Has anyone actually ever had to burn a disk at less than maximum speed?

[corrado33]

I've been burning... backups... of my PS1 games recently, and therefore have been thinking about burning disks. I thought to myself "I don't think I've EVER burnt a disk at less than maximum speed (that the disk could handle) and I've literally never had a problem, even when disk burning was in it's infancy."

 

So, have you? Have you ever had issues with burning disks quickly? I mean, I've had DVD-RWs that didn't support anything but really slow speeds, but it was still the max the disk could handle. 

[LukeNukem9]

I remember I burnt a windows 98 DVD at like 4x speed but it didn't work cause I found out it was a CD-ROM drive. I burned it slow just to be safe.

[tatte]

At some point I bought really bad quality CDs, which combined with maximum burn speed didn't result in the best longevity. Nowadays I burn discs as slowly as possible (usually still faster than I'd like, not sure if the minimum speed is up to the disc, drive or software). I'm not even sure if it actually does any good, but if nothing else, it's such a rare occasion at this point that I might as well savour it anyway.

 

It was quite a neat progression to experience faster and faster drives, although the slowest I ever had to experience was already 4X, so not even too bad. I also still have my beloved 52X TEAC W552E, the culmination of my CD burning capability before DVDs took over.

 

I followed the disc format all the way to Blu-rays, but despite of having a drive, I have never burned one. (In a way, packing so much information (applies to DVDs as well) into such a fragile, little disc terrifies me. On the other hand I don't really have anything to burn anymore. Thanks, fast Internet and cheap, large HDDs.)

[JoostinOnline]

I always burned at minimum speed. Going higher would sometimes result in errors when verifying. That was with DVD's though.

[Mira Yurizaki]

I don't think the speed at which the disc was written to affects the speed at which it can be read. It may affect the tolerance for errors though.

[corrado33]

8 minutes ago, JoostinOnline said:

I always burned at minimum speed. Going higher would sometimes result in errors when verifying. That was with DVD's though.

That's the thing, I've never even received errors in verifying either...

[corrado33]

12 minutes ago, tatte said:

I followed the disc format all the way to Blu-rays, but despite of having a drive, I have never burned one. (In a way, packing so much information (applies to DVDs as well) into such a fragile, little disc terrifies me. On the other hand I don't really have anything to burn anymore. Thanks, fast Internet and cheap, large HDDs.)

I disagree. I personally think that storing info on a DVD is MUCH safer than on HDDs. HDDs have moving parts that can fail. A DVD, properly stored, will last forever. 

[iLostMyXbox21]

2 minutes ago, corrado33 said:

I disagree. I personally think that storing info on a DVD is MUCH safer than on HDDs. HDDs have moving parts that can fail. A DVD, properly stored, will last forever. 

but so much as a single scratch will ruin it..... an SSD is the best for general storage (i use flash drives and sd cards though)

[RollinLower]

5 minutes ago, iLostMyXbox21 said:

but so much as a single scratch will ruin it..... an SSD is the best for general storage (i use flash drives and sd cards though)

if you leave a SSD without power for too long it will have data degradation tough, something not happening with physical media like DVD's iirc

[JoostinOnline]

9 minutes ago, corrado33 said:

A DVD, properly stored, will last forever. 

It won't, actually.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disc_rot

[corrado33]

2 minutes ago, JoostinOnline said:

It won't, actually.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disc_rot

Has anyone ever actually experienced this?

 

I have CDs/DVDs from when I was a kid, 15-20 years ago and they still work properly. 

 

Of course, most of the causes for disc rot were things like "heat/sun/uv/light" exposure, so I'd say those things weren't "properly stored."

[tatte]

1 minute ago, corrado33 said:

I disagree. I personally think that storing info on a DVD is MUCH safer than on HDDs. HDDs have moving parts that can fail. A DVD, properly stored, will last forever. 

You disagree about me being terrified? Could you also disagree with a couple of other mental issues I'm dragging with me? That would be tremendous help, especially now that the world is getting darker and darker by the day.

 

That aside, your point is fair. I'm just thinking back to the era when I had more digital goods than I could fit on my HDD at once. That's not an issue to me anymore, and even if I didn't have fast Internet, the only large things worth storing to avoid having to download them again would be games, and constant patches pretty much void the viability of that. Anything else I could manage even with a slow Internet, and would a life without Internet even be worth living?

[JoostinOnline]

9 minutes ago, corrado33 said:

Has anyone ever actually experienced this?

 

I have CDs/DVDs from when I was a kid, 15-20 years ago and they still work properly. 

 

Of course, most of the causes for disc rot were things like "heat/sun/uv/light" exposure, so I'd say those things weren't "properly stored."

It happens more with burned discs than pressed ones.

 

What I'm trying to impact on you is that it's not safe to assume that any one method of storage is perfect. Redundancy is key. The best long term storage (that I'm aware of) is magnetic tapes, but those are very slow, and are vulnerable to magnetic interferance.

[Syntaxvgm]

I used to have problems with some drives way back in the day, but the discs were cheap enough that I just burned and verified, and if the verification didn't pass chuck the disk and burn slower. Like 95% of the time max speed wasn't a problem.  I also had some discs turn out bad on slow burns, it just happens. Always have your burning software verify and you'll be good. 

I actually have a lot more of a problem with like linux installs with bad flash memory that goes bad after too many writes, so much so that some live boots now come with a verify integrity thing right in the boot menu. 

These days people have 8GB+ sticks they still use for os install that are more than 10 years old, so it happens more and more. 

[Mitko_DSV]

I once had a problem with my stereo not reading properly a CD I burned at max speed and I had to burn another one slower. But it's a cheap stereo so it's not very good and has some problems (I was trying to record cassetes from CD). Otherwise I've had no problem burning at max speed. That's how I usually do it, but there's still the ocassional need for slower burn speed.

 

56 minutes ago, tatte said:

I also still have my beloved 52X TEAC W552E, the culmination of my CD burning capability before DVDs took over.

I have the same CD drive. At least it looks the same, I don't remember the model. My dad got it from a junk PC which was thrown out at his workplace. It used to work, but I tried opening it and may have broken it. Might try it to see if it still works.

[LogicalDrm]

I have. Using cheap DVDs abd cheap drive can result in fails -> dropping from 52x to 16x did wonders. And took 15mins longer.

[corrado33]

4 minutes ago, LoGiCalDrm said:

I have. Using cheap DVDs abd cheap drive can result in fails -> dropping from 52x to 16x did wonders. And took 15mins longer.

I once had to burn a 4gb image onto a DVD RW at 4x..... took freaking forever. (That was the max the disc would support.)

[SSD Sean]

I have. I was getting read errors after burning on some cheapo discs i bought. Also, my friend who does DVDs does as well because it results in less burn failures too.