CDFreaks Presents: the Asus DRW-2014L1T LightScribe Multi Writer review

CDFreaks Presents: the Asus DRW-2014L1T LightScribe Multi Writer review

You can read the review here

Very thorough review, [B]Kipper[/B]! :clap:

1 thing sticks out in my mind: Dynex typically doesn’t have genuine MCC 004 or MCC 03RG20, and it is generally a borrowed media code that results in poor quality.

Do you think that mentioning that by the Dynex 16x DVD+R MCC 004 result would be helpful? Because when I saw the resulting scans, I said “That figures”. However, some people may not know that the media is fake. :flower:

Thanks Albert

This Dynex media is labled as MIT and not HK and in CDSpeed it shows as manufactured by Verbatim.

[quote=The Kipper;1967829]Thanks Albert

This Dynex media is labled as MIT and not HK and in CDSpeed it shows as manufactured by Verbatim.[/quote]
:eek: MIT for once…wow. Thanks for responding. :flower:

[Tip: the manufacturer reported in CDSpeed works off of the media code. It will show the same for faked media. ;)]

I’ve tested this drive for few days , medicore burner at best compared to my other burners .
Thank you for the review , I will check it out .

I was hoping for Asus to get back to rebadging Pioneer :sad:

[quote=Albert;1967746]1 thing sticks out in my mind: Dynex typically doesn’t have genuine MCC 004 or MCC 03RG20, and it is generally a borrowed media code that results in poor quality.

Do you think that mentioning that by the Dynex 16x DVD+R MCC 004 result would be helpful? Because when I saw the resulting scans, I said “That figures”. However, some people may not know that the media is fake. :flower:[/quote]
Thanks for your comments and findings, Albert.

After discussions with (and investigation by) Verbatim GmbH, we found out that the media code MCC004 in Dynex brand is not genuine, so we’ve decided to remove the Dynex media tests from the review. :wink:

Thanks Albert

Good question on the validity of that media; caused us to do some double and triple checking and as zevi said above it has been removed.

Congrats Kipper this is one of the best reviews yet, I really enjoyed reading it and your accessments are right on. Maybe a few others that have read these reviews and bought this drive can add what their opinions are. I would like to see how the Lightscribe function work in comparison to other drives. I am glad they are not using Pioneer rebadges, as most would rather have the Retail Pioneer. Stiil a great review and give me a true idea of what this can and cant do. I look forward to these reviews, they help me make a decision on whether to buy a drive or not. :iagree:

[quote=The Kipper;1968795]Thanks Albert

Good question on the validity of that media; caused us to do some double and triple checking and as zevi said above it has been removed.[/quote]
No problem. Glad to help. :slight_smile:

Thanks Alan

While doing this review I could not help but notice that when burning 20X media that the drive behaves very similar with the new pioneer 115. Take a look and compare the slow down and look at the write curve on the two drives.

ASUS engineering informed me that this happens with some 16X media and is a built in feature of the drive to protect the write quality.

am I the only one interested in the fake MCC results? I think it’s interesting to know how a drive handles fake MIDs especially since they are hard to avoid in certain parts of the world, drives such as the px-760a, liteons since 1635s and benq 1650 have features that would mitigate this to some degree, and it would be interesting to note how this drives (and others) would compare.

[QUOTE=seeker010;1969797]am I the only one interested in the fake MCC results? I think it’s interesting to know how a drive handles fake MIDs especially since they are hard to avoid in certain parts of the world, drives such as the px-760a, liteons since 1635s and benq 1650 have features that would mitigate this to some degree, and it would be interesting to note how this drives (and others) would compare.[/QUOTE]

I will be out of town tomorrow, but I will run some of the MIChina and MIHK MCC stuff and post it here for you, probably on Sunday.

Raining to hard to Ride; so here are some “fake” media results:

Drive - firmware: ASUS DRW-2014L1T 1.00
MID: Nexxtech (CircuitCity) DVD+R AML 003, Made in Hong Kong
Burned with: CDSpeed
Burned at: 16x
Time: 6.06

The 2014L1T is installed via Galaxy eSTAT enclosure.

Below is a capture of the Disc Info, Burn, Disc Quality, and TRT.

http://club.cdfreaks.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=134182&stc=1&d=1200163522http://club.cdfreaks.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=134183&stc=1&d=1200163522http://club.cdfreaks.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=134184&stc=1&d=1200163522http://club.cdfreaks.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=134185&stc=1&d=1200163522





Drive - firmware: ASUS DRW-2014L1T 1.00
MID: Dynex (BestBuy) DVD+R MCC004, Made in China
Burned with: CDSpeed
Burned at: 16x
Time: 5:20

Nero CD-DVD Speed reports this media as made by Verbatim but that is
tired to the MID and does not confirm that this media is or is not a True
Verbatim product.

The drop in Writing Speed is a feature of the Drive to ensure quality; this
is the feed-back we received from the ASUS engineers.

The 2014L1T is installed via Galaxy eSTAT enclosure.

This time I will throw in a Burst Rate Test so you can see how this drive
measures up when used in an external enclosure.

http://club.cdfreaks.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=134189&stc=1&d=1200167012http://club.cdfreaks.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=134190&stc=1&d=1200167012http://club.cdfreaks.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=134191&stc=1&d=1200167012http://club.cdfreaks.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=134192&stc=1&d=1200167012http://club.cdfreaks.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=134193&stc=1&d=1200167012






@The Kipper:

No offense or anything, but as a reviewer at CD Freaks, you should realise that the slow-downs in the write curves are caused by the drive’s OPC functions.

Regards,
TerminalVeloCD

[QUOTE=terminalvelocd;1976415]@The Kipper:

No offense or anything, but as a reviewer at CD Freaks, you should realise that the slow-downs in the write curves are caused by the drive’s OPC functions.

Regards,
TerminalVeloCD[/QUOTE]

No offense taken; just quoting what the ASUS engineers presented to us. We questioned ASUS since this drop in speed was occuring with virtually all media when burning at 20X. I understand the need for drive to reduce speed to ensure a more reliable burn, however, there was concern on my part that this happened with all media the drive reported to be writable at 20X.

nice. the AML media performs better than the MCC one.

[QUOTE=minaelromany;1968078]I’ve tested this drive for few days , medicore burner at best compared to my other burners .
Thank you for the review , I will check it out .

I was hoping for Asus to get back to rebadging Pioneer :sad:[/QUOTE]

Mediocre at best eh? Don’t mind me asking but is that based primarily off lots of high speed writing?

I’d personally be interested to see how it does at slower speeds if anyone here has some scans (12x or lower).

[QUOTE=cd pirate;1979198]Mediocre at best eh? Don’t mind me asking but is that based primarily off lots of high speed writing?

I’d personally be interested to see how it does at slower speeds if anyone here has some scans (12x or lower).[/QUOTE]

I tested it for 3 days with : Panasonic TYG03 , OPTODISCR16/R016 , MCC 004 and CMC MAG E01 .

TYG03 @8X / 12X /16X and 20X

OPTODISC @8X /12X

MCC004 @8X / 16X

CMC MAG E01 @8X

The media I have are perfectly consistent with all my other burners , but this particular Asus “Always” produces lower quality burns (Higher PIE/PIF and way higher Jitter) .
I will try to borrow it again after I return the borrowed Samsung 203D that I am testing against 203B :bigsmile:

On the bright side : It does quality scanning :smiley:

EDIT : Here are some scans :

http://club.cdfreaks.com/f87/asus-drw-2014l1t-post-your-scans-here-229062/index2.html

Note the burn with OPTODISC R016 media , jitter is too high and ALL my other burners produce jitter ~7.5% at the same speed

Thanks for the link, I agree that your other burners produce better scans with their burns but to be honest, the Asus seemed to perform quite ok in those pics. I would be more than happy with some results like that. IMO, saying [I]mediocre at best[/I] is a little harsh.