Maxell Japan -R have failed after 1 year!

[piano632]

I don't know if this has any bearing on the situation, but my Pioneer 106D is the OEM version that comes with Medion computers. I flashed the firmware from 1.05 to the "hacked" 1.07 RPC-1. I'm pretty sure I did this before I burned the Maxell discs. This doesn't seem to affect anything, but just thought I'd mention it just in case there were "issues" with this firmware.

[slacker]

Depending on the VALUE of your recordings, for the future or for testing purposes you may want to try Mutsui discs. They are NOT cheap!

Finally a DVD suitable for storing your most precious files! The MAM Gold Archive Grade™ DVD is designed for applications requiring long-term storage of sensitive data, video or music files. The reflective layer is comprised of 24 karat gold, which allows maximum resistance to chemical breakdown -- one of the major causes of disc failure. Along with choosing the right recording dye material and bonding agent (Note: A DVD-R is made of two polycarbonate discs bonded together) the long-term stability of the reflective layer is crucial. Reflective layers using your standard “silver” surface are subject to oxidation (rust) over a long period of exposure to moisture. Unlike silver jewelry, a gold ring won't rust and neither will the gold reflective layer in this disc. In optical discs, the use of gold can triple the life of a standard disc. Preliminary tests show that the MAM Gold Archive Grade™ DVD can last significantly longer than ordinary silver recordable DVD discs. Although tests are currently underway and results will soon be available, we can assume from our experience with gold layer CD-R that the expected life of these discs will be similar. The MAM DVD is offered as the long awaited companion to the MAM Archive Grade™ Gold CD-R, which has an expected lifetime of 300 years and has earned a reputation as the highest quality storage media available today.

They are available from several distributors. Google IT.

[lordsmurf]

I don't know if this has any bearing on the situation, but my Pioneer 106D is the OEM version that comes with Medion computers. I flashed the firmware from 1.05 to the "hacked" 1.07 RPC-1. I'm pretty sure I did this before I burned the Maxell discs. This doesn't seem to affect anything, but just thought I'd mention it just in case there were "issues" with this firmware.

Unlikely, but not unheard of. I've seen certain LiteOn and BTC drives burn some discs "funny" with certain firmwares that were reluctant to play correctly on anything other than the burner itself (while still on that same firmware). It's a bit of bad luck, and requires a certain inopportune combination of burner, media and firmware. I don't have any explanation for this (and I'm sure some smart ass will come along with "oh this is very common and it's blah blah blah" but that still won't really be the reason).

[budz]

I don't know if this has any bearing on the situation, but my Pioneer 106D is the OEM version that comes with Medion computers. I flashed the firmware from 1.05 to the "hacked" 1.07 RPC-1. I'm pretty sure I did this before I burned the Maxell discs. This doesn't seem to affect anything, but just thought I'd mention it just in case there were "issues" with this firmware.

You used a hacked firmware which probably increased the burn and read speed of different media. I have a PIONEER 107D that uses a hacked firmware because I wanted faster read speeds. But I never used it to burn at a faster speed. I suspect this is why your discs aren't able to read back correctly. It's just a thought that ran through my mind since you mentioned you used 1.07 RPC-1 hacked firmware. Going a bit off topic the only drive I use to burn at faster speeds is the BENQ 1620 & 1640 and the PLEXTOR 708A drive. BENQ's can burn 4x spd @ 8x and 8x @12, 16 spd. successfully. As already mentioned there is no real documented proof how long a dvd disc will last.

[piano632]

Depending on the VALUE of your recordings, for the future or for testing purposes you may want to try Mutsui discs. They are NOT cheap!

Yes, I know about Mitsui discs. I think their CD-R discs are unbeatable (both gold and silver), even a notch above TY discs because of more resilient dye, diamond coating, and complete quality control over every phase of production. I haven't tried their DVD discs yet though. I think they are still age-testing their new gold DVD-R.

You used a hacked firmware which probably increased the burn and read speed of different media. I have a PIONEER 107D that uses a hacked firmware because I wanted faster read speeds. But I never used it to burn at a faster speed. I suspect this is why your discs aren't able to read back correctly.

Actually I used the hacked firmware cuz the "official" firmware upgrades don't work with OEM drives. And I don't burn discs at higher than their rated speed, which in this case was 2x.

[lordsmurf]

I haven't tried their DVD discs yet though. I think they are still age-testing their new gold DVD-R.

Don't waste your time. It's garbage. MAM-A and MAM-E use a lot of fake codes (admittedly) and the media performs about as well as Princo. Their cyanine based CD-R are alright, but I still prefer AZO based MCC discs, or maybe TY discs. Mitsui is really one of those companies that loves to blow smoke and sink money into marketing instead of a quality product.

[piano632]

Don't waste your time. It's garbage. MAM-A and MAM-E use a lot of fake codes (admittedly) and the media performs about as well as Princo. Their cyanine based CD-R are alright, but I still prefer AZO based MCC discs, or maybe TY discs. Mitsui is really one of those companies that loves to blow smoke and sink money into marketing instead of a quality product.

You must have gotten a fake batch then. Every Mitsui CD-R I've known uses phthalocyanine dye, not cyanine. MAM-E is reportedly not up to the standards of MAM-A (I assume the "A" and "E" stand for America and Europe). I have Mitsui discs made in U.S. and Japan and they are identical in quality - top notch. Professional audio companies such as HHB, Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab, Apogee, etc. use rebranded Mitsui discs for their pro grade CD-R. I know they don't use TY or MCC. While I have nothing against TY or MCC, I like Mitsui best, with Ricoh coming in a close second, and TY third. No Mitsui disc has failed me yet, and some are 4 years old now. At least that's with CD-R discs, now DVD-R is another story.

[lordsmurf]

I consider cyanine and phthalocyanine to be almost the same thing. The reflective properties are about the same (poor).

As far as "here and now" quality of the media, I'm not impressed with Mitsui (now MAM-A) discs. Their self-given claim to quality always revolved around the future and lifespan, but it's all just a bunch of circumstantial baloney (rated for "300-600 years" and other such non-sense).

I really miss PIONEER CD-R AZO media. Now that was some good stuff. I have discs burned about 10 years ago that are still in perfect condition and will play in pretty much anything, including some rather finicky car stereos from the the 1990s. They sure don't make them like that anymore. I've long been disappointed in how CD-R quality has degraded in the name of cheapness and longevity (totally ignoring how it performs right now).

Those old discs had gold foil, deep blue dye and a upper layer coating that could compete with Rhino truck lining. They were made to perform and built to last. Not at all like this see-through crap that is silvery-green on bottom and skips in a number of stereos. Mitsui falls about midway between these two extremes.

[budz]

No Mitsui disc has failed me yet, and some are 4 years old now.

In my CD-R burning days Mitsu golds were the only discs I used to back up my collection of 400 music cd's. 8 years later and they're still going strong.

[slacker]

ls,

Do you have any evidence that Mitsui MAM dvd-r discs are NOT as good as they claim them to be? Anecdotally, they sound pretty damn good! I'm going to at least try them and do my own tests.

[lordsmurf]

ls,
Do you have any evidence that Mitsui MAM dvd-r discs are NOT as good as they claim them to be? Anecdotally, they sound pretty damn good! I'm going to at least try them and do my own tests.

Go read about MAM-A and MAM-E crap at cdfreaks.com
I had some MAM-A discs a while back, those sucked.

[Gen-An]

People don't seem to realise that there is no Mitsui in terms of CD-Rs anymore; Mitsui Toatsu stopped making CD media some time ago. By all accounts MAM-A/MAM-E isn't anywhere near as good despite supposedly using the same Mitsui-developed phthalocyanine dye. I don't know why anyone would bother with anything other than MCC or TY for CD media these days.

[piano632]

People don't seem to realise that there is no Mitsui in terms of CD-Rs anymore; Mitsui Toatsu stopped making CD media some time ago. By all accounts MAM-A/MAM-E isn't anywhere near as good despite supposedly using the same Mitsui-developed phthalocyanine dye. I don't know why anyone would bother with anything other than MCC or TY for CD media these days.

I just recently bought a batch of HHB branded media, and the manufacturer ID is Mitsui Chemicals, Inc. (type 6). I've heard people say that MFSL's gold CD-R are also Mitsui discs. Though in both cases they are low-speed discs (8x-24x) but I prefer low-speed discs. Maybe the Japan factory is still operational and they are getting their discs from there. I've used MCC discs from Taiwan and the audio quality is not as good as Mitsui, nor are any discs from Taiwan. The only 3 discs I'm completely happy with are Mitsui, Ricoh, & TY. Kodak Gold Ultima discs used to be highly rated as well, but alas they have stopped production as well, except for their photo CD's.

[lordsmurf]

I've used MCC discs from Taiwan and the audio quality is not as good as Mitsui, nor are any discs from Taiwan.

Can you explain this further?

Digital data is either YES or NO. It's not a tape, it cannot sound different from one disc to the next. The only way a disc could "not sound as good" is if it were full of pops/crack from being a bad burn (the "NO" of digital, missing or corrupted data).

[piano632]

Digital data is either YES or NO. It's not a tape, it cannot sound different from one disc to the next. The only way a disc could "not sound as good" is if it were full of pops/crack from being a bad burn (the "NO" of digital, missing or corrupted data).

While all CD's carry the same bits, they do sound different upon playback due to the amount of jitter (timing variances) in the signal. Lower quality discs (or any audio CD burned at high speed) produce more jitter because of misshaped pits which interferes with clock timing and that translates into less dynamic sound. However, the good news is that jitter can be corrected simply by re-ripping the disc (which will re-clock the data and correct block errors) and burning to better quality media.

[davideck]

While all CD's carry the same bits, they do sound different upon playback due to the amount of jitter (timing variances) in the signal. Lower quality discs (or any audio CD burned at high speed) produce more jitter because of misshaped pits which interferes with clock timing and that translates into less dynamic sound. However, the good news is that jitter can be corrected simply by re-ripping the disc (which will re-clock the data and correct block errors) and burning to better quality media.

Surely you jest...

[noki]

While all CD's carry the same bits, they do sound different upon playback due to the amount of jitter (timing variances) in the signal. Lower quality discs (or any audio CD burned at high speed) produce more jitter because of misshaped pits which interferes with clock timing and that translates into less dynamic sound.

is this your OPINION, or are you basing what you wrote on some fact? Can you point us to the research that support your statement?. Boy, you are smoking some GOOD SH_T

[piano632]

It's all over the audiophile forums, folks. All the audiophile companies admit there is jitter in digital audio that distorts the signal, and many of the higher-end players have "jitter-reduction circuits" (data re-clocking) built into their equipment. And I can hear the difference with my own ears thru headphones. In fact, anything you do to a CD (whether pressed or burned) will change its sound. Don't believe it? Try using a bulk tape eraser on a CD or even cleaning it will make it sound "different" and in my opinion *better*.

[davideck]

Try using a bulk tape eraser on a CD

What does that do?

[ROF]

Try using a bulk tape eraser on a CD

What does that do?

Absolutely nothing at all, except maybe scratch the disc if direct pressue is applied unevenly.

I've got Maxell Japn DVD-R discs that are a few years old. Just tried a recording of my kids 4 grade graduation ceremony. It plays just as good today as it did when it was recorded. All is well with these discs. You may want to check your equipment or the way you've stored your media.

[Legendsk]

Pardon me, I realize this thread seems to have turned into "How long does DVD media last?", but has anyone considered that the typical user who has to reinstall Windows and then all their programs at least annually or even several times per year, may not have the correct CODEC installed any longer on some of the systems?

[ROF]

Pardon me, I realize this thread seems to have turned into "How long does DVD media last?", but has anyone considered that the typical user who has to reinstall Windows and then all their programs at least annually or even several times per year, may not have the correct CODEC installed any longer on some of the systems?

This is true, but if you read the original post you would see that two computer and two setup DVD burners/recorder/players were used to check if these would work. That leads me to one of two conclusions:

- Bad Media Batch

- Bad Recording Method

neither maybe the cause, but i've never had to reinstall my firmware on my set top recorders/players, so that rules out your solution.

[Jester700]

It's all over the audiophile forums, folks. All the audiophile companies admit there is jitter in digital audio that distorts the signal, and many of the higher-end players have "jitter-reduction circuits" (data re-clocking) built into their equipment. And I can hear the difference with my own ears thru headphones. In fact, anything you do to a CD (whether pressed or burned) will change its sound. Don't believe it? Try using a bulk tape eraser on a CD or even cleaning it will make it sound "different" and in my opinion *better*.

Two concepts:
1) Placebo effect
2) Double blind ABX test

Learn these concepts and you will be above 99% of the audiophile morons buying & selling green sharpie CD pens and eggshell glue for speaker cones.

Oh, and you'll stop saying stupid crap like you did above, too...

[lordsmurf]

Digital data is either YES or NO. It's not a tape, it cannot sound different from one disc to the next. The only way a disc could "not sound as good" is if it were full of pops/crack from being a bad burn (the "NO" of digital, missing or corrupted data).

While all CD's carry the same bits, they do sound different upon playback due to the amount of jitter (timing variances) in the signal. Lower quality discs (or any audio CD burned at high speed) produce more jitter because of misshaped pits which interferes with clock timing and that translates into less dynamic sound. However, the good news is that jitter can be corrected simply by re-ripping the disc (which will re-clock the data and correct block errors) and burning to better quality media.

I hate to be mean, but this is a load of horsecrap.

Most self-described audiophiles and videophiles are led around like sheep by people even more paranoid than they are. Stuff like this is born out of imagination and total lack of understanding about the technology.

There is not an ounce of truth to it.

Upon further research, this sort of rumor looks to be born out of marketing bullshit. Companies isolate some sort of microscopic anomaly and blow it completely out of proportion with tests that conveniently "back up" their statements. Here's one example: http://www.yamahamultimedia.com/yec/tech/am_01.asp
In fact, most stuff I saw on this topic all led a trail back to Yamaha. From what I can see, that company spouted off some loosely factual bullshit and people flocked to it like idiots. Your typical over-the-edge audio/videophile is more interested in hearsay, propaganda and conspiracy, so I'm not the least bit shocked that many of them take this as some sort of gospel.

However the truth of the matter comes back to what I said earlier, about how the data exists. Analog was a medium that performs in what I like to call "controlled chaos", which is not YES or NO but rather many shades of MAYBE. Digital is not bound by MAYBE's, it is completely YES or NO. So not a choatic system, but one that is driven by precision. It's either there, or it's not. When it's not, the player is forced to do error correction, and that can be heard or seen depending on the length. DVD ECC is more advanced that CD ECC. While burning technology is pretty erratic and unstable as compared to a clean press, the data is still there.

[davideck]

Anybody this critical should be listening to SACD.
I'm still curious about the bulk eraser...

[piano632]

I'm still curious about the bulk eraser...

A bulk tape eraser used to demagnetize a CD will smooth out some of the harshness in the high frequencies (which CD's are famous for). I don't know why it works, but it does to my satisfaction. I know the bits aren't changing, I guess it has something to do with disipating some of the static charge in the plastic. It does the same with vinyl records, which is why I feel it is related to static.

Digital bits may be absolute 1's or 0's, but when it's an audio stream it has to be timed perfectly down to the nanosecond. If even one of those 1's and 0's doesn't hit the DAC (digital-to-analog convertor) at the precise nanosecond it is supposed to, then you have digital distortion. Or as one engineer put it , "the right bits at the wrong time are the wrong bits!" This happens more than you might think, especially with cheap media where error correction is needed.

As to everyone else, you're entitled to your opinion of course. But my opinion is the only one that counts where my ears are concerned. Why is it always the people who haven't tried something that are always saying it can't be possible? I guess I better not mention what I use to clean my CD's with that makes them sound clearer, otherwise we'll start another war.

I guess this thread has gotten way off track from the original question about why my Maxell DVD-R's are failing.

[davideck]

Digital bits may be absolute 1's or 0's, but when it's an audio stream it has to be timed perfectly down to the nanosecond. If even one of those 1's and 0's doesn't hit the DAC (digital-to-analog convertor) at the precise nanosecond it is supposed to, then you have digital distortion.

Are you aware that lots of CD players have FIFO memory buffers?
A FIFO memory buffer has independent write and read clocks, such that data can be written with an unstable clock and read with a "nanosecond" accurate clock. As long as the FIFO doesn't empty or overflow, the data written to the FIFO from the disc can be as unstable as can be while the data read from the FIFO to the DAC is nanosecond stable...

[Jester700]

I'm still curious about the bulk eraser...

A bulk tape eraser used to demagnetize a CD will smooth out some of the harshness in the high frequencies (which CD's are famous for). I don't know why it works, but it does to my satisfaction. I know the bits aren't changing, I guess it has something to do with disipating some of the static charge in the plastic. It does the same with vinyl records, which is why I feel it is related to static.

I know why it works - because you THINK it will. Half the ear-brain equation is the brain. Go learn about the placebo effect. Audiophilia is rampant with people who don't understand this. People used to swear that coating discs with armor-all or drawing a ring around the outside of a CD with a green sharpie (yes, it DOES have to be green!) gave audible benefits, too. Boy, do I have a bridge to sell you...

Digital bits may be absolute 1's or 0's, but when it's an audio stream it has to be timed perfectly down to the nanosecond. If even one of those 1's and 0's doesn't hit the DAC (digital-to-analog convertor) at the precise nanosecond it is supposed to, then you have digital distortion. Or as one engineer put it , "the right bits at the wrong time are the wrong bits!" This happens more than you might think, especially with cheap media where error correction is needed.

BZZZT. Wrong again, sahib. Timing is important at the initial A/D conversion. You have no control over that, but the FIFO buffer and ability to reclock the data stream take care of everything that comes after.

As to everyone else, you're entitled to your opinion of course. But my opinion is the only one that counts where my ears are concerned. Why is it always the people who haven't tried something that are always saying it can't be possible? I guess I better not mention what I use to clean my CD's with that makes them sound clearer, otherwise we'll start another war.

Nope. Same war. You assume too much. I have done ABX testing on lots of things. What you clearly discover is that you don't always hear what you THINK you heard; especially on subtle differences. The human auditory system has flaws, and human auditory memory is short. Audiophiles love to spout pretty words and imply that anyone not hearing diferences THEY claim to hear just can't hear as well, but time and again when these people go to prove that the differences actually EXIST, it's found that the emperor is, in fact, naked.

[davideck]

the FIFO buffer and ability to reclock the data stream take care of everything that comes after...

Yep - for those who can comprehend it, a tidbit of "technobabble" can blow away tons of marketing hype and ill informed claims that are "based on years of experience".

[piano632]

When I first bought a CD burner I thought all CD-R/W would sound the same no matter how cheap/expensive they were, so I just bought some cheap discs. Then I slowly started using other brands and noticed that every brand sounded "different" from the other. I wasn't EXPECTING to hear any difference between discs, so this is NOT placebo effect. In fact, I remember being puzzled as to why I did hear a difference. I only read the audiophile technical stuff AFTER the fact, when I was looking for answers, so it never had any influence on my judgement beforehand. So after using Verbatim, Sony, TDK, etc. and comparing them all, I came to the conclusion that Mitsui, Ricoh, and Taiyo Yuden discs had the most likeable sound quality. And I also noticed that burning speed had a direct impact on sound quality too.

I still can't really explain why there are differences. It's either jitter, how well the pits are created or laser refraction thru the disc. But whatever it is, there is a difference to my ears (and other people as well). If you don't hear a difference - fine. Maybe my ears are more sensitive than others.

My favorite audiophile joke comes to mind:
"Wow, did you hear that! Your right speaker cable must be half a foot shorter than the left one."

(And just for the record, no I can't hear the difference between half a foot of cable.)

Incidently, is there any source for AZO discs made in Japan?