CD Read: 24x VS 48x... A realistic difference?

I recently purchased a laptop without an internal CD/DVD reader or burner, and would like to purchase an external optical drive for it. The real reason I want this, is so I can rip CDs when I’m not at home (especially at work, etc.)… I’m less concerned about burning.

From the research I’ve done, I know that I can either get an external drive which will be powered by my laptop battery, or one that requires a power brick of its own. I, of course, like the idea of not needed the power brick, but am concerned that the difference in read speed will prove problematic, or at the very least annoying.

So my question is: Is there are significant difference between a CD read speed of 24x and 48x?

I know this seems like a goofy question, but I can’t find a chart with relative times or an easy to understand answer anywhere on the web. I just don’t want to get stuck waiting an extra 20 minutes for a CD to finish ripping, just because I didn’t want to carry the power brick around!

Thank you!

(PS- If you know of a chart, or if this has been a topic of conversation previously… please just link me up, and I’ll check it out!)

Hello and welcome to CD Freaks! :slight_smile:

Attached is a benchmark from a laptop drive reading a full CD at 24x. There is some variation from drive to drive but all 24x reads should be around the same time of 4 mins and 15 sec. Most CDs are not as lengthy as the one I read so most disks you should be able to rip in less time.

A 48x drive should be able to rip an entire 80min CD in approximately 2 mins and 30 secs. Unless you are going to be ripping numerous disks per day, getting a external reader (which will definitely need it’s own power brick/cord) isn’t really worth it IMO.


Finally, an answer to the question! Thank you!

So, it looks like the difference is about half (which is what I would assume). Although, the difference between 2 and 4 minutes isn’t huge, it is still worth considering.

Now from what you wrote, it seems like you would suggest NOT getting a non-externally powered drive (like the Samsung SE-S084B http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16827151178)… any specific reason for that? I figure it will probably drain my laptop battery pretty quickly, but if I plug in the laptop anyway it shouldn’t be a problem, and then I’d only have to use one power brick instead of two. That’s my theory, anyway.

You are very welcome. The drive you listed is only a 24x drive, so if it is the same speed as your internal drive it doesn’t serve a purpose. I suggested not getting an external because I wouldn’t myself unless I need to rip 10+ disks a day. If you really want one I would suggest this: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16827106295
Cheaper, and faster than the slim drive you listed and the power cord is not a large brick that will get in the way.

[B]Nevermind, I reread your first post, didn’t realize your lappy doesn’t have a internal drive. The original drive you listed should be fine.[/B]

Hi,[QUOTE=SirReddSir;2270081]I recently purchased a laptop without an internal CD/DVD reader or burner, and would like to purchase an external optical drive for it. (…)
From the research I’ve done, I know that I can either get an external drive which will be powered by my laptop battery, or one that requires a power brick of its own.[/quote]Any optical drive that comes without its own power supply violates the USB specs, since these draw much more electrical current than specified for an USB port.

I, of course, like the idea of not needed the power brick, but am concerned that the difference in read speed will prove problematic, or at the very least annoying.
There might be some other things to consider:
Slim drives, including external versions are mechanically not as solid as the Half Height (that is these than can read CD up to 48x) variety.
This might not be an issue if you want to read a disc once a month.

Michael

After thinking about it, and talking it over with a few folks around here, I have determined… that you guys are 100% correct.

I’ll be using the external drive to occasionally rip CDs and install software. I don’t really need the portability of a “slim” drive, and could probably really benefit from the increased speed.

Thanks for all your help, I really appreciate it!

Hi, I believe the new Plextor PX-610U slim drive has an internal battery somewhere which will supplement the USB power when needed. I don’t actually own the drive but found it sort of interesting when I was reading about it. It may be something to consider.

http://www.plextor.com/english/products/px-610u.html

[QUOTE=bitaddict;2270715]Hi, I believe the new Plextor PX-610U slim drive has an internal battery somewhere which will supplement the USB power when needed. I don’t actually own the drive but found it sort of interesting when I was reading about it. It may be something to consider.[/QUOTE]

You’re just trying to get me to spend more money!

I’m doing everything in my power to keep the cost of this purchase low, and not buy more than I really need. Those together, are not necessarily my strong suit.

I took a look at the drive, and it sure does sound interesting. It only requires one USB cable (data), and is powered by an internal battery. This would be really great if I needed the drive frequently, and was on the road a whole bunch. But, thankfully, I’m not… so it seems like a little more than I really need.

Thanks for the suggestion!