Slower writing speed = better quality?

[royend]

Is that true? If I burn my vcds at a slower writing speed, like 2X or even 1X, will I achieve better quality? Or is this opportunity just for safety causes?

Another question, this one regarding format. What is the differences between VCD 1.1 and VCD 2.0? Is it possible that my Samsung DVD 511 only can play VCD 1.1? I have hade major problems with VCD 2.0.... Any idea?

Thanks

[mikk]

u must mean that you want less errors in your cds.

1. try to use speeds around the middle of the range of the cd. e.g. on 1-24x discs use around 12x for best results. 1x or 2x is not really good on the new high speed discs.

2. also don't use the maximum speed on your burner. 2 speeds slower is probably more reliable.

but this can vary between the different brands, which is why some people will argue endlessy about what i've said here. but my 2 rules are very good generalisations.

[Mirror_Image]

As long as you aren't getting errors on your disks, fast is as good as slow; either the data gets written or it doesn't.

I agree with what mikk wrote; I usually burn on my 20x10x40 Philips at 16x (or 12x if I'm using some old disks that I still have left over). I always have Nero check my burn after completion, to see if I wound up with any errors. I have only had one error (6 on the same CD-R!) on a crappy old Ritek blank that was about 3 years old; I burned it at 8x and that didn't stop it from becoming a coaster. I've burned some Imation 16x disks at 20x (and all have been perfect), but I don't make it a habit.

If you get errors, then slow down, but if you don't get errors, don't worry about it.

On VCD 1.1 vs 2.0:

What is VideoCD 2.0?

AudioCDs and CD-ROMs are very different. The binary data on each type of CD is fundamentally distinct (music vs data). Now, VideoCD 2.0, a third type of CD, designed for interactive multi-media and more is here! VideoCD 2.0 is as different from CD-ROM as CD-ROM is unlike CD-Audio.VideoCD is more structurally advanced than CD-ROM or CD-Audio. It provides full-screen and full-motion video. VideoCD works in CD-ROM drives.VideoCD 2.0 also works using both TVs and computers. PAL and NTSC TV systems are also both supported using inexpensive, stand-alone players. 'Interactivity' lets you jump from anywhere to anywhere, like CD-ROM. 'Still' photos and sound in varying quality resolutions are another part of VideoCD 2.0. CD-Audio, CD-ROM and VideoCD 2.0 'tracks' can all be used together on one CD and recorded together using many existing CD-Recorders! Use VideoCD 2.0 on CD-Recordable as a new, practical, communications tool.

What is the main difference with VideoCD 1.1?

A VideoCD 1.1 CD starts and runs to the end. Or, there are selectable 'tracks'. A 'linear play' VideoCD without 'stills' is a version 1.1 VideoCD. They only work on PAL or NTSC TVs, not both. A two disc VideoCD set can contain 2 hours and 24 minutes of full-motion, full-screen video AND 144 minutes of AudioCD quality sound. Version 1.1 VideoCDs work in version 2.0 players. Software like Toast, or Adaptec CD-Creator or many others write CDs in Version 1.1, not 2.0.

(I copied this from somewhere a while back, but I don't recall exactly where...)

[Allan55]

fast is as good as slow; either the data gets written or it doesn't.

This isn't quite true. The laser heats-up an exotic chemical that then goes through a "phase-change" as it cools down (don't ask me, it's a chemistry/physics thing). Re-writeables have a different chemistry where a cooler temerature "erases" them through a different phase-change than the higher temperature of burning causes. Either way, the phase-change causes a change in refraction which is what the reading laser detects.

If the chemistry is off (getting too old to burn? To much heat during transport/storage? something else? I don't know) then a slower speed seems to write CDs that work better.

[Mirror_Image]

fast is as good as slow; either the data gets written or it doesn't.

This isn't quite true.

Yep, I was oversimplifying. I should have stated that burning, being a digital (rather than analog) process, wasn't liable to the same trouble of signal corruption that may arise due to excessive dubbing speeds (but is also speed-limited due to many factors). This is probably also in error, so I'll just assume that it is!