Is 1x too slow?

Hi there,
I use a NEC AD-5170A drive (capable of 8x speed with DL discs) to make copies of my films on Verbatim DVD+R DL discs (2.4 certified speed, made in Singapore, ID:MKM 001) at 1x, as this is the speed that produces the best reading (above 98% good) in Nero CD-DVD Speed C1/C2-PI/PO test.

A friend suggested that burning at 1x is just as bad as doing it too fast on my specific media, as I risk ‘overcooking’ the dye. Any thoughts?

Thanks

A lot of people here burn those at 4X which is what i usually do. Some of my burners will only burn them at 2.4. I don’t have the same drive as you though.

Thanks for the quick response. Love your cat.

I’d love to be able to burn at 4x but when I do, although both the Nero CD-DVD Speed Read test and the VSO Inspector Surface Scan and File Test produce a reading of 100% good, the C1/C2-PI/PO test goes down below 92%. Do you think I shouldn’t worry too much about it?

In fact, would it be enough to just use VSO Inspector to ensure the success of my burns? I’ve really had enough of all this testing. In the time it takes sometimes I could easily just watch the movie again.

I have a lefty Strat :iagree:

I know nothing about VSO Inspector but if your getting quality scans at 92% then you got a great burn :iagree: Can you post a scan pic?

Any Strat will move your cat :wink:

I’ll just run a scan of a dvd burnt at 1x and in the meantime figure out how to save an image and post it.

Here they are.
Images of a Transfer Rate test, a Read test and a C1/C2-PI/PO test performed with Nero CD-DVD Speed. (see previous posts for drive, media and burning speed used)

Could you please let me know if these images should make me confident about the success of my burn and whether I should actually perform all three every time or perhaps just the Read test would be enough.




Nice TRT. I was talking about a Quality scan with Nero CD-DVD Speed. Can you post one?

I’m just making one for the first time.
Could you possibly answer my previous question, or do you need this scan too?
What does TRT stand for?

I have no knowledge about VSO Inspector if that is the question. I posted that in you other thread i believe.

TRT=Transfer Rate Test.

I meant the one that came along with the images:

Could you please let me know if these images should make me confident about the success of my burn and whether I should actually perform all three every time or perhaps just the Read test would be enough.

I usually do a Quality test and a TRT. What speed to set your drive while doing a Quality test…you will have to look around the NEC/Optiarc Forum.

Here’s a quick one cause it’s time to go to work. Back soon.

Something must have gone wrong the first time.

Thanks for all your help. :slight_smile:



It should be noted that you can’t burn DVD+R (or in this case, DVD+R DL) any slower than 2.4x, even if you select 1x in your software when burning.

Since this topic has nothing specifically to do with movie DVD backup software, I’m moving it to a more appropriate subforum.

That’s right. Your 1x burns are 2.4x. If you did burn @ 1x somehow, it would have taken like 2 hours to burn the movie.

Writing @ 2.4x for DL media is fine. If you get good results, there’s no need to change anything :slight_smile:

They cannot be burnt at 1x. 1x is no suitable speed for any + media.

1x not suitable is a joke. It’s not standardized
+R Video Recorders do record at 1x !

In HQ mode, and even slower in other lower quality recording modes.

It’s possible that the recorders don’t actually record at that slow speed, but rather buffer and burn at a higher speed, then stop, buffer, and burn again.

I’ve never seen a description of whether the recording is done continuously at <= 1x or done in bursts at >1x, so I can’t say for sure.

Continious in most cases. Not bursts.

You absolutely can NOT rely on PIE/PIF tests (which is called PI/PO in the “scandisc” test mode) with this NEC model, which report these “errors” in a looney fashion. Actually most NEC models are not suitable for this purpose because first they don’t report accordingly to ECMA standards, an secondly they are extremely inconsistent in their reporting.

You can see that in the tests you posted: despite lots of out-of-specs PIF peaks (the red spots you see in the “PI/PO scandisc”), the reading curve is smooth and shows no trace of issues.

With this drive, you can only rely on read tests (Transfer rate test). If it’s smooth with no significant slowdowns (like it’s the case with the one you posted), your burn is OK. :slight_smile:

As for which burning speed is better in your case, 2.4X (as others have mentioned, 1X is impossible, even if you can select it) or 4X, it’s not a clear cut. In theory, the speed giving the lowest PIE/PIF results should be choosen even when using a looney scanner, but who knows with these NEC… you can never be sure.