Is it time to increase the 5S quality scan read speed to 8x? And what about 6S?

I think the time has come to increase the scan read speed for the 5S drives to 8x. Personally I find waiting 15 minutes for a scan result too long now, especially after having BenQ drives and using them at 8x.

I’ve actually been using my 3S MKII (1673S/1693S) at 8x for quality tests for some time now and even the results with this drive are so similar, it’s not worth the extra 6 minutes. I didn’t suggest it for this drive because I thought it would be too confusing having some 3S drives using 4x and some using 8x.

What does everyone think?

Here’s an example of a 4x and 8x scan from my 1635S:

Could the 5S be optimized for reading at higher speeds?
same disc scanned at 4x then 8x.

It’s certainly possible, especially now that this drive allows 16x reading as standard. I guess the majority of people that own this drive will just read the data to verify it. What does a 16x transfer rate test of that disc look like?

For some reason the transfer rate test only went to 12x

Yes the drive does that on some media. I can see where the firmware does it but I can’t understand the mechanism yet and I can’t patch it until the new checksum has been sorted.

But going by that result you would have to believe the 8x scan is the more correct representation of the burn quality… :wink:

Just for kicks here is a scan of the same disc at 12x.
Looks as though 8x is the sweet spot for scanning

Here’s my burn above scanned at 12x:

There’s no such thing as a “correct” scan. They are what they are. It makes no difference what scan speed you use, as long as you don’t try to compare one to the other. It’s not new to see lower errors at higher scan speeds, what’s important is that the differences are very small in this case. The 5S appears to be a very stable reading drive, error rates seem to be universally lower than other LiteOn chipsets. Hopefully that also translates to more stable burns. I also see more good 16x burns (true 16x) than with any other drive I have. Although, the LG and will burn at 12x in almost the same time with better results.

No strange glitches scanning DVD-R at 8x.

4x scan here:

5s@8x as the forum standard? would be nice as it doesn’t take much time.

Here are two scans with X-LIFE DVD+R disc (Fake MCC :confused: )
The first scanned 4x
The second scanned 8x
Burned 8x
What is better scanning 8x or 4x ?

I just ran a comparison (4x scan versus 8x scan) on my 1693. The 1635 isn’t hooked up at this moment in time, or I would have used it. I did this comparison in Kprobe, because I wanted to see how many fewer samples would be taken at the higher speed. Interesting result, and I am not too sure what to make of it.

You are right C0deKing, change the speed gives better results

My scan with 4x and 8X

Okay. Let’s do it. From here on all LiteOn 1635S and Sony Q30As or later can use quality scan speeds of 8x. This will be the new standard for these drives in the LiteOn/Sony forum. :slight_smile:

C0deKing: I’m sure you’re asked this over and over and are likely tired of asking regarding the 1635S… well, nevermind, I won’t ask… :smiley:

It was suggested to me that I add some comments in this thread regarding 4x vs. 8x in the Liteons. Without repeating all that I said, here’s the link:
4x vs. 8x + Benq 8x test for comparison

I think people were too eager to jump the gun to 8x and further comparison scans, especially with other PI/PIF testing drives, is warranted. The results from NEC drives may not be worthy of comparison as they give erratic results, but comparing results with Benq and Plextor drives would be beneficial IMO.

Thanks scoobiedoobie. The thing was that 4x and 8x comparisons in the LiteOn were so similar it was not worth waiting the extra time for the result. I know that CLV is a preferable method for quality scans but personally the difference I was seeing in the results and my need for faster scans, has left me with no doubt that it was the correct way to do.

Obviously all of these comparisons were done with the 5S and maybe should be revisited with the 6S. I’ll let you know when my one turns up (thanks to seeker010) but if anyone with a 6S drive would like to show some comparisons of 4x and 8x quality scans, please show them here…

Cyclone’s comparison above shows HUGE differences, and German’s test shows a tripling of the PIF total. HenryNettle’s comparison shows a pretty large increase in PIF totals as well, although the PIF max is actually lower. I think that they are what I’d call significant differences, a comparison of the same discs on other drives at their ‘standard’ speeds would be very useful IMO before concluding that 8x is a close replacement for 4x tests.

I understand the convenience that 8x speeds provide, but I don’t find the 8x Liteon results in comparison to my 8x Benq scans to be a worthwhile replacement for the 4x standard. Perhaps my comparison is the exception rather than the norm, but I think more comparisons between 4x and 8x are warranted after seeing my results and even some of the results in this thread.

codeking have you given up on 5s and 6s working with omnipatcher?

codeking, did ya give up on making 5s and 6s work with omnipatcher?