Disc Fade is REAL
181 - 200 of 221 Posts
Joined
·
458 Posts
If sky is falling is simply unpredictable and unavoidable disc fade, then yes it is falling...
You can start by simply reading hundreds and hundreds of pages of forums like this one here, videohelp.com, cdfreaks.com, do a bunch of google searches on things liek disc fade, dye break downs, disc oxidation, read up the handful of major disc manufacturers and their corresponding quality of output, dye movement/shift out towards the boundaries from the force of the spinning, look up data archival methods.
I don't even know to point you in the right direction to even begin.
I have no "scientific" proof... But after reading hundreds of posts by average Joe's like me that had nearly perfect scans go bad on them, and seeing this happen to all their discs, I am convinced.
Start Here:
http://club.cdfreaks.com/showthread.php?t=182040
You see all these recent scans. Some are amazing, still perfect after years. Others were GEAT burns or TY media and are showing a LOT of degredation. Most are showing at least minimal to average amounts of degredation.
There are tons of info like this out there.
Now with all this visual proof of degredation, so you think the degredation will magically stop or reverse itself in the future? Doubt it... Do you think that almost every one of these discs will become unreadable in say.. The next 10 years??? I bet the majority of them do...
The point is......
Any given disc MIGHT last a decade or more. It MIGHT last 2 years or less. You just don't know, and any number of factors could hurt your longevity, and some you can't really control such as unrealistic scans from good readers, laser weakening, disc bonding failing, dye movement, oxidation or just bad luck.
Not something I would ever declare as ARCHIVAL quality.
If sky is falling is simply unpredictable and unavoidable disc fade, then yes it is falling...
You can start by simply reading hundreds and hundreds of pages of forums like this one here, videohelp.com, cdfreaks.com, do a bunch of google searches on things liek disc fade, dye break downs, disc oxidation, read up the handful of major disc manufacturers and their corresponding quality of output, dye movement/shift out towards the boundaries from the force of the spinning, look up data archival methods.
I don't even know to point you in the right direction to even begin.
I have no "scientific" proof... But after reading hundreds of posts by average Joe's like me that had nearly perfect scans go bad on them, and seeing this happen to all their discs, I am convinced.
Start Here:
http://club.cdfreaks.com/showthread.php?t=182040
You see all these recent scans. Some are amazing, still perfect after years. Others were GEAT burns or TY media and are showing a LOT of degredation. Most are showing at least minimal to average amounts of degredation.
There are tons of info like this out there.
Now with all this visual proof of degredation, so you think the degredation will magically stop or reverse itself in the future? Doubt it... Do you think that almost every one of these discs will become unreadable in say.. The next 10 years??? I bet the majority of them do...
The point is......
Any given disc MIGHT last a decade or more. It MIGHT last 2 years or less. You just don't know, and any number of factors could hurt your longevity, and some you can't really control such as unrealistic scans from good readers, laser weakening, disc bonding failing, dye movement, oxidation or just bad luck.
Not something I would ever declare as ARCHIVAL quality.
Disc fade is real.
Members post about it from time to time. It seems that every couple of months this subject keeps popping up.
The latest adventures of the "DVD-eating boogeymen" can be found here, courtesy of Videonut:
http://avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=807448
nx211
Disc fade is real.
Members post about it from time to time. It seems that every couple of months this subject keeps popping up.
The latest adventures of the "DVD-eating boogeymen" can be found here, courtesy of Videonut:
http://avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=807448
nx211
That thread, though, talks about Ritek G04 media which is notorious for dying very, very quickly.
As usual the truth is somewhere in the middle.
I don't trust any of my DVDs to last more than 5-10 years. I'm coming up on 5-6 years for many of my early DVDs and so far so good. That said, a lot of people were screaming when CDRs came out that they too would be dead in 5 years. I continue to scan some of my first burns of CDRs from the 1997-1998 era (so they're approaching 10 years old, I remember buying that first pack for $30 for 3 discs) and some of them still scan better than many burns I do today! Unfortunately, some have died as well. Want to guess the difference? The dead discs were burned on cheap media to cut some corners. Thankfully I haven't lost anything important, but my 2X/4X TY CDRs still are working like champs.
There's something to be said for the days when CD burners cost $600 and discs $10. I really think the quality of the units was much better, resulting in much better burns. My original Ricoh 6200 CD burner (2X! Speed demon!!) still works, last time I checked. And the thing burned TY CDRs like nobody's business. I only retired it because it was so slow.
That said, discs will deteriorate. The problem in the thread you mentioned was with Ritek G04 discs-- they were some of the first *cheap* 4X discs that burned fairly well on a wide variety of burners. Many people back when they first came out were warning people not to trust them, and unfortunately, many people didn't listen to the warnings.
The moral of the story is to spend some money up front-- don't buy the cheapest burner, don't buy the cheapest media-- and test as often as you can. For critical stuff, I burn (at least) 2 copies, using 2 different burners, on 2 different kinds of media. I also have a stash of really good media that I only break out for super critical things. Yes, I'm really obsessive over this stuff, but I don't want my discs dying on me. I'm afraid we ARE coming up on a bit of a digital dark age where people who were brainwashed (By the music/movie industries) that bits is bits, discs are indestructable, and every disc is the same, are going to start losing a LOT of data due to poor choices due to lack of education.
(did I take enough different sides in this message?)
As usual the truth is somewhere in the middle.
I don't trust any of my DVDs to last more than 5-10 years. I'm coming up on 5-6 years for many of my early DVDs and so far so good. That said, a lot of people were screaming when CDRs came out that they too would be dead in 5 years. I continue to scan some of my first burns of CDRs from the 1997-1998 era (so they're approaching 10 years old, I remember buying that first pack for $30 for 3 discs) and some of them still scan better than many burns I do today! Unfortunately, some have died as well. Want to guess the difference? The dead discs were burned on cheap media to cut some corners. Thankfully I haven't lost anything important, but my 2X/4X TY CDRs still are working like champs.
There's something to be said for the days when CD burners cost $600 and discs $10. I really think the quality of the units was much better, resulting in much better burns. My original Ricoh 6200 CD burner (2X! Speed demon!!) still works, last time I checked. And the thing burned TY CDRs like nobody's business. I only retired it because it was so slow.
That said, discs will deteriorate. The problem in the thread you mentioned was with Ritek G04 discs-- they were some of the first *cheap* 4X discs that burned fairly well on a wide variety of burners. Many people back when they first came out were warning people not to trust them, and unfortunately, many people didn't listen to the warnings.
The moral of the story is to spend some money up front-- don't buy the cheapest burner, don't buy the cheapest media-- and test as often as you can. For critical stuff, I burn (at least) 2 copies, using 2 different burners, on 2 different kinds of media. I also have a stash of really good media that I only break out for super critical things. Yes, I'm really obsessive over this stuff, but I don't want my discs dying on me. I'm afraid we ARE coming up on a bit of a digital dark age where people who were brainwashed (By the music/movie industries) that bits is bits, discs are indestructable, and every disc is the same, are going to start losing a LOT of data due to poor choices due to lack of education.
(did I take enough different sides in this message?)
Joined
·
3,340 Posts
Back in February I was running short on DVD-RW discs and rather than buying more for temporary use I decided I'd pick up a small spindle of Maxell 16X discs to do some temporary burns (much cheaper than DVD-RW) on my Pioneer 633.
Although they were just temporary discs, I did my usual quality checking on them and found that these RITEKF1 discs burned very poorly in with the Pio 633. No matter, I needed them only temporarily anyway. But 3 months later I still hadn't finished with them and when I rechecked the burn quality it was way worse - bad enough that I actually re-copied them to a new set of 16X DVD-R discs (Verbatim MCC 03RG20) that burned much better.
I hung onto the RITEKF1 discs just to see what would happen them over the longer term, and now it's been 6 months and they're continuing to deteriorate, albeit at a slower rate than they did initially.
Here's an animation of three quality scans, the first right after the initial burn with the next two being 3 and 6 months later:
![]()
In the first 3 months, the total PIE error count increased by a whopping 216%. In the next three months, the rate increased by about a further 25%. Although this is only one disc, I actually burned a couple of dozen RITEKF1 discs that have all showed the same pattern of degradation. So there really is some sort of fairly serious and systematic "fade" going on with these discs (although whether "fade" is a good term for it or not is perhaps debateable).
Note that even now, when the disc shows PIE error rates above the maximum 280 specified by the DVD standard, the errors are still correctable and in fact the disc plays perfectly well. But if the deterioration continues then at some point the data will become unrecoverable. With this kind of deterioration it's very easy to imagine a bad burn that initially had error rates at around 1000 or more which increase over the first few months to a point where the disc can no longer be played. This would match the "disc fade" scenarios that a lot of folks have complained about.
I usually throw out discs whose initial burns are as bad as this one was, so I don't know if this is typical of poorly burned discs. But I can tell you that none of my other discs, including a few hundred RITEKG05's (which lot of folks have complained about), have shown any significant degradation from their initial burn quality in over 18 months (so far). From this I'm led to suspect that well-burned discs are less susceptible to this kind of degradation.
If nothing else, this will hopefully reinforce the idea that just playing your discs after burning them is really no guarantee of anything. As I've mentioned before, a playable disc may still be "just barely readable", and any degradation, particularly the kind seen here, could easily render the data irretrievable. The only way to be sure is to check the burn quality using your PC.
Edit - noted that it's been an 18-month track record for my good burns so far
Although they were just temporary discs, I did my usual quality checking on them and found that these RITEKF1 discs burned very poorly in with the Pio 633. No matter, I needed them only temporarily anyway. But 3 months later I still hadn't finished with them and when I rechecked the burn quality it was way worse - bad enough that I actually re-copied them to a new set of 16X DVD-R discs (Verbatim MCC 03RG20) that burned much better.
I hung onto the RITEKF1 discs just to see what would happen them over the longer term, and now it's been 6 months and they're continuing to deteriorate, albeit at a slower rate than they did initially.
Here's an animation of three quality scans, the first right after the initial burn with the next two being 3 and 6 months later:
In the first 3 months, the total PIE error count increased by a whopping 216%. In the next three months, the rate increased by about a further 25%. Although this is only one disc, I actually burned a couple of dozen RITEKF1 discs that have all showed the same pattern of degradation. So there really is some sort of fairly serious and systematic "fade" going on with these discs (although whether "fade" is a good term for it or not is perhaps debateable).
Note that even now, when the disc shows PIE error rates above the maximum 280 specified by the DVD standard, the errors are still correctable and in fact the disc plays perfectly well. But if the deterioration continues then at some point the data will become unrecoverable. With this kind of deterioration it's very easy to imagine a bad burn that initially had error rates at around 1000 or more which increase over the first few months to a point where the disc can no longer be played. This would match the "disc fade" scenarios that a lot of folks have complained about.
I usually throw out discs whose initial burns are as bad as this one was, so I don't know if this is typical of poorly burned discs. But I can tell you that none of my other discs, including a few hundred RITEKG05's (which lot of folks have complained about), have shown any significant degradation from their initial burn quality in over 18 months (so far). From this I'm led to suspect that well-burned discs are less susceptible to this kind of degradation.
If nothing else, this will hopefully reinforce the idea that just playing your discs after burning them is really no guarantee of anything. As I've mentioned before, a playable disc may still be "just barely readable", and any degradation, particularly the kind seen here, could easily render the data irretrievable. The only way to be sure is to check the burn quality using your PC.
Edit - noted that it's been an 18-month track record for my good burns so far
I would not be surprised if the chinese-made disks you buy today are inferior quality to the ones you could buy last year.
I recently read an article in the newspaper by a professor from the Wharton Business School about the issues of chinese manufacturing that are now biting importers in the butt. Bottom line is that the owners of all these "cheap" chinese factories will start a production run meeting all the specs. of the contractor, then overtime they will gradually and unilaterally change them by substituting cheaper materials or shaving corners off the design to fatten their margins. They know what the customers quality tests are (if there are any) and so they make sure they meet them while continuing to cheapen the product. This has been going on since the beginning and is now getting some big publicity because they went too far on some products of high visibility: melamine in pet foods, cardboard in meat products, construction girders that weigh 10% less than spec., LEAD PAINT ON SMALL CHILDRENS TOYS for god's sake.
His points were: first, this is not likely to change; there is no culture of quality in china and there are no signs that one is emerging; they are out to make as much money as possible in as short a time possible because they don't believe the current economic climate in china is going to last. Second, the chinese manufacturers know the US importers have no choice but to continue to contract with them -- they have us by the shorts and they know it. A shift to chinese manufacturing nearly always was accompanied by the closing of a US plant, so the American manufacturers have nothing to fall back on. They have to deal with the fall-out, the legal ramifications and now employ people to do continuous product inspections they never had to do before. So much for cost-saving by outsourcing. If they switch to another chinese manufacturer thay will have startup downtime with no product to sell and face the same problems all over. So, for the chinese factory it's "so-sorry"; fix the problem they got caught on and it's back in business as usual cutting some other corner until the next time. Short-term profits resulting in long-term calamity for US business.
This is really scary when you consider that china is now the biggest foreign supplier of imported food to the US, without the same standards as the USDA, and that the USDA doesn't have the manpower to inspect more than a fraction of what comes in here.
I recently read an article in the newspaper by a professor from the Wharton Business School about the issues of chinese manufacturing that are now biting importers in the butt. Bottom line is that the owners of all these "cheap" chinese factories will start a production run meeting all the specs. of the contractor, then overtime they will gradually and unilaterally change them by substituting cheaper materials or shaving corners off the design to fatten their margins. They know what the customers quality tests are (if there are any) and so they make sure they meet them while continuing to cheapen the product. This has been going on since the beginning and is now getting some big publicity because they went too far on some products of high visibility: melamine in pet foods, cardboard in meat products, construction girders that weigh 10% less than spec., LEAD PAINT ON SMALL CHILDRENS TOYS for god's sake.
His points were: first, this is not likely to change; there is no culture of quality in china and there are no signs that one is emerging; they are out to make as much money as possible in as short a time possible because they don't believe the current economic climate in china is going to last. Second, the chinese manufacturers know the US importers have no choice but to continue to contract with them -- they have us by the shorts and they know it. A shift to chinese manufacturing nearly always was accompanied by the closing of a US plant, so the American manufacturers have nothing to fall back on. They have to deal with the fall-out, the legal ramifications and now employ people to do continuous product inspections they never had to do before. So much for cost-saving by outsourcing. If they switch to another chinese manufacturer thay will have startup downtime with no product to sell and face the same problems all over. So, for the chinese factory it's "so-sorry"; fix the problem they got caught on and it's back in business as usual cutting some other corner until the next time. Short-term profits resulting in long-term calamity for US business.
This is really scary when you consider that china is now the biggest foreign supplier of imported food to the US, without the same standards as the USDA, and that the USDA doesn't have the manpower to inspect more than a fraction of what comes in here.
Joined
·
14,210 Posts
OK, I won't show it ALL to you, but here's some excerpts from the AP story:
"Normally, the FDA inspects just 1 percent of the cargo it oversees."
The story was on 1 million of pounds of fish that had "landed" in the U.S., and ALL of it was under an "import alert." Under that alert, ALL imports of that product must be held for lab inspection, but AT LEAST "1 in 4" shipments got thru to our dinner tables (1 in 4 of just those shipments the AP checked!).
Here's another excerpt you'll like:
"The agency has about 450 budgeted positions for screening approximately 20 million shipments annually of such things as fish, fruit and medical devices. At a congressional hearing last month, FDA employees doubted whether they have the resources to do the job."
"Normally, the FDA inspects just 1 percent of the cargo it oversees."
The story was on 1 million of pounds of fish that had "landed" in the U.S., and ALL of it was under an "import alert." Under that alert, ALL imports of that product must be held for lab inspection, but AT LEAST "1 in 4" shipments got thru to our dinner tables (1 in 4 of just those shipments the AP checked!).
Here's another excerpt you'll like:
"The agency has about 450 budgeted positions for screening approximately 20 million shipments annually of such things as fish, fruit and medical devices. At a congressional hearing last month, FDA employees doubted whether they have the resources to do the job."
Joined
·
3,340 Posts
I heard from someone once that the difference between the Detroit and the Japanese automakers was that the Japanese understood where they could "cut corners" without affecting quality, while Detroit just cut corners everywhere. With China, it almost seems like they're targeting the worst places to cut corners.
This is a short term problem, but it may not be a long term one. The Chinese quality scandals have already spawned a movement demanding changes to product labelling standards so that consumers can tell where the ingredients in processed food come from. If the consumers start abandoning ship the manufacturers are sure the heck going to as well. If this is really a cultural issue that can't be fixed quickly then China's going to kill their golden goose. You'd think Confucius would have something to say about that...
Ultimately the problem lies with manufacturers and importers who are chasing the cheapest suppliers. If the government agencies who inspect this stuff charge the importers for the inspections then that will (a) go a long way to changing the economics of buying from questionable sources, and (b) potentially relieve the inspection agencies of cost constraints that prevent them from inspecting as much product as they feel they should. (Of course there may be GATT issues to doing this, and the end result will be to raise the cost of imported goods and potentially create a self-perpetuating inspection bureaucracy).
Unfortunately, no matter how bad the crisis becomes, it's unlikely that the government will inspect and certify blank DVD media for us...
![]()
I heard from someone once that the difference between the Detroit and the Japanese automakers was that the Japanese understood where they could "cut corners" without affecting quality, while Detroit just cut corners everywhere. With China, it almost seems like they're targeting the worst places to cut corners.
This is a short term problem, but it may not be a long term one. The Chinese quality scandals have already spawned a movement demanding changes to product labelling standards so that consumers can tell where the ingredients in processed food come from. If the consumers start abandoning ship the manufacturers are sure the heck going to as well. If this is really a cultural issue that can't be fixed quickly then China's going to kill their golden goose. You'd think Confucius would have something to say about that...
Ultimately the problem lies with manufacturers and importers who are chasing the cheapest suppliers. If the government agencies who inspect this stuff charge the importers for the inspections then that will (a) go a long way to changing the economics of buying from questionable sources, and (b) potentially relieve the inspection agencies of cost constraints that prevent them from inspecting as much product as they feel they should. (Of course there may be GATT issues to doing this, and the end result will be to raise the cost of imported goods and potentially create a self-perpetuating inspection bureaucracy).
Unfortunately, no matter how bad the crisis becomes, it's unlikely that the government will inspect and certify blank DVD media for us...
Joined
·
1,389 Posts
Sean, nice job as usual! But do you have any animations of Bigfoot running amuck? We should try to keep STAR56 happy
![]()
And in reply to lordsmurf's fuzzy logic: When I hold one of my failed Vivastar DVD-R discs up to the light and clearly see through the plastic that once contained a coating of dye, I still should not blame the media itself? And, I should add that the failed discs in question were burned on either a Plextor or Pioneer burner and stored properly in a temperature-controlled room. Hey, I guess some of us don't require an anvil to fall on our head.
And in reply to lordsmurf's fuzzy logic: When I hold one of my failed Vivastar DVD-R discs up to the light and clearly see through the plastic that once contained a coating of dye, I still should not blame the media itself? And, I should add that the failed discs in question were burned on either a Plextor or Pioneer burner and stored properly in a temperature-controlled room. Hey, I guess some of us don't require an anvil to fall on our head.
Perhaps if they start manufacturing edible DVDs
![]()
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean Nelson /forum/post/0
I heard from someone once that the difference between the Detroit and the Japanese automakers was that the Japanese understood where they could "cut corners" without affecting quality, while Detroit just cut corners everywhere. With China, it almost seems like they're targeting the worst places to cut corners.
This is a short term problem, but it may not be a long term one. The Chinese quality scandals have already spawned a movement demanding changes to product labelling standards so that consumers can tell where the ingredients in processed food come from. If the consumers start abandoning ship the manufacturers are sure the heck going to as well. If this is really a cultural issue that can't be fixed quickly then China's going to kill their golden goose. You'd think Confucius would have something to say about that...
Ultimately the problem lies with manufacturers and importers who are chasing the cheapest suppliers. If the government agencies who inspect this stuff charge the importers for the inspections then that will (a) go a long way to changing the economics of buying from questionable sources, and (b) potentially relieve the inspection agencies of cost constraints that prevent them from inspecting as much product as they feel they should. (Of course there may be GATT issues to doing this, and the end result will be to raise the cost of imported goods and potentially create a self-perpetuating inspection bureaucracy).
Unfortunately, no matter how bad the crisis becomes, it's unlikely that the government will inspect and certify blank DVD media for us...![]()
Perhaps if they start manufacturing edible DVDs
Joined
·
3,340 Posts
I don't think that being able to see through a disc is an indication that it's suspect. It's fairly common to be able to see through DVDs if they don't have an opaque coating on the label side. For example, my silver 8X TYG02 DVD-R discs test out very well despite the fact that I can see through them if I hold them up to the light.
Remember, the dye is burned black where the laser strikes it, but remains (mostly) transparent everywhere else. To (greatly) oversimplify things, one would expect that 50% of the dye area (those areas that contain "0" bits) would be unburned and therefore transparent. So the only obstacle to the transparency of the disc is actually the reflective layer, not the dye layer.
(Note - burned and unburned areas don't really correspond to 0 and 1 bits, it's significantly more complex. But the fact remains that there must be substantial areas of unburned dye in order for the data to be organized into tracks and run-length-encoded groups of bits).
I don't think that being able to see through a disc is an indication that it's suspect. It's fairly common to be able to see through DVDs if they don't have an opaque coating on the label side. For example, my silver 8X TYG02 DVD-R discs test out very well despite the fact that I can see through them if I hold them up to the light.
Remember, the dye is burned black where the laser strikes it, but remains (mostly) transparent everywhere else. To (greatly) oversimplify things, one would expect that 50% of the dye area (those areas that contain "0" bits) would be unburned and therefore transparent. So the only obstacle to the transparency of the disc is actually the reflective layer, not the dye layer.
(Note - burned and unburned areas don't really correspond to 0 and 1 bits, it's significantly more complex. But the fact remains that there must be substantial areas of unburned dye in order for the data to be organized into tracks and run-length-encoded groups of bits).
Joined
·
196 Posts
dumb question but how is it my music CDs from the 80s (not burned but bought in stores) are fine to this day but everyone has so much trouble burning their own. Also, Can you record a tv show onto a cd or must it be dvd media and what is the difference?
Joined
·
3,340 Posts
Only some folks are having trouble burning, others (generally those who buy good media) are not having any problems.
The big difference between "pre-recorded" discs (CD or DVD) vs. burned discs is that the pre-recorded discs hold the data in an aluminized layer of embossed plastic that really doesn't degrade over time, whereas the data on CD-R or DVD-R media is burned as dark dots in an organc dye which degrades over time. With good, well-burned media and decent storage conditions, the organic dye is supposed to last for at least a few decades, but cheap media and/or poor burns mean that the data can be suspect right from the start, without even considering what happens over time.
The big difference between the two types of discs is capacity - even though they're the same physical size a DVD holds over 7 times a much as a CD (about 12X as much for dual-layer DVDs).
There's an Asian standard called "Video-CD" that allows almost an hour of lower-resolution video to be recorded on a CD. Most DVD (but not all) players will also play these discs. With a PC you can record DVD-quality video on a CD, but you won't be able to fit very much onto a disc and most DVD players won't play it. No DVD recorders that I know of will record video onto a CD.
Only some folks are having trouble burning, others (generally those who buy good media) are not having any problems.
The big difference between "pre-recorded" discs (CD or DVD) vs. burned discs is that the pre-recorded discs hold the data in an aluminized layer of embossed plastic that really doesn't degrade over time, whereas the data on CD-R or DVD-R media is burned as dark dots in an organc dye which degrades over time. With good, well-burned media and decent storage conditions, the organic dye is supposed to last for at least a few decades, but cheap media and/or poor burns mean that the data can be suspect right from the start, without even considering what happens over time.
The big difference between the two types of discs is capacity - even though they're the same physical size a DVD holds over 7 times a much as a CD (about 12X as much for dual-layer DVDs).
There's an Asian standard called "Video-CD" that allows almost an hour of lower-resolution video to be recorded on a CD. Most DVD (but not all) players will also play these discs. With a PC you can record DVD-quality video on a CD, but you won't be able to fit very much onto a disc and most DVD players won't play it. No DVD recorders that I know of will record video onto a CD.
I bought my first CD in 1989. I have at least 6, that I know of, that will no longer play, and if I checked everything (I have over 400), doubtless there would be more that won't play.
I have to disagree with Sean. Pressed, commercially manufactured CDs are a very thin layer of aluminum deposited on a plastic disc, and covered with lacquer. Aluminum does oxidize, rather easily. If you have any aluminum lawn furniture, perhaps you have noticed the whitish aluminum oxide that its surface aquires. The aluminum in a CD is so thin, that almost any oxidation makes it unreadable. There is air entrained in the lacquer, and even in tiny holes in the plastic disc. This can be enough to oxidize the aluminum layer. All things considered, we are lucky that they last as well as they do. If you want a CD that will last a lifetime, or more, you will have to buy gold CDs. Check out www.mofi.com . There are also other manufacturers of gold CDs.
I bought my first CD in 1989. I have at least 6, that I know of, that will no longer play, and if I checked everything (I have over 400), doubtless there would be more that won't play.
I have to disagree with Sean. Pressed, commercially manufactured CDs are a very thin layer of aluminum deposited on a plastic disc, and covered with lacquer. Aluminum does oxidize, rather easily. If you have any aluminum lawn furniture, perhaps you have noticed the whitish aluminum oxide that its surface aquires. The aluminum in a CD is so thin, that almost any oxidation makes it unreadable. There is air entrained in the lacquer, and even in tiny holes in the plastic disc. This can be enough to oxidize the aluminum layer. All things considered, we are lucky that they last as well as they do. If you want a CD that will last a lifetime, or more, you will have to buy gold CDs. Check out www.mofi.com . There are also other manufacturers of gold CDs.
181 - 200 of 221 Posts
Join the discussion
Join now to ask and comment!