Slashdot Mirror
The Myth Of The 100-Year CD-Rom
Toshito writes "Are we putting too much faith in the ubiquitous "recordable CD", or CD-R? A lot of manufacturer claims 100 years of shelf life for a CD-R. But in real life, it can be much less. Expect failure after only 5 years... Personnaly I just discovered 6 audio cassettes with the voice of my late grandfather, talking about old times. These tapes are copies of reel to reel recorded in 1971, and they are still in excellent shape.
I was thinking about digitizing everything, do a little noise reduction, and burning this on CD's, for my childrens and great grand-childrens enjoyment, but it seems that old analog tech from the '70 is more reliable than digital. The full story at Rense. Other links about the subject: Practical PC, Mscience, and an excellent reasearch by the Library of Congress (warning! PDF): Study of CD longevity, html version (google):Study html."
Well, the recordings *will* go through decay, but that's what the constant backing-up process is about. Your basic point is right on the money, though.
The only way to keep bits in any kind of order and in good condition over a long period of time with the kind of technology available to the average consumer is to keep making multiple fresh copies before each individual storage media begins to suffer loss of data.
It's not exactly a fair comparison between CD-R and analog tape for audio. The audio tape isn't "more reliable." It just degrades differently.
As the tape ages, the quality of the audio signal degrades dramatically, but because it is an analogue signal, it can still be deciphered by or ears.
With digital medium, the audio never gets worse. As the media degrades, it just reaches a point where it isn't able to be deciphered as audio data.
If you want to compare the mediums (magnetic tape vs. CR-R), data is probably a better place to do so. You can easily measure the amount of readable/unreadable data in bytes and make a fair, quantifiable comparison.
The first link is to rense.com, a website that promulgates the theory that the US government is experimenting on us with "chem trails" emitted by otherwise innocuous-looking aircraft flying overhead. The webmaster at that site obviously has a very low threshold for rubbish, and no critical thinking ability!
Audio processing technology will get better. Don't ruin your grandkids' heirloom recordings by using today's technology to permanently alter them.
Make working copies and filter those as much as you want, but keep those masters pristine! Maybe somewhere in the background you can hear your grandma yelling at dear ol' grandpa to put that thing away and paint the house, and a clumsy run with an agressive low-pass filter will throw that data away forever. You have something really valuable; please take care of it for the future.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Although it seems like burning at a slower speed means that your data lasts longer, for some newer CDs burning at 2x might actually cause your data to be less secure. Most CDs sold nowadays are optimized for faster burns, say at 48x. The "fast" media doesn't handle slow burn speeds quite as well as older media optimized for 2x would.
You're better off storing audio as FLAC or so; the format's open, lossless, streamable, error checking, robust, and has a proper metadata standard. Use the space it saves to make a bunch of PAR2's, and you're laughing.
Support for this stuff's not going to disappear overnight; you can keep specifications and reference implementations about if need be.
This means that if you have a 2X recorder, writing at 2X is *much* better than 1X. If you have a 32X recorder, writing at 32X will produce measurably better discs than writing at 4X, 2X or 1X. This has been true since around 1998 or so. It is quite true that you could get better results with some early 4X recorders when writing at 1X than 4X. However, none of those devices are current any longer.
The "writing slower is better" story is a myth. Please don't spread it further. And yes, if you want more information about disc testing Media Sciences is a company that is dedicated to disc quality and testing. I do not work for them.
I have to burn them at less than max speed, apparently the more stable dye requires more laser power. Otherwise no surprises so far. (knock on wood)
Sharpies should be OK as they are alchohol based. Beware of any "oil" based permanent markers as they will degrade the surface plastic.
We have always been at war with Eurasia!
(2004/02/17) in CD-Recordable FAQ:
CD-RWs are expected to last about 25 years under ideal conditions (i.e. you write it once and then leave it alone). Repeated rewrites will ccelerate
this. In general, CD-RW media isn't recommended for long-term backups or archives of valuable data.
The rest of this section applies to CD-R.
The manufacturers claim 75 years (cyanine dye, used in "green" discs), 100 years (phthalocyanine dye, used in "gold" discs), or even 200 years
("advanced" phthalocyanine dye, used in "platinum" discs) once the disc has been written. The shelf life of an unrecorded disc has been estimated at
between 5 and 10 years. There is no standard agreed-upon way to test discs for lifetime viability. Accelerated aging tests have been done, but they may not provide a meaningful analogue to real-world aging.
Exposing the disc to excessive heat, humidity, or to direct sunlight will greatly reduce the lifetime. In general, CD-Rs are far less tolerant of environmental conditions than pressed CDs, and should be treated with greater care. The easiest way to make a CD-R unusable is to scratch the
top surface. Find a CD-R you don't want anymore, and try to scratch the top (label side) with your fingernail, a ballpoint pen, a paper clip, and
anything else you have handy. The results may surprise you.
Keep them in a cool, dark, dry place, and they will probably live longer than you do (emphasis on "probably"). Some newsgroup reports have complained of discs becoming unreadable in as little as three years, but without knowing how the discs were handled and stored such anecdotes are
useless. Try to keep a little perspective on the situation: a disc that degrades very little over 100 years is useless if it can't be read in your
CD-ROM drive today.
One user reported that very inexpensive CD-Rs deteriorated in a mere six weeks, despite careful storage. Some discs are better than others.
An interesting article by Fred Langa (of http://www.langa.com/) on http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.j html?articleID=15800263&pgno=1
describes how to detect bad discs, and discusses whether putting an adhesive label on the disc causes them to fail more quickly.
By some estimates, pressed CD-ROMs may only last for 10 to 25 years, because the aluminum reflective layer starts to corrode after a while.
One user was told by Blaupunkt that CD-R discs shouldn't be left in car CD players, because if it gets too hot in the car the CD-R will emit a gas that can blind the laser optics. However, CD-Rs are constructed much the same way and with mostly the same materials as pressed CDs, and the temperatures required to cause such an emission from the materials that are exposed would
melt much of the car's interior. The dye layer is sealed into the disc, and should not present any danger to drive optics even if overheated.
Even so, leaving a CD-R in a hot car isn't good for the disc, and will probably shorten its useful life.
See also http://www.cd-info.com/CDIC/Technology/CD-R/Media/ Longevity.html,
especially http://www.cd-info.com/CDIC/Industry/news/media-ch ronology.html about some inaccurate reporting in the news media.
See "Do gold CD-R discs have better longevity than green discs?" on http://www.mscience.com/faq53.html.
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Umm... what literature would that be? There is a white paper which explicitly states that the reflective later is 24k gold.