Do blank Media deteriorate over time if it is not used?

Do blank Media deteriorate over time if it is stored properly but not used ?
Over time meaning in 5-10 years time.

If there would be deterioration, how significant would it be?

This questions applies to CD, DVD and BD but in particularly DVD.

If I buy the blank media and write on them within a year, would the quality of burn and its longevity the same or better compared to if I write on the same media 5-10 years after I have purchased them?

Please assume other variables (eg the program and writer used to write the media) are the same.

Thanks.

I don’t know the official answer, but I have a lot of old media - I still have most of a spindle of Verbatim 2.4x DVD+R media left, for example, that would be many years old at a minimum - and it seems to burn fine and the scans are similar to what they would have been when the media was new.

This assumes good storage (mine are kept in a dry, cool basement).

Environmental factors cause media to degrade so as PhotoJim says it depends on how they’re stored.

Humidity, temperature, atmospheric sulphur dioxide (which is a naturally present air pollutant), oxygen and light exposure can all affect discs.

[B]Wombler[/B]

I still have a lot of 4X discs that burn as good as the day they were new. My newer burners (all 7 that are in one computer) won’t burn them worth sh!t. so I have my old Mad Dog NEC 3500 in a external box and it is what I use to burn them. Boy am I going to hate it when the rubber band in it breaks.

That’s a really good point - really old media may not burn well on modern burners, but older burners will do fine.

One of my 16x IDE LG burners burns that 2.4x Verbatim media just fine, and so does my external NEC 4x burner, but my SATA burners seem not to be able to do much with it because they don’t recognize its MID code. It burns, but it’s a guessed strategy and far from optimal.

[QUOTE=kirby7777;2669156]

If I buy the blank media and write on them within a year, would the quality of burn and its longevity the same or better compared to if I write on the same media 5-10 years after I have purchased them?

Please assume other variables (eg the program and writer used to write the media) are the same.

Thanks.[/QUOTE]
Common manufacturers estimates on blank DVD-R shelf life are 5-10 years. While you may get a decent burn on a 5 year old blank DVD-R, the same physical processes that break down the dye and reflective layer of a burned disc have been at work. You have used up some of that disc’s longevity.

[QUOTE=deanwitty;2669239]Common manufacturers estimates on blank DVD-R shelf life are 5-10 years. While you may get a decent burn on a 5 year old blank DVD-R, the same physical processes that break down the dye and reflective layer of a burned disc have been at work. You have used up some of that disc’s longevity.[/QUOTE]

That’s another good point. :iagree:

If you’ve had media lying around for a long time it might appear to burn well but it won’t last as long.

[B]Wombler[/B]

[QUOTE=deanwitty;2669239]Common manufacturers estimates on blank DVD-R shelf life are 5-10 years. While you may get a decent burn on a 5 year old blank DVD-R, the same physical processes that break down the dye and reflective layer of a burned disc have been at work. You have used up some of that disc’s longevity.[/QUOTE]

But after they are burned they become more stable?

I had a lot of 5-7 years old TY/Plextor-DVDRs, of which I burnt the last ones recently, and the PIE/POE-rates were as low as 7 years ago*,
and: the error rates are about 5 to 10 times lower tham with the new TY/JVC-DVRs :frowning:

  • PIE average of about o,5 and only some thousands for a whole disc.

Yes. Kind of depressing IF the media’s to blame, as if manufacturing standards are ever-lowering. As I suspect.

Were these burned on the same drive? Could you blame the drive’s age, if so?

[QUOTE=cjr;2712358]I had a lot of 5-7 years old TY/Plextor-DVDRs, of which I burnt the last ones recently, and the PIE/POE-rates were as low as 7 years ago*,
and: the error rates are about 5 to 10 times lower tham with the new TY/JVC-DVRs :frowning:

  • PIE average of about o,5 and only some thousands for a whole disc.[/QUOTE]That hasn’t been my experience. I have old TY and brand new JVC/TY discs. Both CD-Rs and DVD+Rs. They burn very similarly. You couldn’t tell them apart from the scans.

[QUOTE=Stereodude;2712373]That hasn’t been my experience. I have old TY and brand new JVC/TY discs. Both CD-Rs and DVD+Rs. They burn very similarly. You couldn’t tell them apart from the scans.[/QUOTE]

I had some Sony Taiyo Yudens laying around that I sold to a great friend, I bet they are as good as they were when I bought them in 2005.

[QUOTE=alan1476;2712515]I bet they are as good as they were when I bought them in 2005.[/QUOTE]
I’ve been told they burn very nicely. :iagree: Then again, so do new JVC/TY discs.

My new JVC/TY DVDRs (bought 1.5 years ago) have a factor 5 higher PIE than the old Plextor/TY DVDRs.
I am not so happy about this.
Burner: Plextor 755

Depends on how the discs are stored.
If they are stored dry, out of light, and in original jewel cases or other good cases, they should be good.

Don’t do as me… and keep them in those cheap “repacked white soft cover” things that ebay seller repacks media in. Had them on shelf for 10 months, and now they are unburnable…

This old comment got my attention: [QUOTE=Wombler;2669209]Environmental factors cause media to degrade so as PhotoJim says it depends on how they’re stored.

Humidity, temperature, atmospheric [B]sulphur dioxide[/B] (which is a naturally present air pollutant), [B]oxygen[/B] and light exposure can all affect discs.

[B]Wombler[/B][/QUOTE] Does this mean that it would be beneficial to store discs in an airtight container? Would the amount of oxygen and sulphur dioxide inside the container still be more than enough to feed just as much decay as if the discs were breathing to the environment? I have some discs in a dark place with the spindles on their sides, but they’re not airtight sealed. I’m wondering if that would make any difference.

[QUOTE=shamino;2725448]This old comment got my attention: Does this mean that it would be beneficial to store discs in an airtight container? Would the amount of oxygen and sulphur dioxide inside the container still be more than enough to feed just as much decay as if the discs were breathing to the environment? I have some discs in a dark place with the spindles on their sides, but they’re not airtight sealed. I’m wondering if that would make any difference.[/QUOTE]

Well spotted, I’ve never been asked about this before.

The short answer to that one is yes, it would be beneficial.

The long answer is that archival standards recommend storing media in a controlled environment, and that relates to temperature, humidity, and even providing a clean air environment.

It’s a bit excessive to expect normal domestic users to adhere rigidly to the ultra strict archival standards however anything that assists with any of these factors will be beneficial to some degree.

Even if the container isn’t airtight it still limits the flow of air over the disc and therefore exposure to atmospheric contaminants. The container also acts as a buffer to changing temperatures and humidity.

Every time you open the container you expose the disc to fresh contaminants so discs are best kept in the container until use. An airtight container would lessen the exposure but the discs would of course still be exposed to fresh contamination every time the container is opened.

If you’re storing discs long term then removing any paper inserts is also recommended as these attract moisture which then increases the relative humidity surrounding the disc.

At a practical level however all of this simply means that if you leave a disc lying around exposed to light, humidity, temperature variation, and atmospheric contamination, then the disc won’t last as long as it would have otherwise. The degree of this is almost impossible to quantify though as there are so many interacting and interdependant factors that apply.

[B]Wombler[/B]

[QUOTE=Wombler;2725524] […] Even if the container isn’t airtight it still limits the flow of air over the disc and therefore exposure to atmospheric contaminants. The container also acts as a buffer to changing temperatures and humidity.

Every time you open the container you expose the disc to fresh contaminants so discs are best kept in the container until use. An airtight container would lessen the exposure but the discs would of course still be exposed to fresh contamination every time the container is opened.
[…] At a practical level however all of this simply means that if you leave a disc lying around exposed to light, humidity, temperature variation, and atmospheric contamination, then the disc won’t last as long as it would have otherwise. The degree of this is almost impossible to quantify though as there are so many interacting and interdependant factors that apply.

[/QUOTE] Thanks for the reply. So it sounds like it’s not really known how significantly an airtight container would help, but it would only help in any case so it would be a good idea to the extent that it’s practical. I think my biggest storage deficiency would be temperature, but I can’t justify anything that would get them any cooler than room temperature.

If you’re storing discs long term then removing any paper inserts is also recommended as these attract moisture which then increases the relative humidity surrounding the disc.
Interesting point. If I do use a container, I think I’d also put some dessicant packets in it. I bought a bunch of those a few years ago for another reason, and they’re still laying around, so I might as well make use of them. They can be dried in an oven before use.

[QUOTE=shamino;2725551]Thanks for the reply. So it sounds like it’s not really known how significantly an airtight container would help, but it would only help in any case so it would be a good idea to the extent that it’s practical. I think my biggest storage deficiency would be temperature, but I can’t justify anything that would get them any cooler than room temperature.[/QUOTE]

That pretty much sums it up although it’s not only about cooling the discs to lower than room temperature it’s also about keeping them at a constant temperature. Bear in mind also that if you cool them to lower than room temperature you can end then up with condensation problems when you go to use the disc.

The ranges of temperatures suggested for media storage vary according to the source so it’s debatable whether sub-zero temperatures are entirely necessary. Having said that logic would suggest to me that the chemical reactions going on as part of the degradation process are bound to be slowed by lowering the temperature.

In the perfect archival scenario all discs are stored in individual containers and the container would be allowed to come up to room temperature before it was opened, but at a practical level this isn’t convenient so most people reach their own level of compromise.

Interesting point. If I do use a container, I think I’d also put some dessicant packets in it. I bought a bunch of those a few years ago for another reason, and they’re still laying around, so I might as well make use of them. They can be dried in an oven before use.

I’ve never seen that suggested before but it seems to me that it would to some extent replicate the dehumidification done as part of the clean air process, so I can’t see that not having a positive effect with regard to humidity.

[B]Wombler[/B]

Anyone here who is concerned about long-term viability of their data backup discs should look into M-Disc from Millenniata.

I bought an LG M-Disc drive and with the newly-released BD-R (25GB) M-Discs have made backups that should outlive me by at least 975 years.

They are not dye-based thus not susceptible to e.g. sunlight. Dunno about humidity etc. but the US military gave them the thumbs-up.