LaCie Intros 4x Blu-ray External Burner

[malware]

LaCie announced today that is has doubled Blu-ray burn speeds to 4x and has updated the aluminum alloy case and software suite for its external d2 Blu-ray drive. Coming with a shape designed by Neil Poulton, the drive records, rewrites and reads 25GB or 50GB BD-R (recordable) and BD-RE (rewritable), as well as DVD±RW DL and CD±RW media. The 4x Blu-ray burner ships with a full-featured Roxio software package and dual FireWire 400 and USB 2.0 connection options. The drive also boasts 8MB of buffer memory. "In early 2007, LaCie was the first vendor to ship worldwide an external solution for professional Hi-Def video recording for both Mac and Windows. Since that time, Blu-ray technology has proven to be the dominant source for video recording and playback," said Patrick Salin, LaCie Business Development Manager. LaCie d2 Blu-ray drives are available now via LaCie's specialized dealer network with a suggested retail price of $649.99 and 2 year warranty. For more product information, visit this page.



View at TechPowerUp Main Site

 

[twicksisted]

Is it only me or is 4X burn speed really crap...
Burning DVD at 4X would take ages... imagine trying to burn 50GB at 4X speed???
Madness

 

[selway89]

I believe its pretty fast.
A CD written at 8X is slow compared to a DVD written at 8X. Im pretty sure the bandwidth throughput will be higher than that of a DVD.

Would have thought that USB and FireWire would not have the bandwidth required for this but I might be wrong.

 

[malware]

Is it only me or is 4X burn speed really crap...
Burning DVD at 4X would take ages... imagine trying to burn 50GB at 4X speed???
Madness

The 4x burning speed applies to Blu-Ray media only, and it's not the same as the 4x burning speed for DVDs or CDs. 4x burning speed for DVDs equals to 5.28MB/s transfer rate or 36x CD-burning speed. The 4x Blu-ray burning speed equals to 18MB/s, now you can see the difference.

Burning DVDs at 4x speed takes only around 20mins.

 

[Cybrnook2002]

And, im sure it will speed up in time. I remeber when CD and DVD burning first became available. What seemed fast then, was only a fraction of what we are burning at today. So, when Blu Ray really picks up. then im sure faster media and burners will become available.

 

[Wayward]

The device looks nice, but what's with the price? You can get an internal 4x Blu-Ray Burner for ~$350, and an enclosure with the same features for ~$50-$75 depending on the model. So it's around $150-$200 overpriced, maybe more.

 

[Mussels]

The device looks nice, but what's with the price? You can get an internal 4x Blu-Ray Burner for ~$350, and an enclosure with the same features for ~$50-$75 depending on the model. So it's around $150-$200 overpriced, maybe more.

its because of the firewire and the fact its artsy fartsy design.

Many people dont want to put things together themself, but thank god it has firewire... it'd be useless on USB.

 

[EastCoasthandle]

I still don't find any reason to stop using DVD for backups. For example, imaging a fresh installed copy of XP works just fine with a DVD.
Slip streaming Vista (removing unnecessary features) can be done with a DVD.
I'm sorry but for $650 that's way to expensive. I recall Plextor selling top of the line CD and DVD players for less then that. And Plextor was the most expensive players back in the day. They want more then double the price for 2x the speed. Also with the price of disks at nearly double the price of a DL DVD its not hard to stick with DVD.

 

[twicksisted]

yeah i agree...
personally I have never had to back anything up thats larger than dual layer DVD....
but i guess for users that have large databases etc to backup... then that will be a good option...
(but at the price of the thing you could just aswell buy an external 1TB HDD)

 

[Wayward]

its because of the firewire and the fact its artsy fartsy design.

Many people dont want to put things together themself, but thank god it has firewire... it'd be useless on USB.

The enclosures I was referring to HAVE Firewire. That's why I said, "an enclosure with the same features". Seriously, Firewire isn't that expensive.

Here's an example: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817146256

 

[newtekie1]

I really don't care about firewire 400, it isn't faster than USB 2.0 in practical or theoritical use. Now if it was Firewire 800 I would be jumping with joy, but then again my computer only has one firewire port, and it isn't firewire 800 anyway.

 

[Wayward]

I really don't care about firewire 400, it isn't faster than USB 2.0 in practical or theoritical use. Now if it was Firewire 800 I would be jumping with joy, but then again my computer only has one firewire port, and it isn't firewire 800 anyway.

This is also true. But if speed is really the most important thing, eSATA would be better still.

 

[Mussels]

I still don't find any reason to stop using DVD for backups. For example, imaging a fresh installed copy of XP works just fine with a DVD.
Slip streaming Vista (removing unnecessary features) can be done with a DVD.
I'm sorry but for $650 that's way to expensive. I recall Plextor selling top of the line CD and DVD players for less then that. And Plextor was the most expensive players back in the day. They want more then double the price for 2x the speed. Also with the price of disks at nearly double the price of a DL DVD its not hard to stick with DVD.

single layer blu ray is 25GB. dual layer is 50GB.

I have over 3,000GB of stored files. I kinda see a reason that blu ray burners MIGHT be handy... 700+DVD's is a little excessive for me, when it comes to backups.

Oh and i definately agree with a few points above - E-sata would be better than the second firewire port, and YES i would definately make my own. I really see this going to the apple fanatics and the groups who are obsessed with looks and havent the faintest clue what firewire even is, other than someone said it is faster than USB.

 

[Wayward]

I really see this going to the apple fanatics and the groups who are obsessed with looks and havent the faintest clue what firewire even is, other than someone said it is faster than USB.

You really hit it on the nose there!

 

[twicksisted]

still, at the price you could just buy an external ESATA HDD with loads more storage space that a 50GB dual layer blueray

 

[Mussels]

still, at the price you could just buy an external ESATA HDD with loads more storage space that a 50GB dual layer blueray

nah i ran out of E-sata ports.

Thats like saying no one should have a DVD or CD drive, just a floppy - why not, everything else fits on a HDD.

Blu ray is primarily for movies, but when you use it secondarily for storage it has a large size advantage over DVD and CD.

 

[Wayward]

still, at the price you could just buy an external ESATA HDD with loads more storage space that a 50GB dual layer blueray

True, you could buy a dual drive eSATA enclosure and two 1TB hard drives, and have cash to spare. That's why it's not quite practical yet. Prices will keep dropping though, and it will be worth it eventually.

 

[EastCoasthandle]

still, at the price you could just buy an external ESATA HDD with loads more storage space that a 50GB dual layer blueray

Agreed, it still far cheaper to either get a ESata HDD or just deal with the DL DVD when you have 3000GB+ of data.

single layer blu ray is 25GB. dual layer is 50GB.

I have over 3,000GB of stored files. I kinda see a reason that blu ray burners MIGHT be handy... 700+DVD's is a little excessive for me, when it comes to backups.

Oh and i definitely agree with a few points above - E-sata would be better than the second firewire port, and YES i would definately make my own. I really see this going to the apple fanatics and the groups who are obsessed with looks and havent the faintest clue what firewire even is, other than someone said it is faster than USB.

As stated, for the price even with 3,000 GB of information it far cheaper to go with a ESata HDD or just deal with the DVD DL (353 DVD DL instead of 700 DVDs). You may have to use 353 DVD DL dics but it will be cheaper then BR's alternative. But from what I've seen 3 ESata drives is far more practical, cheaper and convenient then DVD DL and BR when you have 3000GB of information IMO.

I just checked newegg...you could buy 3, 500GB ESATA drives and it still cheaper then 1 of those BR drives (@$689.99 not $650) + 60 BR 50GB disc you would need. Also note, I've only seen those discs in packs of 2 making 30 packs. I'm sure someone would sell them in bulk.

 

[Mussels]

Agreed, it still far cheaper to either get a ESata HDD or just deal with the DL DVD when you have 3000GB+ of data.


As stated, for the price even with 3,000 GB of information it far cheaper to go with a ESata HDD or just deal with the DVD DL (353 DVD DL instead of 700 DVDs). You may have to use 353 DVD DL dics but it will be cheaper then BR's alternative. But from what I've seen 3 ESata drives is far more practical, cheaper and convenient then DVD DL and BR when you have 3000GB of information IMO.

I just checked newegg...you could buy 3, 500GB ESATA drives and it still cheaper then 1 of those BR drives (@$689.99 not $650) + 60 BR 50GB disc you would need. Also note, I've only seen those discs in packs of 2 making 30 packs. I'm sure someone would sell them in bulk.

i make no claims that blu ray is more cost effective! i'm merely stating the pro's, since you guys were all about the cons.

 

[EastCoasthandle]

i make no claims that blu ray is more cost effective! i'm merely stating the pro's, since you guys were all about the cons.

I (and I believe everyone else) understands the pros and there are some to be made. But the cost of it alone makes this unattractive to some. Specially when there are alternatives.

I just looked at the price of the 50GB BR discs and from what I've seen they are somewhere around the $50 mark. Maybe it can be found for cheaper and I haven't found it. But that's pretty expensive for backing up your data.

 

[Easy Rhino]

this isnt really for consumers. mainly for people who shoot/edit/produce hi-def content and want to burn that content onto a BD for presentations and what not. production house stuff.

 

[timta2]

I would like to say that the Addonics case previously linked to is incredibly ugly. I would be willing to pay $100 more for something that looks nice since I would be sitting there looking at it all day. Cost isn't a big factor to everybody but obviously a lot of TPU users (myself included) really watch their $. Another couple of things to mention is that in addition to LaCie being a great company with great customer service, they include software with this as well. It appears to be Toast/Easy Cd Creator, which I think both go for almost $100.

 

[Haytch]

I still don't find any reason to stop using DVD for backups. For example, imaging a fresh installed copy of XP works just fine with a DVD.
Slip streaming Vista (removing unnecessary features) can be done with a DVD.
I'm sorry but for $650 that's way to expensive. I recall Plextor selling top of the line CD and DVD players for less then that. And Plextor was the most expensive players back in the day. They want more then double the price for 2x the speed. Also with the price of disks at nearly double the price of a DL DVD its not hard to stick with DVD.

You wouldnt slap a dvd movie on a cdr, like you wouldnt slap your XP on a bluray.
Backing up the large amount of saved data that most users are compiling these days, whether it be personal music, digicam footage, wedding video's etc etc is vital. And for most users will be a viable option soon as prices of the units decrease and speeds increase.

Picked up a Kodak cd-rw burner back in the day for over $1000au.
I recall a guy in my neighbourhood picked up a cd-r burner for almost $5000au, years before they were released in Melbourne.

And i totally agree with the price of discs these days in combination with the price of the burner, its stupid when you can pick up a few 1Tb HDD's and still save money.

 

[EastCoasthandle]

You wouldnt slap a dvd movie on a cdr, like you wouldnt slap your XP on a bluray.

Some have and will try. In reality to each his/her own. There is no set guidelines of what you should or shouldn't do in situations like this.

Backing up the large amount of saved data that most users are compiling these days, whether it be personal music, digicam footage, wedding video's etc etc is vital. And for most users will be a viable option soon as prices of the units decrease and speeds increase.

I really don't see this as a viable option anytime soon. BR burning has been out for sometime now. It was only a few months after DVD and DVD DL disc were released you could buy them in bundles at a reasonable price. As I see it now BR 25GB are still in dual packs while BR 50GB are in singles.

Picked up a Kodak cd-rw burner back in the day for over $1000au.
I recall a guy in my neighbourhood picked up a cd-r burner for almost $5000au, years before they were released in Melbourne.

Yes, it may have cost that much in your area. It certainly didn't in my area (at my local B&M stores). But after it's initial release prices did come down. During times when B&M stores were selling them (from what I consider) at higher prices they were considerably cheaper at places like Newegg and Ebay. As it stand right now, BR burners were introduced back in April 2006 making it a 2 year old product! BR 50GB discs were introduced in Aug 2006 making that 4 months later. I find it odd that prices haven't come down at the same time frame CD, DVD and DVD DL burners did.

And i totally agree with the price of discs these days in combination with the price of the burner, its stupid when you can pick up a few 1Tb HDD's and still save money.

Yes, after 2 years since it was introduced to the market it should not cost as much as it does.

 

[Wile E]

I really don't care about firewire 400, it isn't faster than USB 2.0 in practical or theoritical use. Now if it was Firewire 800 I would be jumping with joy, but then again my computer only has one firewire port, and it isn't firewire 800 anyway.

Ummm, firewire 400 is much faster than USB 2.0. Especially with large file transfers. Tho admittedly, that bandwidth is mostly waisted on a lowly burner. On hard drives, it's makes a huge difference.