Re: [ARSCLIST] CD-R question

[Mike Richter <mrichter@xxxxxxx>]

Tom Fine wrote:
> So then no one really knows if 80's are less reliable? If this 
> "reliability" issue is mythology, why is so common on this forum? I ask 
> because 650 meg media is becoming somewhat rare and oftem much more 
> costly. If there is no proven advantage then it is silly to insist on 
> it, as some clients do.

No. We know that they have higher error rates and are harder to read 
than equivalent 74s. We know that high error rates and poor readability 
typically precede failure in typical discs. But I know of no stronger 
reason to believe that 80s are less reliable than 74s.

To save a separate thread, some notes may be in order on the standard 
lengths. The standard for pitch on the spiral of a CD leads to 74 
minutes' recording time. Manufacturing tolerances being what they were 
two decades back, tolerance on the pitch demanded that the player handle 
pitches corresponding to 63 through 80 minutes. More than a decade ago, 
TDK offered an 80-minute CD-R at prohibitive cost; it lasted some time 
in the catalogue, but was unavailable in practice.

Any longer blank is out of spec. Indeed, it may be argued that any over 
74 minutes is out of spec.

Mike
--
mrichter@xxxxxxx
http://www.mrichter.com/