Lite-On LTR-32123S: XS0X vs. XS0Z

vbimport

#1

G’day all,

Just wondering: has anyone noticed a distinct difference between the XS0Z and XS0X firmware versions? It seems that XS0X performs better at low speeds and actually yields lower error rates than XS0Z. I’m reverting to XS0X for this reason.

If only there was a version of XS0Z that has yields the same quality recordings as XS0X AND supports Mt. Rainier!


#2

I’d also be interested in a comparison of resulting burn quality between XS0X and XS0Z firmwares, for those who burn enough to be able to see a trend.

I assume the XSU1 40x firmware for the LTR-32123S won’t be able to match either of the 32x firmwares in producing error-free discs.


#3

XS0X is Z-CLV :Z , while XS0Z upgrades the drive to P-CAV


#4

@alexnoe: Z-CLV doesn’t automatically mean :Z ! I’ve had way better results with XS0X than XS0Z with many types of media, including RiTEK cyanine and newer CMC. I’ve also got the same results from Taiyo Yuden (expected) and RiTEK phthalocyanine using both versions of firmware. XS0Z would never produce an acceptable burn using Type 2 RiTEK media, but with XS0X, I can get C1 to peak at under 30 (as opposed to 2000+ with XS0Z). Also I’ve been able to burn Kodak 12x 80min at 32x and the C1 would peak at below 20! Good stuff!


#5

Originally posted by terminalvelocd
If only there was a version of XS0Z that has yields the same quality recordings as XS0X AND supports Mt. Rainier!

Have you given XSU1 a try? It’s 40x, but you can just burn at 32x instead. And you’ll get the benefits of P-CAV and Mt. Rainier. Only question is whether the error rate is acceptable at either 32x or 40x with this firmware.


#6

@davidh44: Yes I’ve tried XSU1. It’s a very buggy and troublesome version of firmware. I cannot use Nero CD Speed nor can I use the SMART-BURN Simulation utility to identify media.


#7

See my results with XSOZ on http://subs.unacs.bg/cd/

The site is in Bulgarian language, but you’ll get a picture of how XSOZ performs on different media.


#8

Originally posted by terminalvelocd
@davidh44: Yes I’ve tried XSU1. It’s a very buggy and troublesome version of firmware. I cannot use Nero CD Speed nor can I use the SMART-BURN Simulation utility to identify media.

That’s strange, those things works for me…


#9

worked fine for me also

i only switched back to 32x because to firmware has better capability of copying protected audio disk


#10

terminalvelocd,

I had some free time and cheap media handy, so conducted some tests with my LTR-32123S using XS0X, XS0Z, and XSU1 firmwares. Tests were with 40x Jensen (Princo) and a 735MB VCD image (Mode 2) burned with Nero 5.5.10.42 and tested with K-Probe 1.1.4. No C2 errors were reported on any of the discs.

XSU1 @ 40x (P-CAV)
Burn time: 2:57
C1 Errors: Ridiculously high. Average of 250.

XS0Z @ 32x (P-CAV)
Burn time: 3:06
C1 Errors: Max - 228, Total - 55015, Avg. - 16.301
Comments: Only 9 seconds slower than XSU1 @ 40x, and tolerable C1 error rate.

XS0X @ 32x (Z-CLV: can see 4 zones on disc)
Burn time: 3:32
C1 Errors: Max - 30, Total - 9340, Avg. - 2.758
Comments: 83% lower C1 error rate than XS0Z. Burn time was more affected by P-CAV - > Z-CLV @ the same 32x speed than 40x -> 32x.

Teac combo laptop drive @ max speed 24x (Z-CLV: can see 3 zones on disc)
Burn time: 5:33
C1 Errors: Max - 14, Total - 2258, Avg. - 0.651
Comments: Threw this in to see how the LiteOn 32123s compared to my other burner. 96% lower C1 error rate than XS0Z, 76% lower C1 error rate than XS0X. Unimpressive burn time.

XS0X @ 24x (Z-CLV: can see 3 zones on disc)
Burn time: 3:47
C1 Errors: Max - 30, Total - 9247, Avg. 2.717
Comments: Error rate no differet from XSOX @ 32x. Wanted to see whether the Teac’s better C1 Error #s were due to the lower 24x burn speed. The burn time @24x with the LiteOn was much better than the Teac @24x. So much for speed ratings…

In conclusion, XS0X provides higher quality burns at the expense of ~30 seconds per disc - well worth it in my opinion.

P.S. I also tested out some Imation 48x media (CMC Magnetics), and the results (relative to each other) were the same, with the XS0X firmware producing the lowest C1 errors by a sizeable margin. But the C1 error rates in general were through the roof with these discs, which is why I guess everyone says CMC discs suck.


#11

@davidh44: Thank you for conducting those tests to back my personal tests. At least now I know I’m not the only one that is getting these kind of results!

It seems that with good quality discs, there isn’t that much of a difference between XS0X and XS0Z. Media like Taiyo Yuden and RiTEK phthalocyanine burn well with both firmware versions. Media like Princo, Wealth Fair Investment, and Prodisc burn horribly with XS0Z but work very well with XS0X.

Guess I’m sticking with XS0X until LiteOn makes a better firmware release for the '32123S!


#12

Has anyone emailed Liteon telling them that there’s a problem with the latest firmware?


#13

terminalvelocd - Thanks for bringing it up. I wouldn’t have thought to check the quality of the produced discs if I didn’t see your topic. Went from XS0X to XSU1 to XS0Z, and now back to XS0X. :stuck_out_tongue:

Would also love to see a new firmware release for the 32123S that incoporates the same (or better!) burn quality as the XS0X firmware with P-CAV and Mt. Rainier. :slight_smile:

Updated my previous post with percentages.


#14

To everyone with a LiteOn LTR-32123S: I’m urging you to do your own testing comparing the XS0X and XS0Z firmware versions and report back here with your results. It would be interesting to see the results from more different drives so we know it’s definetly not our drives that are at fault, but the firmware.


#15

Anyone else do testing with XS0X, XS0Z, and XSU1 on their LTR-32123S?

The new Ltnflash Windows flasher should make it easy to switch between them.