1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

why have faster speeds?

Discussion in 'DVD±R media' started by phormat, Sep 20, 2004.

  1. phormat

    phormat Guest

    Hi I bought a 16x dvd burner, the benq one a few weeks ago hoping that i would be able to burn dvds faster. Then I read here that people onlny burn at 4x? Why would they have a 8x or higher mode if it caused that many errors? I guess I dont understand why they would already have many 16x drives out when the best burn is at 4x, just doesn't make much sense to me. Any feedback would be appreciated.
     
  2. Nephilim

    Nephilim Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2003
    Messages:
    14,942
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    116
    The DVD format isn't a mature technology despite what the manufacturers claim and the high speed tests are conducted under ideal conditions. Even with CD technology being as mature as it is I can

    I imagine the never ending quest for market share drives the makers to push things the way they do. The majority of people either don't know or don't care that the faster speeds are less accurate so all these 16X burners seem like a really cool thing they can brag about having.
     
  3. Nephilim

    Nephilim Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2003
    Messages:
    14,942
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    116
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2004
  4. fasfrank

    fasfrank Active member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2003
    Messages:
    4,117
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Yep, after many burns at various speeds with various burners, I've settled on 4X as the ideal speed for me. I can prosess a movie in about 20 to 30 minutes. Most of the time is spent on the rip anyhow. That's kinda limited by the ROM being used. My PC does not get much above an idle doing any kind of DVD work though.

     
  5. hoebag

    hoebag Guest

    Personally I choose to burn at 4x rather than 8x simply because the 4x media is more established and tried and true. One can talk about reliablity with more certainty with 4x discs.

    The benefits of 8x isn't particularly astounding. The 8 minutes saved with using 8x media doesn't mean much when you consider the big picture, when it takes [me personally] over an hour to rip, transcode, and encode. 8x media prices have only begun to fall recently, and it is only when I can feel confident that they are every bit as reliable as the old trusty 4x media that i would pay even the same price for them.
     
  6. agent-k

    agent-k Regular member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2004
    Messages:
    565
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    26
    I burn all my dvd's at 8Xspeed using 4Xspeed Ritek discs on my Pioneer 107 with hacked firmware.
    I'm one of the lucky ones I guess as I never seem to have any problems.
    Coasters? We don't need no stinking coasters.
    But I agree with the 16X debate. I won't buy a Pioneer 108 yet as I wouldn't try burning any movies faster then I do anyway.
    When the price of the dual layer discs starts coming down to sensible prices then I may just have to go out and buy one.
    I'll only keep a couple of blank dual layer discs for the really big movies that need a lot of compressing.
     
  7. jase

    jase Guest

    hoebag has the right idea here.

    As the DVD writing technology matures, writing quality is improving immeasurably, to the effect that a Pioneer 107 can write an old Ritek G03 1x disc at 4x with hacked firmware, with better quality than the old 103 could at 1x.

    4x is now a very stable and proven speed to be writing at. I write at this speed on an 8x 107 for the following reasons:

    1) If you're copying a disc, it's actually just as fast to do so at 4x as 8x a lot of the time. Reason being that most DVD-ROM drives can't rip a DVDR at more than 8x, which means a starting speed of just under 4x. So with 4x you can copy on the fly (reliably); with 8x or particularly 16x, you'll have difficulty finding a ROM that'll keep up at these speeds, so you end up having to copy to HDD first, meaning that you end up taking 12-13 minutes to copy the disc in any case.

    2) It's always best to use a burner a couple of notches slower than its rated speed, especially when you're also using budget media that is also being run to tolerance at the rated speed. Typically writers are rushed to market, and although the 4x is well proven, the 8x is often more error-prone. With a 16x writer, the tolerances are tighter so an 8x burn will probably be of a higher standard on these than the 8x drives, so then 8x is then viable.

    3) I am distrustful of Z-CLV and/or PCAV technology with DVD writing. Recall that early 16/20x CD writers could be horrendous for burn quality in these modes. With a budget disc it is often hard enough for the drive to keep the disc calibrated, without having to keep track of an increasing data rate as well. Result? Particularly with cheaper drives, poor burn quality in the last 25% of the disc. This means that the 107 should be good up to 6x. This is confirmed in tests, where a cheap (even 1x) disc will burn nicely at 6x but give trouble at 8x.
     

Share This Page