Copying files from a CD via Windows Exp. Vs ISO file from IMGBURN

[davexnet]

I tried to get the mp3's from a CD (approx 5 folders 200 songs) to a USB attached portable mp3 player.
My first attempt, drag and drop from the folders to the mp3 player in Windows Explorer was terrible.
The progress bar kept jumping from a 5 - 20 minutes estimate. All kinds of weird noises coming from the CD drive
as it sped up/slowed down.

I quickly cancelled, and tried to copy the files using the same method to a folder on the desktop instead of the USB device.
Same problem. Cancelled that too.

Next attempt, I used IMGBURN to create an ISO image on the HDD (about 2 minutes), 7z to extract the songs to their
original folder/file structure (2 mins), and 5 minutes to copy to the USB device. More steps but much
quicker and cleaner.

My original thought re: the earlier attempts was that the drive was having trouble reading the media; but the creation
of the ISO file shows this was not the case. Perhaps when you use Windows Explorer the read order is
indeterminate and the CD laser is jumping about all over the place, Vs. a strict sector by sector read when creating the
ISO?

[Cornucopia]

You do not really say whether you are are working with an audio or data cd, but from the folders reference, it is likely a data cd. Btw, if you had been workiing with an audio cd, you should be using either cdex or exactaudiocopy.

If you are having trouble reading off the disc, you should be using apps that fully understand optical media and how to best extract data. This includes Isobuster, imgburn, cdroller and others. Worst things to use would be stock Windows copy methods (which is what you tried).

Has nothing to do with read order, has to do with understanding strengths & weaknesses of disc error corrections and sector layout & 9660/udf file systems.

Scott

[davexnet]

Yes, it was a data CD as you surmised. As I mentioned, I did use Imgburn in the end.

The reason I thought it might have had something to do with the physical layout of files on the CD
is that you only have this experience when you use Windows Explorer AND the CD/DVD in question has loads
of small files (such as the mp3's). If the optical media had the same 700MB of data but in just a one big file,
you would not see this behavior.

[hech54]

I think it was just the difference in read and write speeds between the drive and the stick. I personally would ALWAYS opt to copy the CD files to my computer first....then copy them to a stick.

[davexnet]

I think it was just the difference in read and write speeds between the drive and the stick. I personally would ALWAYS opt to copy the CD files to my computer first....then copy them to a stick.

That's what I tried, in fact, in my original post above I mentioned the second thing I tested was a copy
of the CD contents to a folder on the desktop and the outcome was the same poor result .

[roma_turok]

On burn side of the CD have scratches or dirt stains?

[hech54]

Old "packet writing" maybe?

[davexnet]

No packet writing. The disk was written as a standard data disk in IMGBUN a few years back.
The disk is clean, and as far as I can see, there was no difficulty reading the actual data, beyond that which I
described earlier.
I would say that since I was able to create an ISO file on the hard drive from this disk using IMGBURN in 2 minutes,
reading at maximum speed, the disk itself is fine.

[[_chef_]]

By copying file after file from the CD the drive needs always to re-calibrate by accessing all the small files.....
Opposite with the image - it can be read in one hitch -> saves much time!!!

[davexnet]

By copying file after file from the CD the drive needs always to re-calibrate by accessing all the small files.....
Opposite with the image - it can be read in one hitch -> saves much time!!!

This could explain it if it is indeed the case. I have never heard of any calibration being done at "read",
only power calibration associated with "write".

[Cornucopia]

By copying file after file from the CD the drive needs always to re-calibrate by accessing all the small files.....
Opposite with the image - it can be read in one hitch -> saves much time!!!

What actual technical process are you referring to here? Because from my read of the spec, there is no need for "recalibration" when reading. Only better or worse error-correction strategies when encountering dubious sectors (which is partly governed by the drive and partly by the ripping/copying app).

Scott

[[_chef_]]

Kinda "laser recalibrating" plus the more important "reaccessing the optical media" time if you want to call it that way.
An optical media has its limitations opposite HDDs etc. which relates into slower accesstimes etc.

You can do a simple comparison:
Copy a bunch of small files to another drive/device and then compare the time necessary with that you need for one large file from the same size.
It's easy and logical.

[davexnet]

Kinda "laser recalibrating" plus the more important "reaccessing the optical media" time if you want to call it that way.
An optical media has its limitations opposite HDDs etc. which relates into slower accesstimes etc.

You can do a simple comparison:
Copy a bunch of small files to another drive/device and then compare the time necessary with that you need for one large file from the same size.
It's easy and logical.

I'm not sure this is entirely valid. The small files would be scattered all over the HDD, but the large file could be also
due to fragmentation. The files on the CD are contiguous and packed together in terms of the folder affiliation.
But when they're copied out ( Windows Explorer), are they copied in the order that they physically exist along the
optical track? If not you have the CD seek times as it repositions, speed up, slow down. Very inefficient.
I'll do a few more tests to see if I can gain further enlightenment.

[[_chef_]]

YOU cannot make a general rule out of any individual possibility the way you think.


Just compare seeking times from ODD with HDD...

[hello_hello]

You can't describe slower access times as re-calibration either.