Slashdot Mirror
First 16x DVD+R Recording Tests Available
An anonymous reader submits "CD Freaks.com has made a first preview of 16x DVD recording. Many people wondered if 16x DVD recording would be too fast
and data could not be delivered by the hard disk. The first tests show that this is not a real problem. 16x DVD recording means that a DVD disk is written in about 6 minutes
. The test drive, a BenQ DW1600, also supports dual layer writing and writing at 16x to 8x media."
I've already overclocked my DVD burner. It now burns stuff I haven't even downloaded yet.
Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.
I doubt I could play UT while burning to a DVD at 16x.
You would need basically a dedicated machine for DVD burning at that speed.
they had an SATA raid 0 array. What about us people whos boxen still only has a single ata 100 or 133?
My porn backups will be able to keep up with my downloads...
At the end of the page:
"It is not possible to react on this item."
It's mostly marketing, those are rated speeds, so if you burn above those and bad things happen, the company isn't responsible. But it SHOULD work with lower rated discs.
<jedi> There is something funny here. You laugh. </jedi>
sometimes, spining a cd to fast will warp the disk causeing an uneven burn or even break it so if the increase the speed sturdier disks have to be made, but I think for only double the spead it shouldn't affect it to much.
Heh. Things have progressed a bit since the 2x CD-R days. What probably happened was that your drive just wasn't able to distinguish the pits in the CD your friend burned.
;-)
I have an older (5-6 years old) laptop whose CD-ROM drive can't read all the discs I burn. It can read most any silver that I give it, though. I'm guessing it's just that the laser isn't able to "see" the pits my CDRW burns (it's an 8x4x32, so it's rather old, too.)
BTW, if you burn audio discs at 16x, do they play at that speed?
Withdrawal before climax is very ineffective and those who try this are usually called "parents."
Come on guys, not everyone has raid with two fast drives, last I'd checked a lot of consumer pcs still ship with 5400 drives. This bottleneck may indeed be a problem with burning 16x dvds on the average system.
WikiAfterDark.com It's a sex wiki, go now!
in that if you burn at a faster rate than a different reader can read, the DVD cannot be read. I know a while back when I had a blazing 2x cd ROM, my friend burned me something on a 4x, but alas, I couldn't read it. Needless to say I was pissed...
No, and CDs don't work like that either. The situation you describe was an isolated incident. Even a 1x DVD reader (e.g., a DVD player) can read a 16x-burned CD. In fact, there should be no physical difference between a DVD burned at 1x and one burned at 16x.
Actually there is a little more then that when it comes to CD-RW (most) and DVD discs. Drives actually detect what speed the media is rated at, so if you have a 1x DVD-R disc, you can only write to it at 1x, other speed options will be unavailable.
With CDs having reached (essentially) the physical limits of the media at 52x burning speed - it is my understanding the discs will destruct at higher RPM's - has the speed of DVD burning neared its physical limit as well?
A quick back-of-the-envelope calculation tells me that DVDs shouldn't be burnable much faster than 16x... does anyone know anything more about this? Maybe DVDs are more durable than CDs?
Horrible 'brand'. Once worked in a computer store for a while. We sold about 20 of their TFTs before we figured out that the three we had on display were showing serious signs of wear. After being on display for just two months. That, coupled with the two we already sent back for replacement, ( One simply didn't work, another one auto-adjusted the screen about 15cm too far to the right. ) make me glad I wasn't working there anymore when all those BenQ monitors started to fail on our customers.
Anyways, let BenQ take the brunt of a new tech. If I'd want a 16x dvd+-rw drive so badly, I'd wait for very good quality ( Plextor ) or a good medium between quality and price. ( NEC ) And yes, those of you who are interested can take that as a hint.
Hate me!
I jumped on the CDR bandwagon a bit early, and god burned by it. The drive I bought ruined discs far too often, in the days where they weren't $.20 a piece. Yet there was no hope for a return, because that was the 'nature of CD burning'. I won't make the same mistake with DVD burners, I advise all to wait a year or two.
am i gonna need a kevlar blanket to drape over my damn box just in case a faulty disc explodes?
Serenity now, insanity later.
1. Unless you have a smoking hard drive you're not gonna see 16X speeds (ATA hard drive? you wish)
2. Unless your PC is relatively fast as well, in addition to a good deal of RAM (as in their test system) it's also not going to happen.
3. And an IMPORTANT note: Don't get caught up in the craze of getting the newest thing, this will probably cost an unholy amount when it comes out, and the requirements will be really high, which will add to the price as well. I have a 4X DVDRW and although it isn't anywhere near as fast, I don't need godly system specs to use it. And neither do I need to drop anything else I'm doing. Also note that on a lesser system that they tested it with you will see significantly slower writing.
Hope you found this helpful.
The average write speed on this drive barely qualifies it as a 12x drive. Claiming this is a 16x drive is silly.
8x drives typically pull in average write speeds of 0.4 to 0.6 x lower than their rated spec (Like the 7.44x quoted in this article)... but THIS drive is pulling 4.7x lower than it's rated spec. It's burning at 11.32x... In my mind, that classifies this drive as a 12x, NOT a 16x.
Economics! Supply and Demand.
When there was a short supply of DVD-r 4x media, it costs more as a result of short supply. There wasnt much demand, so no reason to have a large supply. As demand increased, supply increased and you had a lowering in price.
wow!
Sorry to burst your bubble, but they most certainly do.
It most certainly could be that an old drive can't read discs burned by newer, faster drives. The older drives may be less fault tolerant. Pre-pressed discs could be ok but a disc burned too fast could have pits just slightly too close together or too far apart that confuse the older drive.
I have seen this happen with CDs on more than one occasion. Slowing down the burn speed made a disc usable by the older drive. Think PSX backups.
In fact, there should be no..
Should being the key word.
A Wise man whose name I can't remember once said: In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.
There are two kinds of people: 1) those that need closure
how often do people burn an entire DVD?
;o)
Any time anybody wants to back up a sizeable portion of their system. Which people ought to be doing fairly regularly, right?
If you burn so many that speed matters you probably shouldn't be using a consumer solution anyway.
You might have a point here... though it's not that "lost time" that matters. It's the perception of that lost time that matters. Nobody I know says "Oh, it's 'bout time I backed up my system. Let's go eat lunch while the DVD burns." Instead, they stare down that little progress bar. Then that additional burning time makes a difference.
I jumped on the CDR bandwagon a bit early, and god burned by it.
Perhaps if you hadn't been stealing music or archiving pr0n, God wouldn't have felt it necessary to smite you with fire for your actions.
So... for DVDs to be able to spin at faster speeds, the discs (and drives) will have to be manufactured to very high specs. Very slight variations in the roundness of the disc would cause enough vibration to break the disc. A non-round or off-center hole in the middle would also cause this problem.
-- If you can read this, you are too close to my signature.
"To achieve 2.4x high-speed writing, Verbatim DVD+R utilises a patented Metal Azo dye as the recording layer."
Verbatim: Verbatim Announces 4.7GB DVD+R Discs
Taking stuff apart since 1969 (TM)