Thanks Dakhaas, you bring up good points. Let’s go through them one by one:
“The fact that MAM-A/E disc’s performed much worse in real life situations.”
Can you show me some references on this, I’d like to read it (honestly).
I’m especially interested on the performance of the so-called “gold on gold archival”, but other media is also of interest.
(MAM-E silver did show ageing signs after 2 years.) Thanks to the fact that MAM-E (At least the euro stuff) seems to be inferior made. Also why are all my friend Philips
TY disc’s still perfect why the old so called superior gold media from Kodak and
Yes, I’ve also had bad experience with the original (authentic) Kodak Ultima Gold discs, which started to peel of on their lable side (taking away the reflective layer as well). Probably a bonding issue, when Kodak was already outsourcing prodution to Mexico (at that time, several years ago).
2 Accelerated ageing tests are not real life. Sorry to say but there are to much flaws in the humidity only test. I could mannipulate such tests easy in a way that will tell you cheap media will life for 300+ years. Really the test is to flawed
Again, please provide reference, if you can.
I know of some of the limitations in doing Arrhenius formula (parameter estimation difficulty) and the limited scope of humidity/temp/UV tests. There are other factors that affect archival longevity (not talking about day-to-day real world use now, but archival use), namely noxiuos gases, solvents (both alcohol and grease) and pH levels. The effects of these are rarely touched, because they are hard to test for.
However, this fact doesn’t refute that if a disc does not age well in UV/humidity/temp testing, it probably isn’t the best choice for long term archival anyway (even if it has superior gas/pH/solvent resistance).
Also, it doesn’t remove the fact that all manufacturers have produced discs that have failed. I have used for example the otherwise very good (not for sale anymore) Basf Cemtec Ceram Guard (mfg: TY) which have failed almost right after a burn.
Anecdotes do not make good statistics though.
3 The disc that performed so well in NIST was a old KODAK disc. SO it was made by KODAK not MAM-E. But it uses there dye. This comes from MAM-A own people that it was KODAK but that it used there dye and that the results for that reason were just the same.
That’s interesting. Can you provide more information on this. A reference perhaps?
AFAIK, some of the old Kodak Japan discs were Formazan dye based, not phthalocyanine based (like MAM-A discs are).
I have been getting information from two sources that the cd-r disc in the NIST study was in fact MAM-A production.
It would be interesting if we found out it was made by Kodak (or some cheaper/lesser quality company that did production for Kodak when Kodak still was in the cd-r business, but had already started diminishing their own production).
It would also be interesting, because AFAIR Kodak stopped production of it’s own CD-R discs years ago. This would mean that the disc in the test was at least several years old (counting from manufacture). Again, this slightly speaks against the usable self-life of non-burned cd-r discs, but in a good way. The disc, if truly a Kodak production run, did better than any other, even though it was “old stock” so to speak.
That’s crappy marketing because it has proven by know thanks to plasmon codes and other licensing technology that the end manufacturer (which was different) production quality is much more important as the dye.
This is again true: production (bonding/sputtering quality) do matter A LOT. However, even with superior bonding, some dyes just will not tolerate aging as well as others, at least under accelerated aging.
However, accelerated aging results are the best we have, at least until another 30-70 years has passed and we have actual real-world results.
So while MAM has a excellent propoganda. The real life results in my area doesn’t seem to back up the story.
Heh, the propaganda argument may be true. However, archival specialists (people who’s main job is archival, not production) tend to rely on MAM-A archival discs these days. At least on the anglo market that I’ve tried to become familiar with.
Also, let’s not mix NIST studies with propaganda. Manufacturer results are always suspect (at least to me) from the get-go. I’ve seen such silly claims from almost everyone (e.g. Kodak, Mitsui, Ricoh, MKM/Vebatim, etc.)
Also a lot of companies (NOB(production companny for Dutch television) for instance) do use TY for archiveing.
Never heard of anybody using TY for archival in the archival field, but it’s nice to know some production companies are doing that.
Do you know what kind of data/selection criteria they used to make their desicion and why they ended up with TY?
Again, please understand that I’m not here to argue, but to learn.
However, I want proof as argumentation support and will provide it myself as much as I can.
I really wish we all had at least one really good disc that was available, inexpensive enough to use and really guaranteed to last.
However that doesn’t seem to be the case. Still, independent and scientific tests seem to point out that certain manufacturer produced phthalocyanine/gold reflective discs are the best bet we have for longer/stable archival on cd-r discs at this moment.
Now, let’s just try to find out who actually produces these discs and under what name are they sold under.