’m pretty new to this stuff so correct my misperceptions here please

Sounds reasonable to me, but I’m new to this myself. I’ve done a lot of reading in this forum, but that’s theory, not practice. It would be nice if someone who’s done it before would comment.

Thanks for the suggestion.

Ya know,

Since you brought up Fry’s and GQ media, I’d have to say GQ media is inferior/inconsistent. I have an HP 9300 10x burner. With some of the “batches” of 48x GQ media, I get errors when I burn close to the max capacity. For example 694 MB worth of an .avi file. It happened with other data and music too. As soon as I started burning with other media (TDK, etc) I didn’t have errors anymore. Sometimes I’ll get a whole 50 pack of GQs with no problems. Other times, the above happens (2nd time already)

oldabelincoln
What you are seeing is normal variation between drives, and has nothing to do with firmware. There is also a fair bit of variation between different readings on the SAME drive. You may also find that you see fewer read errors on a disc when you read it on the same drive/firmware that it was burned on.

BTW, there is no Fuji 40x media that is re-labeled 24x, they have different ATIP than the 24x. Only the wrappers are re-labeled.
Also, there is no such thing as “under-reporting” errors. You are measuring read-errors, either they occur or they do not.