Is 16x DVD better burning than 4x

[EAO]

I mean is the quality of burn better on a 16x than a 4x or 8x burner?
Aside from speed of burn is the laser and internal mechanics any better?
Is the pitting/burning more defined?
Will your created DVD's perform better/last longer/read easier when burnt on a faster burner?

Inquiring because I liked both my 4x and my 8x (dual layer...not that I use it) and I'm wondering if there is any additonal benefit to upgrade other than speed?

[andkiich]

Any time you introduce increased speed into a burning process, you also increase the chances that there "could" be an error. 16X technology is still new and some bugs might exist or there could be compatibility issues.

I've still got my 4X burner and don't intent to upgrade until teh prices of dula layer fall dramatically.

[lordsmurf]

EAO, no.

andkiich said it really well.

[handyguy]

I have to do my ps2 stuff at 2x....

Faster you write more wobble you get. Some lasers are picky with that when reading but most of the time it shouldn't matter.

[EAO]

Good to know

I'll keep my 8x.. at least until blu ray.

[chas0039]

This might not be the question you are asking, and I won't speak for a few Pioneer owners here, however. I have noticed a significant increase in the quality of the 4X and 8X media scans when burned on 16X burners. This is based on two forms of observation: first I have spent a lot of time looking at the scans over at CDFreaks.com and they appear to look better when the burn is on a newer burner. Second: I have looked at my own scans from an NEC 2500, a Liteon 812S, a Pioneer 107D, and an NEC 3500. There is absolutely no question that the quality of my burns in the 3500 on 4X and 8X media is significantly better than on any of my older burners. These scans are also significantly better than scans I have seen on many other older burners (BenQ, Liteon, NEC, Pioneer). The only exception I have seen to this is the Liteon 1633 which does not seem to have improved over the older burners.

A whole ton of people here believe that their older burners are better than the newer burners, using older media. I don't need to get into that discussion; I am only suggestion that you take a look at the scans and make your own decision.

[waheed]

Any time you introduce increased speed into a burning process, you also increase the chances that there "could" be an error. 16X technology is still new and some bugs might exist or there could be compatibility issues.

I've still got my 4X burner and don't intent to upgrade until teh prices of dula layer fall dramatically.

You stand in the same position as me. I also have a 4x burner and am waiting until dual layer media prices fall until I upgrade to a dual layer burner.

[rigby]

The slower the burn the deeper the burn IMO

[richdvd]

The slower the burn the deeper the burn IMO

Maybe in your opinion but in theory, no.

[lordsmurf]

The slower the burn the deeper the burn IMO

There is no truth to this.
Technologically, it does not even make sense.


.
.
.
.

EDITED FOR SPELLING

Alright spelling teachers..
That's what I get for typing too fast and multi-tasking.

And I had to re-edit the edit ... twice... again... for spelling errors.
Not my day..

[steve2713]

The slower the burn the deeper the burn IMO

This is know truth to this.
Technologically, it does not even make sense.

True, it makes about as much sense as saying 'This is know truth to this'.

[Cobra]

This is know truth to this.
Technologically, it does not even make sense.

...indeed, it makes no sense gramatically either!

[fritzi93]

This might not be the question you are asking, and I won't speak for a few Pioneer owners here, however. I have noticed a significant increase in the quality of the 4X and 8X media scans when burned on 16X burners. This is based on two forms of observation: first I have spent a lot of time looking at the scans over at CDFreaks.com and they appear to look better when the burn is on a newer burner. Second: I have looked at my own scans from an NEC 2500, a Liteon 812S, a Pioneer 107D, and an NEC 3500. There is absolutely no question that the quality of my burns in the 3500 on 4X and 8X media is significantly better than on any of my older burners. These scans are also significantly better than scans I have seen on many other older burners (BenQ, Liteon, NEC, Pioneer). The only exception I have seen to this is the Liteon 1633 which does not seem to have improved over the older burners.

A whole ton of people here believe that their older burners are better than the newer burners, using older media. I don't need to get into that discussion; I am only suggestion that you take a look at the scans and make your own decision.

I've noticed that as well. Not quite sure what to make of it.

LS is on record about the usefulness of scans, no need to ask him.

[Gurm]

Somehow my earlier post got eaten.

Here's the situation:

In general, any improvement you see in a "faster" burner at the same "slower" speeds is due to other factors and varies wildly from model to model.

For example, Liteon's 4x burners were... to be polite... crap. (Yes, crap is polite when referring to these pieces of canine excrement!)

However, their 8x burners were great when burning at 4x. Does that mean that 8x burners are intrinsically better at 4x? No. Liteon's 8x burners still don't burn as well as Pioneer's 4x burners.

That said, I have a Liteon 8x DL burner. I burn single layer at 4x. That's stable, and it works for me - fine out what works for you and stick with it. It's not worth your headache to fiddle around. Trust me - I speak from experience.

CD burning, when first introduced, was a black art. Burners needed caddies, and 2x was a remarkable speed. Out of the first 10 CD's I burned back then, 6 were coasters. Ouch!

Even as recently as 1997, CD burning was something of a black art - especially audio CD's or Playstation discs.

Nowadays, you have to TRY HARD to get media so bad that your burn goes sour.

DVD burning is just now getting out of the "black art" phase. Most programs produce readable discs - Nero AND Roxio both work relatively flawlessly 99% of the time.

Don't tempt fate by trying to save 2 minutes.

[Gurm]

As for the insistence that "slower burns equal deeper burns"... do you believe EVERYTHING you read on Internet forums?