| Author |
Message |
John
Guest
|
 Posted:
Thu Nov 25, 2004 10:02 pm Post subject:
Is a 1X burn better than a 4X burn? |
|
|
My computer can easily burn at 4x or 8x or 16x. My burner is 16x.
Assuming I have appropriate speed media:
Is there ever a reason to do a 1x burn? Is the burn better? Does it
last longer? Does it have fewer errors?
Thanks,
John
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
luminos
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Nov 25, 2004 10:02 pm Post subject:
Re: Is a 1X burn better than a 4X burn? |
|
|
"John" <johnfofawn@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d89364bd.0411251342.1716f72e@posting.google.com...
| Quote: | My computer can easily burn at 4x or 8x or 16x. My burner is 16x.
Assuming I have appropriate speed media:
Is there ever a reason to do a 1x burn? Is the burn better? Does it
last longer? Does it have fewer errors?
Thanks,
John
|
Yes, except for the last longer, and I don't think that is documented a
benefit. You can prove this yourself with Nero utilities and burn a full
disc at various rates and check the errors.
It should be noted that error correction corrects *most* of the errors
anyway. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lordy
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 26, 2004 2:05 am Post subject:
Re: Is a 1X burn better than a 4X burn? |
|
|
"luminos" <logos1@trip.net> wrote in
news:10qcl8lq6c3uib9@news20.forteinc.com:
| Quote: | Yes, except for the last longer, and I don't think that is documented
a benefit.
|
Not always. I've had media that repeatedly had more errors at lower speed.
(1x,2x). And was best at 4x then next best at 8x.
| Quote: | You can prove this yourself with Nero utilities and burn a
full disc at various rates and check the errors.
|
Fully agree. This is the best way. A bit tedious at the start, but worth
doing if you plan to do a lot of burning.
Start with some good recommended media and then do your own scans, just
dont sit and watch them!
--
Lordy |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MCheu
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 26, 2004 2:05 am Post subject:
Re: Is a 1X burn better than a 4X burn? |
|
|
On 25 Nov 2004 13:42:50 -0800, johnfofawn@hotmail.com (John) wrote:
| Quote: | My computer can easily burn at 4x or 8x or 16x. My burner is 16x.
Assuming I have appropriate speed media:
Is there ever a reason to do a 1x burn? Is the burn better? Does it
last longer? Does it have fewer errors?
Thanks,
John
|
Sometimes. It really depends on the circumstances involved, the
media, the burner, and the reader at least. Some media/burner
combinations are optimized to burn at a specific speed, and give best
results (ie. lower error rate) at that speed.
For example, I once burned a disc at 2x (slowest speed offered for
that brand in Nero), I found that I got a higher error rate than
earlier discs that I had burned at 8x (the disc's rated speed).
Weird, as that goes against conventional wisdom, but it may be that my
drive just isn't as well optimized for that media at that slower
speed.
Admittedly, the media (Princo) isn't great, and I don't use that brand
anymore, but it illustrates a point that slowing the speed down
doesn't always give you better results. You typically have to
experiment a bit. If the media's giving you bad error rates, it's
certainly worth trying it at slower speeds.
As to whether it lasts longer? Who knows. It's expected that discs
will develop more errors over time as it accumulates scratches through
normal wear, and as the dye ages. In theory, if you start out with a
lower error rate, you give yourself a bit more headroom that way.
Whether underspeeding the burns will give you that is debateable. I
personally think you'd do better just to buy better grade media that's
known to burn with a lower error rate than to try and squeeze a better
burn out of crappy media by slowing it down.
---------------------------------------------
MCheu |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CaptNemo
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 27, 2004 12:07 am Post subject:
Re: Is a 1X burn better than a 4X burn? |
|
|
People asked the same question with cd burners when they came out .... is 2X
better than 12X or 48X ... there was no "concrete proof" that burning slower
was better. Burn as fast as you want.
As far as dvd burners ... I have not seen any concrete proof that says 1X is
better than 2X or 8X. People who burn 4X media at 16X might have problems.
Just use good media (fuji, tdk or sony), update your burner's software rom
and burn as fast as you want. I burn at 8X and never had any problems.
Good luck
"John" <johnfofawn@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d89364bd.0411251342.1716f72e@posting.google.com...
| Quote: | My computer can easily burn at 4x or 8x or 16x. My burner is 16x.
Assuming I have appropriate speed media:
Is there ever a reason to do a 1x burn? Is the burn better? Does it
last longer? Does it have fewer errors?
Thanks,
John |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 27, 2004 6:03 am Post subject:
Re: Is a 1X burn better than a 4X burn? |
|
|
Thanks for the advice!
I didn't know that Nero had tools to see the number of errors. I'll
experiment and see what I can learn.
THANK YOU!
John |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lordy
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 27, 2004 6:05 am Post subject:
Re: Is a 1X burn better than a 4X burn? |
|
|
johnfofawn@hotmail.com (John) wrote in news:d89364bd.0411261703.fb59062
@posting.google.com:
| Quote: |
I didn't know that Nero had tools to see the number of errors.
|
I'm not sure about the number of errors (anyone?) but if you scan a disc
using the CD-DVD Speed tool, the scan speed should increase in a uniform
fashion. If it drops that indicates the drive is using excessive error
correction.
| Quote: | I'll
experiment and see what I can learn.
|
If you have a Liteon DVD drive check out Kprobe2.
http://kprobe.cdfreaks.com
--
Lordy |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MCheu
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 27, 2004 6:05 am Post subject:
Re: Is a 1X burn better than a 4X burn? |
|
|
On 26 Nov 2004 17:03:19 -0800, johnfofawn@hotmail.com (John) wrote:
| Quote: | Thanks for the advice!
I didn't know that Nero had tools to see the number of errors. I'll
experiment and see what I can learn.
THANK YOU!
John
|
Yeah, cd-dvdspeed. It's under the Nero Tools. You can download a
newer version with better support at www.cdspeed2000.com.
Just be aware that the disc quality (error scanning) feature won't
work with all drives. There's no point in complaining about your
drive not being supported, as the drive actually has to be capable of
detecting and reporting the errors for it to work, and most models
don't. Most of the models from LiteON, Plextor, and BenQ have that
feature. It's not a feature that's typically needed for normal
operation, so most models lack the ability to report PI/PO and C1/C2
errors.
The only other way you can test it is to do the standard test on it in
cd-dvdspeed (the screen you see when you fire it up). Errors will
show as wide fluctuations in speed. If the test shows a relatively
smooth curve (CAV) or a series of plateaus (ZLV), the disc probably is
pretty good. If it has regions resembling a seismograph (earthquake
sensor), that might be bad. Most drives can accommodate this sort of
test but it's not quite as definitive.
---------------------------------------------
MCheu |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in