Does the Pioneer 108 burn "better" than the 105?

[davideck]

Just wondering if anyone has any experience with this;

For a given media type/speed, does one writer burn better than the other? Better can mean whatever you want, but might also imply that the DVD will last longer or be more compatible in more machines, etc.

????

[Epicurus8a]

Someone will now doubt post a link or two regarding this. My comments are general comments.

Certain media have better compatibility. Slower burn speeds generally result in better compatibility. Certain writers are known to perform better, resulting in better compatibility.

As far as lasting longer, nothing lasts forever (especially if the dog gets hold of it). Your best bet is to always use quality media, and handle/store it carefully.

[bazooka]

As long as the disc burns, who cares?

[chas0039]

If you go by the quality of the scans, an indication of the burn errors, there is no question that the 108 burns better than the 105, as well as the 107.

[bazooka]

If you go by the quality of the scans, an indication of the burn errors, there is no question that the 108 burns better than the 105, as well as the 107.

That is garbage

I had the 105 and had no problems with it.

The only difference would be the time factor.

[lordsmurf]

My 105 is fine.

[BJ_M]

my 105's are the best

[Shocker Milwaukee]

No (not with RITEK 1x/2x DVD-R or Taiyo Yuden 4x DVD-R). My friend has a Pioneer 105 & I envy his burn quality. I have read that Pioneer 103/105/107 produce the highest quality burns (using DVD-R media). I wish my scans looked this good (they're almost as good). This TYG02 was burned on his Pioneer 105.

[chas0039]

I never said that the 105s are bad. I just said that the burns on the 108s have fewer errors. I never said you should dump your 105 for a 108. If you are happy with what you have keep it. And I hate to point it out, but the scan above is not fantastic; good but hardly great. Again, if you are happy, keep it. Hardly garbage.

[bazooka]

I never said that the 105s are bad. I just said that the burns on the 108s have fewer errors. If you are happy with what you have keep it. Hardly garbage.

Even that is debateable.

[Shocker Milwaukee]

I never said that the 105s are bad. I just said that the burns on the 108s have fewer errors. If you are happy with what you have keep it. Hardly garbage.

Even that is debateable.

I agree... I'd like to see a disc burned with a 108 that has fewer errors than the one I posted.

[chas0039]

I never said that the 105s are bad. I just said that the burns on the 108s have fewer errors. If you are happy with what you have keep it. Hardly garbage.

Even that is debateable.

It is not worth debating as clearly you think my comments here are garbage. Any evidence I would provide would be countered by you with some evidence to support you position. The poster did not ask you to debate the benefits of buying a new drive over an older one. He just asked if the 108 burned better than the 105. If you are not open to the fact you might be wrong there is no point. It is always easier to be open to information when it is not reflective on your own self worth. You might notice that I have neither drive.

My opinions are based on many scans I have seen on sites showing media burned on both drives. The scans could be forged, they might not be representitive of all the drives in existence, they could be skewed in favor of one bias or another. But based on all I have seen the 108 burns with fewer errors. Clearly you have seen something else.

[Shocker Milwaukee]

I hate to point it out, but the scan above is not fantastic; good but hardly great.

OK, show us a great scan from a 108.

This is a scan of a RITEKG04 burned by a Pioneer 105.

[Epicurus8a]

Gee, I predicted a few posts. But Nothing like this! What say we take it outside boys.

PS. I love my 105, but just got back from BB and will be testing out my new 109. I might have some info to share in a few days.

[chas0039]

If you go by the quality of the scans, an indication of the burn errors, there is no question that the 108 burns better than the 105, as well as the 107.

That is garbage

I had the 105 and had no problems with it.

The only difference would be the time factor.

Read above. As to your scan, great PIF errors, not so great PI errors.

I agree, time to be over this. I have no investment in the outcome and the interested parties have already made their decision. Anyhow, it is possible I am wrong if you look at PIF errors.

[bazooka]

You might notice that I have neither drive.

Then why do you comment when you have no first hand knowledge?

[chas0039]

You might notice that I have neither drive.

Then why do you comment when you have no first hand knowledge?

You need to read my posts.

[bazooka]

You might notice that I have neither drive.

Then why do you comment when you have no first hand knowledge?

You need to read my posts.

I did and looking at someone elses test is irrellevant given the fact you do not have either drive and you do not have that computer.

You have no direct knowledge at all.

[chas0039]

Yup you are absolutely right I know nothing at all. Pay no attention to me. EOM

[mikepos]

As long as the disc burns, who cares?

I care because I've had high quailty discs burn successfully that wouldn't play properly for long. When I did the scans of my Maxell 4x discs at 4x, 8x and 12x, anything over 4x showed high errors despite reporting successful burns in Nero and playing well. A couple months later the 8x discs didn't play properly, never tried the 12x yet.

"...That is garbage

I had the 105 and had no problems with it.

The only difference would be the time factor. ..."


Go to thefirmwarepage and review scans, you'll find many excellent scans from the 108 as well; and I have seen far better scans than those posted too. Bazooka, first you make an absurd post then follow it with an audicious comment like that, I find that very ironic. I don't necessarily agree with chas0039's comment on the 105 but he seems to have given some reasonable argument while I can't see the sense in yours.
High PI errors may affect the lifespan of a disk even with low PIF's afaik, and I know first hand that high PIF's (I had a couple peaks in 30's) may play fine while a disk is new but can fail in the near future. And btw looking at someone else's scans is pertinent, or the ones posted here are moot... :P

Mike

[bazooka]

As long as the disc burns, who cares?

I care because I've had high quailty discs burn successfully that wouldn't play properly for long. When I did the scans of my Maxell 4x discs at 4x, 8x and 12x, anything over 4x showed high errors despite reporting successful burns in Nero and playing well. A couple months later the 8x discs didn't play properly, never tried the 12x yet.

"...That is garbage

I had the 105 and had no problems with it.

The only difference would be the time factor. ..."


Go to thefirmwarepage and review scans, you'll find many excellent scans from the 108 as well; and I have seen far better scans than those posted too. Bazooka, first you make an absurd post then follow it with an audicious comment like that, I find that very ironic. I don't necessarily agree with chas0039's comment on the 105 but at least he provided a bit of useful and correct information unlike you. Posts like yours do nothing to help a forum (it's arguable that the same can be said of htis post of mine too though :P )
High PI errors may affect the lifespan of a disk even with low PIF's afaik, and I know first hand that high PIF's (I had a couple peaks in 30's) may play fine while a disk is new but can fail in the near future. And btw looking at someone else's scans is pertinent. But I've owned 2 pioneer burners anyway, which seems to be important in your logic.

Mike

It was not absurd. You had crappy discs. I have hundreds of dvd's that were burned on my 105 that I used to have and guess what. They are still just as playable.

My point is you cannot comment on what you have never had. I could say a corvette is junk, but unless I own one, then I am just flapping my lip. That was what chas0039 was doing.

The only difference between the 105 and others is the ability to burn both + and - and speed. The 105 was a 4x burner that would only burn dash discs.

I repeat, as long as it burns, it doesn't matter.

[steve2713]

I repeat, as long as it burns, it doesn't matter.

[bazooka]

I repeat, as long as it burns, it doesn't matter.

It doesn't

You all are looking at it the wrong way. Look at the burner as if it were a car.

You cannot say one car is better than the other when they both drive you to the same location.

What matters is the media or in the car's case, it is gas.

[lordsmurf]

What a useful topic.

I have something to add too....

Argue via e-mail, not the forum.