How to burn 4x DVD at 8x or higher?

I have Nec ND 3540A and memorex 4x DVD disc. I remmebered that there are some firmware supporting burn 4x disc at 8x or higher but I can’t found now.

Please help me.

Thanks

I doubt that many here would suggest burning a questionable quality 4x media at anything other than 4x.
However, have a look on Liggy&Dee’s website here .

doubt it too. the consensus in DVD burning will always be to burn at low speed say 2X or 4X even when using 16Xdisc.

Not so at all. Consensus here amongst those that [B]really[/B] know would be to burn at the rated media speed, although with 16x media often 12x would give a better burn.

Note also that some of the 18x/20x burners do very well overspeeding some of the quality 16x media. My Samsung 18x burns TY T03s at 18x at the same high quality as 12x & 16x speeds.

Well, i might berong then. There are lots of things to consider when setting burning speed. Device speed, media rated speed, RAM and buffer. There’s one Golden rule written by Blutach from DD, http://forum.digital-digest.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=49635 and those who experimented on burn speeds found out that the higher speed you go the more erroneous the burn will be. They used this two tools to test the results. The NERO CD-DVD speed and DVDinfoPro. For me, I always burn at lower speeds 4X as i am a patient man, few minute longer will do me as long as i have a guaranteed burn in the end.

Memorex?

Oh no!!! Not that cheapo media, please. :bigsmile:

It completely depends on media quality IMO. My NEC 3520 with Liggy&Dee’s firmware will burn Verbatim 8x -R at 12x with good results, and Pioneer 107D with NIL’s firmware burned Ritek G04 4x at 8x with good results when G04 was available. However, I burn lesser quality meida at rated speed or lower except that I burn even high quality 16x media at 12x due to several posts I’ve seen showing noticeably better burns at 12x.

Are these +R or -R discs? The NEC 3540 will burn 4x RicohJPNR01 (Memorex +R 4x) at 12x with Dee’s firmware.

G04 is always DVD-R media.
But these days Ritek is cheapo media…

Yes chef, Riteks are cheapos really compared to even unbranded TY.

You got my post wrong…

I mean cheapo in price & quality!!

Cheapo in price I agree, in quality not so:disagree:

I’m afraid RiTek in general are not good quality, they deteriorate faster than any other media i know.
It’s also a myth that burning 16x media at 4x will give you better results, in fact, in most cases the slower burn speed will reduce the burning quality, although i agree that RiTek media may burn better at slower speeds, but that is only because the dye is generally poor quality.

@ Dee-27

I always argue before about how come a 16X rated media burned onto by a 16X rated device was a bit risky. We have a long thread on this long ago in other site that one went as far as explaining the density of DVDmedia, peaks and valleys, dyes, speeds, how much device buffer, etc… and all presented with a burn test graph using Nero to prove the point. I probably agree now that advanced firmwares, and burners was out with auto tilt mechanism to write even on an unbalanced spinning media inside the drive. Ritek was one of the largest producers and I still have faith on them as i buy them when money was short TaiyoYuden if am a little bit generous £26 per hundred was not bad. Ritek my only complaints on silver printables before was their varnish cover too susceptible with finger marks oil or water but it improved a lot recently.

Ritek -R s**ks big time. G04 was great until mid-2004, after that they became timebombs. G05 is even worse, with discs becoming unreadable in less than 6-8 months despite outstanding original PIE/PIF scans. Dozens of reports of this in the blank media section. No myth, real facts. I talk from experience too.

Ritek +R is mostly OK to good though. But far, far behind MCC, TY, and even CMC (except CMC 16X +R which is not so good).

As for overspeeding, it’s mainly a sport, or a convenient feature when you’re in a hurry. You get higher jitter at higher burning speeds, thus shorter lifespan.

Consensus here amongst those that really know would be to burn at the rated media speed, although with 16x media often 12x would give a better burn
I don’t agree. [B]We are several to attest that not a single burn of 16X “rated” media @12X or @16X, can be any better than a @8X burn of this media (in the same burner of course).[/B]

(As a sidenote, the “rated” speed is a misconception: it’s the maximum certified speed that is mentioned, not the “rated” speed.)

But I certainly do agree that the opposite, “burn everything @4X”, is just as unsound and can end in very bad burns with some media/burner combination with 16x media.

I, for one, wouldn’t rely on the advice given by someone who says:

and

and

well, we might be living in a different planet. My source might not be that obsolete in technology knowhow as you might suggest. Prove me wrong and post the burn results with analysis using Nero. Until then i stick to my proven facts.

well, well, well, seems I have to eat my word huh? I tried to search a proof on this issue and come up with this guy’s test results. http://www.ttgnet.com/daynotes/2006/2006-33.html which would demolish my rebut in court. Hahahaha but then might be true with this particular disc tho. as the test results of others on a particular disc proves otherwise. I won’t convert yet please post some newer test results. It would be a great deal of time saved if proven a general view. I am new in this site so have not kept up with new things discussed here but great to be told otherwise eh. Cheers! I know this becoming a side issue of the original thread but it evolved interestingly, Sorry admin!!

Just want to make a point with this counter claim by Blu at DD.
http://forum.digital-digest.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=49635 ----again sorry admin for bumping won’t happen again. this will be my last post on this issue Thanks all!

That “counter claim” is more than two years old!

Drives, firmware and media have changed since then. :wink:

I find that for most combination of drives and DVD±R media the safest burns for 8x and 16x certified media are at medium speeds which is 8x or 6x on some drives.

I don’t have any 4x DVD±R media left that I can try on my current drives, but when I did have such media, the safest burning speed was 4x.

I use the term “safest” instead of “best” because it’s possible to have just as good burns at other speeds with some burners/media, but the likelihood of a good burn is higher at the medium burning speeds.

There are some few exceptions to the rule of medium speeds being safer, and they are generally related to drives that use Z-CLV for 8x burns and slower while they use CAV or P-CAV for burning speeds 12x and faster. For such drives the writing strategy can be surprisingly different for Z-CLV and (P-)CAV and some have bad or broken writing strategies for high speed media when burning at low to medium Z-CLV speeds.

I have seen examples of 12x and faster burns being better than 8x and lower burns with the same drive and media, but I’ve only had one such example myself and the difference was minimal (YUDEN000 T03 on a LiteOn SHW-1635S).

To answer the original poster: Memorex media aren’t known to be among the best, so I personally wouldn’t burn such 4x media faster than 4x on a NEC ND-3540A.