Lite-On 52x32x52 review ..

by **eliminator** on Mon Jun 23, 2003 4:48 am

http://www.hardwarezone.com/articles/ar ... 10&aid=744

Of course we want to check Ian's review now, and see what the drive is really made of !

by **dhc014** on Mon Jun 23, 2003 4:59 am

So much "hoo-haa" have been going on in the DVD re-writable market lately. We have the DVD+R, DVD-R, DVD-RAM, and lately we've also seen a surge in dual format DVD burners as well.

Honestly, what is that?!

Our CD-RW of choice in this article will be the new Lite-On LTR-5232S7 drive, which is based on the 52x32x52x (write/re-write/read) terminology.

If there's one thing that could anger me in a review it's when the reviewer misspells the model number

It shows no concern at all really.

Page 4

In this last test conducted with Nero Burning ROM v5.5.10.15a, we grabbed the same variety of CD-R media used in all CD-RW articles and gave the Iomega 52x32x52x a thorough workout.

Yeah, this review is of an Iomega drive, is it? :roll:

Kind of half-assed testing all around... :-?

I saw it a few days ago, but didn't think that it was worth mentioning.

by **dolphinius_rex** on Mon Jun 23, 2003 5:24 am

Hrm, I find they make a few good points, but their overall lack of professionalism makes me doubt some of their findings.

such as, "All tests were performed using a similar file sized at 648MB. "

personally, I HOPE that they used the EXACT same image!

the inconsistancies as mentioned by dhc014 made me wonder if these people have any idea of what they are doing!

and yet again I am forced to continue with my belief that only this site and CDRInfo.com are capable of putting together reviews that are worth my time to read... :roll:

by **Scour** on Mon Jun 23, 2003 11:50 am

Hello!

After reading that, I´m really not impressed. To burn a CD-RW at 32x the Lite is not faster than a 24x CD-RW :-?

And with CDR-media it´s more picky than older Lite-drives

Maybe Lite need many new FW´s to be an average writer. Why Lite did´t sell their drives a little time later with a good FW?

by **Ian** on Mon Jun 23, 2003 11:52 am

Scour wrote:After reading that, I´m really not impressed. To burn a CD-RW at 32x the Lite is not faster than a 24x CD-RW

That's not true. The drive is much faster at 32x than drives that rewrite at 24x.

by **aviationwiz** on Mon Jun 23, 2003 12:13 pm

Well, it sure doesn't look like I'm going to get that drive. I am going to wait for Ian's review though before deciding for sure.

by **Alejandra** on Mon Jun 23, 2003 2:25 pm

Scour wrote:After reading that, I´m really not impressed. To burn a CD-RW at 32x the Lite is not faster than a 24x CD-RW

How you know? There is no 32x CDRW writing test to compare.

by **Scour** on Mon Jun 23, 2003 3:31 pm

Ian wrote:
Scour wrote:After reading that, I´m really not impressed. To burn a CD-RW at 32x the Lite is not faster than a 24x CD-RW

That's not true. The drive is much faster at 32x than drives that rewrite at 24x.

I see now, it was only 24x CD-RW

by **eliminator** on Mon Jun 23, 2003 4:53 pm

yup, Mitsu 32x cd-rw did not work with the burner...

by **Scour** on Mon Jun 23, 2003 6:21 pm

Hello!

In Germany only two types of 24xCD-RW-media are on the sale, Mitsubishi and Infodisc.

That´s straneg because at the CeBit (World biggest Computer Show) some manufacturers said to a friend, that they will in June 24x-CD-RW-Media (SKC, Ritek, CMC, Prodisc)

And have anyone of you seen 32xCD-RW on the sale

?

by **Ian** on Mon Jun 23, 2003 6:34 pm

Scour wrote:And have anyone of you seen 32xCD-RW on the sale ?

Nope, not me. As it is 24x RW media has just started to become plentiful, here in the bunghole of America (Madison, WI). We probably won't see any 32x RW media until next summer.

No seriously, marketing people are always optomistic. Whenever they say a certain month, I usually tack on about 4-6 weeks. :wink:

by **dolphinius_rex** on Mon Jun 23, 2003 8:59 pm

the only place I know that has 32x CD-RWs is CDRInfo.com, they use them in their review on the Mitsumi 54x32x54x :wink:

by **rdgrimes** on Mon Jun 23, 2003 9:54 pm

CD WinBench 99 paints a rather different picture here. Using the original CD WinBench 99 test disc, the Lite-On 52x32x52x was able to show its true CD-ROM potential by beating its predecessor as well as the Plextor Premium drive,

In the DAE test, they used a 74min audio CD, then couldn't seem to understand why it did't reach it's max read speed........DUH.

As for the data burning tests, one need only look at the media used to understand the results. I fail to see any evidence to support the "conclusions" about media compatability.

One can only conclude that either the reviewer has set out to produce a "cool" report, or he's an idiot, or both.

by **Ian** on Mon Jun 23, 2003 9:57 pm

dolphinius_rex wrote:the only place I know that has 32x CD-RWs is CDRInfo.com, they use them in their review on the Mitsumi 54x32x54x

We have them too. Neither the Plextor nor the Mitsumi support them though.

CD Winbench is one of those odd benchmarks. It's scores are influenced heavily by components in the computer, other than the drive being tested. For example, you can test a drive on a computer with a 1GHz computer and then test it on another with a 2GHz computer. Same drive.. only difference is the CPU. I'll guarantee that you'll see at least a 200 point difference in the overall score. This benchmark is only valid if you keep your test bed consistent. Unfortunately, most reviewers do not. :evil:

by **rdgrimes** on Mon Jun 23, 2003 10:05 pm

This benchmark is only valid if you keep your test bed consistent. Unfortunately, most reviewers do not.

I guess I assumed that since he was comparing the drives, he tested them on the same platform. Am I being too generous?

by **Ian** on Mon Jun 23, 2003 10:11 pm

rdgrimes wrote:I guess I assumed that since he was comparing the drives, he tested them on the same platform. Am I being too generous?

Not sure. He doesn't really say what he uses. In any case, the reviewer only used the transfer rates in his review, not the overall score. If he used different testbeds it probably had little impact.

by **rdgrimes** on Mon Jun 23, 2003 10:24 pm

Ian, like the new avitar, but can't you make it do anything cool?

by **Ian** on Mon Jun 23, 2003 10:47 pm

rdgrimes wrote:Ian, like the new avitar, but can't you make it do anything cool?

Nope. I do have all of the G1 Dinobots though.

by **CDRecorder** on Mon Jun 23, 2003 11:38 pm

Will the Mitsumi and Plextor drives need a firmware update to support 32x CD-RW discs, or is it just that the 32x CD-RW discs aren't final versions?

Does the Lite-On support your 32x CD-RW discs, Ian?

by **cfitz** on Mon Jun 23, 2003 11:39 pm

rdgrimes wrote:In the DAE test, they used a 74min audio CD, then couldn't seem to understand why it did't reach it's max read speed........DUH.

I'm not defending the review in general, but there is nothing wrong with testing DAE on a 74-minute disc, assuming it is a pressed disc where 74-minutes is the maximum capacity. Nor is there any problem testing a 74-minute selection burned on a 74-minute CD-R. By testing with such discs you will be able to determine the maximum DAE rate for pressed and CD-R media, respectively.

Of course, if you test a 74-minute selection burned on an 80-minute CD-R, then you will be artificially limiting the extraction rate, because the audio data won't extend all the way to the outer edge of the disc. But even this limitation wouldn't account for the 20% discrepancy noted in the review (41.5x achieved versus 52x specified). Instead, you would see something roughly an order of magnitude less (~2-3%).

Thus, it isn't fair to criticize the reviewer for using a 74-minute disc for DAE testing. That is a perfectly acceptable length CD with which to test and does not artificially distort the testing results. The discrepancy the reviewer found may be a result of a problem with the drive, a problem with the quality of the media, or a different problem with the reviewer's test methodology, but the length of the media he selected is not the source of the discrepancy.

cfitz

by **dodecahedron** on Tue Jun 24, 2003 1:07 am

rdgrimes wrote:Ian, like the new avitar

me too!

much nicer than the previous one...

by **MediumRare** on Tue Jun 24, 2003 4:30 am

The quality of the test reports here became (even more) apparent to me after reading that review.

According to the review, the lowest write speed for CD-RW is 8x. :-?

I think that is a significant drawback. If (like me) you've used any RW's in the past, you probably have a collection of 1x-4x media that (although slow) is still quite usable. I would prefer to be able to use these on a new drive as well.

G

by **Ian** on Tue Jun 24, 2003 7:50 am

MediumRare wrote:According to the review, the lowest write speed for CD-RW is 8x.
I think that is a significant drawback. If (like me) you've used any RW's in the past, you probably have a collection of 1x-4x media that (although slow) is still quite usable. I would prefer to be able to use these on a new drive as well.

Thats not right. The Lite-On can rewrite at 4x with High Speed and Normal RW media.

by **dodecahedron** on Tue Jun 24, 2003 11:45 am

Ian wrote:Thats not right. The Lite-On can rewrite at 4x with High Speed and Normal RW media.

well, that's wrong information posted at hardwarezone.

Writing Speed (CD-RW)
32x
24x
16x
12x
10x
8x

by **Ian** on Tue Jun 24, 2003 12:25 pm

They probably took the specs off the website and didn't check for themselves.

Lite-On 52x32x52 review ..

Lite-On 52x32x52 review ..

Who is online