If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Copy better than the original?
I just copied a brand new Hyperion CD. I then ran the Nero Disc Quality
program to determine how many C1 and C2 errors there were. The results were superb. The maximum number of C1 errors was 28; there were no C2 errors. As a matter of curiosity, I ran the original disc through the same test. It was much much worse. Is this possible? How can a copy have fewer errors than the original? Thanks, Norm Strong |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Copy better than the original?
You are not measuring errors in the data, but errors in the reading process.
The 2nd disc was just easier for that drive to read. wrote in message . .. I just copied a brand new Hyperion CD. I then ran the Nero Disc Quality program to determine how many C1 and C2 errors there were. The results were superb. The maximum number of C1 errors was 28; there were no C2 errors. As a matter of curiosity, I ran the original disc through the same test. It was much much worse. Is this possible? How can a copy have fewer errors than the original? Thanks, Norm Strong |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Copy better than the original?
On Sun, 2 Apr 2006 12:24:27 -0700, wrote:
I just copied a brand new Hyperion CD. I then ran the Nero Disc Quality program to determine how many C1 and C2 errors there were. The results were superb. The maximum number of C1 errors was 28; there were no C2 errors. As a matter of curiosity, I ran the original disc through the same test. It was much much worse. Is this possible? How can a copy have fewer errors than the original? Thanks, Norm Strong C1 errors are correctable. They can be the result of smudges, scratches, weird power spikes during reading, solar eclipses, druids passing wind on the other side of the planet, etc. When you made a copy, unless you copied in a RAW mode, the data was corrected, so you started with a clean copy of the data. If the CD-R is in pristine shape and the original pressed CD is kind of rough, but serviceable, you might get a disc that's a bit easier for the drive to read. Could also be that the druids were doing something else at the time. --------------------------------------------- Thanks. MCheu |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Copy better than the original?
Hi Norm.
One thing bear in mind the faster you try to copy the greater the risk of error's creeping up, less work for the 'sample and hold' circuit. Have a peep at-: http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/question487.htm Davy |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
REQ: Dell branded Windows Media Center Edition 2005.. | allegro | Dell Computers | 0 | March 16th 05 10:45 AM |
Finally found out why Dell won't replace my MCE2005 disc.. | allegro | Dell Computers | 1 | March 15th 05 09:56 AM |
Defective Media Center Edition 2005 cd from Dell.. Can anyone help? | allegro | Dell Computers | 5 | March 14th 05 01:03 PM |
Newbie: OC Advice: AMDXP2200 CPU | Donald Bock | Overclocking AMD Processors | 2 | March 12th 05 12:14 AM |
Help! - The dreaded buffer underrun | XPG | Cdr | 5 | August 31st 03 06:27 PM |