All Activity

One of the reasons I knew those DVD-R's lasted so long was I was copying most of them over to new DVD-R. These earlier ones were made before I had learned of CMC and what cheap media can do. So, I was taking all the burned DVD-R that were not Taiyo Yuden or MCC and copying them to better quality MCC's. I had a few Maxell discs that wouldn't read and I discarded, but I think those were down to the LG drive used as the reader. LG's are not the best readers and will fail to read in some discs other drives like Pioneer's will. I was not aware of that at the time and only learned later through trial and error. So, some of those discs I couldn't read might actually have been salvageable.

Yeah. that's why I tend to prefer DVD because given they have lasted 10-20 years already, and if there is no obvious degradation with KProbe scan etc, chances are they are going to last at least decades, unless of course disc deterioration starts to hit a disc rapidly out of no where, which I would 'guess' is unlikely. but I guess on paper, since they went from CD to DVD to BD, while you get more data on each disc, they are all the same physical size so it's cramming more data into a smaller space, which at least theoretically, makes it more susceptible error (like read errors etc). In my opinion, that's largely a waste of time to re-copy to 'newer' CD/DVD's etc. but I do agree, as extra insurance, that besides the usual two copies on two different hard drives method (which is more practical in general since it's minimal effort and convenient and offers a reasonable level of protection against data loss), that having a one copy on say Verbatim media and another copy on Taiyo Yuden media offers that much more insurance as I do this occasionally, but I would never consider re-burning it given the current copies show no signs of degrading (which KProbe etc scans would show since you can keep original scan after burning, then compare it to a newer scan you do many years later). but after a certain point this stuff almost starts to become a bit obsessive, which is why I figure a good balance of things is the two hard drive stuff along with at least one copy on DVD media etc (although for super high importance stuff, two different kinds of DVD media for example are all that much better because the odds of both of those dying at the same time is probably slim enough). Yeah, I understand. because in terms of optical media, for really a large project, BD-R is more practical (given 25GB a disc vs 4.7GB). but 'may' be more risky in terms of longevity of discs and there is less drives to read it available to the masses etc. honestly though, if I had many TB's of data to backup, short of super high importance data, I would just stick to regular hard drives, just use more hard drives... like besides the usual two copies on two different hard drives, which is a good bare minimum convenient standard, just use more and keep some offline for extra insurance against viruses etc and accidental data deletion. hell, most of the data I backup I stick to the two hard drive method since it offers the best balance of convenience(like ease-of-backup/using that data)/data security. p.s. just speaking for myself... even for backing up digital photos (i.e. family photos etc) I noticed a good portion of what I have backed up, is a bit of excess as I could probably get rid of some pictures to save space since most pictures are nothing TOO special. but then I get as a side effect of this, it takes time (probably quite a bit depending on how much you have to sort though) to sort through these and tune it before burning to say DVD etc, which while it makes the final disc one burns of higher quality pictures/videos etc, the time it takes to do this can be a lot. so I guess one tries their best to balance things. I think a lot of the reason why BD-R never took off like CD/DVD is lack of general public using it since it seems many switched over to streaming etc. optical disc seem to be limited to a limited amount of people nowadays. the only reason I still use optical media is because I feel it's the all-around best alternative for backing up data for long term storage if you put hard drives aside. plus, optical media ain't prone to accidental data deletion etc. it's a nice way to permanently store data for at least years, but probably decades. I see. like one of those machines you don't like to touch since it's good for old school stuff. I totally get it p.s. speaking of old games, I got MAME (arcade emulator) setup on some of my PC's for playing my favorite fighting games, which are the arcade versions from the 1990's (which I used to play all besides MK1 in the arcades back in the 1990's), Mortal Kombat 1 through Ultimate Mortal Kombat 3 (i.e. MK1/MK2/MK3/UMK3) and Killer Instinct as I have been playing around with these once again lately on my X-Arcade stick (which I bought back in the 2000's decade as it's the older serial port version which I got the adapter that converts it to the more modern USB connection). anyways, the games you mentioned I played those at one point in the last to (like back in the 1990's etc). my single favorite gaming experience would be Mafia (2002) which, while one could setup on a old Windows computer (as I do have this setup on a old computer running Windows 7 (also has Linux Mint on it)) as a backup, it works on my primary PC running Linux Mint computer through Lutris/Wine etc. Yeah, while there are plenty of choices (as there is no definitive answer)... I think Linux Mint is one of the safest choices for beginners and people in general (it's been around longer than most and stuff is more likely to 'just work' etc). because it's based on Ubuntu (the current Linux Mint 21.x series is based on Ubuntu 22.04 LTS) which is similar enough to Debian as these have been around a long time (Debian since 1993 and Ubuntu since 2004. Mint has been around since 2006) so are a bit more common/somewhat standard. but one area Mint shines over many others is the amount of time it's supported for as each major version is basically 2 years apart and is supported for pretty much 5 years... -Linux Mint v20.x (released about mid-2020) = supported until April 2025 -Linux Mint v21.x (released about mid-2022) = supported until April 2027 and if the pattern holds, which it probably while, Mint v22.x will be released about mid-2024 and supported until April 2029. the default kernel for newest Mint 21.x is currently 5.15 which that kernel was from Nov 2021. so as long as someones hardware is not too recent it should be okay. even if they need a newer kernel you can install newer ones on Mint through the OS itself. but generally... the Mint team suggests sticking to the kernel that comes with it unless you have a specific reason (like newer hardware support etc) to need a newer one. anyways, it seems a fair amount of other Linux variations only have support in the 2-3 years range before one would have to upgrade where as Mint is pretty much 5 years (technically it's not a full five years, but close enough).

Thanks for your thoughts on the formats and longevity. I've recently read some old CDs that were written in the 90s and they seem OK, so I reckon your findings are spot-on. I also tend to copy files from my older archive CDs to new DVDs every few years, just in case. I'd rather have 2 or 3 copies of a file than none! DVD is not an option for some of my data, though. We're talking multi-track audio (Pro Tools and the like) from home recording projects and backups of my band's professional studio projects (which can be huge) so a single project would have to be split across dozens of DVDs. Not ideal. Likewise, my partner's digital photos (which I'm currently sifting though) take up a lot of space. It's such a shame that the BDR format seems to have been nobbled and sidelined by the manufacturers. I rather liked the ability to treat them simply as "bigger DVDs". This keeps happening in the history of technology - I remember investing in Mini-discs in the 90s. They worked well for recording audio, but that technology was hamstrung by the manufacturer's paranoia about copying and digital rights management. If they'd allowed them to be used as data stores too, they might have caught on. The WinXP machine is my Music PC, running Pro Tools and older software like Cubase and some vintage Adobe products (I now use Affinity on my laptop for my art and design, but sometimes it's quicker to just go back to a simpler Adobe tool to do some jobs). It doesn't connect to the Internet any more, nor is it used for day-to-day tasks. It's also where I run my old PC games (Doom, Quake, Unreal, Half-life and so on). I like it just the way it is - what a breath of fresh air it is to use XP after faffing around with Win10! I do have some Linux PCs too (still trying to decide which distro is best for me), and I now have the use of my late partner's Mac laptop, so I have a lot more options. I'll report back on the firmware, discs and

I do have somewhat of a real world result for how long BD-R last. I had one I burned 7 years ago back in March where all the contents read back fine from last week. So, BD-R should last at least 5 to 10 years. But, I've also had DVD-R from last year that were readable after I had burned them 19 years before.

If these are standard 44.1/16-bit WAV files, you are better off converting them to FLAC since sound quality will be the same (since it's a lossless format) but roughly half of the file size etc. basically there is no real reason to burn WAV as a data disc for general data backup over FLAC (even if you need WAV for whatever reason in the future, it's easy to convert it back to WAV, and of course, no sound quality loss). but for your general situation... in the future, I suggest sticking to DVD recordable (Verbatim or Taiyo Yuden) as they are probably not as picky as BD-R stuff is in my estimations. I think BD-R is more of a question mark for longevity where as I think CD-R/DVD-/+R is more time proven and, like I always say, it's easier to find a drive that can read CD/DVD where as BD media is not widely adopted like CD/DVD was where just about everyone had one of those drives in the past at some point in the 2000's decade and thereabouts. so while I realize you only get 4.7GB(DVD-/+R) vs 25GB(BD-R), unless you have a lot of high importance data you need for long term storage, DVD is 'good enough' as for most of my backup I tend to opt for the more efficient two hard drive setup as this keeps ones chances of data loss low enough and it's far more convenient where as stuff I burn on DVD tends to be much more limited and is a nice alternative/insurance for a limited amount of high importance data I don't want to lose. and personally... I don't think M-DISC are worth the extra cost. even assuming they last a long time, the price is too inflated and decent quality CD/DVD media will likely last 'at least' decades in my experience given I checked the disc quality of some discs (largely Verbatim and some TY(Taiyo Yuden)) I burned around 10-15 years ago (I date my discs when I burn them so I know exactly when I burned them) with KProbe etc and they still scan well to this day (i.e. not even close to failure). so if you do get some DVD recordable media, after burning, while it's not required, if you are concerned with longevity it's a good idea to get a feel of the initial burn quality as the better they are initially the longer they should last in theory given, assuming they degrade more on the slow side, it will buy a person that much more time before read failure etc. p.s. the stuff I burn with IMGBurn (I use IMGBurn on Linux to burn stuff not all that long ago) reads okay on my Linux Mint computer. so I imagine if this reads okay, Windows 10 should have no issues reading a burned disc. I see you mentioned you got a 'WinXP' PC, unless you must keep WinXP on that computer for whatever reason, I suggest wiping the drive and installing some form of Linux (which is free) on it as you can still use ImgBurn on that if you want to.

Thanks for the info. I'll look into your drive recommendations. Are there any UK or European members reading this who can recommend any disc brands available here? Or, conversely, are any UK members happy with the quality of the current Verbatim BDR stock? (I suppose I could opt to use the more expensive M-disc for the really important archives. . .)

I can't answer as to the UK part as I live in the US. I use VERBAT-IM BD-R made by Verbatim. However, it seems in places like Europe, Verbatim BD-R are not the same quality as those I can get off of Amazon.com. I would recommend the LG WH16NS60 if you can find it. Otherwise, try the NS40, but last time I used it years ago and others reported similar issues here, double layer BD media do not write properly on that. Although a firmware update since those years ago might have helped those issues.

Sorry for the delay in this update, but I've been distracted by a slowly-unfolding family tragedy over the last year or so. That situation has now resolved itself, but I'm now a single parent on low income, so there are still tough times ahead. . . Anyway, I'm now able to return to the issue (for a while - until the next catastrophe arrives). I did do some tests a few months ago. I found that my existing drive works perfectly well with some Verbatim BDRWs that I have. These discs were bought at the same time as my writer and the first batch of Verbatim BDRs. But if I try to write the same files on the same writer to one of the new Verbatim BDRs - problems again. I had the same results with both my Win10 laptop and a WinXP tower. All this suggests that - firmware update aside - it is not the writer or the host system that is at fault. It all points to the discs. I'll try the firmware update anyway (thanks for the link, DBMinter). If this doesn't help, then the options are to buy a new writer (as suggested) or try different brands of disc. The problem is that whenever I look into any brand online, I see positive reviews alongside reviews that talk about 50%+ failure rates. So my question for the team is this: which BDR discs currently available in the UK ARE reliable? What are you guys using?

Ah, so d was short for denarius, an old Roman coin. Doesn't make much sense but it is an explanation to my question. Thanks! I always thought it funny our last Vice President was Mike Penny!

pence 😉 http://projectbritain.com/moneyold.htm

I believe before decimalization in Britain, prices of things could be listed by 3/11d. I am guessing the 3 is 3 shillings but what is the d? Pence/pennies? If so, what does the d stand for? Thanks!

Thank You for your post. It's not a big deal really. I was just curious if the metadata was there somehow. I guess not. Maybe it's in that real small print literally on the inside ring of the disc? I'll pull out my magnifying glass out and see what I can deduce there. But at the end of the day, it really doesn't matter. I use a regular old black Sharpie marker to label most of my media. It's a perfect stand-in until I find extra time and ambition to do up some fancy laser printed labels. And if it's so damn hard to tell them apart then why treat them as such? LoL! I crack myself up!

I don't think such metadata is stored on discs themselves. That would require extra work that the disc manufacturers frankly don't want to do. I think the only kind of similar metadata to what you're looking for that is contained on a BD-R is the MID/DID. What you could do in future is something I adopted. Put in the UDF Label field a brief description and maybe include the date. Or develop some kind of system like Stack 2023-05-19 Disc x. I also tend to, in Build Mode, put a folder and subfolder structure in the root directory with a description of the contents. This usually includes a folder named for the date when the disc was burned.

I've bought multiple spindles of BD-R media and I was curious to know if I got 2 spindles discs mixed up somehow I could reorganize them into their proper spindle by way of a batch code or something unique that ties them all to a specific spindle? Like a manufacturer date or whatever?

I totally agree with you. Optical media (BD-R @ 50 GB disc for me) plus flash for supplemental backups, not for long-term storage. Or more transient backups when you wanna move files between PCs in a physical way. It's all good.

There is one fault present in all LG drives that I failed to mention. They're not perfect readers. They will many times fail to read data from a disc that other drives like Pioneers will read in. That's one reason why I keep a USB Pioneer drive on hand. If my LG won't read in a particular disc, I plug in my Pioneer USB drive and see if that will read it.

As I said, the only fault I found in the NS40 the last I used it years ago was it did not properly write to DL BD media, but firmware updates since then might have fixed the issues.

New drive: HL-DT-ST BD-RE WH16NS40 (LG) Writing Ritek DL disc. Wrote same data folder (though things will have changed since previous) Worked with verify. YAY. ImgBurn_LG.log

When I said CD's (meaning standard AUDIO CD's) can't be improved upon I meant strictly in terms of the sound quality they produce, since they already exceed human hearing abilities. sure, if you could carry lossless audio files (i.e. FLAC etc) made from standard audio CD's on a device that can play them, that's equally as good to and would be inline with what you said about it not skipping etc. but in regards to putting music on a flash stick and playing it in a car... technically, unless it can play lossless (FLAC etc) there would be some level of sound decline. although in practical real world use (which is where it really matters)... once a lossy file (i.e. MP3/AAC etc) reaches a certain point (like bitrate) us humans pretty much can't tell the difference especially when just sitting back and enjoying the music. but I like to always have a lossless source to convert to lossy files when needed since no matter what audio formats change to in the future, you always have a high quality source to convert from as FLAC will never get outdated simply because as long as it was ripped from a standard AUDIO CD the sound quality is already exceeding human hearing abilities. there are listening tests over on hydrogenaud.io website etc for people who like learning/reading up on this stuff. but what I am saying here is the gist of it. even LAME(MP3) @ V5 (130kbps average) scores pretty well in a public listening test to where I am confident many people would struggle to notice the different between that and the lossless source (FLAC or original audio CD and the like) and even those who can tell the difference, through ABX tests (which you can run on Foobar2000), it's not going to be a obvious difference when you are just sitting back and enjoying the music. but it's basically common knowledge (at least on that hydrogenaud.io site) that AAC(standard AAC-LC)/Opus do better than MP3 at lower bit rates. lets say lower bit rates are about 128kbps or less (but probably more around 96kbps and less). but at higher bit rates (say about 128kbps or higher or not all that much beyond this) it don't really seem to matter much in real world whether you choose MP3/AAC/Opus etc. Yeah, clearly longevity of the data storage is where optical media shines and is the primary reason I still like having them around for some level of high importance data backup. also, while I am sure BD-R offers more storage space for the price... it's initial investment costs etc and lack of drives out there are probably what I would say is the biggest problem with it compared to more standardized/widely used CD/DVD. plus, it's not been around as long as CD/DVD media so it's a bit less time proven and not only that you are packing a lot more data into the same physical space which just this alone makes me think it's more picky and 'may' be more prone to data corruption as time passes. especially if you count the non-standard 25GB BD-R media with more than one layer as I imagine dual layer (or higher) media is more susceptible to issues than single layer media. so even if I did use BD-R media, I would almost certainly stick strictly to the standard 25GB discs as they probably have wider compatibility vs 100GB BDXL etc types of discs and cost per disc is probably a lot more reasonable etc. but yeah, flash media is appealing due to convenience as it seems many opt for convenience over long term data storage as I would never trust flash based media over optical media for long term data storage, especially if flash based storage is a persons only data backup source. with that said, flash based storage can be a nice additional backup source to more typical long term storage on hard drives and optical media though. p.s. but like I said in the past... I generally avoid CD-R's for storing data (unless someone has a very limited amount of high importance data backup) because it's not as practical as DVD (given DVD's hold 6.7x the amount of data of a CD-R) and disc cost between CD/DVD is about the same and data reliability is probably similar between the two assuming one uses quality media.

That is true and it was also for the original post of the Pioneer drive.

The first log you posted in this thread was for 2 MKM-001 burns.

yes, directly to disc. the ones with the pioneer -- i was testing using a ISO file. Not sure why you're saying that the logs posted were for the MKM-001 -- the last was for the Ritek. I am trying to remove the previous log file so the one in the folder is always the latest.

Well, I have to question your claim that CD's can't be improved on. I mean, you can buy flash/SDXC storage and use them in portable devices these days in most new vehicles. And there is no chance in hell of the disc skipping if you hit a large pothole. The sound quality of music on a flash stick would be the same as it is on a CD-R. I think the biggest plus for optical media is the longevity of the burn and the cost per gigabyte if you get a good buy on the media whether it's CD-R, DVD-R, or BD-R. Of course, I use BD-R because they store 5x as much data as DVD's and up to 50x data over CD-R if you buy dual-layer. And for $5 a pop you could buy a BDXL disc to store 100GBs of data. That is equivalent to 1000 CD-Rs. No swapping of discs would be requiring but then again flash is the most convenient replacement for optical media these days.

That might work because the write strategy in the firmware for a Ritek DVD+R DL would be different than a Verbatim MKM DVD+R DL.

Oh, are you writing directly to disc and not an image file first? If so, then, opening and changing a file might cause a Verify to fail that way. Your logs posted were for 2.4x Verbatim MKM-001's.