LTR-52246S and packet writing

Been doing some RW media tests on the 52x drive, I thought I’d post my observations. Many of us already know that packet writing is not such a great deal in terms of reliability and performance, here’s some more reasons to avoid it.

Using the Verbatim DLP 24x RW media and InCD v3.51 (MRW mode):
Initial format time is about 30 sec.
Time to copy 500 MB file to disc: 5:45
Time to eject: :50
Total time: 7:00

Using Maxell (Mitsubishi) 12X RW disc:
Initial format: :25
Time to copy 500 MB file: 6:15
Time to eject: 1:00
Total time: 7:45

It seems that even though the drive is capable of twice the speed with the 24x media, (I know, it’s CAV), the actual gain in speed is minimal.

The time to copy a 650MB file, using Nero DAO mode is 4:55.

I also ran the same time trials using the SAI software, WriteCD-RW, and the results were identical.

On a positive note, all the packet-written 24x discs checked out to be error-free in CDSpeed.

I’m glad to see another guy for whom InCD works at all!:bigsmile: In view of your earlier InCD problems, could you tell us what has changed in the meantime?

I feel that you gave us more reasons to avoid LTR-522446S, rather than packet writing itself. Recent reviews of other drives suggest that LTR-522446S’s CD-RW performance is quite disappointing (that’s why I’ll stay with LTR-48125W until Lite-On releases better firmware or a 52/32/52 drive). In this context, could you give us results for your LTR-48125W?

Your results for InCD vs Nero speeds are quite suprising. It would be good if you included results for non-CD-MRW, and even better if you ran tests similar to those in

http://www.cdrlabs.com/reviews/index.php?reviewid=161&page=Performance

especially if alexnoe can’t tame InCD to update his review!

Your times to eject seem to be longer than what I see on my LTR-48125W VS08.

Finally, both writing speeds and times to eject could depend on whether background formatting has finished. This can be checked by Nero Medium Info. It seems that on my LTR-48125W the only way to ensure that background formatting finishes is to copy data up to the disc’s capacity (apparently formatting is done when needed, i.e., there is no background formatting). Of course, most users of packet writing care only about timings for finished formatting.

I didn’t “tame” InCD, I can’t leave it on my system without BSOD’s occurring on a regular basis. I installed it only long enough to do a few quick tests, and suffered 4 BSOD’s for my trouble.
The times for non-MRW were also checked, and are very similar for actual write times, the initial format adds 8-10 min, making the total times nearly twice that of MRW.

My impression of the 52x drive is VERY positive, I use it exclusively, and even have a 48x in the tower too. It has improved media compatability, lower read-error rates and is FAST at reading most anything. I’ll be posting some RW media tests soon, it’s doing very well with the Verbatim 24x media.

Let’s compare packet writing performance of Lite-On’s LTR-48125W and LTR-52246S with Plextor PX-W4824A, using the following references:

[1] http://www.cdfreaks.com/document.php3?Doc=79&Page=10

[2] http://www.cdrlabs.com/reviews/index.php?reviewid=131&page=Performance

[3] http://www.cdfreaks.com/document.php3?Doc=99&Page=11

[4] http://www.cdfreaks.com/document.php3?Doc=92&Page=11

[5] http://www.cdrlabs.com/reviews/index.php?reviewid=161&page=Performance

These references copy 400MB of data, so I’ll interpolate your timings: 4:36 for 24x (also for CD-RW), 5:00 for 12x, 3:02 for Nero.

I’ll use [2] for LTR-48125W ([1] is similar), [5] for Plextor ([4] is similar) and the above interpolations for LTR-52246S ([3] is similar):

______ _LTR-48125W Plextor LTR-52246S
CD-RW______4:35 __2:22 4:36
CD-MRW
4:52 ___3:03 ___4:36
Nero________4:28 ___2:28 ___3:02

Even with usual caveats for testing environments, these results speak for themselves.

Frankly speaking, your results didn’t give me any more reasons to avoid packet writing.

Because of (un)reliability, I loop between several InCD discs for third layer backups only (the first layer being another locally networked box). Since my main directory of about 400MB (mostly zipped files) changes little between backups, I can synchronize it quickly with a previously used InCD disc via FileSync (www.fileware.com). Because the discs are reused, I don’t worry about formatting times; also ejection times are acceptable in practice. In contrast, using Nero would require both erasing the disc and then copying everything.

I believe you that LTR-52246S is better than LTR-48125W, except for packet writing!

Concerning your InCD problems, if you ever need to reinstall W2K, how about giving InCD a chance by testing it before you install other burning programs, plugins, etc?