Well, this sounds terrific on paper, like most theories built without the examination of real-world data.
Personally I tend to forge my opinion from real-world observations, and if these diverge from the theory, I consider the theory as questionable. And in this very case, as soon as I had enough data from my degradation survey, I considered this theory as nonsense.
Yes, assuming that two discs have exactly the same degradation rate, are stored exactly the same way and are handled exactly in the same way, the one with the lowest original BLER might last longer. But there is not even any trace of real-world evidence that it would be so. It’s just conjecture based on simple logic and common sense. These are, sadly, not enough.
For this “logical” theory to have any relevance, you must trust conjectures only, and exclude the following observable facts:
- All disc models have a different degradation rate, and the difference can be huge. Among discs from the same model, and even the very same batch, there are still differences in the degradation rate.
- Disc stability is impacted by handling, storing and environmental conditions like temperature and humidity.
So a disc model that is very stable, stored properly and handled correctly, despite higher reported original BLER figures, will of course last longer than a disc model that is unstable, stored improperly or handled roughly, despite lower reported original BLER figures.
Put differently, and to give real-world examples, a YUDEN000T02 disc showing a so-so original scan, stored properly and handled properly, will most probably outlast a Ritek G05 disc showing a terrific original scan. There is largely enough data and user feedback to consider this as a reliable consideration. Many CMCMAG E01 discs, for example, show original PIE/PIF scans that are really not brillant, though it has been shown that these discs are extremely stable and show no increase in BLER after 2-3 years and are then reliable for long-term storage.
Now add to this the fact that homemade scanning is inaccurate (i.e. reports BLER in a very different way than professional equipement does), thus introducing a bias that can be very misleading, and you should start to realise how unsound it can be to sort out “archival quality” from “non-archival-quality” media by looking at numbers in a homemade PIE/PIF scan just after the burn. That’s simply not the way it works. As I mentioned in my previous post, it’s just as sound and reliable as a crystal ball. Or wild guessing.
If such a large jump between discs in the same batch occurs, I would think quality control at TY has taken a steep dive.
As mentioned above, it can be from other causes.
P.S. Fell free to disagreee as much as you like