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."
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.
Record it to your HDD in an non-lossy format and store copies of it on various friends' and family members' computers. Back up frequently and your recordings won't suffer from the kind of decay and generation loss that analog tape does.
The story about the Rot of Death seems to come up every once and a while. My fun strategies for longevity:
- If you can rub the top of a CD and have your finger come back silver, that's a bad sign. I avoid cheap CD-Rs. Sorry, CompUSA.
- I burn at 2x, always, unless I am burning something that I don't care about. Someone showed me the difference in color, I was convinced.
- Sticker on top = CD death.
- Take care of your media. Had a friend who left a CD on the windowsill and forgot about it. Many months later, you could see right through it. Nice corrosion.
I find it weird that anyone can stick a 100 year lifespan on a product that hasn't been around that long. I know that they have processes that supposedly accelerate the process and give you a rough estimate, but I am skeptical. Maybe they really are that durable, and people are just careless/cheapskates. You know what they say about malice and idiocy.
Auto-reply to ACs: "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect."
Factor that in with the project the BBC did in the mid-1980s (A digital Domesday book, designed to be a snapshot of life at that particular moment of time) that was unreadable withing 20 years because of the fast pace of technology and no way will CDs last 100 years.
HAH! I just wasted a second of your life making you read this, but I wasted a minute of mine thinking it up. DAMN.
Blank CDs in bulk are cheap. For archival stuff I make a new copy every 5 years. I have a bunch of scanned photos I don't want to lose, so I re-copied them all onto new CDs.
You aren't supposed to write on the CDs either but I've not had any trouble with that, probably because I'm not trying to keep them very long.
What's the deal? This same article with a slightly different look shows up every 6 months, it seems.
Besides the fact that CDs DON'T have a 100 year shelf life, we've also discussed the CD eating fungus several times here, which for people in hot and humid environments (particularly, it seems, Mexico, Central, and South America) can reduce a CDs lifespan to months or a couple of years.
And then you have the fact that rewriteables have an even shorter lifespan.
One thing that's rarely mentioned is the fact that most CDs are defectively manufactured. I say this because the metalic layer between the plastic is supposed to be sealed. But the fact that the aforementioned CD eating fungus enters through the two layers of plastic says to me that CDs are generally defective in that they fail to properly seal this layer.
I personally lost about 25% of my CD collection to this fungus over a 2 year period in Mexico, so I speak with some experience. These CDs were not abused. Most were in plastic cases, some were in sleeved carriers.
I don't get this obsession with hoping to keep media for 100 years. Technically punch cards are forever. Do you still use them ? No, because their storage capacity is ridiculous by today's standard. In five years you will store your data probably on your solid-state 200 g key-chain.... move with the times..
All this about CD's not lasting very long is just FUD by the RIAA. In the next few years or so they will want to bring out a new type of media so that everybody has to restock their cd collection with the new media format.
...
Bottom line, buy cheap media then you will suffer the consequences. Buy decent media; buy a reputable brand and you can expect reasonable lifespan.
Hey, and wasnt this a dupe? albeit one with a twist ?
nick
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
The article says Not all optical media is vulnerable. The rewritable variants (RW) use metallic materials that change the phase of the light, rather than light-sensitive dyes. Commercial magneto-optical and ultra-density optical systems are different too. Do they mean to say that CD RW's are resistant to aging compared to CD-Rs ??
I always thought that CD-R s are more reliable than the RW's and genrally back up my data to CDRs ( and of course CDRW are more expensive)
Many people seem to suggest reburning data every few years. But each time you do this, are you not risking corrupting a small number of files? I know OSs and hardware have error correction, but when you're dealing with gigabytes of data isn't there a risk that eventually an error will go through uncaught?
pronoblem
I wouldn't be so keen on having particles of electrically conducting graphite being spun off the disc inside the drive... But you're right that it probably won't damage the disc.
If you're very paranoid, you might consider not labelling the CD at all
Or write in the data-less area around the center of the disc.
Avantslash: low-bandwidth mobile slashdot.
CD-RW disks will last longer than CD-R because of the way it stores it's bits.
CD-R uses a dye that changes color under influence of light. CD-RW uses a phase change material that changes it's properties because of heat. The phase change material won't change color but changes the way light passes through it. Differences in the duration of the laser hitting it will change a bit from one phase to another.
CD-RW disc information is much safer because of these differences. The only problem with CD-RW is that you can accidentally overwrite files you wanted to keep.
- -- Truth addict for life.
The number of things that can go wrong with old magnetic media is so long I won't even go there. If nothign else, the magnetic tape will get old and brittle. It also stretches slightly when you play it, which could leave granddad sounding like James Earl Jones in a few years. Certain types of mildew love it. AAAAAA! Make a copy! Make a copy!
Add to that the cost of replacing r2r tech, and you've got a scary situation. I agree with the parent. CD may not be the answer, but digital sure as hell is. I'd be super paranoid having anything I cared about stuck on old tape.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
I don't claim to know much about this at all, but I know as a complete fact that the slower I burn Audio CDs on my 24x the less they'll skip when they're in my car. This has been true for me at least one hundred times over, and I drive the same route pretty much every day (same bumps).. How does this experience fit in to the above?
But I think the problem is that CD media doesn't have what most people consider "acceptable redundancy"
When a CD ages, and the surface scratches, and the ink degrades, the data doesn't fade to yellow and get wrinkled like a newspaper, or it doesn't sound like its being pumped over a telephone like a record would, it is just gone. At least with analog data (especially newspaper) there isn't this working/not working parity...we can see the degradation and recopy the data before its too late.
Of course we try to get around this by adding error detection/correction schemes, but I think the original post is about how (apparently) these aren't adequate.
Second, the biggest mistake most people make in CD archival is to write on the CDs with magic marker -- DO NOT DO THIS. The ink will, given several years, leach through the extremely thin plastic on the labelled side of the CD and pollute the optical layer, resulting in a ruined CD.
Got some studies supporting that? I did my own little study after highly doubting this rumor. Here's how I think the rumor got started:
1. Buy cheapest Taiwanese media
2. Write on it with a Sharpie
3. Down the road, blame the Sharpie for media failure
My (unscientific, but the only data point I'm aware of) test:
In 1996, I wrote all over a Japanese Taiyo-Yuden made, unbranded Sony CD-R. In 2003, I tested the data, which was fine. I then cleaned the Sharpie ink off the disc with carburator cleaner (harsh treatment, for sure). It wiped off in seconds with no trace whatsoever, so in 7 years the ink did not migrate into the disc at all. After this, the data was still good.
Conclusion: Buy good media and quit worrying about writing on the discs. They'll take it fine, and if they die, it wasn't the pen that killed them.
It would be interesting to see if the difference between readin and writing speeds causes the problem. Since if you write at the same speed as you read both processes will see the same wobles in the disk. These wobles are caused since CD's are never quite round, and uniform desity.
This would mean that for a normal CD player you want to write at 1x, and for a Car cd player, or a portable CD player you would want to write at what ever speed they sample (more than 1x since they have skip protection). If you check the site they meantion that you should write at more than 1x but less than 12x.
So the question is at what speed they wrote and read the CD-R's, not just the writing speed. I checked the site but I didn't find any data on that.
We burn about 200K CD-R's here per month. We have found, unequivocally, that you can burn data CD-R's at 40x, but the best we can do for audio is 12x. We don't really know why, but we think it has more to do with the error correction capabilities that the data format has. That's the theory, anyway. Of course, we use only the best drives and media.
I was one of the original developers for Magneto Optic for MaxOptics and Pinnacle Micro Systems approx 20 years ago. I still have media recorded back then on truly rewritable optical media that is 100% flawless to this day. And all this is on Plastic Media. I never did understand why magneto optic didn't catch on more. The Glass Media units I'm sure would go to 100+ years and were tested in Europe for the telephone and data companys 20 years ago, and the last I heard they still hadn't seen a single cartridge with glass media go bad.