Nec 2500 Scan Question

vbimport

#1

Went from using Ritek 4x R02 +R to 8x R03 +R and my scans got worse, but I don’t know what you think of my speed test. I mean the curve looks good, but I don’t know how analyse it. What do you think?

dja2k


#2

your transfer rate graph is perfect so i suspect that your reader is not able to read well on 8x media. my experiencewas similar. try either a benq 1620 or a liteon 1633s. i had both and kept the 1633 since it rips very fast


#3

The scans I did were with a liteon 411@811. I used that same drive for the reading on the Speed Test. I have a liteon 166 also, maybe I should use that as a reader for the Speed Test and see if it gives me the same results.

dja2k


#4

i don’t know if you looked at my early scans in that drive vs the benq and 1633 but there is no comparison


#5

LiteON 411s and 811s are known to have trouble scanning RICOHJPN01 and RITEK R03 with KProbe.

As long you don’t have any trouble with transfer read, there nothing to be worried about.

I remember OC Freak using FS07 on his 411s, to get the best result.


#6

Okay changed the firmware to the New NEC 25x0 hacked bitsetting firmware 108v3/218v3 and here are the results. Note: this disc was burned on the same media and same speed as my previous scans above.




#7

not sure what you want. as you have been told scans of that media on that drive will not be accurate.


#8

Accurate they are… First scan with the 1.07 was done twice with Kprobe, then twice with Nero Toolkit, all giving the same results with a minor marginal difference. Then the same thing was done with the scan using 1.08 and once again, same results, but an acceptable difference. Now the first burn got all the way to 500 on the PI while the second burn didn’t. Giving that, a post saying that the results from the first to the second burn, using different firmware, got better would be a start wouldn’t you say.

dja2k


#9

OKay I got a question. I have the 2500@2510 with the 2xx0v3-2. Would you say even with ppl saying my 401@811 is not a good reader, this 8x burn done on the ritek 8x R03 is better or worse than what I was getting? If you need more specific info, let me know.

dja2k



#10

Okay nevermind my last post, I can tell its a worse burn when I did the Nero CD-DVD Speed test show below. One question, I am trying to find out if my scan came out a bit better using the new firmware at 2500 or 2510. What is the recording speed of the first part, would you say its the 8x first? If that is true, maybe cause I burned it at 8x though, which I never do, just did it to test the firmware\media.

dja2k



#11

Try burning the 8x media at 4x.


#12

Okay now burned it at 4x and here is what came out. So what do you think, should I go back to the 2500 with 1.08 firmware or stay as I am with 2500@2510 2.18?




#13

I don’t know what strategy your current firmware uses, but both the latest official firmwares (1.09 for 2500A, 2.17 for 2510A) use the same strategies, so it won’t get any better than that I think…


#14

Okay I used my own judgment with the comparison of the graphs\scans I did and I think I am going back to original 2500 108v3 instead of using the 2500@2510 218v3. Thanks for the replies guys…

dja2k


#15

One last thing, with my 2500 burning discs at 4x for safe being, should I buy a 3500 or 3520? Also I don’t really need dual layer right now, but do the 3500 or 3520 burn regular media better than the 2500? Also if I stay with my 2500, and not interested in dual layer, do you think I should just flash to the 1.09 firmware or stay with the 108v3 from herrie?

dja2k


#16

I always recommend to first try out the recent stock firmwares with your media and THEN test the modified firmwares, if they really do better/faster/both!

I have both the 2500 and 3500; most 8x media I’ve tested burns better on the 3500, although the 2500 never produces unreadable burns either…

I don’t own the 3520 (yet), but if you read around, many people say, that its initial firmware needs approvement for some types of media, so it is not ‘ready’ yet…


#17

This scan came out real funny. Maybe my drive is trying to tell me it doesn’t like the Ritek R03. Check out the number on the PI Max…

dja2k



#18

Okay I just got my 401@811 eeprom patched by ala42 so I can go back to using my 401@411 using the liteon 411 FS07 firmware and look at the difference scaning a Ritek R03 8x media compared to the ones above. Now the question I ask is with such a difference from the scans above to this one here, is this scan pretty much more accurate than what I got before?

dja2k



#19

dja2K, update your kprobe, version 2.4.2 is the latest. and i belive your using pi/ 8 & po/8
which means you po`s are very good ie: pi <280 po <32

but in new version pi/8 & po/1 ie: pi <280 po <4


#20

Here is the scan on the kprobe 2. So, I guess this scan on kprobe 2 compared to the post before say that it was about the same, good burn!

dja2k