Storage Solutions How can slower burns be worse ?
- Thread starter greenhorn
- Start date
greenhorn
Patron
would you believe I even RMA'd the Drive over this ?
btw, this problem is only with the newfangled DVDRW's - AD7220S(liteon) and the AD7240S(Optiarc) i got back from RMA.
My ye olde Liteon 5238S (CDRW drive) burns 8x just the same , and a bit better than 48x methinks , so I'm not sure if this is a media issue
btw, this problem is only with the newfangled DVDRW's - AD7220S(liteon) and the AD7240S(Optiarc) i got back from RMA.
My ye olde Liteon 5238S (CDRW drive) burns 8x just the same , and a bit better than 48x methinks , so I'm not sure if this is a media issue
thetoxicmind
ex-Mod
Gaurish said:I do burn media at 8x speed. to avoid write errors, as they do occur frequently at high speeds.From experiance, I can safely say that media burned at low speed is less error prone. Not sure about quality of scan. never bothered that much
Quite true and it (writing at low speeds) also extends the life of the writer.
blr_p
Skilled
apollyon said:afaik slower burns = better quality is a myth
best burn quality is achieved when the media is burnt at the speed at which it is rated.
i could be wrong though, wait for techhead to reply
As opposed to faster burns are better ?
No, the best burn is what combo works with your writer. And there are two variables here to consider
- the media used
- the writer itself
Some media works better with slower vs others and its up to the user to find the right combo. There is no general rule.
So my interpretation for greenie's pics is don't go slow with those verbs given the writer you got.
Is your writer good at doing CDs ? Those scores are terrible never mind the write speed.
Final Question : Is the Optiarc a dependable scanner ?
I am not a tech head so I am going to reply based on what I feel and I have experienced.
The Speed indicated on the media is the maximum rate at which It can support data being written without compromising heavily on redundancy.
Slower burns I feel are generally better I feel because the buffer consumed is less and hence any interruption can be safely handled as the data that could not be written gets accumulated into buffer so there is marginal error free region.
While Writing at higher speeds buffers are usually maxed out from the very start.
Well this my theory and I haven't cross examined it. Hopefully i am not that wrong.
The Speed indicated on the media is the maximum rate at which It can support data being written without compromising heavily on redundancy.
Slower burns I feel are generally better I feel because the buffer consumed is less and hence any interruption can be safely handled as the data that could not be written gets accumulated into buffer so there is marginal error free region.
While Writing at higher speeds buffers are usually maxed out from the very start.
Well this my theory and I haven't cross examined it. Hopefully i am not that wrong.
thetoxicmind
ex-Mod
axeman said:
Yeah, It matters but it still isn't advisable to write at the highest speeds throughout.
blr_p
Skilled
Nashnir said:
AS you said you are not a techhead. Your theory does not apply to modern writes.
The only tool available to either confirm or not is to quality scan.
This requires a writer that is reliable and able as not all can and care must be exercised in choosing a writer for this reason.
In the original post, the score went to zero 'cos of the C2 error.greenhorn said:
got a second opinion from my AD 7190S (Liteon)
It seems that the 7240 isnt the best scanner around. will have to try it on this PC - Still not sure if other things like SATA cables and controllers may have problems
still, why the huge difference in the errors?
Weird. Not the best scanning drive out there though, as someone pointed out. 48x media?
Also, forget the scan.. can you post a readback curve on both the drives? Better test, IMHO.