Talk:CD-R

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Electronics Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Electronics, an attempt to provide a standard approach to writing articles about electronics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Leave messages at the project talk pageElectronicsWikipedia:WikiProject ElectronicsTemplate:WikiProject Electronicselectronic articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Needs to be merged:

A CD recorder is a computer peripheral that writes data to a CD disk. There are two main types -- CD-R and CD-RW. CD-R is CD-Recordable. CD-RW is CD-Rewritable.

CD recorders are also known as CD burners. To record a CD is often called burning a CD.

-How come the normal CDs with things already written on them are all smooth on the "burned surface", when CD-Rs have a sharp mark of where the writing has ended?(Henningklevjer 17:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

normal CDs are reflective all over, they just reflect to a slightly different place depending on if a site is pit or non-pit so to the human eye under normal lighting they look even. CD-Rs use a reflective layer into which dark marks are burnt and while the individual marks are still too small to see thier effect on the average color is noticeable. Plugwash 02:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-I thought the 650MB CD-R stored 650MiB, not 650000000B: 333000sectors * 2048bytes/sector / 1024 / 1024 = 650.390625. see http://www.cdrfaq.org/faq07.html#S7-6.

-Yeah, me too. CD-Rs seem to be measured in MiB (though they say MB as just about nobody uses the term MiB, while DVD-Rs seem to be measured in GB (not GiB).

- Yep. The reason why it says MB on Dan100's CDs is because the MiB terminology has not been adopted anywhere in the industry, thus the "(though MB is printed on CDs as the binary prefixes haven't caught on in the industry)" I added to the article. (odd that you would change it back to MB but not change that).

So, I suppose it would be possible to refer to it as a 650MB CD (though confusing, and we want to eliminate as much of that as possible in an encyclopedia, right?), but the way it was before I edited it "650MB (not MiB)" was flat out wrong. Psxer 08:08, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wuh? CDs, like any other storage media, are measured in megabytes. As said, these 'MiBs' have "not caught on in the industry", and they certainly haven't outside it, either. Dan100 19:02, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

I mean, I kinda see where you're coming from, but the bottom line is that MB is the accepted and universally-used terminology, for all its faults. Dan100 19:22, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

Oh and it's madness to use "650.390625", as that rounds to 650. You would no more say "650.390625" rather than "650" than, when asked by a collegue how far you travel in to work each day, you would say "19.74673 km" instead of "20 km". Dan100 19:26, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

Please read A Plea For Sanity before complaining about the use of MiB. Metamatic 19:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, this essay has been moved to A plea for Sanity, the link above will not work. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working in computers since 1980 at the industry level. Kilobytes are KB, Megabytes are MB, Gigabytes are GB, Terabytes are TB, etc. I've never been in any computer firm, be it a game developer, IBM, Apple, a movie company, or a technology company, that uses "MiB" or anything that kooky. In fact, my computer science professors will, in the classes I've taken, outright mark the paper a failure if anything but MB is used. Also, Kilobit, Megabit, Gigabit, etc. are as such- Kb Mb Gb, etc. The only place this "MiB" junk is used in in Wikipedia. Coffee5binky (talk) 16:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that when I read 700 MB I don't know if Wikipedia means 734003200 or 700000000 bytes. I have to go to other websites to find out this basic information.--RaptorHunter (talk) 14:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Easily resolved. Wikipedia discourages the use of Gibibytes, Mebibytes etc. (See WP:MOSNUM)

<Quote>Despite the IEC's 1998 guideline creating several new binary prefixes (e.g., mebi-, kibi-) to distinguish the meaning of the decimal SI prefixes (e.g., mega- and kilo-, meaning 2²⁰ and 2¹⁰ respectively) from the binary ones, consensus on Wikipedia currently favours the retention of the binary prefixes in computing-related contexts. Use 256 MB of RAM, not 256 MiB of RAM.</Quote>

109.145.22.224 (talk) 15:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

it isn't burning pits into the dye; it's changing the color of the dye to make it less reflective, right? - Omegatron 05:30, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

The dye isn't reflective... the reflective layer (usually silver or a silver alloy) is. You don't burn pits in a CD-R, you burn dark spots in the dye layer. These dark spots absorb the light from the laser in the CD player's pickup more than the unexposed areas of dye, and so the reflected light and the resulting signal goes down whenever the read laser encounters a burned mark. The effect on the returning laser signal is similar to what happens on a replicated CD... similar, but different.

A replicated CD has a track of pits that are molded into the disc. These pits are molded in clear plastic, and they are coated with a reflective layer of aluminum. Although aluminum has lower reflectivity than silver, there is no dye layer on a replicated CD, so very little laser light is absorbed. When the focused laser spot of the CD player's pickup encounters a pit the light is diffracted, and the reflected light is greatly reduced (and the resulting signal voltage goes down).

So, while CD-Rs have burned marks that absorb the light and CDs have pits that diffract the light, the effect is that recorded CD-Rs emulate replicated CDs, which is what they were designed to do.

Actually, a replicated CD has pits molded into it, but it is read from the underside through the 1.2 mm thick polycarbonate disc, so the laser is actually focused on a track of bumps. But the diffraction is the same. Now, some people will tell you that the optical effect is the phase cancellation of the light being reflected from the bottom of the pit (top of the bump), versus the light that is reflected from the land areas around the pit (since the read laser spot is twice as wide as the pits are), but at these geometries the physics can be understood as pure diffraction. Keep in mind that the pit geometries are a fraction of the laser wavelength. Tvaughan1 21:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compatibility of CD-R and conventional read-only discs, CD and CD-ROM, is a miraculous achievement which was made possible by the dye materials developed by Taiyo Yuden.

I like Taiyo Yuden, too, but I don't think we should ascribe divine powers to them. Perhaps it was merely a wondrous achievement? Stunning, maybe? Gob-stopping? --68.41.122.213 11:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

http://tech.msn.com/howto/article.aspx?cp-documentid=23697

From the above article: The problem is material degradation. Optical discs commonly used for burning, such as CD-R and CD-RW, have a recording surface consisting of a layer of dye that can be modified by heat to store data. The degradation process can result in the data "shifting" on the surface and thus becoming unreadable to the laser beam. "Many of the cheap burnable CDs available at discount stores have a life span of around two years," Gerecke says. "Some of the better-quality discs offer a longer life span, of a maximum of five years." Distinguishing high-quality burnable CDs from low-quality discs is difficult, he says, because few vendors use life span as a selling point.

From the Wiki page: Burned CD-Rs suffer from material degradation, just like most writeable media. Optical discs commonly used for burning, such CD-R and CD-RW have a recording surface consisting of a layer of dye that can be modified by heat to store data. The degradation process can result in the data "shifting" on the surface and thus becoming unreadable to the laser beam. Many of the cheap burnable CDs available at discount stores have a life span of around two years. Some of the higher quality discs offer a longer life span, of a maximum of five years. Distinguishing high-quality burnable CDs from low-quality discs is difficult, because few vendors use life span as a selling point. 65.118.253.68 18:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possible? That's outright plagiarism. Plus, that is an opinion. Listen to the most recent This Week In Tech podcast (#39), where they discuss how some CDs from 1988 still work perfectly. --worthawholebean _talk^contribs 01:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the quality of CDr is in the top 10 percent you should expect the cd to last ONE HUNDRED years without degradation. Anyone who says the max lifespan is 5 years is talking out their ass. Most of the CDrs I burnt in the 90s still work. However saying the lowest quality ones may only last 2 years or less sounds possible. Avoid bottom of the barrel blank cds. For example getting cdrs at a dollar store may be a mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.67.123.123 (talk) 02:29, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

calling something a miraculous achievement is certainly POV - a miracle is about as pov as you can get. 65.35.93.97 15:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I looked in the thesaurus briefly, but I thought it would be best just to drop the adjective and rewrite the sentence. Rhobite 02:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does anybody know anything about CD+R? There's no article about it.Rt66lt 01:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't exist, which is why there is no article about it.

No, actually, it does exist. My DVD player supports it, even DVD+RW, but I don't know anything about it. 66.218.46.140 00:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)ninetigerr[reply]

There's DVD+R but CD+R as far as I know. It might be typo or misunderstanding. Manuals and descriptions on wrappings always contain some mistakes. There's "CD plus" which refers to CDs with a data track and one or more audio tracks. I believe it's the same as "CD extra" but there might be some differences. --82.141.58.211 18:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as CD+R... only CD-R. There is a "CD Plus", which is a multi-session CD with CD-Audio tracks in the first session and a CD-ROM track in the second session. Tvaughan1 21:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've used simple liquid disk washing detergent for 10 yrs. Cleans off sticky stuff, oils, and dirt. I always pat dry with a clean soft cloth.

. . . regarding "use a circular motion to remove all the toothpaste"; why circular when the previous instructions were to move in a radial direction ? - Sue 08:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Just a question..... how do you put files onto a cd-r? I tried and all it said was, it is not compatible, it is not formatted..... How.....

Using a CD-Recorder (a drive in your computer) in combination with a burning program such as Nero Burning Rom??? 62.238.92.181 14:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can't normally write files to a CD through the filesystem mechanism (the exception is if you use something like directCD or inCD but those tended to be a bit slow and buggy and seem to have fallen out of favour)

In winxp explorer will let you drop files onto a CD but they aren't actually written until you press a burn button and the options are very limited. For more control or to use the burner on an earlier version of windows requires third party software (easy CD creater, nero burning rom etc). Plugwash 15:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"They use Eight-to-Fourteen Modulation, CIRC error correction plus the third error correction layer defined for CD-ROM. The first CD-Rs were produced in 1988"

CIRC linked to a disambiguation-page, so I changed the target page to the appropriate one, namely http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-Interleaved_Reed-Solomon_Coding. 62.238.92.181 14:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deep scratches on the data side can interfere with the focus of the laser and render a disc unreadable.

is the above method of cleaning likely to damage a CD? it certainly seems effective at getting the grime off them. Plugwash 11:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not likely to damage a CD as long as your t-shirt is clean (no dirt particles that could scratch the disc). Tvaughan1 21:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

non-standard CD-Rs are available with capacities of 79 minutes, 59 seconds and 74 frames (marketed as 80 minuites) /736,966,656 bytes (702 MiB), which they achieve by slightly exceeding the tolerances specified in the Orange Book CD-R/CD-RW standards.

My understanding was that most 80 minute CD-Rs in fact fully complied with the standard. The standard specified large tolerances due to the manufacturing tech at the time but as this improved, it became possible to make 80 minutes CD-Rs which fully complied with the standard but were obviously at the upper end of the tolerances. Perhaps what I've heard is wrong and tolerances and manufacturing tech doesn't actually allow 80 minutes CD-Rs to be produced which fully comply or they're mostly not fully compliant but if there is some truth to this story, e.g. tolerances and tech allow up to 78 minute fully complaint CDRs, we should make it clear this idea clear, that the tolerances were rather loose and better manufacturing tech allowed CD-Rs to be produced which only marginally broke the tolerances... Nil Einne 11:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nil is correct... 80 minute CD-Rs can be manufactured when all relevant parameters are at the edge of the specification (program start radius, program end radius, track pitch and linear velocity). If the accuracy of the LaserBeam Recorder (LBR) that cuts the glass master is good, pushing a CD-R to the edge of the specification isn't a problem at all. DVDs use a track pitch that is half of CD. The theoretical maximum capacity of a CD-ROM or CD-R is about 79 minutes and 58 seconds, or 702 MB (I hate MiB... please don't subject us to it... a Megabyte is 2^20 bytes). Tvaughan1 22:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I remember one player that would not play 80 minuite CDRs but would play 74 min ones fine, it was years ago though (when burners were arround the £100 mark) and the player was a pretty old one even then (I don't know the exact make or model, it didn't belong to me). Plugwash (talk) 02:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The part of this article containing facts about how to keep them clean doesn't sound right. Try to remove the second person (you).

I have cleaned it up somewhat, removing 1st and 2nd person and some of the randomly sprinkled apostrophes and corrected some spellings. The whole section seems a bit technically dubious to me - is there any real proof that higher speeds are consistently unreliable on all burners, and mulitasking is dangerous no matter how fast the PC? Still, not being an expert in these matters, I will leave it as is. 82.7.104.138

The lede ends with this: "The CD-R retains all the abilities of the CD standard but adds the functionality of being able to store either music or data." I have plenty of regular CDs that contain music and data. Isn't the real distinguishing characteristic of CD-Rs that music and data can be recorded onto them? --Rob Kennedy 07:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's nonsense. The physical variant of a CD has nothing to do with what can be stored on it. Pressed CDs containing music and data are/were just rather uncommon. Some audio CD players would try to play the data track which can damage the speakers and it sounds awful anyway. Game CDs often contain audio CD tracks especially older consoles used this. --82.141.58.211 18:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that my question is nonsense, or that the sentence I’m asking about is nonsense and should be removed or reworded? --Rob Kennedy 01:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are both correct, depending on how you read the above statement. CD-R is a physical format. For the most part, the physical format is independent of the application format (CD-Audio, CD-ROM, CD-Interactive, etc.). I think the original author of the above sentence meant for the focus to be on the words "adds the ability to store", rather than on the words "either music or data". Perhaps if we substituted the word "record" for "store" and the word "content" for "either music or data", the phrase would be more accurate. Or perhaps we could simply say something like "The CD-R is designed to behave identically to a standard CD-Audio or CD-ROM which is mass replicated. However, the CD-R can be recorded by anyone with a CD-R recorder and a blank CD-R disc." Tvaughan1 22:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone add a section describing 'audio CD-R'? In the UK at least, most consumer audio cd writers are restricted to this type of disc so that a levy can be paid to the music publishers. Many users are confused about this.--137.205.146.206 09:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC) roger thorpe[reply]

What in the world are you talking about? You're the first person I've ever read to bring this up.Coffee5binky (talk) 16:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is true. Those audio CDs were charged at a premium and were only valid in CD recorders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.103.91 (talk) 17:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to a Maxell press release from 2002, burning CDs at or faster than 52X carries with it some risk.

“

Maxell engineers determined that the minimal speed advantage offered by 52X drives is outweighed by the performance and safety issues of operating CD-R media in excess of 10,000 rpm. Research has shown that naturally occurring minute defects or cracks in the CD-R hub area can quickly expand when exposed to the physical stresses of 52X operations. These small, virtually undetectable defects can easily cause discs to break apart at 52X speed, destroying not only critical data stored on the CD-R media, but potentially damaging or destroying the CD drive.

”

If this is correct, maybe it should be incorporated into this article, somehow? Looking at Maxell's webpage, I see that the fastest CD-Rs they produce are still 48X ones... TerraFrost 17:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in article about any countries taxing CD-R as a way to combat music piracy. Germany, France, Italy, The Netherlands and Spain all have CD-R taxes and Canada is considering it. Jon513 14:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to [1], Canada has been taxing CD-Rs as early as 2002 TerraFrost 16:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know about the others, but both Germany and the Netherlands impose a levy on audio recordable media that is used to pay the recording artists. Once you have bought such media, you are entitled to record on it anything you like. Although Audio-CD-Rs have such a levy (and are coded as such) ordinary CD-Rs do not and are consequently cheaper. Audio CD recorders will only record to specific Audio-CD-Rs, but computer drives will record audio to pretty well anything, and if Audio CD-Rs are not used for audio, then piracy is the name of the game. I believe video media is treated the same way, but I have not seen specific 'Video DVD-Rs' only the regular kind, but it may be that the levy is imposed on a blanket basis. 109.145.22.224 (talk) 15:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"most markers can bleed-through the CD/DVD and destroy your data"

The article on disk care linked in this section contains related product advertisement ("Maxell Disc Writer Pen"). I am not sure if it would be considered indirect advertising. 124.168.184.54 10:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote the paragraph on the writing process. Got rid of the repetition of the the term "burn"; removed phrase calling the dye layer "magnetic". I intentionally left it vague as to whether heating the dye causes a lowering or a raising of the reflectivity. Does anyone know for certain which it is? Spiel496 04:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that you can only put 80 minutes worth of music on a CD when the full capacity is 700mb? Seems like a waste. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.48.32.149 (talk) 01:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Obviously because 700 MB equate to 80 minutes of CD-quality music. EpiVictor 15:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oh rly? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.70.109.90 (talk) 09:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Ya rly. CD-audio is measured as time, not filesize. CDs can fit 80 minutes OR 700MB. To burn a collection of MP3s to a CD you can play in a CD player requires software that converts MP3 audio into CDA audio format - thereby limiting you to only 80 minutes.

Of course, if you were to burn an MP3-CD (which can be played on PCs as well as newer in-car CD players) then you're limited by file-size, meaning you can fit hundreds of tracks onto one CD. Thepineapplehead 10:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(sorry if I'm necroing a conversation from 2007) Some of you may have noticed that wav files are 10mb per minute, making 80 minutes equal to 800mb (not 700). In fact CDDA (cd digital audio) is the same. 700mb discs are actually 800mb discs, but if you write data to them instead of CD audio it eats up an extra 100mb for an extra layer of error protection. "80 minutes/700mb" actually means "800mb if burning an audio cd / 700mb if burning a data cd". You can see why they didn't want to burden the consumer with this confusion on the packaging. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.67.123.123 (talk) 02:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In all the incredible techy detail here, everyone's rather overlooked the retail history of the CD-R format. All I can tell from this article is that the spec was published in 1988. Please someone expand the History section before adding even more geeky stuff. (And I say that as someone really interested in the geeky stuff!) 86.143.52.241 02:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I personally remember recordable CDs of some form (though perhaps not 100% "Orange Book" compliant implementations)to be available to the general public since 1991, at least. The downside was that the recorders were usually external, bulky units with parallel or SCSI or custom interfaces, and their usability was nowhere near close to that offered by modern CD-burning tools: they were meant mostly for traditional data backup, and even the file systems or pit/land encoding methods could differ greatly between manufacturers, rendering these "CD-R" largely incompatible with each other. The mainstream and affordable CD-R with ISO-standard file systems and without weird recording quirks became widely available only after 1994 or so. EpiVictor 21:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1989's License to Kill James Bond movies has Felix using a LaserDisc recorder that also records to CD-Rs, which he hides behind a picture. For consumers, 1987 is a fair estimate, if you wanted to pay like $25,000 (guessing) for the drive and (guessing again) $250 a disc. Despite when if may come onto the market, CD writers may have come about around 1995 or so at prices people were willing to pay. (Again, guessing, but all my old PC World issues don't mention CD writers until 1995.) Coffee5binky (talk) 16:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that a cinematic entertainment is an adequate citation. The main problem here is that: if a LaserDisc recorder existed (which it didn't), it was a totally different technology to CD (i.e. the former is analogue, the latter is digital - for starters!). 109.145.22.224 (talk) 15:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add this information to the article, but I'm not sure how to do it. I will leave it up to someone more experienced than I. The following comes from Janis Ian, a former singer from the era of the 60s and 70s:

"Several years ago the music industry reached an agreement with CD manufacturers to receive a royalty on blank, recordable CDs to compensate for the effects of copying music. The recording industry is receiving a royalty for the "Audio" CD so that it can be used for copying music, taking that money, and then turning around and complaining that the CD is being used to make "unauthorized" copies. Now what is up with that? - http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.html and http://www.janisian.com/articles-perfsong/Fallout%20-%20rev%2011-23-05.pdf - Theaveng 17:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the old story of the CD Audio "for consumer" disks. Read the CDR FAQ for more info on that. Considering how this was as stopgap measure that only seriously affects stand-alone audio CD recorders (not computer CD burners), it's hardly a case of the industry making much money out of illegally copied music. Quite the opposite, a standalone CD Audio recorder is actually the less likely tool for a true music pirate to operate. Surely those "CD Audio" recordables aren't the first choice for music pirates either, due to cost. Pirates just buy the cheapest general purpose CD-R and are perfectly happy with those, the royalty system is hardly paying itself. EpiVictor 21:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Burn speed can also affect the compatibility due to poorer pit definition on disks burnt at high speed, selecting the slowest supported speed for the burner/media combination is strongly recommended when burning audio CDs, to maximize compatibility."

Is this accurate? Does burn speed really affect readability of the data on CD-R's? Or does it affect audio only? --LKRaider 18:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Audio on a CDR is data--there's no difference in pits or burns. I have seen no scientific evidence but the way I heard is that there's a limit to how much more definition you can get by slowing down your burn speed. Different burners respond differently to burn speed; choosing a middlin' speed is where a bunch of them should be set. Like 16x or 8x, not 2x or 1x. There's got to be a list of study results out there somewhere... Binksternet 20:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a popular half-truth being propagated due to the fact that a lot of CD-R users are casual pirates and as a result they tend to be cheap and buy low-quality hardware and/or low-quality media to make copies. When you have a cheap burner, it's not surprising that it may make marginal copies that, even fresh, are on the verge of degradation and the media isn't given a reasonable chance to maintain it. Cheap media on the other hand is probably halfway rotted before you even make the burn, so it's only a short matter of time before it degrades completely. And if you're using cheap stuff on both fronts, then I wouldn't expect copies to work well or last long at all. This is not to say, however, that such superstition needs to be taken into account for every burner and every brand of media. If you have a good quality burner and use decent media (the 40 cents per disc range is fine, no need for fancy stuff unless you are using it for commercial production) you will rarely see this kind of problem. On the other hand, if you have a no-name burner and/or use the super cheap unbranded 20-cent discs I would most certainly take some precautions to ensure a working copy with a reasonable shelf life. I have yet to read an actual report that statistically studies the longevity of CD-Rs produced under different burn conditions and using different hardware/media, but I suspect that it is the quality of the hardware/media that is at issue, rather than the speed of the technology. Basically, whenever there is a large differential in price for items that claim the same performance, people need to stop assuming that everything is going to work the same way. Nobody makes this assumption for a car, why do they do it for computer parts...? Ham Pastrami 08:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, while the data levels are "digital", the timing can be considered analogue. The higher the speed, the larger the jitter. Some CD players can reclock the signal, some apparently don't. Without a fully reclocked data sream, jitter may get through to the DAC and beyond, where it will be audible. This was a quality issue in Audio CD production when the mastering machines in the factories were sped to 2x speed. It was a Pink Floyd CD where an unexpected drop in quality was first found, and it was finally tracked down to the speed increase at the manufacturing of the master discs. The problem was addressed by Sony, and, as an employee of a CD fab told me, solved by improving the mastering machines to yield perfect results at the higher speeds. --80.134.6.41 (talk) 09:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't burn audio CDs much anymore but my experiance in the past has been that high speed burnt CDs would read fine in modern drives but audio players and OLD (think < 20x) cd rom drives wouldn't read them. I have experianced this with a variety of burners and media brands.

Recording quality is more of a concern on audio than data recordings both because they may be played in old audio players and because audio CD has less error correction that data CD. Plugwash (talk) 02:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine that the article will be better served by references to studies and statistical data than by musings about personal experiences. Binksternet (talk) 05:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Using video game piracy as a way to determine this, but a PlayStation or Sega CD is recommended (by me, damnit) to be burned at the lowest possible speed the disc and drive can agree on. However, he's the kicker, if a person takes, say, a CD-R from 1996 and burns it at the highest possible speed, ignoring the disc type, then yes, errors shall occur. It depends on the formulation used on the disc. For instance, if I burn a Pionner RDD-60A disc at anything above 2x, it's blown. If I use a modern CD-R, say a cheapo $2 for fie discs one at Walgreens, I can burn it up to 36x without a errors. Does this help any? Coffee5binky (talk) 16:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, burn speed does affect the quality of the recording in some situations. Although there should be no differences in the burning process, I've observed the quite common gradual increase of ECC errors towards the end of the CD-R in CAV-recorded media. Probably the laser power becomes insufficient to burn the dye so effectively at that speed? So, the safer bet would be to decrease recording speed; however, that what many people do, burning at lowest possible speeds, might also be problematic - modern high speed drives have lasers so powerful that even when set at a low power, they also have the beam too strong. Combined with the fact that modern high-speed CD-s have much more light-sensitive dye then older media, that means that often the laser burns not just the bit it aims for, but a larger area, setting the neighbour bits to a likely wrong state. Ok, the OPC calibration should take care of the proper laser strength for each media and every speed, but it still remains the fact that it might be physically impossible to set it properly - there is an effective power range for the laser, if it is required to give more than full power (at high speed), or less than its possible lowest power (at low speed), then it might have errors as I described above. Perhaps the safest bet is to record at a medium speed, where OPC is practically guaranteed to set the optimal laser power? Also concerning audio-CD players, all modern (for at least the last 10-15 years) units not only do they own clocking, but also at least some data buffering (and do some heavy signal processing (noise shaping etc.) on the signal BTW). So I guess if you have a CD-player where you can hear the jitter, I guess it should get displayed in a museum and you should buy another one ;) Arny (talk) 09:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The numbers in the column "Write time for 80 minute/700 MB CD-R" appear to be simply 80 minutes divided by the speed. Is there evidence to support these numbers? It is my understanding that above about 16x the discs are spun at constant angular velocity, and that the read/write speeds then refer to the speed at the outer radii. In other words, 52x is achieved only at the outer edge of the disc; the inner radii will be written at the same RPM, which works out to about 20x. So you're not going to be able to write a whole disc in 80/52 minutes. Does anyone know for sure? Spiel496 (talk) 18:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, all CD-R wriers I know use Zone-LV beginning at 24x speed. So it's not possible to write 700MB in 1.5 minutes. The time span at which 24x speed recording takes place is much larger than the time span of 52x speed recording. --80.134.6.41 (talk) 09:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guys I saw a French news in Sydney, FRANCE 20HR of 03/03/2008 saying that CD only last as much as 10 years! The research was conducted and they concluded from the word of the researcher of Jacques Perdereau that it can only last as much as 5 (30% to 50% damage)!!!

Results seen: FRANCE 20HR of 03/03/2008

I cannot fully understand the research organization... But it is true!

I mean, it is quite shocking... Can we actually upload videos!?

Anyone target other proof will be helpful. If you would like to watch the original broadcast of the news in French, you are more then welcome to visit http://www.ina.fr/video/3571726001/20-heures-emission-du-3-mars-2008.fr.html But of course, it is in French. You may also find the dialogue in text format below the page as of 26 Jul 2010. (D. Lau (talk) 13:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I offer my own experiences, since I've been in computers since 1980 and using CDs and CD-Rs since the late 1980s. I have many discs over a decade to a decade and half old, and I have some really old CD-Rs from the late 1980s that I can still access data from. This "life of the disc" crap is the same stuff I heard about regular CDs in the 1980s, that the plastic would wear off after 8 years. Guess what? IT DOESN'T! So here's the deal: If you use cheapo discs with cheapo burners, expect problems. Some discs will develop bubbles on the burn surface because of cheapo techniques. If you use a good quality drive with good quality discs, then your data will last. That's all. Coffee5binky (talk) 16:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have nothing friendly to share, then it is best to remain quiet. Beside, I check the source, it was on the French News 20 H. News are news. They can be subjective...or misleading. Flowright138 (talk) 13:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My first CD-R drive in the mid-1990s used a CD caddy. Any idea what the purpose of this was? The article needs a mention of this if it was a mass market idea. -Rolypolyman (talk) 18:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The low importance of CD caddies might be answered in this article simply by adding a link to Caddy (hardware)#Optical media caddy. Binksternet (talk) 19:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the early 1980s, the idea behind CD caddies was to protect the disc and look similar to the then-new 3.5 inch floppy disc. However, the caddy drove cost up per disc, so the industry mostly ditched it. It's too bad, as these caddies would've save a good many people from re-buying CDs and now DVDs, and things like CD cleaning units and disc doctors wouldn't exist today. For me, paying a little extra more to preserve my information makes more sense, but this isn't the place to discuss that. Coffee5binky (talk) 16:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If anybody reverts my edit about the dark/light areas of a disc, they are wrong to do so. Every CD-R I have burned always have darkened data areas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shane91c (talk • contribs) 22:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, wrong or not, I rewrote the paragraph, removing claims about whether the writing darkens or lightens the disc. To me, the written area looks darker in specular reflection. But it also scatters more light, so it can appear brighter depending on the lighting. Spiel496 (talk) 15:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi People! I am having a lot of used CD-R/DVD-R. any ideal what should do to recycle the plastic to save the world? Thanks and Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelicalchin (talk • contribs) 18:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An additional form of security disposal is to skim the label side of the CD in a lathe. Grip lightly in the 3-jaw chuck and run at high speed. A sharp knife tool will skim the surface and reflecting layer off. The only downside is that the swarf is incredibly light and gets everywhere. I'm afraid this falls foul of WP:NOR unless someone can find a citation somewhere. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 18:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since CD-RW technology is mentioned in the section, it might be interesting to also describe the lifespan of RW-s, and that might be an interesting topic. If the RW alloy is less prone to oxidation then the regular reflective layer, and if it is less prone to degradation then dye (which as a metal it should be, there might be some danger of spontaneous recrystallization though), then as strange as it might sound, they might be a better solution for long time data storage, just as some other erasable optical drive types have been... Arny (talk) 09:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, both don't like direct sunlight, though the exact time I don't know. I suspect that recrystallization might occur with in warm (sunny) environments, maybe faster than dye fading from sunlight. In any case, lifetime is environment sensitive, so it is hard to give a time. Gah4 (talk) 07:49, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article says 1988, but Rainbow_Books#Orange_Book_(1990) says 1990 for the orange book. I suppose it depends on the exact meaning of release. Kodak PhotoCD came out, as well as I know, in 1990. Presumably much development was done before the official release. Gah4 (talk) 10:07, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]