• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Difference in a 2x CD burner and a 2.4x DVD burner speeds?

B

badluck

Diamond Member
I know it takes about 50 minutes at 2x to burn a CD-R, but why did the DVD writer makers use 2.4x as their standard to explain the rate DVD burners write at? As I understand, 2.4x DVD writing is comparable to burning at 22x on a CD burner. So, 1GB of info takes about 5 minutes to burn on a DVD burner.

My question is simply: Why didn't the DVD community use a different symbol to designate the speed of a DVD burner? To me, it is confusing for the masses of newbies.......Do you know what I mean? Does anybody have a link that explains this or an answer other than....just because? 🙂

Thanks...
 
Because:

CD is CD and DVD is DVD. Different things. Why would DVD want to be associated in anyway to an older product like CD? On the most basic level 1x DVD is much faster than 1x cd by about a factor of ten (maybe even more) So whats confusing? If they matched the speed Xs with CD technology then the first ever DVD would be a 10x. Get it?
 
When CDs first came out, all the players had to be able to read at 150KB/s as a minimum speed.
(The slowest rate that you could play back Music CDs without problems).

Later generations of CDs we designed to rotate faster to read data, but had to stay compatible
with that minimum speed as well, which is why drives are rated by their multiple of 1x, instead
of just saying how fast they read.

When DVDs came out, they kept the idea of being compatible in order to read CDs, but the
main concern was for the drives to keep the minimum speed needed to read a standard
MPEG-2 DVD quality video stream. That came out to about 1200KB/s, or eight times the
initial speed of CD players; that became the standard of 1x for DVD players.

Because the multiples for DVD playback are not based on the requirements of CDs, the manufacturers
cannot accurately state thier speed in terms of CDs. And because they want to market it as a DVD
player first, not as a CD player with DVD capabilites, they end up applying a new formula to thier
promotional literature.

 


<< CD is CD and DVD is DVD. Different things. Why would DVD want to be associated in anyway to an older product like CD? On the most basic level 1x DVD is much faster than 1x cd by about a factor of ten (maybe even more) So whats confusing? If they matched the speed Xs with CD technology then the first ever DVD would be a 10x. Get it? >>




If you don't understand why DVD burner makers should have distinguished between the difference in speeds (from CD burners) to assist their customers, than I suppose you aren't much of a business person.....
 


<<

<< CD is CD and DVD is DVD. Different things. Why would DVD want to be associated in anyway to an older product like CD? On the most basic level 1x DVD is much faster than 1x cd by about a factor of ten (maybe even more) So whats confusing? If they matched the speed Xs with CD technology then the first ever DVD would be a 10x. Get it? >>




If you don't understand why DVD burner makers should have distinguished between the difference in speeds (from CD burners) to assist their customers, than I suppose you aren't much of a business person..... >>



I'd leave the 'x' system as is, but I would write something on the box like "Burn a full DVD in X mins!" for the first generation burners, then I'd drop it altogether. I'd make sure to include the appropriate fine script and I'd use a conservative estimate for X.

-Ice
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top