Topic: Any 8x Media That Actually Burns At 8x? (Read 190 times)

Gazcoigne · « **Reply #15 on:** January 10, 2007, 09:14:00 AM »

QUOTE(Methadon @ Jan 10 2007, 04:04 PM)

Actually, if it's burning out the laser that's the issue, the fix is *less* than $25. New lasers are selling for under $20 now.

yes i know that but i was being sarcastic in saying that he would not find another DRIVE for that price as he said he could replace it for 25 bux. never mind anyways point is made if you put shit in your burner you will get shit out simple.

telo{+} · « **Reply #16 on:** January 10, 2007, 09:20:00 AM »

QUOTE

personally i wouldnt touch that media, as crap media burns your laser out.

Congrats!!!!! Thats the most retarded thing I read today (its still early).

A laser is not going to burn up from media. There is just no way. I don't think you understand what its doing. Its JUST a flashlight (more like a flashlight with feedback, but thats how YOU can think of it, since 'laser' is too complicated apparently)

The only argument you could even attempt to make is "the disc media sucks so it has to read it more, thus it heats up more" but thats not the case. These drives are designed for how ever many hours of continuous use. The diode is driven solely by pwm, a dac from the micro handles this and its never going to 'overdrive' itself. The harmful result of reading a bad disc for 10min is identical to the ware and tear of 10min of good disc use. That goes for the diode, motor, and any adc / dac / drivers / gates / fets / resistors / caps / etc.

Its like telling someone that your flashlight will die faster if you shine it at ugly people.

I'm an EE so if you want to get schooled on the subject you can PM me. In any case PLEASE stop posting such garbage. It hurts my head.

telo{+} · « **Reply #17 on:** January 10, 2007, 09:31:00 AM »

I have mine flashed as a 111-L. Great Drive!

I know it offers DVD-Ram writing, and LabelFlash, and also read in two places that the L firmware offers a longer leadin-leadout but I can't confirm that.

So, unless thats true the D and L should be identical for backups.

mayonnaise · « **Reply #18 on:** January 10, 2007, 11:10:00 AM »

QUOTE(telo{+} @ Jan 10 2007, 11:27 AM)

Its like telling someone that your flashlight will die faster if you shine it at ugly people.

Mate, that was the most retarded comparison of apples to oranges I've ever seen, especially form someone as cocky as you about being an EE.

The simple fact is this, you're right in saying using a crap disc for ten mins has the same effect as using a quality disc for 10 mins, but thats as far as it goes. What you forgot was to look at the long run and remember what a drive is actually doing.........reading data. The problem then becomes how long it will take to read a said amount of data. For example, say the drive has 15.9MB of data to load. On quality media, this may only take 1 second, on crap media this may(and more often than not does) take multiple seconds or longer than it would on quality media.

So now that we are talking about the data, you see when you compare the same amount of data being read between crap media and quality media, it does require more work (as time = work) from the laser to read the crap media.

telo{+} · « **Reply #19 on:** January 10, 2007, 02:27:00 PM »

QUOTE

when you compare the same amount of data being read between crap media and quality media, it does require more work (as time = work) from the laser to read the crap media.

If you really think you are overworking (read my original post on overworking) by running an extra few seconds here and there? (most drives have an error-stop ratio so that if the number of bad sectors to good is excessive it will just assume the entire disc is bad and abort, at least I can true with CDs at least) Well, its not enough to make a difference. Lets say the drive is rated to last 2000 hours (most components are limited by their shortest living caps) it really doesn't matter. Not sure what the laser life is rated at, but they are severely underpowered and most failures are mfg defects, not power issues. Also, a single second of bad reads is a LOT to get from crappy media will read for the most part.

Its still is, and always will be retarded to say bad discs cause drives to go bad.

mayonnaise · « **Reply #20 on:** January 10, 2007, 03:01:00 PM »

Mate, a few seconds here and there during every min of reading adds up.............(again time = work)

Resonate · « **Reply #21 on:** January 10, 2007, 03:18:00 PM »

QUOTE(slimgrip @ Jan 10 2007, 04:17 PM)

I have a Pioneer 111D burner with FW1.29

In order to burn most 8x media at 8x you need to edit your firmware with MCSE as i had to do with mine to burn Aone 8x discs at 8x

As Gazcoigne says Verb 2.4x dvds burn at 8x & are far the best available, i only use the Aone discs when i cant get verbs

OK Thanks everyone for hyjacking my post and going completly off topic. I think slimgrip may be able to answer my problem though. Can you elaborate on what exactly i need to do to fix my firmware for the disks?.

Also what is LabelFlash? in the L firmware?

telo{+} · « **Reply #22 on:** January 10, 2007, 04:00:00 PM »

QUOTE(Resonate @ Jan 10 2007, 11:25 PM)

OK Thanks everyone for hijacking my post and going completely off topic. - Also what is LabelFlash? in the L firmware?

Sorry for the Hijack, but people need to get their retarded "facts" straight.

Labelflash (try google) is a tech similar to Lightscribe. Based off an older more proven method and its less likely to fade in sunlight. Not very common in the US, not very common anywhere really. Its about as 'cool' as Lightscribe (not very) with a little less support. The only program I know of that utilizes it is Nero.

About the 8x thing.... I mean, if your burner isn't burning at 8x you could try to media code edit (google) the firmware, or you could try burning at 4x or lower...

I mean, how many "backups" are you burning that you "need" 8x speed ? I burn mine at 2-4x and they work just fine, takes 30-40min but who cares ?

Dexter Harvey · « **Reply #23 on:** January 10, 2007, 04:23:00 PM »

QUOTE(nu1mlock @ Jan 10 2007, 09:04 AM)

And I burn my backups at 8x just to be safe, since there is absolutely no need to burn at slower speeds. You can of course do whatever you want, but burning at 2.4x is just plain stupid unless you have a really old system that can't do it any faster.

You do know that the chance of getting a backup burned correctly increases with higher speeds, right? Haven't you read the threads where people can't get backups running when they've burned them at 2.4x? The very same people had to set the speed to 4x to get them working.

But as I said, you can of course burn at 1/2.4x if you want.

Bullshit

TristanBlade · « **Reply #24 on:** January 10, 2007, 10:26:00 PM »

QUOTE(telo{+} @ Jan 10 2007, 11:27 AM)

Its like telling someone that your flashlight will die faster if you shine it at ugly people.

lmao

That is too funny.

knodi · « **Reply #25 on:** January 10, 2007, 10:34:00 PM »

I use 2.4x. Works for me no bad backups yet.

Author Topic: Any 8x Media That Actually Burns At 8x? (Read 190 times)