Burn speed??? Does it matter?
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Other music related lounges
Forum Name: Tech Talk
Forum Description: Discuss musical instruments, equipment, hi-fi, speakers, vinyl, gadgets,etc.
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=63013
Printed Date: December 04 2024 at 02:42
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Burn speed??? Does it matter?
Posted By: Drew
Subject: Burn speed??? Does it matter?
Date Posted: November 20 2009 at 22:41
When Itunes asks you what speed you want to create an audio CD- does it matter what speed you choose? Will maximum speed vs. say, 8x speed create a slight difference in sound? Why does part of me feel that the slower you choose, the better the CD may sound? This probably sounds ludicrous. 
------------- |
Replies:
Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: November 20 2009 at 22:53
Don't listen to that part of you.  |
Drew wrote:Posted By: Drew
Date Posted: November 20 2009 at 22:57
 ------------- |
Posted By: mystic fred
Date Posted: November 21 2009 at 00:42
It is true - slower burn speeds are better for audio files, but picture files are unaffected - i have heard this from a number of IT technicians, though burning audio files onto a CD can eventually become unstable however slowly you burn them, recently i took my collection of 500 burned CD's to the dump as they were becoming unstable after about 8 or 10 years .  -------------  Prog Archives Tour Van 
|
Posted By: CPicard
Date Posted: November 21 2009 at 08:08
|
I thought the burning speed was just a matter of mecanical security when burning CD-R, in order to avoid a failure in this process? |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: November 21 2009 at 12:12
^ this is true Cedric, it is also possible that slower burn speeds can produce flawed data structures on the CD surface. Trial and error is the best way of identifying the optimum burn-speed for your set-up.
Burn speed in itself cannot affect audio quality because the quality of the audio in the encoded files remains unchanged. What you get is difficulty in reading the digital data, causing the post-processing software/hardware to interpolate more of the missing data until such a point is reached that the data cannot be reconstructed and you get a drop-out. While this is annoying and can result in the disc skipping, glitching or sticking - the sound quality remains unchanged.
Faster burn speeds require the transport to spin the disc faster and the laser to switch on and off faster - this can cause the pits (digital "zeros") in the dye surface to become less well defined, resulting in difficulty in reading or misreading of the data. (for example a 1100011 code could be seen as either 1110011 or 1000011). However, manufactures of both the transport and the media would not specify either of them as being capable of achieving those speeds if they resulted in unreadable data.
Degradation of CDRs is a known problem and they should not be used for archiving - degradation of the aluminium coating due to chemical reaction with the bonding agents, UV degradation of the dyes used (the old "green" cyanine ones are particularly bad), attack of the polycarbonate layer due to stick-on labels and marker-pens, attack of the lacquer layer due to ingress of oxygen and air-borne polutants and micro-scratches on the surface diffusing the read-laser all result in giving CDRs a limited life-span. Glass pressed CDs and DVDs are less prone to this (but not immune) and are more reliable in the long term, but they also have limited life.
(see: http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub121/sec4.html - http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub121/sec4.html ) ------------- What? |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: November 21 2009 at 13:35
|
I haven't burned a CD or DVD in more than three years ... who needs this today, with USB sticks and memory cards? Even a friend of mine who is totally "non-geeky" recently got a new car that has a SD card interface for transfering audio. So: find a way to get rid of the need for CD-R ... you'll also help protecting the environment by producing less plastic garbage. ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: npjnpj
Date Posted: November 23 2009 at 07:54
|
I've often asked myself this, good question.
@mystic fred: If you say CDs become unstable after eight to ten years, does this happen just after they've been in use for that time, or does it also happen if they're just stored? Probably after use, but you never know?
|
Posted By: mystic fred
Date Posted: November 23 2009 at 09:03
i had stored them in proper storage folders, but some discs worked and some didn't, they would skip and jump, sometimes the cd player would not be able to "find" the disc at all, though the same player worked with some cd copies.
I had a revision of my cd copies collection, threw all the copies away, replaced some with remastered factory issues and some with used vinyl records. ------------- Prog Archives Tour Van
|
Posted By: mono
Date Posted: November 23 2009 at 10:35
|
The slower you burn, the surer you are that your CD will be played correctly by the host. (Very) old CD players often can't read CDs that are burnt too fast. I had to burn in 4x for my Walkman Sony (the first one) to be able to (sometimes) read my CDs. If it's regular data, go full speed. If it's something that needs real time like audio and video, burn slow. 8x is generally well read everywhere. ------------- https://soundcloud.com/why-music Prog trio, from ambiant to violence https://soundcloud.com/m0n0-film Film music and production projects https://soundcloud.com/fadisaliba (almost) everything else |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: November 23 2009 at 11:06
They decay even when not used at all - but I guess that heavy usage accelerates the problem, since the discs can get quite hot (particularly in a computer drive). ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: November 26 2009 at 06:07
| The lower the better. So 1X is the best, and it's even better to do it on an audiophile home burner. |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: November 26 2009 at 06:13
Also, what difference can a "audiophile" home burner possibly make? ------------- What? |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: November 26 2009 at 06:51
|
^ it burns the pits more exactly, resulting in a smoother sound (less harsh). ;-) ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: November 26 2009 at 06:58
I've had the same problems. Now I follow advice that Mr Progfreak gave me (before he became a freak ) and copy all my cds in lossless format to external hard drives. |
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: November 26 2009 at 07:00
Let's not go down that alley again!  If Oliver believes it and it makes him happy and gives him comfort then what's the harm? At least audiophiles dont stone people or burn them at the stake... |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: November 26 2009 at 09:29
Oh yeah? I was molested by an audiophile. Of course everything on any media will degrade over time. All my bought CDs are still working fine as near as I can tell. I do have some CDs I made copying LPs. I still have those that have been subsequently replaced with bought CDs. It may be fun to check them out periodically as the best test of time is a test of time. Really fascinated by the ability we now have of totally digital storage of music. Is this the end of the degradation problem? I'm old enough to remember when a 1 gig hard drive was huge. ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: November 26 2009 at 09:49
Exactly |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: November 26 2009 at 10:10
nice one Mike  ------------- What? |
Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: November 26 2009 at 10:13
The laser beam is gold plated.  |
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: November 27 2009 at 05:24
| Digital is a very complex technology which doesn't sum up to a following of 0 and 1. There are jitter issues, among others, and an audiophile burner enables to reduce those issues. |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: November 27 2009 at 05:31
|
Jitter is indeed an issue that affects the SNR of the reconstituted analogue signal and therefore is something that is easily measured and identified empirically. Figures for clock jitter on the ADCs and DACs are well documented (and mathematically predictable - SNR = 20 × log [1/(π × input frequency × Tj)] where Tj=jitter time). Any figures you have for audiophile burners would be of interest to me, especially in comparison with box-standard transports. ------------- What? |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: November 27 2009 at 05:57
Uhm, it was my understanding there weren't going to be any math questions in this thread. ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: XunknownX
Date Posted: May 10 2010 at 20:36
| Oh, yes, I certainly think it does. I burn at 16x, never faster. |
Posted By: WalterDigsTunes
Date Posted: May 10 2010 at 20:43
Not everyone has a new car with USB/SD card interfaces. And heck, some people even use boomboxes to play CD-Rs. |