Nero CD-DVD Speed 'create data disc' burns are slower and of lower quality?

I’ve just recently started using the ‘create data disc’ feature of Nero CD-DVD Speed in the past week or so, for the purpose of testing overall write speeds, speed dips, etc. I’m having major issues using Nero CD-DVD Speed to burn discs though, issues that don’t exist when I burn discs using programs such as Nero, DVD Decrypter, and ImgBurn. I’ve done about 15 test burns and I’m tired of trying to pinpoint what the issue is and wasting discs in the process, I’m hoping there is some simple answer to my problems. :doh:

Here is what is happening: with the two drives I’ve used the ‘create data disc’ function, Benq 822 and Benq 1640, I am getting slower burn speeds with many significant speed dips and lowered burn quality as well. With a program such as ImgBurn, these problems don’t exist. For example, an 8x burn with ‘create data disc’ is typically taking 9-10 minutes. With ImgBurn that same burn will take about 8 minutes, and burn speeds with ImgBurn will maintain 7x-8x burn speeds with 95% of the burn remaining at 8x. In contrast you can see that the speeds fluctuate greatly using Nero CD-DVD Speed, as well as the lower quality in burns. Some discs are affected more than others, but media from TY to Optodisc to AML is affected.

I’ll post some example tests (I’ve never attached an image directly to CD freaks before, hope it works):

1st image -
8x burn on Benq 822 using ImgBurn, burn time about 8:25 :

2nd image -
8x burn on Benq 822 using Nero CD-DVD Speed, burn time 9:50 :

3rd image -
8x burn on 1640 using ImgBurn, burn time about 8 minutes, WOPC on :

4th image -
8x burn on 1640 using CD-DVD Speed, burn time 11.5 minutes, WOPC on :

You can’t see it in the 2nd burn, but in the 4th burn you’ll see the consistant PIFs of 1, this occurs with other media burned using Nero CD-DVD Speed, along with worse burns in general. BTW, I use both my 822 and 1640 to do scans, but they both give nearly identical PI/PIF tests to each other, also at 4x and 8x test speeds, so that is not the reason for any differences.

So WTF is causing Nero CD-DVD Speed to burn in this manner?!? :confused: :confused: :confused: Any ideas? Same problems exist whether the drive is installed internally or externally in a USB enclosure. Drives are set to Ultra DMA mode 2 internally. Burst Rate of 1640 is 23MB/s, 18MB/s with 822. Discs burn ‘normally’ using other programs such as ImgBurn, with the only significant fluctuations in buffer and burn speed being in the first few hundred MBs of the disc before it gets to full 8x burn speed, after that only having minor fluctuations, zero fluctuations with TY media and WOPC off. System is plenty fast - P4 HT, 512MB Ram, several GB of space on HD, HD set to Ultra DMA mode 5, etc. Transfer Rates of discs run smoothly to 16x with the 1640, I’m stumped at the moment… :frowning:

Wish you would have done all 4 burns with the same disc batch. Only thing it shows is the 0R8’s are junky.

It’s not a variation in media, I’ve done about 15 different test burns and it is an issue with Nero CD-DVD Speed. It’s definitely not an issue related to variations in the media itself.

And don’t say crap like OR8 is crap, that isn’t helping me. The OR8 was from the same batch, the TY T02 was from the same batch. Both were taken from the same spot in the spindle. And OR8 is not crap, it just burns poorly in my 822 compared to my NEC burners and the 1640.

Below is a burn of OR8 in the 1640. If you can’t provide any useful information and instead can only say ‘OR8 is crap’, please don’t bother.

Please provide the two scans of the 822 using the T02 media. You must have run that combo in your 15 tests :slight_smile: Did not call anything crap,dont see that word used in my post. The 4 scans provided prove nothing. And ok I wont say a word. Good luck Click :iagree:

I’m not going to continue wasting discs only because you can’t see the obvious differences in the 2 sets of scans I just posted. If the scans prove nothing then you are not viewing the obvious. ‘Crap’, ‘junky’, whatever. The issue is not with the media, it is Nero CD-DVD Speed.

No I did not do comparisons with T02 on the 822, I did several others with OR8 and AML media. Frankly there is no need to even post scans, if you read my post you’ll know that the time differences in the burns alone is proof that there is an issue with Nero CD-DVD Speed. Burns that take about 8 minutes with other programs take about 10 minutes with Nero CD-DVD Speed, obviously because of the slowdowns in burn speed as seen in the images I posted.

I think that CDSpeed has uncovered some underlying system problem. Suggest you watch CPU consumption during a CDSpeed datadisc test to see it it’s high. The main difference between the 2 scenarios you are testing is in the way the data is compiled and delivered in CDSpeed vs the burning programs. The speed graphs seem to indicate some bottleneck in the data stream to CDSpeed.

CDspeed is not the problem here, it’s somewhere else. As to the question of the burn quality, this may or may not be caused by frequent buffer under-run. But CDSpeed cannot affect burn quality, that’s strictly a function of the hardware.

Thanks for the suggestions, I’ll look into this. I did check CPU consumption during one of the previous tests, it was very small, maybe 2-3%, even lower than I would have thought it would be.

You are correct that saying CD-DVD Speed is the ‘problem’ would be inaccurate and a ‘conflict’ with my system would be a more accurate description of my problem, as obviously there are many people using it without this issue. I wanted to emphasize that the media itself was not the reason for variation, it was occurring only in conjunction with CD-DVD Speed - in the tests there was a direct link between the speed dips and increased errors, as well as increased errors overall. I’ve burned another TY T02 disc with WOPC off and it has very small dips most of the test, but the first ~600MB of the burn has alot of fluctuation and that created a near solid block of PIFs of 1 in that area. I had also tried a burn with CD-DVD Speed 3.81, same issue. Overburn on, overburn off, same issue.

Well, a fragmented Hard Drive was a consideration but it was not one of the first things on my check list, considering the fact that other burning programs were not affected by it, and Nero CD-DVD Speed was using almost no resources while burning. But it turns out that seems to be the cause of the problems, after a thorough defragmentation of the Hard Drive Nero CD-DVD Speed burns as it should. I may create a partition exclusively for ISO images to be burned after having this problem.

Before I defragmented, I considered the reason for the other programs not having the issues that CD-DVD Speed may have been related to the buffer used. After defragmenting, I believe that this is the reason for the issue - fragmented file+low buffer= :Z . It would be nice to be able to adjust the buffer used by Nero CD-DVD Speed, or even know how much it is even using for that matter. Clearly, having the option of using a larger buffer has its advantages.

BTW, this also did increase burn quality slightly, all of the burns using CD-DVD Speed with the fragmented files created a consistent level of PIFs of 1, while these did not exist burning the same fragmented files with other burning programs. Jitter levels and PI levels seemed about the same regardless of program. You can see the consistent PIFs of 1 in the TY burn above, as I mentioned in the initial post.

Anyway, issue resolved, hopefully this will be useful to anyone that encounters similar issues.

Below are some burns after defragmenting, the first two images with WOPC on, the second two with WOPC off. SB off for both.

I’m not sure of the specifics, but CDSpeed generates a load of very small files for the datadisc test. Small files are the biggest load on a HD, and if it’s fragmented, it can slow down to a crawl. I don’t know if CDSpeed caches these files or what.

Thanks for the input. Checking the Hard Drive AFTER the burn, the only file that I can find that is apparently related to Nero CD-DVD Speed that has been altered is a ‘’ file, which I assume saves the data of the burn speed graph. The series of small files that you refer to must be deleted at the completion of the burn (actually they may still be on the HD, but I haven’t found them yet if they are still there, and they are not fragmented if they still do exist).

Just because im nosy i took a C: snap shot of the entire drive, before, during, and after 30 seconds of “Create data disc” Did not see anything of cdspeed creating such a file in a compare process. So it must be done on the fly. The good thing is I also just did a process / file monitor capture of the action. The bad thing is those 30 seconds created a 230 page report that im going to have to stift through but what ever went on is in this file. :slight_smile:

You could PM Erik Depp with any questions, he may respond. But as I recall, it generates the test data on the fly, but from the HD. It’s been a long time since this was discussed here. It may even use system files.

I went through those 230 pages. It truley is on the fly. The program and the burner are often talking to the nero aspi .dll file and making many calls to the system32 directory. My virus software watched it all. Good case for shutting your virus software down durning a burn if your system is not up to handling the task (speed wise) So a defrag using cdspeed per say no, BUT because the program and burner are using many system files, if it spends alot of time looking for those files then defrag YES :slight_smile:

I could have mailed Erik but discovery on my own is more fun :iagree: :bigsmile:

Diskeeper-9 truly does eliminate all fragmentation problems, and keeps your HD at peak performance.

I just finished beta testing Exectuive diskeeper V10. Will be out shortly. Lots of good stuff but that 28 page NDA I signed so long ago says I cant say anymore. They are a good company to work with :slight_smile:

When it hits the streets I invite everybody to buy a copy. Very good program to have :iagree:

On the fly, yes. From the HD, no.

There is no series of small files created on HD during the Create Data Disc process. Everything transfering onto the disc comes directly from the computer memory.

For anyone who wants to verify, this can be done easily. Don’t do anything on your computer after starting the Create Data Disc process and watch the HD LED. It shouldn’t be blinking at all until the end of the process. That means no HD activity and no data transfer from HD to the burner during the process. If that doesn’t convice you then get Sysinternals’ Filemon.exe and capture only CDSpeed.exe’s HD activity.

I don’t see any calls to the system32 directory by CDSpeed.exe during the Create Data Disc process.

Anti-virus software shouldn’t load that much.

System files are all loaded into the memory prior to the beginning of the Create Data Disc process. So no, CDSpeed.exe shouldn’t spend a lot of time looking for those files during the process.

scoobiedoobie’s problem was purely the HD (as we all now know). This could happen even if you are burning real data (non ISO) in Nero. I had that problem here with two identical files one of which ruined the burn because of the slow down in reading the file from the HD by Nero (v5.5) thus the shrinking of Nero’s read buffer. Later I found out that the good file had 3,000 fragments. The bad file had 20,000 fragments. :rolleyes:

I heard that Nero 7 has improved read buffer. Don’t know if it would help in my case.

Anyway, a part from defragmenting the HD I would suggest having a separate partition for large files only. That would also reduce the need to defrag regularly.

Good answers mr Lordy. Not sure what progem you used to see the action but 7/8 of mine were system calls. Thanks for your input K :slight_smile:

That’s the program, bkf. :slight_smile: Exclude all processes except CDSpeed.exe.

Like I said, millions of system calls shouldn’t involve millions of HD calls. :slight_smile:

Will rerun with all other programs stopped, even if in safe mode. will report back :slight_smile:

need major coffee first :iagree:

Enthralling thread. :slight_smile: