What burn speed to use on cd for image files

[bham]

I thought I had seen it once said somewhere here before that a max of 8x speed should be used for image files. Something to do with the fact that the faster you go with the speed the less the laser is exposed to the disk.

I had a slow burner like 4x speed so I didn't worry about it. I am upgrading so need to know. Thanks.

[wxwax]

:scratch

That's a new one on me. Here's the first mention I found from a quick Google.

Firms like MKM and Verbatim have developed significantly improved, more sensitive and more stable dyes and reflective materials that virtually eliminate data loss during high-speed read/write processes and enhance long-term reliability.

Source (http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/specsformats/CDDVDlongevity.php)

[bham]

:scratch

That's a new one on me. Here's the first mention I found from a quick Google.



Source (http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/specsformats/CDDVDlongevity.php)Maybe it wasn't hear I heard it. The more I think about it, the more I think it was when I got into a discussion with a professional photographer this summer in Charleston, SC. Thanks for the info though. I figure with all these photographers here, almost all shooting digital exclusively this may be an important topic, and somebody may have some good info (personal experience, personal nightmare, etc.) to share.

[luckyrwe]

Never faster than 16x here.

[ridetwistyroads]

Never thought about it untill now, concerning data. But in the recording studio we always burn ref. cd's at 1x. I can actually hear the differance (and no, I'm not nuts, the other engineer can too...) More bits, better bits, sumthing like that? For data, I suppose the same may apply, but possibly to a lesser degree? :scratch

[luckyrwe]

Slower burn speeds are to me like leaving the print for some extra time in the fixer. :):

[Nikolai]

I thought I had seen it once said somewhere here before that a max of 8x speed should be used for image files. Something to do with the fact that the faster you go with the speed the less the laser is exposed to the disk.

I had a slow burner like 4x speed so I didn't worry about it. I am upgrading so need to know. Thanks.
I'm using a plethora of burners, both at work and at home, both external and internal. Speed range between x24 and x52. Actual speed (mostly limited by the media) varied from x4 to x48. While having occasional problems, 95% of all burns work fine regardless of the speed used. But being able to burn a CD (and lately DVD) in under 4 minutes rather that half an hour makes all the difference:-).

A lot depends on the s/w, too. I had problems with sonic and roxio. Nero is my current burning tool, seems to work best in my case.

HTH

[mslammers]

I also had trouble with Roxio, Nero has solved whatever the problem was and I let it determine burn speed. As I remember, quality CDs have info encoded that sets the speed if your s/w reads and heeds. Nero seems to do that. What is nice is Nero also tells you what the burn speed is that it is using. I also like that you can set a Verification of Burn in Nero.:thumb

[mercphoto]

Never thought about it untill now, concerning data. But in the recording studio we always burn ref. cd's at 1x. I can actually hear the differance (and no, I'm not nuts, the other engineer can too...) More bits, better bits, sumthing like that? For data, I suppose the same may apply, but possibly to a lesser degree? :scratch

Well, I'm a guy who owns a $2400 CD player at home (Arcam CD23T), so I can certainly understand hearing a difference in audio. However, hearing a diff at 1X burn versus 40X burn can only be due error correction kicking in. It would be a case of more correct bits (better bits, using your terminology above).

However, if you burn and verify the burn then honestly there should be no difference in sound.

As per which is better for long-term archiving of digital files I don't know if anyone really knows the life expectancy of optical media. Personally I'm more worried about the life expectancy of the file system used, or the file format (hence why we should all like the idea of Adobe DNG), or the operating system, or the disc interface... You get the idea.

Do I really care if my gold archival quality CD-R has a life expectancy of 80 years? I highly doubt we will be reading that media then. We will have moved on, and the data on the CD-R will have been transferred to a new media. Film guys have a much easier time at archiving than we do.