LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  April 2006

ARSCLIST April 2006

Subject:

Re: TY vs Mitsui. SUmmary

From:

"Prentice, Will" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 26 Apr 2006 15:50:33 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (162 lines)

Steven's message below is a good summary of things as they stand, but my
feeling FWIW is that variations on multiple HD/RAID/LTO etc are likely
to become more affordable, easier to implement and more viable for an
increasing number of us, from national to personal archive keepers, to
the point where we may not need to worry about *long term* longevity of
those little shiny discs, if we're careful.

At the British Library Sound Archive we take CD-R and DVD-R longevity
seriously, using more than one testing device within a testing strategy,
and it's all very labour intensive. The Library as a whole is working on
a mass storage setup, and as soon as we have access to that, we'll
ingest like crazy and ditch (or at least stop relying on) recordable
optical media ASAP.

Steven said "So, if I read the tea interleaves correctly, it's one MAM
gold, two MAM golds if a backup is required."

I reckon a good quality, appropriately burned silver backup is safer in
the *medium term* than a gold backup on batch-identical media. If we're
still relying solely on -R discs in 10 years time, I'll be deeply
depressed. (Which isn't to say it won't happen, of course...)

In the meantime, keep testing.

Will


-----Original Message-----
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Steven Smolian
Sent: 26 April 2006 15:13
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] TY vs Mitsui. SUmmary

My previously unmade point exactly. I couldn't come up with less than a

too-unwordy explanation, but, Joe, your succinctness works perfectly.


The issue of gold DVDs arose. I understood that the chemistry was
different
from CDs and wonder if the former are effective for long term storage.
There being no actual standard for audio DVDs is unsettling as well. Any

tests? Looking 25 years into the future, will there be a problem
getting
them to play back?

Someone wrote to the effect that test results from a manufacturer are
only
advertising. I admit they are advertising, but perhaps not only. It
gives
a starting place to confirm, adjust or disprove the science rather than
leaving a blank, "I wish we had data" void.

Kodak published their tests rather than the results only. So, if I
recall,
did Mitsui. TY, on the otherhand, made claims without such publically
avaliable back-up. I spoke to them at the time the ealy ads apperared,
and
was told that, since there were no testing standards, they chose those
that
made their product look best.

NIST's report on CDs gives much more conservative numbers for CD
longevity,
even for gold ones, but the gold was vastly superior to everything else.

Since they never mention actual manufacturers, it took much deep thought
to
come up the the winner's brand name in a field of one.

Short of having a reliable server system continually refreshing the data
it
holds as it circulates among drives, gold CDs are the 44.1 answer. Long

term storage of files with higher rates on finite objects is still
unsettled, but the feelgood solution seems to be gold DVDs. Until
serious
testing of the latter, they are feelgood only and should by no means be
considered a standard.

Does that express the group's current state of mind on this thread?

Steve Smolian
----- Original Message -----
From: <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 8:47 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] TY vs Mitsui


> How much of an error rate difference are we talking about?
>
> For sure, when you burn a disc, you want a low error rate and no E22
and
> E32 errors. However, all other things being equal if we are talking
about
> BLER of 0.5 versus BLER 3.0, this is not an issue.
>
> I have burned a large variety of discs on different burners and
different
> speeds for the research I have performed. The TY/cyanine does tend to
> produce a BLER <1 on many occasions. The Mitsui/MAM can attain this,
but
> the BLER is usually slightly higher (in the 2 to 3 range).
>
> That being said, gold metal layer will not corrode, silver alloy will.
> Phthalocyanine dye is very stable to light, heat, RH and cyanine is
not.
> These points are not theoretical.
>
> So, as Jerry briefly pointed out as well, here is a basic example:
>
> Disc A (gold metal/phthalocyanine): Initial Bler = 10.0
> Disc B (silver metal/cyanine): Initial Bler =0.2
>
> Disc A is very stable and over 10 years does not change. However, Disc
B
> is
> less stable and does change over the 10 years due to exposure to one
or
> all
> of the following: light, elevated temperature and relative humidity,
high
> levels of pollutants from the atmosphere, or exposure from aggressive
> agent
> from poor storage enclosures.
>
> After ten years you have:
>
> Disc A (gold metal/phthalocyanine): Ten year Bler = 10.8
> Disc B (silver metal/cyanine): Ten year Bler =100.0
>
> Where would you rather be?
>
> Joe
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.6/324 - Release Date:
4/25/2006
>

**************************************************************************
 
Experience the British Library online at www.bl.uk
 
Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. www.bl.uk/adoptabook
 
The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled
 
**************************************************************************
 
The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the [log in to unmask] : The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed or copied without the sender's consent.
 
The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library. The British Library does not take any responsibility for the views of the author.
 
**************************************************************************

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager