Liteon LTR-48246S/LTR-52246S vs Yamaha CRW-F1

[QQ]

I was almost sure i'd go for Liteon, but then I noticed that CRW-F1 wasn't all that expensive at all.. So now I'm wondering, which would be better?

Pros, cons for both? For LTR I esp liked the feature where it would slowdown the spinning if transfer rates are slow (eg watching a movie) to prevent noise. Also Liteon seems to provide regular fw updates, and has a good media compatibility.

What about CRW-F1? I like that T@2 stuff Prolly would put it away after one or few pics, but hey, it's fun;)

So which one would YOU choose, and why?

[Dartman]

If you just want to make perfect copies of audio cds and normal data type stuff and you like the tattoo feature get the f1. They are not making any more so soon they will be history and you won't find another with that feature.
If you want to make good copies of audio cd's, data cd's, and games then get the Liteon, it's cheaper and faster.
The F1 I think can't back up some types of game protections, it can do most protected audio cd's read and write, it has the cool tattoo feature and it includes the audio master mode that is sposed to make better audio cd's but uses more space on a blank.
The Liteon won't read any protected audio cd's but does just about everything else and is cheap. It burns pretty well with quality media and does OK with most media.
So it depends on what you intend to do and if you like those extra features or need them.

[burninfool]

The Lite-On's CAN read copy-protected CD's.
http://www.cdfreaks.com/article/99/10

[tlotz]

I was almost sure i'd go for Liteon, but then I noticed that CRW-F1 wasn't all that expensive at all.. So now I'm wondering, which would be better?

Pros, cons for both? For LTR I esp liked the feature where it would slowdown the spinning if transfer rates are slow (eg watching a movie) to prevent noise. Also Liteon seems to provide regular fw updates, and has a good media compatibility.

What about CRW-F1? I like that T@2 stuff Prolly would put it away after one or few pics, but hey, it's fun;)

So which one would YOU choose, and why?

I had to make that choice to. My first CD-RW upgrade choice was the Plextor 48/24/48A, but after that drive failed me (see one of my previous posts), I had to choice between some form of the Liteon LTR-52246S or the Yamaha CRW-F1. I chose the TDK 52/24/48 rebadged Liteon LTR-52246S instead of the Yamaha CRW-F1, but it really doesn't matter what form of the LiteOn LTR-52246S you get. All versions of the LiteOn LTR-52246S (regardless of the brand name) are the same hardware, so get whichever you feel most comfortable with if you choose the LTR-52246S. My reasons for choosing the LTR-52246S over the Yamaha CRW-F1 are as follows:

1) Speed--I wanted something that would read CDs/write CD-Rs at at least 48X. The CRW-F1 seemed like old technology to me--44X was just a bit too slow. You have to draw the line somewhere when it comes to being too slow. Also, the seek speed of the CRW-F1 was slower than normal and the LTR-52246S had good seek performance. Since speed was important to me, this was one of the biggest factors in not choosing the CRW-F1.

2) DiscT@2 is not important to me--this is not a feature that mattered to me at all. So, the fact that the LiteOn unit didn't have this feature didn't matter to me at all since I wouldn't use it on the CRW-F1 if I bought that model.

3) The quality of the Yamaha CRW-F1 is probably a little better, but my feeling is that you can get the same quality at a lower price with the Liteon LTR-52246S if you use it with good quality media.

4) Since Yamaha got out of the CD-RW drive business before I made my decision, I was highly concerned that their support of the CRW-F1 would suffer, despite what they said about supporting their CD-RW drives in the future. I just thought it was a real bad idea to buy a CD-RW drive from a company that just got out of that business.

5) Cost--the Liteon drive was cheaper when I made my purchase decision, and is still cheaper now.

The only advantage that the Yamaha drive had that I cared about was that the Yamaha drive was significantly faster writing to/full erasing Ultra Speed CD-RW discs. The Yamaha CRW-F1 can full erase an Ultra Speed CD-RW disc in just under 4 minutes, whereas the Liteon LTR-52246S and the LTR-48246S take just under 5 minutes. This is because of the slow 24X CAV strategy that LiteOn chose, compared to the significantly faster P-CAV strategy that Yamaha, Plextor, and others chose. Despite the faster Ultra Speed CD-RW performance of the Yamaha drive, I chose the Liteon because I felt that reasons 1-5 above were far more important than the slow Liteon Ultra Speed CD-RW performance. I can tolerate the extra minute it takes the Liteon to write to/full erase an Ultra Speed CD-RW disc.

In short, the Liteon LTR-52246S is faster (overall) and cheaper than the Yamaha CRW-F1 and provides very acceptable quality. For those of us who don't care about DiscT@2 and want a faster drive, the Liteon LTR-52246S is a better choice.

[Dartman]

Well my 52 can't read my More fast and the Furious, it detects all the tracks but wont even attempt to test or rip anything and EAC says no read command found. If there's a trick they know to get it to work I'd love to know what it is. My 166s dvd will do it with the right firmware and so will the Sony 500a.

[tazdevl]

1) Speed--I wanted something that would read CDs/write CD-Rs at at least 48X. The CRW-F1 seemed like old technology to me--44X was just a bit too slow. You have to draw the line somewhere when it comes to being too slow. Also, the seek speed of the CRW-F1 was slower than normal and the LTR-52246S had good seek performance. Since speed was important to me, this was one of the biggest factors in not choosing the CRW-F1.

2) DiscT@2 is not important to me--this is not a feature that mattered to me at all. So, the fact that the LiteOn unit didn't have this feature didn't matter to me at all since I wouldn't use it on the CRW-F1 if I bought that model.

3) The quality of the Yamaha CRW-F1 is probably a little better, but my feeling is that you can get the same quality at a lower price with the Liteon LTR-52246S if you use it with good quality media.

4) Since Yamaha got out of the CD-RW drive business before I made my decision, I was highly concerned that their support of the CRW-F1 would suffer, despite what they said about supporting their CD-RW drives in the future. I just thought it was a real bad idea to buy a CD-RW drive from a company that just got out of that business.

5) Cost--the Liteon drive was cheaper when I made my purchase decision, and is still cheaper now.

1) You've got to be kidding me, the difference between 44x vs 48x is about the time it takes to reach up and scratch your nose. Faster isn't necessarily better.

2) It is a pretty useless feature.

3) Correct... IMO build and burn quality are better.

4) Valid, but shouldn't be an issue. Yamaha itself isn't going out of business, just shutting down the unit. I'm sure they have some standing inventory to take care of RMA issues. Media compatibility is great, so no real need for FW updates. Kenwood quit making Zen CD Drives a few years ago and they are still RMA'ing drives.

5) That was the real motivator.

You forgot about Audio Master which is a very worthwhile feature of the drive.

[tlotz]

1) Speed--I wanted something that would read CDs/write CD-Rs at at least 48X. The CRW-F1 seemed like old technology to me--44X was just a bit too slow. You have to draw the line somewhere when it comes to being too slow. Also, the seek speed of the CRW-F1 was slower than normal and the LTR-52246S had good seek performance. Since speed was important to me, this was one of the biggest factors in not choosing the CRW-F1.

2) DiscT@2 is not important to me--this is not a feature that mattered to me at all. So, the fact that the LiteOn unit didn't have this feature didn't matter to me at all since I wouldn't use it on the CRW-F1 if I bought that model.

3) The quality of the Yamaha CRW-F1 is probably a little better, but my feeling is that you can get the same quality at a lower price with the Liteon LTR-52246S if you use it with good quality media.

4) Since Yamaha got out of the CD-RW drive business before I made my decision, I was highly concerned that their support of the CRW-F1 would suffer, despite what they said about supporting their CD-RW drives in the future. I just thought it was a real bad idea to buy a CD-RW drive from a company that just got out of that business.

5) Cost--the Liteon drive was cheaper when I made my purchase decision, and is still cheaper now.

1) You've got to be kidding me, the difference between 44x vs 48x is about the time it takes to reach up and scratch your nose. Faster isn't necessarily better.

2) It is a pretty useless feature.

3) Correct... IMO build and burn quality are better.

4) Valid, but shouldn't be an issue. Yamaha itself isn't going out of business, just shutting down the unit. I'm sure they have some standing inventory to take care of RMA issues. Media compatibility is great, so no real need for FW updates. Kenwood quit making Zen CD Drives a few years ago and they are still RMA'ing drives.

5) That was the real motivator.

You forgot about Audio Master which is a very worthwhile feature of the drive.

My post was really a summary of my feelings on the subject, not a factual report that I intended for someone to critique. Since the original poster was seeking people's opinions, I gave mine. Let me respond to what you have said. As for Audio Master, I chose not to discuss it because I was not expecting a critique like yours--I did not forget about it. The Audio Master simply was not a feature that really made it into my decision between the Liteon and Yamaha drives. It is not a feature I need in a CD-RW drive, since I am happy with the quality of Audio CDs produced on drives that do not have this feature. As for your rather lame criticism of my #1 reason, you are forgetting that that was based on slow seek speed and a slower transfer rate *both*. That to me does make a difference, and a difference that I care about. Since you are not God and don't know what I care about, why are you saying that? It is clear that the points I made are controversial in nature and that my opinion is my opinion. I don't mind if people correct me for inaccuracies in what I say, but I do mind if people treat my opinion like it is stupid and wrong. A slower transfer rate and a slow seek speed are just plain annoying *if* you are someone who wants a fast drive. In my case, I want a fast drive that is good quality and reliable. Basically, everyone has their opinion here and I feel that everyone's opinion should be respected rather than treated like it is wrong. In short, in my opinion, faster is better provided that it maintains good quality--good quality of hardware and good write quality. That is my opinion, so don't tell me I am wrong or infer I am wrong! Part of the problem is your attitude--rather than saying you don't agree with me, which is *fine*, you practically make fun of what I said with your opinion. Different people have different opinions on whether they care about speed differences or not. It is my understanding that QQ is trying to gather opinions on this subject so he can decide who he agrees with and if he has overlooked anything. And my opinion provided discussed differences between the drives (that part is factual) and my feelings on those facts (my opinion). What is wrong with that?

[QQ]

Well, I'm getting my picture painted here

The reason I thought about getting CRW-F1 was, well, the good feeling that i'd get for having "elite" drive;) You know, quality, name, and kinky toys to play with.

Now I'm starting to think, that I won't use those toys - both T@2 and Audio Master lower the space on CD, which I never have too much.

But oh well, I guess the final decision will be made at the shop;) I hope it will be a good one.

[tlotz]

There is one other advantage to the Liteon LTR-52246S drive that I would like to mention. This advantage was not mentioned above because it did not affect my choice between the Liteon and Yamaha drives. This advantage is factual. The Liteon drive is compatible with *free* utilities such as CD Doctor and Kprobe that test write quality. The Yamaha drive is not compatible with these utilities. For those who find these utilities convenient, this advantage is relevant. On the other hand, there are probably a lot of people who don't care about write quality testing and would not care about those utilities.

[Spazmogen]

Don't forget that now that Yamaha has ceased production of cd-rw drives, that they probably won't be releasing anymore firmware updates either.

Lite On is still releasing firmware.

[QQ]

Yes, indeed, testing the quality of my burns does matter to me!

[hoxlund]

well you rose the flag when you said you can't copy that fast furious cd, thats where my expertise comes in, cd copy protection that is

it isn't nessecarily all the burner's fault for not reading that disk, it can read that disk, but it has to do with your software you us as well

i would try Exact Audio Copy, or Clony XXL and CloneCD, then you should be able to copy it, no problem

btw, just bought the ATI 9700 Pro All In Wonder today, like an hour ago, $346 from www.gameve.com

just though id let you know, in case you didn't notice my sig change

[hoxlund]

btw i think that fast and furious soundtrack uses some version of cactus for protection, which all 48x and up liteys should be able to handle, might take awhile to rip the tracks, but its doable

[Dartman]

I've used EAC right up to the latest version and it sees the tracks but wont rip them at all. I also tried clone and it just rips blank space. I think it uses the version of catus that was mentioned as not working with LiteOn drives. All my burners that are Liteons do the same thing with it so I must be missing something. My 166s dvd rips it with the first firmware, My Sony 500a rips it fine in burst. That is the only protected audio cd I have, I got it just to test with and becuase a couple of the songs are pretty good. I hear others seem to be able to make it work but so far these have all been consistent no goes.

[hoxlund]

you have to use clony xxl before you use clonecd

[Dartman]

I did that too just to see and it didn't work either. I have others that do work so it's not a big deal anymore just weird that I can't get it to work and others seem to be OK.