When Pioneer A06 will be available in US and in Europe?

[dodecahedron]

dude the pioneer a06 sucks compared to sony dru-510a ... and only 2mb buffer

that's never bothered you when it came to Lite-On CDRW drives...

[Kennyshin]

dude the pioneer a06 sucks compared to sony dru-510a ... and only 2mb buffer

that's never bothered you when it came to Lite-On CDRW drives...

For 4x DVD writing, more buffer are more important I think. Even more buffer memory in 48x and 52x CD writers are better. Some 8x CD writers had 8MB buffer. I had three Acer 8x drives that had 8MB each and the first 8x DVD writers will appear in some months. Nearly 10x faster.

[Noua]

I’ve read, and if I’m not mistaken, in this forum that the 8 mb buffer on Sony doesn’t make that big difference when compared with other drives. I cannot remember where but it also said that Sony was even slower to burn some dvds when compared to other drives… Like I said, I cannot remember where so this information cannot be relevant, it’s just a curious issue that someone posted. I’m sure that with interest and time, we can easily find this info.
Nevertheless, the princes on Sony and Pioneer are really high. So for me, right now the bet choice it would be the NEC 1330A for 250€… But I admit… If I could afford I would rather go with Sony or Pioneer. The Pioneer has the youth problem and lack of testing issue, so it’s kind of a question tag… As for the Sony, haven’t read many complains lately so maybe with the last firmware things have had a big improvement…How knows…

[chubz9]

noua, yeah, i have the same problem, choosing between drives, to get the best deal out of our well-earned money, lol...

if the only choice is sony and pioneer, i would definitely go for the sony, that's a no brainer... it is their 3rd or 4th dual format drive, and i would expect it to be improved from one model to the other. for the same price, sony has an even better specs than pioneer, 24x cd write, 16x cd rewrite, 8mb buffer, and 4x dvd+rw rewrite. now, the buffer comes in of your hard drive is slow, or you do a lot of things while a dvd is burning... it is always better to have 8mb of buffer instead of 2mb. although it has buffer under run protection, still, using programs which use a lot of pc resources while burning will slow down a 2mb a lot more than a 8mb drive.... that's how i understand it.

now, let's say pioneer has 8mb of buffer, still i would go for the sony, just by the specs as i've mentioned. A06 is pioneer's first dual format, and for sure it has bugs and stuff, which would eventually be fixed probably by firmware upgrades. and there's no guarantee yet, that the A06 will be as good and as reliable as the A05...

but, there's always TDK 440N, NEC-1300A, Optorite DD0203 dual format drives out there... so it would be a tough choice...

of course, all these are my opinion... i'm also currently selecting the drive to buy... i will buy one too before this month ends... whew!!!

[hoxlund]

8mb is much better to have in dvd burning than cd burning, but now that i have my crw-f1 external (8mb), i love having the 8mb despite it being worthless or not

as for media compatibility, i have no clue where you get that from so far ive burned:

Maxell DVD-R 2x
Maxell DVD+R 2x
Sony DVD-R 2x
Sony DVD+R 2x
Princo DVD-R 4x
Memorex DVD-R 2x
Memorex DVD+R 2x

everyone has worked beutifully in both my computer and tv dvd player

[aviationwiz]

I think the 8MB Buffer is quite nice and I do not find it worthless at all. I think a reason of why people portray it as pointless in these forums is because there are so many close-minded lite-on fans. Because Lite-On only uses 2MB Buffers, people don't want to say that an 8MB buffer is good, because then that would be a strike against Lite-On, as they only use 2MB Buffers. I also find, that in general, that drives with 8MB Buffers tend to do better than drives with 2MB buffers.

[dodecahedron]

i don't know the figures exactly, but according the discussion here:
http://www.cdrlabs.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=11295
8x DVD is equal to 10.78 (or maybe 8.75?) MBytes/sec.
so 4x DVD is equal to say 5 MBytes/sec.

52x CDRW is equal to 7.8 MBytes/sec.

so why's 8MB buffer more important on a 4x DVD than a 52x CDRW?
it's all about data throughput. the mdia itself doesn't matter.

so if 2MB is good enought for a 52x CDRW i don't see why it isn't enough for a 4x DVD burner.
the other way around: if it's better to have a bigger than 2MB buffer for a DVD burner, it must be good on a CDRW drive too.

[dodecahedron]

I think the 8MB Buffer is quite nice and I do not find it worthless at all.

me too. but i am fully aware that's it's mainly a techie thing, and that there's no real significant difference. it's just that i know there is a bigger buffer. and that makes me happy

I also find, that in general, that drives with 8MB Buffers tend to do better than drives with 2MB buffers.

sorry, i have to disagree.
we've seen basically no evidence to support the claim that "a bigger buffer is better".
the closest to this was some posting of Kennyshin's a long time ago, comparing two LG or Samsung drives (don't remember) which were identical except for the larger buffer. the 8MB version performed a little better.
anyway that was a long time ago, may not be accurate/relevant now anymore.

[cfitz]

Oh geez, another one of these kind of threads. I wonder if there is any chance that this won't degenerate into mindless name-calling? Actually, I guess it is already a little too late to avoid that since it has already started, but...

First of all, the size of the buffer has no direct effect on the quality of the discs a drive burns. Take the crummiest drive you can think of (I won't name any particular examples since I don't want to contribute to the stupid flaming), add on an 8 MiB, 16 MiB, 64 MiB, heck, add on a 2048 TiB buffer - as big a buffer as you want - and it won't improve the quality of the burn one whit. The buffer does nothing but hold data to ensure that when the laser needs data, it is there. It does not improve laser focus, tracking, power calibration, servo stability, vibration damping, or any of the other myriad factors that actually contribute to better burn quality.

The only time the size of the buffer makes any difference at all is when your computer is unable to supply data to the drive at the same or greater rate than the drive is actually burning to the disc. In this case, having a larger buffer may prevent a buffer underrun. In the old days, this was critical since a buffer underrun meant a coaster. But these days, all drives come equipped with buffer underrun prevention technologies that detect when the buffer is close to emptying, stop the burning at an appropriate point, and then allow the drive to restart burning where it left off once the buffer has filled again. The net effect? A slow-down in the overall burning since the drive had to pause for a moment, but otherwise no problem.

But wait, you cry, what about that evil link where the drive had to pause and restart?!? Perhaps of abstract, theoretical importance, particularly to the perfectionists in the crowd, but not something of any practical significance. Do you remember Z-CLV burners? They were quite the rage for a while, and had to link every time they switched zones. Did anyone complain about that? Well, okay, some people did (remember the P-CAV vs Z-CLV debates), but I can't imagine there were too many who said "No 40x Z-CLV burner for me, thanks. I'll stick with my 12x CLV burner because I don't want to have links on my discs." And, in the end, we never saw a groundswell of people complaining that their Z-CLV discs didn't work because they had links in them.

Moreover, even if having no links on your discs is of vital importance to you personally, you have to consider your burning habits. Do you regularly burn discs while simultaneously ripping and re-encoding DVDs, converting your mp3 collection to Ogg Vorbis, compiling a custom Linux build and playing full-screen Quake? If not, then you would probably never empty a smaller buffer anyway. Of course I am exaggerating here, but the point is to emphasize that any buffer larger than what you actually use is wasted. The burner doesn't care whether there are 100 kilobytes waiting in the wings or 100 terabytes, as long as is there is always 1 byte when it is needed.

Buy a drive with as big a buffer as you need to make yourself happy. Get out your screwdriver and soldering iron to replace your drive's stock buffer with an even bigger one if you can't buy one that satisfies your need to have the biggest buffer on the block. No one really cares. But please don't throw around baseless claims that confuse neophytes looking for sound advice. And for everyone's sake, please don't waste board bandwidth with stupid "my buffer is bigger than yours" flame threads. What is next? My dad can beat up your dad threads?

cfitz

[dodecahedron]

:roll: Oh geez, another one of these kind of threads. I wonder if there is any chance that this won't degenerate into mindless name-calling? Actually, I guess it is already a little too late to avoid that since it has already started, but...

i guess it's my fault ...sorry.
i seem to have pissed you off.

First of all, the size of the buffer has no direct effect on the quality of the discs a drive burns. Take the crummiest drive you can think of (I won't name any particular examples since I don't want to contribute to the stupid flaming), add on an 8 MiB, 16 MiB, 64 MiB, heck, add on a 2048 TiB buffer - as big a buffer as you want - and it won't improve the quality of the burn one whit. The buffer does nothing but hold data to ensure that when the laser needs data, it is there. It does not improve laser focus, tracking, power calibration, servo stability, vibration damping, or any of the other myriad factors that actually contribute to better burn quality.

The only time the size of the buffer makes any difference at all is when your computer is unable to supply data to the drive at the same or greater rate than the drive is actually burning to the disc. In this case, having a larger buffer may prevent a buffer underrun. In the old days, this was critical since a buffer underrun meant a coaster. But these days, all drives come equipped with buffer underrun prevention technologies that detect when the buffer is close to emptying, stop the burning at an appropriate point, and then allow the drive to restart burning where it left off once the buffer has filled again. The net effect? A slow-down in the overall burning since the drive had to pause for a moment, but otherwise no problem.

nicely said.

But wait, you cry, what about that evil link where the drive had to pause and restart?!? Perhaps of abstract, theoretical importance, particularly to the perfectionists in the crowd, but not something of any practical significance. Do you remember Z-CLV burners? They were quite the rage for a while, and had to link every time they switched zones. Did anyone complain about that? Well, okay, some people did (remember the P-CAV vs Z-CLV debates), but I can't imagine there were too many who said "No 40x Z-CLV burner for me, thanks. I'll stick with my 12x CLV burner because I don't want to have links on my discs." And, in the end, we never saw a groundswell of people complaining that their Z-CLV discs didn't work because they had links in them.

i couldn't have said it better myself.
(and this is exactly what i was saying, this is just the point i was advocating in those ZCLV-PCAV debates )

Buy a drive with as big a buffer as you need to make yourself happy. Get out your screwdriver and soldering iron to replace your drive's stock buffer with an even bigger one if you can't buy one that satisfies your need to have the biggest buffer on the block. No one really cares. But please don't throw around baseless claims that confuse neophytes looking for sound advice. And for everyone's sake, please don't waste board bandwidth with stupid "my buffer is bigger than yours" flame threads. What is next? My dad can beat up your dad threads?

peace, man!
BTW i don't really think my dad can beat up anyone else's dad...he's not too good at beating up people.

[Kennyshin]

I think the 8MB Buffer is quite nice and I do not find it worthless at all.

me too. but i am fully aware that's it's mainly a techie thing, and that there's no real significant difference. it's just that i know there is a bigger buffer. and that makes me happy

I also find, that in general, that drives with 8MB Buffers tend to do better than drives with 2MB buffers.

sorry, i have to disagree.
we've seen basically no evidence to support the claim that "a bigger buffer is better".
the closest to this was some posting of Kennyshin's a long time ago, comparing two LG or Samsung drives (don't remember) which were identical except for the larger buffer. the 8MB version performed a little better.
anyway that was a long time ago, may not be accurate/relevant now anymore.

LG. CDRinfo.co.kr.

The owner of CDRinfo.co.kr tested LG's then-latest CD writers, one with 2MB buffer and the other with 8MB buffer because LG Electronics in Seoul was shipping 2MB-only drives without first telling the South Korean consumers. The websites reviewed only the 8MB version and advertised it. Since LG was saying it made no difference, the guy tested in special situations where it does make big differences. LG replaced 50,000 drives on the market at once (actually taking a few weeks) with 8MB version. There are still thousands of consumers around the key South Korean PC-related websites that are angry with LG only because of the happening (I say happening since the overall processes were not efficient and sending 50,000 drives just to replace 16Mbit chip with 64Mbit chip for no serious technological background is nonsense) just like those that attack Samsung on every chance because of the delayed SM-348B firmware update and Samsung's firmware policy to make their writers refuse to write at 48x speed to a few types of CMC 48x-rated CD-R media distributed in the South Korean market.

But, no, I usually have no problem in recording at 4x DVD-R/+R speed with 2MB-only DVD writer.

Hm. This is the same with larger main memory in a PC. I prefer having at least 512MB since my task manager often reports I am using more than 300 to 400MB. I also have 50 Celeron systems that have only 64MB each. I am wondering how many more memory each of them should have. For some, 128MB will be reasonably enough but I say this only because it is too costly to add 512MB memory to every one of those 50 systems.

[dodecahedron]

LG. CDRinfo.co.kr.

The owner of CDRinfo.co.kr tested LG's then-latest CD writers, one with 2MB buffer and the other with 8MB buffer because LG Electronics in Seoul was shipping 2MB-only drives without first telling the South Korean consumers. The websites reviewed only the 8MB version and advertised it. Since LG was saying it made no difference, the guy tested in special situations where it does make big differences.

that's it!
i really don't understand why the 8MB buffer drive performed better than the 2MB one, since as cfitz has so eloquently explained, it should'nt make a difference.
maybe there was some other difference between the 2 drives except for the buffer size?

[Kennyshin]

LG. CDRinfo.co.kr.

The owner of CDRinfo.co.kr tested LG's then-latest CD writers, one with 2MB buffer and the other with 8MB buffer because LG Electronics in Seoul was shipping 2MB-only drives without first telling the South Korean consumers. The websites reviewed only the 8MB version and advertised it. Since LG was saying it made no difference, the guy tested in special situations where it does make big differences.

that's it!
i really don't understand why the 8MB buffer drive performed better than the 2MB one, since as cfitz has so eloquently explained, it should'nt make a difference.
maybe there was some other difference between the 2 drives except for the buffer size?

Well, cfitz just explained that eloquently in the above post.

It makes a recording time difference when the drive needs more buffer RAM memory to store the data coming from HDD or source CD-ROM before sending it to the disc surface.

LG did it to save manufacturing cost. Samsung continued to add 8MB to most of their CD writers including combo drives like SM-348B and SM-352B which meant something to some users but not to some others. NewEgg first began to sell SM-348B (OEM) with 2MB only while advertising it as having 8MB and had to compensate for the difference.

The more powerful a PC is, especially the parts related to sending data to CD and DVD writers, less buffer memory is needed. The more MB per second a drive is to write at, more buffer memory is needed. Most P4-based systems send data continuously at over 10MB/s. 2MB buffer can store data that are written to the disc for approximately 0.33 second at 40x CD-R speed. Even at 52x speed with Lite-On 52x writers, it was difficult to see a write pause due to buffer underrun. But what about when the PC is doing some other tasks such as encoding HDTV-recorded files of 1920x1080 using DivX or WMV9 or when the source is an 80-minute CD Audio disc with 20 or more tracks located in a CD-ROM drive which is connected to the channel to which the writer is also connected?

LG and Lite-On IT use 2MB only to most of their shipped CD writers and combo drives because they believe most CD writer users do not need more than that. That alone accounts for half of the market.

[cfitz]

i guess it's my fault ...sorry.
i seem to have pissed you off.

No, no, no! My rant wasn't directed at you dodecahedron, and I am sorry if I gave that impression. You just happened to have made the last post before mine. In fact, your statement was perfectly reasonable:

i am fully aware that's it's mainly a techie thing, and that there's no real significant difference. it's just that i know there is a bigger buffer. and that makes me happy

There is nothing wrong with buying a drive with a bigger buffer because it makes you feel happy. For most people that is probably the best reason to do so.

Kennyshin has made some valid points as well.

My objection is to statements that imply that a larger buffer somehow equates to a superior drive and a smaller buffer to an inferior drive. The situation is more nuanced than that, as I explained in my earlier post.

In general, the size of the buffer should not be high on one's list of criteria when considering the purchase of a drive. If all else is equal then fine, give a few bonus points to the drive with the larger buffer. It doesn't hurt. And there may be some secondary correlation where a manufacturer that decides to spend extra money on a better design and higher quality optical/mechanical/servo components also decides to spend extra money on a larger buffer. But, then again, there may not. Perhaps a manufacturer will skimp on an important but invisible part in order to include a larger buffer, because the manufacturer knows that the larger buffer size will play to a certain segment of consumers. There are uneducated consumers whose perception of quality is based on a simple "bigger is better" mentality. Let's just hope that CDRLabs readers are above that sort of mentality.

cfitz

[whoster69]

Well, let me add my novice's opinion to the Sony versus Pioneer debate (for what little it's worth... )

I just bought the Pioneer A06. I was standing in Best Buy. In fact I drove two frigging hours in the hot sun with no air conditioning to do so (but that's another story) and was looking at the Sony DRU-510A and the Pioneer A06. Both were 329 smackers at Best Buy (not a great price but OK and I was hot and tired and out of time).

I decided to go with the Pioneer over the Sony. Why? I can hear the Sony folks saying, but it has an 8MB buffer and can burn +RW at 4X! Yeah, I know. I like those things about the Sony too. However, in reading the posts here and at several other sites, I've seen two disturbing things about the Sony that I haven't seen with the Pioneer. First, a small but significant number of people have had their drives fail early. Some poor bastard even had two fail on him in a row. Getting replacements from Sony wasn't exactly easy either (Sony isn't known for great tech support).

Second, the Sony seems to be picky at which media it will work with reliably compared to some drives (like the A05 -and yes I know it's only a dash drive). Several people have complained about this. I have a friend that bought the Sony and he sold it he was so disappointed with this about it. He had real trouble getting it to work with any of the cheapo media. I also liked the software that came with the Pioneer better than the Sony's (but again I'm a novice at DVD burners so I could be wrong here).

Does this mean the Pioneer is better? Nope. I would have loved to have waited to get mine in a few weeks after some other poor bastards had tested it and reported back. I didn't have that option. I had to buy now. So I may be that poor bastard in this case.

I bought the Pioneer thinking that it would have great dash support and I am hoping that this first version Pioneer plus drive will have good plus support as well, but I'm taking a risk and totally am guessing here. I could get burned (no pun intended). Pioneer, it seems from what I've read, is one of the better if not the best DVD burner makers out there. They intentionally left their +RW support at 2.4X instead of 4X and said that they weren't happy with the way 4X was working on the +RW side of things. I'd rather they don't push it than support it but not have it work in many 4X discs. Reliability is more important than speed to me.

Could I have made a mistake and gone with the wrong drive? Yep. I made my best guess at the time listening the that obnoxious music in Best Buy blaring at me. The Sony is a good drive after all.

It'll be interesting to see how this drive does. I bought a bunch of discs including +R, +RW, -R, & -RW. I'll try to post my experiences here with the drive. I'll probably have a lot of questions for you folks (probably some dumb newbie ones even). If there's anything any of you would like me to test about the drive, let me know. I'd like to find out how this baby performs as much as all of you would.

[hoxlund]

i respect your remarks, but ill have to say again, what is this media compatibility im hearing, ive test almost every form of dvd media in my sony dru-510a, and i haven't had a single problem

i especially love being able to copy movies, it is as easy as copying cds

[whoster69]

i respect your remarks, but ill have to say again, what is this media compatibility im hearing, ive test almost every form of dvd media in my sony dru-510a, and i haven't had a single problem

i especially love being able to copy movies, it is as easy as copying cds

I got this info from reading many posts in several different forums. I also had a friend that tried the drive and had problems. I could be completely mistaken about this. Maybe the people that had problems (including my friend) don't know what they're doing. Maybe some of the Sony drives are better than others too. I just saw enough of a pattern to be concerned about this. I'm not stating that this is an actual problem, but it is a perceived one on my part and unfortunately, I didn't have the time to research it more thoroughly before buying (like I usually do).

What cheapo media have you used in your drive?

[hoxlund]

right now im hooked on some princo 4x's, these ones:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... 2734059335

[Ian]

Maybe the people that had problems (including my friend) don't know what they're doing.

[Kennyshin]

right now im hooked on some princo 4x's, these ones:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... 2734059335

Perhaps Rima.com's price is better.

[hoxlund]

wow these do look very good:

http://www.rima.com/Merchant2/merchant. ... de=1685-50

[Kennyshin]

wow these do look very good:

http://www.rima.com/Merchant2/merchant. ... de=1685-50

It's US$1.2 per disc.

If you buy 1,200 discs at once, US$.99 per disc.

It's cheaper than Ritek 4x DVD-R OEM.

[hoxlund]

yeah the ones i just bought, these ones now:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... 11163&rd=1

are $1.27 a piece, but i don't think there 4x

[chubz9]

yeah, they don't look 4x to me, based on its title and description... hmmm....

anybody had experience with rima.com? are they reliable? of course i could check resellerratings.com on this, but, if anybody had experience with them, might as well... would any of you guys be able to recommend even more GOOD sites to order media from? +R's and -R, and +RWs as well.. thanks.

[Noua]

whoster69,

Well I guess I have the same problem you used to had, but I have another option. After I found a special firmware that deals with media compatibility problem I have included the NEC 1300A on my options...

I can only say that I agree with you. Please report the experience with the A06 cause I'm very, very curious...

By the way, I want to say that I have a Plextor and no Lite On, i know it has 4mb of buffer. For me it's more than enough, and I recall that I took 2 moths to decide witch drive to get. I've always wanted the Plextor, cause I knew they were top quality and I'm glad I choose it. Now until a few days ago, I was hopping for a price drop on the Sony drive cause that was the one I wanted, but after reading several posts I decided to wait a little bit more, specially because new drives were coming out.

Right now, I'm really waiting for reviews on the A06 (Ian, when a review from CDRLabs? :D) and if the results are good, I'd rather go for the A06 specially because the A05 has given good results. I know the A06 is a totally new and different drive, but I cannot believe that Pioneer has been sleeping all this time and I'm pretty sure that the A06 will be a big surprise...

But not everything is good news and the price here lies a big issue making the NEC one reliable option... 326€ or $ is too much for a DVD burner, specially when we have cd burners costing 60€/$... I'll wait a little bit more until I decide witch one to get. So far the Sony and the A06 have the lead but Nec is right up there... Let's see who wins the race for me... :D:D

A final comment... Although the drives are different but has anyone, in the exact same system, compared the performances of 8 and 2 MB buffer drives? Just to clarify once and for all this issue?