|
||||||||
|
VideoRoy wrote:One other question though. Some scans show write speed in the graph but I have never been able to do this. I have searched around but did not find the answer.
Is this a function of the drive / firmware or does this show up only if you burned the disc in Nero?
VideoRoy wrote:A few questions to kick this off:
1. There are probably many, many opinions on this, but using CDSpeed what is the preferred speed and read strategy(CLV, CAV, P-CAV) for testing in this forum?
I seem to be one of the few that still scans @ 4x in my DRU710A and DW1655. I have been using CLV since my Liteon based drive did this normally and with CDS 4.50 I can do this on the DW1655 now.
VideoRoy wrote:2. What is the minimum amount of data (MB) that should be on a disc to consider the scan worth posting? I scan a lot of discs but most are not completely full.
VideoRoy wrote:3. With all the tools available what is the preferred tool to scan or does it not really matter? Any we should stay away from?
MediumRare wrote:Nero CD-Speed adds this information if you create a data disc or burn an image (ISO or .NRG). The information is missing for image burns in the latest version (4.50). It's not clear if this is on purpose or by accident.
G
dolphinius_rex wrote:LiteON's: 4x CLV is recommended, 8x CAV would be "ok" but discouraged
BenQ's: 8x CAV is recommended, 4x CAV is "ok", CLV and P-CAV testing is discouraged
...
Plextor: 2x is encouraged, 5x is "ok", 8x and 12x is discouraged
MediumRare wrote:I also have question (of a different nature). I don't normally log on except to post, so I noticed that the attachments here aren't visible unless you're logged on. This is the only forum where this is the case.
Is this on purpose or an unplanned side-effect?
dodecahedron wrote:dolphinius_rex wrote:LiteON's: 4x CLV is recommended, 8x CAV would be "ok" but discouraged
BenQ's: 8x CAV is recommended, 4x CAV is "ok", CLV and P-CAV testing is discouraged
...
Plextor: 2x is encouraged, 5x is "ok", 8x and 12x is discouraged
can you explain why?
how did you come up with these specs
burninfool wrote:Thanks for the info Dolph,if everybody tested with the same settings then it would give more reliable results.
dolphinius_rex wrote:I tend to be against the use of P-CAV and CLV because BenQ drives were designed to be CAV testing units.
Gabe wrote:I make all tests with 2 different scanners, the Benq 1640 and LiteOn 1653S. Should I post scans from both drives?
dodecahedron wrote:dolphinius_rex wrote:I tend to be against the use of P-CAV and CLV because BenQ drives were designed to be CAV testing units.
can you clarify?
Gabe wrote:I make all tests with 2 different scanners, the Benq 1640 and LiteOn 1653S. Should I post scans from both drives?
Ian wrote:No, but I made it for the GSA-H10L by accident. Here it is:
http://www.cdrlabs.com/phpBB/viewtopic. ... 488#154488
Return to Writing Quality Results
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests
All Content is Copyright (c) 2001-2025 CDRLabs Inc. |