End of the line for faster DVD Burners not far ahead

I just posted the article End of the line for faster DVD Burners not far ahead.

 Just like the time when CD-Recorders reached its  speed limit of 52x, the recording speed for DVD-recorders will also reach  its limit once 16x DVD  recorders launch this fall.  It takes...
Read the full article here:  [http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/8506-End-of-the-line-for-faster-DVD-Burners-not-far-ahead.html](http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/8506-End-of-the-line-for-faster-DVD-Burners-not-far-ahead.html)

Feel free to add your comments below. 

Please note that the reactions from the complete site will be synched below.

The DVD format is getting old, heck even the Blu-Ray will be out of date once it reaches us. It sucks that private consumers are always the last to get the piece of the pie.

“So far no manufacturer has announced whether dual-layer recording speed can be improved on.” Didn’t BenQ announce their roadmap show DVD+R9 speeds of 4x and 6x-10x sometime in the future?

Does anyone remember the Kenwood Real 72X CDROM reader? It uses a few lens to read the CD faster and it is a real performer! Probably it’s not possible or too expensive to use a similar technology to speed up DVD recording with the same or less RPM speed that 16x recorders will reach soon… :c But if you think about the way the Burn Proof works it should really be possible to write a DVD using more than one laser at the same time… :stuck_out_tongue:

I remember that 72x CD-reader that used multiple lasers :X I’m sure dual laser technology would work also to double the reading speed of DVD drives, however very unlikely for writing apart from packet written (UDF) discs.

It was the Kenwood 72X True-X CD-ROM drive. It used a SINGLE laser which was split by a prism into 7 seperate beams then reflected off the CD and back to a PUH with 7 sensors. Kenwood dubbed it “Zen” technology. It had a rotational speed of 5,100 to 2,700 rpm so it was very quiet. I remember paying about seventy bucks for it on sale at CompUseless back in the day. I still have it and the original box it came in. Sadly, I had to “retire” it long ago because Kenwood stopped updating the firmware and it simply could no longer read the newer dyes used in the higher speed CD-Rs. In fact, I just searched the Kenwood website and there is absolutely nothing about the drive there anymore. :c Interestly, I read a story over a year ago about Afree (a large OEM manufacter) coming out with a CD/DVD-ROM that was going to use the same technology. The drive boasted CD read speeds 100x+ and DVD read speeds 32x+. Alas, to good to be true. What killed it? The same thing that killed the Kenwood drive - COPY PROTECTION! That, and CD-ROM drives became commodity items, so no one was willing to pay the premium price for the drive. Ah…the “good” old days! :slight_smile:

It’s all already a bit outdated anyway. Can buy a DVDR for around £50 that lets u burn disks or you can but a 160Gb external drive for around £100. It obv. depends what you need to do with it, but for personal use, storage is getting so cheap your better off just having it all instantly accessible on a hard drive rather than digging through piles of CD’s/DVD’s. Image all your games on your hard drive - two button clicks to load up any of 300 games instead of having to find the cd carry case, finding the game, putting it in and waiting for the drive to start reading it then starting the game. Obv. for sharing or whatever u still want a portable drive but for how much longer? External high capacity drives, that can also read and play back the data on them (take the archos for instance that can play divx/images/music) are going to be the way ahead once the prices start getting cheap for them :stuck_out_tongue:

Well, I am sure that there is a factor of safety built into the CD/DVD “safe speed” of 10,000 rpm, so that the poly could probably be safe up to 15K rpm, but why bother. I agree with others, multi reader/writer heads will be the way of the future for DVD/RW drives. Afterall, there HAS to be a way to read and write data faster to these discs, especially once 50 GB BR discs come out, otherwise, as others have stated, DVD’s will not be used for archiving data en mass, they will be relegated to that duty like the old tape backup drives which took hours to back up HD’s that were not even 1 GB big.

Nila, the only flaw in that argument is that a burned DVD will last a whale of a lot longer than a frequently used hard drive. Disc media will change a lot, but for the time being, it’s not going anywhere. Use of an external hard drive is excellent for certain applications, but as anyone who’s had a hard drive crash can attest, if you don’t have a removable media backup of your data, sooner or later you are going to lose it.

To pay a few more bucks for a 32x (or more) DVD reader/writer is feasable… :g If I remember well the 72 True-X did not cost far more than a 40x reader (at that time 52x was not yet possible…)

Yes you are right - it was surprizing to hear that they already plan to go >4x. My belief is it will never happen.

The bove was meant as a reaction to kwkard :slight_smile:

Too Bad Kenwood’s first two drives the 42x and 52x Zen drives sucked and didn’t work for a lot of buyers, myself included.

Nila, would you really have a ‘pile’ of Blu-ray discs if they can store 50Gb each? :wink: Seeing as Hard disks are becoming larger, and programs seem to be bloating out too people do want to back up their drives and also larger amounts of data. 10 years ago CD capacity seemed huge, 5 years ago DVD capacity seemed huge, so in 2 years time will 50Gb seem that large? It’s only 6/7 times the capacity of a DVD9 and people will find ways to fill and use it. Hopefully the speed of writing to Blu-ray will be high enough so that it’s comparable to writing a full DVD disc now (i.e. 15-30 minutes for a blu-ray disk wouldn’t be bad) I still believe that the IDE interface will be the next major stumbling block for writers - it’s simply not fast enough or efficient enough for writing large quantities of data (16x DVD writing requires more than DMA133 can support really). We’ll have to start using either SATA or Firewire for drives (USB2 is a bit of a resource hog, sadly) Let’s hope that the USB2 drives don’t ever take off :slight_smile:

Unless I’m vastly mistaken, I think you’re wrong about IDE being a limit for optical or harddisk storage yet. DMA133 is actually 133 megaBYTES per second, this is FAR faster than 16x DVD speed AND about twice what the fastest harddisk’s peak speed is. Thus, no problem yet. NB. USB 2 is 480 megaBITS per second, i.e. 60 megabytes per sec. standard SATA is 150 megabytes per second the new Nvidia proposed SATA300 is obviously 300 megabytes per sec. Currently these transfer standards are just for worthless bragging rights, unless you’re running a RAID 0 array all off one channel (which you don’t do, instead you use one drive per channel; and since even the fastest HDs only have ‘peak’ speeds of about half the limit, you won’t run into any problems).

Oh, firewire is only 400 megaBITS. (firewire 800, currently Apple only, is 800 megaBITS).

Surely, this DVD writing speed limit has been known for ages!? DVD reading speed stopped at 16x max*, so obviously the limit for writing speed can only be the same! (drives actually use a CAV speed, so vary from about 12x to 16x across the disc width) Just need for the cd-REwriting speed to increase from 32x to 52x, the dvd-REwriting speed from 8x to 16x, and DL speed from 2.4x to 16x… thus, STILL LOTS OF DEVELOPMENT TO GO I’M AFRAID.

i don’t think DL recording speed will go as far as 16x.

SATA really doesn’t offer many advantages over PATA , just 17mb/s extra bandwith that also in bursts mode. And about SATA being easier to connect (like jumper settings) isn’t much of a advantage. I’m happy with PATA for now. SATA doesn’t have many advantages to upgrade to.

Note that 1xDVD is 1.35MB per second (1xCD = 150k/sec), so 16xDVD works out as 21.6MB/s. Even the most basic UDMA 33 is more than sufficient for 16xDVD reading & writing as it still leaves about 11MB/s of bandwidth to spare for cache bursting :stuck_out_tongue: From what I have read about, the insane speeds that S-ATA and UDMA133 provide are really only put to use with raid configurations. Even the fastest hard drives such as the S-ATA WD Raptor series has a physical read/write limit of around 65MB/s (or so). With two hard drives in raid, then the SATA/IDE speeds become important :slight_smile: