[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ARSCLIST] CD markings
At 07:18 AM 9/30/2004 -0400, Steven Smolian wrote:
Is there proof that inkjet or thermal printing on an appropriate surface
does damage to the disc. How deep into the surface do the alcohols bite
before evaporating?
Many seminal questions in one post - and few can be answered. I
particularly look forward to investigating those relating to the
compromises between archival elegance and practical simplicity. However,
here I will limit myself to what is known about marking. Then, with your
indulgence, I'll add another question to the mix.
Jerry Hartke has measured an assortment of media marked/printed in various
ways. IIRC, his conclusion is that he can measure in the error rate the
existence of any marker, printer or (most easily) label - except one in the
clear space about the hub. He will have to comment on whether thermal
printing was included; as I wrote earlier, I do not recall anything from
him on the matter.
It is not appropriate to assume that the alcohol in the ink is the only
culprit. In two cases with which I'm familiar, silk-screen ink itself
migrated through the acrylic lacquer.
The extra added point - not needed numerically given the shopping list
Steven provided already - is whether pressing the archival disc is
worthwhile. That is, we have assumed that pressed discs have longer life
than recordable ones, though as far as I'm aware there is no clear evidence
of that. However, if that is so, why do we assume that archival storage
would be on recordable media? The added cost of $500 or so per disc is not
an issue in the world of idealized archiving. Perhaps more significantly,
pressing allows for distribution of the master (each pressed disc is such a
master) to 500 or so archives to preserve it against the ravagaes of time
and the losses of natural and man-made disaster.
Mike
--
mrichter@xxxxxxx
http://www.mrichter.com/