Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

CD RW for audio

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
October 27, 2004 7:36:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

I am wanting to obtain the best possible quality when burning audio CD's.

I have been advised to burn at the slowest speed possible but under XP, I
cannot get Roxio or Nero to go lower than 16x on either of my burners.

Is this the software? if so is there an ideal burning software suite?

Many thanks


AlunP

More about : audio

Anonymous
October 27, 2004 10:08:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Alun P" <alun.priddle@NOSPAMblueyonderDOTcoDOTuk> wrote in
news:UfPfd.163067$BI5.6751@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk:

> I have been advised to burn at the slowest speed possible but under
> XP, I cannot get Roxio or Nero to go lower than 16x on either of my
> burners.

New burners can burn at full speed with no problem.

--
Lucas Tam (REMOVEnntp@rogers.com)
Please delete "REMOVE" from the e-mail address when replying.
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/coolspot18/
Anonymous
October 28, 2004 12:33:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Alun P <alun.priddle@nospamblueyonderdotcodotuk> wrote:
> I am wanting to obtain the best possible quality when burning audio CD's.

> I have been advised to burn at the slowest speed possible but under XP, I
> cannot get Roxio or Nero to go lower than 16x on either of my burners.

That advice is esssentially superstition, unless you have objective
evidence to show that the slowest burning speed on your setup yields
better performance than other speeds.

consider this:

http://www.cdrfaq.org/faq03.html#S3-31


--
-S
Your a boring little troll. How does it feel? Go blow your bad breath elsewhere.
Related resources
Anonymous
October 28, 2004 12:36:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Steven Sullivan <ssully@panix.com> wrote in
news:clp0n1$mdj$4@reader1.panix.com:

>> I am wanting to obtain the best possible quality when burning audio
>> CD's.
>
>> I have been advised to burn at the slowest speed possible but under
>> XP, I cannot get Roxio or Nero to go lower than 16x on either of my
>> burners.
>
> That advice is esssentially superstition, unless you have objective
> evidence to show that the slowest burning speed on your setup yields
> better performance than other speeds.

I believe this "supertition" stemmed from the days when highspeed media was
not available. When 4x drives came out on the market, the vast majority of
CDRs were only 2X. Whenever you tried to burn a 2X rated CDR at 4X speeds,
it would yield unreliable discs.

Anyhow, it got stuck in people's mind that you need to burn at a lower
speed for reliable burns... but it's not true anymore. As long as you don't
burn faster than the media's rated speed (the speed of the media is listed
on the disc or Nero can detect the maximum speed for you), you'll be fine.

--
Lucas Tam (REMOVEnntp@rogers.com)
Please delete "REMOVE" from the e-mail address when replying.
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/coolspot18/
Anonymous
October 28, 2004 12:36:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Lucas Tam <REMOVEnntp@rogers.com> wrote in message news:<Xns958FA9287B4FEnntprogerscom@140.99.99.130>...
> Steven Sullivan <ssully@panix.com> wrote in
> news:clp0n1$mdj$4@reader1.panix.com:
>
> >> I am wanting to obtain the best possible quality when burning audio
> >> CD's.
>
> >> I have been advised to burn at the slowest speed possible but under
> >> XP, I cannot get Roxio or Nero to go lower than 16x on either of my
> >> burners.
> >
> > That advice is esssentially superstition, unless you have objective
> > evidence to show that the slowest burning speed on your setup yields
> > better performance than other speeds.
>
> I believe this "supertition" stemmed from the days when highspeed media was
> not available. When 4x drives came out on the market, the vast majority of
> CDRs were only 2X. Whenever you tried to burn a 2X rated CDR at 4X speeds,
> it would yield unreliable discs.
>
> Anyhow, it got stuck in people's mind that you need to burn at a lower
> speed for reliable burns... but it's not true anymore. As long as you don't
> burn faster than the media's rated speed (the speed of the media is listed
> on the disc or Nero can detect the maximum speed for you), you'll be fine.

For that matter, there was a time when a computer couldn't handle the
data fast enough, and so for the faster drive speeds the data wasn't
getting to it fast enough to keep the buffer full. You needed to
keep the record speed down in order to burn the CD properly, otherwise
it would be unreadable.

I just got my first CDRW drive back in December, in this 1GHz hand me
down. The books I had around were old enough where this was an issue,
and it made it sound like there could be serious problems if one
wasn't careful. But none of it was relevant once computers got
to a certain point.

Michael
Anonymous
October 28, 2004 9:00:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

blackm00@cam.org (Michael Black) wrote in news:6447bcd3.0410271915.30d91cc8
@posting.google.com:

> I just got my first CDRW drive back in December, in this 1GHz hand me
> down. The books I had around were old enough where this was an issue,
> and it made it sound like there could be serious problems if one
> wasn't careful. But none of it was relevant once computers got
> to a certain point.

These days almost all CDRW and DVDRW drives incorporate "burn proof"
technology. It basically stops the burning processes if the buffer drops
below an acceptable level.

When burn-proof came out... I thought it was a wonderfu invention. It sure
saved me a whole bunch of bad discs!

--
Lucas Tam (REMOVEnntp@rogers.com)
Please delete "REMOVE" from the e-mail address when replying.
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/coolspot18/
Anonymous
October 28, 2004 11:59:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Bits are bits. If your burner reliably burns 1s and 0s at it's highest
speed (and it damn well should!) then burn away.

I defy _anyone_ who thinks they can hear the difference between a disc
burned at 1x and 50x to prove in a double-blind ABX text. It can't be
done. This is the beauty of digital.

On 2004-10-28 01:36:20 +1000, "Alun P"
<alun.priddle@NOSPAMblueyonderDOTcoDOTuk> said:

> I am wanting to obtain the best possible quality when burning audio CD's.
>
> I have been advised to burn at the slowest speed possible but under XP,
> I cannot get Roxio or Nero to go lower than 16x on either of my burners.
>
> Is this the software? if so is there an ideal burning software suite?
>
> Many thanks
>
>
> AlunP
Anonymous
October 28, 2004 11:59:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

>Bits are bits. If your burner reliably burns 1s and 0s at it's highest
>speed (and it damn well should!) then burn away.
>
>I defy _anyone_ who thinks they can hear the difference between a disc
>burned at 1x and 50x to prove in a double-blind ABX text. It can't be
>done. This is the beauty of digital.

Largely true, but there are some interesting boundary situations:

- If a disc burned at 50x has a higher low-level-media bit-error rate
than one burned at a lower speed, then it may be more prone to
exhibit the symptoms of error-correction-algorithm failure (brief
muting, pops and ticks) during playback. This might be a
significant problem in some cases, especially as discs intended for
high-speed burning seem to tend to have thinner, somewhat-less-
reflective dye layers, and it may be harder for some older CD
players to get a strong-enough RF signal off of the disc to decode
properly.

- Similarly, a disc burned with a low level of contrast between pits
and lands may be harder for the CD player's focusing and tracking
servos to read accurately, leading to mistracking, a reluctance to
play, increased vulnerability to shock and vibration during
playback, and so forth.

- Burning at 50x results in a *fast* rotation of the disc... I've
heard burners which sounded a lot like small vacuum cleaners at
these speeds. If the disc's physical balance is off, or if the
spindle hole isn't properly centered or has some plastic residue on
its edge, the disc can wobble while being burned, and the writer
may not be able to track the pregroove accurately enough to give a
good burn.

- There have been some reports (largely anecdodal) which suggest that
there are some (poorly-designed) CD players which can allow digital
circuitry noise, and motor (tracking-servo) noise to feed back
through the power supply rails into the analog electronics. Discs
which are harder to track may result in different amounts of this
digital-and-motor noise ending up contaminating the analog audio
signal.

Digital's a neat thing, and the use of sophisticated error-correction
codes on CD give it a lot of resistance to reasonable numbers of bit
errors, RF signal dropouts, etc. due to burning problems. However,
one cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear... if the physical
quality of the burn is bad enough, either the tracking system or the
Reed-Solomon error correction coding system will eventually be
overwhelmed, and the CD will tend to mistrack or will suffer from
audible noise.

--
Dave Platt <dplatt@radagast.org> AE6EO
Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!
Anonymous
October 28, 2004 11:59:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Dave Platt" <dplatt@radagast.org> wrote in message
news:10o079ta5rd6082@corp.supernews.com...
> >Bits are bits. If your burner reliably burns 1s and 0s at it's highest
>>speed (and it damn well should!) then burn away.
>>
>>I defy _anyone_ who thinks they can hear the difference between a disc
>>burned at 1x and 50x to prove in a double-blind ABX text. It can't be
>>done. This is the beauty of digital.
>
> Largely true, but there are some interesting boundary situations:
>
> - If a disc burned at 50x has a higher low-level-media bit-error rate
> than one burned at a lower speed, then it may be more prone to
> exhibit the symptoms of error-correction-algorithm failure (brief
> muting, pops and ticks) during playback. This might be a
> significant problem in some cases, especially as discs intended for
> high-speed burning seem to tend to have thinner, somewhat-less-
> reflective dye layers, and it may be harder for some older CD
> players to get a strong-enough RF signal off of the disc to decode
> properly.
>
> - Similarly, a disc burned with a low level of contrast between pits
> and lands may be harder for the CD player's focusing and tracking
> servos to read accurately, leading to mistracking, a reluctance to
> play, increased vulnerability to shock and vibration during
> playback, and so forth.
>
> - Burning at 50x results in a *fast* rotation of the disc... I've
> heard burners which sounded a lot like small vacuum cleaners at
> these speeds. If the disc's physical balance is off, or if the
> spindle hole isn't properly centered or has some plastic residue on
> its edge, the disc can wobble while being burned, and the writer
> may not be able to track the pregroove accurately enough to give a
> good burn.
>
> - There have been some reports (largely anecdodal) which suggest that
> there are some (poorly-designed) CD players which can allow digital
> circuitry noise, and motor (tracking-servo) noise to feed back
> through the power supply rails into the analog electronics. Discs
> which are harder to track may result in different amounts of this
> digital-and-motor noise ending up contaminating the analog audio
> signal.
>
> Digital's a neat thing, and the use of sophisticated error-correction
> codes on CD give it a lot of resistance to reasonable numbers of bit
> errors, RF signal dropouts, etc. due to burning problems. However,
> one cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear... if the physical
> quality of the burn is bad enough, either the tracking system or the
> Reed-Solomon error correction coding system will eventually be
> overwhelmed, and the CD will tend to mistrack or will suffer from
> audible noise.
>
> --
> Dave Platt <dplatt@radagast.org> AE6EO
> Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
> I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
> boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

There are borderline issues which can cause varying results.
I use a Yamaha 16X burner. It produces oustanding discs - I have examined
the HF patterns produced on a variety of consumer decks using an
oscilloscope. The quality of the HF pattern is excellent for a burned disc.
Nevertheless, I have seen the occasional player (usually Philips based)
which has problems playing a 16X burned disc, but re-burning another at 12X
fixed the problem. Acts like a grating issue.

YMMV.

Mark Z.
Anonymous
October 28, 2004 11:59:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Many thanks for the overwhelming information, The reason for the post,
initially, was that my car cd player, an Alpine, does not like a lot of CD-R
discs (yes it is compatible!!) however, branded cd-r audio media burned at
slow speeds play perfectly.

The people at Alpine suggested birning at 1x or 2 x to overcome the problem,
as I said, neither of the two burning suites I have will go that low, maybe
its windows XP, I dont know?

AlunP
Anonymous
October 28, 2004 10:34:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Alun P <alun.priddle@nospamblueyonderdotcodotuk> wrote:
> Many thanks for the overwhelming information, The reason for the post,
> initially, was that my car cd player, an Alpine, does not like a lot of CD-R
> discs (yes it is compatible!!) however, branded cd-r audio media burned at
> slow speeds play perfectly.


Well, what you wrote was that you wanted the 'best possible quality'
CDRs.

I'd say your problem has to do with the quality of the *player*, not
the CDRs.



--
-S
Your a boring little troll. How does it feel? Go blow your bad breath elsewhere.
Anonymous
October 28, 2004 11:53:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Lucas Tam" <REMOVEnntp@rogers.com> wrote in message
> Anyhow, it got stuck in people's mind that you need to burn at a lower
> speed for reliable burns... but it's not true anymore. As long as you
> don't
> burn faster than the media's rated speed (the speed of the media is listed
> on the disc or Nero can detect the maximum speed for you), you'll be fine.


I do CD duplication for a business , and I find the highest speeds may WRITE
OK, but are less likely to READ OK on a range of players. Yes, using the
appropriate high speed media.

I find 8x best on my bank of 14 12x Plexwriters, and 16x on Plextor
Premium (which can successfully write up to 52x) , over a variety of media
brands.

With the Plextor Premium PlexTools software you can do BLER tests on the
resultant discs, but you can't do a BLER test that necessarily reflects
*exactly* what will happen with that media in an audio CD player.

geoff
Anonymous
October 28, 2004 11:55:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Lucas Tam" <REMOVEnntp@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9590A475D4A0nntprogerscom@140.99.99.130...
> blackm00@cam.org (Michael Black) wrote in
> news:6447bcd3.0410271915.30d91cc8
> @posting.google.com:
>
>> I just got my first CDRW drive back in December, in this 1GHz hand me
>> down. The books I had around were old enough where this was an issue,
>> and it made it sound like there could be serious problems if one
>> wasn't careful. But none of it was relevant once computers got
>> to a certain point.
>
> These days almost all CDRW and DVDRW drives incorporate "burn proof"
> technology. It basically stops the burning processes if the buffer drops
> below an acceptable level.

..... and does not restart 'perfectly', but well enough.

> When burn-proof came out... I thought it was a wonderfu invention. It sure
> saved me a whole bunch of bad discs!

If you were/are having constant buffer under-runs, then you have a problem
that should or could be addressed specifically. Treat the cause and not the
symptom...

geoff
Anonymous
October 28, 2004 11:55:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Geoff Wood" <geoff@paf.co.nz-nospam> wrote in
news:SJ0gd.23573$mZ2.872736@news02.tsnz.net:

>> These days almost all CDRW and DVDRW drives incorporate "burn proof"
>> technology. It basically stops the burning processes if the buffer
>> drops below an acceptable level.
>
> .... and does not restart 'perfectly', but well enough.

My drives always restarted perfectly.

>> When burn-proof came out... I thought it was a wonderfu invention. It
>> sure saved me a whole bunch of bad discs!
>
> If you were/are having constant buffer under-runs, then you have a
> problem that should or could be addressed specifically. Treat the
> cause and not the symptom...

This was back when I had a Pentium III 450 - I was running other
applications while burning, so the buffer would drop due to disk activity.
Not much I could have done but maybe purchase a new hard drive.

--
Lucas Tam (REMOVEnntp@rogers.com)
Please delete "REMOVE" from the e-mail address when replying.
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/coolspot18/
Anonymous
October 28, 2004 11:57:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Kai Howells" <kai-usenet@rocketcat.info> wrote in message
news:41801a45$0$25053$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
> Bits are bits. If your burner reliably burns 1s and 0s at it's highest
> speed (and it damn well should!) then burn away.
>
> I defy _anyone_ who thinks they can hear the difference between a disc
> burned at 1x and 50x to prove in a double-blind ABX text. It can't be
> done. This is the beauty of digital.

Try taking a digital photo while a-creeping , and b- sprinting. See which
comes out sharper.

geoff
Anonymous
October 28, 2004 11:59:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Alun P" <alun.priddle@NOSPAMblueyonderDOTcoDOTuk> wrote in message
news:kY%fd.165205$BI5.124843@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Many thanks for the overwhelming information, The reason for the post,
> initially, was that my car cd player, an Alpine, does not like a lot of
> CD-R discs (yes it is compatible!!) however, branded cd-r audio media
> burned at slow speeds play perfectly.


many car players (and ghetto-blasters, and carousels) do not like CD-Rs.

> The people at Alpine suggested birning at 1x or 2 x to overcome the
> problem,

Their best possible advice in the circumstances, other than getting a
new-generation player than doesn't have problems with CD-Rs.

geoff
Anonymous
October 29, 2004 12:44:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Lucas Tam" <REMOVEnntp@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95907CBC27960nntprogerscom@140.99.99.130...
> "Geoff Wood" <geoff@paf.co.nz-nospam> wrote in
> news:SJ0gd.23573$mZ2.872736@news02.tsnz.net:
>
>>> These days almost all CDRW and DVDRW drives incorporate "burn proof"
>>> technology. It basically stops the burning processes if the buffer
>>> drops below an acceptable level.
>>
>> .... and does not restart 'perfectly', but well enough.
>
> My drives always restarted perfectly.

So you have an electron microscope. OK.

>>> When burn-proof came out... I thought it was a wonderfu invention. It
>>> sure saved me a whole bunch of bad discs!
>>
>> If you were/are having constant buffer under-runs, then you have a
>> problem that should or could be addressed specifically. Treat the
>> cause and not the symptom...
>
> This was back when I had a Pentium III 450 - I was running other
> applications while burning, so the buffer would drop due to disk activity.
> Not much I could have done but maybe purchase a new hard drive.

.... or not write while running other applications like I'm sure 90% of us
don't.


geoff.
Anonymous
October 30, 2004 1:48:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 06:02:56 GMT, "Alun P"
<alun.priddle@NOSPAMblueyonderDOTcoDOTuk> wrote:

>Many thanks for the overwhelming information, The reason for the post,
>initially, was that my car cd player, an Alpine, does not like a lot of CD-R
>discs (yes it is compatible!!) however, branded cd-r audio media burned at
>slow speeds play perfectly.
>
>The people at Alpine suggested birning at 1x or 2 x to overcome the problem,
>as I said, neither of the two burning suites I have will go that low, maybe
>its windows XP, I dont know?

The old advice (backed up with experimental data) was that 2X was the
optimal burn speed. (Better than 1X, strangely).

You can't blame Windows XP. Today's media is optimised for faster
speeds. A good burner/software will test a disk when inserted and
only offer appropriate burn speeds. Too SLOW a speed can be bad.
Somehow, you're never told the very highest speeds are risky - I guess
the Marketing department would object :-)

Some musicians jealously hoard remaining stocks of "slow" media. I
find speeds between 10X and 20X reliable. Some players are fussy.
Anonymous
October 30, 2004 1:50:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 19:55:25 +1300, "Geoff Wood"
<geoff@paf.co.nz-nospam> wrote:

>> These days almost all CDRW and DVDRW drives incorporate "burn proof"
>> technology. It basically stops the burning processes if the buffer drops
>> below an acceptable level.
>
>.... and does not restart 'perfectly', but well enough.

I've turned burnproof off for audio disks. I suspect that, on the
rare occasions that it's required, the burn continues but you get an
audio glitch. I'd rather the burn failed. I haven't got time to
listen right through checking every audio CD I send out :-)
Anonymous
October 30, 2004 1:51:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 19:59:02 +1300, "Geoff Wood"
<geoff@paf.co.nz-nospam> wrote:

>> The people at Alpine suggested birning at 1x or 2 x to overcome the
>> problem,
>
>Their best possible advice in the circumstances, other than getting a
>new-generation player than doesn't have problems with CD-Rs.

But, with modern media, advice impossible to follow, even if it would
help. Which it wouldn't, WITH MODERN MEDIA.
Anonymous
October 30, 2004 1:52:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 16:15:44 GMT, Lucas Tam <REMOVEnntp@rogers.com>
wrote:

>> If you were/are having constant buffer under-runs, then you have a
>> problem that should or could be addressed specifically. Treat the
>> cause and not the symptom...
>
>This was back when I had a Pentium III 450 - I was running other
>applications while burning, so the buffer would drop due to disk activity.
>Not much I could have done but maybe purchase a new hard drive.

You could have not run other applications while burning. Still good
advice, unless you're quite confident your computer is well
over-powered.
!