[CentOS] Re: K3b or another alternative for CentOS 3.5? -- logical block or physical character recording?

[Bryan J. Smith]

Romeo Ninov wrote:
> IMHO k3b is the best, don't search for alternative :-)

Bryan J. Smith wrote:
> K3b uses logical block records (and rewrites for MO media
> like CD-R, DVD-RW, DVD+RW, etc...).  While this is easiest,
> it's not always the most compatible.  I.e., it's typically
> more than adequate for data, if that's what you want it
for. 
> But if you're looking for the utmost player compatibility,
> you don't want to use logical block writes.

Lamar Owen <lowen at pari.edu> wrote:
> Ok, again, stop.
> Does this answer the original poster's question?  He wants
> to write CD's; hearing the excess information about DVD's
> doesn't help him.

1.  Romeo stated not to look for an alternative

2.  Most people today get their CD recording/rewriting from
their DVD drive.  DVD firmware is very much an issue! 
Especially since many CD-audio players _are_ "dumb."

And when it comes to rewritables, I actually call
Sony/Philips CAV/zoned-CLV as "CD+RW" because of the
compatibility issues.

> Why is it so hard to simply 'help' the original poster?

I wasn't "helping" the original poster.
I was explaining _why_ someone might not want to use k3b,
in response to someone else's comment.

Over on the DVDRTools list, someone was bragging how they
had solicited SuSE to drop CDRecord[+DVDpatch], because
it wasn't supposively needed.  The reality is that there
are very much people like myself who want to record
CD-R and DVD-R in character (byte-by-byte) mode for
maximum player compatibility.

> Last I checked, k3b for writing CD's uses CDRecord.

It depends on the drive, mode, etc...  I was trying to
get at anyone who expects k3b to write CD-R or DVD-R
for player compatibility, that's all.

Because, again, someone said ...
  "don't search for alternative"  

> Since the OP's question was about CD's and not DVD's,
> the whole packet of information about DVD's was
> extraneous and superfluous.

No it's not.  They are linked very much, especially when it
comes to player compatibility.

DVD-R and CD-R are the _same_, _physical_ approach.
It's important to note this.

> I use K3B on a WhiteBox 3 machine; since I do use it to
> write data DVD's I had to build a later growisofs for it,
> but for the CD recording side I have had zero problems in
> over 1,000 CD's burnt, both audio and data.
> As the drive I have doesn't support DAO recording, I have
> it set to do TAO,

Correct.  It's an important consideration.

> which seems to work just fine with every
> CD player I've tried the disc's in.

Depends on the age of the unit, the intelligence in it,
etc...
You must have well designed CD players.

> So, to answer the original question, K3B (of a recent
> version) works fine on a RHEL3-derived system for burning
> audio CD's, assuming you have a good burner.  

???  Nevermind.  I shouldn't have even challenged the "don't
search for alternative." 

> On my particular system I also have to make sure I run k3b
> as root; otherwise the drive doesn't show up (since it is
> not the only CD drive in the system, and since it uses 
> ide-scsi (remember, CentOS3/WhiteBox 3/RHEL3 are 2.4 
> kernel) the system gets a little confused).

Logical (kernel-controlled block interface) v. Physical
(program-controlled character interface) is an important
consideration for maximum compatibility when burning CD-R as
much as DVD-R.  I use the DVD Consortium v. Sony/Philips
Consortium because it extends to how CD-R and CD-RW are
recorded and rewritten, respectively, as well.

That's why I responded to the comment of "don't search for an
alternative" with my discussion of "logical block" v.
"physical character" recording -- because sometimes you _do_
want an alternative.



-- 
Bryan J. Smith                 mailto:b.j.smith at ieee.org
Sent from Yahoo Mail (please excuse any missing headers)