Nero 6.x Run on Win7?

[Gene E. Bloch]

ImgBurn, to me, does a lot more validity checks than most. The burn speed
control is
beyond reproach. I burn with conservative speeds and have never made
"coasters".
I have settled on Verbatim Media as my default disks, after years of testing.
I've hit
the developer's "Tip Jar" more than once! YMMV....

Chris

I have no experience or comment on ImgBurn's burning speed; the only
time I've used it recently was the instance I mentioned above.

Since I wondered about a possible effect of buffering, I reran the
experiment just now.

1. Eight days and numerous reboots later, there would be no buffers
hanging around.

2. I also tried two copies today, but this time with CDBurnerXP first
and ImgBurn second.

From the logfile, the original ImgBurn copy ran 12:20; I can't find a
log for CDBurnerXP.

Today, the copies took 3:21 for CDBurnerXP and 5:59 for ImgBurn.

I recall that the CDBurnerXP time was similar to today's number, but I
can't verify that. I don't think it was as fast as I said in my earlier
post.

FC shows the four files to be identical (I don't think I have any
checksum software handy).

 

[Char Jackson]

I have no experience or comment on ImgBurn's burning speed; the only
time I've used it recently was the instance I mentioned above.

Since I wondered about a possible effect of buffering, I reran the
experiment just now.

1. Eight days and numerous reboots later, there would be no buffers
hanging around.

2. I also tried two copies today, but this time with CDBurnerXP first
and ImgBurn second.

From the logfile, the original ImgBurn copy ran 12:20; I can't find a
log for CDBurnerXP.

Today, the copies took 3:21 for CDBurnerXP and 5:59 for ImgBurn.

I recall that the CDBurnerXP time was similar to today's number, but I
can't verify that. I don't think it was as fast as I said in my earlier
post.

FC shows the four files to be identical (I don't think I have any
checksum software handy).

Haven't you left out the most important detail, both this time and
when you wrote about it a few days ago? Inquiring minds want to know
what burning speed you selected, unless this was just a max speed read
operation?

 

[Paul]

FC shows the four files to be identical (I don't think I have any
checksum software handy).

You should be using KProbe or the free Nero Diskspeed,
to scan for error correction information. That's a more
sensitive test of burn quality.

http://images.techtree.com/ttimages/story/101055_nero-discspeed-quality.jpg

Optical media, uses three-dimensional Reed Solomon error correction.
The spatial relationship of the codes, allows you to take a nail and scratch
the media, and still be able to read it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed–Solomon_error_correction

So just checksumming a newly burned CD or DVD, doesn't indicate
the underlying quality. If the graph was up around 10,000 for
the one with the tilt in it (in the example image), at that point
you might notice various checksum errors (i.e. user data is
affected, or the drive just "jams up"). For lower error rates,
you'd get the impression the media is excellent.

The thing is, if you have a high error rate after a burn,
it means there is less margin against aging later. If you
had say 1,000 errors in the top graph (left axis), perhaps
three months from now the disc would be unreadable. It's a good
idea to use *something* to scan the media, so you have
some idea just how well the drive is doing at burning
stuff. Sometimes, an optical drive firmware update,
can fix burn problems with specific media tags.

The idea is, a scanning app reads the "uncorrected" data,
while regular file system calls are getting "corrected" data.
The uncorrected results, warts and all, tells you more
about the burn quality.

From a non-specific Wikipedia article...

"There are several free CD-quality diagnostic programs,
such as PlexTools Professional, Kprobe, and CD-DVD Speed,
which can be used to access the error-statistic information
in a CD/DVD drive and to generate a plot displaying the
variation of the block error rate as function of playtime."

KProbe was coded to access error bits in Liteon drives,
and some people keep particular drives purely for the
ability to use them for error scanning. While Discspeed (CD-DVD Speed)
can give some info, KProbe had the reputation of doing a better
job. I don't know if Discspeed has passed KProbe in capability
or not.

If you really needed a checksum application, Microsoft fciv.exe
is better than nothing. It is command line based.

http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=11533

Paul

 

[choro]

Haven't you left out the most important detail, both this time and
when you wrote about it a few days ago? Inquiring minds want to know
what burning speed you selected, unless this was just a max speed read
operation?

Experiments definitely not done under lab conditions then?! ;-)
Just some figures would have also made it easier for others to
understand the results with a short para giving explanations. Verbosity
killed the cat! Too much meowing and the mouse run away!

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 16:14:08 -0800, Gene E. Bloch


Haven't you left out the most important detail, both this time and
when you wrote about it a few days ago? Inquiring minds want to know
what burning speed you selected, unless this was just a max speed read
operation?

Have you missed the most important detail in my posts? I am *not*
burning, I am creating an ISO file from a DVD.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

Gene E. Bloch wrote:

You should be using KProbe or the free Nero Diskspeed,
to scan for error correction information. That's a more
sensitive test of burn quality.

Optical media, uses three-dimensional Reed Solomon error correction.
The spatial relationship of the codes, allows you to take a nail and scratch
the media, and still be able to read it.

So just checksumming a newly burned CD or DVD, doesn't indicate
the underlying quality. If the graph was up around 10,000 for
the one with the tilt in it (in the example image), at that point
you might notice various checksum errors (i.e. user data is
affected, or the drive just "jams up"). For lower error rates,
you'd get the impression the media is excellent.

The thing is, if you have a high error rate after a burn,
it means there is less margin against aging later. If you
had say 1,000 errors in the top graph (left axis), perhaps
three months from now the disc would be unreadable. It's a good
idea to use *something* to scan the media, so you have
some idea just how well the drive is doing at burning
stuff. Sometimes, an optical drive firmware update,
can fix burn problems with specific media tags.

The idea is, a scanning app reads the "uncorrected" data,
while regular file system calls are getting "corrected" data.
The uncorrected results, warts and all, tells you more
about the burn quality.

From a non-specific Wikipedia article...

"There are several free CD-quality diagnostic programs,
such as PlexTools Professional, Kprobe, and CD-DVD Speed,
which can be used to access the error-statistic information
in a CD/DVD drive and to generate a plot displaying the
variation of the block error rate as function of playtime."

KProbe was coded to access error bits in Liteon drives,
and some people keep particular drives purely for the
ability to use them for error scanning. While Discspeed (CD-DVD Speed)
can give some info, KProbe had the reputation of doing a better
job. I don't know if Discspeed has passed KProbe in capability
or not.

If you really needed a checksum application, Microsoft fciv.exe
is better than nothing. It is command line based.

Paul

All you guys talking about burn quality, when I was *not* burning an
optical disk.

For the nth time: I was making ISO files from a DVD. I don't think I
can use KProbe to probe my hard drive.

The DVD is a manufacturer's pressed DVD; I was making an ISO for
backup. It took so long in ImgBurn that I ran CDBurnerXP for
comparison. I saw an error in my approach and repeated the experiment
differently yesterday. I got different speeds from the two programs
again, but the disparity was half what it was the first time.

 

[Paul]

All you guys talking about burn quality, when I was *not* burning an
optical disk.

For the nth time: I was making ISO files from a DVD. I don't think I can
use KProbe to probe my hard drive.

The DVD is a manufacturer's pressed DVD; I was making an ISO for backup.
It took so long in ImgBurn that I ran CDBurnerXP for comparison. I saw
an error in my approach and repeated the experiment differently
yesterday. I got different speeds from the two programs again, but the
disparity was half what it was the first time.

Believe it or not, an optical drive adjusts read speed,
as a function of error rate. When the drive is "having trouble",
the speed will drop.

If you scan your media, and see the the uncorrected error
rate, you'll be in a better position to judge what is
happening.

*******

That's why there is a "dial-in procedure" for optical
drives, so after you've spent a solid week working these
issues, you don't have to worry about it in the future.
You find a spindle of media that works well, and you no
longer have to do error scans. At least, until trouble
shows up some day, and one of your lasers dies.

While the speed is adjusted automatically, there is
also a "profile" the drive speed follows. Some terms
for this are CAV, CLV, and ZCAV. These affect the
overall shape of the speed curve for an optical drive.
If the drive is having problems, that only
subtracts from the profile.

As an example, let's take a picture from here.

http://www.cdrinfo.com/sections/reviews/Print.aspx?ArticleId=12314

Like, this one. This is a dual layer disc.

http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/Articles/Sources/NEC_ND-3520A_Full/Images/reading_DVD/541.png

The read starts near the hub, moves outward to the outer edge of
the media. There is a layer change, then the arm moves from the outside
to the inside. Since the speed is increasing, the drive must
be using CAV in that case (constant angular velocity). As each
rotation covers a different amount of distance, and more data
is flying by on each rotation, when the head is near the
edge of the media.

CLV on the other hand, the speed of the drive (the whining noise)
would be constantly changing, as the drive adjust rotation rate
such that pits travel underneath the optical assembly at a constant
speed.

This is an example of CLV.

http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/Art...3520A_Full/Images/writing_CD/cdspeed_CDRW.png

So those are the basic curves. But when errors are present,
the drive will stray from the profile, in an attempt to
give (corrected) perfect data.

Paul

 

[Char Jackson]

Have you missed the most important detail in my posts? I am *not*
burning, I am creating an ISO file from a DVD.

The most important detail would be the respective speed settings that
you used, no? ;-)

In addition to (read) speed settings, how did you have the programs
configured to behave if/when read errors are encountered? Retry 0
times is much faster than retry X (where X>0) times, for example.

I don't know about CDBurnerXP, but ImgBurn lets you select a read
speed when creating an ISO and a write speed when burning it to disc,
and the speed of the operation is quite dependent upon those settings,
among others. I suspect CDBurnerXP is similar in that regard.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 13:37:10 -0800, Gene E. Bloch

The most important detail would be the respective speed settings that
you used, no? ;-)

In addition to (read) speed settings, how did you have the programs
configured to behave if/when read errors are encountered? Retry 0
times is much faster than retry X (where X>0) times, for example.

I don't know about CDBurnerXP, but ImgBurn lets you select a read
speed when creating an ISO and a write speed when burning it to disc,
and the speed of the operation is quite dependent upon those settings,
among others. I suspect CDBurnerXP is similar in that regard.

OK. I made no adjustments, so I used the default values.

CDBurnerXP: 3 retries, 48x read

ImgBurn: 20 Software retries (2 hardware retries unchecked),
MAX/16x read speed

I hope this doesn't mean I have to do more experiments

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

Gene E. Bloch wrote:

Believe it or not, an optical drive adjusts read speed,
as a function of error rate. When the drive is "having trouble",
the speed will drop.

If you scan your media, and see the the uncorrected error
rate, you'll be in a better position to judge what is
happening.

That's why there is a "dial-in procedure" for optical
drives, so after you've spent a solid week working these
issues, you don't have to worry about it in the future.
You find a spindle of media that works well, and you no
longer have to do error scans. At least, until trouble
shows up some day, and one of your lasers dies.

While the speed is adjusted automatically, there is
also a "profile" the drive speed follows. Some terms
for this are CAV, CLV, and ZCAV. These affect the
overall shape of the speed curve for an optical drive.
If the drive is having problems, that only
subtracts from the profile.

As an example, let's take a picture from here.

Like, this one. This is a dual layer disc.

The read starts near the hub, moves outward to the outer edge of
the media. There is a layer change, then the arm moves from the outside
to the inside. Since the speed is increasing, the drive must
be using CAV in that case (constant angular velocity). As each
rotation covers a different amount of distance, and more data
is flying by on each rotation, when the head is near the
edge of the media.

CLV on the other hand, the speed of the drive (the whining noise)
would be constantly changing, as the drive adjust rotation rate
such that pits travel underneath the optical assembly at a constant
speed.

This is an example of CLV.

So those are the basic curves. But when errors are present,
the drive will stray from the profile, in an attempt to
give (corrected) perfect data.

Paul

I used the deafult read speeds and error-retry settings (*all* settings
were default). I didn't try to vary those or any profiles used.

Copied from my reply to Char Jackson:

<COPY>
OK. I made no adjustments, so I used the default values.

CDBurnerXP: 3 retries, 48x read

ImgBurn: 20 Software retries (2 hardware retries unchecked),
MAX/16x read speed

I hope this doesn't mean I have to do more experiments
</COPY>

 

[Char Jackson]

OK. I made no adjustments, so I used the default values.

CDBurnerXP: 3 retries, 48x read

ImgBurn: 20 Software retries (2 hardware retries unchecked),
MAX/16x read speed

This is just a wild guess, but I assume the two programs would have
nearly identical times if their respective read speeds were matched.

I hope this doesn't mean I have to do more experiments

No, you've been a trooper. Thanks for hanging in there.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 18:47:04 -0800, Gene E. Bloch

This is just a wild guess, but I assume the two programs would have
nearly identical times if their respective read speeds were matched.

No, you've been a trooper. Thanks for hanging in there.

Yep, your wild guess agrees with my thought after you & Paul *forced*
me to learn something. That's what led to my smiley remark about more
experiments.

I might yet do another experiment, but I've created too many time
consuming but worthless projects for myself right now.

 

[GreyCloud]

"GreyCloud" wrote in message


..............
Thanks, GreyCloud!

I was not aware of this, so I will try to find out!

Sorry for being late, but when you insert a blank dvd or cd, the windows
explorer comes up... if the HP does indeed have Power2Go, it will show
up on the top bar of windows explorer.

 

[DennyCrane]

FWIW: I recently got a new box with Win 7 Pro x64. I tried to
install Nero 6.0.6.16 and it would not work.

The newer versions are bloated.

Finally found Nero Ultra 7 version 7.10.1.0. It installed and works
fine.

DC

 

[Neil Turkenkopf]

"GreyCloud" wrote in message

"GreyCloud" wrote in message


..............
Thanks, GreyCloud!

I was not aware of this, so I will try to find out!
...............

.............

No problem, and thanks for the tip!
I'll pass the info along to him, but I doubt he'll try it.
(We did try it on my wife's HP and it looks pretty good!)

Neil ¦¬D
--

 

[Neil Turkenkopf]

wrote in message
................
Hi Denny, loved your show! <g>

All seriousness aside, thanks for this info!
Good to know, just in case he listens to me!

Neil ¦¬D