Hi Kristopher -
Saw your post to my question; so you're saying Plextor has a d/l DVD RW? I checked Plextor-America's site and didn't see a D/L model there. Can you point me to a link?
Well well, quite a hodge podge of opinions and corrections.
First of all the "retail" version with "honeycombed" casing to lower noise is not out yet. Its PART number is DVR-A08XL.
DVR-108 is the name of the drive and DVR-108D is the bare drive OEM bulk PART number.
After reading AT review, I had actually written a check to edazz.com for 5 of them ($89 shipped). Thanks to comments here, I ripped up the check and am now on hold again.
As far as the Plextor being $30 more expensive, pricegrabber.com has it for ~$122 at several vendors with 2 dif $30 rebate coupons noted, good until Oct.
So then I went to cdrlabs.com and saw one of the the new Liteon 16X will have a USB port version...
"Also available in an external version around October, the SOHW-1633SX offers an integrated USB 2.0 port for easy, flexible connectivity, and is ideal for users ‘on the go’."
"Fewer mistakes than usual" comment by belzer - heh heh. Quite an indictment.
I really need some DVD burners badly, but I guess I have to wait this stuff out.
And will have to take future AT optical reviews with a grain of salt - so to speak.
I never read Anandtech's optical storage reviews, why? Because any burner reviews without tests on protected media is not worth my time reading. I browsed through the article quickly and once again, no tests are done on ripping and burning protected titles. If I was wrong because I browsed too quickly, I apologize. I would love to see this changed though, Maybe future articles can include these tests?
Congratulations, fewer mistakes in this reveiw than usual. Here is a major one though:
"CMC MAG F01
This is an Imation disc rated at 8x write speeds."
If this was rated 8x, which I doubt, it must be a mistake in production. CMC MAG F01 is the MID for CMC Magnetics 4x certified discs. If you had really tried a CMC Magnetics 8x disc, MID CMC MAG E01, you would actually have been able to try the burner @16x speed as it allows overspeeding on this media.
"Without a doubt, this is the best DVD Recorder that we have tested to date. We are looking forward to catching a glimpse of some of the BenQ and NEC solutions in the upcoming weeks, but until we can obtain samples, we have to claim the Pioneer DVR-108D as our recommendation for best DVD recorder."
I realy cant understand your situation. In Germany we can buy for example the BenQ 1600 already since nearly 1 month (I have bought the BenQ 1610 yesterday). The Pioneer DVR-108D is available since 2 weeks now. Same thing with the 16x burners from Asus, LiteOn, NEC, Philips, Samsung, Sony, and Teac.
I realy like this site because of the competent and trustworthy tests - and so i'm realy disappointed about the DVD-Burner Section :/
So if youre looking for realy extensive and up-to-date DVD-Burner tests my hint is: www.cdrinfo.com
Did you do the mouseover image thing? We in fact did these tests multiple times, you are usually just seeing the best burns that came out. Pioneer's burner produced lower errors with faster burns. Those are the only two elements needed to really compare two burners with equal feature sets.
But then again, The Plextor unit costs $30 more, does not write dual layer discs and cannot read DVD-RAM. Considering the Pioneer can do anything the Plextor can, or better, for 25% less we would have to be foolish to call the Pioneer anything short of the best burner we have tested yet.
Phiro: I think Abit tried a legacy-free motherboard a few years ago and it bombed terribly - it had no PS/2 or serial/parallel ports but was pretty much the same otherwise.
The same goes with PCIe and AGP; even though Intel is forcefully doing their best to ditch the godawful technology, you have people like Gigabyte and MSI who go off and design an 915P motherboard that bridges AGP through the southbridge.
Can you name some other technologies that stick around with better, simplier technologies that have been available (for the same cost even!) to replace them for years?
DVI versus D-sub
USB versus PS/2 (at least argumentally)
USB versus LPT
.
.
.
A lot of people who might want to buy a new drive don't have SATA support on their mobo, but everyone has IDE.
I too hope more optical drives become available in SATA as that would be my preferred next choice. If Windows XP SP2 doesn't include SATA drivers as a standard part of the installation, it damn well should.
I guess the ND-3500A will be a wonderful drive when it is reviewed, its the one I would go for given the trouble free operation I've had with my ND-2500A which hasn't burned a single bad disc (I verify everything). I couldn't care less about 8x or higher burn speeds, or DL so long as they mean more expensive discs and lower quality burns though.
Until every little atapi device switches to a SATA connection inherently, regardless of performance gains, we're not going to see our old IDE headers on our motherboards going away.
Just like the floppy drive connector. Look how long serial & parallel ports stuck around, PS2 keyboards & mice are STILL being stuck with brand new systems - USB has had legacy support available to all bios makers for a long, long time.
I really don't know how you are saying this is the best DVD burner by far, it seems the plextor comes out ahead just as many times as the pioneer, and I think they are probably of very similar quality, also, you don't repeat any of your tests, how do I know the plextor didn't just get a bad disk in the single test you run with it, or vice versa.
Why exactly are you saying the pioneer is easily the best DVD burner you've tested? I'm not convinced at all that its the best, although it seems at least decent.
I don't want SATA just for performance gains - I want it for the cabling and the simplicity, and I can't wait to ditch the stupid ide headers on our motherboards.
Every little ATAPI/whatever device going to SATA would make this a reality, regardless if it gets a performance boost.
SATA wouldn't yield any performance gain because the bottleneck is not the cable speed. It's the speed at wish the laser can read the disc that is the bottleneck.
Ian@CDRlabs:
>How can you say this drive is the best you've tested when you haven't even burned any discs at 16x?
Um? It burns the best quality discs at 12X and 8X. It doesnt have to burn at 16X to still burn better than any drive we have tested. And not that that really matters since 16X media availabilty is fairly non-existant still.
Unfortunately, I only have Ritek GO3s right now so I cannot test 16x.I forgot to mention that I had the same results burning a Ritek 2.4x DVD-R9. It seemed to burn fine (using the latest version of Nero and DVD Shrink) but when I read it, it fails at the second layer.
With the 1.04 and 1.06 firmwares, yes, 12X was faster than 16X. However 1.10 starts the 16X zone a bit earlier, enough so that 16X burning is now faster than 12X. And yes, I also own one. However I use the beta firmware hack made by >:NIL - this allows overburning of 4X media (I can write Ritek G04s at 12X). Btw, booktype setting doesn't matter with DVD-R, it's not applicable.
I own a 108. Yes, it does read slower than it's counterparts. My Lite-On SOHC-5232K/Toshiba M1802 are faster readers. What I don't understand is why the review was done with firmware version 1.04 when they have two new firmwares out? I am using firmware 1.10 and it will burn my Ritek R03s 8x at 12x. It would only do 8x with v1.04
Also, CDR Info did a review. On their tests, the write time was faster at 12x than 16x. They list a quote from Pioneer as to why this happens. As far as booktype setting: With +R DL media, it automaticaly sets it to 0000h (DVD-ROM). It doesn't support it with -/+ R.
Bitsetting basically describes what type of disc it is (only matters for DVD+R(W) and DL discs). Having a drive able to let you set the bitsetting means you can write discs that seem to be DVD-ROM discs not writables, and so old dvd-players can handle them better.
Another thing I noticed in the article, the image shows the Ritek R03 discs burnt at only 4X on the Pioneer, yet you say "Even at that ambitious burn ..." and "the Pioneer wins this bout both in speed and write quality". Wrong image link perhaps?
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
36 Comments
Back to Article
DarthRanger - Saturday, September 4, 2004 - link
Hi Kristopher -Saw your post to my question; so you're saying Plextor has a d/l DVD RW? I checked Plextor-America's site and didn't see a D/L model there. Can you point me to a link?
Thanks,
Darth Ranger
Bozo Galora - Saturday, September 4, 2004 - link
Well well, quite a hodge podge of opinions and corrections.First of all the "retail" version with "honeycombed" casing to lower noise is not out yet. Its PART number is DVR-A08XL.
DVR-108 is the name of the drive and DVR-108D is the bare drive OEM bulk PART number.
I got that info from the cdrinfo article touted above, which does seem to be a lot more informative, and paints a lot less rosy picture of the drive.
http://cdrinfo.com/Sections/Reviews/Specific.aspx?...
After reading AT review, I had actually written a check to edazz.com for 5 of them ($89 shipped). Thanks to comments here, I ripped up the check and am now on hold again.
As far as the Plextor being $30 more expensive, pricegrabber.com has it for ~$122 at several vendors with 2 dif $30 rebate coupons noted, good until Oct.
So then I went to cdrlabs.com and saw one of the the new Liteon 16X will have a USB port version...
"Also available in an external version around October, the SOHW-1633SX offers an integrated USB 2.0 port for easy, flexible connectivity, and is ideal for users ‘on the go’."
"Fewer mistakes than usual" comment by belzer - heh heh. Quite an indictment.
I really need some DVD burners badly, but I guess I have to wait this stuff out.
And will have to take future AT optical reviews with a grain of salt - so to speak.
kcma - Friday, September 3, 2004 - link
I never read Anandtech's optical storage reviews, why? Because any burner reviews without tests on protected media is not worth my time reading. I browsed through the article quickly and once again, no tests are done on ripping and burning protected titles. If I was wrong because I browsed too quickly, I apologize. I would love to see this changed though, Maybe future articles can include these tests?bendixG15 - Thursday, September 2, 2004 - link
Okay;;Is there a diference between the modelDVR-108 asnd the DVR-108D ????
KristopherKubicki - Thursday, September 2, 2004 - link
Questar: The ridata media is pretty terrible. I havent seen another burner that burns it well either.Then again, look at some of our other dual layer tests that cant even burn the good MKM stuff.
Kristopher
mud - Wednesday, September 1, 2004 - link
"but since dual layer media still costs several dollars a disc"Can someone tell me where I can find dual layer media at that price!?
Questar - Wednesday, September 1, 2004 - link
A drive that FAILED half of the +R9 tests is considered the best drive you have ever tested?!?WTF was an average drive then??
KristopherKubicki - Wednesday, September 1, 2004 - link
Belzer youre correct, ill have that changed.Kristopher
Belzer - Wednesday, September 1, 2004 - link
Congratulations, fewer mistakes in this reveiw than usual. Here is a major one though:"CMC MAG F01
This is an Imation disc rated at 8x write speeds."
If this was rated 8x, which I doubt, it must be a mistake in production. CMC MAG F01 is the MID for CMC Magnetics 4x certified discs. If you had really tried a CMC Magnetics 8x disc, MID CMC MAG E01, you would actually have been able to try the burner @16x speed as it allows overspeeding on this media.
KristopherKubicki - Wednesday, September 1, 2004 - link
DarthRanger: I am guessing you didnt read the review.Kristopher
arswihart - Wednesday, September 1, 2004 - link
Anyone know where to get a retail dvr-108d?Tote Hose - Wednesday, September 1, 2004 - link
"Without a doubt, this is the best DVD Recorder that we have tested to date. We are looking forward to catching a glimpse of some of the BenQ and NEC solutions in the upcoming weeks, but until we can obtain samples, we have to claim the Pioneer DVR-108D as our recommendation for best DVD recorder."I realy cant understand your situation. In Germany we can buy for example the BenQ 1600 already since nearly 1 month (I have bought the BenQ 1610 yesterday). The Pioneer DVR-108D is available since 2 weeks now. Same thing with the 16x burners from Asus, LiteOn, NEC, Philips, Samsung, Sony, and Teac.
I realy like this site because of the competent and trustworthy tests - and so i'm realy disappointed about the DVD-Burner Section :/
So if youre looking for realy extensive and up-to-date DVD-Burner tests my hint is: www.cdrinfo.com
DarthRanger - Wednesday, September 1, 2004 - link
What about Plextor adding a D/L media DVD writer to their line up? I'm surprised they haven't brought one out by now.KristopherKubicki - Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - link
arswihart:Did you do the mouseover image thing? We in fact did these tests multiple times, you are usually just seeing the best burns that came out. Pioneer's burner produced lower errors with faster burns. Those are the only two elements needed to really compare two burners with equal feature sets.
But then again, The Plextor unit costs $30 more, does not write dual layer discs and cannot read DVD-RAM. Considering the Pioneer can do anything the Plextor can, or better, for 25% less we would have to be foolish to call the Pioneer anything short of the best burner we have tested yet.
Kristopher
KristopherKubicki - Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - link
Phiro: I think Abit tried a legacy-free motherboard a few years ago and it bombed terribly - it had no PS/2 or serial/parallel ports but was pretty much the same otherwise.The same goes with PCIe and AGP; even though Intel is forcefully doing their best to ditch the godawful technology, you have people like Gigabyte and MSI who go off and design an 915P motherboard that bridges AGP through the southbridge.
Can you name some other technologies that stick around with better, simplier technologies that have been available (for the same cost even!) to replace them for years?
DVI versus D-sub
USB versus PS/2 (at least argumentally)
USB versus LPT
.
.
.
The list goes on!
Kristopher
PrinceGaz - Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - link
A lot of people who might want to buy a new drive don't have SATA support on their mobo, but everyone has IDE.I too hope more optical drives become available in SATA as that would be my preferred next choice. If Windows XP SP2 doesn't include SATA drivers as a standard part of the installation, it damn well should.
I guess the ND-3500A will be a wonderful drive when it is reviewed, its the one I would go for given the trouble free operation I've had with my ND-2500A which hasn't burned a single bad disc (I verify everything). I couldn't care less about 8x or higher burn speeds, or DL so long as they mean more expensive discs and lower quality burns though.
Phiro - Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - link
I should have phrased that last line differently.Until every little atapi device switches to a SATA connection inherently, regardless of performance gains, we're not going to see our old IDE headers on our motherboards going away.
Just like the floppy drive connector. Look how long serial & parallel ports stuck around, PS2 keyboards & mice are STILL being stuck with brand new systems - USB has had legacy support available to all bios makers for a long, long time.
arswihart - Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - link
I really don't know how you are saying this is the best DVD burner by far, it seems the plextor comes out ahead just as many times as the pioneer, and I think they are probably of very similar quality, also, you don't repeat any of your tests, how do I know the plextor didn't just get a bad disk in the single test you run with it, or vice versa.Why exactly are you saying the pioneer is easily the best DVD burner you've tested? I'm not convinced at all that its the best, although it seems at least decent.
Phiro - Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - link
I don't want SATA just for performance gains - I want it for the cabling and the simplicity, and I can't wait to ditch the stupid ide headers on our motherboards.Every little ATAPI/whatever device going to SATA would make this a reality, regardless if it gets a performance boost.
Fishie - Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - link
SATA wouldn't yield any performance gain because the bottleneck is not the cable speed. It's the speed at wish the laser can read the disc that is the bottleneck.RyanVM - Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - link
No SATA? Count me out.(I hope manufacturers read these comments)
Fishie - Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - link
I decided to test that Ritek DVD+R DL (DVD 9) disc in my Toshiba M1802 DVD-ROM. It actually finished the test but it doesn't look so good.http://www.adventurousduo.com/host/ritekr9dltoshib...
KristopherKubicki - Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - link
Ian@CDRlabs:>How can you say this drive is the best you've tested when you haven't even burned any discs at 16x?
Um? It burns the best quality discs at 12X and 8X. It doesnt have to burn at 16X to still burn better than any drive we have tested. And not that that really matters since 16X media availabilty is fairly non-existant still.
Kristopher
Fishie - Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - link
Unfortunately, I only have Ritek GO3s right now so I cannot test 16x.I forgot to mention that I had the same results burning a Ritek 2.4x DVD-R9. It seemed to burn fine (using the latest version of Nero and DVD Shrink) but when I read it, it fails at the second layer.Degrador - Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - link
With the 1.04 and 1.06 firmwares, yes, 12X was faster than 16X. However 1.10 starts the 16X zone a bit earlier, enough so that 16X burning is now faster than 12X. And yes, I also own one. However I use the beta firmware hack made by >:NIL - this allows overburning of 4X media (I can write Ritek G04s at 12X). Btw, booktype setting doesn't matter with DVD-R, it's not applicable.Fishie - Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - link
I own a 108. Yes, it does read slower than it's counterparts. My Lite-On SOHC-5232K/Toshiba M1802 are faster readers. What I don't understand is why the review was done with firmware version 1.04 when they have two new firmwares out? I am using firmware 1.10 and it will burn my Ritek R03s 8x at 12x. It would only do 8x with v1.04http://wwwbsc.pioneer.co.jp/product-e/ibs/device_e...
http://wwwbsc.pioneer.co.jp/product-e/ibs/device_e...
http://www.pioneer-eur.com/eur/support_software.js...
Also, CDR Info did a review. On their tests, the write time was faster at 12x than 16x. They list a quote from Pioneer as to why this happens. As far as booktype setting: With +R DL media, it automaticaly sets it to 0000h (DVD-ROM). It doesn't support it with -/+ R.
LittleKing - Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - link
Good review, but unless I'm looking at it wrong, the "Read Tests - Printed Media" page shows this to be a bit slower than it's counter parts.Also the overimage change doesn't work in FoxFire.
LK
Ian@CDRlabs - Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - link
How can you say this drive is the best you've tested when you haven't even burned any discs at 16x?danidentity - Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - link
Can't wait to see how the ND-3500A compares. If you guys want to test it, it's readily available at Newegg.And I'm not sure if you know, but it burns CD-R at 48x versus 32x for the Pioneer 108.
hjs - Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - link
Can't wait to see the benq tested (who also has that bitsetting thing onboard)KristopherKubicki - Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - link
Degrador, fixed, thanks.Kristopher
Degrador - Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - link
Bitsetting basically describes what type of disc it is (only matters for DVD+R(W) and DL discs). Having a drive able to let you set the bitsetting means you can write discs that seem to be DVD-ROM discs not writables, and so old dvd-players can handle them better.Another thing I noticed in the article, the image shows the Ritek R03 discs burnt at only 4X on the Pioneer, yet you say "Even at that ambitious burn ..." and "the Pioneer wins this bout both in speed and write quality". Wrong image link perhaps?
KristopherKubicki - Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - link
saechaka: someone said a hacked 3500A firmware supports bitsetting. I think its a pretty moot issue nowadays but some people find it really important.Kristopher
saechaka - Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - link
what's the significance of this bitsetting? and will the 3500a be able to utilize that feature? thanksDegrador - Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - link
Under the features table, you have the drive listed as writing DVD-RAM at 2X. This drive actually doesn't support writing DVD-RAM, only reading.Perhaps another thing of note is that the retail version has better noise management / control than the OEM version.
Also, is there any chance of doing some benchmarks with the newly released 1.10 firmware?
Thanks
Budman - Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - link
Pioneer DVD burners Rule!!