Cannot find a right burning speed anymore

[FlyingLuka]

I recently bought a new cakebox of T.Y. Cd-r. 97m24s01f

I might be wrong, but it seems to me the T.Y. quality is a little declined.. I mean it is not the same "high" quality it used to be.

This is my problem: I usually burn my own audio CD compilation at 16x speed which it used to be a perfect match between my burner (Plextor Premium II) and the T.Y.

Not anymore!

After ripping my tracks by EAC (*.wav), I save them into a folder and burn the compilation. Talking about C1 error, sometime I get great result at 16x, sometime 8x, sometime 4x or even 2x.

I mean that burning the same audio compilation, each time I get different and especially opposite results from CD-Rs coming from the same cakebox!!!!

Am I doing anything wrong?

What do you suggest or reccomend to do?

It's quite frustranting make several inconclusive test and throwing tens of blank media into the trashcan...

[DrageMester]

What kind of results are you getting in terms of C1/C2, Jitter, or individual Exy counts ?

Many people obsess over minor unimportant differences in scans, which is why I ask.

[FlyingLuka]

Hi DrageMester

I meant C1/C2 errors.

Jitter, more or less, is always very low.

Example: an audio CD compilation of 75 minutes, the best “score” for me was max 1837 C1 and 0 C2.

The worste 6188 and 0 C2.

The probelm is that I do not know WHAT speed (if it is a matter of speed) makes this difference, because I can get the above mentioned result sometime at the lowest possible speed (2x) and sometime a the highest one (adviced for audio) 16x . It would make a sense if I was using different type of media and/or brand. But - again - it happens with media form the same box!

My Plextor must be very MOODY !

[DrageMester]

In my opinion your “best” and “worst” results are effectively identical. I would simply burn at 16x and forget about such minor differences.

I hope I don’t get kicked out of the Blank Media Gang for failing to obsess about such scanning differences!

[FlyingLuka]

Well… first of all thank you for answering… but I still do not understand!

I am not talking about a one hundred of C1 errors… there is a huge diffirence between different speeds…

Anyway I am doing some more test with the same files, same burner and same media.

This time I changed software. I’ve been always using a very old version of WinOnCD (Power Edition V. 5), that is my favorite but unforunately never updated since Roxio bought the company and the software messing up everything. :a

Anyway… I’m doing the same test using Nero 10…

Soon I’ll let you know!

[mciahel]

The software has no influence on the quality.
What you see here, is a combination of variances in blank media quality, burner performance and of course the scanning results, which aren’t accurate either.

That said, I agree with Drage - don’t mind. I also agree with you - TY CD-R had been better in the past.

Michael

[DrageMester]

[QUOTE=FlyingLuka;2570827] I am not talking about a one hundred of C1 errors… there is a huge diffirence between different speeds… [/QUOTE] There is not a huge difference between a total of 1837 and 6188 C1 errors over a whole disc (less than 2 C1 errors per second) when C2 is zero and jitter is low for both discs. It’s meaningless to e.g. think of one number as being three times as large as the other number, since both numbers represent a very good result.

[FlyingLuka]

[QUOTE=mciahel;2570840]The software has no influence on the quality.
What you see here, is a combination of variances in blank media quality, burner performance and of course the scanning results, which aren’t accurate either.

That said, I agree with Drage - don’t mind. I also agree with you - TY CD-R had been better in the past.

Michael[/QUOTE]

Thanks Michael!

I knew that software has no influence… but I am making right now new test and gettin better results.

In my case I was burning by a very old software (1999), older than my burner.
Maybe using Nero, which is newer and better updated, I’m getting a better “communication” or “interaction” or whatever between media/driver/firmware.

It’s just an idea… I have no intention to sound arrogant or counter anyone who knows about burning better than me !

You are right about “scanning results, which aren’t accurate either”, but it is only way I have to see what’s wrong… if there is anything wrong.

Just one hour and I will be ready !!!

[FlyingLuka]

ok! Some new test.

What I can understand is that 16x looks like the better one (like it used to be), but I have no idea about the jitter… I assume the 16x too.

In terms of durabilty and compatibility for audio CD which is the ideal speed?

[mciahel]

Hi,[QUOTE=FlyingLuka;2570863]

In my case I was burning by a very old software (1999), older than my burner. [/QUOTE]Okay. In this case, something more recent is worth trying. Agreed.

[QUOTE=FlyingLuka;2570881]What I can understand is that 16x looks like the better one (like it used to be), but I have no idea about the jitter… I assume the 16x too.

In terms of durabilty and compatibility for audio CD which is the ideal speed?[/QUOTE]Stick with 16x then. Longevity will be determined by the physical and chemical properties plus storage conditions of the individual disc.
The speed you have written it has no influence (this might be different if the burn quality had been borderline from the beginning).

Michael

[FlyingLuka]

Thanks Michael,
I do appreciate your patience with me.

I made some extra test and found out that all those features which come with plextools, like powerec, varirec, etc… etc… they are useful only if you are burning cheap media, especially varirec.
Completely useless with good ones. Maybe Powerec if you are in a great hurry and want to burn at the highest possible speed.

A.M.Q.R. (on papers) looks interesting instead. But I get stuck on 4x speed (maybe 8x) that is in contradiction with the 16x rule.

At this point, granted that 16x is the ideal speed for music and I guess no higher than this, in the other hand I have to say it’ s also a matter of “luck”.

Sometime a media - same type and same brand - can respond better at 16x and sometime at 8x or any other lower speed.

It would be nice if there were a software which can make a scan analisys before the burning and let you know the right speed!!!

Is it possible that in the year 2011 there is nothing like this?

[Arachne]

[QUOTE=DrageMester;2570804]In my opinion your “best” and “worst” results are effectively identical. I would simply burn at 16x and forget about such minor differences.

I hope I don’t get kicked out of the Blank Media Gang for failing to obsess about such scanning differences! [/QUOTE]

I certainly wouldn’t give you the boot, as I agree (but then again, maybe we’ll both get kicked out!)

16x generally does the job for me for audio with most discs, regardless of the software used. Regarding (TY) quality, I have a come across a bit of a decline with certain batches that I have - but then, the burners I use most are getting on a bit now!

Just my opinion here, as you already have great advice from Michael/Drage

[FlyingLuka]

[QUOTE=Arachne;2570990]I certainly wouldn’t give you the boot, as I agree (but then again, maybe we’ll both get kicked out!)
[/quote]

Which means?

16x generally does the job for me for audio with most discs, regardless of the software used. Regarding (TY) quality, I have a come across a bit of a decline with certain batches that I have - but then, the burners I use most are getting on a bit now!

Just my opinion here, as you already have great advice from Michael/Drage

I agree too with all of you, of course.

Basically I was only try to understand the reasons of different behaviours and why - since we are talking about minor differences - there are still so many people who say [I]“don’t burn music higher tahn 4x”[/I] and somebody else who say [I]"no, modern computers, modern media, modern burners need a higher speed… like 16x[/I].

Of course I do believe you. But it seems the schools of thought are still two:

1. The old rule: go slow for music is still valuable (well… not at 1x but at 4x at least)

2. The new rule: going slow for music is an urban myth, better a higher one.

That’s it

[geno888]

[QUOTE=FlyingLuka;2571001]Which means? [/QUOTE]

Believe me, you don’t want to know :p:p:p:p:p

[FlyingLuka]

One more test!

Multi section / mode 2 /data CD (*.Wav) with the same files

[DrageMester]

^Jitter is best (lowest) in the 16x part of the burn. I’d burn at 16x.

[FlyingLuka]

Ok!

[Arachne]

[QUOTE=FlyingLuka;2571001]Which means? [/QUOTE]

Nothing personal towards you …was having a bit of a joke with Drage

Agree on the 16x part with the lower jitter too (Note to self:must stop agreeing with the Dragon! ).

I understand what you’re getting at though, with there being two different schools of thought. I can never resist dropping my thoughts in though

@Geno - stop causing trouble

[geno888]

[QUOTE=Arachne;2571295]@Geno - stop causing trouble :p[/QUOTE]

Who? Me??

[FlyingLuka]

[QUOTE=geno888;2571296]Who? Me?? :p[/QUOTE]

Yes! Just you!