Hi all

In the past few days, there has been great attention drawn to the act of conversion from 451S --> 832S class firmware. Kudos to codeking for his efforts here. He has brought to the community a wealth of joy!

But, I'd like to take the chance to express another opinion on the matter, from where I stand on this issue. While it has been proven by myself and the author of dvdinfopro time and time again by simply cracking drive shells, that the hardware is the same in many respects bar small electronic components being changed, each drive has individual and feature calibration that cannot be attended to "after market" perse. What does this mean in practical application? Calibration data for a 451S EEPROM is != to that of an 832S EEPROM! Infact, they are QUITE different indeed!

I know there are differing opinions on this however. That is fair enough. We are all entitled to our own opinions.

As a warning bell - concerning our own experiences, we have seen this all lead to unusable drives, burned out lasers and all sorts of problems associated with making the hardware work in a way that was never intended for it. One recent example occured with a friends hardware whilst strategy swapping. After returning to a stock EEPROM and firmware, the drive was no longer able to write media without a CIRC error no matter how test or control conditions were changed.

I'd like to think that people look before they leap here at cdrinfo.com as I know the people here to be a very well thought out bunch of people, with good minds.

Once again, it should be noted that these modifications are a wonder for the enthusiast - and once again, Kudos to c0deking for his work. I think he does indeed deserve a pat on the back for all his efforts!

This is BY NO MEANS an attempt to discredit the work of others! Just realise that there is more to this situation of modification than people realise.

Certain individuals are a little more restrained than myself so let me put this bluntly "you're all idiots".

Let me be more diplomatic. The attention you and others are creating and attracting by means of advertising your abilities to main stream, such as http://slashdot.org/articles/04/07/14/2019241.shtml?tid=137&tid=164&tid=185&tid=198
is not exactly the wisest thing to do ...

consider for one moment, that by raising awareness on HTML sites that are commonly accessible (and forums are not, casual browsers skip those generally because they recognise them as opinion and not authority) means more people will hack their drives, this leads to 2 things
1 losses for the drive manufacturers (lost sales) and
2 losses for the drive manufacturers (warranty calls).

Unlike overclocking, which mere mortals don't run around doing, unless they are literate enough to know what they are doing (because if they don't they won't try again) running cracked firmware is a little bit more involved. If a manufacturer gets enough stuffed drive back (which exceed their projections) they are gonna scratch their heads ... WAIT ... no they won't they know what's being done.

Use common sense when you do this stuff, don't advertise too much, and don't get plebs to do stuff they probably shouldn't. You don't peer presure people into putting "speed holes" into the hood of their cars. This isn't that different.

(in reply to zebra)

quote:

ORIGINAL: chakkerz

You don't peer presure people into putting "speed holes" into the hood of their cars. This isn't that different.

Wait, you mean speed holes don't really work???

But seriously, I think both opinions are very valid. CodeKing and Code65536 are simply trying to see what they can do, how far they can push it before things don't work anymore. They have pulled off some amazing things, and should be lauded for it. They really are the kind of people who were once referred to as elite hackers (before script kiddies destroyed the term). On the other hand, like with 95% of all hacking, there are potential hazards. People need to seriously realize that by modding their drive they are really HONESTLY running the risk of not having a drive anymore. And people who go out and do these sort of hacks should also be honest enough to know that they took the risks, and should not try to return the drive on warranty when they have knowingly taken actions which could destroy it. Sadly many people are not this honest...

I guess what I'm trying to say is, it would be a real shame for a discovery like this to go un-displayed. But a very high level of care and caution must also be used in the distribution of this sort of hack.

(in reply to chakkerz)

That's it, "be sensible".

Too many "mortals" do this and the scene goes down the drain ... sorta like script kiddies killed the hacking scene ... besides script kiddies aren't hackers they are users ... hackers are those that sit down and code for their enjoyment creating a data structure that is neat, that break an encryption algorithm, that crack a password to a big iron system to crunch seti ... not the guys that remove the CD checking code on a game ... heck I've done that ... ah ... i'm getting old ... haven't looked into that since Pentium 166's were fast...

(in reply to Dolphinius_Rex)

I can say my personnal opinion, not absolutly re-presenting official cdrinfo statement.

For sure LiteON has gathered the acceptance of the CD/DVD community with their legendary speed hacks, 40X->48X, 48X->52X, etc...Nowdays the speed hacks are even higher with 4X->8X or adding DL writing abilities to older drives.

From users side, this is the best un-official support they can get, new features/higher recording speeds, without paying a single cent. Users should be aware that such overclocking may lead to broken drives, i assume users who try them, already can take the risk of a broken drive. Of course other users, just try for having fun, without taking in mind the risks and afterwards complain...

From LiteON side, its a go-nogo situation, from one side they get user's attention, meaning a potential LiteON buyer could overclock his drive and get the abilities/features of a new annouched model, while at the other side, loosing potential customers who would buy the new drive (mainly this goes for DL writing) and returns of broken drives (from bad flashing or malfunction)...

I don't know if the differences at the 451S/832S EEPROM will play any major role at the life circle of the drive, as time passes users who tried such hack will tell us their results...

(in reply to chakkerz)

A little off topic, but the 40x->48x hack you mentioned had some very interesting consequences for me! Like burning a full 80min CD-R @40x only taking 2:15 (see attached image)

(in reply to emperor)

Which attached image?

(in reply to Dolphinius_Rex)

quote:

ORIGINAL: emperor

Which attached image?

The one I was attaching while you were reading the post

(in reply to emperor)

haha, now i saw

(in reply to Dolphinius_Rex)

1/ Zebra is correct in that C0deKing deserves the lion's share of the credit for all this. :) I was just his helper monkey for this one. So please, quit giving me so much credit!

2/ I think our opinion about the 451S EEPROM vs. 832S EEPROM has been made clear already. ;) We do not believe that there is such a difference. Additionally, it should be noted that the GSC2 firmware was actually a disguised US0N. It was our runner-up to this, and people had good results with GSC2 and no problems whatsoever. We have both been running @832S for quite some time now and have encountered no problems. Emperically, we do not feel that such a difference exists. Also, from looking at the EEPROMs, we also do not feel that such a difference exists. But as Zebra accurately points out, this is just a matter of opinion, and I suppose we have a difference of such.

3/ The publicity was not intended. We didn't know that it had been posted by the CDF news staff and subsequently slashdotted until I was informed about it by a forum member (I was busy doing other things and not even paying attention). We recognize that too much publicity is probably a bad thing, and we both kinda wish that CDF never posted it on the front page. But what's done is done. However, the 2500A@2510A was also put in the spotlight and slashdotted. And nothing bad came out of that one, even though that arguably made a MUCH larger splash than this.

(in reply to emperor)

So what's next SOHW-1213S ->1613S?

(in reply to code65536)

Yeah - thats a pretty straight down the line conversion however. ;)

hehe

(in reply to zebra)

quote:

ORIGINAL: zebra

While it has been proven by myself and the author of dvdinfopro time and time again by simply cracking drive shells, that the hardware is the same in many respects bar small electronic components being changed, each drive has individual and feature calibration that cannot be attended to "after market" perse. What does this mean in practical application? Calibration data for a 451S EEPROM is != to that of an 832S EEPROM! Infact, they are QUITE different indeed!

I know there are differing opinions on this however. That is fair enough. We are all entitled to our own opinions.

As a warning bell - concerning our own experiences, we have seen this all lead to unusable drives, burned out lasers and all sorts of problems associated with making the hardware work in a way that was never intended for it. One recent example occured with a friends hardware whilst strategy swapping. After returning to a stock EEPROM and firmware, the drive was no longer able to write media without a CIRC error no matter how test or control conditions were changed.

Hi zebra, this was a fear of mine regarding all this. In that Lite-On would change something so minute that users alike would overlook this 'tiny', but impersive change.

quote:

ORIGINAL: code65536
I think our opinion about the 451S EEPROM vs. 832S EEPROM has been made clear already. ;) We do not believe that there is such a difference. Additionally, it should be noted that the GSC2 firmware was actually a disguised US0N. It was our runner-up to this, and people had good results with GSC2 and no problems whatsoever. We have both been running @832S for quite some time now and have encountered no problems. Emperically, we do not feel that such a difference exists. Also, from looking at the EEPROMs, we also do not feel that such a difference exists. But as Zebra accurately points out, this is just a matter of opinion, and I suppose we have a difference of such.

Now we have this, the 'all is well' point of view. I know code65536 knows what he is talking about.

This is why I don't use O/C Lite-On drives to burn media - it's just too a grey area for me. The burn process simply saying 100% complete does NOT satisfy me.

Both points have exceptional relevance and are meaningful.

However, I would be very interested in other opinions, since this is a case that where I do not know enough about the internals of the MediaTek/Lite-On chipset/PUH/EEPROM etc to lean to a side. This is what annoys me. I hope somebody out there is reading this and *actually* knows the answer, speaking from a technical point of view.

Thanks for this thread zebra, I think it is important enough that it should remain at the top

(in reply to zebra)

Funny you mention it - think I'll be having a chat to MTK pretty soon.

quote:

ORIGINAL: zebra

Funny you mention it - think I'll be having a chat to MTK pretty soon.

Hopefully you can get some answers about if the EEPROM's do infact differ between models...

(in reply to zebra)