Speed aside, are all CDRW/DVDRW drives equal for DAE?

[AxBattler]

Well, my Lite-On 52327s has started playing (tray doesn't always open etc..), so I guess it is on it's way out.

What I am wondering is whether I should bother getting another CDRW drive, and if I do, which one.

First of all, I hardly care about CDRW burning nowadays. I don't have any 52x media, so I usually pick 32-40x option when I burn (I think my media might be 48x). As long as the burn is not atrocious (i.e. hard to read), then I am fine with it.

However, I -do- care about CD-reading. Being able to cope with hard to read media is a plus (even though my media tend to be in good condition).

What I care the most, is DAE quality. I am still not sure whether all CDRW/DVDRW rip CDs with the same quality (and the only thing that differs is the reading speed). If speed is the only thing that differentiate the various drive, then I think I'll just get a second DVDRW. The price between a CDRW and DVDRW is not exactly big nowadays.

Anyone care to enlighten me?

[hoxlund]

burning audio - no faster then 16x

but for extracting audio, depends on pressed disc or burnt disc

i haven't extracted audio off burnt disc in awhile

i get all my albums off newsgroups, virtual burn .img with nero, mount in daemon, re-rip with audiograbber for correct id3 tagging purposes

[MediumRare]

Use a quality ripping tool like Exact Audio Copy and you should be OK. Some drives are less painful (read quicker) than others, but EAC should look after the exact audio copy (what else ).

My LiteOn LTR 48246S CD-Burner is my best ripping device. It also has the advantage of being able to do quality scans (C1, C2) so that you can check the condition of the source disc.

G

[redk9258]

burning audio - no faster then 16x

Why only 16x? I have burned many CDs (Fuji branded TY) at 48 - 52x without any problems. I retired my old Lite On 52327S and I'm using a Lite On SHW-1635S. I have have good results with all burns (CD or DVD). I do not use RW media that is this drives weakness.

[hoxlund]

burning music cds intended for car stereos faster then 16x is just something i wouldn't do

besides you can't sit and wait the extra minute that it takes?

[redk9258]

burning music cds intended for car stereos faster then 16x is just something i wouldn't do

besides you can't sit and wait the extra minute that it takes?

I always thought high speed media was intended to be burned at high speed. I thought I remember reading somewhere that burning slower can actually DEcrease burn quality.

Like I said above, I've never had any problems playing any of the CDs I've burned on any player, including my old JVC CD player I bought in 1986! (Man, they just don't make stuff like they used to!)

[AxBattler]

Thanks, I do use EAC for my ripping purpose.

I read a long time ago that for ripping, it is better for the drive not to support L2 cache. Is there any truth in that?

I don't buy CDs as often as I used to (more picky now), but I still have a whole loads of CDs to rip.

While I am here, how good are popular DVD-RW drives at DAE?

[dodecahedron]

I read a long time ago that for ripping, it is better for the drive not to support L2 cache. Is there any truth in that?

yes, it's true (at least if you're using EAC for ripping).

[MediumRare]

While I am here, how good are popular DVD-RW drives at DAE?

Have a look at the reviews here at CDRLabs. DAE is a standard test item (for intact discs). Also have a look at the error correction tests which also rely on DAE (here the tool CD DAE, part of the Nero Toolkit or directly from Erik Deppe's homepage).

G