V4 mod

Easy does it bichi…he wasnt to know you were a beta-tester.

As for the law of diminishing returns, there will come a time when this does make itself apparent…that time is not yet however I dont think.

Based upon one coaster there’s no reason to improve current algorithm. Even there’s no clue where to improve.

Got the point now?


jitter

45 58 55 88 …

Originally posted by zebra
As for the law of diminishing returns, there will come a time when this does make itself apparent…that time is not yet however I dont think.

Nice to have you all guys here on ‘release party’, ha, ha :bigsmile:

Congratulations Zebra to your 200th post…:smiley:

Many of our members still waiting “like christmas evening”, he, he, he… :cool:

Do you, Zebra or anyone else have an estimate for the release date?

A OT question. I patched my firmware with v2 and v3 and compared them in a hex-editor. The two firmwares are identical. Shouldn’t they differ?

Originally posted by pinto2
[B]Not released yet… but SOON.

[/B]

lyhnet

all the patch for the firmware does is override the checksum

the actual v2 v3 patch is to the eeprom

Originally posted by KenW
[B]lyhnet

all the patch for the firmware does is override the checksum

the actual v2 v3 patch is to the eeprom [/B]

Sorry I ment eeprom. The eeproms are identical with v2 and v3

lyhnet

are you sure you have real v2 and real v3 because they are not the same Zebra makes changes

Originally posted by KenW
[B]lyhnet

are you sure you have real v2 and real v3 because they are not the same Zebra makes changes [/B]

I would think so. But just to be sure could you please send me the zebra v3 patch and I will compare it with the one I believe is v2.
If you have the v4 patch send it to me aswell and I will post some K-probe results asap.
bittorrent1@toughguy.net

lyhnet

Im sorry i cant do that, you must go the server with the files , download the password locked file and then ask for the password by PM on the Zebra forum. And again I am sorry I cant post the url for either on this forum as lite-on has been know to close down sites that get listed.

PS

All real v3 are encrypted archive and need a password if your v3 was not password locked it was not real v3

PSS

v4 is still beta testing and it too will be encypted file when released so if you see v4 and not encrypted its not real v4 and its most likely a fake

Originally posted by KenW
[B]
All real v3 are encrypted archive and need a password if your v3 was not password locked it was not real v3

v4 is still beta testing and it too will be encypted file when released so if you see v4 and not encrypted its not real v4 and its most likely a fake [/B]

‘KenW’, why dont you run MD5Summer on ‘patch’ and add the MD5Sum-file to the passworded .RAR-file :smiley:

Then we all can ‘se’ which patch is fake. :smiley:

pinto2

First it not a rar file the real file is 256bit encryption zip file there could be rar in side it but the actual real v3 is zip Second its not my job man, tell Zebra maybe he will do that for you when we get ready for v4 release

Time for cool-off guys. Its all a bit wild…

Please just keep the QQQ to a minimum for the time being…all will be revealed in good time.

For now, just keep your eye’s on the atomic forum - all the methodology and means for distribution will be revealed there in due course ok?

Talk soon.

If you have a real 811S, leave it’s EEPROM the hell alone…it was factory calibrated to work optimally as is…

I think the question was not wether we can use your patcher to tune our original 811s’es, but if you could make a program which would tune them better than factory did :wink:

Originally posted by QQuxa
I think the question was not wether we can use your patcher to tune our original 811s’es, but if you could make a program which would tune them better than factory did :wink:

That doesn’t seem possible. The eeprom is calibrated by LiteOn. What zebra does is to optimize 8x recording from the 4x calibration (v3+v4), right?

This isn’t about calibration but optimizing a 4x recorder eeprom so that it can perform almost as well as a real 8x liteon.

/Anders

It appears sometimes it performs even better, no? That’s why the speculation…

Originally posted by QQuxa
It appears sometimes it performs even better, no? That’s why the speculation…

If this is the case, I believe its plain luck. All drives are not equal good.
/Anders

Well that luck can be tried on original 811s aswell, no?:wink:

Originally posted by QQuxa
Well that luck can be tried on original 811s aswell, no?:wink:

V4+V3: I dont se the point. If its possible it will proable take the calibration data for 4x and use this for 8x recording. I dont see why this would make the drive better. The eeprom is already optimized for the drive. Dont know if 811s eeprom contains 4x calibration or just an overall calibration but you cant make a better eeprom than the original.

V1+V2: This patch uses AFAIK an average from a lot of 811s eeproms. This certainly in theory cant be better than the real thing…

Let me know if you try the v4/v3 patch with succes… (what would you call it: 811s@811sZv3)

WoW, just some thoughts: (YES, I’m also beta testing for Zebra and I’m comparing the results to a REAL LDW-811S).

-Never use the patch on a real LDW-811S, as a real LDW-811S performs the same/slightly better than a overclocked LDW-811S with the already excisting calibration.

-Always use the patch on the original EEPROM, never use it on a EEPROM that is already patched with an earlier version patcher.

-There is still some Minor differences between a overclocked drive and a real LDW-811S, in favor of the real drive of course. But that is being looked into, and on the other hand the difference is not so large that it will cause any problems in practical use.

Dont know if 811s eeprom contains 4x calibration or just an overall calibration but you cant make a better eeprom than the original.

Why not? I, of course, don’t know how does calibration data look like, but if it’s anything close to what can be called a “software product”, like e.g. firmware is, then of course it can be made better.

History has shown many cases where users of some software product have discovered many tweaks, which authors have missed. Why can’t this be the case?