Hi, Peter,

It seems to me the expressions need to reflect (wrong word?) the degree of
assumed average longevity.

Longevity is playback using the error correction system of the day, which
means the chip has to be identified.  There need to be a list of CD players
grouped by error correction systems, contunually updated.

New and better(?) error correction systems should be identified as they
appear and players using them should be reviewed.  A standard test disc
should be created with a variety of errors and run through successive
playback machines, toward the idea that, with these problems, it won't
playback on this one but will on that one.

Of course, test figures with no error correction system in place heads the

Average longevity assumes proper storage and might be expressed in dd's,
death dates, as in 40 years plus or minus 5 years.  Some PR guy can come up
with a more genteel way of expressing this.

Assumed average longevity.  Assumed implies that this number is an
extrapolation rather than a figure arrived at by waiting 40 years.  It
supplies cover in the event of CD sticky shed.

Any test results must take into account the various methods of labeling as
well as the disc surface type, each combination treated separately.
Otherwise, results will be unrelated to real-world uses.

Steve Smolian

----- Original Message -----
From: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 1:41 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Fw: [ARSCLIST] Gold CDs

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of [log in to unmask]
>> Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 1:54 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: [ARSCLIST] Fw: [ARSCLIST] Gold CDs
>> "... and, most significantly, on storage and handling."
>> Storage and handling, of course are major elements in any longevity
>> discussion.
>> "For example, if there were standards by which the term "archival" was
>> defined and enforced,
>> then one or more lines of blanks labelled "archival" could be used."
>> Archival is a tricky word and can mean different things to different
>> people.
>> Joe
> NIST just put a good document on storage and handling and the AES/ISO
> Joint
> Technical Commission is currently working on a Optical Disc storage and
> handling document.
> As far as "archival" is concerned, on the Joint Commission, we've been
> trying to do something about putting a reasonable definition in the "Terms
> and Definitions" section of a number of AES, ANSI and ISO standards
> documents for years.  Unfortunately, the response we've gotten has not
> been
> promising.  Trying to define "archival" at this point impacts too many
> previously published documents and , frankly, has too many political
> ramifications in the industry for a "formal" definition to pass the
> standards voting process any time in the near future.  This is why we have
> had to make do with phrases such as "medium-term life expectancy" and
> "extended-term life expectancy".  You might notice that these phrases
> don't
> seem to have been picked up in advertising literature.  Oh well, a
> consensus
> on what archival means when referring to media would be really nice and
> I'm
> certainly open to any suggestions on how we all could get such a
> definition
> into a published standard.  Any ideas?
> Peter Brothers
> President
> (201) 440-6589
> Restoration and Disaster Recovery Service Since 1983