> -----Original Message-----
> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mike Richter
> Sent: Sunday, August 07, 2005 11:15 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] "Archival" DVD-R?
> Joav Shdema wrote:
> > Steve and all,
> > I have been using Verbatim and Mitsui (and Quantegy) for a better part
> > of the past 3 years. In this period prices went down and speed went up
> > considerably. From 3-4 manufacturers we now have numerous. Although I
> > have not witnessed an aged corrupt DVD yet data start to amass.
> > Recording layer corruption, layers separating, cracks, storage scratches
> > and other. I recon (and naively hope) that staying with the best brand
> > names would be safer until data could be verified in 10-20 years.
> > Our Master cabinets are at room temperature, locked and dark. Air-con is
> > on during the hotter hours of the day to keep an average 23!C. Hardly
> > archiving, more of a real world condition. In these conditions we have
> > never had any problems with DVD-R or CDRs of any brand from real
> > el-cheapos to the best of the best. Others miles may vary... If the copy
> > you supply is the only copy why not supply 2 copies and get done with
> > it? :-) Mark one as MASTER and seal it, mark the other WORK COPY and
> > leave it open. I always keep my own copy as safety back-up.
> Again, speaking out of turn:
> Multiple copies are an excellent choice, indeed, I would say a necessary
> They should be on different media, both (or all) of high quality.
> I trust that by "seal", you do not mean hermetically seal the disc.
> Keeping air out means trapping gasses in, which I believe is considered
> unwise for recordable optical media. Of course, you are correct that a
> master copy should not be accessed except to verify integrity.
> Whatever media you use, please calibrate them on your hardware - that
> is, determine the optimum record speed by minimum error count - then
> record at or near that speed. My experience is that premature failure of
> quality discs is consistently associated with either poor handling or a
> poor initial recording. Both may be avoided without great effort.
> [log in to unmask]
As usual, Mike is quite correct. I might add incorrect volume and file
structure logical errors as a third, common source of premature failure.
Such discs "work" in some operating systems, but fail is others or later
versions of a "good" O/S.
Media Sciences, Inc.