Cornish Jack
8th Jan 2006, 13:55
I do a bit of amateur recording on MD and edit to CD for the choir members - say 10-12 copies per concert.
Have access to two desktops to do this, one is an AMD Athlon 64 with 1 Gig of RAM and goes fairly well. T'other is a Packard Bell with a Celeron and half a Gig.
I normally do the copying from the master disk on the PB since it is usually less used. Copying is 'on the fly' using Nero (5 on the PB and 6 on the Athlon). Was forced to use the Athlon recently and was astounded to find that after 27 minutes it had only completed 67% of the copy!!!:eek: Reverted to the PB and the same task completed in just over 6 minutes. CDs being used are 52X, so decided to do some timing trials at various write speeds. Quite surprised by the results ...
At 16x - 5m 29s
At 32x - 6m 24s
At 48x - 6m 59s ....... :confused: :confused: :confused:
These are all from the same master, same program, same 52x media, copies made in succession.
Anyone like to hazard a guess as to why faster is slower??
Have access to two desktops to do this, one is an AMD Athlon 64 with 1 Gig of RAM and goes fairly well. T'other is a Packard Bell with a Celeron and half a Gig.
I normally do the copying from the master disk on the PB since it is usually less used. Copying is 'on the fly' using Nero (5 on the PB and 6 on the Athlon). Was forced to use the Athlon recently and was astounded to find that after 27 minutes it had only completed 67% of the copy!!!:eek: Reverted to the PB and the same task completed in just over 6 minutes. CDs being used are 52X, so decided to do some timing trials at various write speeds. Quite surprised by the results ...
At 16x - 5m 29s
At 32x - 6m 24s
At 48x - 6m 59s ....... :confused: :confused: :confused:
These are all from the same master, same program, same 52x media, copies made in succession.
Anyone like to hazard a guess as to why faster is slower??