Jump to content

2 sec difference between ImgBurn and Nero


egor147
 Share

Recommended Posts

I've prepared an image with ImgBurn and just of curiosity compared two burned discs, one of which was burnt with ImgBurn, and the other - with Nero 6.6. The media, the burner, the reader and the DAO mode - they all were the same.

 

However, there is an exactly 2 seconds difference between two burnt discs. So I wonder if ImgBurn missed 2 seconds (leading gap?) or Nero wrote unnecessary data?

 

"ImgBurn 2.4.4.0, DAO"

PIONEER DVD-RW DVR-111D 1.29 (ATA)

Current Profile: CD-ROM

 

Disc Information:

Status: Complete

Erasable: No

Sessions: 1

Sectors: 125

Edited by egor147
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look at the actual image, how big is it?

 

The leadin is in negative lba ranges so it wouldn't actually show up in that info... in any case, it's definitely written.

 

Nero might have just stuck 2 seconds worth of zeroes on the end of the track.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look at the actual image, how big is it?

 

The leadin is in negative lba ranges so it wouldn't actually show up in that info... in any case, it's definitely written.

 

Nero might have just stuck 2 seconds worth of zeroes on the end of the track.

 

I think that ImgBurn SHOULD (as a default) add 150 sectors of zero data at the end of data tracks in BUILD mode for ISO images to be fully compatible with Yellow Book specification (for mode 1 discs it is obligatory but for mode 2 it isn't). Of course for Read mode it is not recommended to do it automatically if the user wants to have a perfect copy of his source (non-postgap) CD.

 

We here in premastering department of our pressing plant have sometimes problems when adding the obligatory postgap to the customer's ISO image and then he asks us why the MD5 checksum of the pressed CD-ROM differs from the MD5 checksum of his ISO image and we have to explain him the reason why. It also makes our internal verification procedures more complicated...

 

So I believe Nero prepares ISO images well (in this case:-)) and ImgBurn not.

 

I cannot accept the explanation written by LIGHTNING UK! in the following old thread:

http://forum.imgburn.com/index.php?showtop...&hl=postgap

 

Any comments or disagreements?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.