I'm now a believer in 4x vs 8x Burns

[rkr1958]

1. The media I use is TYG02 DVD-R 8x (from rima.com). Great media and great burns. My burner is a Plexor 712-a. Never a problems. I've used both Nero 5 & DVDDecryptor (.iso) to burn

2. Just for grins I did a few scans of 8x burns. No PIO errors, PIE errors max'ed out around 30+ and seem to increase slightly at the 4-GB mark. Again ... no bigger, burned media play well in all my players.

3. I though I'd try some 4x burns. Scans showed again no PIO errors but PIE errors max'ed out aroung 10 and were consistent over the entire scan (i.e., PIE errors after the 4-GB mark were similar to errors prior).

4. I'm now a believe in 4x burns even though it takes 15-minutes versus 8-minutes to burn.

[atreides93]

Interesting.
Well obviously there's a tradeoff in going for faster burns...

[writersblock29]

I've heard (and I'm sorry that I can't remember where I've heard it) that many of your 8X disks were 12X or 16X to start with, and the dye just didn't cut the muster in the factory. 8Xs that don't make it are labeled for 4X use, 4Xs into 2.4X... I always figured there must be truth to it, since I frequently have entire spindles of 8X media that try to burn at 12X by default -- I always have to set the labeled speed manually. On the other hand, sometimes spindles of the same brand always default at the speed they're supposed to.

So, if the above story's true ( :o ), I guess the logic would follow that inferior dye that might have started out as being aimed for 12 - 16X burns -- yet wound up in 8X territory -- would benifit from an extra cushion and burned at a lower-than-labeled speed. If anyone more tech-savy could confirm this, please do.

If the story's not true ( :rolleyes: ), then I've wasted a tiny, irreplacable, portion of your life while you read this, Dear Reader. Feel free to smack me around for it.

[GrofLuigi]

I've heard (and I'm sorry that I can't remember where I've heard it) that many of your 8X disks were 12X or 16X to start with, and the dye just didn't cut the muster in the factory. 8Xs that don't make it are labeled for 4X use, 4Xs into 2.4X... I always figured there must be truth to it, since I frequently have entire spindles of 8X media that try to burn at 12X by default -- I always have to set the labeled speed manually. On the other hand, sometimes spindles of the same brand always default at the speed they're supposed to.

So, if the above story's true ( :o ), I guess the logic would follow that inferior dye that might have started out as being aimed for 12 - 16X burns -- yet wound up in 8X territory -- would benifit from an extra cushion and burned at a lower-than-labeled speed. If anyone more tech-savy could confirm this, please do.

If the story's not true ( :rolleyes: ), then I've wasted a tiny, irreplacable, portion of your life while you read this, Dear Reader. Feel free to smack me around for it.

That's true for processors, graphic cards etc. but I don't know how would they test each disc without destroying it (and whether it's worth the bother). ;)

GL

[writersblock29]

@GrofLuigi

[Qoute] "That's true for processors, graphic cards etc..."

You betcha. When I'm not doing videography, my "day job" is working at a division of Micron which produces "reduced standard" memory. We pretty much just close off bad sectors which exist on memory components so that they aren't accessed (and thereby cause problems) in people's systems. Once done, a memory module -- which preforms flawlessly -- can be made. Kind of like having a 1GB module that doesn't perform right... so we make a 512MB out of it. Oversimplified, but still pretty close.

As far as DVD media is concerned, writing speed is really only a measure of how fast the dye can cool and preserve the information written to it. The faster it can cool, the less time needed until the laser can pass close to it again while writing another track. If the laser passes too soon, the previously-written track turns to mush and causes playback errors. But to lower the speed, the dye has more time to cool... hense, the practice of lowering the rated burning speed on media that didn't pass the test. How this is done without ruining the disks' ability to record information, I can only shrug at. The memory of the article I read was stirring in my head when I read rkr1958's post.

I wish I could find a link or something on how media dye is tested, and what happens to failures. Maybe someone out there can help me out... or even point out what rubbish the whole idea is. I'm open to the idea that everything I read isn't true -- I do, after all, live in America. And we're communicating on the Misinformation Super Highway!