Eureka. Thank you for the link, still struggling with the new forum software. Found the first (dead) link on that thread earlier. I think the second link was posted after I looked.
Why crossflash? Why not!
I would like to keep a drive available for use with PlexUtilities. I don’t use it very often, but it has some tests which can be useful. My only other compatible drive is an iHAS B (@PX-L890SA), but I have wanted to return it to Lite-On firmware for some time so I can use it for TA jitter testing with CD-DVD Speed and a few other reasons.
[Also iHAS324C or PX-891SA is much more memorable, aesthetically pleasing & easier to type than DH24ACSH. ]
I wouldn’t call the iHAS C an unreliable scanner. Thus far my results have been consistent and it seems to be reporting all of the error types expected of a Lite-On. The only issue is that it reports many more errors (PI in particular) than its recent Lite-On predecessors. But then again so do other highly regarded DVD scanners, such as the much loved Nexperia-based Benq drive. So long as it is only reporting the number of errors of a particular type that it encounters - no more and no less - and behaves in a consistent manner, then I don’t see that there is a problem. Just because a drive reports higher error rates than other drives it does not necessarily mean it is a better or worse scanner than another drive.
For example, the Lite-On SOHR-5239V usually reports much lower C1 error rates than preceding Lite-On CD Writers. So is it a reliable scanner? No, it’s awful. Why? Well we don’t know why it reports fewer C1 errors. It was suggested that it may not be reporting all level 1 errors as C1 (just as Mediatek DVD Writers only report E31 errors as C1), but I am not convinced - the pattern does not consistently match any combination of E11, 21 & 31 as reported by a Benq or Plextor. And sometimes for no apparent reason it reports much higher levels than expected (especially at the start of the disc) for no apparent reason and ‘phantom’ C2 error spikes which come and go - even when scanning the same disc. This is an unreliable scanner because we don’t know what data is being returned and do not trust it to return similar results every time for the same input (i.e. scanning the same disc multiple times).
Then consider the NEC ND3540A (IIRC). Our resident NEC expert considered this to be a great DVD scanner as he considered it to produce consistent & reliable results even at 16x speed! The error rates reported were much higher than say a Lite-On scanning the same discs. But so long as the results are consistent and you understand the characteristics of the drive & what is being reported, the high error numbers don’t matter.
So far my view is that the iHAS C is just a poor, but consistent, DVD reader. My hunch is that the OPU used is not the best, or maybe it is not being used to its best ability (e.g. poor reading strategy or another design deficiency). My reasoning is that the iHAS D series appears to report much lower PI error rates than the C and uses the same chipset, but a different OPU and board design. But it is only a hunch, based on others results.
Having a second scanning drive which is less good at reading discs can be very useful and informative. For example, on very good discs my Benqs report similar values to my Lite-Ons. But on less good discs the Lite-On values remain low but the Benq may report significantly more errors (or a different error distribution pattern). Because I know that both drives are consistent scanners, but behave differently (the Benq being a marginally less good reader), I can use the size of the margin between the two drives I can make reasonable judgements about the quality of a disc. This would not be possible if I only used drives which are equally good readers.