Burning software make a difference?

Hi,
After reading here for a couple of days, almost makes a guy afraid to buy any media. So many people so unhappy.
I’ve read a lot about the drive making a big difference in scanning a burned DVD. What about the software used, and the original file used? I was assuming if I wanted to compare two different blank discs I would want to burn the same file with the same software on the same drive.
So if I burn my home movies using MyDVD, and also burn a backup from a commercial DVD using Nero, does it do me any good to compare the scans?
Thanks

Short answer: No, it makes no difference what you burn or with what program. Burn quality is a hardware function. If you’re comparing discs, they should be full discs, apart from that it makes no difference. You may well find posts and threads around here that seem to indicate that it does make a difference, but that’s 100% user error and misunderstanding of the scans.

If you want to cut to the chase and get past all that, just buy TY media or whatever your drive likes best. And stay with that till you get a newer drive. Burn it at rated speed, or one notch below that, and be happy.

When I arrived on this board and rdgrimes said the same to me, I was skeptical and didn’t take his word for it…

So I performed burns with different sofwtares from the same image, scanned them and compared… and came to the obvious conclusion that indeed, the software makes no difference at all. :wink:

Only thing that could change the results would be a smaller or larger software buffer, with a fragmented hard drive, coupled with a burner which has problems with re-linking. Then the larger buffer is a plus. But nowadays most of these apps have a sufficient buffer. If the HD is in good condition, no problem. :cool:

Thanks for the replies. I’ve just started scanning my burned discs, so have to learn what it all means. My first scans are of some old ridata, that seem to get quite good results, and some old Maxell, which are OK. Just picked up some 16 speed Memorex on sale, so will have to try some of them now.

Short answer, Yes.

As Francksoy mentioned, different burning software means different buffer handling strategy. Some people just don’t want to admit it and try to shift the blame to hardware/users.

Check out this thread http://club.cdfreaks.com/showthread.php?t=154999 and decide for yourself. Even better try it for yourself.

{cough}bullsh*t{cough}

That thread in particular has no relevance to the posted question. In fact, that thread is about hardware problems, not software problems. We’re not talking about broken software/hardware anyway.

In any case, “buffer handling strategy” doesn’t affect burn quality in the least. Buffer under-runs might, but that’s a different issue completely and is still the result of hardware problems.

Agreed. In Lordyu’s case the problem is in the system/hardware/config, as he needs a 256MB (!) buffer to get rid of buffer underruns… :eek:

As I mentioned…:

Speaking of buffers, I’m still trying to figure out what’s going on with the new Nero UltraBuffer. Here, Nero’s using over 300 MB on a DVD burn, with the read buffer set to 80. The RAM is not being released until after the burn is done and ejected, so it’s not really an extended read buffer. But what is it?
Sometimes I do see it fluctuating late in the burn, down to maybe 100MB, but sometimes not. Very strange and quite a resource hog. I don’t really care, with 1600 MB available at most times, but I’m pretty curious. I might have to try some “induced under-runs” to see what happens.

rdgrimes, you can keep calling it hardware problem if you like. I see it as software problem. Now, let people decide for themselves. They might see it as hardware problem like you, or see it as software problem like me. It’s up to them.

Francksoy, I’ve tried again with 20MB buffer size and no problem this time. But still same problem with CDSpeed. See the thread for screenshots.

It releases about 200 megs of 280 for me, then grabs back if I don’t keep using it(IE memory call). cpu use is as before(6.6.0.18)

reading nero 7 logs, I noticed the pipeline is getting 200 megs(when available)
with even earlier versions