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

[no subject]



The results seem to be further blurred by the use of generic error =
correction systems even though there are usually significant differences =
by CD player and tester brand and model.

Perhaps the information I'm looking for is included in the results and =
I'm just not able to recognize it.=20

There is one confusing paragraph, "Longevity results were not the same =
for all discs.  Significant differences were observed between =
manufacturers and also between samples [my question: of the same =
product?  If more than two, should the word be "among?"  Does this imply =
two samples?} from the same manufacturer.  No clear differences were =
observed between dye types within the limited sample [quantity of =
samples are not specified.]  Degradation was more severe for discs of =
very poor initial quality than for high quality samples, indicating that =
initial recorded [should this be record?] quality was important to =
longevity for multiple reasons. =20

It's this last sentence that confuses me.  Quality of recording is not =
mentioned elsewhere, as far as I can tell.  This is the first time this =
undefined concept has been set forth in any of the CD tests I've looked =
at.  Perhaps he means quality of the record. If so, I'd love to know how =
this ranking was decided upon.

Steven Smolian




------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C11D16.FA55D660
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2614.3500" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV>
<P>I just received the report, "Measures of CD-R Longevity" from Jerome =
L.=20
Hartke, President, Media Services, Inc. In the event you didn't get one =
and wish=20
one, his website is <A=20
href=3D"http://www.mscience.com/";>http://www.mscience.com</A></P>
<P>It covers a series of tests they ran. Maddeningly, no specific =
products are=20
identified. He gives his reasons. Given the design of the tests, he's =
probably=20
right.</P>
<P>It's quite short and, I think, well worth reading.</P>
<P>Be advised that he offers his lab's services to evaluate CD =
longevity.</P>
<P>One important conclusion is that BLER is not a valid universal =
measure of=20
quality. His reasoning is included.</P>
<P>However- this wouldn't be from me if there was no however:</P>
<P>Why not design the tests to be able to isolate data related to each=20
manufacturer's product?</P>
<P>I feel very strongly that testing various dyes should be coupled with =
how the=20
discs are surfaced. The speed at which discs are recorded is another =
variable.=20
Cheap CDs have been widely reported to loose their lacquer before any=20
significant data could be gathered on other longevity issues. The mating =
of=20
reflective surface and its protective coating make every combination so=20
different from the others that each is a unique product and should be so =
tested.=20
Lumping them together makes no sense to me at all. </P>
<P>From the description, I have no idea if reinforced gold, reinforced =
silver,=20
ink-jet printable white CDs were included or not., never mid how they =
survived=20
the testing. From the what-shall-we-use standpoint, we know little more =
from=20
this paper than we did before. </P>
<P>The results seem to be further blurred by the use of generic error =
correction=20
systems even though there are usually significant differences by CD =
player and=20
tester brand and model.</P>
<P>Perhaps the information I'm looking for is included in the results =
and I'm=20
just not able to recognize it. </P>
<P>There is one confusing paragraph, "Longevity results were not the =
same for=20
all discs.&nbsp; Significant differences were observed between =
manufacturers and=20
also between samples [my question: of the same product?&nbsp; If more =
than two,=20
should the word be "among?"&nbsp;&nbsp;Does this&nbsp;imply two =
samples?} from=20
the same manufacturer.&nbsp; No clear differences were observed between =
dye=20
types within the limited sample [quantity of samples are not =
specified.]&nbsp;=20
Degradation was more severe for discs of very poor initial quality than =
for high=20
quality samples, indicating that initial recorded [should this be =
record?]=20
quality was important to longevity for multiple reasons.&nbsp;&nbsp;</P>
<P>It's this last sentence that confuses&nbsp;me.&nbsp; Quality of =
recording is=20
not mentioned elsewhere, as far as I can tell.&nbsp; This is the first =
time this=20
undefined&nbsp;concept has been set forth in any of the CD tests I've =
looked=20
at.&nbsp; Perhaps he means&nbsp;quality of the record. If so, I'd love =
to know=20
how this ranking was decided upon.</P>
<P>Steven Smolian</P>
<P>&nbsp;</P></DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C11D16.FA55D660--

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>