what's the truth about burn speed?

[lisawebs]

I hear different things.
Mostly, that when experiencing frezeeing or stoping with a copy
try lower speed.

On the other side, today is veru difficult to find disks which accept
something below 4x when burning.

Does anybody is sure about the truth about speed?

[unskinnyboy]

Doesn't matter what you hear. What did you *experience*? That is what your question should be based on.

Yes, it is advised that if you have a slower computer (weak processor, small RAM etc), and experience issues, you should try a slower writing speed. So you are saying even 4x doesn't work for you that you had to look to writing slower than that?

[CWR03]

If you can't burn successfully at 4X, you probably need a new burner. It sounds like you're hanging onto outdated hardware.

[lisawebs]

Are you suggesting that the technology standard is so unstable
(or unstandard) that a 2 year old burner is useless?

Well, if that, I'd accept that no matter speed or whatever,
there's no burn DVD that can run on 100% of desktop players,
what is my objective since the begining.

[CWR03]

Are you suggesting that the technology standard is so unstable (or unstandard) that a 2 year old burner is useless?Absolutely, in fact it's becoming closer to one year.

Well, if that, I'd accept that no matter speed or whatever,
there's no burn DVD that can run on 100% of desktop players,
what is my objective since the begining.That's not going to happen. Standalone DVD players read with the laser at a different angle and were primarily designed to read pressed disks. Practically all standalones made in the last couple years will play burned DVD's, but not all of them will, and the older a player is the less likely it will read a burned disk.

Check here: Player/media compatibility (http://www.videohelp.com/dvdplayers)

[setarip_old]

@lisawebs

Hi!

1) As long as firmware updates are provided to allow your burner to use higher speed-rated burnable media, it will not be obsoleted

2) In theory, burning +R media with the "bit set" should make the DVD playable on any standalone DVD player that bears the DVD logo - because setting the bit supposedly makes the DVD appear to be a DVD-ROM (a pressed DVD rather than burned media...)

[magnanimous]

G'day all, I've heard a lot about bit setting, how do you do it, I can't seem to find the option on any burning software.

[CWR03]

setarip_old, in theory that's correct, but as I said the difference in angle of the lasers will in some cases make a burned DVD impossible to read by a player despite the bitsetting, which changes the program structure but not the physical properties of the disk.

magnanimous, it would be much easier if you'd list the burning programs you use as well as their versions and let those who know where the bitsetting (which by default in most cases is already enabled) is accessed.

[atreides93]

Actually lets not rehash bitsetting. just use the forum search on this site and search for "bitsetting" you will find hundreds of posts talking about it.

There's been some totally bogus information posted in this thread in response to the original poster.
First of all, DVD burning is not an unstable technology or standard. what's happening is, as faster recordable disks start coming out and replacing the slower disks, its possible that you may have trouble finding media that your older drive was designed to write on. That has nothing to do with the standard, or instability. Its called progress.
You do not need to burn at 4x to get reliable burns. What media are you using? What burner?
You need to specify those things if you want any useful answers.

[jemaricld]

so if your burner can burn at 16x & you have 16x good media like ritek verbatim ,maxell write at 16x

[theReal]

Believe me a fairly new 16x burner will be a whole lot better than your 2 year old burner ever was, and a new one isn't really that expensive. For example I got an LG GSA-4163B (around 50€ in Germany) and it is much better than my old Pioneer DVR 106/A06 - for example it reads burnt DVDs much faster than the old one, it is less picky when reading scratched DVDs and its burning results are better on the same media.

You won't regret getting a new burner!

[blutach]

I'd never write at 16x. I burn at 4x (still). Some empirical evidence is emerging that burning at a bit under the rated speed of the disks produces the best quality burn (using Nero CD Speed/DVD Info Pro testing). For example, burning a 16x disk at 8x, and an 8x one at say 4x.

Regards

[CWR03]

I'd never write at 16x.Agreed, I've burned a number of data disks for friends, and any time I exceeded half the rated burn speed of the media the said friend would report slow read speeds of the disk. There's also degradation to consider - as the disk ages and the dyes blend back together, read errors will crop up. The better defined the initial burning was, the longer it will last. Faster burn speeds won't burn as sharply as slower.

[theReal]

I'd never write at 16x. I burn at 4x (still). I have not even bought any 8x media since I got the 16x burner - I had so many good 4x left that I'm still at 4x...
I'd also not burn 16x but 8x only (I wouldn't buy 16x media neither because 8x are still more reliable).

However, what I meant was that my new burner is better than my old burner at 4x speed with the same 4x media as before

[atreides93]

Sigh, as I'm finding out with my NEC 16x burner, I definitely can't get reliable burns at 16x. I'm using 16x Taiyo Yuden media, and while it burns "ok"..I noticed after a while, disks start skipping and playback sucks. I've now started burning at 8x, using dvd decryptor...I've noticed it burns around 4x..then speeds up to 6x..and finally 8x.

[theReal]

I recently got two burns from an ex-colleague (it's his camera-showcase, so nothing illegal!) on Sony 8x media with his Sony burner (I neither know the manufacturer of the discs nor the exact burner model, sorry) and they were both skipping horribly in my Cyberhome CH-DVD 401 player.
The player is not exactly state of the art, but it used to play everything very well as long as it was burnt 4x or slower.
He then copied the discs again using Ritek G05 media (labelled "Octron") and they played fine. However, on a very similar Cyberhome player (I think CH-DVD 400) these still skipped until I copied them to RiDisc Ritek G04 with 4x speed.

Conclusion: Even 8x doesn't seem very safe for DVD players. I know the Cyberhome are cheap, but they're pretty good for cheap players. A lot of people have cheap players, often worse ones than my Cyberhome, and I want to be able to play my DVDs everywhere

[rapscallion]

Agreed, I've burned a number of data disks for friends, and any time I exceeded half the rated burn speed of the media the said friend would report slow read speeds of the disk. There's also degradation to consider - as the disk ages and the dyes blend back together, read errors will crop up. The better defined the initial burning was, the longer it will last. Faster burn speeds won't burn as sharply as slower.

If all this is true, I can't imagine the degradtion of the dye on dual layer disks at any speed. (not to mention their still very high relative cost)

[theReal]

If all this is true, I can't imagine the degradtion of the dye on dual layer disks at any speed. (not to mention their still very high relative cost)

As far as I heard you're absolutely right with your assumption... Dual layer is not only a lot more expensive, but also a lot worse than single layer. There's probably no problem with most good DVD recorders and PC DVD drives, but if we're talking about standard DVD standalone players, then better don't consider using dual layer discs...

[setarip_old]

If all this is truePerhaps someone can document the statements made regarding "dye degradation", especially as it relates to burn speed...

As far as playback quality depending on burn speed, I have seen no such distinction. My own experience has been (I periodically experiment with higher burn speeds, although my "norm" is now 4X) that my burned DVDs playback properly on all of my standalone players, whether burned at 2X, 4X, 12X, or 16X for SL and 2.4X or 4X for DL...

[theReal]

my burned DVDs playback properly on all of my standalone players You might just be lucky with your standalones (I mean you probably know more about DVDs than the average Joe and you choose carefully what hardware you buy).

I still think you'd be able to see differences if you tried to play back your discs on other (more or less crappy) standalones.

Perhaps someone can document the statements made regarding "dye degradation", especially as it relates to burn speed...
I wish somebody could make a 100% statement about that... my own experience is that some older drives have difficulties with some discs while newer drives don't seem to have any issues with the same disc, still there are discs which are problematic with older AND newer drives. It doesn't matter how good a disc is directly after burning, it can still be unreadable after a year - yet some of these discs are still readable by newer drives, some are not...
If I had these thoughts all the time I guess I wouldn't rely on DVDs as a backup medium at all... but then, don't you think that at most 5 years ahead we will have a comlete new type of media and copy everything to that media anyways? ;)

[setarip_old]

I still think you'd be able to see differences if you tried to play back your discs on other (more or less crappy) standalones.Naah - One of my players is a Chinese made GE1101P (weighs a ton compared to others!) that makes Apex players look classy - and it plays all of my burned DVDs...

I mentioned that it would be good if "someone can document the statements made regarding 'dye degradation', especially as it relates to burn speed" because A) I personally don't believe this and B) I can't find any factual information to substantiate such a claim. Perhaps it's just "Urban Legend" stated as fact...

[rapscallion]

And, of course, the industry ( media manufacturers ) claim a burned dvd/cd will last for "decades". BTW, at any selected speed, isn't the write speed varaible, not constant. That selecting 4X may actually record at lower speeds across the span of the disc

[TomBrooklyn]

Dual layer is not only a lot more expensive, but also a lot worse than single layer. There's probably no problem with most good DVD recorders and PC DVD drives, but if we're talking about standard DVD standalone players, then better don't consider using dual layer discs...
I just got some DL disks and on my first two burns I got one that wouldn't play on either of my players and one that would play on my new Phillips but not on my Panasonic S35. I didn't think to try the first one on my computer. I'll try that.