Is it normal to have a pair of drives - burner and reader




Couldn’t find any thread about it.
Is it normal to have a pair of drives - burner and extra reader?
Just because burners (all?) are very slow readers and speed matters.
I think it’s probably by burners design. Or am I wrong?

My opinion is based on time it takes to copy a dvd (6 files each 700 mb) to HDD.
While burners (including several Plextor ones, I have tested) copy it in a 30-40 minutes, some reader can copy it only in a 6-7 minutes.
Best reader, I have, being 3-4 years old Nec DV-5800.
I also lately got Liteon - SOHD-16P9SV, but it seems to be not as fast as Nec.


For what I know there are two factors that determine ripping speed:

  1. DMA (if DMA is not enabled, ripping speed is very low)
  2. firmware. Some drives (both burners and readers) are locked regarding rip speeds.

You can unlock yous liteon 16P9 with omnipatcher (I did it and now I’m able to rip @14x, aka the speed I choose in omnipatcher).

Anyway, there is nothing bad in having more than one drive (I have 5 plugged in my computer right now, 4 burner and a dvd-rom)


I have DMA enabled. I usually even don’t need DVD reader for ripping but just to copy data from DVD+R to HDD. It’s a great difference if it takes 6-7 minutes or 30-40 minutes to copy a DVD. Somehow this difference seems rather enormous, and I have experienced this slow reading with different DVD burners.
Is it normal, that copying a DVD+R with burner (8x - 16X) to HDD takes 30-40 minutes, while a slave reader only on the same cable reads the same disk in a 6-7 minutes?


Agreed. I have two burners in each PC I own, and plenty of people (like Geno) have even more!


If firmware is locked to rip (or read if you prefer) @2x, and if DMA is enabled, then I think that 30 min is a normal time to transfer 4 GB of data to HD from a dvd.

Edit: :doh: [B]Arachne[/B] preceeded me again :stuck_out_tongue:


Ditto! You need two burners or 12 burners or 16 burners! Stop! LOL