-
AnyStream is having some DRM issues currently, Netflix is not available in HD for the time being.
Situations like this will always happen with AnyStream: streaming providers are continuously improving their countermeasures while we try to catch up, it's an ongoing cat-and-mouse game. Please be patient and don't flood our support or forum with requests, we are working on it 24/7 to get it resolved. Thank you.
Pioneer BDR-2208 (208M) software inconsistency
- Thread starter Loogs
- Start date
Ch3vr0n
Translator NL
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2009
- Messages
- 24,312
- Likes
- 3,530
Because you didn't read the post above the one of me you quoted. My response was to bluesky5553. The issue at hand was riplock and the devices. The bh / wh14 or 16 use a different chipset than eg my bh10 which originally also had riplock but CAN have it removed. Due to the different chipset mcse does not (yet) remove riplock on those newer drives. However the ripspeed of those new drives WITH riplock, is pretty much the same as the bh10 or 12 without riplock. Riplock decreases rip read speed, but those newer drives already read faster so the rip speed is comparable.
Flashing the new firmware will only improve that playback and nothing else, since it is for a newer drive riplock will still be active till the mcse dev finds a way to support them.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4
Flashing the new firmware will only improve that playback and nothing else, since it is for a newer drive riplock will still be active till the mcse dev finds a way to support them.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4
fauguy
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2011
- Messages
- 29
- Likes
- 0
I've been using a BDP-2208 for the past 6 months and in the drive utility I have it set to "Standard Mode" but have also tried "Performance Mode".
When using AnyDVD HD and BD Rebuilder, it takes 3-4 hours for it to do a full 50GB BD movie disc backup/encode to 25GB. But then the burn only takes like 10 minutes.
So from what I'm reading here, the Pioneer is riplocked, and would need an LG model that isn't riplocked to that it takes less time to read the BD disc?
When using AnyDVD HD and BD Rebuilder, it takes 3-4 hours for it to do a full 50GB BD movie disc backup/encode to 25GB. But then the burn only takes like 10 minutes.
So from what I'm reading here, the Pioneer is riplocked, and would need an LG model that isn't riplocked to that it takes less time to read the BD disc?
I did read it but your response was so…..Arhhga!
You did not quote anyone and he was agreeing with and referencing me and said he had tried both drives and that they are not rip locked. I’m not saying I know if it is or not but your responses did not help. I can’t find a site that talks more about it or says they are and I’m used to like a flat line 2x or 4x rip lock. So this is a CAV 7x rip lock on an 8x drive? If I looked up the right part numbers, (bh, wh??) they are all CAV 8x on dual layer discs so how would a locked and unlocked be so similar? It’s only 10x vs. 12x on a single layer so they are locking you by a few percent? If true I want to get rid of it or get a drive without it, which would be? Just seems odd and to defeat the whole purpose of the rip lock in the first place. Make it low so they don’t even know it’s there. ???
“You just don't notice it due to the increased read speed by default in comparison to eg the bh10.” Sorry what has Egypt got to do with it or do you mean e.g. not that I was familiar. But the BH10LS30(?) has basically the same read speed.
“It also uses a different chipset which is the reason riplock can't be removed.” It? The BH10LS30 I guess. If so, again, why check out the BH16NS40? Were you saying it was the it that can have the rip lock removed? If so how? It’s a newer drive and not listed in the MediaCodeSpeedEdit tool. Are you trying to say that the BH16NS40 uses a different chipset and that it’s similar enough to some of the old ones that MediaCodeSpeedEdit will work?
fast eddie made it sound like the BH16NS40 was faster or not locked while the WH14NS40 was. I and Bluesky5553 basically said the same but your reply did not make sense to me.
“Flashing the new firmware will only improve that playback and nothing else” Yes I know. That was my other response about the firmware but again I thought fast eddie and now you were saying the BH16NS40 has something to offer when it looks like it has the same firmware as the WH14NS40.
So I guess fast eddie was just saying the BH16NS40 works well also. The partial rip lock is news to me and I wanted to know more.
Ch3vr0n
Translator NL
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2009
- Messages
- 24,312
- Likes
- 3,530
i didn't say anythin about egypt lol. EG = Example Given (i just don't include the dots, pretty much never have 
)
The default riplock speed of the bh14/16 is comparable to the bh10/12 with riplock removed. That's what i was sayin
the BH10 & 12 share the same chipset but it is different than the one the bh14/16 share. MCSE can remove riplock from the bh10/12 because that chipset is supported. Due to the different chipset, there's something in the firmware also different that prevents MCSE from supporting the bh14/16 to remove riplock.
All LG drives are riplocked by default, no matter what model it is, it's simply dependant on the model if it can be removed or not. Riplock is applied to try to "force the customer to the shop to buy the movie, if ripping would take longer than a trip to the store". But with today's system that kite doesn't fly anymore.
i rip a full sized BD50 (40-45) with my bh16 in just arround half an hour, comparable speed to what my 2nd BD drive the bh10 does for the same size with riplock removed.
If they share firmware it's probably because they share the same chipset.
hope everythin's clear this time
)The default riplock speed of the bh14/16 is comparable to the bh10/12 with riplock removed. That's what i was sayin
the BH10 & 12 share the same chipset but it is different than the one the bh14/16 share. MCSE can remove riplock from the bh10/12 because that chipset is supported. Due to the different chipset, there's something in the firmware also different that prevents MCSE from supporting the bh14/16 to remove riplock.
All LG drives are riplocked by default, no matter what model it is, it's simply dependant on the model if it can be removed or not. Riplock is applied to try to "force the customer to the shop to buy the movie, if ripping would take longer than a trip to the store". But with today's system that kite doesn't fly anymore.
i rip a full sized BD50 (40-45) with my bh16 in just arround half an hour, comparable speed to what my 2nd BD drive the bh10 does for the same size with riplock removed.
If they share firmware it's probably because they share the same chipset.
hope everythin's clear this time
"The default riplock speed of the bh14/16 is comparable to the bh10/12 with riplock removed. That's what i was sayin"
That is the thing though. They all have the same BD-ROM read speeds. Only the max of a single layer changes from 10x to 12x.
Anyway, I’m seeing the same kind of odd behavior with the new WH14NS40. With one move, single layer maybe, the AnyDVD image starts out at 20-ish MBs about 4x. But just now I tried my dual layer Blu-ray of Treasure Planet just to see and it was fixed at 10.50 or so MBs but I ejected the disc and then continued once the disc was back in and it went up to 16 MBs little under 4x right away and tops out at 29 MBs at the end of the disc. The back down as it reads the second layer. I just don’t get why it works this way on some discs and not others. The speed of 8x should be 36MBs but I just thought that was the normal before packet overhead and such so topping out at almost 30MBs sounds right.
Kind of seems like an AnyDVD thing. I just put Treasure Planet in the BDR-207D and it started right up at 14.8MBs when it often gets stuck at 8.5MBs or 2x. I did not have to eject the disc or anything. If the drive has rip lock why dose simply stopping and restarting the AnyDVD rip circumvent it? For two drives no less.
So the WH14NS40 was a waste of time.
I had got the BDR-207D as I was told it did not have Rip lock.
That is the thing though. They all have the same BD-ROM read speeds. Only the max of a single layer changes from 10x to 12x.
Anyway, I’m seeing the same kind of odd behavior with the new WH14NS40. With one move, single layer maybe, the AnyDVD image starts out at 20-ish MBs about 4x. But just now I tried my dual layer Blu-ray of Treasure Planet just to see and it was fixed at 10.50 or so MBs but I ejected the disc and then continued once the disc was back in and it went up to 16 MBs little under 4x right away and tops out at 29 MBs at the end of the disc. The back down as it reads the second layer. I just don’t get why it works this way on some discs and not others. The speed of 8x should be 36MBs but I just thought that was the normal before packet overhead and such so topping out at almost 30MBs sounds right.
Kind of seems like an AnyDVD thing. I just put Treasure Planet in the BDR-207D and it started right up at 14.8MBs when it often gets stuck at 8.5MBs or 2x. I did not have to eject the disc or anything. If the drive has rip lock why dose simply stopping and restarting the AnyDVD rip circumvent it? For two drives no less.
So the WH14NS40 was a waste of time.
I had got the BDR-207D as I was told it did not have Rip lock.
Last edited:
Ch3vr0n
Translator NL
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2009
- Messages
- 24,312
- Likes
- 3,530
anydvd only processes the data as fast as the drive can provide it. How fast it can provide it depens on the file structure. Is it a seamless transition disc or 1 big movie file. the 2nd will rip faster than the 1st (i think). You're also misinterpreting things a bit. Every drive speed advertised on every model of every manufacturer is just that. ADVERTISED (and theoretical), that doesnt meant he drive will actually obtain that speed. It also depends on other computer components.
Thats kind of like shuving a nvidia GTX titan into a 6 year old system, the titan is capable of massive speeds but the motherboard it'll be plugged in to will be to old to support the kind of speeds that graphics card can do, as such it will slow down to a rate sustainable by the motherboard. Same is true for optical drives
Thats kind of like shuving a nvidia GTX titan into a 6 year old system, the titan is capable of massive speeds but the motherboard it'll be plugged in to will be to old to support the kind of speeds that graphics card can do, as such it will slow down to a rate sustainable by the motherboard. Same is true for optical drives
Yes, one big file is faster than lots of little ones and there is overhead in the comms in protocols so on. But this is the same disc in two different drives and all I do is stop and start AnyDVD and it speeds up. Maybe it’s listing the MBs incorrectly. Others have seen the same thing happen and I thought it was just an issue with the BDR-207D.
I thought the main thing with the advertised speeds is they count all data coming from the drive. But there is packet and protocol info that takes up bandwidth but is not part of the data you want from the disc. That is why I was ok with 30MBs at the rated 8x speed at the end of the disc vs. 36MBs.
No, not at all. Everything downstream of the optical drive is way faster than the fastest read speed of the ROM drive. It’s always been that way. You need to have a pretty old PC for that to be an issue. I copy hard drive to hard drive 120+MBs, reading and writing to the same drive I get 60MBs.
fauguy
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2011
- Messages
- 29
- Likes
- 0
I've noticed there is a new model, BDR-2209.
Only difference I can see from the specs is the max BD-R write speed is slightly higher at 16X, where the BDR-2208 was 15X.
I don't understand why this would even matter, since I've yet to see BD-R disc for sale that at write at those speeds.
My RiDATA BD-R media (ink jet printable) tops out at 10X.
Only difference I can see from the specs is the max BD-R write speed is slightly higher at 16X, where the BDR-2208 was 15X.
I don't understand why this would even matter, since I've yet to see BD-R disc for sale that at write at those speeds.
My RiDATA BD-R media (ink jet printable) tops out at 10X.
BDR-2209 has the same issue as BDR-2208
I came across this thread because I was trying to rip Percy Jackson: Sea of Monsters and Percy Jackson: Lightning Thief on a pair of BDR-2209 in parallel.
These drives have only been installed for a couple of days (two BDR-2209 replacing a single LG WH14NS40), and I have been successful in ripping several non AACS-encrypted titles at 30-34 MB/sec peak. As soon as the disc is scanned by AnyDVD, it drops to 8.58 MB/sec. The trick above to hit the eject button after the files start to rip, then close the tray and resume at the AnyDVD sector error FIXES the problem for the rest of the rip, and speeds immediately go back up to 28-34 MB/sec.
I'd like to see SlySoft take a look at this issue and see if there's a way to get around this.
Greg
I came across this thread because I was trying to rip Percy Jackson: Sea of Monsters and Percy Jackson: Lightning Thief on a pair of BDR-2209 in parallel.
These drives have only been installed for a couple of days (two BDR-2209 replacing a single LG WH14NS40), and I have been successful in ripping several non AACS-encrypted titles at 30-34 MB/sec peak. As soon as the disc is scanned by AnyDVD, it drops to 8.58 MB/sec. The trick above to hit the eject button after the files start to rip, then close the tray and resume at the AnyDVD sector error FIXES the problem for the rest of the rip, and speeds immediately go back up to 28-34 MB/sec.
I'd like to see SlySoft take a look at this issue and see if there's a way to get around this.
Greg
DrinkLyeAndDie
Retired Moderator
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2007
- Messages
- 11,822
- Likes
- 469
I own a Pioneer BDR-2209 and I have not experienced this issue. Transfer speeds top 30 MB/s but may vary based on numerous factors (ie dirty disc, etc).
Sent from my SM-P600 using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-P600 using Tapatalk
Stating your operating system & version would only be helpful to others, in regards to the performance.
As mentioned, XP Pro 32-bit was notorious for locking transfer with the BDR-2208, constantly with every disc or every other disc. Once I migrated to 7 Pro 64-bit, I cannot recall if the problem ever presented itself again, perhaps on an extremely rare occasion. It is my assumption a variable exists between the native drivers of XP & 7.
In regards to read performance, single-layer seems to naturally start off at higher rates & increases dramatically. Double-layer starts off slower, does not increase quickly & never comes close to the speeds of single-layer. This is somewhat expected due to disc architecture & drive specifications.
Also, never forget to check the firmware settings applied to your Pioneer with the drive utility software. I always have "Standard mode" selected for AQDF in ripping & burning situations.
On the other topic, I do not expect neither the BDR-2208 nor the 2209 to produce unsatisfactory burns. These flagship consumer models, and the ones which came before, are known as some of the best, if not the best, burners amongst enthusiasts. Granted, you are providing the drive favorable or high-quality media to work with, and burning at or under the recommended speeds...
As mentioned, XP Pro 32-bit was notorious for locking transfer with the BDR-2208, constantly with every disc or every other disc. Once I migrated to 7 Pro 64-bit, I cannot recall if the problem ever presented itself again, perhaps on an extremely rare occasion. It is my assumption a variable exists between the native drivers of XP & 7.
In regards to read performance, single-layer seems to naturally start off at higher rates & increases dramatically. Double-layer starts off slower, does not increase quickly & never comes close to the speeds of single-layer. This is somewhat expected due to disc architecture & drive specifications.
Also, never forget to check the firmware settings applied to your Pioneer with the drive utility software. I always have "Standard mode" selected for AQDF in ripping & burning situations.
On the other topic, I do not expect neither the BDR-2208 nor the 2209 to produce unsatisfactory burns. These flagship consumer models, and the ones which came before, are known as some of the best, if not the best, burners amongst enthusiasts. Granted, you are providing the drive favorable or high-quality media to work with, and burning at or under the recommended speeds...
Does anyone here have an explanation for this behavior of AnyDVD with the Pioneer drive (or the other was round)?
Do think it has really something to do with windows drivers as assumed in the previous post?
Is anyone here with a Pioneer drive still encountering such problems (if only with some BDs)?
Please also let me know, if you don't
Thanks in advance.
DrinkLyeAndDie
Retired Moderator
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2007
- Messages
- 11,822
- Likes
- 469
Is anyone here with a Pioneer drive still encountering such problems (if only with some BDs)?
Please also let me know, if you don't
Sometimes I run into discs that are slower. It's few and far between and are usually rentals which means they have wear and tear from morons who don't care if they scratch or otherwise damage a disc. I think they let their kids play frisbee with them and/or use them as coasters. I own two BDR-2209 (aka BDR-209M-ID60, BDR-209UBK/XV52) drives and one BDR-2205. I recently upgraded the my first 2209 to the newer 1.30 firmware. I wasn't aware it existed until I bought the second 2209 and it came with the newer firmware.
Note: I was previously running Windows 7 Ultimate SP1 x64. I'm now running a clean install of Windows 8.1 Pro x64.
Last edited:
Thank you so much for your reply.
What exactly do you mean by "Sometimes I run into discs that are slower." ?
Do you mean limited to 2x speed as shown in the attached image in the quotation or just a little slower than the normal speed?
Judging by that picture there was apparently a problem with anydvd that caused the speed to stay straight below 2x for some reason. And I was just wondering if that bug has been fixed.
What exactly do you mean by "Sometimes I run into discs that are slower." ?
Do you mean limited to 2x speed as shown in the attached image in the quotation or just a little slower than the normal speed?
Judging by that picture there was apparently a problem with anydvd that caused the speed to stay straight below 2x for some reason. And I was just wondering if that bug has been fixed.
Last edited:
DrinkLyeAndDie
Retired Moderator
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2007
- Messages
- 11,822
- Likes
- 469
When I say slow I mean I had a disc the other day that was being copied to my HDD at less than about 0.5 MB/s. I cancelled the process and seriously cleaned the disc. Popped it back in and everything was fine on the next attempt. Copy speed was up in the 6x range. For my system I normally get from 4x to 8x speeds when copying to my HDD with AnyDVD HD running.
Bad discs usually run in the area of 7 MB/s or less. It's rare that I get one as bad as I did the other day but the fault for that is with the disc and it needing to be cleaned.
Last edited:
I'm glad to hear that. Because I'm planning on buying that machine
So you haven't had issues with discs from certain manufacturers? Since some people say, they're having issues only with BDs from 20th Century Fox.
Btw. You don't have any explanation for that weird ripping behavior using AnyDVD that workpermit revealed in his test, do you?
So you haven't had issues with discs from certain manufacturers? Since some people say, they're having issues only with BDs from 20th Century Fox.
Btw. You don't have any explanation for that weird ripping behavior using AnyDVD that workpermit revealed in his test, do you?