This question is possibly OT, but I'm wondering if the laser in a DVD
burner would last longest if I burnt my discs at the lowest possible
speed. AFAICS, for a pit to be irradiated with a consistent amount of
energy, the laser would need to be "hotter" at higher speeds because
it would spend less time over the pit. Is hot and quick better than
slow and cool?

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

Franc Zabkar wrote in message
...
This question is possibly OT, but I'm wondering if the laser in a DVD
burner would last longest if I burnt my discs at the lowest possible
speed. AFAICS, for a pit to be irradiated with a consistent amount of
energy, the laser would need to be "hotter" at higher speeds because
it would spend less time over the pit. Is hot and quick better than
slow and cool?

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

Don't know about that but I always burn at a lower than maximum speed
because apparently the "image" is burnt deeper and supposed to be less
liable to long term temp/humidity/corrosion corruption of the stored disc
data.

--
Diverse Devices, Southampton, England
electronic hints and repair briefs , schematics/manuals list on
http://home.graffiti.net/diverse:graffiti.net/

Don't know about that but I always burn at a lower than maximum speed
because apparently the "image" is burnt deeper and supposed to be less
liable to long term temp/humidity/corrosion corruption of the stored disc
data.

Agree there, i have tested this on some sample dvdr's and after burning the
same image
at 1x, 2x, 4x and 8x i could already see the imprint on the disc getting
much lighter.
Let alone burning at higher speeds, often the resulting copy would either
not work or
burning would fail.
Fast cd or dvd burning is a scam, burn always everything at the lowest speed
possible.
Friends complained about discs degrading too soon, mine still work, same
brand but burned at 1x

Bart Bervoets

Bart Bervoets wrote in message
...

Don't know about that but I always burn at a lower than maximum speed
because apparently the "image" is burnt deeper and supposed to be less
liable to long term temp/humidity/corrosion corruption of the stored
disc
data.

Agree there, i have tested this on some sample dvdr's and after burning
the
same image
at 1x, 2x, 4x and 8x i could already see the imprint on the disc getting
much lighter.
Let alone burning at higher speeds, often the resulting copy would either
not work or
burning would fail.
Fast cd or dvd burning is a scam, burn always everything at the lowest
speed
possible.
Friends complained about discs degrading too soon, mine still work, same
brand but burned at 1x

Bart Bervoets



You can always go out and buy another burner if the laser fails but you
cannot necessarily replace those family album pics.
1x seems a bit extreme, what is the consensus view?

--
Diverse Devices, Southampton, England
electronic hints and repair briefs , schematics/manuals list on
http://home.graffiti.net/diverse:graffiti.net/

Bart Bervoets wrote in message
...

Don't know about that but I always burn at a lower than maximum speed
because apparently the "image" is burnt deeper and supposed to be less
liable to long term temp/humidity/corrosion corruption of the stored
disc
data.

Agree there, i have tested this on some sample dvdr's and after burning
the
same image
at 1x, 2x, 4x and 8x i could already see the imprint on the disc getting
much lighter.
Let alone burning at higher speeds, often the resulting copy would either
not work or
burning would fail.
Fast cd or dvd burning is a scam, burn always everything at the lowest
speed
possible.
Friends complained about discs degrading too soon, mine still work, same
brand but burned at 1x

Bart Bervoets



Could you enlarge on you could "see the imprint on the disc"
Was that lining up one of each
1x, 2x, 4x and 8x and viewing all in oblique light or viewing under a
microscope?


--
Diverse Devices, Southampton, England
electronic hints and repair briefs , schematics/manuals list on
http://home.graffiti.net/diverse:graffiti.net/

"N Cook" wrote in message ...
Bart Bervoets wrote in message
...

Don't know about that but I always burn at a lower than maximum speed
because apparently the "image" is burnt deeper and supposed to be less
liable to long term temp/humidity/corrosion corruption of the stored
disc
data.

Agree there, i have tested this on some sample dvdr's and after burning
the
same image
at 1x, 2x, 4x and 8x i could already see the imprint on the disc getting
much lighter.
Let alone burning at higher speeds, often the resulting copy would either
not work or
burning would fail.
Fast cd or dvd burning is a scam, burn always everything at the lowest
speed
possible.
Friends complained about discs degrading too soon, mine still work, same
brand but burned at 1x

Bart Bervoets



You can always go out and buy another burner if the laser fails but you
cannot necessarily replace those family album pics.
1x seems a bit extreme, what is the consensus view?

The quality of the burner and media have a lot more to do
with longevity than what speed you use to burn. Quality
burners today use variable lasers to adjust burn depth
according to speed and media.

If you're more comfortable burning at 1x, hey it's a free
world. All I can say is, I have dozens of DVD-Rs going
on five years old that were burned at 8x and I haven't had
a problem reading any of them.

"Franc Zabkar" wrote in message ...
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 09:50:21 +0200, "Bart Bervoets"
put finger to keyboard and composed:


Don't know about that but I always burn at a lower than maximum speed
because apparently the "image" is burnt deeper and supposed to be less
liable to long term temp/humidity/corrosion corruption of the stored disc
data.

Agree there, i have tested this on some sample dvdr's and after burning the
same image
at 1x, 2x, 4x and 8x i could already see the imprint on the disc getting
much lighter.

That's a worry. I would have expected that the firmware would have
adjusted the laser power for a consistent burn at all speeds.
Apparently not.

Cheaper models don't have an adjustable laser, and for the cost
of ones that do (BenQ, NEC etc, around 35-40 clams) there's
no excuse for using one that doesn't.

Hi!

You can always go out and buy another burner if the laser fails but you
cannot necessarily replace those family album pics.
1x seems a bit extreme, what is the consensus view?

I don't know about a consensus, but I've had the best luck staying between
4X and 12X for burn speed on a wide variety of equipment. If I have the
time, I use 4X. If I'm in a hurry, I use 8X.

Generally I burn things at 12X when longevity isn't that important.

Buying media that's rated for the speed at which you will be burning is also
important. CD-Rs will generally allow burning at any speed, but going too
fast can result in errors. CD-RWs and DVD blanks generally do enforce the
maximum supported burning speed.

William

"EDM" wrote in message
link.net...
"Franc Zabkar" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 09:50:21 +0200, "Bart Bervoets"
put finger to keyboard and composed:


Don't know about that but I always burn at a lower than maximum speed
because apparently the "image" is burnt deeper and supposed to be less
liable to long term temp/humidity/corrosion corruption of the stored
disc
data.

Agree there, i have tested this on some sample dvdr's and after burning
the
same image
at 1x, 2x, 4x and 8x i could already see the imprint on the disc getting
much lighter.

That's a worry. I would have expected that the firmware would have
adjusted the laser power for a consistent burn at all speeds.
Apparently not.

Cheaper models don't have an adjustable laser, and for the cost
of ones that do (BenQ, NEC etc, around 35-40 clams) there's
no excuse for using one that doesn't.



Part of the problem with playing back home recorded disc media, is that the
technology to record the data, is different. A number of times, pits and
lands have been mentioned in this thread, but these only exist for factory
pressed media. Home burnt media rely on changing the physical state of a dye
layer in the disc, which alters its reflectivity. This is not as good as
having silvered pits and lands. The reflectivity of home burn discs is not
as good as pressed discs in the first place, which degrades the relative
signal to noise ratio of the recovered data. Add to this, the fact that you
are firing either a near infra red or visible red laser at a disc that may
have a blue or green or purple dye layer, and you are soon in trouble at
getting reliable reading, if the record process is anything less than as
perfect as it can be.

For this reason, I would suggest that there will be a particular brand /
colour of disc that best suits the particular drive or player that the disc
is to be played back in, and a maximum speed that that results in a high
enough signal to noise ratio for that disc / player combination, to ensure
reliable long-term readability.

To pursue the original question, if a range of discs recorded at different
speeds on a drive, exhibit a range of colour densities over the recorded
section, then this would indicate that the drive does not have the
capability to control the laser write power, and there should therefore be
no longevity improvement issue for the laser life, by writing at lower
speeds. If a range of discs exhibit a broadly similar colour density for a
range of writing speeds, then this would indicate that the drive does have
speed adaptive power control, in which case, the laser life would almost
certainly be increased by burning at lower speeds.

Arfa

Franc Zabkar wrote:
This question is possibly OT, but I'm wondering if the laser in a DVD
burner would last longest if I burnt my discs at the lowest possible
speed. AFAICS, for a pit to be irradiated with a consistent amount of
energy, the laser would need to be "hotter" at higher speeds because
it would spend less time over the pit. Is hot and quick better than
slow and cool?

- Franc Zabkar


With drives as cheap as they are, who cares? I think I paid $37 for mine
including shipping, it'll be long obsolete by the time the laser wears out.

Arfa Daily wrote in message
...

"EDM" wrote in message
link.net...
"Franc Zabkar" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 09:50:21 +0200, "Bart Bervoets"
put finger to keyboard and composed:


Don't know about that but I always burn at a lower than maximum
speed
because apparently the "image" is burnt deeper and supposed to be
less
liable to long term temp/humidity/corrosion corruption of the stored
disc
data.

Agree there, i have tested this on some sample dvdr's and after
burning
the
same image
at 1x, 2x, 4x and 8x i could already see the imprint on the disc
getting
much lighter.

That's a worry. I would have expected that the firmware would have
adjusted the laser power for a consistent burn at all speeds.
Apparently not.

Cheaper models don't have an adjustable laser, and for the cost
of ones that do (BenQ, NEC etc, around 35-40 clams) there's
no excuse for using one that doesn't.



Part of the problem with playing back home recorded disc media, is that
the
technology to record the data, is different. A number of times, pits and
lands have been mentioned in this thread, but these only exist for factory
pressed media. Home burnt media rely on changing the physical state of a
dye
layer in the disc, which alters its reflectivity. This is not as good as
having silvered pits and lands. The reflectivity of home burn discs is not
as good as pressed discs in the first place, which degrades the relative
signal to noise ratio of the recovered data. Add to this, the fact that
you
are firing either a near infra red or visible red laser at a disc that may
have a blue or green or purple dye layer, and you are soon in trouble at
getting reliable reading, if the record process is anything less than as
perfect as it can be.

For this reason, I would suggest that there will be a particular brand /
colour of disc that best suits the particular drive or player that the
disc
is to be played back in, and a maximum speed that that results in a high
enough signal to noise ratio for that disc / player combination, to ensure
reliable long-term readability.

To pursue the original question, if a range of discs recorded at different
speeds on a drive, exhibit a range of colour densities over the recorded
section, then this would indicate that the drive does not have the
capability to control the laser write power, and there should therefore be
no longevity improvement issue for the laser life, by writing at lower
speeds. If a range of discs exhibit a broadly similar colour density for a
range of writing speeds, then this would indicate that the drive does have
speed adaptive power control, in which case, the laser life would almost
certainly be increased by burning at lower speeds.

Arfa



So would a good policy be the following for any recordable media, ie
audio,video and data.
For a new media brand of use
Burn the same data at the minimum , maximum and 1 or 2 intermediate speeds
on 3 or 4 discs, label them specificaly for their ?x speeds for later
checking on environmental degradation/ data corruption.
If there is an observable gradation in the appearance of the 3 or 4 discs
then use a lower speed setting for recording on all the rest of the
batch/make. ?

--
Diverse Devices, Southampton, England
electronic hints and repair briefs , schematics/manuals list on
http://home.graffiti.net/diverse:graffiti.net/

"N Cook" wrote in message
...
Arfa Daily wrote in message
...

"EDM" wrote in message
link.net...
"Franc Zabkar" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 09:50:21 +0200, "Bart Bervoets"
put finger to keyboard and composed:


Don't know about that but I always burn at a lower than maximum
speed
because apparently the "image" is burnt deeper and supposed to be
less
liable to long term temp/humidity/corrosion corruption of the
stored
disc
data.

Agree there, i have tested this on some sample dvdr's and after
burning
the
same image
at 1x, 2x, 4x and 8x i could already see the imprint on the disc
getting
much lighter.

That's a worry. I would have expected that the firmware would have
adjusted the laser power for a consistent burn at all speeds.
Apparently not.

Cheaper models don't have an adjustable laser, and for the cost
of ones that do (BenQ, NEC etc, around 35-40 clams) there's
no excuse for using one that doesn't.



Part of the problem with playing back home recorded disc media, is that
the
technology to record the data, is different. A number of times, pits and
lands have been mentioned in this thread, but these only exist for
factory
pressed media. Home burnt media rely on changing the physical state of a
dye
layer in the disc, which alters its reflectivity. This is not as good as
having silvered pits and lands. The reflectivity of home burn discs is
not
as good as pressed discs in the first place, which degrades the relative
signal to noise ratio of the recovered data. Add to this, the fact that
you
are firing either a near infra red or visible red laser at a disc that
may
have a blue or green or purple dye layer, and you are soon in trouble at
getting reliable reading, if the record process is anything less than as
perfect as it can be.

For this reason, I would suggest that there will be a particular brand /
colour of disc that best suits the particular drive or player that the
disc
is to be played back in, and a maximum speed that that results in a high
enough signal to noise ratio for that disc / player combination, to
ensure
reliable long-term readability.

To pursue the original question, if a range of discs recorded at
different
speeds on a drive, exhibit a range of colour densities over the recorded
section, then this would indicate that the drive does not have the
capability to control the laser write power, and there should therefore
be
no longevity improvement issue for the laser life, by writing at lower
speeds. If a range of discs exhibit a broadly similar colour density for
a
range of writing speeds, then this would indicate that the drive does
have
speed adaptive power control, in which case, the laser life would almost
certainly be increased by burning at lower speeds.

Arfa



So would a good policy be the following for any recordable media, ie
audio,video and data.
For a new media brand of use
Burn the same data at the minimum , maximum and 1 or 2 intermediate speeds
on 3 or 4 discs, label them specificaly for their ?x speeds for later
checking on environmental degradation/ data corruption.
If there is an observable gradation in the appearance of the 3 or 4 discs
then use a lower speed setting for recording on all the rest of the
batch/make. ?


I'd say that about covers it except that if you are recording on a computer
drive to play back on a regular household drive - hifi Cd player or DVD
player, or home cinema rig, it would probably be worth seeing which dye
colour your player responds best to. How long it takes the player to " load
" the disc, before a top menu page or TOC is displayed, is usually a pretty
good indication of how much it is struggling to read a disc.

Arfa

Arfa Daily wrote in message
...

"N Cook" wrote in message
...
Arfa Daily wrote in message
...

"EDM" wrote in message
link.net...
"Franc Zabkar" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 09:50:21 +0200, "Bart Bervoets"

put finger to keyboard and composed:


So would a good policy be the following for any recordable media, ie
audio,video and data.
For a new media brand of use
Burn the same data at the minimum , maximum and 1 or 2 intermediate
speeds
on 3 or 4 discs, label them specificaly for their ?x speeds for later
checking on environmental degradation/ data corruption.
If there is an observable gradation in the appearance of the 3 or 4
discs
then use a lower speed setting for recording on all the rest of the
batch/make. ?


I'd say that about covers it except that if you are recording on a
computer
drive to play back on a regular household drive - hifi Cd player or DVD
player, or home cinema rig, it would probably be worth seeing which dye
colour your player responds best to. How long it takes the player to "
load
" the disc, before a top menu page or TOC is displayed, is usually a
pretty
good indication of how much it is struggling to read a disc.

Arfa



A couple of weeks after Sam Goldwasser got an honourable mention in this UK
newspaper I made an appearance.

http://technology.guardian.co.uk/wee...835671,00.html

· Stanley Russell asked about cleaning sticky finger marks off CDs and DVDs.
N Cook says: "You failed to mention the most important thing: Always clean
data/audio or video CDs in a radial sense, not circumferentially, so that
any microscratches are across and not along the data paths."

From previous weeks query

"Spoilt CDs and DVDs

What will clean sticky finger marks off discs that no longer work after a
child has handled them?
Stanley Russell

JS: A very small amount of mild soap and clean water will generally do the
job. However, if it's a case of rescuing a number of non-working discs, it
is probably worth buying a circular CD cleaning kit with a spray-on cleaning
fluid - Maplin stocks one for £2.99 - or a packet of moist disc wipes. As
you'd expect, Mr Clean PC (www.mrpcclean.co.uk) offers a wide range of
products.

You should use a lint-free or microfibre cloth that won't leave fibres
behind: an old well-washed hanky might do at a pinch, but don't use paper
tissues, which are both abrasive and disintegrate. Also, make sure you don't
grind any bits of grit into the disc surface. But even badly scratched discs
can often be rescued using special machines that grind away a little of the
surface. This is often a problem with PlayStation 2 discs so your local
games shop may have a deal with a company that offers the service."

--
Diverse Devices, Southampton, England
electronic hints and repair briefs , schematics/manuals list on
http://home.graffiti.net/diverse:graffiti.net/

On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 03:49:59 GMT, James Sweet
put finger to keyboard and composed:

Franc Zabkar wrote:
This question is possibly OT, but I'm wondering if the laser in a DVD
burner would last longest if I burnt my discs at the lowest possible
speed. AFAICS, for a pit to be irradiated with a consistent amount of
energy, the laser would need to be "hotter" at higher speeds because
it would spend less time over the pit. Is hot and quick better than
slow and cool?

- Franc Zabkar


With drives as cheap as they are, who cares? I think I paid $37 for mine
including shipping, it'll be long obsolete by the time the laser wears out.

It's not just a matter of replacing the drive, you may need to replace
the software as well. For example, the software that was bundled with
my first LG burner (which is still working) would not see the
replacement LG drive. I had to install (and learn how to use) the
latter's own bundled software.

Something else you may want to consider are DVDRs which are not yet
throwaway appliances.

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

"Franc Zabkar" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 03:49:59 GMT, James Sweet
put finger to keyboard and composed:

Franc Zabkar wrote:
This question is possibly OT, but I'm wondering if the laser in a DVD
burner would last longest if I burnt my discs at the lowest possible
speed. AFAICS, for a pit to be irradiated with a consistent amount of
energy, the laser would need to be "hotter" at higher speeds because
it would spend less time over the pit. Is hot and quick better than
slow and cool?

- Franc Zabkar


With drives as cheap as they are, who cares? I think I paid $37 for mine
including shipping, it'll be long obsolete by the time the laser wears
out.

It's not just a matter of replacing the drive, you may need to replace
the software as well. For example, the software that was bundled with
my first LG burner (which is still working) would not see the
replacement LG drive. I had to install (and learn how to use) the
latter's own bundled software.

Something else you may want to consider are DVDRs which are not yet
throwaway appliances.

- Franc Zabkar

Ha! That's a matter of opinion, Franc ! I have to say that I think non
computer-based DVD recording is the worst piece of technology to hit the
market in many a long year. I see probably six or seven of these hateful
pieces of crap a week, and probably about 2 or 3 of those actually fix. For
the rest of them, the cost of replacement parts is so high, if they are even
available, as to make most of the insurance companies that we are doing this
work on behalf of, just write them off. Many of the manufacturers won't even
supply info for them. Panasonic won't even talk to you about them, unless
you are a DSN dealer - and there's not many that can either afford that, or
have the inclination to take on the all-comers equipment list that you have
to, in order to gain that status.

The faults that you get reported on them, defy even understanding, let alone
fixing, and the manufacturer's service departments are no help with them for
the most part either. I regularly see faults like " When recording after
7pm, machine sometimes freezes up then I need to unplug it which may make it
work again, before it spits out the disc with an error message. This only
occurs on PC world +RW discs, usually when there is an 'R' in the month... "
Sound familiar ?? Where do you start when something like this lands on your
bench ? You start by drop-kicking it down the road, that's where.

I will be heartily glad when this nonsense technology dies out for home
time-shift recording, and the much more reliable HDD recorders take over
completely. Interesting though, that when DVD recording technology is
working with a computer based software platform, it is for the most part,
totally reliable ...

Arfa

EDM wrote:
"N Cook" wrote in message
...
Bart Bervoets wrote in message
...

Don't know about that but I always burn at a lower than maximum
speed because apparently the "image" is burnt deeper and
supposed to be less liable to long term temp/humidity/corrosion
corruption of the stored
disc
data.

Agree there, i have tested this on some sample dvdr's and after
burning
the
same image
at 1x, 2x, 4x and 8x i could already see the imprint on the disc
getting much lighter.
Let alone burning at higher speeds, often the resulting copy
would either not work or
burning would fail.
Fast cd or dvd burning is a scam, burn always everything at the
lowest
speed
possible.
Friends complained about discs degrading too soon, mine still
work, same brand but burned at 1x

Bart Bervoets



You can always go out and buy another burner if the laser fails but
you cannot necessarily replace those family album pics.
1x seems a bit extreme, what is the consensus view?

The quality of the burner and media have a lot more to do
with longevity than what speed you use to burn. Quality
burners today use variable lasers to adjust burn depth
according to speed and media.

If you're more comfortable burning at 1x, hey it's a free
world. All I can say is, I have dozens of DVD-Rs going
on five years old that were burned at 8x and I haven't had
a problem reading any of them.

Was it possible to burn DVD-Rs at 8x 5 years ago?
--
Shaun.