Nintendo Switch (Nintendo NX) release date, price, specs and preview trailer: Codename NX console…
Hi, i had a 505 mb file and i burnt it onto cd in under 3 minutes. would the quality at all be worse than if i burnt it slower?
U should never fly-on-the-wall and never at top speed. I always write at x8. The slower the better I find.
The slower you burn a cd the more accurate the cd copy will be, right ? This is true of most of today's pc's, however, having the right software makes all the difference, the most recent version of nero is one of the best at high speed quality recordings, the record speed will burn at the stated speed, however the read and write speed of your hard drive, source drive, memory, operating system (yes, this does make a difference), will all add to the total burning time. The faster your pc, the faster your burning time in a nutshell. There are so many factors to take into account when judging burn speed and what is imperative is 'never believe the hype, unless you have the exact same spec system as the test machine they quote from. I know you purchased your writer for an improved burning time, but in reality the difference between a 24 speed and 52 speed is quite literally about 2 mins. The point is, ' do you really need to burn at 52 when 24, 32, 36 will do it in roughly 1 minute longer???????
surely, no matter what speed you copy, a digital copy is exactly the same as the thing its copied from - - or am I missing something ?
I always thought that the only issue over the writing speed was that you get more failures the quicker you copy.
In the 'good old days', when copying to cassette tape, we all knew the copy wouldn't be quite as good as the original - - but with digital, as is copying to CD, the copy will be exactly the same as the original.
Just my 2 penneth - -
MAY I AGREE AND DISAGREE WITH YOU AT THE SAME TIME ? Althoough copying standards have dramatically improved since tape copying standards, have you considered buffers?, although quality has improved this is the main problem with drives today, overstated underun and over run, the most common problem writing to cd's is exactly that !!!
jonnytub - with you there 100% - - I think what I am trying to say is that if the copying is successful, the copy will be exactly the same as the source - - -and I feel you will have less failures the slower the copying is done. Getting lost myself now - - I'll get me coat :-)
You're right TBH1, of course a digital copy is the same. However, I would advise caution when burning audio or video to compact disc.
The slower speed IS the better in the above case and the reason is this:
As you'll know, when burning the disc, the laser needs to 'switch on and off' very quickly to write the information. As I understand it, the switching on/off at high writing speeds can mean that the laser may delay slightly in attaining the full burn temperature.
What this means in practice is that the shape of the 'pits' etched onto the disc may be distorted in shape slightly. I have read that this can result in an audio disc that WILL play, but that the quality MAY be reduced. I would think the same would apply to video, but not so much for data only.
Hope this helps !!
Lets get technical, it would appear that most forum members have the basic and advanced knowledge of laser technology may i cast your eyes upon this document click here
sorry for not replying earlier, but on nero which is what i used, i specified the maximum burn speed on there which was 48x,the file was mpg file so i watched it and it was perfect.
A digital copy should normally be perfect, but there can be pitfalls (if you will pardon the pun).
Burning a disk at higher than its rated speed could cause errors - on the other hand you could get away with it as speeds are a little conservative.
It's always best, as jonnytub points out, to burn at a speed of about two-thirds the potential maximum of the disk, such as 24x with a 32x CD-R; CD-RWs should be burned at much less than their rated speed for maximum success.
You wouldn't, for instance, drive your car flat out all the time and, as rewriters are not the most robust computer components, the less you demand of it the more reliable it should prove.
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.