|
|
Posted by Rick Merrill on 02/25/06 16:57
Pete Fraser wrote:
> "Rick Merrill" <rickZERODOTmerrill@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
> news:raSdnUT9efdt-2LeRVn-pA@comcast.com...
>
>>Pete Fraser wrote:
>
>
>>I don't know what you mean by 'slower' - diff. speeds?
>
>
> They recommend a 2x medium, whereas 4x is the slowest available now.
> I don't really think that's an issue.
>
>
>>Slower is not necessarily worse: it could mean that the laser 'pits'
>>are bigger, cleaner, less fuzzy at the ends.
>
>
> I'm not sure the "speed" of the medium affects the speed of
> recording. I assume it records at the same speed with any
> compatible disk.
>
>
>>Is there any chance there is some 'redundancy' "feature" that is enabled?
>
>
> I would guess it's some automatic redundancy.
>
>>Could it be part of a "multi-region" scheme?
>
> Not sure how that would work.
>
>>Did it take a long time to 'finalize'? (i.e. this might be when the
>>extra tracks are created?)
>
>
> It didn't seem too long, but I'm not well calibrated.
> I assumed that was what was going on.
> If you make a small recording it the recorder triplicates
> it in finalization. I'm not sure that's what's happening,
> and it would add a lot to the finalization time if I made
> a 1GB recording. Perhaps I should experiment and find out.
>
> I just hoped there might be an expert here who could comment,
> rather than me just guessing.
That makes two of us ;-) Let us know what happens with a long recording!
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|