OC 411S -> 811S = NoGo

Guys,

To save you some hassle:

I tried overclocking LDW-411S (FS0B) to LDW-811S (HS06).
Bad luck :frowning:

Led kept flashing yellow.
Drive was recognized by BIOS and Windows XP,
however drive did not recognize any inserted disc.

So I flashed back to FS07 (FlashFixed LiteOn updater)
Drive dead :Z :a :Z
Drive was not recognized by BIOS and Windows XP anymore.

I had to do the dead drive recovery procedure:
Connected the 411S as secondary slave (and jumpered as slave),
disconnected my LTR-48125W because it was not recognized as secondary master when the faulty 411S was connected (even though I jumpered it as master).
Flashed to FS02 with mtkflash 1.80, rebooted and the 411S was back :bow: :bow: :bow:
Rejumpered and switched drives to original configuration, rebooted. Ran fs0b.exe to upgrade to FS0B again and final reboot.

Happily everything seems to work again :bigsmile:
(Have not tried to burn a disc again yet, but reading CD-ROM and DVD+RW works fine)

Don’t try this at home :cool:

You have the same drive configuration as me. Ever had trouble playing dvd-video media burnt on your 411s on a stand alone player? Ever tried ritek G04?

re:

http://club.cdfreaks.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=78665

I’ve wondered if my drive configuration was part of the problem, but if you have no troubles then I am completely at a loss.

BTW Thanks for trying the OC, I was going to try it myself, now I definately won’t think about it anymore :slight_smile:

did you edit the eeprom data and then try with a bin file

Originally posted by Leonardix
Guys,

To save you some hassle:

no risk, no fun :slight_smile:

I tried overclocking LDW-411S (FS0B) to LDW-811S (HS06).
Bad luck :frowning:

Led kept flashing yellow.
Drive was recognized by BIOS and Windows XP,

confirmed

So I flashed back to FS07 (FlashFixed LiteOn updater)
Drive dead :Z :a :Z

Not confirmed :slight_smile:

Well, I did it a bit different. I started with FS0B including bootcode, because the HS06 bootcode is almost identical to the FS0B bootcode, except the ID string and another byte.
Updated to HS06 without updating bootcode, led flashing. Flashrom readout was identical to what it should be, eeprom readout seamed to work, but I did not make a binary compare to be shure.
Restored to FS0B without updating bootcode, drive alive again:), still can read disks. Have not burned yet.
Everything was done with ltnflash.
So now there is plenty room for the explorers out there who do not care about a dead drive to locate the magic byte in the eeprom to stop the led flashing. This would be easier with an example eeprom of a HS06, if it is possible at all.

Don’t try this at home :cool:
confirmed :slight_smile: Only try this out if you can accept the death of the drive at your costs. The risk is high and there will be no warranty.

I use datasafe Ritek G04 DVD-R 4x and they work perfect with the new firmware.

Just to clarify, you updated your 411S to an 811S and it works with ritek media?

Your not talking about FS0B 411S firmware are you?

I’m sorry. I was talking about the 411S drive not overclocked.
I missplaced my post. Wrong topic :slight_smile:

I have compared the firmware fs0b (411s) and the firmware of the 811s - there are only about 34 KB difference and even the comprison of the fs02 to fs0b showed a difference of about 700 KB.

So I guess the 811s uses the same chipset and the 411s should work with the 811s firmware.

So we only need the original 811s eeprom.

btw: I already had this “orange flashing led” while 401->411, because I had first flashed only my modified 401eeprom and then the 411 firmware BUT I had first to flash the !original! 411eeprom, then flash the 411 firmware (now the LED was flashing green) … flash my modded 401eeprm

Ok so it sounds like we need an 811 eeprom.

  • Flash 811 eeprom first.
  • Flash 811 firmware.
  • Flash 411 modifed eeprom.

Something like that?

Someone get me an eeprom :slight_smile:

Can anyone please explain:

-The difference between firmware and eeprom (they are both contained in a physical eeprom don’t they?).
-The bootcode

I have read that there is risk of losing the laser setting parameters which are specific for each drive when replacing the eeprom.
Will replacing the eeprom contents not render the drive useless due to loss of these laser parameters ?

EEPROM: Drive specific, each drive have different EEPROM loaded through the 6 pins on the back during manufacturing. Contains all data for right calibration etc for that particular drive and thus EEPROM from another writer will make the writer incorrectly calibrated and most likely cause problems to read and write (at least with good quality). SHOULD NEVER BE TOUCHED BY END USERS.

Firmware: contains all media specific calibration details etc, could easily be updated to support more media etc

Boot code: The information the drive tells the computer BIOS when you switch it on so that the computer could detect it and initialize it correctly. If a drive can’t be identified by the BIOS of a computer there is something wrong with the boot code…

But you all should not take this issue further, as this topic is getting into areas that we do not allow to discuss…

Why is it illegal? If so which part is?

After comparing many eeproms I come to the conclusion:

  1. every eeprom has 1024 Bytes :wink:
  2. most of the eeprom data is the same on every drive
  3. about 130 Bytes are drive (individual) specific
  4. at least 3 Bytes dynamicly change from burn to burn or firmware version to version (on the same drive)
  5. AND there seem to be 5 magic bytes that are MODEL specific

I don’t know the values of these 5 Bytes on a 811s - if we find out - maybe there is a chance to overclock a 411 to 811.

I know I void my warranty - thats my risk.
Hey overcocking is illegal? Then AMD has to sue me!

About bootcode, I’ll just quote myself from another thread.

Originally posted by dhc014
[B]…All Lite-ON drives except the LTD-163 and their CD-ROM drives have a certain amount of the flash ROM set aside for the Boot Code. For the recent 6S and 7S drives (as well as most others) the whole flash chip holds 512KB. Of that size 16KB is set aside and is usually not flashed by the Lite-ON Windows Flashers. If something goes wrong while flashing, the Boot Code area maintains the minimum functions of the drive so that it can still be detected by BIOS and Windows and you can flash again to recover it. If you choose to flash the Boot Code area and something goes wrong, then the drive may not be detected and you’ll need to use mtkflash in DOS which can reflash the entire ROM including the Boot Code to recover the drive. Sometimes the Boot Code does need to be updated and if that’s the case, then Lite-ON will set the Windows Updater to flash the Boot Code.

Basically, not flashing the Boot Code is a fail-safe so that a drive can be recovered more easily if something goes wrong…[/B]

EEPROM data and Firmware are totally different things. The EEPROM contains calibration data for the drive which is set up during the manufacturing process by a machine that connects to the drive through the extra pins on the back. The EEPROM is not meant to be touched ever. EEPROM and firmware are stored separately.

It would be wise to not post too much more info on here.

Originally posted by Vanderlow
Why is it illegal? If so which part is?

Please read the opening post of THIS THREAD carefully, it answers this question.

Right now we do NOT in any way allow the discussing of or linking to LTNFLASH

Very interesting:

Take a hex-editor
Open the original 811s HS06 Firmware from Liteon
Look at address F0066 (BIN) or 93B8A (Flash EXE) … and you will find a string you wouldn’t expect there: “LDW-411”

So what does it mean? The 811 is a 411? At least the 811 uses some or more exactly 97% of the 411s FS0B firmware.

Proof yourself…

It is not uncommon for manufacturers to reuse code. They’re surely both using the same chip brands. This means nothing as far as upgradability is concerned.

Well it doesn’t mean nothing, but it also doesn’t automatically mean that it will work…

Reused code is a good sign that functionality is similar, and is good enough evidence to give the upgrade a good shot.

I’m gonna look into it much more after my uni exams.

Regarding coolstuff’s post:

Take a hex-editor
Open the original 811s HS06 Firmware from Liteon
Look at address F0066 (BIN) or 93B8A (Flash EXE) … and you will find a string you wouldn’t expect there: “LDW-411”
I can think of three reasons why the string is there:

  1. It’s just a leftover string which was not renamed in the new firmware, wihout any functionality.
  2. It’s required for proper operation of the firmware and/or eeprom.
  3. Or, more interesting: it could also be there to serve a simple string compare to check if the 811 firmware is installed on a 411 (allthough this would be rather simplistic)

If case 3 is true then this might be the ‘magic byte’.

Would be interesting to change the 411 string into something else and then put the modified firmware back in a 411 and test the results… :smiley:
(In this case it might be important to keep the CRC checksum identical)

Ooops, this got accidentally deleted by OC-Freak since it’s over the edge on what we allow.