|
|
|
Best DL burner to use.....
|
|
Senior Member
|
28. October 2009 @ 11:33 |
Link to this message
|
Some further proof for you that 2.4X is not always supported. This is taken from an Imgburn log posted on here: -
Quote:
I 11:02:16 Write Speed: 2.4x
I 11:02:16 Link Size: Auto
I 11:02:16 Lock Volume: Yes
I 11:02:16 Test Mode: No
I 11:02:16 OPC: No
I 11:02:16 BURN-Proof: Enabled
W 11:02:16 Write Speed Miscompare! - Wanted: 3,324 KB/s (2.4x), Got: 5,540 KB/s (4x)
I 11:02:16 Optimal L0 Data Zone Capacity: 1,913,760
I 11:02:16 Optimal L0 Data Zone Method: Copied From Original Disc
I 11:03:20 Set L0 Data Zone Capacity Succeeded!
I 11:03:20 Filling Buffer... (40 MB)
I 11:03:20 Writing LeadIn...
I 11:03:22 Writing Session 1 of 1... (1 Track, LBA: 0 - 3827487)
I 11:03:22 Writing Track 1 of 1... (MODE1/2048, LBA: 0 - 3827487)
I 11:03:22 Writing Layer 0... (LBA: 0 - 1913759)
I 11:15:10 Writing Layer 1... (LBA: 1913760 - 3827487)
I 11:26:59 Synchronising Cache...
I 11:27:13 Closing Track...
I 11:27:17 Finalising Disc...
I 11:27:56 Exporting Graph Data...
I 11:27:56 Graph Data File: C:\Users\VeryEvilAsh\AppData\Roaming\ImgBurn\Graph Data Files\PLDS_DVD+-RW_DH-16A6S_YD11_MONDAY-OCTOBER-26-2009_11-02_AM_RITEK-S04-66_2.4x.ibg
I 11:27:56 Export Successfully Completed!
I 11:27:56 Operation Successfully Completed! - Duration: 00:25:40
I 11:27:56 Average Write Rate: 5,406 KB/s (3.9x) - Maximum Write Rate: 5,572 KB/s (4.0x)
As you can see, he picked 2.4X as the write speed (the first bold bit). 2.4X isn't supported though, so Imgburn changed that automatically to 4X (the second bold bit). Once the burn is complete, you can see that the average burn speed was 3.9X and the maximum burn speed was 4X (the third bold bit). I'm sure lots of people are doing this without even noticing - selecting 2.4X, but the drive is actually burning at 4X because 2.4X isn't even a supported speed.
So there's proof that you were absolutely wrong about that, but as I said, I am not willing to burn discs at 2.4X and 8X just so I can scan them and show you the results because I know that 2.4X gives worse results on my drive as I've already done those tests, so I'd be wasting a disc. You can be as stubborn about this as you want to be, but you'll always be wrong.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 28. October 2009 @ 11:35
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
|
qwert99
Senior Member
|
28. October 2009 @ 11:37 |
Link to this message
|
dred's head after reading funksoul's post:
|
|
WJ99
Senior Member
|
28. October 2009 @ 11:40 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by qwert99:
dred's head after reading funksoul's post:
That is absolutely vile.
|
|
qwert99
Senior Member
|
28. October 2009 @ 11:42 |
Link to this message
|
|
Hey now, I'll not tolerate you talking about dred like that, WJ! ;)
|
|
Ohyu
Junior Member
|
28. October 2009 @ 14:35 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by dred05:
posted by Ohyu
Quote:
Are there any compatibility issues when a IDE to SATA converter are used with the 115d?
there will be no real advantage for the burner, a SATA burner is faster than an IDE. the converter doesn't change this, all it does is to connect an IDE (older) burner onto a SATA port onto the (newer) motherboard in your PC.
The only reason I ask if for cable management. I hate the huge chunky IDE cords thats all. Thanks for your help!
|
|
dred05
Suspended permanently
|
28. October 2009 @ 17:23 |
Link to this message
|
posted by funksoulb
Quote:
I don't see 2.4X on that list. Do you?
I can see 8x, but there is also a delta symbol next to it which implies there are other burn speed to select ..
posted by funksoulb
Quote:
If you want to believe that 2.4X is the best speed for everyone then that's fine, but don't go spreading that misinformation around the forum, because it's not true and other people might believe you.
It's rather amusing that you contradict your own in this sentence, but cut the crap I won't standing firm behind this burn theory if I didn't believe it myself.
|
Senior Member
|
28. October 2009 @ 17:27 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by dred05:
I can see 8x, but there is also a delta symbol next to it which implies there are other burn speed to select ..
LOL. Have you even read my posts?
ImgBurn can only burn at the SUPPORTED SPEEDS for the particular disc you're burning. Look at the image I posted. The supported speeds are 4X, 6X and 8X. What you select from the drop down list in ImgBurn does not matter if it's not a supported speed. If you select 2.4X, then ImgBurn will simply change that to 4X because it's the nearest supported speed. That's why I posted that section of ImgBurn log above, because it shows that happening: -
The user selected 2.4X: -
Quote:
I 11:02:16 Write Speed: 2.4x
2.4X is NOT a supported speed on his drive (just like it's not a supported speed on my drive) so ImgBurn choose the closest supported speed: -
Quote:
W 11:02:16 Write Speed Miscompare! - Wanted: 3,324 KB/s (2.4x), Got: 5,540 KB/s (4x)
So, he selected 2.4X, but the disc was burned at 4X: -
Quote:
I 11:27:56 Average Write Rate: 5,406 KB/s (3.9x) - Maximum Write Rate: 5,572 KB/s (4.0x)
LOOK. READ. COMPREHEND. LOL.
Please, just stop posting. Your understanding of this topic is non-existent and even when I spend time breaking it down for you in detail, your replies only show that you simply don't understand. That's fine, but don't pretend that you know what you're talking about. You're misleading people and pretending to be something that you're not. STOP IT.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 28. October 2009 @ 17:36
|
|
dred05
Suspended permanently
|
28. October 2009 @ 17:41 |
Link to this message
|
posted by funksoulb
Quote:
Have you even read my posts?
Yes, I actually have ..
posted by funksoulb
Quote:
Look at the image I posted.
Yes, I have looked at it and came to the conclusion that there must be other burn speed to select ..
Quote:
W 11:02:16 Write Speed Miscompare! - Wanted: 3,324 KB/s (2.4x), Got: 5,540 KB/s (4x)
I guess this one slipped through my attention, for the misunderstanding ..
EDIT: I did a little research on the internet (CDRLabs)
funksoulb owns two DVD burners:
Sony NEC Optiarc AD-7200S]
http://www.cdrlabs.com/Reviews/sony-nec-.../All-Pages.html
and
Sony Optiarc AD-7240S 24x
http://www.cdrlabs.com/Reviews/sony-opti...m/Features.html
both of them burners support 2,4x burn speed for DVD+DL ..
posted by funksoulb
Quote:
W 11:02:16 Write Speed Miscompare! - Wanted: 3,324 KB/s (2.4x), Got: 5,540 KB/s (4x)
you're a creature of low-life funksoulb.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 28. October 2009 @ 18:12
|
|
qwert99
Senior Member
|
28. October 2009 @ 18:54 |
Link to this message
|
|
I am starting to love dred like the mentally retarded brother that steals your car and wrecks it. Sure, he causes problems and is incredibly stubborn in his opinions even though he is clueless. But still... how can you not love him?
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 28. October 2009 @ 18:54
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
Senior Member
|
28. October 2009 @ 19:40 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by dred05:
posted by funksoulb
Quote:
Have you even read my posts?
Yes, I actually have ..
posted by funksoulb
Quote:
Look at the image I posted.
Yes, I have looked at it and came to the conclusion that there must be other burn speed to select ..
Quote:
W 11:02:16 Write Speed Miscompare! - Wanted: 3,324 KB/s (2.4x), Got: 5,540 KB/s (4x)
I guess this one slipped through my attention, for the misunderstanding ..
EDIT: I did a little research on the internet (CDRLabs)
funksoulb owns two DVD burners:
Sony NEC Optiarc AD-7200S]
http://www.cdrlabs.com/Reviews/sony-nec-.../All-Pages.html
and
Sony Optiarc AD-7240S 24x
http://www.cdrlabs.com/Reviews/sony-opti...m/Features.html
both of them burners support 2,4x burn speed for DVD+DL ..
posted by funksoulb
Quote:
W 11:02:16 Write Speed Miscompare! - Wanted: 3,324 KB/s (2.4x), Got: 5,540 KB/s (4x)
you're a creature of low-life funksoulb.
I've explained this in depth in the other thread. Unfortunately for you, your response is merely the result of your almost non-existent knowledge on this topic and you've only made yourself look silly again. Check the other thread for full details on why: -
http://forums.afterdawn.com/t.cfm/f-152/...uld_get-809932/
|
|
