Jump to content

ThaCrip

Members
  • Posts

    63
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ThaCrip

  1. I know this post is over 2 years old now, but I tried burning a ".CDI" file to a 700MB CD-RW disc with ImgBurn v2.5.8.0 (on Linux Mint) and it worked (at least as far as the general burning process) as I just copied over the "pfctoc.dll" to root of the general ImgBurn directory before attempting to burn the ".CDI" file and it burned successfully and verified okay. but I did not test anything directly on the Dreamcast itself as even if I did it appears ill almost certainly have to burn it to CD-R since apparently the Dreamcast won't read CD-RW discs from looking around online (at least not without tweaking laser power which could burn it out faster, as it's risky to tweak, so I am leaving mine as-is in it's stock state). but just to see what happens when I remove that "pfctoc.dll" from the root of the ImgBurn directory... after removing it, loading up ImgBurn, then doing a drag-n-drop of the .CDI file into ImgBurn, it throws pretty much the same error the OP got in the ImgBurn log window... E 03:22:50 Unable to initialise PfcToc! - PfcToc.dll E 03:22:50 Reason: Module not found. E 03:22:50 You need to copy pfctoc.dll into the program folder. (C:\Program Files\ImgBurn\) E 03:22:50 Visit http://www.imgburn.com/index.php?act=download to download it. so apparently putting that pfctoc.dll file into the root of the ImgBurn directory has a big effect on trying to burn Dreamcast games with ImgBurn p.s. I do have a Dreamcast and I know it played burned games the last I checked, but I have not used that console in ages now.
  2. It already works on Linux through Wine...
  3. I can't say nothing officially (as ill leave the details to the higher-ups around here), but I imagine it's generally better/safer this way to write discs in one shot. in the future if you want to fill a disc wait until you have enough data to do it in one shot. I think some burning software allows multi-sessions, so you could write say 1GB to a 4.7GB DVD for example and then at a later date add more to it, but I think this wastes some storage space on the disc each session you create vs if you did it in one shot. personally I prefer the write everything you want to in one shot as things are nice and reliable this way and you get max storage space. but on a side note speaking for myself... I remember briefly in the old days, which was probably my earlier CD burning days, so probably in the 1998-2003 time frame or so, I used to use some software that would allow adding/deleting files to it as you went along, sort of acts like a hard drive on some level. I want to say it was 'packet writing' software (I don't remember the name of the software I used off the top of my head) and, if I recall correctly, I only did it on CD-RW discs even though I think you could use it on CD-R etc, but it made less sense on write-once media. but this just seems like a bad way to write CD/DVD in general as I suspect it's best to write whatever you got to write in one shot and apparently this seems to be more of the norm anyways as I don't recall using that packet writing software much since the standard way (writing a disc in one shot) is better/preferred. but I think in regards to that packet writing stuff... even with CD-RW, which as you know you can erase/write to many times in general, I think with packet writing, when you add some files and say delete one, it does not actually delete the data it wrote but adjusts the general table-of-contents of the disc (or something to this effect) to just ignore the file you deleted so it appears it's deleted but the written area is still filling up (so if you added say two files at 100MB each, which would take 200MB, and then deleted one with the packet writing software, 200MB would still be used up of the 700MB total space on a CD-RW even though it will only appear you got one 100MB file on it. so everytime you write more data to it with the packet writing software the storage space always decreases). only way to fix that is to basically wipe the CD-RW and start clean again. I have not did this in probably 20+ years now, but I think that's the general idea on how it worked. but after checking Wikipedia on 'packet writing' it appears I am correct (at least with say CD-R, but I 'think' CD-RW reacts the same)...
  4. I am curious... did you just install it and it worked? ; or did you have to tweak things like change from ASPI to SPTI mode and the like? The oldest thing I run occasionally is a game from 2002 (i.e. Mafia (2002). which is still my #1 video game experience to date). but if I recall correctly when I was on Windows 10 I had to enable 'DirectPlay' for it to work, which is pretty much under... Windows Features > Legacy Components > DirectPlay (check the box by directplay). or that general section is found on the 'Turn windows features on or off' etc. I am not sure how that would be handled on Windows 11 or future versions of Windows. but I likely won't be using Windows for the foreseeable future and even on the occasion I might need it, I would likely just temporarily reinstall it on my main PC, play a game, then go back to Mint. but nearly all of the games I replay (which is largely just the Mafia series (Mafia (2002)/Mafia II (2010)/Mafia III (2016)/Mafia: Definitive Edition (2020)(remake of the original 2002 game)) work on Linux. p.s. the oldest software I use without a update would probably be ImgBurn.
  5. Try it and see as I would guesstimate if it installs and starts up and sees your DVD burner, it will probably work. you might need to change ImgBurn to use SPTI though... 'Tools > Settings > I/O', then select 'SPTI - Microsoft', then under 'SPTI Device Enumeration Method' you can tweak that a bit if you need to. basically if you start up ImgBurn, which I think uses APSI by default, and it does not see your DVD burner, switching to SPTI will probably help. for the record... that's what I use on Linux Mint v20.3-Xfce is ImgBurn in SPTI mode as ASPI mode simply won't see any of my burners. p.s. I never bothered with Windows 11 given the requirements stop it from officially running on too much hardware which is why I think that OS will ultimately fail. besides, if the pattern from Microsoft holds (which has held true since Win98 to date... Win98(good),WinME(bad),WinXP(good),WinVista(bad),Win7(good),Win8(bad),Win10(good),Win11(bad(?)), Windows 11 is part of the 'bad' cycle. I doubt it will see wide adoption like Windows 10 has given it seems you got to have hardware within about the last 5 years or so tops for it to work, which officially stops too much hardware from running it. just on a personal level... I have used pretty much all of the Microsoft OS's from Win v3.11 to date with the exception of Win8 and Win11. I tried Win8 initially in a virtual machine but it's interface was horrible so I never bothered with it again (sure, they fixed it later, but by then the damage was done, it was doomed as people just stuck with Win7 or went to Win10). also, I omitted Win2000 because while that was basically the first stable OS from Microsoft that the average person could use on their computer (I used it myself at one point at home), it was not targeted at the common person, so WinXP was basically the first stable OS from Microsoft marketed towards the common person (which you might as well say is about when computers were more mainstream as WinXP was 2001 but I would say computers in general started to take off probably in that 1998-2000 range. for measure... high speed internet (cable) was first in my area in the year 2000). because before the Win2k/WinXP days, people had to reboot a lot more often etc.
  6. Your using older firmware for that drive as you can obtain the newest (BSOY) from here... https://www.firmwarehq.com/Lite-On/SOHW-1633S/files.html I would imagine that drive should be okay enough to finish the writing as I got a Lite-on 1673s drive, which is my original burner I got back in 2005, and that worked fine the last I checked. burn quality might be worse on that drive vs a bit more modern ones though as you can check your burned discs burn quality with a program called KProbe v2.5.2 (i.e. https://www.videohelp.com/software/KProbe ) on KProbe your mainly concerned with PIF's as 'optimal' would be to keep any single spike to 4 or less (although you can still be a fair amount worse than that standard and have a working/readable disc). but I suspect you will probably exceed that standard, but the main thing is as long as ImgBurn passes the 'verify' process that at least means the disc is currently readable. but KProbe will give you a better idea of the burn quality of the disc, like if your closer to higher burn quality or not. there appears to be custom firmware for that drive to, here... https://archive.rpc1.org/codeguys/firmwares/dvdrw/ ; talked about a bit here... https://club.myce.com/t/liteon-1633s-new-firmware/161327 etc. it's been a while since I messed around with crossflashing etc though, so I forgot most of it off the top of my head. but it does appear you can turn that 1633s drive into 1653s if you want with Omnipatcher (https://archive.rpc1.org/codeguys/patchers/) etc as one comment I read on myce site said, "get the latest omnipatcher (thanks to the Codeguys) and make your 1633S a true 1653S. That way you will be able to use any 1653S FW straight from liteon site!!!". but if all of this sounds complicated, you can just flash the stock BS0Y firmware for your 1633s drive and see if that helps. NOTE: all of the firmware flashing is done at your own risk! ; but if your drive does not work on those discs currently there is a decent chance a newer firmware will help. Checking my Lite-on 1673s drive, with the newest firmware available for it (JS0D), with that same media and media code mine shows... "6x, 8x" for write speeds. I think I can crossflash my 1673s to a 1693s drive etc, but I never bothered to do it. but who knows, maybe ill play around with it sometime. but I am curious if yours changes with a simple stock firmware update. but if not, I wonder if crossflashing to 1653s would improve it a bit etc. but if what I looked up online is correct, you might get a potential burning speed upgrade on DVD-R media as it appears the 1633s is limited to a max of 8x burn speed where as the 1653s drive can go up to 12x burn speed on DVD-R media (both do up to 16x on DVD+R it appears). with that said... if you want to be 'safe' I would just try flashing to the newest official firmware for your 1633s drive and see what happens.
  7. Well I tried the basic extraction with the ".7z.001" (i.e. the first file) and ".7z.002" (i.e. the last file) and got same result. but I suspect what you just said summed it up as 7-zip just don't do have that feature in the software as looking around online, I found some posts trying to do what I wanted to do and it appears 7-zip can't do it. so basically if I need to restore this data in the future ill have to just copy each DVD's 7z file back to a folder on hard drive and then open the first file at which point it will extract the data as expected. but not a huge problem as what I burned is mostly for long term data storage as I don't plan on needing to extract that data in general.
  8. Well at least trying to load the first ".7z.001" file (even the ".7z.002") directly from the DVD drive disc it errors with a 'An error occurred when loading the archive.' through GUI. even trying a basic extraction from terminal errors... 'Can not open the file as archive' etc. the same result on both files (i.e. ".7z.001" and ".7z.002") so as far as I can tell both files must be located on hard drive first before I can open the first file at which point it will function as expected and then I can extract the file(s). but yeah, it would have been nice to be able to just leave it on the disc and extract the files out of it as this would save time since I would not have to copy files back to hard drive first, then load the file and then extract.
  9. dbminter pretty much summed it up. but I just thought I would add that when it comes to spanning discs in a general sense (for other random people who might read this post)... there is a small amount of large MKV files I want to backup but won't fit on a standard 4.7GB DVD. so what I did was basically take 7-zip, and using no compression (so it goes as fast as possible as video files don't compress well anyways so it's not worth waiting for it to compress so I use no compression which greatly speeds up time to finish creating the files), I split it to '4481m' which will just barely fit on a standard 4.7GB DVD and then I simply burn those files to say 2-3 DVD's (or whatever yours takes) with ImgBurn. but to use the actual MKV file if I need to restore from these discs... I would have to copy the files from each DVD (.7z.001 to .7z.002 and so on) back to a folder on the hard drive and then extract it from those 7-zip files by opening the first file and than extract the file(s) from it and then I would now have the original MKV file back to perfect working order just like the original one. so this is not really for practical usage, but is good for long term storage of a file you don't want to lose that won't fit on standard 4.7GB media and your not planning on using in general. on windows that will be easy since it's got a nice GUI for selecting these options. but if your on Linux keep reading since it's not as easy mostly in the sense of getting it not to use compression as if your using compression it's easy enough to do through the GUI that Linux Mint gives us by selecting files, right click, then select 'Create Archive...' and the GUI is easy enough after this point. but if your trying not to use any compression there is no option for that in the GUI which is a shame etc. but on Linux I had to use the command line (I used the following on Mint v20.3-Xfce... https://www.7-zip.org/a/7z2107-linux-x64.tar.xz ; or for newest for Linux 64bit go to... https://www.7-zip.org/download.html and find "64-bit Linux x86-64" version and download it) for which I did something like... ./7zz -mx0 -v4481m a NameOfFileToCreate.7z FilesToAdd* that "FilesToAdd*" can be modified a bit if you want to as in the example I used above it will basically add any files that start with 'FilesToAdd' and the "*" will basically just assume it will include all files that start with 'FilesToAdd but ignore everything else in the directory. for example, say I had the following files in the directory... File1234.txt File123456.mkv File2345.mkv by using "File1*" (swapped with the "FilesToAdd*" in my example above) it would add both the File1234.txt file and the File123456.mkv file but ignore the File2345.mkv as that would not be added to the archive (but if you did "File*" it would add all three files). but to make things easier if your only adding one file you could simply just type the precise name of the file and that would work. but if it's the only file of it's type in that directory it would probably be faster/easier to just type "*.mkv" for example if it was the only MKV file you wanted to add to the archive in the directory. that "-mx0" switch just tells 7-zip not to use any compression. the "-v4481m" is the volume file size in MB (it's actually a bit under 4,700,000,000 bytes for each file which just barely fits on a standard 4.7GB DVD) you want before it splits (I know 4481m is the MAX you can go for it to fit on all DVD's (technically you could go a little larger for DVD-R but it's best to leave it as 4481 so it will fit on both DVD+R and DVD-R as it's not worth losing the ability to burn to DVD+R if needed by making it a little too large to fit on DVD+R but would fit on DVD-R) and the "a" is for add files and the rest should be fairly straight forward given my example. p.s. I changed to the 7z2107 folder first in terminal and put the files I wanted to add in that same directory to make things a bit easier. but I suspect I could probably just swap out the "FilesToAdd*" with the precise location of the file(s) I want to add like say "/home/user/Downloads/File.mkv" ('user' will be swapped with whatever yours is setup as). NOTE: Linux is case sensitive so if your file has a capital letter and you type a lower case I think it will error out when selecting the name of the file and the same goes for directory naming I think.
  10. Hell, if that's the case and you know it works... you might be better off buying a decent DVD burner that normally goes into a desktop computer since at least this way you can buy whatever brand you want. but it's your call
  11. Yeah, a proper desktop type of external burner should be okay. hell, I got one of those 'SATA/IDE to USB3' adapters for hard drives that I have occasionally used on my desktop IDE/SATA burners (I tried it mainly on a ancient HP (IDE) burner (May 2000 mfg date) and ImgBurn works okay with it) and it works fine. although I suspect your probably better off just buying a external desktop sized burner since it will be more convenient (and probably less $) than buying a decent quality desktop DVD burner and connecting it to that adapter and then from that adapter to the PC's USB port.
  12. Like dbminter basically said, your 'laptop burner' is most likely the problem. I would strongly suggest using a proper desktop burner instead which will likely work without issue on those TYG03 media. hell, I suspect even the lower quality media you had issues with will probably work on a decent desktop burner. because, just speaking for myself... I don't think I ever had a write problem like that on regular/non-RW media (short of a very limited amount of discs that had heavy scratches at which point it was the scratched that were the problem).
  13. All-around the standard 25GB discs are safest. while I get you want to have less discs, unless you got many TB's of data you want to store long term, you can still store plenty of high importance data (like say family pictures/videos and the like) on a single 25GB disc. because $1.40 a disc vs $3.88 is a rather significant difference and even in terms of physical storage space, say 100 discs at 25GB each that's 2.5TB of storage which is a lot unless you have many TB's of higher importance data. hell, even some stuff I would personally not mind backing up to optical media, but don't because it won't fit on regular DVD media, I could pretty much get all of that on roughly 125-150 25GB discs (although I just use hard drives since it's more practical for non high importance data). I get with 50GB each would pretty much halve the physical discs, but even 125-150 25GB discs in say slim jewel cases is nothing extreme in terms of physical storage space to where I would not worry about it too much as if you had to store say many hundreds of discs (say 300-400+), that can start to become a physical storage space problem (and getting higher capacity discs would start to look a lot more appealing assuming they are reliable enough), but as long as you don't reach that point, chances are storing say a couple hundred standard BD-R discs (which would be 5TB of storage space) ain't too bad, especially if it's not something you plan on accessing much in general. since I would imagine you will generally be using hard drives for general data access as optical media is mostly good in case something happens to the data on the hard drive and you need to restore it. also, unless someone has money to burn it don't make much sense paying $30 for ONE 100GB disc (especially I suspect as there are more layers the higher chance that disc will fail) as you would be far better off with four single 25GB discs at $5.60. but just looking at the basic storage capacity of what you listed... I can see how one would back the $97 option over the $70 option, especially if the discs are similar reliability and taking up less physical storage space is a higher priority for this type of person as they are basically paying a $27 premium for half the physical storage space. but with all of that said... at least us users around here can see how things play out in your situation
  14. To my knowledge the 'Audio CD' CD-R's are specifically made for home CD recorders as I don't think you can use regular CD-R's on those (some sort of BS fee they tack on which is why "audio CD-R's" cost more than regular CD-R). but on a computer, regular CD-R's are better since they are cheaper and don't require you use those 'audio CD-Rs'. but I don't know anyone who actually needs those 'audio CD-R' discs since I don't know anyone who uses recording devices that require those audio CD-Rs. I have pretty much never (or rarely) experienced any obvious issues with CD-R's in general over the years. I mostly used generic CD-R's since I have been into CD burning which is 1998 to date (my DVD burning was from 2005 to date). but the best quality CD-R's I have are probably the Mitsui ones I bought back around 2002 or so (that was back when those were solid etc as you can see it's got a coating on the top surface etc) as those where like $0.50 per disc (so $50 for 100 CD-R's) as I still got most of that original 100-pack left and burned one not long ago (as a standard audio CD) and still work well etc. but generally speaking... Verbatim with Mitsubishi dye (i.e. Azo/DataLife Plus) or Taiyo Yuden CD-R/DVD are typically what you want. M-DISC can be good but are not worth the inflated price in my opinion given the practical longevity of standard quality media like Verbatim/TY are likely good enough to last many decades at least. so even if M-DISC last much longer, it won't really matter because we will probably be dead or close enough to that point by the time regular quality media fails. so as long as the standard quality media burned well to begin with, chances are it will last decades at the minimum, generally speaking. but I was pretty much out of the generic CD-R's and I ordered that 100-pack of standard Verbatim CD-R's (CMC Magnetics media code) in April 2022 and don't have any issues with it playing on my original CD player (Pansonic RX-DS620) which has a April 1991 mfg date on it as I have probably had that since late 1991 or sometime in 1992. I burned them (about 6-7 standard audio discs so far) at 16x without issue. because at about $0.18 a disc, I can't really lose as I largely bought them for burning standard audio CD's occasionally and these will likely last a long time in my estimations, assuming you treat your discs with care which I always do as scratches on them will be minimal for me(and I keep them out of sunlight even though they might occasionally see higher heat in a vehicle over the years) since I don't abuse my stuff like some people do. but when it comes to DVD's I almost always used Verbatim (Azo ones or the like) brand to keep quality stable as those are the quality Mitsubishi dye as I have quite a few discs that are 13+ years old that still scan well to this day. hence, they will probably last many decades at least before failure occurs. I did buy some Taiyo Yuden 8x DVD-R ('TYG02' media code) back in the 2000's decade and those are still top notch to this day as I still have most of the 100 pack left as I primarily use it for a limited amount of high importance data backup. Yeah, I think mine show up as 'Mitsubishi Chemical Corp' in ImgBurn for media code. so they will likely last a lot longer than my cheap Memorex crap did years ago.
  15. I see as that sounds right. but that's kind of weird on how it goes from 4x straight to 10x, so skips 8x (probably not a big deal though). so kind of a potential bonus in certain situations where lower write speed might be of help on a picky reader. I was taking a quick look on Amazon and I likely have found them under the Verbatim 'DataLifePlus' CD-R. but they do cost noticeably more. but as a alternative... it seems many like the Taiyo Yuden CD-R's to which seem to have a good reputation.
  16. You can actually write at 4x to a CD-R on that BD writer? ; if so, that's surprising. because usually if you try to select a non-supported write speed of too fast or too slow it will just select the fastest available or slowest available in those situations. p.s. the only DVD+RW discs I got, which I think I bought in 2019, of which it's surely 'new old stock', are Verbatim DVD+RW 2.4x discs and have a 2002 date on back of jewel cases. makes me wonder if you got the same ones I got
  17. For CD-R's your probably better off just sticking to a typical DVD burner I suspect and I can't imagine there are many new drives available that burn CD-R's slower than 8x or 16x unless you go way back to the earlier days. even looking at my two DVD burners, which are from 2009 and 2011, they bottom out at 8x (Sony 7240s(2009)) and 16x (Liteon iHAS324B(2011)) for standard Verbatim CD-R's (CMC Magnetics media code and are listed as 52x on package, which I assume is what you got). but honestly, for CD-R's, 16x should be good enough on most things if your using a decent burner with decent media even though I realize random devices can be picky and may not work anyways. I do have a couple of old CD-RW drives (Liteon 24102b (24x10x40) from Dec 2001 etc) but I have not really tried to burn any of my recently bought (April 2022) Verbatim CD-R's on that old Liteon CD-RW drive. but even checking ImgBurn on my old Liteon 24102b burner (Dec 2001 mfg date) with one of those Verbatim CD-R's in the drive, there is no listed 'supported write speeds' text etc like I see on all three of my DVD burners, so I am 'guessing' I can select a slower write speed if I wanted to on that but I can't be sure without trying sometime. but checking my original DVD burner a moment ago, which is a Liteon 1673s from the year 2005 (on the newest firmware available for it), the slowest write speed on those Verbatim CD-R's I can select is 8x given what ImgBurn tells me. so off the top of my head... finding a burner that can burn CD-R's slower than 8x probably won't be easy unless you get something fairly ancient. you might be able to find old/used CD-RW drives on places like Ebay if you want to gamble etc. also, the dye could play a potential role in whether your devices likes the discs or not to. because I would imagine you got the standard cheaper Verbatim CD-R's and not the better Mitsubishi dye ones which 'may' have a better success rate with your devices. I can't really comment much on BD-R writing since I never bothered to get into it given the initial investment costs are a bit too high and they have not been around as long as CD/DVD recording, so I tend to have more trust in CD/DVD burning long term than BD-R and not only that, pretty much any computer that has a optical drive can read a CD/DVD unlike BD-R which I can't imagine many computers have drives that can read CD/DVD. so unless BD-R is a must, I suggest sticking to DVD for general data backup (although the data to backup probably needs to be a bit more limited since if you got too much data to burn then CD/DVD is not really practical) and CD-R's for standard music CD's and stuff where CD is required etc. plus, I see those higher capacity BD discs, but cramming 50-75-100GB onto a single disc seems even more risky since it seems a drives ability to read that data will become more sensitive to errors on the discs. EDIT: checking specs/reviews on that Liteon 24102b even that seems to limit CD-R's to a minimum of 8x. so there goes my theory of it being able to write slower. but my HP burner (May 2000 mfg date) I suspect might be able to drop speed further since it's MAX speed is 8x. but I generally don't use this drive.
  18. @6000RPM The show stopper issue for M-Disc is cost and does not appear to offer a significant enough real world difference in longevity over regular optical media to matter given the quality regular stuff will likely last decades at the least. so lets just say as a ball park figure that standard optical DVD media last roughly 50 years before optical drives can no longer read that data. that's likely plenty enough time for most given us humans tend to last around 80 years on average (maybe around 100 years at best) and unless someone is quite young at this point, I suspect many (if not most(?)) of us into optical media backup probably have some age on us (since we are a little more old-school at this point in time) which means in say roughly 30-50 years from now we are going to be quite old, possibly dead (it's plausible I could be dead in 30-50 years from now from natural causes), and I don't really expect future generations to care much about optical media as time passes as it seems many don't really care about data backup all that much as even a fair amount of the ones that do have data they don't want to lose tend to roll-the-dice and hope their device does not fail them before moving to another device etc. also, you got the 'SATA' standard... as long as this remains common on computer hardware that should make things easy enough to read back the data from optical media (CD/DVD) for the foreseeable future. but say the SATA standard fizzles out in 10-20 years from now, it will be just a matter of time before it becomes more difficult to find hardware to read the data on the CD/DVD media. but I figure at the very least, optical CD/DVD media should still be a solid alternative for long term storage over hard drives through at least the current decade and probably the next, but after that (i.e. 2040+) who knows. because lets say they faze out SATA connections from general computer hardware in about 10 years from now, that would probably mean we should be safe enough at least another 10+ years beyond that point (like it not being too difficult to find hardware that will work with optical media), but after that who knows. with BD media things tends to look worse... initial cost of the burner and media is a little steep (i.e. hard drives tend to be more appealing at this point, especially given DVD recordable media is still good enough as long as you don't have boatloads of data to backup), less drives out there in general that can read it (since just about any computer with a optical drive can read CD/DVD media but likely not BD), and potentially less reliable as CD/DVD media since your cramming in a lot more data in the same physical space etc. also, another negative is BD media came around a bit too late, so it never really took off (since computers never really shipped with drives to read BD media), since I would say that optical media was pretty much at it's peak in the 2000's as much beyond that it seems to started to lose it's appeal with the masses, especially as the 2010's decade progressed, as I suspect by the end of this current 2020's decade it will be that much less used than it is currently. but hopefully they still sell enough CD/DVD recordable discs to keep them being manufactured for the foreseeable future. because I think that's another thing that will determine when optical media will start to really disappear is whether manufacturers continue making them or not. because if it gets to the point where no one wants to make them anymore, then it's time to start worrying a bit. p.s. while I do have some additional side data that would be nice to backup on BD media, it's not enough of a benefit for me to justify the initial cost of the BD burner/media. so in the end I just stick to recordable CD/DVD media for some level of backups. I use CD mainly for standard audio CD's and DVD mainly for higher importance data backup at this point in time along with some level of other data I have that's small enough to fit onto a 4.7GB DVD (which is where the BD media would give me a solid improvement, but like I said, not enough benefit to justify the cost of the burner/media).
  19. Looking at that log... it does not matter if you try to write slower than 10x, it will then default to the slowest speed available for that media, which in your case is 10x write speed. because it specifically says "10x,16x,20x,24x" are the only write speed options for that media on the burner your using. I suggest using 16x write speed for standard audio CD's. it's best to avoid laptop burners since they tend not to be as good as desktop burners from what I have heard. with that said... if that burner does not like the more typical Verbatim CD-R's, which are the CMC Magnetics media code, you can try the slightly more expensive ones with the Azo dye. if those fail, your burner is likely of suspect quality. p.s. on a side note... assuming your burner/media are in decent working order, if you need to, there is a good chance you can burn 82min15sec on those Verbatim CD-R 80min/700mb 52x CD-R's.
  20. Use the original CD's as it's generally a bad idea to burn standard audio CD's from MP3. if your burning standard audio CD it's always best to use lossless audio files (i.e. FLAC) and the like.
  21. Yeah, I get the gist of it on paper. like CD(700MB(or 0.7GB)) to DVD(4.7GB) to BluRay(25GB), as more storage space is available in the same area, it seems as things become more complex, issues are more likely to arise. since CD compared to BD there is basically a 35.71 times the storage space per disc difference. I was doing some more KProbe C1/C2 scanning of my old CD-R's and pretty much everything I scanned so far ain't that far apart on disc quality. so if that's a ball park indication of CD-R vs DVD-R/+R in general, CD-R is probably a bit safer. but with that said... given DVD holds 6.71 times the storage of CD-R, unless someone has only a very limited amount of data backup, DVD is more practical overall. but what ill probably do is backup a more very limited amount of family pictures (maybe a very limited amount of videos) on a small amount of CD-R's as this will offer that much more additional protection from data loss given my usual Verbatim/TY DVD backups (and hard drive stuff). because I was scanning a couple of CD-R's that were burned in 2001(Samsung 650MB 12x CD-R) and 2002(Mitsui), which are probably the oldest optical media that I still have, and they scan similar to CD-R's I burned recently etc. but like I said in the past I do still have a few Verbatim CD-R 650MB/74min in a jewel case, brand new, which has a 1997 date on the back as these are probably THE oldest recordable discs I still have in my possession, but I just keep these mostly as a relic at this point. but the oldest media I still burn would be those Mitsui discs which, given what I said in the "p.s." section below, I know are a full 20+ years old. so I guess for any random person reading this... while DVD will generally be a bit more practical, if you got a very limited amount of high importance data one wants to backup, I might suggest putting it on CD-R over DVD if you have to choose between the two. although better yet, just make backups on CD and DVD media along with hard drive as this way, short of a natural disaster, your chances of losing the data would be slim. p.s. so I know for a fact all of those Mitsui discs I still have (probably around 50-75 discs or so not used yet) are all no newer than Feb 2002 since I wrote 2-28-02 (Feb 28th 2002) on the disc. even that Samsung one I burned, while I did not directly write a burn data on it like I usually do, given the naming of the CD-R it's probably burned on Apr 22nd 2001.
  22. I just noticed recently that my Liteon 24102b (Dec 2001 mfg date) CD burner can actually scan CD-R's with KProbe properly as it shows a steady stream of C1 info unlike my Liteon iHAS324B DVD burner which works well for only DVD. but from what I can tell there is not much info on what exactly the C1 errors should be but it seems you want 0 C2 errors and all of the discs I burned recently seem to be okay as none of them had a single C2 error. but the best scan from the Verbatim CD-R 100-pack (CMC Magnetics media code) I got in April 2022, from the 7 CD-R's I burned so far (all burned on my Sony Optiarc 7240s with v1.04 firmware at 16x), is this one (see attached picture). the worst one I have seen so far had a total of 54.6k C1's (64 C1 peak (so far I seem to be about 30 something peak for the typical disc currently)). so if that's a ball park indication of how the rest of the Verbatim CD-R's from the 100-pack will burn, I am not worried about burn quality at the end of the day. on a side note... I had a 10-pack of Nashua 1-16x certified discs which was probably bought in the 2000's decade and for comparison 2 out of the 3 discs burned so far here have about 164k total C1 errors (with peaks being 111/114), so right around triple my worst Verbatim CD-R's so far, and have the CMC Magnetics media code to. hell, I even got some old generic 'Precision' branded discs that are probably at least 18 years old (I am pretty sure they are no newer than 2004 when I bought them) and scanning one recently that I burned Sep 16th 2019 only had a total of about 2.8k C1's (the other two of the same discs where in the 9k to 11k range) but the media code for these is 'Prodisc Technology Inc'. so these actually scanned a bit better than my recent Verbatim CD-R's I bought in April 2022. either way, like I was saying, I am not really concerned about burn quality on any of the discs I checked. even some of my about $0.50 a disc Mitsui (Mitsui Chemicals Inc media code) (which are probably about 20 years old now when I bought them even though the disc I scanned I burned a month or so ago) scan a bit worse (about 66k total C1's) than the Verbatim CD-R's. but I noticed a moderator on the MyCE forums say something in the ball park of keeping C1's to no more than about 200 per second is a bit more 'optimal'. but then they went on to say they have some well over that standard and are still okay. so it seems the data on CD-R scanning is not as clear where as for DVD's people have a better feel of where things should be. but in terms of that standard of 'no more than 200 a second' for C1's... just as the discs were scanning I would say just looking at it with my eye as it's counting up during the scan that things were generally less than the '200 a second' standard as sometimes you can tell it's easily under that standard (a good thing) while others might be close either way of that standard and my weaker discs (Nashua branded) were probably over that standard as you can see it counts up much more rapidly. but with all of that said... I suspect CD-R's are less picky than DVD-R(+R) discs in general. 'if' that's true... if someone has a more very limited amount of data backup, it might not hurt to back up some of that on CD-R in addition to the usual DVD media to further lower ones chances of losing that data. bottom line... in short, I am not worried about my CD-R burn quality
  23. I see. that sounds about right as I was guessing I got mine probably about 2000-2001, maybe a little earlier or a little later. Ahh, I see. so it's a bit more souped up I still got a home DVD video recorder for use on TV as we got it to transfer home VHS videos to DVD (VHS unit is separate. we just used our stand alone VHS unit and connected it to the DVD recorder) as I just checked the unit and it's a 'Magnavox MWR10D6'. I think we got that roughly between 10-15 years ago back when Walmart (a major retailer here in the USA) used to have those units in their stores. I just use DVD+RW discs in it at the time and once everything was good I would then just use my computer to duplicate the DVD+RW disc to a permanent DVD-R or +R disc. but when I last used that I had some lower quality Memorex DVD+RW 4x discs, which I junked years ago now, and while I have not tested them yet, I suspect the DVD-RW 2.4x Verbatim discs I bought in I think 2019 (which have a 2002 date on back of jewel case) will probably work well on it should I need to use it again to get VHS to DVD at some point in the future.
  24. I just decided to see what would happen if I copied one of my previously burned MCC 003 discs recently, that is of suspect burn quality, back to the hard drive with my 7240s and iHAS324B burners and while both ultimately worked, as I confirmed with Linux's 'sha256sum' hash check as both matched my original file on hard drive, so there is no data corruption (which is most important), you can tell the 7240s has issues reading that disc where as the iHAS324B does not as the iHAS324B basically went full speed the whole time (I suspect it must have better error correction than the 7240s(?)). because on the 7240s drive when copying the file back to the hard drive the speed at which it reads fluctuates up and down and this is obvious given you can hear the drive speed up and down throughout the transfer along with the transfer rate shown in the Linux Mint file manager. because while I did not time the transfer, I know a full DVD+R (or -R) should take right around 5 minutes to copy the data from the disc back to hard drive if it's reading at max speed (at least that's the best my 7240s and iHAS324B drives can do at their best), and I am sure that was a fair amount longer than that (guessing... probably at least 7min+) given it never reached the speeds it normally would as you could hear it try to spin up here and there but it does not last long and slowed back down, but at least it does not read the disc TOO slowly either. but the transfer rate was nothing TOO slow even though you could see near the end area of the disc, it was at it's slowest transfer speed, which is when the PIF's, based on KProbe scan, were the worst. like ball park transfer speed when it dropped to it's slowest speed late into the disc (which is typically when it's at it's fastest under normal circumstances) is probably 4-5MB/s at best. but I would say most of the disc was floating around 9-10MB/s as you could see it was doing about 9-10MB/s and then occasionally it would try to speed up, it would gain a bit more MB/s briefly, and then drop back down etc. basically the single 'MCC 003' disc I tested in the above test was burned on a Liteon 1673s burner at 8x as it's the 1st picture posted on the 1st page of this topic (i.e. https://forum.imgburn.com/topic/26594-best-medium-for-long-term-storage/?do=findComment&comment=169108 ) ; because as you can see there, while this disc could be worse, it's got plenty of total PIF's (41.5k) and late into the disc it really ramps up with higher peaks, and while read speed fluctuated on the 7240s when reading that disc, you could see it was at it's slowest near the end which is inline with the higher PIF's. so I think stuff like this gives credibility to these KProbe scans and the like. because on other discs that had pretty good burn quality, the 7240s reads the disc at basically max speed the whole way since you can hear the drive buzzed up and transfer rate slowly climbs up as it reads further into the disc, like expected. I just don't know the rough point in which the 7240s drive will begin to have at least slight issues reading these MCC 003 discs. but any of my KProbe scans that are anywhere near 'higher quality' it will likely read it at full speed as expected. but as long as this disc (and ones similar) does not noticeably degrade in say 5-10 years, it will probably still be working decades from now. plus, like I say these discs were probably made somewhere around the mid-2000's from my best guesstimate, or probably no newer than the late 2000's, which probably means they are at least 13+ years old but I would guess closer to around 17 years old. p.s. but I think on the bright side, short of me missing something, that disc I tested is probably my all-around worst disc of those working (like I mentioned before only about 4-6 discs might have been suspect burn quality on some level), especially in terms of total PIF's and probably even general peak PIF's. because even a moment ago briefly playing with a disc that reached 828 PI briefly at the very beginning, did not have any obvious read speed issues that I noticed. so short of that brief 828 PI spike, the rest of the disc is pretty good burn quality. so I suspect unless the PI's get really crazy, and as long as PIF's ain't too bad, the discs will probably remain of 'good enough' quality for the foreseeable future.
  25. Yeah, basically same here. plus, it takes up less storage space that way to. ill either use EAC (Exact Audio Copy), which also works on Linux Mint through Wine, or just copy the track directly from file manager to the hard drive, which gives you a standard WAV file, and then use Foobar2000 to compress it to FLAC (I typically use max compression of 8 ) etc.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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