I'm confused ..can someone explain this plz

vbimport

#1

Hi
I’m testing CMC E01 8x dvd+R’s on my 3520a (Beta8 firmware)… these disk have been burning and checking out Great with Kprobe in my lite-on 811s
all burned at 12x
Example 1

I was curious how these disk were actually being burned so I made an image in nero and burned it in cdSpeed… and was shocked at this

so i do a transfer rate test and get this

How can this be ? how can a burn like that look ok in the transfer test ?

So I scanned the disk with kprobe and it looks Great

so what’s going on? is the cdspeed burn test useless?
is the cdspeed transfer test useless?
is kprobe not telling me the truth?


#2

I would guess the beta f/w you’re using may not have the correct writing strategy for that media, plus you are over speeding that media anyway. This may cause the drive to do more OPC to compensate for those 2 facts and produce the erratic graph you’re seeing while still maintaining a readable disc at the end of the burn.

Now someone tell him the ‘real’ reason :slight_smile:


#3

Web-Junkie: Hehe… no need. I guess you’ve hit the point. =)


#4

What an elegant explanation. I was thinking sort of the same thing but I couldn’t put it into words. Given the generally poor quality of CMC, it is a remarkable tribute to what NEC can do.


#5

If you stick to brand names. CMC MAG is fine media.
Ricoh’s branded AE1 is awesome.


#6

well, actually i get the same thing on mine when i am multitasking. cdspeeds buffer is not very deep and just opening a browser for instance causes, on my system, the same jumpiness. i have learned not to multitask when doing the burns because of it. here as an example is a prodisc burned on nec2500. the 2500 doesn’t do opc so can’t blaim those extra dips in the 8x region on that:



#7

my suggestion is to shut everything else down and walk away while doing these and honestly i would also suggest not doing the image. i know it wastes a disc but… media is cheap :slight_smile:

same thing in the 6x region here:



#8

thanks for the replys gang,
the thing is I was just looking for some rational reason why
the NEC burns these disc at 12x Great but looking at it’s actual burn in cdspeed was a shock.
I don’t think multi-tasking was the reason for the spikes in the 12x portion of the burn,
buffer underrun is more likely.

As for overspeeding this media, i don’t really see it, the kprobe scan is very good
pi max - 29
pif max - 3

Cheap media: yes it is, but i have Ritec and TY02’s that are doing worse at these speeds.

cnlson i gave up burning those prodisk R02 at 8x i had about 200 of those and found they really only burn at 4x - 6x max

making the disk image was an extra step and just done as a test…
Thanks again for the replys


#9

Glad you find CMC works for you. Here in the US we generally consider it troublesome on most burners.


#10

ok i understand you don’t think multitasking is the reason but just once run it without the image and without multitasking. see what happens my guess is it will completely smooth out all the way to 12x. as for the prodisc both my 3500 and (with the right firmware) my 2500 love it @ 8x:




#11

works fine for me… i have gone through probably 300 or so cmc of all types from 2x to rated 8x and have had very good luck. certainly no worse than crappy ritek r02. if you check my evolving wall you will see plenty of cmc. it is usually my cheapest media (teon cmcE01 were 7-13¢) so i buy and burn a whole lot of it. it isn’t ty, mcc or prodisc but then even ty hasn’t been that hot lately.


#12

ok here’s Test #2 shut off Bittorrent and let cdspeed create the image

Media code/Manufacturer ID CMC MAG E01
Media Product Revision Number 00h

Sold as Kypermedia 4x (plain Silver disc)


much better

I have to say these CMC disc are much better than the 100pack Ritec02’s I got when i ordered the burner from newegg

8x media burned at 8x (1.04 firmware)


#13

one last suggestion. on the liteons scanning @ 4x is supposed to be most accurate since it is CLV. 6x and 8x scans will vary their speed over the scan and will produce varied results.


#14

I was just told differently in another post that pointed me here http://club.cdfreaks.com/showthread.php?t=124489&highlight=811s

Seems the lite-on 811s scans better at max or 6x/8x than it does at 4x


#15

yeah i was in that thread also if you scroll down and actually he was able to match the results when he scanned at 1x. most likely the 811 is not a very good high speed reader… for me it sure as hell wasn’t a good high speed burner. the actual best advice in that thread and the one i link to is: BUY A DIFFERNT SCANNING DRIVE. however since the 35XX drives are going to have scanning sometime in the next millenia you may want to wait for that and then you can ashcan the 811. i sold mine with a 20pack of dvds and a 50 pack of cds for $20. i still feel guilty about that from time to time.


#16

Seems the lite-on 811s scans better at max or 6x/8x than it does at 4x

Not true at all, as you have demonstrated. The 811 is not a great scanning drive at any speed, but max speed will almost always produce higher error rates on most 811’s and most media. There are always exceptions.
If you’re comparing scans trying to find the best burn speed, what’s impoirtant is that you always scan in the same way. But, if a disc won’t produce a decent scan at 4x in whatever drive, it’s not a good disc.


#17

hehe yeah I’m holding out for the new firmware
but the BenQ for $49 at newegg is looking real good about now