CD writing speed? and audio quality...

Discussion in 'rec.audio.pro' started by James Perrett, Aug 15, 2003.

  1. Linus wrote:
    >
    > Hello ...
    >
    > A potentially stupid question:
    >
    > Is it still important with the current crop of CDRW drives on the market to
    > write cds at single speed for the best audio quality?
    >
    > Or is the question pointless on account of CDRW drive quality being poor
    > regardless of speed ...
    >
    > does anyone have the lowdown on this subject?


    It all depends on your particular burner and the batch of media you are
    currently using. It is getting harder to find decent media now so you
    may well find that low speeds don't work so well with the cheaper high
    speed media.

    With the drives that I've checked I find lower error rates if you use
    decent media in the middle of the drive's speed range. In particular,
    with Mitsui 16X media a Plextor 1210S gives good results at 4 or 8X
    while a Plextor PX320 gives good results at 16X. I use a Plextor Premium
    drive to give me error rate information on my masters.

    Cheers.

    James.
  2. Troy

    Troy Guest

    No Matter what kind of drive you are using slower is better.Always burn
    masters at 1X to 2 X on a good quality CD.I recomend no more than 8X to 12X
    for copies of the master.Higher speeds can cause to many errors and playback
    can be affected on CD players.Faster is NOT better.We duplicate large runs
    of CDs at 8X only for the best quality.


    --
    Thanks
    Troy Tremblay
    Alternate Root Studio
    www.alternate-root.com



    Linus <support@tuerkmusic.co.za> wrote in message
    news:bhidbl$5tk$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
    > Hello ...
    >
    > A potentially stupid question:
    >
    > Is it still important with the current crop of CDRW drives on the market

    to
    > write cds at single speed for the best audio quality?
    >
    > Or is the question pointless on account of CDRW drive quality being poor
    > regardless of speed ...
    >
    > does anyone have the lowdown on this subject?
    >
    > Regards
    >
    > Linus
    >
    >
    >
    >
  3. SD

    SD Guest

    Troy wrote:

    > No Matter what kind of drive you are using slower is better.Always burn
    > masters at 1X to 2 X on a good quality CD.I recomend no more than 8X to 12X
    > for copies of the master.Higher speeds can cause to many errors and playback
    > can be affected on CD players.Faster is NOT better.We duplicate large runs
    > of CDs at 8X only for the best quality.
    >
    >
    > --
    > Thanks
    > Troy Tremblay
    > Alternate Root Studio
    > www.alternate-root.com
    >
    >


    Is there any audible difference? I burn at 8X - 10X (old drive with no
    buffer undderrun protection), and now 24X max (gives > 15X avg) on my
    new drive. Ive not noticed any bad effects..
  4. Sugarite

    Sugarite Guest

    > No Matter what kind of drive you are using slower is better.Always burn
    > masters at 1X to 2 X on a good quality CD.I recomend no more than 8X to

    12X
    > for copies of the master.Higher speeds can cause to many errors and

    playback
    > can be affected on CD players.Faster is NOT better.We duplicate large runs
    > of CDs at 8X only for the best quality.


    I disagree. Current CD media is engineered specifically for faster speeds,
    meaning the dye burns more easily, and therefore can actually be less
    reliable at slower speeds. For production masters, high-end media and 1x
    are the only way to go, but when using cheap media for demos etc the faster
    the better. Generally it's the ripping process that is inaccurate when
    doing tests for accuracy. If you rip at 1x it's possible to achieve
    bit-accuracy, but generally not, though it's really not a significant issue.

    The only other issue is jitter, which I imagine is present on fast burns,
    but is nullified by the buffering process in all DVD players and computers.
    Only cheap portable cd players like discmans, ghetto blasters, and car
    stereos still don't buffer. IMO any CD player that doesn't eliminate jitter
    is not worth spending 24x more time to accommodate.
  5. Troy

    Troy Guest

    I dissagree with almost everything you are saying here.The only thing I
    agree with is burning a master slow at 1X.Faster is in no way better.The
    fast high speed burners of today are mostly CRAP.They are built very poorly
    and perform very poorly.The faster you burn the more problems you will run
    into.try sending a CD to a pressing house that is burned at 24X,they will
    give it back to you.Another big problem is buffer under run technology.This
    creats problems with playback on CD players also.You may get no coasters but
    it does affect the playback.

    As for ripping at 1X you are correct on this BUT......If you try and rip a
    CD that was burned at high speeds you are going to be ripping many errors
    that usually cause clicks and pops in the music.

    Slower is better!!!!


    Sugarite <nobody@home.com> wrote in message
    news:Q2a%a.2781$q9.160871@read1.cgocable.net...
    > > No Matter what kind of drive you are using slower is better.Always burn
    > > masters at 1X to 2 X on a good quality CD.I recomend no more than 8X to

    > 12X
    > > for copies of the master.Higher speeds can cause to many errors and

    > playback
    > > can be affected on CD players.Faster is NOT better.We duplicate large

    runs
    > > of CDs at 8X only for the best quality.

    >
    > I disagree. Current CD media is engineered specifically for faster

    speeds,
    > meaning the dye burns more easily, and therefore can actually be less
    > reliable at slower speeds. For production masters, high-end media and 1x
    > are the only way to go, but when using cheap media for demos etc the

    faster
    > the better. Generally it's the ripping process that is inaccurate when
    > doing tests for accuracy. If you rip at 1x it's possible to achieve
    > bit-accuracy, but generally not, though it's really not a significant

    issue.
    >
    > The only other issue is jitter, which I imagine is present on fast burns,
    > but is nullified by the buffering process in all DVD players and

    computers.
    > Only cheap portable cd players like discmans, ghetto blasters, and car
    > stereos still don't buffer. IMO any CD player that doesn't eliminate

    jitter
    > is not worth spending 24x more time to accommodate.
    >
    >
  6. Arny Krueger

    Arny Krueger Guest

    "Linus" <support@tuerkmusic.co.za> wrote in message
    news:bhidbl$5tk$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net
    > Hello ...
    >
    > A potentially stupid question:
    >
    > Is it still important with the current crop of CDRW drives on the
    > market to write cds at single speed for the best audio quality?


    IME no, not as receipt of LiteOn 52X burners. Specifically, media that
    required special treatment in older burners, if the disc was to play in
    certain problematical players, can now be recorded at the highest possible
    speed.
  7. Luke Kaven

    Luke Kaven Guest

    There have been statistics posted about errors rates with different
    combinations of media/burner/speed. The results suggested that
    burning slower is in no way any guarantee of quality. The optimal
    combination of media/burner/speed varied widely, and in fact, 1X burns
    usually came out among the worst.

    Luke

    PS -- Arny Kreuger, do you happen to remember where that comparison is
    posted?


    "Troy" <alternate-root@shaw.ca> wrote:

    >I dissagree with almost everything you are saying here.The only thing I
    >agree with is burning a master slow at 1X.Faster is in no way better.The
    >fast high speed burners of today are mostly CRAP.They are built very poorly
    >and perform very poorly.The faster you burn the more problems you will run
    >into.try sending a CD to a pressing house that is burned at 24X,they will
    >give it back to you.Another big problem is buffer under run technology.This
    >creats problems with playback on CD players also.You may get no coasters but
    >it does affect the playback.
    >
    >As for ripping at 1X you are correct on this BUT......If you try and rip a
    >CD that was burned at high speeds you are going to be ripping many errors
    >that usually cause clicks and pops in the music.
    >
    >Slower is better!!!!
  8. Linus

    Linus Guest

    Hello ...

    A potentially stupid question:

    Is it still important with the current crop of CDRW drives on the market to
    write cds at single speed for the best audio quality?

    Or is the question pointless on account of CDRW drive quality being poor
    regardless of speed ...

    does anyone have the lowdown on this subject?

    Regards

    Linus
  9. Brian

    Brian Guest

    In article <bhidbl$5tk$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net>, Linus
    <support@tuerkmusic.co.za> wrote:

    > Hello ...
    >
    > A potentially stupid question:
    >
    > Is it still important with the current crop of CDRW drives on the market to
    > write cds at single speed for the best audio quality?


    It was never important in the first place. What is critical, however,
    is finding the correct media and speed for your particular burner that
    results in the lowest BLER (error) rate, period.

    Brian
  10. Brian

    Brian Guest

    In article <DT7%a.735158$3C2.17109904@news3.calgary.shaw.ca>, Troy
    <alternate-root@shaw.ca> wrote:

    > No Matter what kind of drive you are using slower is better.Always burn
    > masters at 1X to 2 X on a good quality CD.


    Not true at all. As I mentioned in my other post, the only thing that
    matters is finding the best combination of media and speed for your
    particular burner that results in the lowest BLER rate.

    Brian
  11. In article <bhidbl$5tk$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net>, "Linus"
    <support@tuerkmusic.co.za> wrote:

    > Hello ...
    >
    > A potentially stupid question:
    >
    > Is it still important with the current crop of CDRW drives on the market
    > to
    > write cds at single speed for the best audio quality?
    >
    > Or is the question pointless on account of CDRW drive quality being poor
    > regardless of speed ...
    >
    > does anyone have the lowdown on this subject?
    >
    > Regards
    >
    > Linus
    >


    Depends on the drive and the media. The same media doesn't always
    produce the same results on all drives, or at all speeds. There are
    certainly some media that generally perform better, but for best
    results, you need to try a few different CDRs on your drive at different
    speed and find the best combination. Often this best combination will be
    2X or 4X with modern products. Media and drives are no longer optimised
    for 1X and currently in many cases, this is worse, not better. Sonic
    Studio LLC offers a drive and special media optimised to work together
    at 1X, and Plextor has the Plexmaster sold through Microboards that also
    is optimised for 1X. Those are the expensive 1X "mastering quality" CD
    recorders currently in production, but a Plextor Premium for a couple
    hundred bucks running at 4X with Taiyo Yuden media is also capable of
    making masters that measure quite well and replicate just fine. 1X isn't
    the magic solution it once was. There are more variables to take into
    account, and sometimes the results can surprise you. Speeds above 8X,
    however, I'm still a little wary of. For safety sake, it's probably not
    a bad idea to try to keep speeds on the lower side, but there are more
    important things to worry about than if your drive does 1X burns.

    --
    Jay Frigoletto
    Mastersuite
    Los Angeles
    promastering.com
  12. Troy

    Troy Guest

    I run a CD Duplication business and I am in contact with many others that do
    the same.We have all done our own testing and we all find the same problems
    with high speed burning.The average guy burning CDs on his computer is not
    going to see the affects of speed like we do.We burn thousands of CDs a
    month.Even the best quality CDs have a hard time and it has alot to do with
    the low prices of CDs.Alot of these companies really stretch the process and
    supplies to make ends meet and the technology still isen't perfect.Its very
    costly for quality control of CDs.A good source is Tape & Disc magazine.You
    can throw out all the specs you want on all the burners but most companies
    do the testing under perfect conditions and in the real world things are
    alot different.




    Brian <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
    news:150820031915371207%nospam@nospam.com...
    > In article <DT7%a.735158$3C2.17109904@news3.calgary.shaw.ca>, Troy
    > <alternate-root@shaw.ca> wrote:
    >
    > > No Matter what kind of drive you are using slower is better.Always burn
    > > masters at 1X to 2 X on a good quality CD.

    >
    > Not true at all. As I mentioned in my other post, the only thing that
    > matters is finding the best combination of media and speed for your
    > particular burner that results in the lowest BLER rate.
    >
    > Brian
  13. Troy

    Troy Guest

    If you are mastering there are still some high quality 1X - 4X media made by
    HHB (I think they are actually mitsui)

    These are perfect for most burners and optimized for SLOW burning.


    Jay - atldigi <atldigi@aol.com> wrote in message
    news:atldigi-E7E3F4.16284615082003@news1.news.adelphia.net...
    > In article <bhidbl$5tk$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net>, "Linus"
    > <support@tuerkmusic.co.za> wrote:
    >
    > > Hello ...
    > >
    > > A potentially stupid question:
    > >
    > > Is it still important with the current crop of CDRW drives on the market
    > > to
    > > write cds at single speed for the best audio quality?
    > >
    > > Or is the question pointless on account of CDRW drive quality being

    poor
    > > regardless of speed ...
    > >
    > > does anyone have the lowdown on this subject?
    > >
    > > Regards
    > >
    > > Linus
    > >

    >
    > Depends on the drive and the media. The same media doesn't always
    > produce the same results on all drives, or at all speeds. There are
    > certainly some media that generally perform better, but for best
    > results, you need to try a few different CDRs on your drive at different
    > speed and find the best combination. Often this best combination will be
    > 2X or 4X with modern products. Media and drives are no longer optimised
    > for 1X and currently in many cases, this is worse, not better. Sonic
    > Studio LLC offers a drive and special media optimised to work together
    > at 1X, and Plextor has the Plexmaster sold through Microboards that also
    > is optimised for 1X. Those are the expensive 1X "mastering quality" CD
    > recorders currently in production, but a Plextor Premium for a couple
    > hundred bucks running at 4X with Taiyo Yuden media is also capable of
    > making masters that measure quite well and replicate just fine. 1X isn't
    > the magic solution it once was. There are more variables to take into
    > account, and sometimes the results can surprise you. Speeds above 8X,
    > however, I'm still a little wary of. For safety sake, it's probably not
    > a bad idea to try to keep speeds on the lower side, but there are more
    > important things to worry about than if your drive does 1X burns.
    >
    > --
    > Jay Frigoletto
    > Mastersuite
    > Los Angeles
    > promastering.com
  14. David Satz

    David Satz Guest

    Troy Tremblay wrote:

    > No Matter what kind of drive you are using slower is better.Always burn
    > masters at 1X to 2 X on a good quality CD. [ ... ]


    There are plenty of folks who can measure the actual error rate on CD-Rs,
    and what they report doesn't agree with the rather simplistic viewpoint
    which you've stated here (with admirable certainty). What you say had some
    truth to it at one point perhaps five or six years ago, but it isn't good
    advice for the conditions that have obtained since that time.

    Many higher-speed CD recorders when used with appropriate blanks produce
    their lowest error rates at speeds such as 4X and 8X. Much depends on the
    particular formulation of the blank CDs, which has continued to change all
    along, up to and including the present time, and on the range of burning
    powers which the recorder has available for its self-calibration.

    Unfortunately the current generation of very high speed blanks (32X and
    higher) has created a new set of problems for older burners. It may be
    advisable to choose blanks which specifically _don't_ support very high
    speed recording, even when you intend to record at the very lowest speeds.

    --best regards
  15. John L Rice

    John L Rice Guest

    "Troy" <alternate-root@shaw.ca> wrote in message
    news:A7e%a.765577$Vi5.17316587@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...
    > If you are mastering there are still some high quality 1X - 4X media made

    by
    > HHB (I think they are actually mitsui)
    >
    > These are perfect for most burners and optimized for SLOW burning.



    mmmmmmmaauauauauggggggggg . . . . . s l o w r o a s t e d . . . . . . . .
  16. User-Agent: MacSOUP/2.4.6
    Lines: 29
    Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 15:24:59 GMT
    NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.162.27.28
    X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net
    X-Trace: newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net 1061047499 209.162.27.28 (Sat, 16 Aug 2003 08:24:59 PDT)
    NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 08:24:59 PDT
    Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
    Xref: news.newshosting.com rec.audio.pro:335378

    Mike Rivers <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote:

    > One you find a brand that works, you need to immediately buy several
    > thousand to be sure that you'll have them when you need them. Go back
    > to the store for the same brand name and speed in a couple of weeks
    > and chances are very good that either they won't have it (and never
    > will again) or that there's a package that's identical, but what's
    > inside is actually different.


    No shit. I'm going through that a bit right now with some TDK's from
    CostCo. I've been using them for a few years for general burns, not
    "masters", and I've had no problems I could attribute to media until
    now. That's burning in the HHB, a lousy LaCie, the TiBook's internal and
    a Glyph/Plextor "Wildfire" burner. The new TDK's when burnt in the
    TiBook have almost no reflectivity difference between the burned and
    unburned area. Now people can tell me this is menaingless, that I can't
    see anything relevant with my naked eye. But since the fucked-up media
    looks one way to me and the media that plays nicely looks another way I
    am going to abide by my perception.

    Fuji blanks from Radio Shack in Austin TX do well in my burners, and the
    best I've used so far are Mitsui from <http://www.tapeplus.com/>, which
    also happen to be the most expensive. When the material counts, the
    difference in price is negligible.

    --
    hank alrich * secret mountain
    audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement
    "If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"
  17. > Troy wrote:
    > > No Matter what kind of drive you are using slower is better.Always burn
    > > masters at 1X to 2 X on a good quality CD.I recomend no more than 8X to

    12X
    > > for copies of the master.Higher speeds can cause to many errors and

    playback
    > > can be affected on CD players.Faster is NOT better.We duplicate large

    runs
    > > of CDs at 8X only for the best quality.


    "SD" wrote ...
    > Is there any audible difference? I burn at 8X - 10X (old drive with no
    > buffer undderrun protection), and now 24X max (gives > 15X avg) on my
    > new drive. Ive not noticed any bad effects..


    You won't likely HEAR (or even measure) any difference at first.
    But long-term, you have a more "contrasty" image when it is
    burned slower. I would expect the quality effect to be more in
    terms of longevity.
  18. Richard Crowley <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote:

    > You won't likely HEAR (or even measure) any difference at first.
    > But long-term, you have a more "contrasty" image when it is
    > burned slower. I would expect the quality effect to be more in
    > terms of longevity.


    And possibly the extent to which the media will play nicely across w
    wider range of machines.

    --
    ha
  19. Troy

    Troy Guest

    > And possibly the extent to which the media will play nicely across w
    wider range of machines.>

    Yes .....you are right as alot of CD players have problems reading high
    speed burns.

    I had a client in today who had this very problem with CDs done at 24X,they
    skiped and wouldent play in a couple different players.Any CD I have ever
    duplicated for him has had no problems at 8X.
  20. nuke

    nuke Guest

    I have direct experience in the drive/storage/technology industry working with
    these drives and media.

    The short answer: There is no one speed to recommend. 1x can be worse than 24x
    on one burner and media and better on some other combination.

    We test these things all the time. Since this is now a commodity technology,
    price supercedes quality. Burners are all over the map in quality. Media is
    even worse.

    What it all boils down to is you got to figure out what media works best in
    your drive at what particular speed. Unfortunately, without equipment, all you
    can do is burn some samples and see how they do.

    If you are burning masters for replication, ask for an error report and see how
    you are doing.

    Stick with a brand of drive you've heard of and find some media that works well
    with it and buy a bunch of it.

    If you just got to pick something, pick 4x.
    --
    Dr. Nuketopia
    Sorry, no e-Mail.
    Spam forgeries have resulted in thousands of faked bounces to my address.

Share This Page