What do you want from a modified firmware?

vbimport

#1

As most of you know Liggy and I have been modifying NEC firmware for quite a while.
With the new NEC ND-4570A and ND-4571A, and their much faster 8x writing strategy, they have presented me with an opportunity to try out some new things.

What I would like to know is, what would you (the members) like to see in a modified firmware?

I have setup a poll, so please feel free to register your vote and make any comments you have. The thread will remain sticky for 2 or 3 weeks.

We will assume that the firmwares have full bitsetting and the usual RPC1 and RIPLOCK patches.

1, I want to burn my media as fast as possible, I don’t care about quality.
(easy to implement)

2, I am only interested in quality, I don’t mind if the disc takes a little longer to burn.

3, I want a firmware that burns fast and also burns media with quality.
(very hard to implement)

4, I want a firmware that uses sensible overspeeding with good media, but where quality is the most important factor.
(probably hard to implement but possible)


#2

2 then 4 then 3, in that order. :stuck_out_tongue:


#3

Even if I don’t have a NEC drive (until now :stuck_out_tongue: ), I agree with the above answer :iagree: :iagree:

But if I can give only one answer, I vote for 2: quality is the most important thing for me.


#4

1 and I explain:

I AM interested in quality, but what I mostly want is the freedom to choose whatever speed you want (unless it is so much for the media that the burn will be unreadable). When I see that the media burns better in lower speed, I select a lower burning speed manually. Thats about it. I don’t see why I shouldn’t have the option to burn at higher speeds. (You can’t imagine how I’d love to burn a Princo 4x DVD-R at 16x and make a PI/PIF afterwards :bigsmile: )


#5

I know what you mean, but the problem is that the best write strategy for a given media code may not also allow using overspeeding. As a random example, say you substitute the TYG03 write strategy for TYG01 media, but the media would burn better at 4x and 8x with TYG02 write strategy than at 4x and 8x using the TYG03 write strategy (this may or may not be true with this media and write strategies, I’m just using it as an example). Just reverting to slower speeds does not necessarily mean you’ll get the same burn quality as if you had the best write strategy implemented in the first place. Confusing to explain, hopefully you more or less understand what I’m trying to explain. Same thing with your Princo example, you could, for example, substitute it’s ideal W.S. with TYG03 and get crappy results at ANY speed, or use the best W.S. and at least get usable results at 4x, etc. In this case, would you rather have flexibility of any speed at the cost of crap at any speed, or slow speeds with usable quality?

P.S. - I also would like to see overspeeding, but only if it also means that I can get optimal quality out of the media at ‘normal’ speeds. I have used modified FW’s in my NECs and overspeeding has been very nice to have for some of my slower media, since I have alot of 2-8x media. So, as another example, if TYG01 burns similar at 4x with both the TYG01 and TYG03 write strategy, by all means consider TYG03. To further complicate things though, say TYG01 burns better at 8x with TYG02 W.S. than 8x with TYG03, then which to use, even if it means no option of 16x? I would say TYG02, but this is where deciding what’s best for the FW becomes exponentially more confusing. :doh:

That’s why I say concentrate on quality first and foremost, but overspeeding is always a welcome sight if it’s used properly.


#6

2 then 4 :slight_smile:


#7

I am only interested in quality, speed is not important, unless you are burning 50 dvd’s in a day.


#8

The NEC drives I got as review drives (3500, 3540, 4550) were pretty close to 3 (totally unlike plextor), and for me 3 is most important, that’s why I am happy with 0 -> bitset and ripunlock


#9

Quality. And a longer life of my drive. If say NEC decides to quit updating 3550 I’d want strategies for 4550 used in modded 3550-firmware. That is if 4550 is updated.
If NEC updates 4550 but not 3550 I see it as reasonable to either use modded firmware, or try to update my drive to 4550.

As of now I don’t used modded firmware. Used it to get bitsetting right, then went back to official NEC firmware a little while ago. I don’t need bitsetting anyway, and I never watch films on my computer, I have a DVD-player for that. RPC1 makes no difference to me, but I understand it’s important to others.


#10

Scoobiedoobie, quality burns at stock media speeds are a must for the firmware anyway. If the firmware works like you say, then I vote option 4, but I would prefer it if it was like " … , but where there is not a big quality problem" (example of overspeed that I liked was RICOH JPNR02 @ 16x)

BTW, I wonder… if you guys like the “2” option so much, why didn’t you stick with the 2500A at first place? Unmatchable quality burns.


#11

As someone that burns maybe 10 a week, quality is of utmost importance to me. Taking 13 minutes to burn something at 4x instead of 8 minutes @ 12x doesn’t do anything for me. Now if the quality was the same, of course I’ll burn faster.


#12

I believe they provide overspeeding by other means in addition to simple write strategy swapping, but I use that as an example of how you sometimes may have to sacrifice quality for a write strategy with the ability to overspeed.

I think it’s obvious that most people like the ability to overspeed, but quality comes first.


#13

I voted for 2 because for me quality is the most important thing. I don’t want to reburn discs frequently because each burn create too many errors and a faster deterioration of media.

Obviously speed is welcome, but quality is more important for sure.

However, this is only my opinion :flower:


#14

Now you guys speak my language. Rating quality as more important sounds a lot better than “interested only in quality”. Anyway I differ slightly as I like speed and I burn fast if there is not a big quality difference. This is the reason I preferred the NEC 3500A to the Pioneer 108D 1.5 years ago. The Pioneer burned with slightly better quality, but when we were speaking about speed, you were laughing at it.


#15

Quality, followed by quality. My third choice would be quality.


#16

2

a good burn is better than saving a couple of min. of time
:iagree:


#17

I chose 4 (then would come 2).

[B]42[/B] - remembers me of something. lol


#18

I don’t really know what option 4 implies exactly, but I definitely don’t like option 1.

I’d choose the better quality, once it is achieved, I’d care of speed.


#19

I thought i would throw this one in to show that the ND-4571 can burn a disc with good quality.

MCC004 (Infiniti branded)
Burn speed 16x (rewritten write strategy)

PS: me bad, i didn’t save the burn graph :o (burn time was 6:03)



#20

Great scan, but sorry for a little question: isn’t it 8x the standard for scans with 5 series of liteon burners?