LiteOn DVD scanning drive

vbimport

#1

[Moderator’s not by DrageMester: This is in reply to this post in another thread]

Well, finally noticed dicer’s input and your comments… very much by chance, while googling for info about the 16P9S scanning abilities! :eek: Funny. :bigsmile:

As SVP still sells these drives, I think my search for a new LiteOn scanner to replace my 1693S is over (the 18A1P that I bought today returns to the shop tomorrow, it s**ks). Thanks to you and dicer. :slight_smile:


#2

Is the LH18A1P good for scanning though? because that’s the main reason I got mine. Scanning + Ripping :slight_smile:


#3

I think Francksoy’s opinion is that the LH-18A1P is too sensitive. http://forum.cdfreaks.com/showpost.php?p=1657656&postcount=378

But if that is the case, wouldn’t you want to get the discs scanning well at higher speeds (i.e. lower error levels) ? :stuck_out_tongue:

@ Francksoy as you’ve seen my 18A1P is a better reader compared to my 16P9S. While the 16P9S did have some OK scans, it may be biased on some discs (but then again every other drive probably is to some degree also).


#4

[OT]

@[B]cd pirate[/B]

The LH18A1P unit that I tested yesterday was extremely disappointing. I wanted a new LiteOn to have:

  1. a consistent LiteOn scanner that I could use at my usual scanning speeds with the 1693S (12X). It turned out to have very significant discrepancies between @4X and all other faster speeds, even @8X the difference is definitly significant.The main thing that bothered me is that PIF density is reported in a totally different way, though PIF reporting of my other usual scanners (Benq 1650, NEC 3540 and the dead LiteOn 1693s) is consistent at all speeds with the test discs (known good discs) that I used to check the 18A1P’s behaviour. :frowning:
    http://club.cdfreaks.com/showthread.php?p=1657656#post1657656

  2. [I]a great reader[/I] to treat difficult discs, and it turned out to be a poorer reader than my other drives with my test disc:
    http://club.cdfreaks.com/showthread.php?p=1657658#post1657658

Don’t know if it was a unit problem. I’ve been told in the LiteOn forum that these units are rather variable. But from the info I gathered by browsing the thread dedicated to this drive, my personal -limited- testing, and [B]dicer[/B]'s scans and TRTs above, I’d say that it’s not a drive to be used as a scanner at high speeds, only @4X seems usable.

[/OT]


#5

:confused: ? From the data gathered from your (great) posts above, I’d say the opposite! :eek: - the TYG02 #2 is specially informative to me.

While the 16P9S did have some OK scans, it may be biased on some discs (but then again [B]every other drive probably is to some degree also[/B]).
:iagree: :iagree: Which is one of the reasons why we are several here to judge of burning quality only by testing [I]in several different drives[/I]… and the main reason why I want a new Litey! :wink:


#6

Francksoy, would you like me to test out my liteon LH18A1P as well to see if it has the same problems yours had?

Let me know what kind of scans you need I can probably do them tomorrow. :slight_smile:


#7

For that TY disc, no matter what speed i scan that disc in the LH-18A1P it came up with ridiculously high PIE. Another disc from the same batch, burnt on the same burner came up ‘correct’ with <20 PIE. I don’t understand it…

I never really noticed that the lite-on was so picky with scanning which is even more interesting since it read back the dodgy Princo and Ritek better than the 16P9S and Benq 1650 (it’s crossflashed).

These images may be of interest too. 4x scan, 8x scan, 16x scan in the 18x litey. Comparison scans to follow.


#8

Lite-on 16P9S 4x (small selection for the raised PIE part), 8x, 16x


#9

Benq 1650/5 @ 8x, 16x.

Verdict? I have no idea, but in this case 18A1P is slightly more similar to the 16P9S, BUT 16x scanning is showing double the PIE. Alas I don’t have a 3/5/6s drive to compare with.


#10

[B]Francksoy:[/B]

Glad you found [B]dicer’s[/B] posts on this useful. Please post your thoughts on this drive when you have it as it is certainly an interesting drive for scanning :slight_smile:


#11

I received a 16P1S instead.

It happens to behave just the way I expected from the 16P9S by examining [B]dicer[/B]'s scans. :cool:

PIF reporting is consistent between scanning speeds. :smiley: (with the usual possible increase near the end at higher speeds with lesser burns/discs of course).

Only disappointment, PIE reporting is not very consistent between several passes of the same disc, so this drive can’t be used to check media degradation. I don’t mind, though, as I have my two NEC 3540 units for this purpose (they are incredibly consistent between passes).


#12

How great of a fluctuation are you seeing in PIE totals, percentage-wise? About 10%? 20% And is consistency mainly an issue at 16x, or also at 4x and 8x?


#13

I don’t have access to my files for the 4X and 8X passes, sorry. But PIE inconsistencies between passes at these speeds were proportionally similar to those between passes at higher scanning speeds.

For @12X and @16X, judge for yourself :slight_smile: :