[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: CD Life - Also Powerpoint vs CD Roms



> Sorry, I disagree.    There will always be "new and improved"
> and, here's a
> news flash, upgrades aren't always improved.
>
> A case in point is Kodak.  A year or so ago they introduced a "new and
> improved" CD that was developed for 8x burning.  If you take a look at the
> disc, it is aqua rather than gold.  I tried it when it was
> introduced and had
> nearly a 100% error rate on my first case of discs.  I was told
> at the time
> that I was not alone.
>
> I stand by what I have written.  Gold-based CDs, with the sealant, is a
> superior product.  Don't ask me how, but somehow Kodak didn't
> screw this one
> up.   It may well be that you do not consider a life of between
> 100 years and
> 200 years to be archival...I will yield to your expertise on that point.
> However, for the vast majority of my customers, this is
> unquestionably the app
> ropriate direction.

Actually there are a few different types of CD-R materials - and they use
different technologies and specifically different dyes and recording
systems - just because a disk is a greenie does not mean it is either good
or bad in the specific instance - but more to the point, I suggest you read
the documents that I mention and there are many others - this is not a
situation where one person is suggesting an issue. There is a quickly
growing body of research that shows from many different perspectives that
CD-R media (and the process used to record and store them) does have issues
that question the viability of long term performance. In the survey they
specifically tested several types from several manufacturers and the results
are there for you to see. Frankly these results have been echoed in several
studies.

Manufacturers tests have historically been - shall I be charitable and
say..... of varying levels of quality and reliability. Finally there is real
research going on in this particular area and it is worth reading if you
have significant interest. There are indeed product improvements, and some
of the research does incorporate these formulations. As research continues
we will know more. From our experience here - we do have a lab quality
tester - a Clover - and there are indeed CD's that we have made that will
play on the machine that they were recorded on - but when we check them we
find that they are just marginal. They would be fine for a teenager's
diskman, but decidedly not fine when the application is long term archival
storage. There is no media that I know of that will last forever, so this is
not a slam on CD-R, but it is important to be realistic with your appraisal
of any media type - if using it in an archival application there are
different aspects to consider. Just because you can buy a certain media type
and use it in a certain way does not mean that it was DESIGNED for that
application. Mr. Zwaneveld's email has an extended discussion of this very
fact in the specific case of a media type that IS designed for high quality
audio archival applications. But just because I can go online and buy CD-R
media for $.50 does not necessarily mean that they are appropriate for all
applications - this is a mass market product at the moment that is sold in a
commodity fashion.

Not to pick on a specific vendor - Kodak - but also consider that in some
cases just because a product has a given manufacturer's name on it does not
necessarily imply a level of quality. It is common practice for different
manufacturers to make product that goes out on many different brand names.
For instance just because a videotape says Fuji on it does not mean that it
actually was manufactured by Fuji. It may have been - but it also may not
have been.  There are also differences in QC in different batches, and even
on different machines that actually sputter the CD media. Some made on the
production line will be great - and then there are others..... There is
really no basis in fact to "trust" that a CD will last 100 years just
because a manufacturer says so, and I think that relying on this is a very
big mistake and is really unnecessary. There may indeed be some in a sample
that will last 100 years, but there may be MANY that will not - and in an
archival application you do not really want to risk that. Unfortunately, in
this field - accelerated aging test have historically been extremely
inaccurate as compared with real world results. I think that it is prudent
to keep this in mind.... there are PLENTY of examples!

One thing that I think that we can all agree on is that having ONE copy of
an important document is a recipe for disaster. Having several copies stored
in different locations in hopefully proper environments reduces the chances
of catastrophic loss. In the survey quoted one of the main points is that it
is crucial to test the recordings that you make - not just on an inexpensive
CD recorder that you have in your computer but on a laboratory grade
instrument to make SURE that the quality of the recording is such that
increasing BLER (Block Errors) over time will not overwhelm the error
correction "cliff" making the CD unplayable. This is an excellent plan.
Multiple copies that are TESTED, stored in proper environments, in different
locations. That is the beginning of a strategy for survival of the content.
The system is the thing!

Jim Lindner
VidiPax - The Magnetic Media Restoration Company

Minister of Preservation and Access
VP General Manager VidiPax Division -
Loudeye Technologies
450 West 31 Street
New York, N.Y.  10001
212-563-1999 ext. 102

www.vidipax.com
Moderator: AV Media Matters Listserve
To subscribe to AV Media Matters Listserve send an email to:
AV-Media-Matters-subscribe@topica.com

>
>
> Sorry, I disagree.    There will always be "new and improved"
> and, here's a
> news flash, upgrades aren't always improved.
>
> A case in point is Kodak.  A year or so ago they introduced a "new and
> improved" CD that was developed for 8x burning.  If you take a look at the
> disc, it is aqua rather than gold.  I tried it when it was
> introduced and had
> nearly a 100% error rate on my first case of discs.  I was told
> at the time
> that I was not alone.
>
> I stand by what I have written.  Gold-based CDs, with the sealant, is a
> superior product.  Don't ask me how, but somehow Kodak didn't
> screw this one
> up.   It may well be that you do not consider a life of between
> 100 years and
> 200 years to be archival...I will yield to your expertise on that point.
> However, for the vast majority of my customers, this is
> unquestionably the app
> ropriate direction.
>
> I even offer a guarantee: if, after 100 years, any disc should
> fail to read,
> it should be sent to my personal attention for a full refund.
>
> Jim Lewin
> President
> Image Delivery Systems
> Suite 200
> 1101 Pennsylvania Avenue SE
> Washington, DC 20003
> vox: 202.544.6884
> fax: 202.544.6889
>
> A posting from the Archives & Archivists LISTSERV List!
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe, send e-mail to listserv@listserv.muohio.edu
>       In body of message:  SUB ARCHIVES firstname lastname
>                     *or*:  UNSUB ARCHIVES
> To post a message, send e-mail to archives@listserv.muohio.edu
>
> Or to do *anything* (and enjoy doing it!), use the web interface at
>      http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/archives.html
>
> Problems?  Send e-mail to Robert F Schmidt <rschmidt@lib.muohio.edu>
>

A posting from the Archives & Archivists LISTSERV List!

To subscribe or unsubscribe, send e-mail to listserv@listserv.muohio.edu
      In body of message:  SUB ARCHIVES firstname lastname
                    *or*:  UNSUB ARCHIVES
To post a message, send e-mail to archives@listserv.muohio.edu

Or to do *anything* (and enjoy doing it!), use the web interface at
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/archives.html

Problems?  Send e-mail to Robert F Schmidt <rschmidt@lib.muohio.edu>