On 21 Feb 2003 16:20:18 -0600, DvB wrote: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > On 21 Feb 2003 15:00:09 +0100, > > Mark Janssen wrote: > > > > > > > > > Faster writing will need more cpu, but burn-proof or > > > whatever will compensate. > > > > Using burnproof on an audio CD isn't (generally) a good idea. > > > > Why not? Just curious.
From what I can recall of the discussion at debian's cdwrite list, it has something to do with the hacky nature of burnproof. Burnproof supposedly allows the laser to be repositioned at the point on the track where the writer got a buffer underrun. The repositioning is likely not to be 100% precise, leaving a slight gap. This won't be noticeable in a data cdr, which has more data correction than an audio CD. I have absolutely no experience testing this on a standalone player ;-) because the last one I had has been busted for over two years. Brnproof seems to me to be just like a gun. It's nice for the sense of security it gives. But if you have to use it at every turn, then you're probably abusing it. Burn at a slower speed to avoid the buffer underruns in the first place -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
