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

These are my two cents. I burned three identical discs [MCC 03RG20] using three different softwares and the same burner [liteon 1693 fw KS0A]. All media was burned @12x.

I choose these media because I already burned over 10 discs with my liteon, so learning function can be excluded.

Everyone can take own conclusions.

First burn is with Nero Burning ROM 6.3.1.25 [7:44]
Second burn is with CD-DVD speed 4.10 [7:52]
Third burn is with DVD Decrypter 3.5.4.0 [7:46]

Now, if you wish to conduct a “real” test, do 3 consecutive burns with all parameters the same, same program etc., and see how much variation there is.

Is it really necessary? :bigsmile: - I know many users out there don’t realise this, but the ‘variations’ between these 3 scans are totally negligible and show only normal variation between burns of the same media. I guess this is your point, RDgrimes… :wink:

Hi rdgrimes
Hi Francksoy

I agree with you that burning software don’t change burning quality. I only posted these scans because I thinked that show in a clear way this concept because all scans are very similar, even if were burned with different softwares.

If you think that can be useful for someone I’ll post other three burnings done with the same software with the same burner and with discs of the same box.

I know and agree that the burning program being used should not play a role in the burn quality under ‘normal’ circumstances. But as my burns have clearly shown, some programs are better able to handle certain issues that may exist on one’s computer. And as I found out, Nero CD-DVD Speed has issues with heavy fragmentation of the HD causing lower quality burns that Nero Burning ROM and DVD Decrypter/ImgBurn handled without the same issues - burn quality did not suffer under the same conditions with those burning programs.

Sure. Geno888’s demonstration has been made, I guess, with an ISO file, is it right Geno888? :slight_smile:

With lots of small fragments from a very fragmented HD, maybe some softwares will do better than others simply because of a better cache, that makes sense.

I personally noticed long ago that I had much less quality issues when burning ISO files than lots of smaller files, and I tend to create ISOs with Nero and burn them with Nero or Decrypter, rather than burning the files directly.

Probably because I don’t defragment very often :bigsmile: :o

The idea that RDgrimes is constantly fighting against is that the software, in some way, “tells” the burner to burn differently and has a direct impact on burning quality. This idea is widely spread and even taken as absolute truth by many on several forums. Though it actually makes no sense at all! Tt’s another of these CD/DVD myths that people just love to share and spread, out of ignorance (which is fine), or out of conformism (which is sad), or out of stubborness (which is kinda annoying :bigsmile: ).

I had actually bought this myth, until RDgrimes’ input on this board had me performing some simple tests… and I discovered that that it was rubbish (the myth, not RDgrimes’ statements ;)).

:doh: :doh: :doh:

Now I understand because RDgrimes seemed angry with me for that post :doh:

Actually, I had three burnings to do, and thinked that using three different softwares could be useful to demonstrate this argument, so I made scans and posted here (you’re right, I used ISO images. :slight_smile: ).

Sometimes my poor english cause mistakes.

Sorry to all mates :flower:

LOL I don’t think he was angry! Were you, RDgrimes? :eek:

But yes, Geno888, I also, at first, thought you were posting these scans to demonstrate existing differences between softwares.
I was a little surprised, because I consider you as being among the most ‘rational’ posters on this board. :flower:

So it’s nice that you explained you actual intentions :cool:

Being nosy again :bigsmile: What sort of quality issues? Sounds like something I would like to try / compare myself :iagree:

Thanks for your appreciation Francksoy

I hope that my posts can be useful to many users such as so many users helped me with their posts

:bow: :bow:

You’re mis-interpreting the cause of your problems. It’s not CDSpeed, it’s the system problem. The lower quality burn is due to constant buffer under-runs, which has nothing to do with the software.

Translate as you want, but the fact remains that, under my previous system conditions, using CD-DVD Speed produced lower quality and slower burns than other programs are performing at, under those same system conditions. If it is an issue of using a smaller buffer size vs. the other programs, then I would assume that CD-DVD Speed would perform just as well as the other programs if given the same buffer size. I’m not trying to suggest that CD-DVD Speed is necessarily inferior at doing what any burning program is intended to do at its most basic function, as all that it is doing is ‘sending data’ to the burner.

The likely moral of the story here is that having a larger buffer certainly has its benefits, depending on your system conditions. And with CD-DVD Speed that advantage is not even available to the user, as there is not an adjustable buffer as there is with other burning programs I use. Because of the lack of an adjustable buffer, using CD-DVD Speed may result in inferior burns if your system will benefit from a larger buffer, whether it be from a fragmented HD, slower 5400 RPM HD, etc.

With a VERY fragmented HD, buffer underruns leading to lots of PIE/PIF spikes corresponding to the point where the drive resumes the burn…
This was with a Benq 1620, last year. :bigsmile:

Agree with scoobiedoobie.

If you have 2 family cars, one can handle all sorts of roads well including bumpy roads while the other can only handle smooth roads but can’t handle bumpy roads, would you blame the car or the road?

Fragmented HD is a normal situation for everyone in computer world. Just like bumpy roads in the real world. I don’t think everyone should have to defrag their HDs every day in order for software to work properly. Software should be able to handle that. Especially when more than one other pieces of software can.

No disrespect to the author, but I think this is a serious problem in Nero CD-DVD Speed which should be fixed. With or without adjustable buffer size for users, it should at least work properly the same way as the other software.

Congrats on spewing the most convoluted, nonsensical line of logic I’ve seen today. Thanks for the laugh. :clap:

I personally don’t see what’s so nonsensical with it. Convoluted, somewhat. Far-stretched, certainly. But I definitly get his point.

Don’t just sit there laughing if you disagree.

My example might not be a good one but I hope you all get my point. I am sure there are both those who blame the car and those who blame the road. I blame the car. rdgrimes obviously blames the road.

If you disagree with me, please let your opinions heard. If you have better examples, I would love to hear it. Again don’t just sit there laughing.

Ok, since you asked:
You clearly have little knowledge of CDSpeed. Quite some time ago, the author addressed the potential issues with the original method of acquiring data for the datadisc test, and enabled the burning of ISO images. Using the ISO burn option eliminates any of the differences between “normal burning” and “test burning”. CDSpeed datadisc test was never really intended to be a test of system hardware, (nor can it be expected to somehow compensate for hardware problems). It’s main purpose is to test burners only. The usual datadisc burn is completely unique in the way it acquires data, no other burning operation is like it. In most cases, it eliminates potential problems caused by hardware issues. This particular case is extremely rare. Suggesting that there’s some “flaw” in CDSpeed because of one very rare instance of hardware failings is just plain silly. In a sense, it was CDSpeed that “diagnosed” this instance of hardware trouble, which might have gone un-noticed for some time otherwise. Don’t blame the messenger, CDSpeed does what it’s supposed to do.

So it should, logically, exclude all other variables. And it’s still not clear if it does.

Explain, please, how a software is supposed to “exclude” variables like hardware problems? Is it supposed to fix the hardware before it runs? Is it supposed to refuse to run?