Burning CDs ...

[SuckMikeHawk23 10+ year member]

wtf? 1x???? how long does that take?

Click to read more...

 

[Alphafrog1 10+ year member]

Originally posted by SuckMikeHawk23 wtf? 1x???? how long does that take?

80 minutes.... and it sounds just as good as a store-bought cd

 

[Savant 10+ year member]

I'd have to say a lot of it has to do with the original image you create from the original CD.. I mean, comon.. data CDs have to be perfect.. PERFECT.. audio doesn't have to be as perfect.. I burn out data CDs at 24x on occasion, 16x most often.. As long as you have good data to start with it shouldn't matter what speed you burn at .. that is, if you copy the original CD to your hard-drive as an image of somekind (music, data, whathaveyou) you should be able to push it to CD as fast as you can (granted, full speed might not burn well, but that's the case for data as well, and I've almost never had issues with data disks at high burn speed)..

Just my observation/understanding..

 

[Savant 10+ year member]

Well, I can't argue with you as i've never actually burned audio CDs.. never had a need to.. But, I can engage in an experiment if you like //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif

I can only tell you the theory of it all (I'm a computer science guy..)... Data has to be perfect as a few errant bits makes the whole chunk of data (possibly the entire disk if your bad spot is up front) worthless..

Are you talking about running CD music into MP3 format? you keep talking about bit rates but that makes no sense if you are 'duplicating' an audio CD.. you should be able to use burning software and get an exact image of the input CD, then burn at any speed and have an exact copy.. *shrug*

Again, I've never copied audio CDs so I can't offer any factual comparisons, only what I know about how computers are 'supposed' to work.. based on that, you should be able to get CD qual at fast burn speeds.. *shrug*

 

[jer_stud56 10+ year member]

i have a max of X4 burner... i usually download 192 kbps songs... and burn them all at X4 cuz thats all the faster it'll go... never knew that the slower it went the better it would sound. oh well i am very satisfied with the X4, but maybe ill try a X1... 120 mins is a long time though!!! (depending on the length of the cd, 80 or 74)

 

[BonusBobo 10+ year member]

I guess I'll have to disagree with you on this one, Jmac. I'm sure a great deal of this is opinionative, that's why I'm taking my liberty to disagree. I burn just about all my CD's at 32x, and have yet to find a flaw in any of them, besides that the files I download are sometimes not good quality. I rip my CDs at 192, burn at 32x (most of the time) and find no different in quality. To some degree, it might be that my ears are different just as our tastes probably are, but I think I speak for the general (maybe a little unaware) group when I say I can't tell the difference with a nice burner.

 

[Savant 10+ year member]

Originally posted by jer_stud56 i have a max of X4 burner... i usually download 192 kbps songs... and burn them all at X4 cuz thats all the faster it'll go... never knew that the slower it went the better it would sound. oh well i am very satisfied with the X4, but maybe ill try a X1... 120 mins is a long time though!!! (depending on the length of the cd, 80 or 74)

Ahh.. see, here is a HUGE difference.. if you are downloading someone elses stuff you have no idea how good (or bad) their sampling is.. that being the case, slower burning 'might' help because you might have a little less data loss (the more you lose the crapier it sounds).. But, if you are 'copying' your own CDs, you can make an image from the origianl (don't sample it, don't use a 'ripper', use something that takes a full image of the CD) and it will be fine no matter what speed you burn it out.. Now, if you are cutting tracks and custom building CDs, I can't say what will happen for what (cause, as I said, I have no experience with that)..

 

[Corsica 5,000+ posts]

Jmac I got ya back man. I have a 1x burner. My boy has same comp and a 16x burner. I made a CD @ his pad. Same songs as I have @ my place (he got tha tunes from me). Ne ways @ 1 x it seems louder, less distortioned the notes seem more "Cd accurate". Everything just seems better.

J

 

[dbhittin 5,000+ posts]

Ive have not noticed a difference when coping cds at 32x on mine. But, when i download songs is the only time they sound bad. They wouldn't come out with fast burners if it makes it bad in the end. Trust me, it sounds the same

 

[dbhittin 5,000+ posts]

i dont wanna start ****, im just saying i dont notice a difference, and dont have the time to do a 1x or 2x. As long as it sounds good to me, its all good. But, tomorrow i will try it and see and see if i change my mind

 

[BonusBobo 10+ year member]

do sony head units sound bad too? I figured it was just the speakers/amps.

 

[Savant 10+ year member]

I'm just gonna say that in a digital world with bits as the basis of all being, it shouldn't matter how fast you burn it out. But, that also depends on the software you are using to get/put the image.. I have Neo 5.someshti and I've not seen an issue with it.. I have CloneCD 4.somethingelse and it works great.. I have somthing else I don't recall at the moment and it's pretty ok most of the time too..

I'm just saying, if you have an app that reads bit for bit from a CD, then writes bit for bit what it has in the file.. speed isn't an issue (or, shouldn't be 99.9% of the time)..

The only time I've ever seen an issue is when someone has modified a source image of a hacked .. and even then, only twice out of 50+ burns..

*shrug*

 

[bass_mekanik 10+ year member]

the only time i can notice a dif in sound quaity even in a home reference system is if the cd was burnt from mp3 or any sort, or a cd copied from another copy speed makes a dif if you use mp3's but direct copy's are exactly the same as what the original was.

 

[CarAudioAddict 10+ year member]

WTF???????????????//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/confused.gif.e820e0216602db4765798ac39d28caa9.gif //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/confused.gif.e820e0216602db4765798ac39d28caa9.gif //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/confused.gif.e820e0216602db4765798ac39d28caa9.gif //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/confused.gif.e820e0216602db4765798ac39d28caa9.gif

Changing the speed at which a CD is burnt has absolutely no effect on how it sounds. All changing the speed does is increase the spinning rate of the disc, and the speed at which the laser is turned on and off.

The data is still stored as 1's and 0's. Where the difference really comes into effect is the original's quality. If you burn a cd with two MP3's, the first @ 92Kbps and another @320Kbps, you will notice a difference

Now take the 320Kbps Mp3 and burn it to two different disks, one @ 1X and the other @ 32X, chances are you will not be able to hear a difference, why becaus ethe two cd's are IDENTICLE.

Now burning CD's, playing games, and doing other things all at the same time will change the quality of the burn, because the computer isn't putting as much CPU time into it, and because there will be power fluctuations as you perform other tasks.

But just simply burning at a faster rate of speed - NO DIFFERENCE

 

[BonusBobo 10+ year member]

jmac thinks so. and I believe he won't budge. I have yet to see any difference, so I"m somewhat in agreement, but I haven't experimented with cd burning speeds as extensively as jmac has, so his word is better than my own.

 

[TheGrimReaperKD 10+ year member]

Buy the CD's you cheap bastard! LOL

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/biggrin.gif.d71a5d36fcbab170f2364c9f2e3946cb.gif

 

[Ozone Blue 10+ year member]

Here's how the burner works, and here's why SOMETIMES it matters what speed you're burning at and SOMETIMES it doesn't...

The way CD burners work, once they have started to burn a CD at a given speed they cannot stop until it is completely done. So, what has to happen is that when the computer gives the "go" command to the burner, it has to have the music data ready to spit out to the burner and it has to keep supplying a steady stream of it to the burner at the correct speed. Now, what can happen if you're computer is slow / you have crappy burning software / you're doing a bunch of other stuff on the computer at the same time is that the computer gets bogged down and can't keep up with the burner. That's when the burner is forced to basically cut corners with the quality of the music. So, when Jmac says you can "hear the clicks" it's probably a blip on the CD caused by the computer having to do something instead of keeping up with the burner.

Solutions?

1) Burn at lower speeds.

2) Quit everything else you might have running BEFORE you start burning.

3) Don't do ANYTHING while it's burning.

4) Turn screensavers / energy saver off (time counting mechanism they run is a system performance hit)

I burn CD's all the time at 32x, but when I click go I just let my computer sit there and don't touch it until it's done. I've never had any problems.

Mike

 

[lamontjersey 10+ year member]

i always burn my bootleg stolen off the internet mp3's at 24x, which is the maximum speed of my burner. icant say that i have noticed a difference, but then again i wasnt trying to find any differences....maybe you guys are suffering from suggestive whatchamacallit.

i figured digital data is stored in 0's and 1's. the lazer shines on the disk, the light is picked up and the zeros and ones get converted to analog. its like, the disk will contain 011111011110111010011 i dont see how burning the disk will effect the numbers, but, maybe a cd will play even if some of the numbers cant be read correctly, that would make sense as far as distortion, maybe when the lazer cant read it as a zero or one it skips it and that is distortion, just like when you have a scratch on your cd you hear it. i hear on this radio show aboutcomputers that sometimes a computer cant read a burned image and the only way to rectify the problem is to burn it slower.

i guess everybody is right.

ps, i never buy cds, they started out over priced, they rip off the stupid artists who sign their money away chasing after fame because certain record companies keep the door locked to new acts so that they can maximize the profit on their current acts, so i say FUKC the record companies, 5 cent cd selling for 21 dollars, kiss my asss.

 

[Ozone Blue 10+ year member]

Originally posted by Jmac K, I believe I already typed some of this but ...

 

1) I restart every time I go to burn a CD

2) I never, ever run programs in the background.

3) I have 96% free resources every time I restart.

4) I've tried it with several burning programs (Easy CD Creator Platinum, Nero, and the wide array of programs used by my friends.)

5) I wouldn't say that a 1.2 GHz T-Bird with 512 MB of DDR266 with dual 7200 RPM HDDs (Non-RAID set-up) is slow. I know this since I run mid-5000s on 3DMark2001 SE with a GeForce4 MX440 ...

6) Most of my friends computers have been designed and/or set-up by myself, personnally, so I know that their computers run fast (Faster than mine, in most cases, since they have faster processors.)

What version of Windows are you running, out of curiosity? Some versions - NT, XP - are better than others.

 

[ngsm13 5,000+ posts]

I have over 1200 mp3s, and i'm not about to have them all @ 320kbps...that's just too big and unneeded! for everyday listening...160kbps is fine...no if i wanna go to a competition or something for SQ...then definetly 320kbps, but for everyday listening iit doesn't matter. PLUS, there's no fukkin way i'm about wait 1.5-2 hours to burn one CD...fukk that. I guess if ur an audiophile...then it may make a diff, but 4 me...music is my life...if i have it at at least 128-160kbps(downloading) it's fine. I do rip all my CDs @192 though. SO, i think it's all a matter of opinion...since neither person has proven FOR A FACT that they are right. SO, i'm in the middle

NG