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

CD-R =Constant drive activity, but not CD-RW?

Discussion in 'CD-R(W) Media' started by Grimaldi, Oct 22, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Grimaldi

    Grimaldi Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2003
    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    11
    (Stick with me, this IS a media question, t just needs some lead-in)

    After filling one drawer at work with all my favorite music CD's, I finally acquired a burner (the antiquated HP CDWriter Plus 9100i) and made a mass-burning of my entire CD collection to MP3 with a little program called CDex. I burned most of my collection to 6 CD-RW's.

    Last month, I burned an additional 9 albums to CD-R this time, and I noticed that the CD-R keeps my Drive spinning at high speed constantly while playing, while my CD-RW's only tick up occasionally to read the next track. This is not only loud and annoying, but I'm sure it's not healthy for the drive. Does anyone know why this would happen?

    Media used: (I'll get more info from the cases if necessary)
    CD-RW: Memorex 700MB/80Min, 1-4x Speed (silver face, blue back)
    CD-R: Memorex 700MB/80Min (dotted white face, green back)
    CD-R: E3 Works 700MB/80Min 1-24x (black Vinyl face, black back)

    Any insight would be helpful.
    Thanks.
     
    Grimaldi, Oct 22, 2003
    #1
  2. Grimaldi

    Grimaldi Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2003
    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    11
    I'll update this with the complete media info later on.
     
    Grimaldi, Oct 22, 2003
    #2
  3. Praetor

    Praetor Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2003
    Messages:
    6,830
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    118
    Praetor, Oct 22, 2003
    #3
  4. Grimaldi

    Grimaldi Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2003
    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    11
    Problem Media: CD-R e3works Vinyl CD

    ATIP: 97m 26s 53f
    Disc Manufacturer: Lead Data Inc.
    Reflective layer: Dye (Long strategy; e.g. Cyanine, Azo etc.)
    Media type: CD-Recordable
    Recording Speeds: min. unknown - max. unknown
    nominal Capacity: 702.83MB (79m 59s 74f / LBA: 359849)
    ============================
    Problem Media - "Memorex" CD-R

    ATIP: 97m 24s 01f
    Disc Manufacturer: Taiyo Yuden Company Ltd.
    Reflective layer: Dye (Long strategy; e.g. Cyanine, Azo etc.)
    Media type: CD-Recordable
    Recording Speeds: min. unknown - max. unknown
    nominal Capacity: 702.83MB (79m 59s 72f / LBA: 359847)
    ==================

    Both of these run at variable high speeds constantly, as if they're trying to install something. Is this something inherently different about CD-R's vs. CR-RW's in general. or did I just get some bad CD-R's?

    Thanks
     
    Grimaldi, Oct 23, 2003
    #4
  5. Praetor

    Praetor Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2003
    Messages:
    6,830
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    118
    Do you have playback problems on other drives? How about standalones?
     
    Praetor, Oct 25, 2003
    #5
  6. Grimaldi

    Grimaldi Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2003
    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    11
    I have similar activity & noise from my home computer. At work, I have a Compaq Deskpro at work and a Presario at home, both with the factory drives.

    I tried burning with the MusicMatch Jukebox, but all the discs that came out locked up any computer I put them in, so I'm using Easy CD Creator 5 now with no problems. I've discovered no difference with software; Media Player 9, Sonique and WinAmp all play the same.

    I've even tried burning the same stuff to a CD-R and a CD-RW, and the CD-R keeps the drive constantly running loudly at various speeds, while the CD-RW just does an initial access, then just one tick before it plays the next song on the playlist. Is anyone else having this problem, or is this just an unfortunate mix of hardware & software?
     
    Grimaldi, Oct 27, 2003
    #6
  7. Praetor

    Praetor Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2003
    Messages:
    6,830
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    118
    Is it an older machine? A lot of the older machines have issues with various CDR brands and almost all CDRW discs.
     
    Praetor, Oct 27, 2003
    #7
  8. Grimaldi

    Grimaldi Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2003
    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    11
    No, it's a fairly recent P-III. And that's the weird part: CD-RW's are FINE, it's the CD-R's that are causing it to redline the drive RPM's constantly.
     
    Grimaldi, Oct 28, 2003
    #8
  9. SemiCrazy

    SemiCrazy Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2003
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    11
    In my limited experience, when playing mp3 files on a computer directly from a cdr, rather than copying to the hard disc first, the cd drive will run at default speed, even if it is only reading and accessing the data intermittently. Using a utility such as Nero Drivespeed (part of Nero, but also can sometimes be found as a sample on cd's included with computer magazines), you can set the drive to a slower speed while listening to the music.
    There's probably a way to tell your drive to run at different speeds for different uses and required data rates, but that's beyond my scope of experience.
     
    SemiCrazy, Dec 2, 2003
    #9
  10. Praetor

    Praetor Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2003
    Messages:
    6,830
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    118
    There is no such thing as a fairly recent P3 :p They are at least like 4 years old :p
     
    Praetor, Dec 4, 2003
    #10
  11. SemiCrazy

    SemiCrazy Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2003
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    11
    RE: P-III's. Praetor needs to do his research first. As recent as two years ago (not four), the most advanced Intel processor available for notebook applications was the Mobile P-III series running @ 1.13MHz. The Athlon XP had only been out for desktops a couple of months and the P4 was maxing out at a mindbending 2.0 GHz! (read the Dec 26, 2001 issue of PC). If you look at the ads in the September 4, 2001 issue (just 2 years and 3 months ago) the top speed of the FEW P-4 machines advertised is 1.5 GHz, the same as when Intel introduced it in November 2000, just over three years ago. In fact, the P III wasn't even introduced until 1999, so four years ago it was THE CUTTING EDGE at 500 Mhz. (Which means the OLDEST P-III's @ 500 Mhz are just over 4 yrs old. A lot of companies were still selling more P-III than P-4 machines barely 2 1/2 yrs ago)
    So just what amazing machine were you running four years ago when the P-III 900 that you claim is at least that old didn't even exist yet?
     
    SemiCrazy, Dec 4, 2003
    #11
  12. Praetor

    Praetor Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2003
    Messages:
    6,830
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    118
    SemiCrazy: You're a really lippy one aren't you child?

    Well, you certainly seem awful confident. Goddamn so confident but you somehow managed to forget that the Athlon processor was available in 1999 -- four years ago. Obviously notebook processors trail desktop processors and everyone knows that -- it's plain ignorant to even bring that up as a point.

    Your point? There isnt much point in comparing a desktop proc to a notebook proc. Perhaps if you had done your research you would note that the "Mobile" in Mobile P-III means it is for notebooks.

    Again, your point? Oh... but wait.... I have advertisements.... let's see, July 2001, P4 1.5Ghz. Oh and look, June 2001, Thunderbird 1.4Ghz. I guess the top speed for procs in September wasnt 1.5Ghz afterall.

    Ignorance in a can. You are forgetting the P3-450s. Oh an by the way, P3-450s were available five years ago.

    No shit. That's because everyone was buying Althons at the time. I would know. I sold enough Athlons.

    LOL. When did I claim this?

    Oh and by the way, if you consider four years ago to be "recent" computer-wise, check this out: they've got this new thing called DDR memory... and DVD burners and and get this..... LCD screens.... of course, I understand this is all very alien to you given that you live in the past.
     
    Praetor, Dec 8, 2003
    #12
  13. SemiCrazy

    SemiCrazy Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2003
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    11
    Praetor, you made the statement that ALL p-III's were "at least like four years old". That is incorrect. The P-4 wasn't officially introduced by Intel until November 2000, barely three years ago. I still have copies of the press releases. Likewise, the press releases from February 1999 when Intel introduced the PIII at several different clockspeeds/price levels. There were no P-III's availble on the consumer market until then, and that was less than five years ago.
    Again, you stated that all P-III's "are at least like four years old". Since you did not exclude mobile processors from your statement, it was taken to include mobile processors with the P-III name as well. Believe it or not, some of us use mobile computers because we have a life that involves a great deal of travel more involved than back and forth to junior high every day!

    Since I specifically reference notebook applications in the same sentenceone would assume anyone reading said sentence would realize the writer was aware what "Mobile P-III" meant!

    As regards the Athlon series, yes the Model 1 (.25 micron) was available long before 2001, but if you'll actually read the post, I referenced the "Athlon XP", which was a new processor design with several significant changes introduced in the Fall of 2001 around the same time that Windows officially released the XP OS. Hence AMD chose to market their new processor as the "eXtreme Processor" to lead buyers to associate it with the XP OS. Your argument that the Athlon was around since 1999 is as ridiculous as someone bringing up how long Intel has sold the Pentium (in all it's forms) since March 1993 when someone is discussing the Pentium-4 introduced in November 2000.


    I'm still trying to figure out how 1.5Ghz and 1.4Ghz available earlier disproves that 1.5Ghz was the top speed in September 2001. Isn't 1.4Ghz slower than 1.5Ghz? Total system performance in the AMD machines on certain tasks were indeed better than the Intel competition, but the processor itself wasn't running any faster.

    "Recent" is word that must be defined by the context in which it is used. If we are discussing geology, several hundred thousand years would be considered recent. If we are discussing a short track Nascar race, any lap over 30-40 seconds ago isn't the most recent one. Grimaldi qualified his use of recent by stating it was a recent P-III (which means it is less than four years old, since the most recent P-III's aren't that old). He didn't claim it was cutting edge. You, on the other hand chose to ignore the context in which he placed it and instead of giving him a usable answer to the question he asked took the opportunity to put down his machine. I must have missed the section in the "read this first" post that explained only cutting edge systems would be discussed here. There are a lot of people still using older machines for a variety of tasks because they are good enough for what they are being used for.
    As for your list of "recent" innovations, they are options which are nice if needed but a waste of money if not. By the way, I bought my first TFT (active matrix) LCD screen as part of a notebook computer in 1999. Since your list of "recent" developments includes LCD screens, does that mean you believe 1999 to be "recent"?

    No one needs a cutting edge system to decode mp3 files from a cd-r, which is what this thread was about until you chose to make fun of Grimaldi's machine instead, and did so with an incorrect assertion about the age of all P-III processors.
     
    SemiCrazy, Dec 9, 2003
    #13
  14. Praetor

    Praetor Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2003
    Messages:
    6,830
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    118
    LOL. In elementary school here in Canada we learn things like "figurative speech". For instance, nuclear war would be like the end of the world. NO SHIT it isnt but it's like the end of the world. In the same light, all PIIIs are like four years old. If I got the number off by a year or two, feel free to correct me but there is no need to get all high and mighty about it.

    LOL child. In "junior high" one would expect to know that the letters P,I,I,I and P,I,I,I,M are (a) not of the same length and (b) the "M" is not present in the first case. Hence, when we concatenate them PIII is not the same as PIII-M. Again, you need to get off your high and might pedastle, oh lord almighty.

    Actually, the Athlon XP (model 6) was available earlier than that. My reference to the Athlon (note A,T,H,L,O,N is not the same as A,T,H,L,O,N,X,P) is to compare with the PIII.

    Since you seem to like technicalities so much, having a 1.5GHz processor before September 2001 doesnt mean that September's top speed was 1.5Ghz. HOWEVER, since advancements are made and new products are developed, it is (a) reasonable to assume that faster processors were developed between that time and September and (b) actual sales indicate that there were faster machines available in September.

    Assumption 01: You are but a child.
    Process:
    - In the internet era, there are things called emoticons, note the ":p" present in my comment
    - The ":p" is representitive of sticking your tongue out at someone. This is a nonhostile gesture. For example, "I drive a Ferarri :p" is a nonhostile statement that lightens the mood.
    - Realize that you can poke fun at someone without actually offending them nor being hostile about it. For instance, "Your Ford Taurus is nothing next to my Ferrari" pokes fun at the Ford but doesnt put the person down. In the same light, "There is no such thing as a recent P-III" (and there ISNT, if you look back in terms of generations and revisions -- oh wait, in accordance with Assumption 01, you'll contest that now won't you. For sake of argument, let is slide) pokes fun at the older machine without attacking the person. I too, run a P3 system (P3-800) which I bought 3½ years ago.
    - Now in contrast "Praetor needs to do his research" is a hostile stament. There was no need for that. Just because I'm a Moderator doesnt mean I'm perfect, it doesnt mean I know everything and nor do I try to impress that upon people. What you need to realize is that your high and mighty, 'I know everything and the Moderator is wrong' attitude need to learn is that (a) I just try to help people, (b) instead of hijacking the thread over what was supposed to be a trivial joke, if you had such a personal issue with my comment, you could have PM'd me about it.
    - Comments like "So just what amazing machine were you running four years ago when the P-III 900 that you claim is at least that old didn't even exist yet?" are unneccesary and inflammatory.

    Assumption 02: You are not a child.
    Process:
    - See Assumption 01 for clarification as needed
    - Not every single statement on this messageboard is a helpful hint or a suggestion or help. In fact, the nice thing about messageboards is that you can come and chat about everything.
    - You seem to know something or two about computers. You know then as well as I do that computers and the general electronics trend tend to change quickly and very often at that (hence common sayings like "You buy a computer now and it'll be obsolete in a year").
    - In accordance with Assumption 02, you should have realized that (a) I was making a light-joke, (b) My comments did not in and of themselves (nor SHOULD they have) provoked members to go off topic and hijack the thread.
    - Provocative, self-righthous 'questions' like By the way, I bought my first TFT (active matrix) LCD screen as part of a notebook computer in 1999. Since your list of "recent" developments includes LCD screens, does that mean you believe 1999 to be "recent"? is immature, unneccesary and uncalleded for -- and in direct contradiction with Assumption 02.
    - I must have missed the section in the "read this first" post that explained only cutting edge systems would be discussed here. There are a lot of people still using older machines for a variety of tasks because they are good enough for what they are being used for. Please quote my exact statement where I stated or even implied that discussion would be restricted to as you say, high end machines -- which, by your definition, my machine would not qualify for. My intitial comment which has rilled you ever so much was simply There is no such thing as a fairly recent P3 :p They are at least like 4 years old :p. NOWHERE in that comment do I state that high end machine are to be discussed here or anything to that effect. As a mature human being as per Assumption 02, you would have realized it.
    - If you have a problem with ME, leave me a PM or post it up in the Safety Valve -- there is no need to hijack someone else's thread to start a war with me.

    So in closing, as whoever it is that says it, "can't we all just get along?" :)_X_X_X_X_X_[small]ASUS A7V8X-X, AMD2500+
    Samsung 1024MB, PC2700
    360GB [3x120GB, 7200, 8MB]
    MSI Starforce, GeForce4 Ti4400 128MB

    Rules and Policies: http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/2487
    AFTERDAWN IRC: irc.emule-project.net, #ad_buddies
    COME SAY HI![/small]
     
    Last edited: Dec 10, 2003
    Praetor, Dec 9, 2003
    #14
  15. darthnip

    darthnip Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2003
    Messages:
    2,871
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    68
    holy crap guys, cant we get along around here any more? by the time a person actually reads thru all the quoting of each other, they forgot the whole point to begin with, or what the thread was even about!! so come on ladies, lets have a nice tea party or you both can take your plastic dishes and cups and go home. remember, we are here to help people. So what if we have little differences here and there, big freakin deal.
    Semicrazy - play nice, you are arguing with a mod, bad idea. it really doesn't matter what either of you thinks is recent. a P3 might be recent for you, but i know Praetor, thats ancient to him and I both, but we live and work with this shit every day. If you need PC help/info/useless ramblings, he's the guy you want to talk to. but the bottom line is, he's a mod and can easliy ban you and close this thread and then no one would get any help from it, so right or wrong it's just not a good idea.

    Praetor - hehe that self control thing is getting hard to deal with isn't. hey did you realize they got a light saber named after you in jedi academy? I finally got it!! :)

    ok guys - round 4 -----ding!
     
    darthnip, Dec 10, 2003
    #15
  16. Praetor

    Praetor Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2003
    Messages:
    6,830
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    118
    Aye aye, apologies to Grimaldi for my part in hijacking this thread! :)
     
    Praetor, Dec 10, 2003
    #16
  17. cd-rw.org

    cd-rw.org Active member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2002
    Messages:
    1,398
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Why am I seeing this kind of crap on the CD-R media forums. PIII's, Athlons...what the heck?

    CD-ROM drives spind a CD-R disc at the maximum speed, while CD-RW discs are often spinned at a much lower speed. This is most typical.

    Like someone suggested, use Nero DriveSpeed or similar.

    Thread locked.
     
    cd-rw.org, Dec 10, 2003
    #17
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page