[www.mfsl.info]
- in German

[www.mofi.com]
- in English

This is perhaps old news. But I have no experience with these cd-rs. I have however read very good reviews recently. In fact a hi-fi expert-friend of mine have copied some of his original cds to these mfsl-cd-rs and claims that the outcome is actually better than the originals.

The company claims the following : "Where as the average CD-R has a projected lifespan of only 20 years—if stored in ideal conditions, our accelerated aging tests predict that the 24KT Gold ULTRADISC CD-R will retain its specifications for more than 300 years. Meaning that, now, information can be accurately stored and retrieved longer than ever before".

Claiming that the discs can last for 300 years is a bit of a joke. At least they haven't got a proof of that. Yet.
But does anyone have any experience with thse discs ?
On the German page there are links to where you can buy these cd-rs. But are they also available at bigger stores like Saturn, Media Markt etc ?

I don't know, first of all, I don't expect to live for another 300 years, and if I do, the last thing on my mind would be my bootlegs.

This may sound a little macabre, but if an "average CD-R" has a lifespan of 20 years, a good one may have about 40. Now, the question is, will you even live another 40 years?

The trick is they tell you they'll last for 300 years 'cause who will be around to check?

I believe I'll live for another 40 years. Perhaps I'll post in 40 years time about how my CDr collection is going ??!!

Ok, the life of these discs may not be the most interesting thing. As I wrote it is a bit of a joke. Quality should however be very high. The latest review I have read - in Danish Hi-Fidelity monthly - the reviewer claims that he is overwhelmed by the sound when copying his original cds. He simply claims that the sound is improving in comparison with the originals. That is the interesting part, I think.

no nervous breakdowns,

I think this is a very interesting thread! Just recently there has been an article and test of the MSFL-CD-R's in the German HI-FI magazine STEREO. They claim the same as your friend found out: MSFL improves the sound of the original! How can that be one must ask. But they say that the gold layer on the CD-R "changes" the sound to a smoother more "analogue"-like sound. Would be interesting to hear the result.
But of course these improvements can only be achieved on top equipment.

And hey, I'd really like my grand-children to enjoy the Stones as well, so...

cheers,
donnywas

Is MFSL Mobile Fidelity? I'm perfectly happy with my MFSL vinyl collection, a splendid compliment to the Abkco CDs & later UK/Jap/US/Dutch pressings of the Post SF era. Never was thrilled with Mofi's work on some of their vinyl (including Sticky Fingers) or for that matter some gold cds which I suspect were not made from actual original masters. Sonically, & in terms of graphics I prefer DCC or Classic or even Sundazed, & the last charges regular prices ($12.98, 15.98 for Otis, Dylan, Mitch Ryder, Albert King etc on 180 gram vinyl)

donnywas Wrote:
> But of course these improvements can only be
> achieved on top equipment.

I would expect it to be the other way around. What the DAC gets back from the laser is either a '0' or a '1'. There is no "almost one" or "virtually zero". There is no rounding or approximation. '0' or '1'. That's it.

One hypothesis would be that the CD player used in the test somehow introduces more read errors on the original CD compared to whatever device was used to generate the image burned to the CD-R. Assuming a clean CD, the DAC is vital, the disc is hardly relevant.

Most pressed CDs btw should survive CD-R by quite a comfortable margin. Just don't get them scratched. The exception, IIRC, were some early 80s era CDs where one of the layers would eventually oxidize. Still safer to leave a pressed CD in the sun compared to any CD-R. There's certainly demand for more resilient CD-R media, but CD-R outliving pressed CDs would be a miracle IMO. After all, a CD-R will always be susceptible to strong light sources (how else can you burn anything to it?).

Summed up: How can the copy outshine the source unless it isn't a 1:1 copy and the errors are somehow agreeable?

I can't speak on an improvement in sound quality but,gold cdr's definitely are more durable & out last other cdr's.Gold is a very durable substance.Large corporations,hospitals, & the U.S. federal government are said to use the gold discs to archive important data (MAM-A,formerly Mitsui has a division in northern Virginia for federal sales).The 300 year figure is an estimate based on an advanced accelerated aging process but,even if it falls short,this is a better option than a disc that might last 30 years if you are very lucky.Many only last ten years and are more easily damaged.All you have to do is follow the simple precautions like use a case,don't touch the bottom and handle by the edge.Then,you don't have to worry about keeping track of which boots you need to re-copy every 15 years.

no nervous breakdowns wrote:
>>the reviewer claims that he is overwhelmed by the sound when copying his original cds. He simply claims that the sound is improving in comparison with the originals<<

donnywas wrote:
>>But they say that the gold layer on the CD-R "changes" the sound to a smoother more "analogue"-like sound.

this is pure BS
BikeDude explained it very well.
Durabillity - I dont know



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2006-05-15 02:49 by open-g.

As far as sound quality goes, a .wav rip off a cd is the exact digital image stored on the original disc. It is impossible to improve the sound of any cd you own. Just make sure you dont rip them to a low mp3 rate or any type of compressed audio.

I dont know what most people do but I keep every official cd stored away. I rip every disc to my computer in .wav so if I want to make myself discs I can just burn whatever I want onto them. CDRs wont last forever and get scratched easily. Just put everything on your computer and put all your original discs on a shelf. If you ever loose your data you can just rip them again. No scratches on the originals, they'll last forever.

-Drake

That's pretty much the same idea as what I do (I store all of my originals on a shelf).The only difference is that I back them up on gold cdrs instead of a computer.A computer can crash but,I have never had a gold (bottom) cdr get scratched.You would pretty much have to do it on purpose & based on all of the research out there,150 years is the low estimate on their life span.While you're making a cdr copy,you can push a few buttons and walk away & then it's done.That way,you don't have to spend extra time messing around on the computer.Both are good ideas,I just prefer to use the gold discs.Another point of concern is that in the business of collecting live concerts,many of your "originals" are going to be inferior cdrs that might only last a few years.What I do in that case is I make one copy on a gold cdr to put on the shelf & make another copy to listen to in the car or at the house or wherever.

VINYL!

Its the only way.

JR

Vinyl probably has the best sound but,bad durability.After listening to Goats Head Soup for years on cd,back in the late '90's I found the album on vinyl & was blown away by Winter - the "warmer" sound at its best.

I saw this on eBay, I read it and wanted it. But to shell out $100 for a 50 pack is a bit expensive. I'm not gonna lie to you, I am very interested in them.

ps Is there such thing as a SACD-R? or a DSD CD-R?

drake Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I rip every disc to my
> computer in .wav so if I want to make myself discs
> I can just burn whatever I want onto them.

How much storage do you have?

If external memory drives go bad 3-5% of the time (an estimate from a random systems person and somewhat confirmed by reading various reviews of these drives), then is it possible that CD-Rs are safer than computer storage?

> Just
> put everything on your computer and put all your
> original discs on a shelf.

Bit torrent actually has been useful for storage purposes. Though it is much more cumbersome than your method, downloading and storing discs in flac allows one to keep about 5 CDs worth of music on a DVD+R. DVD+Rs are more durable than CD-Rs, and I suspect more durable than many external memory drives, for which dust and on/off switches, not fingerprints, seem to be the enemy.

Still, I wish I had more faith in your method. It is much more convenient than dealing with the DVD+Rs (and makes preserving official discs easier). I _very_ much look forward to anyone convincing me that I am wasting my time . . .

I have TWO 250 gig external harddrives. Both contain mirror images of one another. So when I backup a cd I put it on both drives. If one of them ever begins to go bad I will simply replace the drive and copy over all the information from the working drive. Although it COULD happen, it is insanely unlikely that both drives would crash at the same time.

In my opinion its a pretty minimal investment to retain crystal clear pure wav without degredation of any kind. If I had just one backup drive I'd still use my method. This is INCREDIBLY reliable and on this same harddrive I backup every recording I produce at my studio. Unfortunately the only drawback is that I've recorded a hell of alot of music over the past 4 years so I will have to purchase another drive this summer...

If by any chance I do loose all of my data I can simply digitize my entire collection again from the shelf. Afterall I'm never actually touching the originals since I can conveniently burn whatever I want off my harddrive.

-Drake

Smokey Wrote:
------------------------------------------------------
DVD+Rs are more durable than CD-Rs


You can't just say that one is more durable than the other.It depends on which DVD+Rs you're talking about & which cdrs you're talking about.A gold cdr beats an average DVD+R.I'm sure of it.I just had a house guest scratch a recordable DVD with a purple recording surface(Boston 1/13/'06) beyond repair.I don't know if they make gold DVD+Rs but they do make gold DVD-R's.

TatteredTongue Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------


> ps Is there such thing as a SACD-R? or a DSD CD-R?

I believe that they were being developed at one point but,there was not enough demand for them - not enough people concerned with improved sound quality unfortunately - similar deal to SACDs themselves.

The best way is to keep the original vinyl recordings!