Slashdot Mirror
Your Old CD Collection Is Dying
Hugh Pickens DOT Com (2995471) writes "Adrienne LaFrance reports at the Atlantic that if you've tried listening to any of the old CDs lately from your carefully assembled collection from the 1980's or 1990's you may have noticed that many of them won't play. 'While most of the studio-manufactured albums I bought still play, there's really no telling how much longer they will. My once-treasured CD collection — so carefully assembled over the course of about a decade beginning in 1994 — isn't just aging; it's dying. And so is yours.'
Fenella France, chief of preservation research and testing at the Library of Congress is trying to figure out how CDs age so that we can better understand how to save them. But it's a tricky business, in large part because manufacturers have changed their processes over the years and even CDs made by the same company in the same year and wrapped in identical packaging might have totally different lifespans. 'We're trying to predict, in terms of collections, which of the types of CDs are the discs most at risk,' says France. 'The problem is, different manufacturers have different formulations so it's quite complex in trying to figure out what exactly is happening because they've changed the formulation along the way and it's proprietary information.' There are all kinds of forces that accelerate CD aging in real time. Eventually, many discs show signs of edge rot, which happens as oxygen seeps through a disc's layers. Some CDs begin a deterioration process called bronzing, which is corrosion that worsens with exposure to various pollutants. The lasers in devices used to burn or even play a CD can also affect its longevity. 'The ubiquity of a once dominant media is again receding. Like most of the technology we leave behind, CDs are are being forgotten slowly,' concludes LaFrance. 'We stop using old formats little by little. They stop working. We stop replacing them. And, before long, they're gone.'" You can donate CDs to be tested for aging characteristics by emailing the Center for the Library's Analytical Science Samples. I haven't had much trouble ripping discs that were pressed in the 80s (and acquired from used CD stores with who knows how many previous owners), but I'm starting to get nervous about not having flac rips of most of my discs.
Fenella France, chief of preservation research and testing at the Library of Congress is trying to figure out how CDs age so that we can better understand how to save them. But it's a tricky business, in large part because manufacturers have changed their processes over the years and even CDs made by the same company in the same year and wrapped in identical packaging might have totally different lifespans. 'We're trying to predict, in terms of collections, which of the types of CDs are the discs most at risk,' says France. 'The problem is, different manufacturers have different formulations so it's quite complex in trying to figure out what exactly is happening because they've changed the formulation along the way and it's proprietary information.' There are all kinds of forces that accelerate CD aging in real time. Eventually, many discs show signs of edge rot, which happens as oxygen seeps through a disc's layers. Some CDs begin a deterioration process called bronzing, which is corrosion that worsens with exposure to various pollutants. The lasers in devices used to burn or even play a CD can also affect its longevity. 'The ubiquity of a once dominant media is again receding. Like most of the technology we leave behind, CDs are are being forgotten slowly,' concludes LaFrance. 'We stop using old formats little by little. They stop working. We stop replacing them. And, before long, they're gone.'" You can donate CDs to be tested for aging characteristics by emailing the Center for the Library's Analytical Science Samples. I haven't had much trouble ripping discs that were pressed in the 80s (and acquired from used CD stores with who knows how many previous owners), but I'm starting to get nervous about not having flac rips of most of my discs.
Please proof read proof read!
"you may have noticed that many of them won't play won't play."
Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
And with shared backups I don't even need to upload all of them - I just use the backups of others in case I need to restore!
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
As if this couldn't have worked out better for those pining for a DRM future.
Are we licensing music? Truly? Then if I show that I bought this album in 1985 am I licensed to download the song?
Oh.
A winner is you!
10 years ago I ripped my collection to FLAC, set the read-only bit and never looked back.
Now when my MP3s get fucked*, I just resample from the FLAC version.
* Technical term. There was a ulitility called "unfuck" that would repair the MP3
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
sure if you don't actually listen to them.
just rip the friggin cd or burn a backup and tape it to the case, if you really think you can't find the song online afterwards... then it's not really gone and you have the item token to show off if you want.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
It's fortunate that the recording industry has never made a fuss about people backing up their CD collections.
Oh, wait...
They do, but the laser record players are very expensive. Also, IIRC the record has to be very clean because any dirt is much more noticeable than it would be on a traditional turntable.
labels aren't letting us buy what we want.
No shit. For a lot of music, I'd love to buy MP3s of the studio masters made vor vinyl. I don't believe that vinyl is a superior medium compared to CD or MP3/FLAC, but in many cases there's a huge difference between the masters produced for vinyl and for digital media. And in a lot of cases, those "digitally remastered" recordings are crap even compared to the old digital masters, with a lot of "loudness war" added. Sadly it is hard to come by a digital file produced from a good master.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Yeah, I hear you. For R.E.M.'s Accelerate and Rush's Clockwork Angels albums a few years back, I bought the CDs to support the artists, but I put them on only to discover that the CDs were compressed to hell. The vinyl, however, had been mastered with the preference of more audiophile-y people in mind. So, I just went to a torrent community and downloaded a high-quality vinyl rip to FLAC, and now I play exclusively this.
It's sad that in order to get real dynamic range and avoid the loudness-wars sludge, one has to resort to this workaround. Even if these vinyl rip uploaders are using the highest-quality rig, some fidelity is inevitably lost in the process.
I've even heard it surmised (possibly here) that putting a computer program in memory for execution is technically a copyright violation. It will never be tried in court as it goes way beyond the idea of common sense (even in today's corporate controlled courts), but it could be true.
But it was tried in court (sortof) in the Federal case Mai v. Peak. The court ruled that according to the rules of copyright, technically loading a program into RAM for execution does violate copyright, partially because RAM can be easily copyable (Anything that places a program in storage that is trivially copyable is a copyright violation).
The US Congress, Orrin Hatch in particular, thought this was silly, and amended the copyright code. Section 117 of the Copyright code currently reads:
"(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.— Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful."
#2 is your backup copy provision, #1 means you can run a program without infringing it, as long as you're just running it (and not decompiling it or something else of that nature).
No problems that you know of. The drive you used for ripping will silently correct errors, or just pad with interpolated data if it can't. Some software can read the amount of errors and you will probably find that older discs do have a lot more.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
" is only available used (so I cannot even support the artist by buying it)"
That's like saying you don't buy weed from your local dealer because you'd prefer to support the farmer.
Buying used supports the artist. By buying the used disc you're creating an aftermarket for the artist's stuff which ultimately enlarges the primary market because people who buy new in the primary market know they will be able to sell the item if they decide it isn't right for them or they tire of it. If you buy the disc, used or new, and like it, you're likely to play or at least recommend it to others who may then also decide to buy the artist's stuff.
How about we make the copyright holder responsible for providing suitable replacements as part of their copyright renewal process. It would be preferable to require a new stamping off a master every 5-10 years and provide identical media replacements - certainly to the Library of Congress and other designated archives (CD for CD, Book for book, VHS for VHS). I could see some wiggle room where digital downloads of equal or greater quality be made available to consumers.
Even if we say fuck the consumers, the copyright holder should certainly be responsible to provide replacements to archives as part of the copyright registration. I would see such as minimal evidence for copyright enforcement.
Nope, labels are aware that their remasters are going to be listened to in cars and through tiny earbuds while walking down the street. People who are consuming music that way don't want dynamic range, because the noise around the listener would render much of the music inaudible. So, the levels get pushed up so that classic rock music can compete with the noise of traffic or the subway.
Another problem is when the remastering is directed by a bloke who was a great performer in the band decades ago, but is now a middle-aged man who is becoming hard of hearing. Such people push the levels up much more than a younger engineer. This was a big problem with the Cocteau Twins remasters; Robin Guthrie should have given it to a younger man instead of doing it himself.
Except the act of actually playing it *once* physically destroys the media. Vinyl is like driving a new car off the lot: the value drops by about 20% the first time you drive it. Then each additional time you drive it, the value drops by an additional amount. If you play vinyl about 15 times, you have lost more than 50% of the original material. The stylus ploughing through (relatively) soft plastic is like a steel plough going through (relatively) soft soil. At some point all you have is a smooth "shhhhhhhhhh" sound with very faint sounding something that used to be music. You do make a point though "Vinyl is still fairly superior for physical archiving" ....so long as you never play it.
I'm sorry, that's complete hogwash. I don't know if you've ever owned records, but I've been buying them since the mid-sixties. I'm sure I have many records that are older than you are. If you only get fifteen plays out of an album, you are doing something seriously wrong. I'm a little shocked at how many slashdotters seem to believe this nonsense, but I guess many people have now grown up without any exposure to vinyl. Now, if you're not here to cut the grass, please get off my lawn.
-- sudon't
Air-ride Equipped
Semi-agreed, for one reason: it may be because he has a turntable with a cheap or worn-out needle on it (that is, it's either way too dull overall, or way too sharp at the tip. The former will wear out the sides of the groove, while the latter will slowly gouge out the center of it). That or the armature itself is too damned heavy, the armature spring is bearing down too hard, etc etc etc.
Lots of variables to consider when you compare this stuff. :)
Mind you, I used to restore vintage record players and radios - as in 1920's-1950's - stuff that was old enough to use tubes. My biggest problem wasn't the electronics (even tubes aren't too tough to get if you know where to look.) My biggest problem was with needles that were worn way down, and finding a box of replacement needles that fit at a flea market was like finding pure gold. My next biggest problem was in restoring the armature (springs and hinges were usually shot, rusted, or worse). After that it was all the ancillary crap nobody thinks of (speakers, belts, motors, the battered wood finish and grilles, etc).
OTOH, even with brand-new turntables, there's a lot of things that have to happen correctly in both design and execution before you get a solid turntable that will play good vinyl over the long term without tearing the crap out of it.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?