Slower burning is better? CDRinfo review

CDRInfo have done a review of whether slower burn speed makes a higher quality disc. They used a few different types of media and two drives for burning.

They usually review max speed writing quality only so this is to see if slower burning will scan better in their professional equipment. Post what you think here.

http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/Reviews/Specific.aspx?ArticleId=20949

Interesting to note that a number of their media had best write quality @ 4x or 8x. The TRT would also back this up in almost all cases.

One thing that worries me is their TRTs. They rated MCC004’s best write speed on the LG as 4x yet the TRT shows problems. How can that be a good burn?

Also their conclusion about the LG and Liteon TRT quality was retarded. Correct me if I am wrong but they used the non writing drive to do TRT? So all liteon burns were read by the LG. All LG burns read by the liteon. They didn’t know if the LG was just a better reader. IMO LG can read poorly burnt discs much better than liteon, liteons are better for scratches. That’s what I’ve found in my own tests.

why couldnt they just use a pioneer and save everyone the troubles lol most people have pioneers where they could directly apply the information presented there.

sif LG lol

Indeed, LG is way less sensitive to PIF spikes, for example.
8x burn speed MAY be good for 16x media, but I’m not going further down because it’s only looking for trouble, they should have tested more drives :slight_smile:

I’ll stick with 12x for my 16x media, gives me good enough results.

I agree with you guys - tests not standardized enough or consistent enough to make for a good comparison. They also should have just scanned some of the burns with the liteon they had. There’s no point posting us a picture of the burning progress - just wipe that picture off and write the burn speed and time in bold text. It would be easier to read and navigate like that.

If I had the datarius myself, I’d probably give the best review the blank media forums has ever seen. If I win the lotto I promise to buy a datarius and do reviews for cdfreaks! :bigsmile:

they made a very poor choice for that article. Those LG 55 drives are not very good when it comes to burn quality.

Hell with my new sammy i can burn everything on MAX speed and comes with with great results.

They are not using the same scanning drive as you though… so don’t know how you can compare results with them like that and say your sammy burns great @ max speed.

Your scanning drive may show good results but their Datarius may show the burn to be crap. It all depends. That’s why I think they should use home scanning and pro scanning to see what happens.

few months ago they did a comparison between pro and home scanning. It wasn’t excact, but also in most cases not that far off

Actually, I’m pretty sure it was way off. Kprobe showing a relatively good disc and Datarius showing absolute rubbish. Dunno which to believe, it would be good if they did a massive review and compared a whole lot of things.

Interestingly the T03 media did best at its rated speed of 16x. It’s obvious this isn’t a “one-size-fits-all” issue.

Agreed. Or 8x if I’m using my externals 'cos it’s the best I can get with those :wink:

And personally, I believe if a picky drive shows a crappy TRT, then the burn is suspect at the very least.

I personally think the test’s are flawed, simply because of the fact they’ve used only 2 writers and a very small selection of media. To be useful, many drives and media really need to be tested for me to consider the test relevant :iagree:

Thanks for posting but it’s another test done by someone that has different setup than me and i know how my drives react to my media in my own real world.

Hi,

I beg to differ :wink:
This is a “real world” test. Using media, that is recommended across the forums and using two recent drives, that aren’t crap either.
And then - the disc is difficult to read. Something we see every day here in the forum.

Michael

The lowest reported values from the DaTARIUS unit for the LG was at 4x, however, if you look at the table relating to the TRT results, only 16x & 18x are rated as good. Nowhere can I see in the article stating that 4x writing for MCC004 on LG was considered the best :confused: so I don’t really understand your complaint :confused:

A truely comprehensive review across every major media/drive combination available in the market today would be perfect, with added Professional/home drive scanning result comparisons with TRTs also from multiple drives, but if you think about the amount of effort/time this would require, you may understand why noone has published such a report publically. :wink:

Other optical review sites hardly cover more than the necessary basics when it comes to their review tests so it is hardly extraordinary that this article is not as comprehensive as some people would like. :slight_smile: The article itself acknowledges this problem, maybe they will fix it in the future, unless another site is planning to show them how to do it properly.

I’ve always liked the TYG03/LH-20A1P combination and thank God that I’ve just got a replacement for my dead 20A1P and 100 Panasonic TYG03 :bigsmile:

Media can vary greatly from spindle to spindle , I’ve had a spindle of Panny TYG03 that burnt exceptionally well @18X and 20X with lower than 100 total PIF :eek: and all other spindles after that couldn’t go past 16X witout producing high PIF at the edge of the discs when disabling Smartburn options and not going past 12X if enabled !

Ok go to the conclusion of the review. It says: “[I]Finally, the speed with the best burn quality for each disc, has the respective measurements shown with a bright yellow background . [/I]”

Note how the H55L @ 4x on MCC004 is highlighted in yellow? Yes they are saying that is the best burn quality. Now look at the actual page they tested MCC004 on the H55L @ 4x and tell me what the TRT looks like. Here it is:

Does that look like [B]best burn quality[/B] to you?

Again, reading from the conclusion this issue of best burn speed is still a myth. two media, two burner conflicting results. What if they try to test the real world environment when people consider TY as expensive and drives can’t be upgraded that often to keep up with technology. many real common man use 2-3 year old drives burn new 8-16X DVD discs on it. What could be helpful is use a mid range media and mid range burner not top end quality disc and hardware. I think the best thing to do is use what your drive is capable of with a media you often use best for it and forget all this reviews. whatever they do it will always be inconclusive. How about those burning files from an external via firewire or USB would it affect the burn quality if you burn 16X?

Ouch. And that TRT’s on a LiteOn too :eek: