CDRLabs.com

What do you guys think of the gaps produced from Bufferunderuns and Z-CLV burns??

I know I read somewhere that when bufferunderun was first introduced the gap was.... I dunno .. 5 um?? And with Plextor's 40X writer its now like 1 um? Am I correct?

Anyways, my point is, does that gap make a difference in say data discs, video games, music cds, vcds?

Cuz with Z-CLV, you will get the gaps regardless of bufferunderuns or not.

So what do you guys think??

I never liked the idea of gaps in the tracks, no matter how theoretically small, so I ended up buying a P-CAV and a CAV drive. But I was probably just being paranoid. I think that the modern linking schemes do a fine job of reducing the gap to insignificance. After all, there are hundreds of thousands of Z-CLV drives out there, and there hasn't been a groundswell of complaints about problems with linking.

cfitz

Most of the newer Z-CLV drives actually don't leave a gap in-between speed zones. I can't recall exactly how they prevent the gaps, but in any case, any gaps should have no effect on your data due to there small size. Gaps may be an issue on older CD writers, but I would keep some faith in modern Z-CLV. I have never had a CD ruined due to Z-CLV writing and I have burned A LOT of CD-Rs in my life.

-Scott

the zone change in a Z-CLV drive is there. in old drives it was around 5 micrometers or more. in newer ones, less than 1 micrometer, hence called "zero gap". but it's not zero, it is there.
in my opinion, this is not very important. there are many Z-CLV drives out there, and i haven't heard of anyone complaining about problems from these gaps. there are plenty of "burning experts" here on these forum that burned A LOT on Z-CLV (data, audio, CD images, VCDs, game copies, whatevery you can imagine) and no complaint.

as to Z-CLV vs. CAV/P-CAV, well there was some discussion about this a few months ago, before P-CAV/CAV took over and everybody was buying these drives. this was still when the only drives using P-CAV were the yamahas, up to 24x (3200 model).
my opinion is that CAV is NOT better than Z-CLV. for various reasons. CAV/P-CAV have other issues.
the main theme at the time was that the P-CAV drives of yamaha created better quality burns, and P-CAV was better for burning quality. the main argument at the time was that it made it possible to keep the spin rotation speed down. well, what a lot of crap that argument turned out to be. the yamaha 3200 spun just as fast as any other Z-CLV drive at the time (if not faster), and the CAV drives of today spin FASTER than any of the Z-CLV drives of the time.
so the rotation speed argument went down the drain way back then - it was true for the yamaha 2200 but not for the 3200.
and since then, beginning with the LG 40x burner (if i'm not mistaken), CAV drives have taken over, and everybody's getting them because they're faster. the spin speed argument is void, and forgotten by CAV advocates who've used it back then. and nobody's concerned with burn quality anyway.
people still mention the gap with the Z-CLV. or for that matter any gap caused by buffer underrun protection. however that is nonesense IMO. ALL BURNED DISCS HAVE MANY ERRORS. but the error correction mechanism catches them and fixes them. we're not even thinking of them at all! same for zone-change/buffer-underrun gap errors.

i couldn't be bothered to restart that old argument from 6 months ago, but since the topic came up, i counld'nt but say my mind. but CAV has it's probelms too, like having to "continuously" change the writing strategy, since that depends on the LINEAR velocity which changes continously.

but like i said, i can't be bothered to get into that discussion again.

and besides, who cares? both Z-CLV and CAV/P-CAV drives burn good discs all the time for everyone, and any merits/shortcomings of either technology are quite insignificant in everyday practice.
that is why this whole discussion is just academic.

Oh but the P-CAV and CAV discs look so much nicer without the bulls-eye effect!

Seriously, I think we are all in agreement here. For practical purposes, all of the general technologies work well in modern burners. And if someone just can't decide, I suggest the new CIS Arrgo 48/16/48 CD-RW - it burns in two different CAV speeds, four different Z-CLV speeds, and five different CLV speeds - there is something for almost everyone. All that it is missing is P-CAV. Firmware update, anyone?

cfitz

IMHO a perfect drive let you choose between Z-CLV or CAV stratiegies no matter at which speed you burn.

So I guess for example, the peeps out there that burnt some vcd movies with ZCLV, do you notice any glitches during the 'zone' changes??

Anyways, I currently have the Plextor 40X, and was thinking about getting the Plextor 48X, but am not sure if this is the wisest decision?
Its more of a want than anything, as are most things in life!

Reasons I want the Plex48X:
-faster write speeds (marginally)
-faster rewrite speeds
-PCAV (??) (not sure if this is a valid reason)
-wider media compatibility

Reasons for doubts:
-the tray uses the belt mechanism instead of the gear

ryus wrote:Anyways, I currently have the Plextor 40X, and was thinking about getting the Plextor 48X, but am not sure if this is the wisest decision?
Its more of a want than anything, as are most things in life!

Reasons I want the Plex48X:
-faster write speeds (marginally)
-faster rewrite speeds
-PCAV (??) (not sure if this is a valid reason)
-wider media compatibility

Reasons for doubts:
-the tray uses the belt mechanism instead of the gear

another reason for the 48x:
AFAIK it supports Mt. Rainier. the 40x should in the future, when Plextor will (at long last) release a firmware update that gives it MRW support.

wider media compatiblity - i don't think so. media compatiblity is maintained on the older drive by firmware updates. the latest is 1.03.

belt mechanism instead of gears - i don't really think it's much of an issue.

faster rewrite speed - that is the biggest plus for me!
faster writing speed - like you said, marginal.