NEC-2510 review at CDR-info!

vbimport

#1

There’s a great NEC-2510 review at CDR-info.

http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/Reviews/Specific.aspx?ArticleId=9803


#2

I wonder why all scans with kprobe were made at 8x…


#3

The drive uses the same chipset as the ND-2500A, namely the D63630. Clicking on the image above will reveal a high resolution image. Notice that inside the ND-2510A, there is a white barcode label with 2500A written on it!

Is Nec starting to sell firmware OC’ed drives? Didn’t they tell that DL OC was dangerous for laser calibration?

A Liteon owner. :stuck_out_tongue:


#4

NEC has never stated that the flash from 2500 to 2510 could not be done, or that it would not be successful. They stated that it is not supported, and that some drives would not successfully write DL.

I wonder why all scans with kprobe were made at 8x…

Yes, interesting isn’t it. It’s the reason you see many scans with big curves of errors at the end.


#5

I have not tested myself, but I was a little bit puzzled regarding the comments of lower write quality with Herrie’s firmware. I once read that Herrie made a clever trick of keeping the original write strategies, only patching the uprated write strategies (e.g. with a 4x DVD-R (MCC 01RG20) the NEC strategy would be used for 4x, while a higher speed strategy would be used for 6x and 8x). As I understand it, this relates both to NEC 2500A and 2510A.

Can anyone comment on this?


#6

Most of Herrie’s strat swaps will have very similar write quality to the stock FW, at stock speeds.. Write quality at higher speeds will be much better than the stock strat at the higher speeds, as considerable testing has been done to find the strats that work best in most drives. However, not all drives will exhibit identical write quality on all media with the same strats.

The main thing I see that is affecting the review results is the rather unusual scanning methods, and the use of a reading drive that’s not very good (especailly at 8x). The Plextools scans are probably more reliable on the tested discs, although it scans at 2x. In any case, none of those scans should be compared to other scans posted around here which were done at 4x.


#7

It is interesting to see how other group of people approaches to Kprobe.

You may have noticed that they even used Lite-On 167T for Kprobe. They didn’t explicitly say so, but it seems that they believe it is something comparable to scans with burners.

Hmm… I’m not sure. Here, everybody scans at 4x, but is the result really meaningful considering nobody actually read a disc at 4x? Maybe the maximun speed scan is more important for the practical purpose.