View Full Version : Ideal CD-R burn speed - any theories ?
aashton
10-01-2002, 10:12 AM
I was interested in the comments in another thread as to the audible differences arising from burning CD-Rs at different speeds - does anyone have a theory as to what causes this change ? Do different CD duplication plants use varying reproduction rates and does this affect the sound - I was wondering if this could account for the UD-1 vs UD-II variations on what I have assumed (probably mistakenly) to be bit matched recordings.
No axe to grind or side to take here (I don't do CD-Rs myself :) ) just curious (and we know what that did to the cat ;) )
All the best - Andrew
jkerr
10-01-2002, 11:46 AM
CDs that are manufactured are pressed from a glass master. CDRs have a dye that changes when hit by the laser. Two different technologies. When burning CDRs there's debate over whether different speeds affect the quality (and maybe the longeveity) of the changed dye. That's why blank media are rated for different speeds.
Somewhere I have an article that says speed does matter when burning a CDR, no matter what the media is rated at. It all has to do with jitter. The faster you go the more jitter is inherent in the process. At some point the errors actually become audible.
That's why I try to be reasonable and not burn stuff too fast that I deem critical.
Sckott
10-03-2002, 12:18 PM
Does speed matter? Here's how you can tell:
Use EAC at www.exactaudiocopy.com
Copy a couple of tracks from a CD to CDR, at the fastest speed possible
Then take the same disc and try to do a "Accurate Atream/C2(if possible)" rip of the copy.
If you get errors at the read of the copied disc, your CDR unit isn't writing accurate information, it's just being done fast.
Burns are best done at 4X-8X. MHO....for data accuracy, if you ever had to copy the copy.
audiomixer
10-03-2002, 12:51 PM
I can hear the difference in "burns" and am not that crazy about them!!!
They are fine for casual listening, compilations, etc..
But not for archiving...
(In my humble opinion...)
lukpac
10-03-2002, 01:05 PM
Originally posted by Dan
Somewhere I have an article that says speed does matter when burning a CDR, no matter what the media is rated at. It all has to do with jitter. The faster you go the more jitter is inherent in the process. At some point the errors actually become audible.
That's why I try to be reasonable and not burn stuff too fast that I deem critical.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe jitter only has to do with D/A and A/D conversions, NOT the storage of digital on media. While it is possible there may be an issue here, I don't believe jitter is it.
Grant
10-03-2002, 01:10 PM
Originally posted by audiomixer
I can hear the difference in "burns" and am not that crazy about them!!!
They are fine for casual listening, compilations, etc..
But not for archiving...
(In my humble opinion...)
It depends on HOW they are done and WHAT they are done with.
jkerr
10-03-2002, 01:41 PM
Originally posted by lukpac
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe jitter only has to do with D/A and A/D conversions, NOT the storage of digital on media. While it is possible there may be an issue here, I don't believe jitter is it.
I think it has to do with the properties of the dye, the strength of the laser and probably how stable the disc is while spinning. Obviously the faster one burns, the quicker the dye has to change. Not only do you have to worry about whether the dye changes quickly enough but will it stay stable? Its amazing that it works as well as it does.
Myself, I burn at 4x. I'm not in a hurry and it always works.
Jeffrey
10-03-2002, 02:01 PM
Hi,
Logic tells me.... the slower something is reproduced the more accurate the result. That is certainly the case w/ analog (cassettes, half-speed lp's, etc.). Many studies show that higher burn speeds increase accuracy but my logic still tells me that 1X should be the best.
Just Another View,
Jeffrey
Ronflugelguy
10-03-2002, 02:21 PM
When I bought my stanalone burner, the salesman asked me if it was important to me to do copies at high speed, and I told him no. he said that real time was the most accurate......makes sense to me!
"real time" makes no sense in this context and the analog tape analogy really isn't accurate.
Grant
10-03-2002, 03:07 PM
Originally posted by Jeffrey
Hi,
Logic tells me.... the slower something is reproduced the more accurate the result. That is certainly the case w/ analog (cassettes, half-speed lp's, etc.). Many studies show that higher burn speeds increase accuracy but my logic still tells me that 1X should be the best.
Just Another View,
Jeffrey
But, digital is NOT analog. A whole different set of rules apply.
Grant
10-03-2002, 03:11 PM
Originally posted by Ronflugelguy
When I bought my stanalone burner, the salesman asked me if it was important to me to do copies at high speed, and I told him no. he said that real time was the most accurate......makes sense to me!
Again, digital is NOT analog. A whole different set of rules apply. Not even pros or audiophiles can agree on this issue. If you use the latest blanks meant for faster speeds, things like increased errors caused by dye splatter come into play. So, slower is not better with newer blanks and even newer burners, standalone OR computrer-based.
Jeffrey
10-03-2002, 03:27 PM
Originally posted by Grant
But, digital is NOT analog. A whole different set of rules apply.
Hey Grant,
Geez... I was just stating FACTS about analog and was NOT saying that everything was the same with digital. It's NOT! That's why I keep on buying LP's! :D
Now let's get back to the REAL point of my post. Logic tells me the slower something is reproduced the more accurate the result (regardless of whether it is digital or analog). Please step away from the various studies and break out some good ole' common sense and ask yourself how the accuracy of digital dubs can be improved by increasing the speed???
A Different View,
Jeffrey
Grant
10-03-2002, 03:42 PM
And, i'm telling you that the "good 'ol common sense" of slower being better does NOT work in the digital realm.
I buy LPs too. I bought more LPs than CDs this year.
Jeffrey
10-03-2002, 03:54 PM
Originally posted by Grant
And, i'm telling you that the "good 'ol common sense" of slower being better does NOT work in the digital realm.
Why???
Grant
10-03-2002, 04:04 PM
I just told you one, dye splatter. Blanks nowadays are optimized for faster speds, not slow ones. The laser mechenism in most modern burners automatically adjust the laser for the dye. Some software/burners even set the optimal speed for a good burn. Some burners can't even burn at 2x anymore.
There are actually even more technical explainations to explain this, but I have to go to work now. Perhaps Scott of someone else can fill in the blanks, no pun intended.
romanotrax
10-03-2002, 04:11 PM
Check out www.crdfaq.org
Great information there and section 3-31 is all about cd burning speeds. Very informative!
Paul C.
10-03-2002, 06:03 PM
Just as an interesting aside, I just read a piece by the venerable John C. Dvorak of PC Magazine, where he states that it is unlikely that CD burners will get any faster, becasue the rotational speeds required of the discs are such that the discs become unstable - the CDRs actually fly apart, shattering inside the burner and disintegrating. Here's the link:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,481315,00.asp
He also mentions an older Plextor 12x burner as being the best burner in terms of quality.
Ronflugelguy
10-03-2002, 08:17 PM
Originally posted by Grant
Again, digital is NOT analog. A whole different set of rules apply. Not even pros or audiophiles can agree on this issue. If you use the latest blanks meant for faster speeds, things like increased errors caused by dye splatter come into play. So, slower is not better with newer blanks and even newer burners, standalone OR computrer-based.
Then I take it that faster may not be better either?????????
If anyone cares, and even if they don't, I'm going to post tommorow having done 2 completely different albums. Both are burned using the same settings on EAC as so far IMHO they have the best ripping software.
Both albums have been burned at 1X Secure, 1X Accurate, 4X Secure and 4X Accurate and both are done on the Made In Japan Maxells (not all the same colo[u]rs though).
MHO currently is that 1X is better than 4X but I will let you know for sure tomorrow.;)
PS. I also use a Plextor model 12/10/32A and it doesn't have the 2X's burn speed.
krabapple
10-03-2002, 09:35 PM
Originally posted by romanotrax
Check out www.crdfaq.org
Great information there and section 3-31 is all about cd burning speeds. Very informative!
I think you mean
www.cdrfaq.org
romanotrax
10-03-2002, 10:15 PM
Originally posted by krabapple
I think you mean
www.cdrfaq.org
Yep thats the place... thanks!
Originally posted by Paul Christie
...because the rotational speeds required of the discs are such that the discs become unstable - the CDRs actually fly apart, shattering inside the burner and disintegrating.
True - I have seen this happen a few times with new high-speed drives (either LG or Samsung, I cannot remember which it was).
Jeffrey
10-04-2002, 06:58 AM
Originally posted by Grant
I just told you one, dye splatter. Blanks nowadays are optimized for faster speds, not slow ones. The laser mechenism in most modern burners automatically adjust the laser for the dye. Some software/burners even set the optimal speed for a good burn. Some burners can't even burn at 2x anymore.
Hey Grant,
The fact that most blanks and burners are now being optimized for faster burn speeds does NOT mean that faster burn speeds result in higher quality recordings. It means that the general consumer wants faster burn speeds and convience sells! The general consumer has been sacrificing quality for convience for years, why should audio be any different?
-Jeffrey
vBulletin® v3.7.2, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.