Testing to find optimum burn speeds?

vbimport

#1

I hope this hasn’t been addressed before. If it has, I haven’t found it. I need to know the best (or your preferred) method for determining the optimum burn speed for a given media and writer. I’d been creating “Discovery” discs using ImgBurn then scanning them in DVD Speed. I was getting mixed results and suspected my 3 year old BenQ DW1655 was having problems so I bought two new burners, a Pioneer DVR-215D and a Samsung SH-S203N. I’d like to determine the best burn speeds for several media on these new drives, but I’d like to avoid spending countless hours and dollars making a bunch of test discs in the process. What’s the best method to home in on the ideal speed? Do you use DVD Speed’s Benchmark, ImgBurn’s Discovery or just try a random image and see how it turns out? Do you start at the max speed and work down from there? Do you do a test at each speed? Should I update the firmware before I begin any testing or wait to see my results with the included firmware first?

An interesting side note. I made an ImgBurn Discovery disc at max (8x) speed for the DL media on the Pioneer, DVD Speed scanned it on the now USB-connected external BenQ and got disappointing results (i.e., 300 PIE). Could be the burn speed. But I then scanned the same disc on the internal SATA Pioneer and the results were slightly better (239 PIE, still not good but better). The drive is reporting its own results locally, whether internal, external, USB or SATA, right? Is it likely that the BenQ is truly toast and not even useful as a scanner anymore? I can’t get jitter and PO Failure stats with the new burners so I was hoping to scan everything on the BenQ.

Thanks.

Ray


#2

Comparing burning methods (thus including burning speed) for a given media/burner combination, is one of the really legit uses of PIE/PIF scanning.

But why spoil media in making test discs? Just burn what you actually need to burn, and scan the disc.
If you don’t burn slower than @6X nor faster than @12X (assuming you use 16X rated discs), and you use good discs, you have about zero chances to get bad burns. Your burns will be entirely usable. If you don’t have enough data for the full burn, just add random data to fill the disc.

Want to make your life simple? The usual rule of thumb that many of us apply here, is to burn everything (8X rated and 16X rated discs) @8X for best results (assuming one’s burner is less than 2 years old). Though most of the time the difference between 8X and 12X burns is not very significant in terms of homemade PIE/PIF scans.

:cop: Important: Pioneer drives are notoriously untrustable and atypic scanners. Don’t scan with a Pioneer drive unless you really, really know what you’re doing, AND you have a very good grasp on ECMA specs, AND you have performed lots of in-depths comparisons of many scans performed in several different drives. Same goes for NEC drives.

The scanning trio: Benq, Lite-On (and rebadged), Plextor.


#3

[QUOTE=Francksoy;2063688]The usual rule of thumb that many of us apply here, is to burn everything (8X rated and 16X rated discs) @8X for best results (assuming one’s burner is less than 2 years old).[/QUOTE]

And the slightly more conservative rule is to burn everything at half it’s rated speed for archival purposes, 4x for 8x media, and 8x for 16x media.

However, the “burn everything at 8x” rule is more than good enough for 99.9% of all burning situations.


#4

[QUOTE=negritude;2063702]And the slightly more conservative rule is to burn everything at half it’s rated speed for archival purposes, 4x for 8x media, and 8x for 16x media.[/QUOTE]Personally I consider the “@4X for 8X media” very questionable nowadays, since many recent burners don’t optimize @4X strategies anymore. Valid for older burners, invalid for recent burners. My point of view.


#5

[QUOTE=Francksoy;2063718]Personally I consider the “@4X for 8X media” very questionable nowadays, since many recent burners don’t optimize @4X strategies anymore. Valid for older burners, invalid for recent burners. My point of view.[/QUOTE]

:iagree: I agree but media quality also helps in any burner too. :slight_smile:


#6

I’ll second Francksoy on this one. I also think 4x is too slow unless you’ve done extensive testing and have some writers that do burn better at the slow speed.


#7

[QUOTE=THE C.;2063752]:iagree: I agree but media quality also helps in any burner too. :)[/QUOTE]Of course. :slight_smile: “Garbage in, garbage out”.

Hey negritude, I actually 100% agree with most burners sold until, say, 2006.


#8

[QUOTE=Francksoy;2063718]Personally I consider the “@4X for 8X media” very questionable nowadays, since many recent burners don’t optimize @4X strategies anymore. Valid for older burners, invalid for recent burners. My point of view.[/QUOTE]

Tricky one.
What if the 8x strategy is the broken one ?
Strategy is one thing. The other is the media.
And in some cases poor media can greatly profit from lowering the speed to 4x.
Depending on what your using you could try 4x. For (cheap) stuff that didn’t burn that well at other speeds I suggest that trying at 4x might be a really good idea.


#9

“Testing to find optimum burn speeds?”

i think in general… 8x burning is a pretty safe bet :wink: (especially if the burner is semi-recent (i.e. 2005 ish or newer))

cause if you got 8x certified discs or 16x certified discs then odds are it’s pretty hard to go wrong with 8x burning in general :wink:

cause without running a billion test’s … if i had to pick one speed assuming the burner is semi-recent (say 2005 or newer) i would probably bet on 8x :wink:


#10

[QUOTE=dakhaas;2064047]Depending on what your using you could try 4x. For (cheap) stuff that didn’t burn that well at other speeds I suggest that trying at 4x might be a really good idea.[/QUOTE]Totally agree. :iagree: I specifically mentioned that the “burn everything @8X to increase the chances to get the best results out of your 8X or 16X media” motto was valid assuming one is using good media. :wink:

But I’ve also had cases of so-so media like my in-famous Ricoh-branded MBIPG101 R04 that absolutely needed to be burnt @8X in my usual burners (1650, 111D, 112D, H22N). @4X was worse for stability (you know what I’m talking about).

Yet I do agree with you, for poor or mediocre media @4X can sometimes help.


#11

[QUOTE=Francksoy;2063871]Hey negritude, I actually 100% agree with most burners sold until, say, 2006.[/QUOTE]

Fair enough. That would explain why my Nexperia BenQs sometimes do a better job at 4x with marginal 8x media. A disk that won’t burn so hot at 8x will be stellar at 4x. Jitter is way better, too.


#12

[QUOTE=negritude;2064436]Fair enough. That would explain why my Nexperia BenQs sometimes do a better job at 4x with marginal 8x media. A disk that won’t burn so hot at 8x will be stellar at 4x. Jitter is way better, too.[/QUOTE]I guess you’re referring to 1620 or 1640, as I noticed indeed with these that @4X sometimes produced better burns, mainly with -R media like MCC 02RG20 and TTG02. With my 1650 units though, I haven’t met this (yet), @8X is always equal or better (well, jitter is sometimes slightly higher, but in a kinda unsignificant way, like 0.3% to 0.5% peak…). Do you have some specific disc models in mind?