Are all lite-on dvd burners quality dependent on PC setup?

I have a LDW-811S and have two PCs at home. One PC is an AMD system using nforce2(using ms ide drivers) and windows 2000 pro and the other PC is an intel system using 865PE chipset using windows 2000 pro also.

Here are my observations:

  1. Using my amd system to burn Ricoh(01) dvd using nero, I get an average PI error of 20 using cdspeed2000.
  2. Using my intel system to burn the same data on Ricoh(01) using same version of nero, I get an average of 3.5 PI error which is better quality.

btw, the scans are using max (instead of 4x) on cd-dvd drivespeed. My lite-on produces more errors when using 4x to scan. Tried both HSOK and HSOR and both produce discrepancy in scans. Also, I noticed that the HSOK produces a more clean burned dvd (by looking at the surface) especially on Optodiscs compared to HSOR where I see small dark areas in some areas of the dvd.

Are all liteys this picky with the PC setup? Or it is a software/driver issue where errors being reported are different by system?

I am planning on buying a SOHW-1213S and hopefully it’s not as picky as my existing one.

Well as Burners are interfaced through IDE and therefore through your motherboard, any glitches through the signal path (bad ide drivers, incompatabilities etc) can reflect in the quality of the burn.

I am not an expert with IDE protocol but shouldn’t the interface on the motherboard and the interface on the DVD burner correct any bad data (or data is resent) going thru the IDE cable?

u saying u use the same burner on both systems getting these different scores? I would say the overall hardware quality is a factor how well a burner writes or, speaking in general terms, how well all components interact.

yup, i use the same burner. it is surprising how external components affect the overall quality of the burn.

it’s a matter of mobo’s quality in the first place (design/ components used)

Is the media you use also the same brand and batch? Ricoh quality may vary. I have a spindel of RicohJPNR01 from Fuji and from Imation. Fuji’s burns much better…

Forget the media variability. Yeba2 has said very clearly he is scanning the very same discs [already burned].

Lets go to the matter:
Not only the motherboard can affect, but the … power supply. It is supposed each hardware piece in a PC [HD, Graphic card,…DVD burner] has a relative high tolerance to power supply variations, specially the 12v line, i.e. it mayb be [for example] at 13.2v o 10.8v, or it may have some ‘ripple’ [high/freq variations, spikes, etc].

Well, I particularly think that this Liteon [I have an 811s too] are specially sensitive to the power supply quality… but it’s a hypothesis.

In your case, may be one of your PC’s have a worse power supply load / quality.

Hope this helps,

the +12v rail should never go as low as 10.8v…yes there is variations but these should only be slight…(motherboard monitor will show the readings on the fly while burning)…
i’d say anything below 11.75 would make me think about getting a new power supply…
and dont be fooled by wattage either…a well made 400w psu is better than a poorly made 550w psu…
antec rule the roost in psu…they pay particular attention to the +12v rail

I know motherboard monitor (cool :slight_smile:

But be aware…: The reading of that kind of tools is @ low frequency sampling. We should be afraid about the “high frequency / spikes / ripple” we could observe in the 12v rail (or other rail, why not), using an oscilloscope… it will NOT be a flat line at 12v (or flat 0.5v up/below): NO. it WILL BE a noise line, that perfectly could remind us the PI/PIF variation we observe on the [apparently unrelated] other scenario of Kprobe scans…

In other words: I have an oscilloscope, I have an LDW-811s with some erratic quality PI/PIF problems THEN I’m going to SEE that 12v rail ASAP, to have a real approach to what I’m explainig.

I know about electronics, but I dont know how the hardware of DVD-writers are. But surely they need voltage (:-), and, to manufacture them cheap, not sure how additional regulation /control is used to guarantee stable diode/laser powering…

Complex or simple…?

they do need volatage lol or they wouldnt work…and they run off the +12v rail…that is the rail to minotor for most things…
its suprising how much the psu is used and how many ppl take it for granted…i just had a plain old 350w psu and bought an antec 450w psu…although expensive i am glad i did…the +12v rail never fluctuates more than .02v…
i get better burns…
my fps in games has gone up by quiite a bit.
dvd encoding is faster…
everyone gets obsessed with how big the cpu is ghtz this and ghtz that…and oh i have 1 gig of 400 ddr corsair etc…
all these things need power and they all come from the same place…
the psu is the root of the pc and i cant recommend highly enough the importance of a good psu.

There are no system components that will impact the quality of the burn. The only possible impact would be from something like RFI that is affecting laser calibration, but this is a very small possibility.

Similarly, scanning results are not affected either, given no hardware issues like bad cables. One possible cause for the different results is heat. Another is user error of some kind, but most likely the varying results are caused by some difference in the reading of the disc, that is to say the discs are burned more or less the same, but reading is affected differently in the 2 machines, again heat is a likely cause. Differences in sampling rates is another possibility, and this is affected by CPU usage.

This discussion reflects some significant misunderstanding about what is being reported by Pi/PO scanning. It has nothing to do with data errors. Since the actual scans have not been posted, there’s very little to say about them. Average error rates are not particularly useful. Scanning at max speed will produce a wide variety of variable results, VERY variable results. Since the speed indications are based on data transfer rates, not drive RPM, there’s no chance of speed differences if the same speeds are indicated. CDSpeed does report RPM, so this can be verified.

Posting the actual scans is required, in particular the sampling rate is of interest.

Hi there,

Sorry :sad: , I’ve read again and seems I mix comments with other forum/thread and made mistakes :bow: . Permit me to re-route. Obviously we have neglected some facts. I’ll try to clarify point by point:

(a) Effectively, we do not have the scans; so ‘few’ data to evaluate. Except the [very low] 3.5 PI versus the [low] 20 PI. Are we speaking about 2 sample discs ? or 20 ? :wink: It’s not important to answer, given the point (b).

(b) As rdgrimes stated someway in other thread, such PI values levels are so low, that a factor of 10x is expected as ‘normal’ (20/3.5 =aprox 6x :wink: ) I agree (in THOSE levels).

© (CORRECTION of myself) At this very moment, regarding such a low PI values you get with both PC’s, I would not doubt both PC’s / PSU’s have good hardware. My explanations about the 12v variations can affect the burn, but it seems it’s NOT your case. Enjoy your burner an PC’s :slight_smile:

(d) rdgrimes request of ‘sampling rate’ is significant, of course. And the whole scans, of course.

(e) rdgrimes [“Pi/PO scanning. It has nothing to do with data errors”]. Subtle statement, but written in such a way may lead to misinterpretation, for the normal public.

PI/PO has to do with BIT(s) read errors. But the errors are automatically corrected [thanks to some kind of standardized/engineered ‘redundancy’ bits], so your final data [files you read] is completely there: no bit is lost, except if there are POF [right?]. I’m not an expert and I don’t want to be (so I don’t mind corrections, if any), but I understat “PI” as[blocks of] bits reading errors found from the disc but corrected by the “first level” of correction algorithms; some CPU/internal chip processing is required for that correction. Then come PIF errors [rather than PO], when the “first level” did not have success; but the “second level” of correction algorithms play its wonderful role and… recover your real data. So you have PI, then PIF, but your valuable data files are completely there, without an errored bit. The level of corrections are like barriers protecting you; but the second barrier can be broken sometimes [POF], and this is really a DATA error [you rally have lost a file or part of a file].

You are correct, to a point. Scanning programs lock the read speed, so the second level of error correction is affected by the inability to slow and/or re-read the errors. So a scan is not a “real-world” measure of absolute readability.
But back to the topic. Data errors that are created by system issues do not show up on a scan, and are not corrected, so GIGO is the rule.

Good, right final notes :slight_smile: