About Liteon CD Writer.

by **Raz0rX** on Fri Jan 03, 2003 10:18 pm

After using my LG 40x drives for 2 months, I have found even with latest firmware, the drive is VERY picky with CDR media to burn @ 40x. As well, the drive produces thousands of errors when write @ high speed.

Today I finally bought another Liteon writer. With latest firmware, it writes so good with very very low errors and the best of all, has a wide list of media to write @ max speed.

Just wanted to say that I am very happy with Liteon.

by **dhc014** on Fri Jan 03, 2003 11:16 pm

They are pretty good, aren't they?

by **glock20rocks** on Fri Jan 03, 2003 11:20 pm

Except for the 48125W :evil:

by **coolestnitish** on Fri Jan 03, 2003 11:42 pm

glock20rocks wrote:Except for the 48125W

Why do you say that? To me it sounded like a descent burner. I bet it was way better than their 40x which was using Z-CLV.
By the way RazorX which LiteOn did you buy?

by **Raz0rX** on Fri Jan 03, 2003 11:54 pm

I purchased a Liteon 48x24x48 for $78. I am quite happy with the drive. Before when I go purchase burner, I used to think which brand I have no tried before and that I should tried. But after going through many drives, I found Liteon drives to be very good.

by **coolestnitish** on Fri Jan 03, 2003 11:59 pm

I got the same drive, I bought it during Christmas time for $83. It produces awesome quality burns and is pretty fast as you said. By the way, you thinking of flashing it to the 52x? The RW will still be the same, and only 4 secs difference in writing.

by **Raz0rX** on Sat Jan 04, 2003 12:13 am

Nah, I will just leave my 48x as it is. It is already fast enough for me :lol:

by **coolestnitish** on Sat Jan 04, 2003 12:53 am

Yah, that's exactly I have been thinking too. I'm never in a hurry to burn stuff so might as well wait.

by **cfitz** on Sat Jan 04, 2003 12:58 am

Add one more vote for leaving the LTR-48246S as is. I haven't converted mine to 52x, and don't intend to. I'm sticking with my "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" motto. Besides, the difference is pretty trivial.

cfitz

by **dodecahedron** on Sat Jan 04, 2003 2:13 am

i wonder...

in general i am suspicious of OC drives...
see my comments here:
http://www.cdrlabs.com/phpBB/viewtopic. ... 4227#34227

but in this case i wonder if it's worth a try. as i recall from the reviews, the 52x drives are better than the 48x, i don't care for the difference in burnning time, but the 52x have better media compatiblity and better quality burns. i wonder if the same would be true of a 48x OCed to 52x drive. if yes, it is definitely worth it!

by **cfitz** on Sat Jan 04, 2003 2:20 am

dodecahedron wrote:i wonder if the same would be true of a 48x OCed to 52x drive. if yes, it is definitely worth it!

If so, then yes it would be worth it. But I personally have been getting good quality burns from the 48x firmware with the media I use, so I haven't felt the need to change based on that. I suppose for the sake of completeness I ought to test both just to see if there is a discernable difference, and then report my results here. But that is a low-priority task for me at this time.

cfitz

by **learnmedia** on Sat Jan 04, 2003 6:23 am

For me, flashing the 48246S to the 52246S was mostly a value issue, and I'll admit, a little curiosity in wanting to see if the Flashfix util worked (I owe that one to cfitz).

Being the bargain hunter that I am, having gotten the 48X Lite-On for $49.95 (incl. a $10 mail-in rebate) at PC Club in Southern California when the 52X is going for $79.95 made a lot of sense, given that I couldn't justify spending $30 for the 6 second burn advantage.

Having been made aware that the 48 and 52 were the exact same hardware, however, I felt that the firmware upgrade made even more sense in terms of value. I got a 52246S for $49.95!

Which brings up a technical (maybe even semantic) issue.

dodecahedron wrote:
in general i am suspicious of OC drives...

And likens it to OCing a CPU in the referenced post.

Question: Is flashing the 48246S to the 52246S truly considered OC'ing? Perusing the forum, I've seen that some have upgraded the 40X Lite-On to 52X, which I consider to be a true overclock. However, if the hardware is exactly the same, and the only change has been the firmware, it's simply a firmware upgrade, no?

by **Bhairav** on Sat Jan 04, 2003 6:51 am

Yeah, can you actually call the flash process overclocking? I prefer to call it "unleashing the full power of my drive"!

by **blakerwry** on Sat Jan 04, 2003 8:43 am

can you truely call bumping your FSB up a notch in your BIOS overclocking? I prefer to call it "unleashing the full potential of my CPU"....

In my mind, if you are running something faster than what it was rated/sold as to get the full potential of the product, then you are fitting with the ideals of overclocking.

Of course, you are not actually changing the signalling speed or clock speed of anything when you flash the Drive, but you are running it faster than what it was rated/sold as.

by **coolestnitish** on Sat Jan 04, 2003 10:09 am

Well..I will like to get back to the quality issue, I have been getting really good burns like most other owners of the 48x24x48. As far as the comparison between quality of 48x burners and 52x burners go, I think they mean the 48x12x48 compared to the 52x24x52 when saying it is better. Ian in his review of the 52x CenDyne said "I'll admit that the writing quality was better than I expected. The Lite-On based drives are better known for their media compatibility than their writing quality. In the case of the Lightning V, it delivers in both areas." I think he was comparing the quality with the 48x12x48 as CDRlabs never got the LiteOn 48x24x48 for review. As the hardware is the same, so the quality depends on the media and the firmware. I have a feeling that LiteOn makes the same firmware for the 48x24x48 and the 52x24x52 and then they just limit the max speeds on the 48x one. I have no proof for this, but just a suspicion.
Does LiteOn really make 2 completely separate firmwares for the same hardware? Maybe someone who know how to compare the binaries should check. The results should be interesting.... :roll:

by **glock20rocks** on Sat Jan 04, 2003 12:57 pm

coolestnitish wrote:
glock20rocks wrote:Except for the 48125W

Why do you say that? To me it sounded like a descent burner. I bet it was way better than their 40x which was using Z-CLV.
By the way RazorX which LiteOn did you buy?

Media compatability, plain and simple. Never got it to burn ANY disk at 48x w/o errors. Ended up burning Fuji (TY) 24x rated discs at 40x. Replaced it with a Plextor 48x24x48x, which I'm quite happy with except for the annoying "hold button for 48x" crap...

Form what I've been reading here, the 48125W is the pickiest Lite On drive when it comes to media. I guess the 48x24x48x and 52x24x52 are better about the media compatability than this drive. My friends 40x12x48 Lite On seems better about media too.

Oh well...

by **rdgrimes** on Sat Jan 04, 2003 1:26 pm

Is flashing the 48246S to the 52246S truly considered OC'ing?

No, technically, it should be called "unclocking". And, there is no evidence to suggest that the "6" series drives have even the slightest difference in hardware. I have yet to see one report of someone having problems with a drive at 52x that they did not also have at 48x.
I wonder how opinions will change IF LiteOn releases a new drive/firmware for 52x/32x/52x speeds, but not for 48x/32x/48x. I'll wager that many of the posters here will be flashing those 48x drives.

Form what I've been reading here, the 48125W is the pickiest Lite On drive when it comes to media.

Simply not true. Nor is this assertion born out in any of the reviews of the drives. I have the 40x, 48x, and 52x drives, all are very accepting of different media. The only problems with media are that people expect too much from it. You can't get error-free CDR's at 48x on inadequate media. In fact, my own 48125W drive is MORE accepting of marginal media than my 52246S, given that I'm burning at a reasonable speed for the media.

by **cfitz** on Sat Jan 04, 2003 3:38 pm

coolestnitish wrote:Does LiteOn really make 2 completely separate firmwares for the same hardware? Maybe someone who know how to compare the binaries should check. The results should be interesting....

Doing a binary comparison shows that they do have a good number of differences, as measured by the number of bytes that don't match. The differences are more than just a different ID string and a byte that gives the top burning speed, and are scattered throughout the file. However, without disassembling the firmware (which I don't have the tools, knowledge, or inclination to do), I can't say whether those different bytes really amount to any significant functional difference.

Our regular contributor dhc014 would probably be best able to answer this question. Any thoughts, Dave?

cfitz

by **dhc014** on Sat Jan 04, 2003 4:11 pm

cfitz wrote:
coolestnitish wrote:Does LiteOn really make 2 completely separate firmwares for the same hardware? Maybe someone who know how to compare the binaries should check. The results should be interesting....

Doing a binary comparison shows that they do have a good number of differences, as measured by the number of bytes that don't match. The differences are more than just a different ID string and a byte that gives the top burning speed, and are scattered throughout the file. However, without disassembling the firmware (which I don't have the tools, knowledge, or inclination to do), I can't say whether those different bytes really amount to any significant functional difference.

Our regular contributor dhc014 would probably be best able to answer this question. Any thoughts, Dave?

cfitz

I don't know... It doesn't really matter

You non-"overclocking" guys are no fun!! :wink:

by **cfitz** on Sat Jan 04, 2003 4:30 pm

dhc014 wrote:You non-"overclocking" guys are no fun!!

That's part of what makes us "curmudgeons" (at least in my case). :lol:

Damn overclocking whipper-snappers ...<grumble, grumble>... always stirring things up, nothing's ever fast enough for them ...<grumble, grumble>... why in my day we were happy to burn at 2x ...<grumble, grumble, snort - drift off to sleep>... :wink:

cfitz

by **dhc014** on Sat Jan 04, 2003 4:40 pm

lol, my drive is at 48x most of the time to tell you the truth... It's a LTR-52246S with 6S0A right now though.

by **glock20rocks** on Sat Jan 04, 2003 7:49 pm

All I know is that I've tried about 15 different brands, including several different 48x TY discs...and have NEVER had an error-free burn at anything faster than 40x.

Other than being stuck burning at 40x, it's the best CD-RW drive I've owned really. Faster than my new Plexy...

by **coolestnitish** on Sat Jan 04, 2003 10:44 pm

cfitz wrote:Damn overclocking whipper-snappers ...<grumble, grumble>... always stirring things up, nothing's ever fast enough for them ...<grumble, grumble>... why in my day we were happy to burn at 2x ...<grumble, grumble, snort - drift off to sleep>...
cfitz

I fully agree, honestly how fast do people want things to go? OK, processors, hard drives, video cards I can understand but burners...I don't mind waiting a little longer to burn stuff rather than burning faster with less quality. I can see the Need For Speed for professionals who have to burn loads of CDs everyday, but for the average user, there's a limit. As i said I rather sacrifice time over quality. I don't know how many CDs you guys burn but I have all the time in the world to burn stuff. lol. Makes it sound like I have no life.

About Liteon CD Writer.

About Liteon CD Writer.

Who is online