New firmware (>1.10) for Pioneer BDR-2208

JackHumphreyH

Reputable
Mar 27, 2014
4
0
4,510
I bought this burner a while back because it was touted to handle BDXL media. FINALLY, the price of XL BD-RE media dropped to the point of making it economically feasible to do system backups via optical platter (Sony 100 GB disks in the $25 range shipped direct from Japan). So, I got one.

Guess what? When inserted in the Pioneer BDR-2208 (AKA BDR-208UBK) the media is NOT recognized!

So, 1+ hour searching the Pioneer USA web site for newer firmware (my drive is still at factory default FW 1.10 level) followed by a call to Pioneer tech support (took the better part of a half hour on hold in the phone queue) reveals there is NO later FW release for this drive, the ONLY BD-RE XL media they certify the drive for use with is Panasonic (currently $100-200/platter). WHAAAAT?????

If Sony certifies the media is BDXL compliant, why in )(*& doesn't the drive at least 'try' to execute read/write maneuvers with it???
 
Many drives identify the media and some will burn slow and others will just not burn for unknown media.

Back in the day the drive would just burn anything you placed in the tray, but it led to MANY coasters from users not using the proper speeds or general incompatibility.

Plain stupid that the standard is not full supported across all hardware.
 

JackHumphreyH

Reputable
Mar 27, 2014
4
0
4,510
EXCELLENT guess!!! In a few iterations with Pioneer's support staff, they asked me for the Media ID of the new Sony platter I'd gotten. Bottom line, I have a Catch-22 as the only way I know to get that is to run ImgBurn and read the log. Unfortunately, when I try to run ImgBurn, it logs the drive, sees there's a BDXL platter in it and then FAILS with a declaration of 'Incompatible Media'.

At this point Pioneer USA has placed a service request to Pioneer Japan and we wait for a new release of firmware for the drive. But, that "skates" the picture legally. Pioneer sells the drive advertising BDXL compliance in BOLD print and then does a pick 'n choose on what BDXL media they'll work with and the list is apparently built into the firmware.

I reminded them that there are States here with consumer fraud laws providing TREBLE damage penalties. Is it wise to risk a class action suit for the benefit of rejecting media you haven't tested and approved???
 

JackHumphreyH

Reputable
Mar 27, 2014
4
0
4,510
We'll see what the outcome is at Pioneer. I'll check back later.

On the second issue (standards should be STANDARD), there are pro's and con's. In the past I've had the 'honor' of sitting and working with some standards committees (CCITT, V-Series Modem rule making). The problem is the committee is typically a "form" of government (in the case of CCITT, that's a UN body) and those in charge walk on egg shells.

They do NOT want to kill/prohibit individual contributor innovation, NOR do they want to dictate the solution path too precisely. So, things are stated and adopted with a politically acceptable degree of vagueness.

I know that's not the answer we'd like to hear, but it's actually the truth. Clever designers will always vary in their degree of rule making interpretation and that sets the stage for two solutions, each of which meets a given view of compliance to be compliant yet functionally incompatible...

So, it becomes a race with the first to market OR he with the greatest market share being the 'right' interpretation by de facto means. Yep, not pretty and NOT perfect. But, that's the side effect of government involvement and design-by-committee...

This appears to be a case where the mfgr takes no hostages and simply won't let the product be 'tested' with media that any 3rd party offers. And that's going too far in my book. It's a form of design conspiracy/collusion that shouldn't be tolerated.