Getting good DL burns with 3550a?

After owning this drive for ~4 months, i just sterted doing some DL burns. In the past ive had the best luck with verbatim SL discs in my 3550A, so i picked up a 5 pack of Verbatim +R DL discs to try my luck on. The transfer rate looked good, but the quality scan isnt the best. The backup also skipped in spots on my ps2 (only dvd drive player i have at the moment). The original actaully seemed to skip worse however making me think the PS2 needs to be cleaned or replaced with a real dvd player. The image created during backup played flawless on the computer, so i know its not a bad backup. Anyway, here are my scans. Any other disc or other reccomendations from you guys with the same drive / firmware?

Scanned with a sony dru700 since cd/dvd speed wouldnt scan DL discs on the NEC!

Burned at 4x with imgburn:

Burned at 8x:

What firmware version?

Maybe try another f/w. Crossflashing to Mad Dog f/w could also positively impact burning quality, with my NEC drives (3540 & 4550) Mad Dog f/ws do a great job. Liggy and Dee modified firmwares based on Mad Dog cores are the ones my drives like the best.

All 3550 firmwares (stock, Mad Dog, L&D modified firmwares) Thanks to [B]Liggy and Dee[/B].

my burns turn out slightly better but my issue is the second layer…towards the end…4x works great…I use Dee’s ND3550 1.Y6 firmware…would the MadDog ND3550 OEM firmware 1.F3 flash to my 3550 ok?..I notice in the MadDog ND3550 OEM firmware 1.F3 statistics it says also that it uses dvd-ram…i don’t believe the 3550 does dvd-ram does it?

1F3 should work quite well with your 3550. :iagree:

As for DVD-ram, I guess that now that the 3550/4550 are not new models anymore, I can tell the truth: they have exactly the same hardware. I don’t think that it’s possible to flash a 3550 with 4550 NEC f/w, but I’m not all that surprised that MadDog apparently implemented DVD-RAM functionality in its 3550 f/w. :wink:

thanx Francksoy…i’m going to give it a try

You’re welcome. Please report! :iagree:

Just flashed to the mad dog 1.f3 from 1.06. This was a different image, and cdspeed let me scan this one with the nec drive. Real nice scan. However, i also scanned it on my sony like the others and it looks terrible. The errors are all right before it switches to the second layer. Mabye the sony drive stinks at reading the DL’s.

Sony Scan:

NEC Scan:

that 2nd scan is fantastic…i’ll try mine tomorrow or the next when i get a dvd-9 to do…ill report back…:slight_smile:

Considering that:

  • the 3550/4550 line of drives are picky scanners (mostly over-reporting)
  • the scanning graph you get in the 3550 is excellent
  • the TRT in the Sony looks fine despite the awful PIF figures, which is suspect

…it seems probable that indeed something’s wrong with the Sony DL scanning.

Another possibility is that the Liteys (the Sony is a rebadged LiteOn) don’t like NEC DL burns for whatever reason. I wouldn’t be the first time that such peculiarities are observed.

In my personal book, if the scan looks fine in a 3550/4550, the burn is OK. I distrust these drives as scanners because they tend to show far too many errors, so if they’re low I’m good.

The discs play great on the dvd player so far. Thanks for the help guys. Now to try a SL and make sure they still burn good. :slight_smile:

hey guys…how did you get on testing the 1.f3 with other media etc.
wanted to know before i change mine from 1.y6.

does it work with dvd-ram?

look forward to the replies!

i have scanned w/ SL media and there are a few changes i noticed…my verbatim -r’s look a hair better and some cmc i use were about the same…it has dvd-ram built in it but it’s for the 4550 if i’m not mistaken…i haven’t done DL yet…waiting on some backup files to do so

I never saved any of the scans, but the few SL +r’s ive burned since looked great. These were on +R Verbatim MCC 004’s.

1st burn - liggy dee 1y6

2nd burn - mad dog

all scans i do look pretty much like this…the backside of the disc on the mad dog…pif’sd are always lower

1st - Liggy/Dee 1.Y6

2nd - Mad Dog 1.F3

both at 2.4x

I’m actually quite pleased w/ both of these scans…a few times i tried at 4x and 8x and only about 30% of the time were the results as good as these

Liggy/Dee 1.Y6

@ 8x

Done about a month ago