[merged] LiteOn SOHD-16P9S - PI/PIF Scanning



I’ve used liteonRPC tool with this drive, resetting the user/vendor count works, but the removal of RPC does not work (and stuffs the drive…until you turn rpc back on)

I’m interested in improved read/rip speed firmware for this drive. If anyone needs a copy of the firmware i may be able to help, but i dunno which tool to use.

This dvd-rom has a different read-out of PI/F errors compared to the 166s. PF in particular is shown different, the 166/167 couldn’t distinguish <1 PF, this drive does.


This drive is also good for media quality scans. Here are 2 scans with both discs burnt with my NEC 2500A. It seems that it prefers +R than -R media (the first scan is with TYG01)


Here is a media quality test with TY professional Gold Ultra. It looks too good to be true. Anybody knows what is this green line?


the green line is the read speed, the C1/C2 errors might not be detected correctly on dvd-roms vs cd-rw’s. And yes, ppl have been confused about the buffer size, it’s been reported incorrectly on many sites :confused:


I want to show you how well 16p9s reads vs nec 3520a. This media code: must 001 4x from shop4tech burned at 12x on 3520a. Disc quality scan at 12x


let’s do a differnt one, this time 4x AML dvd-r from shop4tech as well burned at 12x on nec 3520a.
Top: liteon 16p9s at 12x disc quality scan.


conclusion: liteon dvdrom are such good readers that I use it exclusively to restore backups or play off it. nec burners are just for burning, terrible at reading. as you can see, some dvd-r disc that reads fine on liteon are not readable on nec at all because it is a poor reader. Those who use nec to do quality scanning on media are seriously mistaking good media as bad ones because they are too cheap to buy a dvdrom to test media qality.


You cannot draw any conclusions about any of this by comparing errors scans from different drives. The results of error scans have very little, if anything, to do with whether a drive is a “good reader”.


Like rdgrimes said, you can’t compare error scans as read tests. i’ve even seen drives force high speed reading when set to error scanning even though they couldn’t sustain such speeds with a transfer test. not to mention the lite-on and NEC interpret the PI/F errors differently.


it’s not just a few, i have hundreds that the liteon 16p9s are far better at reading with much lower p1 errors/failures. these are just a few example for you to see the difference! some will not read at all or read slowly on nec burners. it will say “errors! redundant data!” but the liteon just keeps going like an energizer bunny! woohoo!


Since this seems to be the main thread on 16P9S reader i’ll post a comparison of PI/F scanning compared to (my brand new) Benq 1640 :slight_smile:

RicohjpnR01 - sold as TDk 25spindle 4x dvd+r
Burnt @ 4x latest official benq firmware. (note: both drives struggle to read the end)


I just got one of these drives. PIE/PIF media quality scanning looks very nice for a DVD-ROM drive. It scans notably better than the 167T model & the NEC ND-3540A.


Just for you guys, I moved two of my drives to get to an IDE connection and I did some testing below and I have found that the 16P9S gives scanning results comparable to the 1693. It works with CDSpeed as well as Kprobe and seems to be able to partially able identify the media ID as well, at least in Kprobe. It will not work with Kprobe (yet) on a USB or firewire connection; it crashes half way through.

While the scan is hardly a 1 to 1 correlation, especially at the end where the disc is hardest to read, this is a considerable difference from the ROM drive reporting prior to this.

The scans are all labeled and speak for themselves. All done on the same disc. Unfortunately, because of the errors at the end you can’t see how close it was to the 1693 right up to 90%.


Thanks for the scan.


It looks like I spoke too soon. My drive, at least, can’t seem to do a decent job dring the last 20% or so of the scan. It might just be my drive but I would have to say based on additional scans of other types of media this drive is NOT a good choice for scanning.


Uh oh, bad for scans maybe, but it still rips good right ?


A very good ripper and reader which is what I bought it for. Someone said they thought it had changed so thet it was a good scanner and that is the only reason I even thougt to check. I have to admit, up to when it started to fal apart it had me fooled.

As to the ripping, I get the feeling it is better than the AOpen 1648 AAP that som many of us revered. Amazing how many good rippers have surfaced in the last few months. Liteon 1693, BenQ 1620/40, Pioneer A09, and now this.


@chas0039 - Thanks


But there are no Jitter or PO Failures readings? Liteon burners seem to have them. How important are they?

for a start, this’s a Sony S11 burned @ 4x.


Liteon never showed the Jitter!