Lastability Of Datasafe Dvd-R RitekG04

vbimport

#1

I use Datasafe DVD-R 4x (RITEKG04)'s for burning DVD Video Files onto DVDs using Herrie’s 2k5107v2b5dld firmware.

If I burn them at 8x will the quality of the burn be as good as burning them at 4x or 6x, or is some quality sacrificed for speed?

Also, if I burn them at 8x will they “last” as long as burning them at 4x or 6x, ie will the “quality” of the content burn’t onto the DVD-R deteriorate faster if burn’t at 8x?

Is there any “general” rules for these 2 “qualities” of DVDRs?


#2

too soon to tell, i moved to 8x burning with them as soon
as it was possable and had no failures (time related) yet.
Avoid 6x burning as it seems to produce far inferior results
to the 4x and 8x burnt sections of the disk.


#3

that statements reads untrue for me. for me, when using datasafe g04 disks, on my nec2500a, 4x burn quality is around the same at 6x burn quality. but the moment i move to 8x, the nero curve goes wonky.

4x burn - smooth curve
6x burn - smooth curve
8x burn - wonky curve as soon as it hits 8x burn speed.

i burn my datasafe g04s at 6x now.


#4

i wonder what makes our datasafe g04 results so different.
I have perfect curves on all my GO4, 4x, 6x, 8x reading on a liteon 166s
with the 6x to 14x read speed hack.
It’s only the PI/PO readings that are far worse on the 6x section of the disk.

maybe you have some poor quality datasafe disks??


#5

im beginning to think that perhaps it is not the disk itself that is of variable quality but the nec drives that are of differing quality. some drives are able to make great burns on practically any disk, while others struggle to do the same. this would explain how some people have been able to write to datawrite grey disks @8x with no problems while some struggle to write to the same disks at even 4x.


#6

I can agree with that statement sunama. I too belive the drives vary greatly from batch to batch.


#7

I have had good results on both Datasafe DVD-R 4X (RITEKG04) and Datawrite DVD-R 8X (FUJIFILM03), burning BOTH of them at 8X.




#8

I have observed 2 things on my own computer when “burning” DVDRs:

Firstly: When the actual DVDR is “burning” and I am doing some other action that uses some CPU at the same time as the “burn”, the “quality” of the burn suffers and the “Transfer Rate” in Nero CD-DVD Speed shows this up.

Secondly: After I have “burn’t” a DVDR and I run it through the “Transfer Rate” in Nero CD-DVD Speed, if while the test is running I do again some action that uses CPU the actual results from the test come out “distorted”, ie if I run the test again and not do any other actions that use CPU the test results are different. I have run a test on a “burn’t” DVDR and used the computer for other things while the test was running and the results showed that it was a bad “burn”. Then when I have re-run the test and NOT used the computer the test results have showed that the burn was extremely good.

When my NEC 2500A is burning a full DVDR the actual CPU usage does not go over 10% and when it gets to 8X it is down below 5% usually, I have 1GB of ram as well, so I am not sure why the burn suffers when I run other actions during it or why the test results are distorted when I do something else while running the test.

Any suggestions?


#9

In my experience, multitasking hurts burning/reading quality only when you’re directly affecting the data transfer. The worst case is to access to your second DVD drive, while the first one is writing a disc. Most other normal activities, such as running a few explorers or even playing movies from HDD gives minor effect.

My computer is close to the high-end (P4 2.4c@2.9c, 1G RAM, etc…) and lower speed computer may suffer more severely, but it sounds like jbloggs’s computer is also good enough. Then… I don’t have a good explanation.