Do you getter a "better" quality burn the slower you burn? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Optical Storage] >> CD, DVD, BD Drives >> Writing Quality



Message

1UP -> Do you getter a "better" quality burn the slower you burn? (9/27/2004 5:19:56 AM)

Apart from the time it takes, is there a quality difference between burning on CD or DVD, between say 1X and 40x / 8x? Equally, is there a big difference say between 1x and 4x?

I presume it's not really a linear improvement!

What guideline would you give for the minimum recording speed to ensure a high quality burn?



Iggy -> RE: Do you getter a "better" quality burn the slower you burn? (9/27/2004 5:35:10 AM)

The writing quality for each speed depends on the writer and the media.

In case of CD most users prefer the 24X speed. For sure 40X or higher are not recommented.

In case of DVD probably yes however depends on the drive's firmware, meaning the writing strategy etc.



emperor -> RE: Do you getter a "better" quality burn the slower you burn? (9/27/2004 6:32:10 AM)

For sure i would reccomend to burn DVD media at 4X or 8X, of course again this depends upon the used media/drive combination



JeanLuc -> RE: Do you getter a "better" quality burn the slower you burn? (9/29/2004 11:11:39 AM)

From my experience only, slower DVD burning is always better in terms of error rates and thus writing quality.

When it comes to CD burning, it has been proven several times that slower burning does not increase quality on modern media (in contrary, the error rates with Taiyo Yuden CDR media, written with the Plextor Premium at e.g. 8x are higher than those achieved at 16x).

If you stick to 16x or 24x with a modern CDRW (using high quality media), you will definitely be on the safe side ...



peterphelan -> RE: Do you getter a "better" quality burn the slower you burn? (10/2/2004 3:14:04 PM)

Hi,
quote:

ORIGINAL: JeanLuc

From my experience only, slower DVD burning is always better in terms of error rates and thus writing quality.



New to the Forum and DVD[:)] so perhaps you can help.

I have started to archive our photo library images etc to DVD and am burning to Memorex DVD-R with Iomega external drive and HotBurn. Everything seems to write ok and my "Drivescan" software then reads all data into its database. Furthermore, the files I have so far accessed from the DVD's have been ok.

However; ........checking th DVD's with CDRInfo shows errors on every disc! I am therefore naturally worried now about the quality of the archived discs. I have been told that for maximum archival quality I should use DVD RAM?? discs??.........is this correct? And what media would you recommend for maximum archival quality please?

Thanks
Peter



emperor -> RE: Do you getter a "better" quality burn the slower you burn? (10/3/2004 2:49:09 PM)

The only problem with DVD-RAM discs is that they have limited compatibility with DVD players and only few selected drives support reading/writing, but it has the highest durability specs from DVD+/-RW



peterphelan -> RE: Do you getter a "better" quality burn the slower you burn? (10/3/2004 5:25:54 PM)

Thanks Emperor,

I am experimenting now with various media; it seems neither of my normal drives like the DVD+R discs, although they are read by the Iomega drive that wrote them of course [:)].......and interestingly it writes DVD+R media at around thwice the speed of similar branded DVD-R??

Whilst browsing in PC World I noticed Fuji have some gold "lifetime guarantee" discs specifically aimed at archiving photos. The box states they have a UV coating etc and are 28 times more stable than "normal" DVD's. I'll give them a try for the moment.

Peter



emperor -> RE: Do you getter a "better" quality burn the slower you burn? (10/3/2004 5:39:17 PM)

ok, of course i would count 100% exactly what the box says or I should say "Advertises"



peterphelan -> RE: Do you getter a "better" quality burn the slower you burn? (10/4/2004 4:45:43 AM)

Yep [:)] .......... a bit like the "75 years" archival life given now for professional inkjet printers!....we shall have to wait a while to see if it all comes to pass [:D]

Still, I am sure they will be better than the Memorex media I am currently using.

Thanks again for your help
Peter



chas0039 -> RE: Do you getter a "better" quality burn the slower you burn? (11/7/2004 11:17:59 AM)

In general I would agree that slower burns (4X and 8X) are better burns. I have found some +R media from Ritek that burned better at 6X than at 4X. I also have some Prodisc S03 that was best at 2X on a Pioneer 107D and virtually the same at any speed on my NEC 3500 (considerably better than the 107 by the way).

I also am aware of some experts in the industry who firmly believe that slower burns provide for a longer disc life. I, for one, will stay at 4X for a least 2-3 years until the testing and standardizing is completed on disc life. I do not want to reburn my archives all over again.



sambahill -> RE: Do you getter a "better" quality burn the slower you burn? (12/29/2004 4:51:36 AM)

So I have my BenQ DW1620 16x dvd-burner. I have 8x BenQ DVD+R media. Even though I can burn my 8x media at 16x, to reduce errors ( sometimes chapters in my movies stick) I can burn it at 8x or 4x and hopefully I will have full good movies?

sambahill



semo -> RE: Do you getter a "better" quality burn the slower you burn? (12/29/2004 5:15:35 PM)

why isn't there just one simple answer for questions?
how can i find out what is the best speed to burn my cds/dvds. i don't care about time, just quality.



sambahill -> RE: Do you getter a "better" quality burn the slower you burn? (12/29/2004 6:25:39 PM)

I think that the best DVD writing speed is 4x and the best CD writing speed is 24x.

sambahill



Blackbird -> RE: Do you getter a "better" quality burn the slower you burn? (1/18/2005 3:20:07 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sambahill

I think that the best DVD writing speed is 4x and the best CD writing speed is 24x.

sambahill

First of all, since this is my first post, I'd like to say hi to all:)
I agree the speeds you mention are generally the most apropriate for quality burns, but as always there are exceptions. I've bunrt Traxdata's +R 8x media at 4x and 8x and there is no difference in PIE/PIF. The same is for the Verbatim 8x media. So, as long as you use quality media, the speed factor is less important. I have some bad experience with Princo 4x media. Either 2x nor 4x speed produces reliable copys. Moreover I have a LG GSA-4082B, which is considered as a burner that makes high quality DVD burns.



arith -> RE: Do you getter a "better" quality burn the slower you burn? (1/18/2005 4:22:34 AM)

Welcome to our forum Blackbird.

It still depends.
Some suggestion might be to burn at the speed which the media claimed.
If you bought a 8x media, for better quality, burn it at 8x.

BUT, if your media's quality is not so good, or even you got some fake one, you might then have a new cup pad if you burn it at 8x.

A friend of mine give some of his 8x media which can be burnt at 12x on my BenQ DW1620A. I use BenQ's QScan to scan the media's TE/FE, then it said I'd better to burn them at 4x....[:'(]



alexnoe -> RE: Do you getter a "better" quality burn the slower you burn? (2/24/2005 4:15:45 PM)

Give me one single valid reason against recording a DVD-R within 5min 20sec:
[img]http://www-user.tu-chemnitz.de/~noe/Plextor/sample_pictures/lg4163b_a102_mcc03rg20.png[/img]



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.03125