Is Lite-on still the preferred dvd reader?

vbimport

#1

i have a BenQ 1655 on the way and after burning hundreds of DVDs with my 1620 over the last year and a half, i want to be able to burn on the fly damnit

so im looking at a Sony G120A-B2 and i wonder if i would be better getting another BenQ or another brand or what?


#2

The BenQ 1655 is the best burner that I know of and not a bad reader. I would still want a Liteon to read difficult disks.

But what is all this on the fly ? why buy the best burner and then burn on the fly ?


#3

to cut copying time in half :stuck_out_tongue:


#4

and cut longevity by more than half :doh:


#5

longevity?
if my bus isnt too congested how would burning on the fly reduce quality?
im running an Athlon 64 proc on an Asus A8N5E and all the hdd’s are SATA so i have two dedicated IDE channels


#6

If it works - fine. The extra time taken to rip to hard drive is minimal compared to the time taken by DVD Rebuilder - normally left to run over night - Perhaps Im just being too conservative but as on the fly only saves time and can not result in a better burn I think I’ll give it a miss.


#7

Tried on the fly with a liteon to a BenQ1620. Unfortunately a pentium 4 2.4 doesnot appear to be up to the job. it took 15 minutes to make a copy at 8X.

The scan attached - although acceptable - is the worst the 1620 has ever produced.

I have added a more normal scan - ripped to drive first - for comparison purposes

Looks like you really do need a powerful set up.




#8

ok but are the drives on dedicated ide cables?
the P4 matters much less than the ide setup
ive tried burning on the fly before and i never got any acceptable results because i didnt have these sata hdds at that time

i really appreciate you running the test for me though :slight_smile:
you may very well be talking me out of getting the lite-on


#9

In this PC both drives on one channel with the hard drive using the other channel. Using nero I found that the top buffer remained at about 50% and the lower buffer fluctuated madly.

I do have other machines - one with sata but nero not loaded - so that is why I used the older machine. when I get time I will install Nero and try again on the P4 3.2 2 sata drives BenQ1655 and Liteon 1693S. One this machine each burner is on its own channel.


#10

Harry,
It’s been over 6 months since I tested copy-on-the-fly, if I remember right I used an nec 3520 as reader(It’ll rip a burned disk in 5 minutes) and my lg4163 as writter.
The key was the source disk, a 99QS mcc 004, at 16x between standalone masters
it took maybe 6 1/2 minutes? Lowly amd xp 2700. QS of burned disk was low 90’s.
I never expected it to work and only tried one time.

Chewy


#11

did you ever get around to running the test on the other comp?


#12

Yes - the results , in scan terms, were better but still poor in comparison to a “normal” burn. I don’t think the actual higher numbers matter in practical terms and I’m sure that I would get better results with 2 BenQs - The Liteon just can not deliver data fast enough.

As I said originally the time saved is not important to me. the quality of the burn is the most important factor. I can see how with the right equipment I could get
the same quality results but the time saved is only a few minutes at best.


#13

no surprise. I find that every buffer underrun causes a PIF, and if you have the drives on the same channel… well…


#14

thx much, ill just stick to the one drive i have