Linus wrote:

Hello ...

A potentially stupid question:

Is it still important with the current crop of CDRW drives on the market to
write cds at single speed for the best audio quality?

Or is the question pointless on account of CDRW drive quality being poor
regardless of speed ...

does anyone have the lowdown on this subject?

It all depends on your particular burner and the batch of media you are
currently using. It is getting harder to find decent media now so you
may well find that low speeds don't work so well with the cheaper high
speed media.

With the drives that I've checked I find lower error rates if you use
decent media in the middle of the drive's speed range. In particular,
with Mitsui 16X media a Plextor 1210S gives good results at 4 or 8X
while a Plextor PX320 gives good results at 16X. I use a Plextor Premium
drive to give me error rate information on my masters.

Cheers.

James.

No Matter what kind of drive you are using slower is better.Always burn
masters at 1X to 2 X on a good quality CD.I recomend no more than 8X to 12X
for copies of the master.Higher speeds can cause to many errors and playback
can be affected on CD players.Faster is NOT better.We duplicate large runs
of CDs at 8X only for the best quality.


--
Thanks
Troy Tremblay
Alternate Root Studio
www.alternate-root.com



Linus wrote in message
...
Hello ...

A potentially stupid question:

Is it still important with the current crop of CDRW drives on the market
to
write cds at single speed for the best audio quality?

Or is the question pointless on account of CDRW drive quality being poor
regardless of speed ...

does anyone have the lowdown on this subject?

Regards

Linus

Troy wrote:

No Matter what kind of drive you are using slower is better.Always burn
masters at 1X to 2 X on a good quality CD.I recomend no more than 8X to 12X
for copies of the master.Higher speeds can cause to many errors and playback
can be affected on CD players.Faster is NOT better.We duplicate large runs
of CDs at 8X only for the best quality.


--
Thanks
Troy Tremblay
Alternate Root Studio
www.alternate-root.com



Is there any audible difference? I burn at 8X - 10X (old drive with no
buffer undderrun protection), and now 24X max (gives 15X avg) on my
new drive. Ive not noticed any bad effects..

No Matter what kind of drive you are using slower is better.Always burn
masters at 1X to 2 X on a good quality CD.I recomend no more than 8X to
12X
for copies of the master.Higher speeds can cause to many errors and
playback
can be affected on CD players.Faster is NOT better.We duplicate large runs
of CDs at 8X only for the best quality.

I disagree. Current CD media is engineered specifically for faster speeds,
meaning the dye burns more easily, and therefore can actually be less
reliable at slower speeds. For production masters, high-end media and 1x
are the only way to go, but when using cheap media for demos etc the faster
the better. Generally it's the ripping process that is inaccurate when
doing tests for accuracy. If you rip at 1x it's possible to achieve
bit-accuracy, but generally not, though it's really not a significant issue.

The only other issue is jitter, which I imagine is present on fast burns,
but is nullified by the buffering process in all DVD players and computers.
Only cheap portable cd players like discmans, ghetto blasters, and car
stereos still don't buffer. IMO any CD player that doesn't eliminate jitter
is not worth spending 24x more time to accommodate.

"Linus" wrote in message

Hello ...

A potentially stupid question:

Is it still important with the current crop of CDRW drives on the
market to write cds at single speed for the best audio quality?

IME no, not as receipt of LiteOn 52X burners. Specifically, media that
required special treatment in older burners, if the disc was to play in
certain problematical players, can now be recorded at the highest possible
speed.

There have been statistics posted about errors rates with different
combinations of media/burner/speed. The results suggested that
burning slower is in no way any guarantee of quality. The optimal
combination of media/burner/speed varied widely, and in fact, 1X burns
usually came out among the worst.

Luke

PS -- Arny Kreuger, do you happen to remember where that comparison is
posted?


"Troy" wrote:

I dissagree with almost everything you are saying here.The only thing I
agree with is burning a master slow at 1X.Faster is in no way better.The
fast high speed burners of today are mostly CRAP.They are built very poorly
and perform very poorly.The faster you burn the more problems you will run
into.try sending a CD to a pressing house that is burned at 24X,they will
give it back to you.Another big problem is buffer under run technology.This
creats problems with playback on CD players also.You may get no coasters but
it does affect the playback.

As for ripping at 1X you are correct on this BUT......If you try and rip a
CD that was burned at high speeds you are going to be ripping many errors
that usually cause clicks and pops in the music.

Slower is better!!!!

In article , Linus
wrote:

Hello ...

A potentially stupid question:

Is it still important with the current crop of CDRW drives on the market to
write cds at single speed for the best audio quality?

It was never important in the first place. What is critical, however,
is finding the correct media and speed for your particular burner that
results in the lowest BLER (error) rate, period.

Brian

In article , Troy
wrote:

No Matter what kind of drive you are using slower is better.Always burn
masters at 1X to 2 X on a good quality CD.

Not true at all. As I mentioned in my other post, the only thing that
matters is finding the best combination of media and speed for your
particular burner that results in the lowest BLER rate.

Brian

In article , "Linus"
wrote:

Hello ...

A potentially stupid question:

Is it still important with the current crop of CDRW drives on the market
to
write cds at single speed for the best audio quality?

Or is the question pointless on account of CDRW drive quality being poor
regardless of speed ...

does anyone have the lowdown on this subject?

Regards

Linus


Depends on the drive and the media. The same media doesn't always
produce the same results on all drives, or at all speeds. There are
certainly some media that generally perform better, but for best
results, you need to try a few different CDRs on your drive at different
speed and find the best combination. Often this best combination will be
2X or 4X with modern products. Media and drives are no longer optimised
for 1X and currently in many cases, this is worse, not better. Sonic
Studio LLC offers a drive and special media optimised to work together
at 1X, and Plextor has the Plexmaster sold through Microboards that also
is optimised for 1X. Those are the expensive 1X "mastering quality" CD
recorders currently in production, but a Plextor Premium for a couple
hundred bucks running at 4X with Taiyo Yuden media is also capable of
making masters that measure quite well and replicate just fine. 1X isn't
the magic solution it once was. There are more variables to take into
account, and sometimes the results can surprise you. Speeds above 8X,
however, I'm still a little wary of. For safety sake, it's probably not
a bad idea to try to keep speeds on the lower side, but there are more
important things to worry about than if your drive does 1X burns.

--
Jay Frigoletto
Mastersuite
Los Angeles
promastering.com

I run a CD Duplication business and I am in contact with many others that do
the same.We have all done our own testing and we all find the same problems
with high speed burning.The average guy burning CDs on his computer is not
going to see the affects of speed like we do.We burn thousands of CDs a
month.Even the best quality CDs have a hard time and it has alot to do with
the low prices of CDs.Alot of these companies really stretch the process and
supplies to make ends meet and the technology still isen't perfect.Its very
costly for quality control of CDs.A good source is Tape & Disc magazine.You
can throw out all the specs you want on all the burners but most companies
do the testing under perfect conditions and in the real world things are
alot different.




Brian wrote in message
...
In article , Troy
wrote:

No Matter what kind of drive you are using slower is better.Always burn
masters at 1X to 2 X on a good quality CD.

Not true at all. As I mentioned in my other post, the only thing that
matters is finding the best combination of media and speed for your
particular burner that results in the lowest BLER rate.

Brian

If you are mastering there are still some high quality 1X - 4X media made by
HHB (I think they are actually mitsui)

These are perfect for most burners and optimized for SLOW burning.


Jay - atldigi wrote in message
...
In article , "Linus"
wrote:

Hello ...

A potentially stupid question:

Is it still important with the current crop of CDRW drives on the market
to
write cds at single speed for the best audio quality?

Or is the question pointless on account of CDRW drive quality being
poor
regardless of speed ...

does anyone have the lowdown on this subject?

Regards

Linus


Depends on the drive and the media. The same media doesn't always
produce the same results on all drives, or at all speeds. There are
certainly some media that generally perform better, but for best
results, you need to try a few different CDRs on your drive at different
speed and find the best combination. Often this best combination will be
2X or 4X with modern products. Media and drives are no longer optimised
for 1X and currently in many cases, this is worse, not better. Sonic
Studio LLC offers a drive and special media optimised to work together
at 1X, and Plextor has the Plexmaster sold through Microboards that also
is optimised for 1X. Those are the expensive 1X "mastering quality" CD
recorders currently in production, but a Plextor Premium for a couple
hundred bucks running at 4X with Taiyo Yuden media is also capable of
making masters that measure quite well and replicate just fine. 1X isn't
the magic solution it once was. There are more variables to take into
account, and sometimes the results can surprise you. Speeds above 8X,
however, I'm still a little wary of. For safety sake, it's probably not
a bad idea to try to keep speeds on the lower side, but there are more
important things to worry about than if your drive does 1X burns.

--
Jay Frigoletto
Mastersuite
Los Angeles
promastering.com

Troy Tremblay wrote:

No Matter what kind of drive you are using slower is better.Always burn
masters at 1X to 2 X on a good quality CD. [ ... ]

There are plenty of folks who can measure the actual error rate on CD-Rs,
and what they report doesn't agree with the rather simplistic viewpoint
which you've stated here (with admirable certainty). What you say had some
truth to it at one point perhaps five or six years ago, but it isn't good
advice for the conditions that have obtained since that time.

Many higher-speed CD recorders when used with appropriate blanks produce
their lowest error rates at speeds such as 4X and 8X. Much depends on the
particular formulation of the blank CDs, which has continued to change all
along, up to and including the present time, and on the range of burning
powers which the recorder has available for its self-calibration.

Unfortunately the current generation of very high speed blanks (32X and
higher) has created a new set of problems for older burners. It may be
advisable to choose blanks which specifically _don't_ support very high
speed recording, even when you intend to record at the very lowest speeds.

--best regards

Troy wrote:
No Matter what kind of drive you are using slower is better.Always burn
masters at 1X to 2 X on a good quality CD.I recomend no more than 8X to
12X
for copies of the master.Higher speeds can cause to many errors and
playback
can be affected on CD players.Faster is NOT better.We duplicate large
runs
of CDs at 8X only for the best quality.

"SD" wrote ...
Is there any audible difference? I burn at 8X - 10X (old drive with no
buffer undderrun protection), and now 24X max (gives 15X avg) on my
new drive. Ive not noticed any bad effects..

You won't likely HEAR (or even measure) any difference at first.
But long-term, you have a more "contrasty" image when it is
burned slower. I would expect the quality effect to be more in
terms of longevity.

Richard Crowley wrote:

You won't likely HEAR (or even measure) any difference at first.
But long-term, you have a more "contrasty" image when it is
burned slower. I would expect the quality effect to be more in
terms of longevity.

And possibly the extent to which the media will play nicely across w
wider range of machines.

--
ha

And possibly the extent to which the media will play nicely across w
wider range of machines.

Yes .....you are right as alot of CD players have problems reading high
speed burns.

I had a client in today who had this very problem with CDs done at 24X,they
skiped and wouldent play in a couple different players.Any CD I have ever
duplicated for him has had no problems at 8X.

I have direct experience in the drive/storage/technology industry working with
these drives and media.

The short answer: There is no one speed to recommend. 1x can be worse than 24x
on one burner and media and better on some other combination.

We test these things all the time. Since this is now a commodity technology,
price supercedes quality. Burners are all over the map in quality. Media is
even worse.

What it all boils down to is you got to figure out what media works best in
your drive at what particular speed. Unfortunately, without equipment, all you
can do is burn some samples and see how they do.

If you are burning masters for replication, ask for an error report and see how
you are doing.

Stick with a brand of drive you've heard of and find some media that works well
with it and buy a bunch of it.

If you just got to pick something, pick 4x.
--
Dr. Nuketopia
Sorry, no e-Mail.
Spam forgeries have resulted in thousands of faked bounces to my address.

I use a Yamaha ide burner that has a nifty "audio master" mode which is a 1x
variant:

http://www.cdrlabs.com/articles/index.php?articleid=16

http://www.yamahamultimedia.com/yec/tech/am_01.asp

Om

"Linus" wrote in message
...
Hello ...

A potentially stupid question:

Is it still important with the current crop of CDRW drives on the market
to
write cds at single speed for the best audio quality?

Or is the question pointless on account of CDRW drive quality being poor
regardless of speed ...

does anyone have the lowdown on this subject?

Regards

Linus

Some very good reading.It also backs up what I have been saying about faster
is not better.


Om_Audio wrote in message
news:_9n%a.125163$cF.33797@rwcrnsc53...
I use a Yamaha ide burner that has a nifty "audio master" mode which is a
1x
variant:

http://www.cdrlabs.com/articles/index.php?articleid=16

http://www.yamahamultimedia.com/yec/tech/am_01.asp

Om

"Linus" wrote in message
...
Hello ...

A potentially stupid question:

Is it still important with the current crop of CDRW drives on the market
to
write cds at single speed for the best audio quality?

Or is the question pointless on account of CDRW drive quality being
poor
regardless of speed ...

does anyone have the lowdown on this subject?

Regards

Linus

I run a CD Duplication business and I am in contact with many others that do
the same.We have all done our own testing and we all find the same problems
with high speed burning.The average guy burning CDs on his computer is not
going to see the affects of speed like we do.We burn thousands of CDs a
month.Even the best quality CDs have a hard time and it has alot to do with
the low prices of CDs.Alot of these companies really stretch the process and
supplies to make ends meet and the technology still isen't perfect.Its very
costly for quality control of CDs.A good source is Tape & Disc magazine.You
can throw out all the specs you want on all the burners but most companies
do the testing under perfect conditions and in the real world things are
alot different.

Great! An expert!
So, tell us. What media, what speed?

In article writes:

Unfortunately the current generation of very high speed blanks (32X and
higher) has created a new set of problems for older burners. It may be
advisable to choose blanks which specifically _don't_ support very high
speed recording, even when you intend to record at the very lowest speeds.

They're getting hard to find these days. It's the way of computer
stuff.

Any reliable sources?


--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )

Stick with a brand of drive you've heard of and find some media that works well
with it and buy a bunch of it.

If you just got to pick something, pick 4x.

Indeed.
My advice has always been the same. Keep the speed moderate.
Hopefully you won't get offered 1X, 2X if the media isn't suited to
these low speeds. But choose from the low range of what's offered.

Then, yesterday, I installed a new Sony CD-RW drive for a client. We
burnt a disk at 4X which wouldn't play in ant audio player I could
find. Then tried at 20X - perfect.

Not that one disk proves anything :=)

Mike Rivers wrote:

One you find a brand that works, you need to immediately buy several
thousand to be sure that you'll have them when you need them. Go back
to the store for the same brand name and speed in a couple of weeks
and chances are very good that either they won't have it (and never
will again) or that there's a package that's identical, but what's
inside is actually different.

No ****. I'm going through that a bit right now with some TDK's from
CostCo. I've been using them for a few years for general burns, not
"masters", and I've had no problems I could attribute to media until
now. That's burning in the HHB, a lousy LaCie, the TiBook's internal and
a Glyph/Plextor "Wildfire" burner. The new TDK's when burnt in the
TiBook have almost no reflectivity difference between the burned and
unburned area. Now people can tell me this is menaingless, that I can't
see anything relevant with my naked eye. But since the ****ed-up media
looks one way to me and the media that plays nicely looks another way I
am going to abide by my perception.

Fuji blanks from Radio Shack in Austin TX do well in my burners, and the
best I've used so far are Mitsui from http://www.tapeplus.com/, which
also happen to be the most expensive. When the material counts, the
difference in price is negligible.

--
hank alrich * secret mountain
audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement
"If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"

I am having good luck with the maxell 650 meg CDRs that I was getting at
Staples with my old trusty Que Fire 8X. I have about 150 left and just bought
a new 100 (for 12 bucks) but they are now silver. The look better but I
haven't opened them yet.

The first Maxell that worked well with my burner were "certifed for 16X speeds.
I have still have a handful of those. I also have a bunch of 40X Maxells
which also seem to work well with my burner.

The new silver ones are 48X "rated"

I had posted this before but I recently burned some masters for the EMI plant
using apogee CDs and one got rejected due to "too thin coating causing errors".
I never heard that before. I resent one of the 16x Maxells.




---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

EggHd wrote:
I had posted this before but I recently burned some masters for the EMI plant
using apogee CDs and one got rejected due to "too thin coating causing errors".
I never heard that before. I resent one of the 16x Maxells.

More and more of these higher speed discs are coming out, and while they
can be written very quickly, they tend to have very high error rates no
matter what speed they are written on. Just not acceptable for audio
use. The problem is that it's hard to tell WHAT you are buying until you
get it home and actually measure error rates.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

The problem is that it's hard to tell WHAT you are buying until you
get it home and actually measure error rates.

And I haven't found a Mac program to mesure error rates.



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

This is why you should buy Grade A duplicator quality CDs.Don't buy the CRAP
from the stores most of it is garbage.


Scott Dorsey wrote in message
...
EggHd wrote:
I had posted this before but I recently burned some masters for the EMI
plant
using apogee CDs and one got rejected due to "too thin coating causing
errors".
I never heard that before. I resent one of the 16x Maxells.

More and more of these higher speed discs are coming out, and while they
can be written very quickly, they tend to have very high error rates no
matter what speed they are written on. Just not acceptable for audio
use. The problem is that it's hard to tell WHAT you are buying until you
get it home and actually measure error rates.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Yes this is true.....always turn off the buffer under run.It causes problems
with playback on CD players.


Laurence Payne wrote in message
...

Burning test samples is no problem, but listening to them to see if
there are any problems is too much trouble for most people. You can
burn while doing something else, but you have to actually listen in
real time and concentrate on what you're hearing to be sure that it
worked. An error report number from a test program may not relate to
actual performance.

I've found it advisable to turn off Buffer Under-run protection
(BURN-proof) when it's offered. The burn process would continue after
an error, but it seemed to put a glitch into an audio CD.

Or maybe those clicks were coming from somewhere else. I don't burn
hundreds of CDs and haven't tested thoroughly. But, since turning off
BURN-proof on a couple of machines, I've had a couple of coasters but
no disks returned because of glitches.

Its kind of like running a real to real at 15 ips or 30 ips.You get less
time on the CD.


Luke Kaven wrote in message
...
"Om_Audio" wrote:

I use a Yamaha ide burner that has a nifty "audio master" mode which is a
1x
variant:

http://www.cdrlabs.com/articles/index.php?articleid=16

http://www.yamahamultimedia.com/yec/tech/am_01.asp

Om

It isn't a 1X variant according to the text on those sites:

"Yamaha decided to deal with this by creating a process they called
Audio Master. They decided to artificially slow down the speed of
burning by increasing the length of the pits and lands. Although the
disc is still spinning at its 24x or 32x speed, the density of bits on
the CD's goes down. The normal 1.2 m/s linear speed turns into 1.4
m/s. 74 minute discs suddenly only hold 63 minutes, and 80 minute
discs now only hold 68 minutes due to the extended pit length.
Although the feature sizes are increased, they're still within Red
Book standards. Now the reader's laser has more room with which to
sample and determine if it's actually looking at a pit or a land."

OK

Here you go:

We use Plextor,Teac, and smart drive 2 in our machines.

I recomend these 3 burners.

Recomended media (that should work in any burner)

Duplicator Grade A CDs (with a white thermal top for added protection).

Mistsui,Taiyo Yuden,Ritek (Diamond Silver),Prodisc (diamond silver).All
these CDs work good at 1X with no problems.We have also had good luck with
some of the CMC CDs also.

Buy them by the case Mitsui and Taiyo Yuden come in cases of 600 and Ritek
and Prodisc come in cases of 500

For mastering I recomend HHB gold or silver CDs,Kodak infoguard ,but I would
go with the HHBs as my first choice.






Laurence Payne wrote in message
...
I run a CD Duplication business and I am in contact with many others that
do
the same.We have all done our own testing and we all find the same
problems
with high speed burning.The average guy burning CDs on his computer is
not
going to see the affects of speed like we do.We burn thousands of CDs a
month.Even the best quality CDs have a hard time and it has alot to do
with
the low prices of CDs.Alot of these companies really stretch the process
and
supplies to make ends meet and the technology still isen't perfect.Its
very
costly for quality control of CDs.A good source is Tape & Disc
magazine.You
can throw out all the specs you want on all the burners but most
companies
do the testing under perfect conditions and in the real world things are
alot different.

Great! An expert!
So, tell us. What media, what speed?

In article znr1061035495k@trad, Mike Rivers
wrote:

Any reliable sources?

Fuji AUDIO or "general purpose" blanks at Target!

--
Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN 615.385.8051
Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
http://www.hyperback.com/olhsson.html
Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined!

Fuji AUDIO or "general purpose" blanks at Target!

MY buddy just bought some target CDR's. I'll check them out.



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

Richard Crowley wrote:

You won't likely HEAR (or even measure) any difference at first.
But long-term, you have a more "contrasty" image when it is
burned slower.

Why might that be?

I would expect the quality effect to be more in
terms of longevity.

And that?


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

Troy wrote:
This is why you should buy Grade A duplicator quality CDs.Don't buy the CRAP
from the stores most of it is garbage.

Yes, but how can you tell what any given disc is? You can't tell what the
quality is until you get it home.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

If you buy duplicator Grade A CDs by the case you can tell what they are as
some CDs have a name on it or by reading the case.Ask for the ones I
mentioned in this thread and you can't go wrong.


Scott Dorsey wrote in message
...
Troy wrote:
This is why you should buy Grade A duplicator quality CDs.Don't buy the
CRAP
from the stores most of it is garbage.

Yes, but how can you tell what any given disc is? You can't tell what the
quality is until you get it home.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

In article writes:

Yes this is true.....always turn off the buffer under run.It causes problems
with playback on CD players.

Would someone like to update the principle of "buffer under-run" for
me? This used to be the major cause of errors on a CD-R as I recall.
You'd start burning, you'd get the error message, and it would stop.

So did the "protection" help prevent the problem that was causing the
error message, or did it simply allow the drive to go on working after
an error condition was detected?


--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1061122056k@trad...

In article
writes:

This is why you should buy Grade A duplicator quality CDs.Don't buy the
CRAP
from the stores most of it is garbage.

Do the millions of people who use that "garbage" for data backup,
pictures, MP3 files, etc. have these problems? Clearly it isn't crap,
it's just that audio people who try to save a little money (because
everyone knows how cheap blank CDs are) are using the wrong tools for
the job.

Umm, EC for data is far more robust than for audio CDs. The quality of the
writer and media is far more important in audio for that reason...
-----------------
Brad Blackwood
www.euphonicmasters.com

In article znr1061122056k@trad, Mike Rivers wrote:
In article writes:

This is why you should buy Grade A duplicator quality CDs.Don't buy the CRAP
from the stores most of it is garbage.

Do the millions of people who use that "garbage" for data backup,
pictures, MP3 files, etc. have these problems?

Yes, but because of the added error correction in the CD-ROM format, it
is less of an issue for them. A couple E32s, and an audio disc is junk.
On a CD-ROM it doesn't make a bit of difference.

Clearly it isn't crap,
it's just that audio people who try to save a little money (because
everyone knows how cheap blank CDs are) are using the wrong tools for
the job.

It's crap. Error rates on the newer high speed discs are far higher than
on the older discs. 74 minute discs are becoming harder and harder to
find, and the old 63 minute discs (which had an even coarser pitch and
tracked even better) are nonexistent.

Like everything else audio, until there's a consumer need for it, the
market will be small and therefore the price will be high.

That is okay. What I am complaining about is that many things (like 63
minute blanks) have become totally unobtainable. I was paying $25 each
for blanks wholesale when I got my first Studer CD-R recorder. I was
getting much lower error rates than I am getting even today with the
Mitsuis. There are a few jobs now and then when I'd be willing to pay
$25 a pop today for the lower error rates. But I couldn't get them at
any price.

It seems that the most important characteristic of blanks when it
comes to making reliable audio CDs on ordinary drives is rapidly
disappearing. Is a 52X speed rated premium brand really better for
making an audio CD than a cheapie of the same speed? Consistently? I
don't think we have enough data to find out, because most people, once
they find one or two out of a stack of blanks that don't work
immediately stop using them and switch to another (possibly enen
identical) brand.

ALL of them seem to be getting worse.

Maybe what we really need, for those who care about quality, is a new
series of audio-intended CD-R drives, at a premium price. How much
would you pay to stop making coasters? And for a drive that doesn't
wear out after a year of studio service? Yamaha has apparently given
it some thought with a drive with this "audio master" writing mode.
Has anyone make a couple of thousand CDs with one of those yet, using
a variety of blanks? Or will it disappear from the market before we
have sufficient data to prove the value of its design?

These already exist. The standalone machines are clearly designed for
audio, and there are models like the high end Plextor which are specifically
intended for audio and have some features like error reporting that are
designed for the audio users.

What does not exist are decent blanks intended for audio work. Other than
the Mitsuis and Taiyo Yudens, and I wonder how long those will be around.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1061122231k@trad
In article
writes:

Yes this is true.....always turn off the buffer under run.It causes
problems with playback on CD players.

Would someone like to update the principle of "buffer under-run" for
me? This used to be the major cause of errors on a CD-R as I recall.
You'd start burning, you'd get the error message, and it would stop.

So did the "protection" help prevent the problem that was causing the
error message, or did it simply allow the drive to go on working after
an error condition was detected?

Buffer underrun protection changed how CD burners respond to running out of
data to burn. The old technique involved aborting the job and creating a
coaster. The new technique allows the burn to be transparently restarted
when data again becomes available. One CD guru described it as involving
finally giving burners about the same smarts as any red book compatible
audio CD drive.

Are you saying I am full of ****?


wrote in message
...
wrote:


I've learned something important from this thread and it goes like this--

People who post on Friday-Saturday are more likely to be full of ****
fakers.


And I see Sunday is much better. Thanks.

In article , Troy
wrote:

I run a CD Duplication business and I am in contact with many others that do
the same.We have all done our own testing and we all find the same problems
with high speed burning.The average guy burning CDs on his computer is not
going to see the affects of speed like we do.We burn thousands of CDs a
month.Even the best quality CDs have a hard time and it has alot to do with
the low prices of CDs.Alot of these companies really stretch the process and
supplies to make ends meet and the technology still isen't perfect.Its very
costly for quality control of CDs.A good source is Tape & Disc magazine.You
can throw out all the specs you want on all the burners but most companies
do the testing under perfect conditions and in the real world things are
alot different.

Agreed wholeheartedly.

The point of my original post was that while I certainly don't disagree
that in general slower is better (you're almost always going to get a
better burn at, say, 8x than 24x), it's not an absolute rule - if you
get a lower BLER burning at 8x than 4x then, for your particular
combination of media and hardware 8x (i.e faster) is better. If you
change either one then you have to test again.

I had an old Yamaha drive that got the best rate at its highest speed,
16x, using TDK discs - any other brand at any other speed, as well as
the TDK blanks at all lower speeds (1x, 2x, 4x, 8x, 12x) resulted in
substantially higher error rates - still within acceptable spec, but
higher nonetheless.

Of course buying the best quality media is critical - those "HiVal"
discs that people buy in bulk on the cheap are just crap - my general
rule of thumb is if you don't recognize the manufacturer as being a
known manufacturer in the blanks industry stay away - those generic
discs *may* be quality blanks rebranded, but then again they may not.
And anyone who is actually working in the industry (studios, mastering
houses, etc.) have absolutely no excuse not to buy good discs - if I'm
in a studio and see the guy is using some generic crap I run the other
way, fast.
8^)

Brian
(works at Disc Makers)