What Is The Diffrence?



I have an old Pioneer DV-515 standalone DVD Player for the TV and when I burned DVDs with a LG burner from 2003 the DVD player would refuse to play them unless they were burnt on 2x speed.

But now that I bought a Lite-On burner and burnt a DVD at 16x the old Pioneer could still play it, what causes this?

Have DVD-RW drives gotten better at burning compatible discs since 2003?


Yes - End Of


Yes, that’s why the manufacturers update the firmware for their burners. If you check for an updated firmware for your LG burner you may get better quality burns at the higher speeds. IMO it’s always best to burner slower to get a better burn anyway. Any burner should give less errors at slower speeds.


Slower is not always better. Most 16X discs dont like to be burned at anything slower than 8X. MCC004s burn better at 12X than 8X or 16X.


Dvd most often (not always but most of the time) burns best at its rated speed. It all depends on what the drive manufacture has developed the write stratagy in the firmware for.


How do we kill this myth about slower is always better?



Along those lines, I’m curious why it’s recommended to shut down every last process except those that are critical to windows?


I’ve never been able to get a real good burn at 16X although my burst rate is fine. 12X seems best for my setups. TY 8X discs burn about the same at 12X as they do at 8X depending on the batch.


Does Lite-On SMART-BURN function have anything to do with the good burn results?


Because encoding and burning uses alot of CPU and Ram resources.


Not only that but you are moving quite a bit of data at very fast rates (especially with faster burn speeds), and if your computer cannot supply information to be burned fast enough, because other programs are using resources, it can interfere with getting a good burn.


You cannot get a good 16x burn on any of those drives? I had heard about certain models of benq’s having problems with certain firmwares, but I would have though that with all those drives you list as having, some of them would be able to burn at 16 fine? My nec does a great job at 16x. What media are you using? It would seem that mcc 004 seems to be the prefered 16x media at the moment.


Maybe I need to reword my post. The only 16X media I think I’ve tried is MCC004. I didn’t mean I can’t get a good burn at 16X, but that my 1640 and 1635 seem to burn this media a little better at 12X. PIE and PIF start climbing at the end @ 16X. I don’t recall ever trying to burn @ 16X with the 1620,s or 1693. But then the last few spindles of MCC004,s have not been the best, I’ve used much better!
Maybe I need to get my NEC,s out of retirement, new Liddy and Dee,s firmware to try! :bigsmile:


I think smart burn mainly has to do with how liteons deal with poor quality or unrecognized media. If it doesn’t have a predefined write stratagy, then it uses smart burn to try to determine how best to burn the media. I think it can also detect that media is not burning right and can adjust the write stratagy in the middle of the burn. I’m not sure about the technical aspects of it, but liteon drives are learning drives so they can adjust write stratagys, even with known medias.
As far as the smart burn program (utility), I think it just reports whatever the max speed listed in the firmware is, which again, is usally the recomended burn speed, unless the media is unknown. On my 8x liteon, it reports the burn speed for mcc004 (16x media) as 2.4x. Obviously it doesn’t recognise this media and it wants to use a generic write stratagy and smart burn technology to try to burn this disk. I’m running omnipatched firmware that allows overspeeding. The smart burn utility reports a max speed of 8x for ricohjpnr01 and ritek r02, both of which are 4x medias. Ricohjpnr01 burns quite well at 8x but ritek r02 does not (on my burner). Obviouslly it is just reporting the max speed listed in the firmware, not testing the disk to tell what is the best burn speed.
In most cases, burner manufactures write the optimum firmware to burn disks at their rated speed. Thats why it is usally best to burn at the rated speed. The drive has proper instructions to burn at the rated speed, where if you burn slower, it might be adopting a less developed or even a generic write stratagy to allow it. Thats in most cases. Occationally, a manufacture might determine that a particular media is of high enough quality that it can burn faster than it’s rated speed, and they develope a write stratagy to burn it faster. They sometimes might determine that a particular media is not of good enough quality to burn at its rated speed, so they write the firmware for optimal burning at a slower speed (and the drive may not even support writing at the rated speed).
Disks burning beter at slower than rated speeds is about as common as disks burning at higher than rated speeds. You cannot just take any disk and burn it faster, even if it is good enough quality. The drive has to have or be able to learn a proper write stratagy to do it. Sometimes it can be done (especially with modified firmwares that change those write stratagys), but most of the time media burns beter at the corect rated speed than faster. The exact same thing is corect about burning slower. If the drive doesn’t have a proper write stratagy to burn slower, it may or may not be able to learn it (and modified firmware might provide a write stratagy change to allow it), but in general, it will actually burn worse at the slower speed as the drives write stratagy is most liklly optimised for the corect speed, not slower. Usally it is only with poor quality media that is not good enough to burn at its claimed write speed, that it is worth exploring how well it writes slower.

One exception would be for instance a 4x drive, that has write stratagys developed to burn 8x media at 4x (since that is all the drive is capable of) or an 8x drive that has has proper write stratagys developed to burn 16x media at 8x (again, because that is all the drive is capable of so that is what they developed the write stratagy for). Often they just don’t suport the faster medias though (like my liteon reporting mcc004 16x media as 2.4x media).


It might be worth a try. I have heard about some benq’s having issues with 16x burning (cannot remember which models or firmwares). My nec 3500 burns mcc004 at 16x quite well.


Agree that encoding uses CPU cycles. Burning? I don’t believe so. I have yet to see CPU utilization go above 10% during a burn process. That can not be considered CPU intense, not even close. As far as RAM usage goes, I don’t believe either task is heavily RAM dependant either. Having 2-3 tabs open in a web browser consistently shows more RAM usage than burning or encoding, at least on my system anyway.

I guess it really depends on one’s system. If one is running an older system than I can see the point. Anything recent with 1GB or more, shouldn’t even break a sweat.


More often than not those are caued by incorrect settings or improper setup. Everyone has at one point or another maybe the suggestion to check dma and/or use quality media.

I’m not suggesting that one encode movies while burning, nor would I ever say to burn a disc in the background while having a frag session in a FPS. However, one can certainly browse, read/check email, chat, use itunes etc while burning. None of those place disk I/O under stress, with the possible exception of itunes.

Disk I/O is the slowest subsystem in a computer. If someone isn’t taxing their disk while burning, they can do whatever they want while burning and still have success. I do it all the time, and my system isn’t bleeding edge by any stretch.


I often web surf etc. while burning though It still isn’t a bad idea to limit what you do during the actual burn. I know on a fast system there is enough power to even burn more than one disk on multiple burners at a time. Still, for the average person that may not have the best defragging on their drives and or may have quite a few background programs running, may have limited speed of equipment, and may not be aware of what programs might access files to higher extents, its just a good rule of thumb to limit what you do. There are certainly programs like games, photoshop and you mentioned itunes that have a chance of interfering. For the average person, it might be safer to limit what you do during the actual burn.