Testing, was: a question about multiple CD Burners

["Doug Pomeroy" <pomeroyaudio@xxxxxxx>]

What's a boy to do?
Can you recommend a place where a recorded CD-R
can be sent for qualitative analysis at reasonable cost?

Doug Pomeroy   pomeroyaudio@xxxxxxx
Audio Restoration [CEDAR] & Remastering

----------
>From: Jerome Hartke <jhartke@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>To: ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: arsclist A question about multiple CD Burners
>Date: Sun, Oct 28, 2001, 4:14 PM
>

> Brian Levy wrote:
>>
>> Hello, again,
>>
>> And please forgive me for cross-posting.  Once again, we've been
>> re-considering our archiving strategies for our now nearly 200 CD archive
>> of Caddo songs, oral history, and language.
>>
>> I have a few specific questions about multiple CD burners, because given
>> our small staff, it is getting truly overwhelming to produce the 4 copies
>> per each CD that is required to have a multi-site archive to protect in
>> some measure against damage, theft, etc.
>>
>> I know there was a brief discussion of CD Duplicators some months ago, but
>> I have a few additional questions concerning them:
>>
>> 1.  Do they make such multi-burners which only burn say 3 discs at
>> once?  Or do they only do larger numbers at once?  (Someone recently told
>> me of a burner which would do 8 discs at once.)
>
> REPLY: Duplicators can be purchased with any number of drives less than
> the maximum number. With your limited demand, why not buy three PC's and
> run each separately? This could be cheaper than a professional
> duplicator. Another option would be to use one higher speed writer. In
> any case, quality the recording drives and media before you generate a
> large library.
>
> Jerry
> Media Sciences, Inc.
>
>> 2.  Do any of you have any experience with any multi-CD burners, and could
>> you recommend a. a good brand and model, and b. a specific kind of media
>> that has been working well for you with that model (based on CD Analyzer
>> test results and such).
>
> REPLY: Drives and media must first be qualified. Brand names alone do
> not assure quality.
>
> Jerry
> Media Sciences, Inc.
>
>> 3.  Is it a bad idea in general to use multi-CD burners to produce CDR's
>> which need to be archival?  Do all such machines produce lesser quality
>> CD-R's than good single burners such as the computer-based Plextors or the
>> stand alone HHB's and Tascam's?
>
> REPLY: Duplication equipments use the same drives. Quality depends on
> pre-qualification.
>
> Jerry
> Media Sciences
>
>> 4.  Do you have any other advice on how to handle a growing archive for
>> which one needs the ability to make multiple copies for a multi-site plan,
>> especially given the likely need to replicate each 'master' CD every 5
>> years, or whatever it turns out to be, based on CD Analysis of sample CD's
>> every year of so to determine rate of decay and concomitant errors? (Of
>> course, one will likely need to update equipment in a few years anyway, to
>> switch to a DVD-R archiving strategy or something else, but in the
>> meantime, while we are still using CD-R to house these precious audio
>> recordings, we are presented with this need for a _lot_ of replication.)
>
> REPLY: Not clear what you mean by CD Analysis. There are many levels of
> testing, and confidence in archival quality requires investment of
> $30,000 or more.
>
> Jerry
> Media Sciences, Inc.
>
>> I would appreciate any help any of you could offer.  Please feel free to
>> respond off-list if you feel that would be more appropriate.
>>
>>   Thank you again for your help.
>>
>>                        Brian Levy
>
> -
> For subscription instructions, see the ARSC home page
> http://www.arsc-audio.org/arsclist.html
> Copyright of individual posting is owned by the author of the posting and
> permission to re-transmit or publish a post must be secured
> from the author of the post.
>