Are there any forum threads about this review yet? Please merge this if there is.

I'd like to point out that the whole idea of the TRT in that review was not a good idea. I would have used a completely different drive for ALL TRT. Infact I would have used a fussy drive such as the Optiarc. LG drives are far to good at reading poor discs.

I've had a number of poor burns in the past that my liteon drives simply cannot read. For example, today I was trying to back up an old Ritek G05 disc. In my liteon it had about 34 read retries and could not get past 95%. I put it in my LG and it did not slow down for a second. This is the case for both LG drives I own, and they are of different models also, so I am fairly certain LG drives are excellent readers when it comes to poor burns. As for scratched discs, for some reason that's different, the liteons and LGs are usually pretty even. But as I said, LGs are definitely great drives for reading crappy burns, unfortunately this makes them completely useless for TRT when they can cleanly read past extremely bad discs without any hitches.

Thank you for the comments, cd pirate.

The first thing I would like to point out is that the scope of the specific test was not to decide on the ability of two readers to read DVD+R/-Rs, but to show the influence of the burning speed in the so-called writing quality, which can be expressed though the digital errors reported through the measurements for each disc. The reading tests had a complementary role here.

As you realise, there are multiple possibilities to expand this test, with more media and burners, in order to have a statistically more correct conclusion.

The specific burners/readers were randomly selected for the specific test. They are currently available on the market, and they ought to perform decently as readers at least. It is unacceptable to burn your favourite movie at 16x on a disc, and then realise that the disc can be actualy read by a single drive, don't you think?

(in reply to cd pirate)

Thanks for the Slow vs Fast Writing Review. I hope this will be expanded to include more writer/media combinations in the future. On a side note I have a LITE-ON LH-20A1P and an LG-H55N and my TRT's are invariably flawless when scanning burns from the LG on the 20A1P. Totally unlike the saw-tooth graphs you show in your tests.

(in reply to Tony Veglis)

quote:

ORIGINAL: steven2874

On a side note I have a LITE-ON LH-20A1P and an LG-H55N and my TRT's are invariably flawless when scanning burns from the LG on the 20A1P. Totally unlike the saw-tooth graphs you show in your tests.

The LiteOn LH-20A1P was not a particularly good reader with KL05 firmware (and presumably earlier firmware).
With later firmware updates it's now a much stronger reader, which means that smooth Transfer Rate Tests are much more likely and if you perform Disc Quality Scans at high speed, the reported PIE/PIF will also in general be lower than with early firmware.

The firmware version used in the review is KL05.

(in reply to steven2874)