52x24x52 CD-RW: How fast, really? - Storage

This is a discussion on 52x24x52 CD-RW: How fast, really? - Storage ; For the last 3 years, I've provided a rehearsal CD for my choir during a 3-day choir retreat, and to prepare and burn a one-hour CD x 35-40 members on a 4x machine is a chore. This year four other ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: 52x24x52 CD-RW: How fast, really?

  1. 52x24x52 CD-RW: How fast, really?

    For the last 3 years, I've provided a rehearsal CD for my choir during a
    3-day choir retreat, and to prepare and burn a one-hour CD x 35-40
    members on a 4x machine is a chore. This year four other members brought
    their laptops, one with an external CR-R drive. The result wasn't much
    better than when I did it solo: Two of the three Windoze machines
    couldn't burn at all, and the rest of us lumbered along at 4x speeds.

    So I'm ready to prepare for next year with a faster drive. Questions: Do
    they really operate at close to advertised speeds? Do they require a
    blindingly fast machine or gigs of RAM? I have a 400mhz Pismo with half
    a gig. Plenty of room on the drive so I can record from there. I see
    affordable, $120 drives advertised as 52x24x52 or 52x32x52. How fast are
    they really?

    --
    Bob Ball
    If you want to think positive thoughts, surround yourself with positive people.
    If you want to email me, eliminate the negative.

  2. Re: 52x24x52 CD-RW: How fast, really?

    In article ,
    Bob Ball wrote:

    > For the last 3 years, I've provided a rehearsal CD for my choir during a
    > 3-day choir retreat, and to prepare and burn a one-hour CD x 35-40
    > members on a 4x machine is a chore. This year four other members brought
    > their laptops, one with an external CR-R drive. The result wasn't much
    > better than when I did it solo: Two of the three Windoze machines
    > couldn't burn at all, and the rest of us lumbered along at 4x speeds.
    >
    > So I'm ready to prepare for next year with a faster drive. Questions: Do
    > they really operate at close to advertised speeds? Do they require a
    > blindingly fast machine or gigs of RAM? I have a 400mhz Pismo with half
    > a gig. Plenty of room on the drive so I can record from there. I see
    > affordable, $120 drives advertised as 52x24x52 or 52x32x52. How fast are
    > they really?


    If you need, I'll test for you.
    I need to copy a few audio CD's for use in the car.
    I've got a LaCie / LiteOn 52/24/52 with Firewire.
    And I have a Pismo 500 MHz.

    HTH

    Marc

    --
    Marc Heusser - Zurich, Switzerland
    Coaching - Consulting - Counselling - Psychotherapy
    http://www.heusser.com
    remove the obvious CHEERS and MERCIAL... from the reply address
    to reply via e-mail

  3. Re: 52x24x52 CD-RW: How fast, really?

    > If you need, I'll test for you.
    > I need to copy a few audio CD's for use in the car.
    > I've got a LaCie / LiteOn 52/24/52 with Firewire.
    > And I have a Pismo 500 MHz.



    Have at it if you wish. Someone who's already measured it may respond as
    well.

    --
    Bob Ball
    If you want to think positive thoughts, surround yourself with positive people.
    If you want to email me, eliminate the negative.

  4. Re: 52x24x52 CD-RW: How fast, really?


    "Bob Ball" wrote in message
    news:bobball-9EF00D.10261807102003@corp.supernews.com...
    > For the last 3 years, I've provided a rehearsal CD for my choir during a
    > 3-day choir retreat, and to prepare and burn a one-hour CD x 35-40
    > members on a 4x machine is a chore. This year four other members brought
    > their laptops, one with an external CR-R drive. The result wasn't much
    > better than when I did it solo: Two of the three Windoze machines
    > couldn't burn at all, and the rest of us lumbered along at 4x speeds.
    >
    > So I'm ready to prepare for next year with a faster drive. Questions: Do
    > they really operate at close to advertised speeds? Do they require a
    > blindingly fast machine or gigs of RAM? I have a 400mhz Pismo with half
    > a gig. Plenty of room on the drive so I can record from there. I see
    > affordable, $120 drives advertised as 52x24x52 or 52x32x52. How fast are
    > they really?
    >


    Just remember, the chances are with anything faster than 16x write that you
    may dealing with something to rival a vacuum cleaner. I bought a Lite-on 48x
    writer to put into my sister's PC. Noisy does not even begin to describe it.
    I have a 16x writer in my PC box from the same makers. Absolutely whisper
    quiet.

    With regard to speeds above 24x IIRR, speeds are not consistently at the
    quoted rates. On lower speed writers you get pretty much what you expect.
    Above about 24x, the writer starts spinning slowly at the start of the disk
    and then speeds up to somewhere in the region of what they should be. The
    overall burn times are disappointing. In some cases some 32x writers burn
    slower than 24x writers, and the law of diminishing returns kicks in. The
    difference between 40x and 52x can be measured in seconds rather than
    minutes. If the difference in price is large, I would buy the slower model.
    How often have you seen 32x CDRW blanks anyways?

    Remember also, the faster it spins, the higher the chances of I/O errors, so
    you may have to forego those cheap no-name brands depending upon how your
    writer performs. I have an external DVD writer attached to my Wallstreet
    (300MHz, 384MB RAM). It can burn CDs at 16x over FW. I have never had a
    failure. Unlike DVDs which burn at a faster rate like for like. Cheaper
    brands of DVD blanks leave me with coasters.



  5. Re: 52x24x52 CD-RW: How fast, really?

    At 4x, I've never given much thought to the qualities of blanks or the
    speed they're rated for. I guess I'll have to look into that as well.
    As for brands, I'm seeing LaCie and OWC at those prices.

    > With regard to speeds above 24x IIRR, speeds are not consistently at the
    > quoted rates. On lower speed writers you get pretty much what you expect.
    > Above about 24x, the writer starts spinning slowly at the start of the disk
    > and then speeds up to somewhere in the region of what they should be. The
    > overall burn times are disappointing. In some cases some 32x writers burn
    > slower than 24x writers, and the law of diminishing returns kicks in. The
    > difference between 40x and 52x can be measured in seconds rather than
    > minutes. If the difference in price is large, I would buy the slower model.
    > How often have you seen 32x CDRW blanks anyways?


    --
    Bob Ball
    If you want to think positive thoughts, surround yourself with positive people.
    If you want to email me, eliminate the negative.

  6. Re: 52x24x52 CD-RW: How fast, really?

    In article , rtt
    wrote:

    > "Bob Ball" wrote in message
    > news:bobball-9EF00D.10261807102003@corp.supernews.com...
    > > For the last 3 years, I've provided a rehearsal CD for my choir during a
    > > 3-day choir retreat, and to prepare and burn a one-hour CD x 35-40
    > > members on a 4x machine is a chore. This year four other members brought
    > > their laptops, one with an external CR-R drive. The result wasn't much
    > > better than when I did it solo: Two of the three Windoze machines
    > > couldn't burn at all, and the rest of us lumbered along at 4x speeds.
    > >
    > > So I'm ready to prepare for next year with a faster drive. Questions: Do
    > > they really operate at close to advertised speeds? Do they require a
    > > blindingly fast machine or gigs of RAM? I have a 400mhz Pismo with half
    > > a gig. Plenty of room on the drive so I can record from there. I see
    > > affordable, $120 drives advertised as 52x24x52 or 52x32x52. How fast are
    > > they really?
    > >

    >
    > Just remember, the chances are with anything faster than 16x write that you
    > may dealing with something to rival a vacuum cleaner. I bought a Lite-on 48x
    > writer to put into my sister's PC. Noisy does not even begin to describe it.
    > I have a 16x writer in my PC box from the same makers. Absolutely whisper
    > quiet.
    >
    > With regard to speeds above 24x IIRR, speeds are not consistently at the
    > quoted rates. On lower speed writers you get pretty much what you expect.
    > Above about 24x, the writer starts spinning slowly at the start of the disk
    > and then speeds up to somewhere in the region of what they should be. The
    > overall burn times are disappointing. In some cases some 32x writers burn
    > slower than 24x writers, and the law of diminishing returns kicks in. The
    > difference between 40x and 52x can be measured in seconds rather than
    > minutes. If the difference in price is large, I would buy the slower model.
    > How often have you seen 32x CDRW blanks anyways?
    >
    > Remember also, the faster it spins, the higher the chances of I/O errors, so
    > you may have to forego those cheap no-name brands depending upon how your
    > writer performs. I have an external DVD writer attached to my Wallstreet
    > (300MHz, 384MB RAM). It can burn CDs at 16x over FW. I have never had a
    > failure. Unlike DVDs which burn at a faster rate like for like. Cheaper
    > brands of DVD blanks leave me with coasters.


    Hello Bob,

    rtt has just presented a concise course in the truths of CD-recording.

    rtt: Thank you for your clarity.

    Personally, I have consistent success with imation's blank CDs. I burn
    them at 8x on an iBooks' internal CD Combo drive or on a G3'ed PM8500's
    external SCSI Yamama 16/10/40. ROM or audio, they always work.

    I use Toast Titanium 5.2.1 under 9.2.2 on the iBook, under 9.1 on the
    8500, BTW. Great app.

    For mass-duping have you considered buying an offline duplicator? Some
    are available for expenditures comparable to an external CD-R drive,
    and they do not need the support of a computer. A company in which I
    have confidence (but with which I have no connection) is Disc Makers at
    http://discmakers.com
    Telling them that Nigel sent you will bring no advantage. :-)

    Nigel


    Nigel

    --
    "Let us not paralyse our capacity for good
    by brooding over man's capacity for evil"
    - David Sarnoff

  7. Re: 52x24x52 CD-RW: How fast, really?

    On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 10:26:18 -0400,
    Bob Ball , in
    wrote:

    +> So I'm ready to prepare for next year with a faster drive. Questions: Do
    +> they really operate at close to advertised speeds?

    They're a significant increase in speed. In my unscientific feel, it
    takes less than 10 minutes to roast 700mb. My platform is a dell,
    running debian, with a 48x24x48 CDRW (an LGE GCE-8481B). The cdrecord
    I have available limits me to 32x [hmmm??] in CD-R mode. I just tried a
    dummy write of a 538 mb file, and it took 4:30 minutes. This is a
    2.6Ghz PIV with 512mb of ram.

    +> Do they require a blindingly fast machine or gigs of RAM? I have a
    +> 400mhz Pismo with half a gig.

    That doesn't sound too bad. Which OS? Hmmm...an ATA-66 bus.

    +> Plenty of room on the drive so I can record from there. I see
    +> affordable, $120 drives advertised as 52x24x52 or 52x32x52. How fast
    +> are they really?

    As I recall, 1x = 150 KB/s, so 52x = 7800 KB/s or about 7.5 MB/s. If
    I'm doing my numbers right, that's less than an ATA-66 disk drive, but
    significanly more than a USB 1.0 bus, and something Firewire will
    cheerfully handle.

    The short answer seems to be: yes, your system is sufficient. And you
    may want to do some comparison shopping...

    http://www.nextag.com/serv/main/buye...ge=15&zipcode=

    James
    --
    Consulting Minister for Consultants, DNRC
    I can please only one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow
    isn't looking good, either.
    I am BOFH. Resistance is futile. Your network will be assimilated.

  8. Re: 52x24x52 CD-RW: How fast, really?

    I would appreciate a test of the LaCie/Pismo combo.

    I hoped against hope that a 52x burner would do a full audio cd 13 times
    faster than my 4x, in a little more than a minute. Doesn't sound like it.
    >
    > If you need, I'll test for you.
    > I need to copy a few audio CD's for use in the car.
    > I've got a LaCie / LiteOn 52/24/52 with Firewire.
    > And I have a Pismo 500 MHz.


    --
    Bob Ball
    If you want to think positive thoughts, surround yourself with positive people.
    If you want to email me, eliminate the negative.

  9. Re: 52x24x52 CD-RW: How fast, really?

    sy_nttvr@gurcragntba.pbz (I R A Darth Aggie) writes:

    > On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 10:26:18 -0400,
    > Bob Ball , in
    > wrote:
    >
    > +> So I'm ready to prepare for next year with a faster drive. Questions: Do
    > +> they really operate at close to advertised speeds?
    >
    > They're a significant increase in speed. In my unscientific feel, it
    > takes less than 10 minutes to roast 700mb. My platform is a dell,
    > running debian, with a 48x24x48 CDRW (an LGE GCE-8481B). The cdrecord
    > I have available limits me to 32x [hmmm??] in CD-R mode. I just tried a
    > dummy write of a 538 mb file, and it took 4:30 minutes. This is a
    > 2.6Ghz PIV with 512mb of ram.


    But that is not as significant as you may fee. In a 7600/200 using a
    12x8x32 Sony CDRX-160S on the built in SCSI chain I get times around
    420 seconds for a full 700MB disk. Hence a 12X gives around 7 minutes
    and 32X (nominally 2 2/3 times faster) gives burns that are a little
    better than 1 1/2 times faster. The times are from cdrecord (YDL 2.3).

    This seems in line with the other comments about the relative speed of
    faster CDRW's I have seen in this thread. Fast CDRW's are worth
    while, but the burn times are not linear with speed.

    --
    Stephen Harker Stephen.Harker@spme.monash.edu.au
    School of Physics & Materials Engineering
    Monash University http://www.ph.adfa.edu.au/s-harker/
    Baloney Baffles brains: Eric Frank Russell

  10. Re: 52x24x52 CD-RW: How fast, really?

    On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 23:37:01 -0400,
    Bob Ball , in
    wrote:

    +> I hoped against hope that a 52x burner would do a full audio cd 13 times
    +> faster than my 4x, in a little more than a minute. Doesn't sound like it.

    Oh, no definitely not!

    James
    --
    Consulting Minister for Consultants, DNRC
    I can please only one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow
    isn't looking good, either.
    I am BOFH. Resistance is futile. Your network will be assimilated.

  11. Re: 52x24x52 CD-RW: How fast, really?

    In article , I R A Darth Aggie
    wrote:

    > On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 10:26:18 -0400,
    > Bob Ball , in
    > wrote:
    >
    > +> So I'm ready to prepare for next year with a faster drive. Questions: Do
    > +> they really operate at close to advertised speeds?
    >
    > They're a significant increase in speed. In my unscientific feel, it
    > takes less than 10 minutes to roast 700mb. My platform is a dell,
    > running debian, with a 48x24x48 CDRW (an LGE GCE-8481B). The cdrecord
    > I have available limits me to 32x [hmmm??] in CD-R mode. I just tried a
    > dummy write of a 538 mb file, and it took 4:30 minutes. This is a
    > 2.6Ghz PIV with 512mb of ram.
    >
    > +> Do they require a blindingly fast machine or gigs of RAM? I have a
    > +> 400mhz Pismo with half a gig.
    >


    My first burner was 4x scusi external and it took 20-25 minutes to
    burn a 700m data disk. Then a got a Firewire external 32x... the time
    went down to 5+ minutes. I just got a PowerBook with an internal
    Panasonic (MAT****A CW-8121A) of a speed that even Google doesnt know
    and it is now 3+ minutes. These are data CDs but the cheapest i could
    find. I think the issue is bus speed, internal external, Firewire,
    etc. I dont know anything about Pismo, he who does should know it's
    limits.

  12. Re: 52x24x52 CD-RW: How fast, really?

    Sat, 11 Oct 2003 10:22:56 -0500, tmcdanel@NO.iname.SPAM.com suggested:
    : In article , I R A Darth Aggie
    : wrote:
    :
    :> On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 10:26:18 -0400,
    :> Bob Ball , in
    :> wrote:
    :>
    :> +> So I'm ready to prepare for next year with a faster drive. Questions: Do
    :> +> they really operate at close to advertised speeds?
    :>
    :> They're a significant increase in speed. In my unscientific feel, it
    :> takes less than 10 minutes to roast 700mb. My platform is a dell,
    :> running debian, with a 48x24x48 CDRW (an LGE GCE-8481B). The cdrecord
    :> I have available limits me to 32x [hmmm??] in CD-R mode. I just tried a
    :> dummy write of a 538 mb file, and it took 4:30 minutes. This is a
    :> 2.6Ghz PIV with 512mb of ram.
    :>
    :> +> Do they require a blindingly fast machine or gigs of RAM? I have a
    :> +> 400mhz Pismo with half a gig.
    :>
    :
    : My first burner was 4x scusi external and it took 20-25 minutes to
    : burn a 700m data disk. Then a got a Firewire external 32x... the time
    : went down to 5+ minutes. I just got a PowerBook with an internal
    : Panasonic (MAT****A CW-8121A) of a speed that even Google doesnt know
    : and it is now 3+ minutes. These are data CDs but the cheapest i could
    : find. I think the issue is bus speed, internal external, Firewire,
    : etc. I dont know anything about Pismo, he who does should know it's
    : limits.

    52x is 52 * 150 kB/s = a little under 8 MB/s. So, provided that you don't
    do anything too disk intensive while burning, the ATA hard disk in the
    Pismo should have no trouble sustaining the throughput for it.

    --
    agreenbu @ nyx . net andrew michael greenburg

  13. Re: 52x24x52 CD-RW: How fast, really?

    I looked at xlr8yourmac, which has a section dealing with CDR machines.
    Few talked in terms of speed, or at least in any expectation that speed
    would be proportion to X. But one poster suggested that he had burned a
    full CD in about 1:30. With just one posting suggesting that kind of
    speed, I doubt that many achieve anything close to it, which makes
    claims like 52x kind of hollow.


    > :
    > : My first burner was 4x scusi external and it took 20-25 minutes to
    > : burn a 700m data disk. Then a got a Firewire external 32x... the time
    > : went down to 5+ minutes. I just got a PowerBook with an internal
    > : Panasonic (MAT****A CW-8121A) of a speed that even Google doesnt know
    > : and it is now 3+ minutes. These are data CDs but the cheapest i could
    > : find. I think the issue is bus speed, internal external, Firewire,
    > : etc. I dont know anything about Pismo, he who does should know it's
    > : limits.
    >
    > 52x is 52 * 150 kB/s = a little under 8 MB/s. So, provided that you don't
    > do anything too disk intensive while burning, the ATA hard disk in the
    > Pismo should have no trouble sustaining the throughput for it.


    --
    Bob Ball
    If you want to think positive thoughts, surround yourself with positive people.
    If you want to email me, eliminate the negative.

  14. Re: 52x24x52 CD-RW: How fast, really?

    On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 9:26:18 -0500, Bob Ball wrote
    (in message ):

    > So I'm ready to prepare for next year with a faster drive. Questions: Do
    > they really operate at close to advertised speeds? Do they require a
    > blindingly fast machine or gigs of RAM? I have a 400mhz Pismo with half
    > a gig. Plenty of room on the drive so I can record from there. I see
    > affordable, $120 drives advertised as 52x24x52 or 52x32x52. How fast are
    > they really?


    I've never gotten much more than 16x on 400mhz PCs or Macs - the PC a Pentium
    II (384MB/40GB) running W98SE w/Easy CD Creator 6 and a generic OEM IDE
    52x24x52 and the Mac a 400mhz Pismo (1GB/60GB) running MacOS X 10.2.8 w/Toast
    5 and a firewire 40x Plextor (from OWC). Anything higher seems to write
    coasters.

    Of course, being the cheapskate I am, I'm still blowing through CD-Rs and
    CD-RWs in chronologically purchased order, and I've still quite a backlog to
    go through before I reach the 40x media ...

    -- Verne

    --
    It's not what you don't know that'll hurt you - it's what you _do_ know
    that isn't so.



+ Reply to Thread