Archiving to CD disk

[alexruiz]

I have no problem with that statement.

I just don't want somebody to run to OfficeMax and buy whatever DVDs are on sale....

When officemax has a sale, it has to be verbatim the ones you want 😛

 

[Ken90630]

Check the club cdfreaks.
According to many users, the "gold media" is not better than regular good quality DVDs.

In fact, the "medical records archival grade" media comes from the same production line than regular DVDs, they just go through an additional batch of testing, and are individually packed. Check what user have to say about them on club cdfreaks.

CD Freaks, as we knew it, is defunct as of ~ last summer. The site is now called MyCE (My Consumer Electronics) and is totally different. It's a catch-all site now, not an optical storage specialty site like it used to be. Bummer, 'cuz I liked the old site. :\

 

[Ken90630]

When officemax has a sale, it has to be verbatim the ones you want 😛

Not necessarily. The right disc choice totally depends on the burner's firmware and performance with a particular dye formulation. I use Verbatim DVDs myself 'cuz they perform the best with my Asus burner, but in other burners they could be inferior to another brand of disc.

Absent a thorough test report from CDRInfo or CDRlabs indicating the best media for a particular burner, I agree that Verbatims generally have high quality dye (as do Taiyo Yuden and Maxell -- again, generally speaking). But many burners don't perform particularly well with them. Again, it depends on the drive's firmware.

 

[taltamir]

you can greartly improve the reliability of disks by using parchive, keeping multiple copies, and replacing them yearly.

at one time i had an 800 burned CD Collection. kept in air conditioned house, in cases, on a rack. no light exposure...
only 1 in 3 worked correctly after 5 years. Nowadays i use hard drives with redundant raid and ZFS for error correction... and backup from one computer to another

 

[tcsenter]

Absent a thorough test report from CDRInfo or CDRlabs indicating the best media for a particular burner, I agree that Verbatims generally have high quality dye (as do Taiyo Yuden and Maxell -- again, generally speaking). But many burners don't perform particularly well with them. Again, it depends on the drive's firmware.

Stop with the nonsense about achieving the "right" combination of burner, media, and firmware as though it were some kind of voodoo. CDRInfo and CDRLabs rarely and I mean RARELY did any comprehensive longevity testing and where they did it was only with a fraction of the media that was available on the market, none of which are still available or guaranteed to be the same formulation.

Everything else about long-term readability and staiblity of CD-R media is simply INFERRED or SPECULATION, certainly not proven to any objective and verifiable degree.

 

[JimKiler]

CD Freaks, as we knew it, is defunct as of ~ last summer. The site is now called MyCE (My Consumer Electronics) and is totally different. It's a catch-all site now, not an optical storage specialty site like it used to be. Bummer, 'cuz I liked the old site. :\

Yes but the forums are still alive with the same people.

 

[Ken90630]

Stop with the nonsense about achieving the "right" combination of burner, media, and firmware as though it were some kind of voodoo. CDRInfo and CDRLabs rarely and I mean RARELY did any comprehensive longevity testing and where they did it was only with a fraction of the media that was available on the market, none of which are still available or guaranteed to be the same formulation.

Everything else about long-term readability and staiblity of CD-R media is simply INFERRED or SPECULATION, certainly not proven to any objective and verifiable degree.

Wow -- it would appear that you don't know as much about optical media and burners as you think you do.

It's not "voodoo," and the issue has nothing to do with "longevity testing." The longevity of a given burn -- i.e., its readability over time -- will be a direct result of the combination of the quality of the media's dye and how well tuned the drive's firmware is to the disc's media code/dye. A burn with a good combination should absolutely result in high "longevity" (barring outside factors like improper storage or abuse).

There are two reasons for this:

1. Longevity declines over time because dye degrades (again, excluding outside influences). The higher the quality of the original burn, the more the dye can degrade before the increasing data errors become uncorrectable. I'm surprised you don't know this.

2. The higher quality the dye in the first place, the slower it will degrade, thus adding to its longevity and delaying the above-mentioned point at which errors can no longer be corrected.

Therefore, the relationship between dye quality and burn quality is quite real and not "voodoo." You obviously haven't read (or paid close enough attention to) many burner reviews on CDRinfo.com over the last several years. If you had, you'd have noticed they typically test both the read & write performances of each burner with at least 4 or 5 brands of each kind of media: DVD+R, DVD-R, +RW & -RW, +RL and -RL, DVD RAM and CD-Rs. The differences in burn quality between different brands of discs are almost always massive-- anywhere from terrific to horrible (completely unusable) or any point in between. Just look at the C1/C2 error rates with CDs and the PI-8 and PI-1 errors with DVD media -- the ranges are all over the map.

What little independent objective testing has been done on the longevity and stability of CD/DVD media has not been nearly as favorable as the "industry" or manufacturer testing.

As the expression goes, "everything's relative." I'd have to see the tests you refer to in order to comment on their methodology. What quality of discs did they test -- cheapy office store house brands or good stuff? How many did they test? What software did they use to test them? Did they choose burners with a good firmware match for the media? All of those things have to be known in order to evaluate the credibility/efficacy of the testing.

I do remember coming across an independent longevity test a few years ago. I don't remember the site, but I remember for a fact there were discs that held up very well (and of course some that didn't). If I come across it again in the near future, I'll post it here. Re the mfgrs' testing you refer to, I wouldn't doubt they try to show their results in the best light, but I doubt if any reputable company like TY or Maxell or Verbatim would make results up out of whole cloth. And even if their testing wasn't excursion-type testing out to many years, even testing over month-long intervals out to a year or two can measure the rate of dye/data degradation and give some indication of expected results over a longer period. Perfect? Of course not, but it probably has some usefulness re expected efficacy over several years or a decade if done honestly & accurately.

Your original supposition that optical media are inherently unreliable as a viable storage medium is hogwash. Perhaps you've had poor results yourself because you didn't take the time to research the proper combination of burner & media to get high quality burns? Didn't do your 'voodoo due diligence'? 😛

As I stated earlier in this thread, I've got a number of Fuji CD-Rs I burned ~ 10 years ago and they still play perfectly. That alone completely debunks your SPECULATION :sneaky: re disc longevity. I also fix computers for a couple dozen friends & acquaintances, and a couple of them have playable discs just as old (old work files). I know they didn't do any research before burning them -- they probably just got lucky & got a good media/burner match.

It's perfectly fine with me that your original opinion was that hard drives are superior to optical media for backup purposes. It depends on the application, but I absolutely agree in some instances, particularly vis-a-vis recoverability. But using hyperbole to characterize optical media as inherently unreliable is inappropriate. A good burn on good media should last a long time. And getting that combo is not "voodoo."

 

[Ken90630]

Yes but the forums are still alive with the same people.

True, although I recently looked there for some burner reviews and they're getting scarce. I suppose it's a reflection of the changing storage landscape (e.g, optical becoming less popular due to flash drives & external hard drives).

But yeah, hopefully they'll continue to keep the forums alive for awhile. 🙂

 

[tcsenter]

lmao! This guy thinks the dye on optical media "lasts longer" depending on the "quality" of the pits and lands burned into the recording layer. What a f-ing joke!

The dye will or will not degrade at any given rate depending on a host of factors, NONE OF WHICH HAVE A SINGLE THING TO DO WITH THE "QUALITY" OF THE "BURN". The "quality" of the "burn" only impacts the percentage of discs that will never be readable at any point in time because there will be errors on the disc from the start.

The National Archives and pretty much every private and government archival organization or institute in the entire world looked into CD-R and CD-RW media, concluding it was too unreliable for both SHORT and LONG term strategies, except for temporary storage only when a "safe" copy or backup exists.

Here is a test that shows your precious cyanine (TY) and AZO (Verbatim) discs getting trounced by phthalocyanine discs in well-controlled accelerated aging/longevity test:

http://www.uni-muenster.de/Forum-Bestandserhaltung/downloads/iraci.pdf

I guess they didn't put the "right" firmware into the "right" recorders for use with the "right" media based on spot testing of a single drive revision with a single firmware revision and a single media production run to get the "high quality burn" like they do at CDRLabs and CDRInfo.

Oh, and it has been known since at least 1995 that phthalocyanine is way more stable over longer terms than cyanine and AZO: http://cd-info.com/CDIC/Technology/CD-R/Premastering/DyeDifferences.html

Cyanine is inherently unstable and requires additives to stabilize it. Phthalocyanine does not. Didn't CDRInfo and CDRLabs tell you this?

HAHAHAHAHAHA!

 

[Ken90630]

lmao! This guy thinks the dye on optical media "lasts longer" depending on the "quality" of the pits and lands burned into the recording layer. What a f-ing joke!

The dye will or will not degrade at any given rate depending on a host of factors, NONE OF WHICH HAVE A SINGLE THING TO DO WITH THE "QUALITY" OF THE "BURN".

The "quality" of the "burn" only impacts the percentage of discs that will never be readable at any point in time because there will be errors on the disc from the start.

The National Archives and pretty much every private and government archival organization or institute in the entire world looked into CD-R and CD-RW media, concluding it was too unreliable for both SHORT and LONG term strategies.

I guess they didn't put the "right" firmware into the "right" recorders for use with the "right" media based on spot testing of a single drive revision with a single firmware revision and a single media production run to get the "high quality burn" like they do at CDRLabs and CDRInfo.

HAHAHAHAHAHA!

As I said before, you apparently don't know as much about optical media and burners as you think you do.

This guy thinks the dye on optical media "lasts longer" depending on the "quality" of the pits and lands burned into the recording layer. What a f-ing joke!

That's not what I said. Your crudeness aside, you also have a reading comprehension problem. The quality of "pits and lands," as you refer to it, is a result of how well the burner writes to a disc's given dye (based on its firmware). The quality of that initial burn has no effect on how long the dye lasts -- the dye's longevity is dependent on its inherent chemical structure. But how long the data burned to the disc remains readable -- or "lasts" -- absolutely depends on the combination of the initial burn quality and the quality of the dye. You're really having trouble grasping the combination concept, aren't you?

The dye will or will not degrade at any given rate depending on a host of factors, NONE OF WHICH HAVE A SINGLE THING TO DO WITH THE "QUALITY" OF THE "BURN".

I never said it would, so why are you misrepresenting what I said?

The "quality" of the "burn" only impacts the percentage of discs that will never be readable at any point in time because there will be errors on the disc from the start.

Exactly. That's what I said before. Read my post again. Take your time. 😉

The "quality" of the "burn" only impacts the percentage of discs that will never be readable at any point in time because there will be errors on the disc from the start.

Exactly. Glad you agree with me. Also glad to see you now acknowledge that a higher quality burn will give the disc a better 'starting point' to degrade from before the data becomes unreadable. Presumably you no longer see this as "voodoo"?

The National Archives and pretty much every private and government archival organization or institute in the entire world looked into CD-R and CD-RW media, concluding it was too unreliable for both SHORT and LONG term strategies.

That may or may not be accurate -- I haven't researched that. But that doesn't mean optical storage is as unreliable as you originally implied. It just means it isn't the best form of storage for those organizations' needs, and I would guess that's because if the discs got scratched, the data would be unrecoverable. If I were them and deciding on the most secure form of backup for irreplaceable, nationally important data, I would probably choose flash media or hard drives over optical storage too simply because data would be easier to recover in the event of damage. In a fire, I'm sure optical discs would also melt much sooner than flash drives or hard drives too.

I guess they didn't put the "right" firmware into the "right" recorders for use with the "right" media based on spot testing of a single drive revision with a single firmware revision and a single media production run to get the "high quality burn" like they do at CDRLabs and CDRInfo.

Nope -- for the reasons I just stated in my previous paragraph, they'd have no reason to. Regardless, your hyperbolic description of how the stars would have to align in order to produce a reliable burn is absurd.

The fact that you post on this forum and have no clue re the tremendous differences in burn quality based on the burner-media relationship is astonishing. Really, man, if you knew half as much as you think you do, you might be dangerous.

Go spend some time reading some burner reviews on CDRInfo.com. Read the graphs and other measurements. Again, take your time.

 

[Ken90630]

Oh, and it has been known since at least 1995 that phthalocyanine is way more stable over longer terms than cyanine and AZO: http://cd-info.com/CDIC/Technology/CD-R/Premastering/DyeDifferences.html

Cyanine is inherently unstable and requires additives to stabilize it. Phthalocyanine does not. HAHAHAHAHAHA!

So?

What do the comparative stabilities of different recording layer dyes have to do with anything? Are you saying Phthalocyanine would be capable of producing stable, reliable optical disc backups? 'Cuz that would be an interesting admission on your part. 😉

Moreover, it's funny how my 10-year-old Fuji branded CD-Rs, with Taiyo Yuden 'plain' cyanine dyes, still read perfectly. Go figure. 😛

 

[JimKiler]

True, although I recently looked there for some burner reviews and they're getting scarce. I suppose it's a reflection of the changing storage landscape (e.g, optical becoming less popular due to flash drives & external hard drives).

But yeah, hopefully they'll continue to keep the forums alive for awhile. 🙂

Agreed, when I had to replace my HP lightscribe I had to use newegg reviews instead of my CE but as long as a minimum level of quality is achieved I am not that picky anymore when I am only paying $30, granted I do not want to replace a drive 3 or 4 times to find a suitable drive.

 

[Ken90630]

Agreed, when I had to replace my HP lightscribe I had to use newegg reviews instead of my CE but as long as a minimum level of quality is achieved I am not that picky anymore when I am only paying $30, granted I do not want to replace a drive 3 or 4 times to find a suitable drive.

I hear 'ya. I'm in a similar boat right now 'cuz I need to buy a new drive to add to a new system. I really like my Asus DRW-1612BL that I bought a few years ago, and I was hoping I'd find a review of their newer DRW-24B1ST on either MyCE, CDRInfo or CDRLabs.com. Unfortunately, none have reviewed it. So like you, I went to Newegg and lo and behold, it's a "customer's choice award" winner. It's no substitute for a thorough, credible review, but it's encouraging. 🙂