Posted by Pete Fraser on 02/25/06 15:41

"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.

Thanks

Pete

[Back to original message]