The Firmware Page

emperor you have a great suggestion there, if it can be done, would be great to have this for the pioneer, the Omnipatcher is a great utility, as long as the firmware is uncompressed, any chances of this being possible nil?, solve your problems

Nil, I understand your frustration and if it means anything I and many others really do appreciate what you do. If it wasn't for you I know I wouldn't be enjoying my 105 and 107 as much as I do. It is actually because of what you do that makes me want to get a 108 as you will make it just that much better.

Keep up the great work

Will the 108 firmware hacks take precedence in development over the A08 firmware hacks, or will they be developed together?

Will the 108 firmware hacks take precedence in development over the A08 firmware hacks, or will they be developed together



same drive are they not

ok then >NIL:, take ur time

Yeah, I thought about it, but I came to the conclusion that it was not automatable (there's no way you would have been able to add the DL 4x4all with an automaton).
If we had computers with some glimpse of AI it might be possible, but I'm afraid that until then, it would take me more than 10 or 20 times the time I need to produce a patch (which is long enough as it is) to craft some form of autopatcher, and even then, most of the autopatcher would have to be rewritten for the next drive.

The RPC-1 and 12x4all patches could be automated very easily. But for the the rest, you need to add/change about 130 bytes into the firmware, and about 1/3d of these bytes have to be indirectly deduced from other stuff you need to identify. Thefore, the creation of an autopatcher to do just that becomes a very difficult task.

To give you a more precise idea of the problems we face here, two override subroutines have to be added into the firmware, each of which will contain a handful of vectors that have to be picked up from various tables (usually indirect and out of order and with gaps) that are to be found in non absolute locations of the current firmware.
And I'm not counting the close to 20 bytes that need to be changed in the actual firmware so that these override can pop into action.

Worse still, even finding a proper location to add these 2 subroutines can prove a challenge, as Pioneer keep changing the size of their payload and you're not sure that the location you used with the previous firmware will still apply (it usually doesn't).
Oh, and of course, you cannot really look for "just some empty space to place your stuff in" because Pioneer crams empty spaces with garbage data, and an automaton will have hard time telling whether a location it's looking at as a potential candidate is real garbage or actual firmware data.

All of this is not really challenging after you've done it once. It's just annoying because it takes a lot of time (as I experienced, there are a lot of ways you can [*Profanity*] things up when a patch becomes that cumbersome) and it cannot really be automated. And all the while, Pioneer keeps throwing new firmware and create 2 version of the same drive (108 and 108XL) that have minimal hardware differences, but that both need to be patched.
Why didn't get things straight and produce ONLY XL drives. I'm sure they could reduce their pricing if they only mass produced those...

Hey, maybe I'll switch to NEC. It really looks to me like life might be easier on the NEC side

T-BONE if by A08 you mean [1|A]08XL, I don't know what I plan to do with the XL drives yet.
I suspect that a new release of a 108/108XL firmware might be just around the corner (especially since there are ONLY 2 +RDL media in this firmware and only one will burn at 4x), and I would just hate to waste 1 afternoon or evening patching an XL firmware and have a new one released just a couple of days after that.

Why can't Pioneer just give deadline to media manufacturers (they kind of forced other stuff down their throat already) to present their new media so that it makes it into their next firmware. Like they could only add new media once every 2 months or something, and do only bugfix releases in between if they really need to.
Would make a lot more sense than have media manufacturers find "ways" to get Pioneer release a new firmware just so their new media is in it...

I didn't thought it taken so much time to patch a firmware, anyway we are very happy with your work so far NIL, may the force be with you

>NIL:, maybe you should only patch when the firmware improves the writing performance of a drive.

...which is very hard to tell (I don't remember ever seeing a new fw release from Pioneer where they didn't tell they improved write quality)

I think I will rather patch whenever the hell I feel like patching and have time for it, which is pretty much the only answer I can give to the original ETA question.

Also, much of my ranting should be read as:
"WHAT THIS WORLD NEEDS IS MORE F*CKING PATCHERS!!!"

I'd be a lot more comfortable if I knew there were other people willing to, how should I put it, take my succession on the DVR side when I retire...

Thanks for the reply NIL. I have a black DVR-108 (OEM) in my hands that I bought and was going to return it for the DVR-A08XL because of the minor differences in regards to less noise and a better looking faceplate, but in light of your comments I'm going to keep it now. Especially seeing as you dont have a definite answer for what will happen to the DVR-A08XL.

One more thing, looking at the 108 firmware is the any sort of chance of your hack having the ability to do bitsetting for +R's?

Cheers for the answers and keep up the excellent work!

bitsetting for +r's would be great

My usual answer to all the bitsetting requests on DVR's is:
Burn -R media instead of +R! You won't have to worry about bitsetting/compatibility.

On this one I can be definitive: I personally have no plan to look into bitsetting on the DVR drives. Ever.

As to picking up an XL drive instead of a standard model, I can tell you this: I will definitely release an XL patch at some stage, but I don't think it will happen until the next XL firmware is released by Pioneer.
I might just as well alternate as to patching only 1 in 2 revisions for each drive, and alternate between standard and XL.

I will not drop patches for XL, because the XL drive is a cool drive, and manufacturers need to be encouraged to release cool drives. It would be a pity if people decided not to buy a cool drive just because a patch is not available.

Hey, maybe I will ONLY release patches for the XL drive in the future actually, so that people who are keen on using a patched drive just don't go with the ugly plain model. It's the 21st century for God's sake. Any piece of recent hardware should look like it belongs to this century!

Anyone be willing to donate say $US5 to NIL for him to enable bitsetting, because I know I would. How about getting 20 people to donate? Would that change your mind?

i could donate for bitsetting. but is it sure that dvd 108 can bitset with an hacked fw? i don't need a 16x@all fw: it's useless for me, but bitsetting is very worth

Ummm, I know that >NIL: has denied offers for money in the past. Few patchers have money in mind when they create patches. When money gets involved, everything becomes messy.

The fact is, there is a simple solution to not being able to bitset DVD+R discs as >NIL: already mentioned; use DVD-R media! Pioneer drives generally work great with -R media anyways.

1/ I don't and will never need money to produce patches. If you think you have money to spare, you should consider giving some of it to charities (There is a humanitarian crisis in Sudan, so now is a real good time to give)

2/ Tell me why you need bitsetting, and I will tell you why you don't need it if you use -R media.

yes, you're right: bitsetting is useless if we burn "always" dvd-r's, but i think that there is a possibility - sooner or later - to burn some dvd+r's and i wish to get max compatibility (maybe i will lend one of these dvd+r's to friends/relatives that own very old dvd player - many samsung players read only bitsetted dvd+r's)
moreover, i think it is good to have more feature on a dvd burner and dvd+r is superior to dvd-r according to http://www.cdfreaks.com/article/113

p.s. sorry for my bad english

I agree that the + side of things always seems to be ahead of the - camp. + seems to burn better quality at faster speeds and + also is the first to support DL burning. I thought perhaps since the bitsetting of DL discs is automatic to DVD-ROM that maybe applying whatever the drive does to DL media to all +R media regardless of DL or not would be awesome and would guarantee all + discs would be DVD-ROM bitsetted. + and - would have 100% compatibility then not one more than the other.

Too bad on the not recieving coin as I too would donate in a heartbeat though i think I still should regardless of bitsetting option as you have done a fine job for a while now on all your patches.

I realize as well as others should that we are just being greedy. I will admit that the minute I see a patch for faster, unlocked things it makes me want more and I start thinking of all the possible options that can be changed the make the firmware limitless and ultimate. I as well as others just have to accept what we have and be grateful for what we have. We should realize what we do have and not what we don't.

I kind of agree with that. The only issue I have with bitsetting on dual burners is that I have yet to hear of somebody who burned on -R and couldn't read it on older players that read bitsetted +R discs (else, I guess we would have had a few requests for bitsetting on -R).
I know that there are some players out there that are supposed not to recognize non DVD-ROM booktype burned media, but, contrary to older players that do not recognize +R, the ones that do not recognize -R must be so scarce that I doubt anybody in this forum has one.

I am still waiting for someone to give me a sensible reason why I should hunt for bitsetting on Pioneer DVR drives. I have been waiting for that for at least a year actually.

Could I have a real life example where both +R and -R will not work and where bitsetted +R works?

Until then, I would advise to use your energy buying a pack of -R media instead of blowing the bitsetting feature out of proportion...

Oh and by the way, all this bitsetting crap comes from Sony, Philips and HP's absolute disgregard for democratic decisions when they know they can make money for themselves by going dictatorial.
Regardless of which format is better than the other, those guys forced +R down everybody's throat, over the DVD-Forum's democratic choice of using -R as the recordable, and now you have to assume the consequences of having to deal with a dissident format.

Diverging opinions are a sane thing
Diverging specifications are not, especailly when it's consumers who have to pay the price.

I just picked up my Pioneer 108 today. Got it home and burnt 1 disc at 4X see the disc info below:

Media Information
Region information N/A not a DVD-VIDEO
Media code/Manufacturer ID PRINCO
Format Capacity Not Formatted
Free Blocks 412352512
Free Capacity 4.38GB(4.71GB)
Book Type DVD-R
Media Type DVD-R
Media Id Code Speed 1.0x 1385KBps
Available Write Descriptor CLV 16.0x 22160KBps
Available Write Descriptor CLV 12.0x 16620KBps
Available Write Descriptor CLV 8.0x 11080KBps
Available Write Descriptor CLV 6.0x 8310KBps
Available Write Descriptor CLV 4.0x 5540KBps
Available Write Descriptor CLV 2.0x 2770KBps
Available Write Descriptor CLV 1.0x 1385KBps
Write Strategy Speed 4.0x 5540KBps
2x Speed OPC beta 0B
2x Speed OPC power 0F
2x Write Strategy field 1 12 87 77 80
2x Write Strategy field 2 88 80 00 00 00 00
4x Speed OPC beta 01
4x Speed OPC power 1B
4x Write Strategy field 1 0D 10 0D 08
4x Write Strategy field 2 99 0A 11 0D
4x Write Strategy field 3 00 00 00 00
4x Speed OPC beta multi-pulse 05
4x Speed OPC power multi-pulse 1D
4x Write Strategy field 4 1D 86 66 85
4x Write Strategy field 5 99 BD 88 80 00 00
4x Write Strategy field 6 00 00 D0 00 00
Data area starting sector 30000h
Linear Density 0.267um/bit
Track Density 0.74um/track
Number of Layers 1



Then applied NILS 'hacked' firmware. I have now successfully burnt 8 DVDs with the above media. So much for 'PRINCO is crap' still got another 42 of these discs WD NILS you da MAN.

Please don't double-post.
You already posted it here: http://forum.rpc1.org/viewtopic.php?t=28441

Another Review can be found here:
http://www.extrememhz.com/dvr108-p1.shtml

nice one, will update

Today I have received from USA (Themediastore) 10 DVD+R DL Verbatim (

Why bitsetting on +R media ?

Here in the netherlands it is simple why +R bitsetting is a must have.

The price of + is cheaper.

Extra Tax since 1 juli 2003.
on -R 1 euro yes 1 euro
on +R 0,50 half of the tax of -R, bastards, must be ph*l*ps and S*n* wanted to promote +r and gave reasons why -R must be more tax on it.

100 -R, means 100 x 0,50 eurocent = 50 euro more expensive Than +R


Here in the netherlands, the only media with low prices are, princo(blehhh)
budget media, datawrite red.

But think about it
a princo -R costs 0,50 cent + 1 euro tax, makes 1,50
100 pack op traxdata -R ritekg04 costs 168 euro, thats 100 euros tax in it
50 verbatims 4 speed cost 115 euro, thats 50 euro tax in it.
Arita 4 speed ritegkG04 40 euros foor 25 disks, 25 euros tax in it.


Lets look for prices +R media

Arita +r 4speed 25 euros for 25 disks
Memorex 100 pack 85 euro
Samsung, Ritek, Traxdata spindel 25 disks, all about 25 euros
Verbatim 50 packs 85 euro

Yes i know, i can buy at a online store cheaper, without those taxes.
But image this.

I go and do a order of 300 aritas G04 for 180 euros.

Then suprise, i get a letter that my goods where opened and i must pay 300 euro TAX.
Then we have a problem.

second, my xbox with samung drive, does not want to read +r without bitsetting.Also my panasonic home cinema, does not read them.
So i am forced to buy -R and pay more tax and not a little more, but a lot more.


Thats why >NIL: