IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Accurate burns?
archagon
post May 3 2005, 07:44
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 110
Joined: 27-February 05
From: Silicon Valley
Member No.: 20184



Does it matter what speed you use to record audio disks? I heard that using 1x or 2x can give you better quality then, say, 8x or 16x (which I use), but that info was probably outdated.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
heavymetalwiseon...
post May 3 2005, 11:22
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 124
Joined: 25-April 05
From: Greece
Member No.: 21690



well look. if you have a well-known burner (such as plextor etc) i don't think that you may have problems if you record at high speeds.

but why should you burn audio discs at high speeds? i burn mine at 8X and the sound is awesome and flawless. if you are in a hurry then ok, burn at high speeds but my recommendation and i think everybody else's is to burn at low speeds. to be honest, if my burner supported 4X i would burn at 4X.

1X or 2X is pointless. of course you would get more quality but it would take ages to record a disc. it takes me about 10mins to record at 8X.

This post has been edited by heavymetalwiseone: May 3 2005, 11:25


--------------------
Heavy Metal Is the Law!!!
---Let 'Em Eat Metal---
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Brink
post May 3 2005, 11:34
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 139
Joined: 10-September 04
From: Brazil
Member No.: 16894



QUOTE
1X or 2X is pointless. of course you would get more quality

Why? For ages I have seen a lot of people claiming that if you want more quality you need to burn at 4x or less. The only reason to me is compatibility with really old players.

If you want more quality, buy a good brand (manufacturer) and a good burner.


--------------------
Alguém pare o mundo que eu quero descer!!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
heavymetalwiseon...
post May 3 2005, 14:37
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 124
Joined: 25-April 05
From: Greece
Member No.: 21690



i don't disagree about 1X or 2X. smile.gif but it would need ages to burn a 80min cd. that's the only reason. imagine how much time is needed to burn at 1X or 2X in comparison to the 10min at 8X or 20min at 4X.

if it is about only one cd and you have plenty of time, then ok go to below 4X. but if you have to burn 5 or more cds??? biggrin.gif to me it is just waste of time. 8X works perfectly on me.

it's up to you. wink.gif


--------------------
Heavy Metal Is the Law!!!
---Let 'Em Eat Metal---
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
vitos
post May 3 2005, 14:58
Post #5





Group: Members
Posts: 103
Joined: 7-February 05
From: Warsaw, Poland
Member No.: 19663



QUOTE (Brink @ May 3 2005, 11:34 AM)
Why? For ages I have seen a lot of people claiming that if you want more quality you need to burn at 4x or less. The only reason to me is compatibility with really old players.
*

And I have seen a lot of claims that Lame MP3 192kbps stereo is better that joint stereo. So what, it makes the truth? Let somebody show me any link to evidence that recording at 2x or 4x yields in better quality that 16-24x (higher speeds of course are questionable) on present writers and media, which are simply not optimized for such low speeds. Any hardware review I read on cdrinfo.com makes me believe that burned CD quality is more a matter of writer/media combination, not of recording speed. And I observe the same when checking my own burned discs with Nero CD-DVD Speed's disc quality test.


--------------------
Not really a Signature.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
precisionist
post May 3 2005, 15:52
Post #6





Group: Members
Posts: 739
Joined: 16-January 04
From: Germany
Member No.: 11279



QUOTE (heavymetalwiseone @ May 3 2005, 11:22 AM)
to be honest, if my burner supported 4X i would burn at 4X.
*

The laser energy of recent burners is too much for such slow speeds. The data layer is rather burned away than anything is written. The best speeds seem to be in the middle of the available range of your burner and/or your disc. I'd like to know how to determine the best speed precisely via C2/C1 methods.


--------------------
I know that I know nothing. But how can I then know that ?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
archagon
post May 3 2005, 16:16
Post #7





Group: Members
Posts: 110
Joined: 27-February 05
From: Silicon Valley
Member No.: 20184



I don't understand how, logically, recording at a lower speed would give you "better quality". Okay, so your data may not be as "neat" as on slower burns - big deal! As long as it's all still THERE, why should it matter?

By the way, what exactly do you folks mean by "CD quality" - compatability or the actual sound quality? It can't really be the latter, can it? Since a CD's data is stored digitally, the only sound issues it *could* have are crackles and other distortion resulting from lost bits, and EAC corrects these.

This post has been edited by archagon: May 3 2005, 16:31
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
riggits
post May 3 2005, 17:47
Post #8





Group: Members
Posts: 148
Joined: 26-December 03
Member No.: 10708



recording at low speeds can often give worse results than higher speeds. I always burn at the middle of my CD's range for best results.. test with Nero CD-DVD Speed.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ddrawley
post May 3 2005, 18:00
Post #9





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 351
Joined: 10-November 02
Member No.: 3749



I have noted I have less problems with older CDROMs and car CD players if I burn at 8x.
I have noted in the past that there is a visible difference when I hold a CD up to the light. A 16X burn on my Plextor looks slightly different than an 8X. ( no, I didn't ABX it ) smile.gif
If the naked eye can spot a difference, it doesn't seem a stretch that a laser pickup can.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Brink
post May 3 2005, 19:05
Post #10





Group: Members
Posts: 139
Joined: 10-September 04
From: Brazil
Member No.: 16894



Vitos, my sarcastic point was the same as yours. "The only reason to use such low speeds are compatibility issues". Other than that, makes no sense to me.


--------------------
Alguém pare o mundo que eu quero descer!!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
kotrtim
post May 4 2005, 09:30
Post #11





Group: Members
Posts: 657
Joined: 4-December 02
Member No.: 3989



RECORDING TOO SLOW WILL DECREASE QUALITY!!!!
new drives are not optimised for low speed!

See the manufacturer recommended speed

if it is 1~16X (for Cyanine, Metal Azo media) Of course, you use 16X


If it is super cyanine, super azo, phthalocyanine
You can normally burn these disc up to 52X

Reducing the speed down to 32 ~ 48X will help to reduce errors,
But not as low as 1, 2, 8, 16X

Read more
http://club.cdfreaks.com/showthread.php?t=61943#17)17
http://club.cdfreaks.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=69698
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Gecko
post May 4 2005, 10:13
Post #12





Group: Members
Posts: 937
Joined: 15-December 01
From: Germany
Member No.: 662



Every combination of media/burner has a quality sweet spot which today usually lies in the area between 32x - 52x.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jkauff
post May 6 2005, 17:25
Post #13





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 161
Joined: 1-October 01
From: Doylestown, PA
Member No.: 145



If you're concerned with compatibility with older CD players, you might want to burn at 16x. That's the fastest you can burn without P-CAV or P-CLV kicking in.

You should also turn off Burn-Proof (or whatever equivalent scheme your drive uses) to prevent P-CAV/P-CLV from kicking in at 16x or slower.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
vitos
post May 6 2005, 20:28
Post #14





Group: Members
Posts: 103
Joined: 7-February 05
From: Warsaw, Poland
Member No.: 19663



QUOTE (Brink @ May 3 2005, 07:05 PM)
Vitos, my sarcastic point was the same as yours. "The only reason to use such low speeds are compatibility issues". Other than that, makes no sense to me.
*

And I understood your point. I just wanted to mention that often reducing to such speed may not help anyhow, it's just placebo I hear often "I recorded slower, so it sounds better and is more compatible". It's better to consider changing recording media.

QUOTE (jkauff @ May 6 2005, 05:25 PM)
You should also turn off Burn-Proof (or whatever equivalent scheme your drive uses) to prevent P-CAV/P-CLV from kicking in at 16x or slower.
*

And what you got instead? Better quality, or a CD which you can throw to trash? ;-)


--------------------
Not really a Signature.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
OnyxRev
post May 6 2005, 21:19
Post #15





Group: Members
Posts: 49
Joined: 5-May 05
From: Saint Paul, MN
Member No.: 21893



I will say that, as a pro audio engineer, every mastering house I have ever been to burns their master CDs at single speed. That includes a couple of the big guns out in LA. But that's the mastering process, not the duplication process. I think there's some merit to burning slower on very high quality drives that are designed for it.

QUOTE (vitos @ May 6 2005, 01:28 PM)
QUOTE (Brink @ May 3 2005, 07:05 PM)
Vitos, my sarcastic point was the same as yours. "The only reason to use such low speeds are compatibility issues". Other than that, makes no sense to me.
*

And I understood your point. I just wanted to mention that often reducing to such speed may not help anyhow, it's just placebo I hear often "I recorded slower, so it sounds better and is more compatible". It's better to consider changing recording media.

QUOTE (jkauff @ May 6 2005, 05:25 PM)
You should also turn off Burn-Proof (or whatever equivalent scheme your drive uses) to prevent P-CAV/P-CLV from kicking in at 16x or slower.
*

And what you got instead? Better quality, or a CD which you can throw to trash? ;-)
*

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Never_Again
post May 6 2005, 22:24
Post #16





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 698
Joined: 31-March 04
From: NYC
Member No.: 13152



The only merit to slower burning could be better beta and lower jitter. But this will depend on the drive+media combo and any improvement in that area is likely to be of little practical value except with some very old standalone/portable CD players. In my experience, the sweet spot for burning CDs is either 16x or 24x, depending on the burner and the media.

The significance of the burner+media combination cannot be stressed enough when discussing a subject like this. I agree with OnyRev that burning appropriate media at 1X on pro equipment specifically designed that may make sense; but consumer drives of the past few years are a different story altogether. They don't even support speeds below 4X any longer, so this whole discussion is rather, erm, academic.

<edit: typo>

This post has been edited by Never_Again: May 6 2005, 22:25
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rutra80
post May 7 2005, 00:54
Post #17





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 810
Joined: 12-September 03
Member No.: 8821



Those who think that slower is always better should try to burn ultra-speed CD-RW disc on non-ultra-speed drive.

This post has been edited by rutra80: May 7 2005, 02:50
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
archagon
post May 7 2005, 04:27
Post #18





Group: Members
Posts: 110
Joined: 27-February 05
From: Silicon Valley
Member No.: 20184



QUOTE (Never_Again @ May 6 2005, 01:24 PM)
They don't even support speeds below 4X any longer, so this whole discussion is rather, erm, academic.
*


Aren't purely academic discussions the trademarks of an audiophile? dry.gif
Just kidding (well...) Thanks for the info, folks!

This post has been edited by archagon: May 7 2005, 04:28
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
heavymetalwiseon...
post May 7 2005, 08:21
Post #19





Group: Members
Posts: 124
Joined: 25-April 05
From: Greece
Member No.: 21690



from what i've heard, i'll start to burn at 16 with my ND3520A. but i don't have any problems when i burn at 8X, that's for sure.


--------------------
Heavy Metal Is the Law!!!
---Let 'Em Eat Metal---
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 27th August 2014 - 14:43