Lite-On SOHD-16P9S, reader, ripper, Scanner?

vbimport

#1

I was not sure which sub-forum to use for this post, as all seem oriented towards “Burners” only.

@Franksoy, Pardon me in advance for referring to your post(in advance.) :wink:

Franksoy made the following remark in Post #383 of this thread:

http://club.cdfreaks.com/showthread.php?t=1944198&page=16

“I’ve been having second thoughts about the 6S since yesterday night… from the additional data gathered by searching the forum and the WWW, I think I’ll go for a 16P9S (ROM) which looks great as a reader/ripper, and seems to be an exception to the rule that ROM drives aren’t usable scanners.” (my italics)

Was this remark in earnest? or Was it made due to dissatisfaction with the scanning of the LH-18A1P?

Possibly, OFF thread: :flower:
On the other hand, I have read in several posts by several moderators that DVD-Rom drives are not recommended as PIPO scanners of DVD media.(to the degree of being an axiom.)
Some moderators have also remarked that ANY drive, when reading data from a DVD, must perform error correction. So, if the manufacturer of the drive has included error correction reporting ability in the firmware and the drive’s chipset supports reporting of error correction, why would PIPO scans performed by a DVD-Rom be any less “usable” than scans done by DVD burners?
Could it be that the type of errors being reporting by DVD-Roms are “not as useful” as Dragemester has remarked in several posts? Are there technical differences in the reading of discs and the performing of error correction by DVD-Roms as opposed to DVD writers? Is the error correction reporting algorithm in the firmware of DVD-Roms any different from that in DVD writers? Are manufacturers cost-cutting to the bone on DVD-Rom drives to point of putting useless error reporting ability in them?(Why not just leave it out of the firmware?) Basically, I have not found any clear “explanation” as to why writers are superior for PIPO scanning(being a part of the “reading” process as opposed to the “writing” process). Are the drives in CATS machines writers as well?(I know I shouldn’t compare to consumer drives, sorry.) :doh:

Back ON thread:
My REAL questions are:
Owners of the Lite-On SOHD-16P9S, Is it a “usable” scanner as remarked by Francksoy?

@Franksoy, have you bought the 16P9S yet? and if so, what are your thoughts in comparing it to the LH-18A1P as a scanner?(I didn’t want to PM this.)

From someone thinking to purchase an LH-20A1P mostly for scanning(despite all the conflicting reports on this line). :bigsmile:


#2

I won’t go here into the details about DVD-ROM scanning and general considerations about what is “usable” scanning, or this will create a new endless discussion about topics that are covered in other places.

So I’ll precise that what I didn’t like with the 18A1P is that it reported PIF very differently at different speeds, not levels but numbers/density.
Only @4X scanning the PIF reported seemed to be consistent with my other scanners. @8X and above, this drive reported much higher PIF totals, i.e. new PIFs appeared about everywhere in the scan.

You have to know that I scan at high speeds (12X, 16X), so for me this drive was not an option. My former LiteOn scanner, a 1693S, was consistent in its PIF reporting @4X, 8X and 12X.

Now you also have to know that maybe it was a quirk of the very 18A1P unit I had, because I think I’ve seen 18A1P 4X/8X scans with consistent PIF reporting from other members on this forum. So take my experience with a grain of salt.

Now about the 16P9S, I received a 16P1S instead, but it meets my expectations. Please don’t consider this as a statement that the 16P1S is a “reliable” scanner: my approach to scanning differs from the vast majority of this forum’s members methods and standards, and thus what I expect from a scanner is different. Plus it’s an addition to other scanning drives I have, for more “points of view”. :slight_smile:

Sorry to be of so little help. :frowning:


#3

Thanks anyway, I think you gave a very GOOD reply. :clap:

Could you provide any of the links that provided the information which led you to post the remark? :smiley:

AnD,

Also, would you think it possible for a consumer DVD-Rom to be just as good a scanner as a DVD-Writer, BUT it simply isn’t economically feasible for optical drive manufacturers to produce such a model in the current market?(Where everything is aimed at selling the high-end product which tend to give higher margins of profit.) :sad:


#4

Slightly on post, I have been a long advocate of 4X scanning after finding many newer Liteon drives were not reliable at 8X. Every time I mention it, I get shut out. Maybe these new drives with the [I]same old problem[/I] will get us back to the 4X standard. I actually have found my BenQ scan problem were also solved when I went to 4X as well.

More on post, I would suggest that you will be content with a ROM drive of any type for scanning. There is just no way to figure out if variations are real or not, and if you post here asking for input, everyone will tell you to get a burner.


#5

Which remark in particular? :confused:
Without a precision, I could as well link to thousands of posts… :wink: lol

Also, would you think it possible for a consumer DVD-Rom to be just as good a scanner as a DVD-Writer, BUT it simply isn’t economically feasible for optical drive manufacturers to produce such a model in the current market?
Uh. You have to know that scanning is not supposed to be an end-user “feature” that drive manufacturers would implements more or less “correctly”.
The difference in reporting from burners and ROM drives is not a matter of good or bad implementation of an hypothetic “scanning feature”, but on different technology leading to report errors differently.

In case you’re not aware yet, [B]PIE/PIF errors are not on a disc per se, but are a result of the reading process[/B]. Both the quality of the disc and the way the drive reads the disc impact the errors reported.

So basically (but there are many exceptions to this rule, mainly with NEC and PIONEER drives) the drive reports what it “sees”, actually it’s supposed to report the error corrections applied by the chipset. Sadly this is not always true, at least not entirely, for example some chipsets wrongly report as PIEs something that is not PIE according to ECMA standards (like with Pioneer drives).
But what is a 100% certified fact, is that the drive is NOT supposed to report “errors on the disc”. :disagree:

When you understand this, you have a better basis to understand why you can get very varying results from drive to drive and from speed to speed. :slight_smile:


#6

You’re probably right, I guess I’ve been lucky with my 1693S for consistency at different scanning speeds.

But I can’t agree with you when you advocate 4X scanning in general, because in my experience 4X scanning has shown its limitations long ago, as a time-consuming method that’s not reliable in the least to detect possible reading problems.

I do agree, though, that for the purpose of comparing different burns, the speed that gives the best consistency should be used, and if it’s 4X with some LiteOn models, then 4X should be used. :iagree:
But personally I wouldn’t bother anymore to scan @4X when I can retrieve all the information that I need from 12X and 16X scans. Which is why, as I explain in my first reply above, the 18A1P was not an option for me. :slight_smile:


#7

Back on topic, my 16P1S is a wonderful ripper. :iagree:
Even faster than my NEC 3540s, though a little noisier :frowning:
If you want a ROM drive, the 16P1S is great for DVDs.

For CDRs it’s a different story if you use EAC to extract audio: the 16P1S (and probably the 16P9S) caches audio data, which will make the extraction of damaged audio CDRs much more time-consuming. If you don’t need this feature, though, I certainly recommend this drive.

Last thing, for both drives (9S/1S) you’ll need a patched frmware to unlock the DVD reading speeds, they’re locked @8X except for DVD-ROMs. No big deal, thanks to Omnipatcher. :bow:


#8

Wow, we really differ in what we want from scanning. Guess that is part of what makes it interesting. For me though “I’m built for comfort, not for speed”.


#9

I’m not so sure about that. :slight_smile:

Guess that is part of what makes it interesting.
Definitly. :iagree:
For me though “I’m built for comfort, not for speed”.
But for me, speed is a part of my comfort! :stuck_out_tongue: - I prefer to save time for more important matters (more important to me), like enjoying long, meditative walks in the woods at night, write music, read books… :slight_smile: (the latter, I admit, is totally compatible with @4X scans actually :bigsmile: )


#10

[B]Francksoy:[/B]

Is there any possibility of you posting some comparison scans from your 16P1S drive and some of your other drives? as I have been following these reports of these new Lite-ON DVD-ROM drives with interest. Another reliable 16x capable scanning drive is always welcome :clap:


#11

I’ll do that to please you, but let me tell your rightaway, the 16P1S is not really “reliable” @16X, it’s rather inconsistent (significantly different figures from pass to pass with the same disc). What interests me, though, is the way this drive reacts very strongly to differences in quality that appear less important in other scanning drives. It seems to react to high jitter even more than Benq drives do. It’s approaching a “worst-case scenario” for testing compatibility with standalone players that are sensitive to jitter and I like that.

The problem with such “findings” is that they rely on examination of more than 20-30 scans, not very convenient to post in the forum. :bigsmile: I’ll see if I can isolate, say, 5-6 scans from the 16P1S and a couple of reference scans in other drives to paint a more or less significant picture. Give me some time. :slight_smile:


#12

This one:
“from the additional data gathered by searching the forum and the WWW, I think I’ll go for a 16P9S (ROM) which looks great as a reader/ripper, and [I]seems to be an exception to the rule that ROM drives aren’t usable scanners.[/I]” (my italics)
[U]Particularly the part in italics.[/U]

I don’t think I ever called it a “scanning feature”, but “error reporting capability”, instead. Does this mean that initially the manufacturers never intended this error reporting capability as an end user feature? If they never intended it as such, why include it at all?(for their owning testing purposes maybe?) And it seems to me(and I think you would agree), from reading many threads in this forum, that it is a very important feature of certain brand drives to a great number of members of this forum. :iagree:

This I had discovered from reading many other threads in this forum. But thanks anyway for the reminder. I don’t want to repeat myself, but what I have not found is a clear explanation in this forum of what exactly makes burners better devices for performing scans than DVD-Roms.(They are simply superior. :rolleyes: )
:slight_smile:


#13

Give me some more time, I have to search… :doh:

Does this mean that initially the manufacturers never intended this error reporting capability as an end user feature?
Correct (with one exception - Plextor).
If they never intended it as such, why include it at all?([B]for their owning testing purposes maybe[/B]?)
Most probably. If they had included it for “commercial” reasons, they would include it in the specs, which is not the case.
The notable exception is Plextor, which has “official” support for PIE/PIF/jitter testing, through [I]Plextools[/I].
Even Kprobe is not an “official” LiteOn product, and CDSpeed is not related to any drive manufacturer whatsoever.


#14

I tried to use my 16P1S as a scanner when I bought it. It wasn’t really good.
I scan at 8x, but it reaches a bit higher speed, about 9x if I remember correct. When it get close to 8x and beyond it I get extremely high PI errors. Before that speed, the scan is very close to the scan from my DW1650 BCIC.

Take a look at this if you like:
http://club.cdfreaks.com/showthread.php?t=196317&highlight=16p1s

Edit: As a ripper, it makes a big drop a little bit before reaching 16x and it sucks (did I spell it ok?) with scratched discs. Not much better than my 1650.


#15

Give me some more time, I have to search…

I have plenty of time, I can wait.

Correct (with one exception - Plextor).

What about BenQ’s QSuite?
What about the initial work on DVDScan?(I know it’s a beta, and may not have official “higher up” support(like K-Probe), but it did have the Lite-On name on the interface.)
And why shouldn’t it be an end-user feature?
Maybe(in the case of Lite-On) because both Lite-On CD writers and DVD writers have never been hailed as “a drive providing high-quality burns” when compared to competitor’s drives of the same era.
What Lite-On corporate suit would support funding a drive that offers the ability to report error correction in a reliably consistent, useful, relatively accurate and un-biased manner, IF that drive, coupled with the appropriate software, would show the Lite-On Burner line as inferior to it’s competitors?
Wouldn’t that be like a craftsman designing a reliable, accurate gun to the purpose of shooting his own foot. :doh:
I am not trying to slam Lite-On, I think what I have said could be applied to any of the drive manufacturers.
After looking at a lot of scans posted in this forum, I simply suspect there may be some corporate hokey-pokey going on as far as this scanning “thing” is concerned. :eek:


#16

Sorry for the long delay. I’ve been very busy. :doh:
http://club.cdfreaks.com/showthread.php?t=205559 + also follow the link at the top of the thread in [B]DrageMester[/B]'s post, and search for [B]dicer[/B]'s series of scans with 181AP and 16P9S.


#17

Extremely high PI errors? In the scans you link to, I don’t see such a thing :confused: , and the difference between the two scans is insignificant.

Besides, there is no reason to think that the levels reported by the Benq are more “correct”. :disagree: - so the fact that the LiteOn doesn’t report the same values as the Benq should not lead you to think that it’s not good at scanning.

Scanning is relative, no absolute. “Correct” scanning with end-user drives is a figment of the imagination, only professional equipement can achieve “correct” scanning (and not even two CATS professional analysers report exactly the same results). Homemade scanning is all about comparisons and cross-checking.


#18

Actually, several manufacturers have added this feature to please their customers (for example Asus, BenQ, NEC).

Other manufacturers have official support for PIE/PIF/Jitter testing through CD-DVD Speed :slight_smile:


#19

OK I’ll take your word for it, though I can’t see the feature mentioned anywhere on manufacturers websites, documentation, manuals or FAQs, except for Plextor… :confused:

So to me it’s still an unofficial “feature”, with no official end-user support from manufacturers (except Plextor). Unless some official end-user support exists in places I have not found.

Other manufacturers have official support for PIE/PIF/Jitter testing through CD-DVD Speed :slight_smile:
? Where? :confused:

Maybe we don’t give the word “support” the same meaning in the computer field. In my book, what is “supported” by a manufacturer or a brand is what’s in the specs and in the end-user manuals. If it’s not there, it’s not “officially” supported. :disagree:


#20

@Francksoy, sorry for my slow response–used time reading many posts.

http://club.cdfreaks.com/showthread.php?t=205559 + also follow the link at the top of the thread in DrageMester’s post, and search for dicer’s series of scans with 181AP and 16P9S.

Thanks again, I am learning a lot from many of your posts and the link you provided.
I have had a look at dicer’s scans and have had time to ponder the DVD-rom vs. DVD writer Scanner question I asked in post #1.

Could the following be the primary explanation for the superiority of a writer when using an error correction reporting program to test disc quality using a consumer optical drive?

[I]“Due to writers having to be manufactured to much higher tolerances(specifications) to be able to burn precisely single-layer DVDs up to 20X & dual-layer DVDs up to 12X, compared to DVD-Rom drives which can be manufactured at lower tolerances(specications) since they must only read DVD’s at max 16X, the writer’s construction(build quality) is inherently superior to DVD-Rom drives and therefore more appropriate as a “scanning device.””[/I]

That makes some sense to me.
If this question has already been addressed somewhere in the CDFreaks Forum can someone provide a link?

Homemade scanning is all about comparisons and cross-checking.

I understand that due to the limitations of “scanning” more than one such device is preferable for comparisons. But I also think many consumers(like me) have a limit on how many drives they want to buy and put in their PC. I have put some time into reading many posts and threads in this forum so I can make an “informed” purchase.

@ErikDeppe

Actually, several manufacturers have added this feature to please their customers (for example Asus, BenQ, NEC).

thanks for adding input to this issue.
In the case of BenQ, although QSuite does not contain software for error correction reporting,it along with the many firmware updates for the DW1640 model seemed to indicate the company’s past commitment to disc quality. And it seems that many forum members prefer certain firmware versions for scanning(interestingly not the latest version) which may indicate that changes were made in the firmware not only to improve burning techniques and media compatibility but which also affected the error correction reporting of the 1640. This all seems to point to previous BenQ management or technical staff placing some importance on error correction reporting as an end-user feature(but not official in Francksoy’s sense,) possibly to compete with Lite-On in this area(as a poorman’s Plextor.) Your most recent versions of CD-DVD Speed also seem oriented to “supporting” the older BenQ drives. If error correction reporting was not considered an end-user feature for pre-takeover BenQ, it seems the company would have gone the LG burner route and saved a lot of time on firmware work.