I see this in other forums(ex.doom9.org & others), and I'm wondering if there is any truth to this. Are discs burned at 2.4X "more compatible" than discs burned at faster speeds?

Or is it just that other burners PIE and PIF's go off the chart on burns over 2.4X? Because now you are seeing scans from 12X and 16X burns that are better than scans at 2.4X burns from older burners, but you still see people posting statements like.."and of course since it was my favorite movie, I let it burn overnight at 2.4X".

I know there are many variables involved with a burn, so maybe this is true. But for simplicity, let's say a user has a BenQ 1620 and is using TY02 or MCC004 media. Would a 4X burn be more compatible than a 8,12,or 16X burn? I find myself burning "important" stuff at 8X, but I think it's more out of habit than anything.

Just curious what all you CDFreaks have to say about this, and maybe IF this isn't true anymore, someone will read this thread and their life will be changed.(from all the time they save )

Fact is: 2.4x MEDIA is more compatible than 4x or faster!
Some older Mac computers cannot read 4x/8x DVD+Rs no matter if they are recorded at 2.4x or 4x or 8x.
I heard that they use modified Pioneer 106 OEMs with disabled +R burning and very +R limited reading.
Strange but true...

I believe that's a carry-over from the 4X burner days. Perhaps in the days of 16X burners, it should be ammended to:

"and of course since it was my favorite movie, I let it burn at 8X".

Aren't they going to dis-continue 2.4x media tho?(if they already haven't) However, I think you will still be able to get "Authoring" media at 2X.

Officially, these older Mac DVD readers do not support +R(W) media at all and just "accidently" can read 2.4x DVD+Rs.
Don't know how many Macs are affected but my pal had one. Now he has newer one and it reads every DVD+/-R (bot still cannot burn +)

Since the first day I burned 2.4x with HP200i, well that was like 4 years ago, I'm using standalone Pioneer DX-656A to playback. I also send my home-made dvd movies to families with older Sony, Samsung, Philips and no-brand players. At that time there were only 2x DVD-Rs and 2.4 DVD+Rs around. Since last year I burned all the home-made movies at 8x, 12x and 16x, no problem with all these players.

So I would answer the question: NO.

You see this statement made all the time in the PS2/Xbox world and the "Gurus" take offense if you take issue with it! TEK over at PSXForums is a classic example of this behavior - he will close the thread and threaten banning ya if you dare take issue!

Do the tests, try the resulting burns on your equipment . . . you'll soon find that burning slower does not result in a more compatible burn.

-Bob-

I have a spindle of 2.4x media (Philips - CMC MAG E01, A grade stuff though, it actually scans well) and I haven't noticed any increased compatibility. My 4x (Ritek RICOHJPN001), Taiyo Yuden (8x, forget code) and BenQ (8x, Daxon, just bought, haven't memorized code) work the same after burning as the Philips 2.4x stuff does. The advantage of my 2.4x media is that it cost $0.21 Canadian a DVD versus 30 cents for the BenQ, 58 for the Ritek and 90 for the TY.

Not seeing many posts of people defending 2.4X burning.

I added a poll to the thread. Make sure and vote!

It IS true that 2.4x burning is "the thing to do" for 2.4x media.
For other medias, 2.4x burning will simply invalidate the write strategy and give terrible quality performance.

Who on earth purchases one of the fastest writers available and then uses it at the slowest speed possible? I had to make a double-take, and then felt compelled to comment on this bizarre issue!

Of course, equally nuts is using 16x over 12x to achieve 20 seconds faster performance while reducing quality. Oh well.

P.S. My Oldsmobile provides better quality results if I never take it out of first gear. And, if you believe that. . .

I saw you post lastnight and it was night like this...
Hmm... Hitman, you can add a poll? I know.. I know...

It is the same with CD-R, I guess ... every possible combination of write device/media will have a "sweet spot" speed setting which leads to the lowest possible PI-Sum 8 error rates, signal asymmetry and pit/land jitter (just to mention a few parameters).

To find this "sweet spot" is the challenge ... as an example, when I use TY 4x +R (YUDEN000T01 by Maxell) on my BenQ 1620, they do write better at 8x P-CAV than at 4x CLV. On the opposite, my Plextor 712A will write them better at "pure" CLV speed (4x, 6x).

Anyway, I don't think that 2,4x is the way to go to achieve better overall quality ... if you have to decrease write speed below the media's certificate to get the discs to play, you should definitely change media.

I have never seen any proof that 2.4X burning makes discs more compatible. Until I see irrefutable evidence to support such a claim, I'd say it's another "urban legend".

IMHO, I think you hit the nail on the head. It all depends on what burner you have and how your burner performs with whatever media you're using. People with older burners may in fact get a MUCH better burn at 2.4X, but that doesn't mean across the board everyone should burn at 2.4X for "best" results.

BTW, I don't think the BenQ forum was one of the best places to post this thread.

Well, I think the BenQ forum was an excellent place to post this thread.
With the goal towards modernizing and faster speeds, the BenQ products give sub-par performance at 2.4x speed on many medias. This is not really a complant. I am not disappointed that we are moving away from 2.4x compatibility. I'm glad we're going forward. Anyway, it's great to discuss this. At some point in the future, 2.4x speeds will not be available for use. I'm sure somebody will complain about that, but it won't be me.