Typical dvd media lifespan

[IceFiend]

Let's say I buy 100 Taiyo Yuden, Verbatim, and Sony Dvd+R discs. I burn them at 8x speed. All discs pass write verification at burn. I store them in dark closet.


I come back 2, 4 and 8 years later. How many bad discs per 100 do I find each time?

[Ghitulescu]

Well, tell us!

[Groucho2004]

Here is the PlexTools PI/PO scan of one of my oldest DVD-Rs:

http://www.iol.ie/~schubert/dvd.png

Looks pretty much the same as 6 years ago when I burned it, the error rate being as low as it can be. I have always used good quality Verbatim disks.

By the way, the write verification doesn't tell you anything about the qualtity of a burn.

[Ghitulescu]

By the way, the write verification doesn't tell you anything about the quality of a burn.

It does. The freshly burnt DVDR can be read back. Believe me, I've seen people and read in fora too, that directly obtain coasters. It happened once to me too, when burning a DVDR DL with a new burner.

People not having access to testing tools can at least spend 6 minutes of their live (those 6 minutes they gained using 24x instead of 8x :)) to check the recorded DVDR.

I agree, it does not disclose the degree of quality, it's just an ON/OFF test.

[Groucho2004]

It does. The freshly burnt DVDR can be read back. Believe me, I've seen people and read in fora too, that directly obtain coasters. It happened once to me too, when burning a DVDR DL with a new burner.

People not having access to testing tools can at least spend 6 minutes of their live (those 6 minutes they gained using 24x instead of 8x :)) to check the recorded DVDR.

I agree, it does not disclose the degree of quality, it's just an ON/OFF test.

Maybe I should have been clearer - The verification after a burn is pretty much mandatory in my opinion. However, if the quality at the time of the burn is already borderline it's quite possible that after a year or so the disk may not be readable any more.

[IceFiend]

So if they have a good initial quality they should last 5+ years?
It's good to know that. I've read about dye blurring, I was not aware that was due to initial weak burns.
I had thought if you burned at a low speed, you were pretty much at the mercy of dye life, which in some cases seems to be grossly overestimated.

So far the oldest confirmed quality I could find was someone on another forum stating that his Pioneer dvds from 2003 still worked like new. Lots of RiTek corpses along the way, even some Memorex and Sony, which is what drew my initial concern.

[Ghitulescu]

I'm afraid there are no longer good DVDRs nowadays. I own some CDRs that are some 12 years old but still yield lower C1/C2 than a brand new CDR burnt yesterday. The DVD technology is close to its end, no manufacturers spend time and energy for producing quality items ... yes, not even Verbatim.

[IceFiend]

Guess it's time to buy a nice 1tb external HD and dump all my discs on it then.
Up until a few weeks ago I thought dvds were a safe storage medium(moreso than an external hdd). I too have 10+ year old CDRs that work flawlessly, and pressed cds from the early 80s.

At least I still have good data to pull, so it could have been a lot worse. More an inconvenience at this point.

[Groucho2004]

Guess it's time to buy a nice 1tb external HD and dump all my discs on it then.
Up until a few weeks ago I thought dvds were a safe storage medium(moreso than an external hdd). I too have 10+ year old CDRs that work flawlessly, and pressed cds from the early 80s.

At least I still have good data to pull, so it could have been a lot worse. More an inconvenience at this point.

If you're going to store your data on a HD you better have it mirrored at least once. If the HD dies all of the data is gone.

The Verbatims I buy (yes, also the most recent ones) are of excellent quality and I never had a problem with them. Every 2 years or so I do a spot check on some disks with PlexTools which so far has not revealed any aging problems.

It's up to you but I think optical media is still the best option for long term storage - if done properly.

[IceFiend]

It's up to you but I think optical media is still the best option for long term storage - if done properly.Aside from quality media, burning device and lowish speeds, what else would that be?
Storage is all that comes to mind. No sun is the main thing I've heard. Along with vertical storage. Though I just throw them back on the spindle.

[Groucho2004]

Aside from quality media, burning device and lowish speeds, what else would that be?
Storage is all that comes to mind. No sun is the main thing I've heard.

Avoid extreme temperatures, yes.

I check the quality of every burn with PlexTools. If the error rate is too high for my taste I throw the disk out (rarely happens).

If you don't have a Plextor drive there are other programs like KProbe and CDSpeed2000. You just have to make sure that your drive is supported by those programs.

[yetanotherid]

I'm afraid there are no longer good DVDRs nowadays. I own some CDRs that are some 12 years old but still yield lower C1/C2 than a brand new CDR burnt yesterday. The DVD technology is close to its end, no manufacturers spend time and energy for producing quality items ... yes, not even Verbatim.

Well, I've been using Verbatim for a long time, generally using Pioneer burners, and if the disc is being burned just for backup storage (and I can't imagine too many other reasons for using a disc these days) I always run a quality check on it.
Given I'm still burning at the same quality level I was two years ago, where's the quality deterioration in the Verbatim discs I bought today, because I'm not seeing any.

IceFiend,
Burning speed and burn quality aren't necessarily directly related. It depends on the type of dye used on the disc and how well your particular burner burns to that dye. Burners adjust their burning strategy according to the type of dye etc.
In my case..... Pioneer burners and Verbatim discs.... my old 16x Pioneer burners produce the best quality (on average) at 12x. Lower than that and the quality tends to drop a little. The newer 18x and 20x Pioneer burners seem to produce the best quality burns (on average) at 16x.

If you store the discs upright (not stacked), only use CD markers and avoid labels which need to be glued to the disc, and if you store them in a cool, dry place, and if the burn quality was reasonable to begin with, then a good quality disc such as Verbatim should be readable for a long, long time.

I'd take any anecdotal stories regarding lower C1/C2 errors on older discs with a grain of salt until they come fully qualified with information such as whether a different burner is being used today, whether the brand of discs is still the same and whether the discs still use the same dye.

Running a verification test after a burn doesn't give you much idea as to the quality. Unless you want to sit there and watch the whole verification process to ensure the drive doesn't slow done in order to read the disc it just burned... but if you can't verify the quality accurately it's probably slightly better than no test at all.

[Ghitulescu]

I used some days ago a TY (4x) from my premium collection. It was really a joy of senses to feel it in hand, unlike the new DVDRs I use for regular work.

Concerning "stories" with lower C1/C2 - it doesn't matter which burner did the recording when assessing the quality afterwards - it performed bad or well at the time of the burning. Lower C1/C2/jitter/TA assure the logevity of a CDR (DVDR), provided the dye would also play with and the conditions are appropriate. These value won't change because one just bought another recorder - it's like saying that the old car will suddenly start consuming 15 l/100km (instead of 8) the day you bought a new car. That is the power of quality standards, to make things comparable, things that otherwise are not.

[CWR03]

Guess it's time to buy a nice 1tb external HD and dump all my discs on it then.
I've already switched to 2TB SATA drives in "hot swap" enclosures and moved my files from four 128-disk organizers onto two drives. I paid about as much for each drive as it cost for the blank disks that filled them.

[yetanotherid]

Concerning "stories" with lower C1/C2 - it doesn't matter which burner did the recording when assessing the quality afterwards - it performed bad or well at the time of the burning.

My point exactly. Just because 35 years ago you burned a batch of perfect CDs and today your burns aren't as good, how can you say it's because they're not making media to the same quality today unless there's no other variables? i.e. You're still using the same burner with exactly the same brand of blanks.

Lower C1/C2/jitter/TA assure the logevity of a CDR (DVDR), provided the dye would also play with and the conditions are appropriate. These value won't change because one just bought another recorder

Well I think you'll find you're the one who said the values have changed.
"I own some CDRs that are some 12 years old but still yield lower C1/C2 than a brand new CDR burnt yesterday."
So have the values changed, or haven't they?

- it's like saying that the old car will suddenly start consuming 15 l/100km (instead of 8) the day you bought a new car.

No it's like saying you got 15l/100km from your old car, expecting to get 15l/100km from your new car, and when you don't you claim the quality of the fuel must have changed.

I've tried TY discs a few times before and failed to see what all the fuss is about. It's not that they're poor quality by any means, but on average, I get slightly better quality burns using Verbatim discs.

[Ghitulescu]

My point exactly. Just because 35 years ago you burned a batch of perfect CDs and today your burns aren't as good, how can you say it's because they're not making media to the same quality today unless there's no other variables? i.e. You're still using the same burner with exactly the same brand of blanks.
3 issues here
1. comparison - for this matter there's C1/C2/etc. parameters.
2. aging - the dye will get older on virgin CD/DVDs, too
3. the art of burning is the fine tuning of burners to media
"I own some CDRs that are some 12 years old but still yield lower C1/C2 than a brand new CDR burnt yesterday."
So have the values changed, or haven't they?

The values changed due to aging, however:
1. their values (12 years ago) were better than the same values, measured with the same Plextools and the same drive.
2. they are still better than some freshly burned CDs (I do them for car, so I don't really care)
I've tried TY discs a few times before and failed to see what all the fuss is about. It's not that they're poor quality by any means, but on average, I get slightly better quality burns using Verbatim discs.

Well, most people do actually, Verbatim is quite cheap in comparison to TY and therefore the burning strategies are tuned to cheaper disks. I obtain better results with an LG and cheaper DVDs than with the Plextor and Verbatim (MIT). When Verbatim will change completely to Indian ware (MII) it won't make any difference.

However TYs (DVD-R) from my premium collection are still "almost perfectly" burned by the first full-featured Plextor burner (716).

[yetanotherid]

You're obviously still missing/ignoring my point/questions as to whether today's discs are the same brand and being burned by same burner, and I'm not sure even if you're using the same burner how you can be sure it's burning to to same quality it was when you first bought it, but later on I'll grab a few older, poor quality media, or maybe some better media which was burned using a lower quality burner than I use today, run some burn quality tests and then return to announce I've proved the quality of blank media has improved in the last few years.

[Ghitulescu]

You're obviously still missing/ignoring my point/questions as to whether today's discs are the same brand and being burned by same burner, and I'm not sure even if you're using the same burner how you can be sure it's burning to to same quality it was when you first bought it, but later on I'll grab a few older, poor quality media, or maybe some better media which was burned using a lower quality burner than I use today, run some burn quality tests and then return to announce I've proved the quality of blank media has improved in the last few years.

Is this one phrase? Wow ....

I don't know where did you spend the last years of your life before joining doom9. I'd rather prefer not to know :p.

Each product is like the humans, at first is a child, then an adult, much later an "old timer", finally it's dead. One cannot compare a CDR of 1997 with a CDR of 2011. The only 1x or 2x speed CDRs are the Audio CDRs (the expensive ones). Nobody still manufactures CD-Recorders, so these are stocks. The red laser lasts for 2000-200 hours (according to the power), this lets you burn a theoretical maximum of 500-1000 CDRs.

What you insist to compare is the sound of a Pathéphone with that of an LP.

C1/C2 and so on, and similar parameters for other media, serve to help people make a comparizon between 2 incomparable entities.

I am not sure why do you do what you do:
1. you like to contradict people
2. you wanna learn yourself in a clever way: by forcing the people to respond to your own questions, disguised as statements, knowing that people that know the answer cannot stand that the newbie, which owns the thread you "infested", might get the wrong answer, served by someone pretending to be an authority in the matter.

[yetanotherid]

Is this one phrase? Wow ....

I don't know where did you spend the last years of your life before joining doom9. I'd rather prefer not to know :p.

It's called reality. Maybe take a holiday there at some stage to see if you like it.


What you insist to compare is the sound of a Pathéphone with that of an LP.
C1/C2 and so on, and similar parameters for other media, serve to help people make a comparizon between 2 incomparable entities.

I'm not insisting on comparing anything. YOU made the comparison when you stated that new media is not as good a quality as older media, not me.
Yes products have a lifespan, but you've still not offered anything to show that sometime recently Verbatim decided the CD/DVD blank was coming to the end of it's life and therefore decided to let their quality control drop, or use a lower quality manufacturing process, or whatever it is you think has caused the quality of their media to drop.
Bluray disc burning might be becoming more common place, but I'd not be surprised if DVD burning is currently at it's peak.

I am not sure why do you do what you do:
1. you like to contradict people
2. you wanna learn yourself in a clever way: by forcing the people to respond to your own questions, disguised as statements, knowing that people that know the answer cannot stand that the newbie, which owns the thread you "infested", might get the wrong answer, served by someone pretending to be an authority in the matter.

I just ask questions when someone posts something which common sense tells me probably isn't correct, and often when it's not, after several posts of trying to pretend they're answering the question, the person who originally wrote it will then resort to the sort of dribble you just posted.

[Ghitulescu]

What kind of incertitude brings my statement to the innocent poster?

Statement: The CD media of 2011 is worse than the CD media of 1997, the CD recording part of DVD/BD is worse than the CD recorders of 10 years ago (a CD recorder of 1985 is still the reference recorder; with AMQR of Yamaha ended an era); the DVD media of 2000 were better than any DVD of today (with maybe the exception of JVC, maybe, because this medium is not officially launched in Germany, it may be found in online-shops, though - I haven't checked it).

Corolar (to be on topic): better media not only age slower, but also have a higher "reserve" ahead.

Anyone involve in CD/DVD media in the past 10 years should have noticed this. It happened the same to VHS gear/media (peak quality inthe 90ies) and audio CC.

One can contest both statements (not very likely) but that one cannot by anyway led into confusion.

[yetanotherid]

Now who's comparing apples and mango fruit?

[Ghitulescu]

Now who's comparing apples and mango fruit?
Well, put some of your scans here to substantiate your allegations, like Groucho2004 did.
Here is the PlexTools PI/PO scan of one of my oldest DVD-Rs:

http://www.iol.ie/~schubert/dvd.png

Looks pretty much the same as 6 years ago when I burned it, the error rate being as low as it can be. I have always used good quality Verbatim disks.

[yetanotherid]

Well, put some of your scans here to substantiate your allegations, like Groucho2004 did.

Age before beauty. After you....

[Ghitulescu]

When someone goes against the mainstream, the burden of proof lies with him. Show us that you're right and we're wrong. For me the things reached an end, I don't have anything to show to you (remember, this is another topic you poisoned). I said my opinions to the OP. If you feel that we gave him a wrong advice please show him the correct answer.

[yetanotherid]

When someone goes against the mainstream, the burden of proof lies with him. Show us that you're right and we're wrong. For me the things reached an end, I don't have anything to show to you (remember, this is another topic you poisoned). I said my opinions to the OP. If you feel that we gave him a wrong advice please show him the correct answer.

Okay then, when someone goes against the mainstream, the burden of proof lies with them. I'm waiting.
In the mean time, here's a couple of burn quality tests. Don't think of me as poisoning the thread when I contradict your opinionated advice, think of me as being more like anti-virus....

From six months ago:
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a142/dashpb1/burn1.gif?t=1295781652

Yesterday:
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a142/dashpb1/burn2.gif?t=1295781654

I'll eagerly await your explanations as the quality drop I'm not seeing.
By the way, I posted yesterday's burn test as well as a six month old one because they're two different types of discs. Both Verbatim, but the 6 month old one is a standard disc while the one from yesterday is a printable disc. There's no evidence of a six month deterioration in quality there, it just happens that for some reason I always get slightly better quality burns using the standard discs, and I thought while I was uploading pictures I might as well pre-empt the opinionated contradiction which was bound to follow if I said so.

Would you like me to post some burn tests from three or four years ago? I'd no doubt be able to find some discs which weren't burned to the same quality, thereby proving the quality of blanks has in fact improved in the last few years. I'd even, no doubt, be able to find some burned with the same burners, so while the claim would be as unfounded as yours, it'd at least be more logical.

[Ghitulescu]

Wow, it was supposed to be vice-versa! You know, bigger is better is false here ;) And the QSI of yesterday is of a lower quality than the Pio of 6 months ago.

[yetanotherid]

By the way, I posted yesterday's burn test as well as a six month old one because they're two different types of discs. Both Verbatim, but the 6 month old one is a standard disc while the one from yesterday is a printable disc. There's no evidence of a six month deterioration in quality there, it just happens that for some reason I always get slightly better quality burns using the standard discs, and I thought while I was uploading pictures I might as well pre-empt the opinionated contradiction which was bound to follow if I said so.

I guess there's no pre-empting total foolishness. :(
For example:

Wow, it was supposed to be vice-versa! You know, bigger is better is false here ;) And the QSI of yesterday is of a lower quality than the Pio of 6 months ago.

Did you notice..... by any chance.... those two discs were also burned with different burners? Don't go mixing up your apples with kiwifruit again.
I guess I should have known better. I'd assumed I could have posted a couple of burns, both of which are of a high quality, explained why one was slightly better than the other, and end up with a response from an adult on the actual topic being discussed. Which if you recall was your claim that blank discs aren't of as good a quality as they used to be, including Verbatim.
So now you've had a chance to avoid the topic as you clapped your hands in glee over a quality difference even you must know is irrelevant when only comparing two burns made by different burners, how about you explain why either of them is of poor quality, irrespective of any minor difference between them, and whether they support or contradict your claim of Verbatim not making as good a quality DVD-R as they used to.

[Ghitulescu]

And the QSI of yesterday is of a lower quality than the Pio of 6 months ago.
Did you notice..... by any chance.... those two discs were also burned with different burners?
Read my post you just quoted. The pio 218 is made by QSI (Quantum Storage Inc), while the pio 112 was still manufactured by pioneer. So I assume you don't know what you're talking about but still continue to futilely stir the waters ....

It may be that the Verbatims were from different batches, however 6 months is not a big leap in time, it may be that you bought the second batch from the same container. Try find an original Verbatim, ie one bearing the MKM code (unfalsified, of course). Also 6 months is nothing, if one needs a backup, then probably 10 years are a must.

[yetanotherid]

Read my post you just quoted. The pio 218 is made by QSI (Quantum Storage Inc), while the pio 112 was still manufactured by pioneer.

Yeah, you're correct. Sorry about that. I skimmed your post and foolishly assumed you hadn't totally gone off on another tangent and you were just comparing the two burns as your red herring offering of the day. My mistake.
Yes, I was aware the manufacturer had changed, although I couldn't have told you who made which.

So I assume you don't know what you're talking about but still continue to futilely stir the waters ....

You've got to give up on so much assuming, it keeps getting you into trouble. It doesn't matter if I burn a printable disc with a 212 or a 218 (in fact I've burned a whole bunch of them using both burners today) it's not the burner which makes the difference, it's the type of disc. I'll repeat it again for you.... I always get slightly better quality burns using the standard discs than I do using the printable types. I always have.
I mentioned it a few posts ago..... the one where I posted the screen shots. Sorry if my posting them has stirred your muddy waters of misinformation again.

It may be that the Verbatims were from different batches, however 6 months is not a big leap in time, it may be that you bought the second batch from the same container. Try find an original Verbatim, ie one bearing the MKM code (unfalsified, of course). Also 6 months is nothing, if one needs a backup, then probably 10 years are a must.

Err.... hello?? They're different types of discs. Printable v non-printable. Did I mention that? What a mistake posting two burn quality tests was..... it's let you spot several different red herrings leading you down several different garden paths.

Can we maybe just look at one of the burn quality tests I posted (you can pick) and get back on topic? Is it a good quality burn or not, and where's the deterioration in Verbatim's disc quality you mentioned? You asked me to post a burn test to prove it hasn't, and there it is.

I'll eagerly await the screen shots of the perfect burns you made back in the good old days when you could buy all sorts of things with a penny, and I imagine they'd pretty much have to be perfect burns to be better quality than my recent ones. You can even compare like-discs, assuming printers had been invented when you were burning perfect discs and Verbatim were making printable blanks. If not, you've got a standard disc for comparison, that's why I posted two quality tests....

[Ghitulescu]

You've got to give up on so much assuming, it keeps getting you into trouble. It doesn't matter if I burn a printable disc with a 212 or a 218 (in fact I've burned a whole bunch of them using both burners today) it's not the burner which makes the difference, it's the type of disc. I'll repeat it again for you.... I always get slightly better quality burns using the standard discs than I do using the printable types. I always have.
I mentioned it a few posts ago..... the one where I posted the screen shots. Sorry if my posting them has stirred your muddy waters of misinformation again.
I do not misinform. And your scans simply supported my statements (ie better scans with older disks than with newer).

Who misinforms here is you: the Burner definitively plays a role in the quality. And this is known to anyone involved in burning CDs/DVDs/BDRs. This short example shows how ignorant are you.

So stop propagating nonsenses here. Start your own blog and propagate there your ideas if you feel you're doing the world a service.
Err.... hello?? They're different types of discs. Printable v non-printable. Did I mention that? What a mistake posting two burn quality tests was..... it's let you spot several different red herrings leading you down several different garden paths.
What difference do printable vs. non-printable to the disk? The burner doesn't know the differences, it checks the MID and sets the burning strategy accordingly. If the MID is fake, the burning strategy does not provide the best quality possible. FYI, there is a difference in printable vs. non-printable, and for Verbatim this goes like this: printable disks are manufactured in one factory, the non-printable in another one. Sony has the same MID (for 16x) for the last probably 5 years, yet the disks were produced in at least 5 countries, now it's India.

Nobody except you could see that one disk was printable whereas the other was not, because you saw them.

The rest of your arguments are silly and again nonsense. To reiterate your own arguments, you did show nothing that a 6 months old disk has better values (lower errors) than a fresh one.

[yetanotherid]

I do not misinform. And your scans simply supported my statements (ie better scans with older disks than with newer).

Twaddle. They're six months different in age, and if you're really expecting me to believe it proves the quality of discs has dropped in the last six months you're more foolish than I thought you were. They're different types of discs! How many times do I have to repeat it. They'd look the same if I'd bought and burned them both yesterday. I've been burning both types to a similar quality as the examples in my screen shots for a long time, or are you calling me a liar?
In fact a little later I'll post a burn test of a standard disc from a few weeks ago just to put your nonsense to rest.

Who misinforms here is you: the Burner definitively plays a role in the quality. And this is known to anyone involved in burning CDs/DVDs/BDRs. This short example shows how ignorant are you.

There's no point discussing a subject with an idiot who thinks putting words in my mouth and then offering a counter argument proves me wrong. I never said different burners don't play a role in quality.... although your very statement to that effect contradicts your argument that it must be the quality of the disc, only you're so busy arguing around in circles to avoid the topic you probably haven't noticed.
I said in THIS CASE the burner is irrelevant because I'm getting pretty much the same quality results using the same type of Verbatim blank whether I use a 112, a 212 a 215 a 216 or a 218, so for the purpose of the discussion the burner used is irrelevant. Is that clear enough for you or do you need pictures of burns from each burner before you'll understand?

So stop propagating nonsenses here. Start your own blog and propagate there your ideas if you feel you're doing the world a service.

How about you bite me? I'll post what I want to, regardless of any illusion you may have of a divine right to post whatever you dribble you want to post without it being contradicted.

What difference do printable vs. non-printable to the disk? The burner doesn't know the differences, it checks the MID and sets the burning strategy accordingly.

Rigidity of the disc... the amount it vibrates when spinning due to being made of different layers.... I don't know the answer but it's obviously nothing to do with the burner and the dye used, therefore once you eliminate what's not different a little common sense (look it up) might provide some theories.... but the printable discs always burn with a slightly lower quality than the non-printable ones and they always have, even if you see it as a believable excuse for not admitting your original statement was a load of bullocks.

Nobody except you could see that one disk was printable whereas the other was not, because you saw them.

Would they even weigh the same? And you can forgo the highlighting if you like, it only has me imagining you realise your argument is falling over and you're trying to compensate.

The rest of your arguments are silly and again nonsense. To reiterate your own arguments, you did show nothing that a 6 months old disk has better values (lower errors) than a fresh one.

And you've grasped onto that nonsense as an excuse to justify avoiding answering a simple question, or providing examples of the better quality burns you achieved when Verbatim were making discs of a better quality as you claimed, and you're doing so apparently believing it doesn't make you look like a fool. You asked me for examples so how about you now put up yourself or shut up? Are you honestly trying to tell me I've proved Verbatim's quality has dropped in the last 6 months, or are you simply willing to argue such a silly assumption because you think playing the fool is better than being wrong?

[yetanotherid]

Oh and by the way, when I burn stuff I generally wait till the "waiting to be burned" folder on my drive starts to take up too much space, then I sit down with a spindle of 50 or 100 discs. So whether you want to live in denial of reality or not, I know for a fact.... and especially when averaged over a large number of discs (50 to 100)..... there's a definite quality difference between the burns to printable v non-printable discs (regardless of the burner). Last time I burned a huge batch of non-printable discs, the time before they were possibly printable.... it simply depends what the local PC shop has for sale in bulk at the time.... but I've certainly burned enough "batches" of each to know I'm not wrong, no matter how many fairy stories you invent to the contrary.

[Ghitulescu]

There no need to argue with you.

The quality of a burn depends on how well the burner does understand the medium, on the medium quality as such and on the burner quality as such.

The quality of the DVDR decreased a lot in the past 5 years. The quality of the burners equally decreased. Yamaha, Teac and Plextor opted out, this left us with Sony (which relabels everything), NEC (bad quality), Samsung (probably the worst competitor), LiteOn (decreased quality from 8x DVDburners onwards, with Philips at bord, the BDwriters suffer from many issues) and LG (probably the best bet, especially when money is an issue).

The best DVDRs one can buy now are the JVC, which acquired the media division of TY. I couldn't test one of these as they are not officially sold in Germany and I don't trust online shops nor eBay, there were too many fakes, and the price is high. The second best were (because there are no longer manufactured) the Verbatim archival gold (only 8x). Equally good, as made by the same factory, were the EMTEC gold, again extinct.

Now verbatim relabels MBI products (made with Verbatims' stampers), so does Sony (own stampers). These are still ok compared to 2005, but super compared to what one may buy today (2011).

Then comes the ritek, one of the worst products being the CMC. Philips had once a really good batch (INFOMEDIA R30) but now only CMC.

These are good burns
http://img835.imageshack.us/i/liteondvdrwlh20a1s9l091.png/
http://img638.imageshack.us/i/liteondvdrwlh20a1lbl06.png/
TTH02 is the last MID from TDK.

[Ghitulescu]

For some reason the images do not appear
http://img835.imageshack.us/i/liteondvdrwlh20a1s9l091.png/

http://img638.imageshack.us/i/liteondvdrwlh20a1lbl06.png/

[yetanotherid]

There no need to argue with you.

The quality of a burn depends on how well the burner does understand the medium, on the medium quality as such and on the burner quality as such.

I know.

Here's me proving how much Verbatim's quality has improved in the last two years.
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a142/dashpb1/burn4.gif

Here's me proving it's increased somewhat in the last 24 hours.
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a142/dashpb1/burn3.gif

Your screen shots seem to indicate you were getting the same type of quality burns using TY discs two years ago as I'm getting today with Verbatim.

The only time I ever use Ritek discs is if I get them for almost nothing and even then I only keep them as the discs I use when I'm burning something for someone else, and only if they're not a good friend.
The last time a disc "surprised me" was when I found some Benq blanks going really cheap so I bought 50. I can't remember the dye they used (I'd have to dig one out) but it wasn't a "top rated" dye. The burns they gave me though were even slightly better on average than the Verbatim discs.

[Ghitulescu]

You're still using a 2007 burner and 2004 media. The 2009 one does not have the same good qualities.

However, one flower is not enough to bring the spring.
http://club.myce.com/f33/verbatim-mcc-004-printed-serials-217200/#post1768689
http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fforum.gleitz.info%2Fshowthread.php%3F29696-Qualit%25E4tsprobleme-mit-MCC004

A short look into the German twin forum for your printable MCC 03RG20 would show a nice ascending error rate, from 2005 to 2009, as verbatim changed 3 factories and 2 countries -> http://forum.gleitz.info/forumdisplay.php?139-Verbatim. No need to understand German, the figures are the same.

[Ghitulescu]

Or this poll -> http://club.myce.com/f33/verbatim-16x-dvd-r-mcc-004-quality-getting-better-worse-255549/

[yetanotherid]

Okay, for completeness of info..... for some reason I've found Verbatim DVD+R discs burn to a slightly lesser quality than their DVD-R... on average. However, I'm fairly sure if I buy +R blanks it's generally because the local shop is out of -R and generally when I end up buying +R they're printable discs, so I couldn't say whether it's because they're printable discs, whether it's because my burners simply burn to -R discs better than +R or whether there's for some unknown reason, a quality difference between the -R and +R versions, but I'm not going to take forum here-say and an inaccurate pole (a whole 69 respondents in total) as proof Verbatim's quality has dropped. Especially not while you're unable to post screenshots of better quality burns than the burns I'm getting with Verbatim discs today. Did you notice the last screen shot was MCC004 and how good the burn was?

For the record, I've got a Samsung burner in amongst my collection of Pioneer burners, and during the last week I've burned a lot of discs, initially with a spindle of printable DVD+R and then with a spindle of DVD-R. The Samsung burner was spitting out so many coasters using the DVD+R discs I was ready to pull it out and throw it away, but since I started on the DVD-R spindle it's been burning to a quality pretty close to that of the Pioneer burners. I guess if I only owned a single Samsung burner I could start a thread in a forum and moan about the diminishing quality of Verbatim DVD+R discs, but unfortunately I don't.

The trouble is there's so many variables when it comes to burning discs. I've had days when I've burned a bunch of discs (and I'm talking about using discs from the same spindle) when every burn has been average, at least for Verbatim. Then the next day I return to finish the burning and suddenly I'm burning to a better quality for what seems to be no apparent reason. I sometimes wonder whether the ambient temperature makes a noticeable difference... and therefore the temperature inside the drive itself.... and I've wondered whether sometimes it's simply because I haven't used the burners for a while and initially the discs spinning around are disturbing the dust which has accumulated inside and it effects the burn quality for a while. And I've never been able to explain why a particular burner will burn several average quality discs in a row, then just as I'm getting annoyed it'll produce a couple of excellent quality burns. I doubt it's because the quality varies dramatically from one disc to another.

Also for the record.... as I'm fussy about the burn quality when I'm archiving stuff, if the burn's not pretty good I throw the disc away and burn it again. Sometimes I throw away something like 1 in 5, which I probably did when burning using the DVD+R spindle, but much of that was courtesy of the Samsung burner. So far, now I've nearly worked my way through a 100 spindle of DVD-R discs (and it's such a relief to get all that hard drive space back) I've maybe thrown away 1 in 20 and the burns are all pretty close (on average) to the burn in the second screenshot I posted (post #25).

Anyway..... after all my own experiences with Verbatim discs over the last few years.... am I willing to say I'm confident Verbatim's disc quality has changed? Well I don't burn using DVD+Rs often enough to form a confident opinion there but when it comes to DVD-Rs I'm confident it hasn't changed at all. Have you shown me anything which points to your contention of Verbatim's quality having dropped in the last few years being correct? Not anything close to substantial I can see, and you've not been able to offer examples of burns you've made in the past which are better quality than the examples I've posted from burns made in the last few days. Anecdotal stories of discs being manufactured in India instead of the U.S. or China or wherever they were originally made aren't proof of anything either. Manufacturer's move their factories to places like India because the labour is cheaper, not because they have to relinquish control over the quality of their products by doing so.

[yetanotherid]

You're still using a 2007 burner and 2004 media. The 2009 one does not have the same good qualities.

Well the discussion is regarding the quality of the media, not the age of the burner used, so let's not get sidetracked there, and you'll have to explain to me how you know the media I'm using.... which I literally bought a week ago (well at least the second screen shot from each post)..... was manufactured six or seven years ago, because it doesn't seem too likely.

[Ghitulescu]

Well, this is something I expected.

Not only that you contradict a lot of people from 2 countries, you still insist in your theories. I think anyone has by now realised the quality of the advices you give. Small sample size, short interval, yet grandiose conclusions, oh no, sorry, axioms.

Typically, around the time Groucho2004 burned the DVD whose scan was posted, the manufacturers liked to advertise a sort of 50 years for the lifespan. One should also know that the measuring conditions the companies use are completely different than those a typical user has (also the accelerated ageing is different, but this is another story). That a DVDR supports 16x (or for that time 4x) it doesn't automatically mean that if burned anyway, at 16x or 22x, with any burner, it would last 50 years. Same for the measurements Philips likes to show on the package.
After a while, all these information went with the wind. Only Verbatim dared to mention a "lifetime warranty" for its archival grade DVDRs. What's a "lifetime warranty"? Nothing else that the product is free of defects for all its life, before being burned, as they cannot control the burning process. The second one was EMTEC, for its gold media. EMTEC ran out of business while Verbatim rebadges Indian disks today. Even its Blu-ray media look like being of a lower quality than the competitors -> http://forum.imgburn.com/index.php?showforum=16
I am happy I burned a lot of good DVDs in the past and that I still have a reserve of premium TY for the gold recordings.

Should a DVDR be recognised and read out during the Verify phase of the writing procedure, there are chances that it would withstand at least 1 year (of course, if correctly handled). Top disks of 2010 may last up to 10 years. 50 or 100 years of storage are a dream.

It is also a difference between a DVD out of specs and an unreadable (or partially readable) disk. An out-of-specs disk can be read back with great chances, as it needs 1664 PI before the error correction be completely screwed up, whereas the standard prescribes here only 280. So with the other parameters. Lots of disk having PO over 4 are perfectly readable. Changing the reader (using maybe an LG DVDburner) could make an unreadable disk readable.

[yetanotherid]

Well, this is something I expected.
Not only that you contradict a lot of people from 2 countries, you still insist in your theories. I think anyone has by now realised the quality of the advices you give. Small sample size, short interval, yet grandiose conclusions, oh no, sorry, axioms.

Well I can't say I'd expect you to question the anecdotal evidence you found in a few forum posts via Google either. A lot of people from two countries?? At least I'm posting from experience, not quoting forum posts which probably aren't based on anything more than the same anecdotal evidence you're offering. And I use the word "evidence" quite generously. You'd be a funny fella if you weren't kind of sad.

Typically, around the time Groucho2004 burned the DVD whose scan was posted, the manufacturers liked to advertise a sort of 50 years for the lifespan..... yada, yada, yada......

Verbatim still offer a Lifetime warranty. What's any of that got do with the topic of whether the quality has dropped? Does it prove anything either way or are you still finding new ways to be irrelevant?

Should a DVDR be recognised and read out during the Verify phase of the writing procedure, there are chances that it would withstand at least 1 year (of course, if correctly handled). Top disks of 2010 may last up to 10 years. 50 or 100 years of storage are a dream.

And you've got the evidence to back that up where?? The Ghitulescu handbook of opinionated advice?

It is also a difference between a DVD out of specs and an unreadable (or partially readable) disk. An out-of-specs disk can be read back with great chances, as it needs 1664 PI before the error correction be completely screwed up, whereas the standard prescribes here only 280. So with the other parameters. Lots of disk having PO over 4 are perfectly readable. Changing the reader (using maybe an LG DVDburner) could make an unreadable disk readable.

Did you pretend to yourself any of that has anything to do with the topic as you wrote it, or have you even given up trying to fool yourself? Does the highlighting help you to pretend it's relevant, because it's not fooling me.

I'm still waiting for an answer to my last two questions. What's the age of my burner got to do with the topic of media quality and is your claim I'm using media from 2004 based in reality at all? You seem to have a habit of avoiding direct questions. Funny about that.....

And of course there's one indisputable fact which you conveniently keep ignoring. You asked me to post burn quality tests to show you the quality of burns I'm achieving today, which I did, and you've only been able to offer examples which show I'm getting the same results (or better) today that you were getting two years ago.... no doubt taken from your TY "premium collection". How have the results you posted achieved anything other than to help prove my point?

[Ghitulescu]

At least I'm posting from experience, not quoting forum posts which probably aren't based on anything more than the same anecdotal evidence you're offering.

You did not post any on-topic informations, you just posted a scan of a 6 months old medium and another scan of an one day old medium. Then another 2 scans of one day media (now they are older ;)).

I posted a poll. Not me, but several dozens of people voted 42% that the quality of Verbatim decreased. That's impressive, isn't it?

I also posted some findings from fora I'm member. Of course, they are individual samples in a sea of possible alternatives. Yet the results for 3 years show a visible decrease in quality.

Whether google was helpful or not doesn't change the main facts. Google just intermediates. Older DVDs had a better quality than todays' ones, and their reliability over time decreases in a slower pace than those of today. For CDs the things are even clearer, because the CD is almost dead. In max. 5 years the DVD will arrive at the same point where the CD stands today. And I'll compare the scans of (6+5 years old DVDs with those of only 5).

PS: this is not your thread, I don't have to answer your questions.

[Groucho2004]

Geez, you guys have a lot of time.

[Ghitulescu]

Yeah, you're right, I don't know why I'm spending my time with someone that doesn't deserve it.

maybe because I don't want that the OP leave this forum with false info.

[Groucho2004]

I don't want that the OP leave this forum with false info.

Hehe, I'm sure the OP is entirely confused and left this thread a long time ago scared shitless.

[laserfan]

I'm afraid there are no longer good DVDRs nowadays... The DVD technology is close to its end, no manufacturers spend time and energy for producing quality items ... yes, not even Verbatim.
Your arguments lost all credibility right up-front, when you made these ridiculous statements. :rolleyes:

[Ghitulescu]

Except for stockpiled Verbatims MIT, all the verbatims sold in Germany are now made in China and India. There were around 2008 also some batches from EUA (Emirates).
And the DVD technology is already on its decline, the giants embarked in the BD boat and left the manufacturing to third countries.
Maybe in the States is different ......

[yetanotherid]

You did not post any on-topic informations, you just posted a scan of a 6 months old medium and another scan of an one day old medium. Then another 2 scans of one day media (now they are older ;)).

I didn't post any on-topic information? What have I been discussing, how to renovate the kitchen? I've given detailed information as to how much burning I do and the results I get when using different types of Verbatim discs, which is a lot more than the couple of screenshots you've offered along with a couple of amusing stories you found via Google. I've not posted any on-topic information? Maybe you should take your medication closer to the times you post?

I posted a poll. Not me, but several dozens of people voted 42% that the quality of Verbatim decreased. That's impressive, isn't it?

Yeah, very impressive. A poll in which 69 people out of the millions with an internet connection responded. And not even all of them thought Verbatim's quality had dropped. Only 29 of them agreed it had, 14 said it hadn't changed (I guess they're wrong are they?) while the remaining 26 didn't know what day it was. That's about as statistically meaningless as a poll can get, and if you believe otherwise there's something wrong with your brain.
Oh, and unless I'm mistaken that poll's over two years old anyway, so in two years only 69 people have thought it was worth the effort to respond. Maybe it'd be more statistically accurate as a poll on the percentage of forum members dumb enough to respond to forum polls? :)

I also posted some findings from fora I'm member. Of course, they are individual samples in a sea of possible alternatives. Yet the results for 3 years show a visible decrease in quality.

Yeah.... According to a couple of anecdotal stories you found.....

Whether google was helpful or not doesn't change the main facts. Google just intermediates. Older DVDs had a better quality than todays' ones......

So why are my burns of today as good as your "premium collection" :rolleyes: burns of two years ago????

and their reliability over time decreases in a slower pace than those of today. For CDs the things are even clearer, because the CD is almost dead. In max. 5 years the DVD will arrive at the same point where the CD stands today. And I'll compare the scans of (6+5 years old DVDs with those of only 5).

So what if the CDs dead? How does that prove the various manufacturer's sent their quality control workers off on vacation? You're just making stuff up now. It'd make far more sense to argue that the manufacturing process is mature and the quality consistent by now, than it would to argue quality control has been thrown to the wind just because manufacturer's also have a newer type of disc to produce.

PS: this is not your thread, I don't have to answer your questions.

No you don't. Not that "who's thread" it might be makes any difference. Either you're willing to respond to others the way you expect them to respond to you when you ask questions, or you're a hypocrite as well as opinionated.
I'll take it then that your statement I'm using media from 2004 was just a load of rubbish, and as you're happy to call me ignorant etc. when I post something you think is wrong, I'll also conclude you don't have enough character to post like a grown up.

Yeah, you're right, I don't know why I'm spending my time with someone that doesn't deserve it.
maybe because I don't want that the OP leave this forum with false info.

Maybe it's because you're a know-it-all who can't stand being disagreed with. Hence all the name calling you continually resort to.

Except for stockpiled Verbatims MIT, all the verbatims sold in Germany are now made in China and India. There were around 2008 also some batches from EUA (Emirates).
And the DVD technology is already on its decline, the giants embarked in the BD boat and left the manufacturing to third countries.
Maybe in the States is different ......

And once again, repeating what we already know does nothing to prove the quality of media being produced has dropped as a result, especially when it comes to a company like Verbatim who only use their own dye on their own discs.

So why is it I'm producing burns of the same quality today that you were getting two years ago, as long of course, you took the samples from you're "premium collection"? :rolleyes: How about some quality tests of two year old burns which didn't come from your "premium collection"? :rolleyes:
Oh that's right, it's not my thread so you don't have to reply like a grown up.....

[yetanotherid]

Your arguments lost all credibility right up-front, when you made these ridiculous statements. :rolleyes:

Exactly.... If DVD burning isn't currently at it's peak.... or not far from it.... I'll happily start imagining my good quality burns aren't that good after all, despite what the quality tests might say.....

[yetanotherid]

So why is it I'm producing burns of the same quality today that you were getting two years ago, as long of course, you took the samples from you're "premium collection"? :rolleyes: How about some quality tests of two year old burns which didn't come from your "premium collection"? :rolleyes:

I guess we'll never know.....

While doom9 was having a bit of a holiday however, I had an interesting burning experience which made me think of this thread, so I thought I'd discuss it here.

A couple of days ago I had an above average burning day. For the entire day pretty much every burn was above average in quality. So either Verbatim have been watching this thread and lifted their quality control in the last week, all of my burners were in an above average mood, it's just co-incidence, or something else was allowing the burners to burn well.

The only variable I can think of which may have factored in was the weather. It was hot. A really hot, dry heat. 40+ degrees Celsius. It wasn't hot in the room where my computers were located as I'd had the air conditioner on all day, so it was warm at best and I'd assume the air was very dry. Does humidity effect the quality of burns? It's the only variable I can think of.

As an example of what I mean I've posted some screen shots. These burns were typical for the day (there was the odd "throw away" as usual) and these are printable discs, which in my experience usually lowers the quality a little, and most would have come from the same "batch" as my previous screenshots, if not from the same spindle.
Or maybe all of my burners (it wasn't just one of them having a good day) were just in a better mood than usual for some reason.....

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a142/dashpb1/burn5.gif?t=1296735822

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a142/dashpb1/burn6.gif?t=1296735832

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a142/dashpb1/burn7.gif?t=1296735823

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a142/dashpb1/burn8.gif?t=1296735824

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a142/dashpb1/burn9.gif?t=1296735833

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a142/dashpb1/burn10.gif?t=1296735826