To save records, take care of CDs

[Hardbopjazz]

Here is an interesting article.

To save records, take care of CDs

MICHAEL HIMOWITZ

April 9, 2006

A physicist working for IBM has spread fear and loathing among digital photographers, music fans and others who store data on CDs.

His message: the discs we're using to archive photos, album tracks and financial records may turn into useless lumps of plastic after just two to five years.

A January Computerworld article quoted Kurt Gerecke, a storage expert in Germany, who warned that the dye that forms tiny pits in the surface of a CD-R can degrade to the point where the laser in a CD-ROM drive can't read them.

How long this takes depends on the quality of the disc and the conditions under which it's stored. Prerecorded audio and data discs, pressed by duplicating machines, don't have this problem. But we certainly shouldn't expect any writable compact disc to last very long, Gerecke said - certainly not the 25 to 75 years that CD makers have traditionally promised. Given the source of the warning, consumers are taking him seriously.

What should you do? I think Gerecke may have exaggerated a bit. Plenty of us have 5-year-old CDs that read well. But maybe it's time to think about replacing them.

Here are a few tips for keeping your photos, music and other digital artifacts safe.

Buy brand-name CDs and avoid making backup discs at the highest speed your drive can handle. Discs written at high speed are often harder to read.

Store your backup discs in a cool, dark place. Jewel cases are probably better than sleeves in binders, although there's some disagreement about that. No, you don't have to put CDs in the freezer - in fact, some engineers think that's a bad idea. Just avoid heat and direct light.

Replace your backups every couple of years. It doesn't take that long to copy CDs, and even expensive discs are only half a buck or so. The real investment is your time. Also, use write-once CD-Rs instead of rewritable disks (CD-RW), which don't last as long.

For safe long-term storage, consider a magnetic tape backup unit - which Gerecke's recommends for businesses. They start at less than $200 for 20-gigabyte internal models (you'll have to open your computer's case to install one). More money buys higher speed, more capacity or an external unit that connects to a USB or Firewire port and doesn't require messing around inside the computer.

Just remember that tape is a slow and awkward medium. It's not nearly as popular as CDs or hard drives. So you may have trouble finding a compatible unit to read your tapes 15 or 20 years down the road. Also, although magnetic tape stays good for a long time, it won't last forever, either. Store it under the same conditions as any archival medium - a cool, dry place.

In addition to CDs and tape, consider additional forms of live backup. External hard drives are cheap - $100 to $150 for models that store up to 200 gigabytes of data. A good-size drive can back up several computers on a home network - and some come with one-touch backup software. Every few years, you can replace the drive. Considering the value of what it's holding, it's a bargain.

Store copies of really important data at another site. As many Hurricane Katrina victims found out, having a copy of your data on a shelf in your home office doesn't help if your house is submerged. Or if there's a fire, or if a burglar cleans the place out. Put copies of critical discs in a safe deposit box, or ask a friend or relative to hold on to a set.

This entire issue, by the way, is an unintended consequence of the digital age. Twenty-five years ago, the longevity of an image, song or motion picture was tied to the original medium - and there wasn't much we could do about it.

Consider the family photo collection. Over the years, the most popular original photographic media have been Kodacolor negatives for prints and Kodachrome transparencies for slides and home movies.

In the analog film world, that original image - negative or transparency - is always the best one that will ever exist. You've probably seen this if you've tried to copy an old photo without the negative. A photofinisher or desktop scanner can do the job from the print - but it won't look as good as the first print - and will never be as good as a print made from the original negative.

Of course, negatives and slides can fade and change color if they're not properly stored. Now and then, filmmakers also produce substandard materials (many Kodacolor prints from the early 1970s have faded). Still, when my cousin recently had hundreds of old family slides scanned onto disc, I was astounded by 50-year-old Kodachrome images that looked as though they'd been snapped yesterday.

Today, we're replacing film by dicing images into millions of little dots, or pixels, and recording them as a series of ones and zeroes on a computer-based medium. In the camera, that medium is a flash memory card. When we get home, we transfer the ones and zeros to our hard drives - an entirely different medium. Then, we make copies of those ones and zeroes on CD to preserve them (yet another medium) or send copies via e-mail to Aunt Rhoda, who stores them on her computer and passes them on to Cousin Becky and so on.

What makes this revolutionary is that each of those images is exactly the same as the original. And so is any copy I make. With the right software - including the photo viewer built into Windows - I can display that picture on my screen in perfect detail or make a nearly perfect print, because each image is the original.

Thus, we've divorced the photo from the film, as it were. The same goes for music, video, correspondence and financial data. Because we can make multiple perfect copies, it's easier to make backups. But that flexibility gives us more responsibility to make sure those copies will stand the test of time.

E-mail Mike Himowitz at mike .himowitz@baltsun.com.

[WD45]

I have thought of this when it comes to photography. I have read that the prints made on home machines will not last as long, and, as confirmed in this article, digital storage of picture files is less permanent than one might think.

[Enterprise Server]

I have thought of this when it comes to photography. I have read that the prints made on home machines will not last as long, and, as confirmed in this article, digital storage of picture files is less permanent than one might think.

Well, there ya have it. So what must the average person do? Perhaps a newer and more reliable media may hit the market soon. This entire article is nothing short of depressing.

[Claude]

I don't think it's a big problem, if you take a minimum of precautions.

Burn two CD-R or DVD-R copies of your personal files (instead of just one) and verify them every two years (copy the files from the CD-R or DVD-R to the hard disc to check if they can be read).

If all the files can be copied, it should be ok until the next check. If some files cannot be read, there's a problem with the disc, but you still have the other copy to use. Discs degrade progressively, so the chances that the same files are unreadable on both discs are small, especially with picture files that are generally only 1-2MB.

Don't buy the cheapest discs but good brands.

Edited May 4, 2006 by Claude

[David Ayers]

So CDs are expected to last 25-75 years? No such problem with vinyl.

As for the other digital stuff, fuggedit.

Family photos is one issue - it needs backing up. As for music, it seems the notion of permament collection (in particular, a collection held on a permanent medium) is a diminishing one, and that collections will rise and fall like ancient civilizations, only in a shorter time frame. Ahem.

[Claude]

So CDs are expected to last 25-75 years? No such problem with vinyl.

What the article says is that CD-R was claimed to have a life expectancy of 25-75 years. That obviously concerns only the best CD-Rs, not the cheap ones that dominate the market.

The life expactancy of CDs is certainly higher than 25 years, since there is currently no information on widespread degradation problems with CDs that were sold more than 20 years ago.

BTW, we also don't know if vinyl lasts longer than 75 years

[Kevin Bresnahan]

Why does this article seem to get reprinted every three months or so?

The consensus seems to be that Gerecke's research was shoddy. His only goal in writing this report seems to be getting people to buy mag tape back-up units. He does work for IBM, after all.

I have several CD-Rs of data from the mid 90's. I have music CD-Rs from then too. If you use decent CD-R media, you'll be fine.

Kevin

[mikeweil]

Consider the care museums take to preserve prints, paintings, magazines, books, etc. ....... that something survives longer than a few decades is the exception.

[Claude]

If you use decent CD-R media, you'll be fine.

The problem is to find "decent" CD-Rs. I have had problems with dozens of Fuji CD-Rs burned in 2002-2003 that have become partly unreadable by now. At the time, I thought Fuji was a renowned brand that offered decent CD-Rs

Edited May 4, 2006 by Claude

[Epithet]

If you use decent CD-R media, you'll be fine.

The problem is to find "decent" CD-Rs. I have had problems with dozens of Fuji CD-Rs burned in 2002-2003 that have become partly unreadable by now. At the time, I thought Fuji was a renowned brand that offered decent CD-Rs

Same story here with Sonys.

[AllenLowe]

I use nothing but Tayo Yudens - great discs -

Edited May 4, 2006 by AllenLowe

[Bright Moments]

oh yeah, i can just picture my beloved's reaction to this:

um honey, i need to triple the amount of space that i am using for my cd collection to accommodate the backup..............

her response:

when pigs fly!

[Ken Dryden]

Most wives might reply to a request for "extra storage space for backup copies" with

"Fine, I don't have to live here!"

[Quincy]

If you use decent CD-R media, you'll be fine.

The problem is to find "decent" CD-Rs. I have had problems with dozens of Fuji CD-Rs burned in 2002-2003 that have become partly unreadable by now. At the time, I thought Fuji was a renowned brand that offered decent CD-Rs

Same story here with Sonys.

Fuji & Sony were only considered decent if they were made in Japan (and therefore by Taiyo Yuden.) Around 2002 many Fujis were made in Taiwan and thus weren't Taiyo Yudens. The same thing happened to Sony a few years before that. Because I got tired of running around town and reading the fine print I've been ordering TYs online for several years.

Regarding CD-R life, I have discs from a spindle of Taiwanese TDKs that I got for free in 2001 that are now are cigarette stained yellow on the top (and I don't smoke nor does anyone in the house, cat included.) They play fine, but most have problem spots that can't be read. Or at least EAC in secure mode wants to take a week to do the job. Lucky for me about half of them went out to others in trades.

[.:.impossible]

http://www.american-digital.com/prodsite/category.asp?c=93

[sidewinder]

BTW, we also don't know if vinyl lasts longer than 75 years

I will put money on it that Plastylite Blue Note pressings will last 1000 years !

Edited May 4, 2006 by sidewinder

[AllenLowe]

well, 78s have lasted over 100 years -