Slow burns with SHM-165P6S

I’ve noticed that all my burns are taking 10:00+ even if I select 16x burning w/ HT/OHT on. (Using CMC MAG M01 & firmware MV9N)
I suspect that after the CAV part of the disc reaches a certain speed it drops down to 6x for the rest of the burn, causing the drive to produce slower burns than my 8x writer.
Is there a way to speed up my burns?

OHT may slow burn.
Use Nero CD-DVD Speed’s “Create Data Disc” or “Burn Image File”, it will paint a nice graph for you. :wink:

CMC MAG M01 is, in my opinion, the first of all 16x media to immediately drop down to 6x burn speeds. In an older drive, it wouldn’t even start the burn at 16x; it would burn at 6x. SmartBurn can have a hand, and with HT/OHT, it will be checking the burn and sometimes (if your drive just doesn’t like M01) it will eagerly fall back to 6x. If using the latest version of Nero CD-DVD Speed, as has been suggested, you will be able to determine if it is the media or if there is another issue causing this, and you will also be able to take a screenshot of how the burn went and upload it so we, too, can get a general idea of what’s going on :slight_smile:

The odd thing is that when I use cdspeed and create a data disc (not an image) it goes to 12x then just stops there.
But when I use nero to make my own data disc (or if I burn an image with cdspeed) it only burns at 6x.

Another thing to note is that if I set nero to burn at 12x instead of 16x, the switch to 6x occurs later in the burn, overall improving the burn times (8 minutes vs. 10-11 minutes)

I burned this as a regular data disc set to 16x, but as you can see it only went to 12x.
This is with OHT off.

It’s quite possible you may be experiencing buffer underrun issues. This also seems to force the drive back down to 6x. The Create Disc function, when not burning an image, will usually avoid buffer underruns that would occur if doing a real burn from the HDD.

As for the 16x/12x issue, the drive might have determined that it would have produced too bad a result at 16x and decided to stay at 12x (this mehod of dropping the speed back still comes from the drive’s SmartBurn function).

This time, would you mind using Nero to create a full DVD image (4480 MB/4.27 GB) and burn it with CD-DVD Speed Create Data Disc Burn Image File function? It will show if there are any buffer underruns. Be sure to get the screen capture while still on the Create Data Disc tab, and not while in the Disc Quality tab (the CDD tab shows more statistics on how the drive and system were durning the burn that the Disc Quality tab wouldn’t show). Also, be sure that you defragment your hard drive (so that the image is one contiguous file).

For the 16/12x issue I don’t think this drive has ever produced a disc burnt at a real 16x speed.
Also, I have noticed a buffer issue, but the only buffer that is having problems is the one on the burner, not the cached buffer. The buffer also dips down even while burning at 6x. I don’t think it has to do with the hard drive since using benchmark software, I get sustained transfer rates of 40 MB/s, which is more than sufficient for a 16x burn.

Okay, I did a few burns and I see that there’s some correlation between CPU usage/buffer level/burn speed.
The first burn had a system process taking up a lot of CPU and its impact on the burn speed and buffer.
The second burn, I disabled that process and basically kept the CPU level <15% but you can still see that even a little bit of CPU usage (most of the CPU usage from CDSpeed) affects the burn speed. Is it supposed to be that sensitive?
Also, where it switches to 6x on the 2nd burn, there’s no corresponding CPU usage spike to explain the shift.

However, I don’t think the issue has to do with just CPU usage since the buffer level is constantly changing whether the CPU is working or not.
Another thing I’ve noticed is that when I’m burning discs (or using the drive at all), instead of the LED being solid, it flashes twice, pauses for a split second then continues this cycle. My old Litey didn’t do this and I’m wondering if this is a reason for concern or not. Perhaps this explains why the buffer is having so many problems?
Maybe it’s only reading data in chunks, hence the flashing and the buffer drops?

CMC MAG M01 doesn’t work well on any of my writers. There is a small topic about it in media forum and it seems 8x is best speed for this media :slight_smile:

I did another burn and this time I didn’t have the weird burn speeds.
However, the buffer still fluctuates and the speed drops to 6x at about the same spot as the other burns (when it reaches about 11x)

I’m not happy with this drive.

I had a 1635S which shat itself and has been replaced with the present 165P6S.

I have a few spindles of media “MCC 03RG20” 1-16X, which this drive makes almost nothing but coasters out of so far! and drops back to 8X or less burning speed.

My Pioneer 110 has no problems with this media. And the previous Lite-on 1635S didn’t mind it either.

But so far, no go with the 165P6S. Anyone know a “fix” for these seemingly crappy units? or is it “just” a media compatibility issue?

I’ve tried it the “MV9N” -but not much better.

Did you try turning off your security software while burning? That cured by buffer underun issues.

I’d get rid of my M01 quickly and forget about them for a while. Remember my burns are with a new burner and new fw. (Well, it hardly matters what burner you use on M01 Anyway, here’s an overspeeded 2x disc (CMC unbranded MAG.@4x) and 4x disc (CMC unbranded AF1@8x) and a HP M01 @12x. Based on a variety of media i say my writer is fine and the M01 media is crap at the time being

2x disc @4x

4x disc @8x

16x disc @12x

Also i’d take MCC 004 over M01 10.000/1 in the future. I just tried the M01 for fun :wink: (When i say MCC 004 i mean Verbatim, not Bulkpaq and that sort…)

The CMC MAG M01 I’m using burns quite well.
I’m using TDK instead of Philips (which I used before and I could see physical defects on the discs).
I have not had a coaster yet.

Yeah, i have only tried the HP printables so perhaps there is some variation from brand to brand…? Still, i think the Verbs have proven they rule the 16x market for now - at least for me and a few others they have :wink: