Summary: With 2.TD, the 12x burns are slower than with 2C8, due to change from Z-CLV to CAV.
Until recently, I used TDB 2C8 firmware on my ND-3500 because it burned my TDK002 better than LD-firmware. Having burnt my last TDK002, and expecting YUDEN000T02 and MCC03RG20 to arrive this week, I flashed to LD 2.TD. I had some RICOHJPNR02 left which had served me well with the 2C8 and I decided to burn one with 2.TD @ 12x. I was very surprised to see that 2.TD burns @ 12x with CAV, whereas 2C8 burnt 12x with Z-CLV.
First pic RICOHJPNR02 @ 12x with 2C8, second pic RICOHJPNR02 @ 12 with 2.TD (dunno why I got thise strange colours with CDSpeed 4.01):
The Z-CLV was faster than the CAV-burn, with 2C8 my 12x burns were sub-7 mins and with 2.TD it took almost 7:30. If you look closer at the burns, you can see that the Z-CAV burn is faster than the CAV burn. It switches to 8x already at 0.5gb whereas the CAV burn reaches 8x at 1gb. The Z-CAV burn hits 12x at 2.4gb whereas the CAV burn hits 12x at 3.5gb.
Liggy and Dee, were you aware of this change in the 12x burning strategy, and if you were, is that something that you have implemented, and if so, why? Do you think it is possible to change back the 12x to Z-CAV as Z-CAV @ 12x actually seems faster than CAV?
Finally, lets compare the 2.TD 12x CAV burn with a 2.TD 16x CAV burn:
As you can see, the 16x CAV-burn starts off much faster than the 12x CAV burn, and the speed increase is also more agressive. The 16x CAV burn hits 12x already at 2gb, compared to the 12x CAV burn at 3.5gb and the 12x Z-CLV @ 2.4gb.
If we could get the 12x CAV burn to start out exactly as the 16x CAV burn hitting 12x at 2.0gb and then maintaining 12x for the rest of the burn, that would be a winner. If not, I prefer the Z-CLV method on the 12x burns.
Thx for you patience, rather long post :o