What CD-R tech and manufacturer is best?

[diuco17]

Hello there!
I've been looking for some CD-R media lately but the market is pretty confusing. Lots of makers and different dyes.

Let's start with the dyes...
From what I've read online, faster discs (52x, Super Azo...) use thinner data layers which is not as resilient, however there's really not much choice nowadays in that regard... Also it is apparently not convenient to burn such "high speed media" at very low speed (with the intention of a more accurate burn, perhaps 8x or lower in my 24x burner) because the data layer might "boil" (if i remember correctly). This part is also confusing since the speed limit at which a blank CD is rated to burn is set so to prevent the disc from overheating.
There are several types of layers: cyanine, MCC AZO and pthalocyanine.
Does the laser create pits (grooves) on all three kinds, or do they darken in order to store the data?
Also, I've seen so much confusion about which one is more durable... (assuming similar quality standards, for instance CMC PRO vs Verbatim AZO) Though cyanine is generally assumed to be worse, between the other two, which one is more durable? I'm interested in Lordsmurf's opinion if possible.

I'm pretty sure though the best reflective layer is silver, since it is more stable than aluminum, but more reflective and compatible than gold CD's. There are however some discs (old kodak, verbatim Ultralife) that use a gold+silver alloy which claim to maintain good compatibility but with higher endurance than silver... Also waterproof CD's could be better on this regard?

Manufacturers like TY are now CMC. Some manufacturers like Optodisc have discs that appear as TY in CDRidentifyer, which is interesting.
Philips, Sony, TDK, Maxell, HP, Imation ... everything seems to be rebranding since long ago, so we are left with CMC or Ritek media. Between these the go-to is CMC, being their premium lines AZO (regular, datalife, datalifeplus) or CMC PRO (old TY)...
Am I correct in considering these as the best options right now? Having them, is it worth considering any (potentially superior) old stock media?

I'm new here, so (even though I've searched for similar questions on this forum and didn't find them) maybe this has already been answered. (sorry if so) I'm also not aware if Lordsmurf has already published his studies and conclusions (based on his extensive experience) on what CD-R are best and their reliability, which could help... If that's the case please provide me a link as I haven't yet found it out.
Thanks for your answers and I hope you can clarify my doubts.

[lordsmurf]

Quote:

Originally Posted by diuco17

From what I've read online, faster discs (52x, Super Azo...) use thinner data layers which is not as resilient,

Whatever you read is total BS, pure horse hockey. CD-R and DVD-R has a lot of myth, and the idea that speed makes for a "thinner disc" is nonsense. Discs and disc parts have very exacting thicknesses, and cannot vary. If variations do happen, the disc will be faulty.

Quote:

Also it is apparently not convenient to burn such "high speed media" at very low speed (with the intention of a more accurate burn, perhaps 8x or lower in my 24x burner) because the data layer might "boil" (if i remember correctly). This part is also confusing since the speed limit at which a blank CD is rated to burn is set so to prevent the disc from overheating.

It's confusing because it's technobabble. Speed is about rotational stabilization of the disc, the balance, at that speed. Too high a speed would result in mis-burned areas. That lowers readability. (And not reflectivity as Wikipedia states, and refers to an artcicle that was incorrect. Reflectivity is a different aspect entirely.)

Something to understand here is rotational velocity. Discs write slower to the inside track that the outside track. This is why a 52x burn is only nominally faster than a 32x burn. The inner half is still vastly slower, somewhere in 4x-16x range, even when outer max speed is increased. As discs spin faster, the more it wobbles (but not technical "wobble"). The laser sprays outside the track, and it becomes a bad burn. Slowing a CD-R burn down to 24x is more ideal.

The disc "rating" is really immaterial, as the burner drive equally controls the burn speed success.

Quote:

There are several types of layers: cyanine, MCC AZO and pthalocyanine.
Does the laser create pits (grooves) on all three kinds, or do they darken in order to store the data?

Lasers recreate what a pit would look like. It does not make actual pits, which is something pressed into the foil of a pressed disc.

Quote:

Also, I've seen so much confusion about which one is more durable...

Azoic dyes are generally best, specifically from Verbatim and Taiyo Yuden. Yes, neither manufacturer exists anymore, but the dye formulations are still used by owners/licensees CMC and Ritek.

Quote:

Though cyanine is generally assumed to be worse, between the other two, which one is more durable? I'm interested in Lordsmurf's opinion if possible.

CD-R are barely used anymore, and now literally collect dust in stores where stocked. As of 2021, I've quit testing CD-R, as everything was testing about the same, and had for most of the 2010s. (Not DVD-R/+R, not BD-R, just CD-R.)

Cyanine stabilized was actually "fine" (variable, fine to bad), it's the phthalocyanine that is generally craptastic ... and that's what all CD-R essentially are now, and how been for many years. TY used good cyanine, MCC/Verbatim used azoic, and everything else is phthalo. Phthalocyanine discs are all silvery blue/green, whereas cyanine and azo are rich blue/purple colors (green is usually bad). Many years ago, some manufacturers would tint their discs with color pigment in foil, plastic, or even the dyes, to hide their inferior phthalocyanine. So it can be hard to hudge by color alone.

Quote:

I'm pretty sure though the best reflective layer is silver, since it is more stable than aluminum, but more reflective and compatible than gold CD's.

Aluminum was never used (that's Laserdisc), it's almost all silver alloys, with the except of some overpriced gold junk from Mitsui. Gold is less reflective at the wavelengths of optical media, not more. Gold makes for pretty jewelry, but crappy CDs/DVDs/BDs.

Quote:

There are however some discs (old kodak, verbatim Ultralife) that use a gold+silver alloy which claim to maintain good compatibility but with higher endurance than silver... Also waterproof CD's could be better on this regard?

Sometimes stuff is sold simply because people are dumb enough to buy it. Those silver-bottom gold-top discs are a perfect example of it. Silver alloy on bottom, because that's what the disc needs to be quality. Gold alloy on top, because the buyer was a gullible idiot that insisted on having gold discs. They'd get that warm-and-fuzzy feeling from buying what they wanted ("I struck gold, yee haw!"). Most people would have done better to buy good regular CD-R, and a bottle of schnapps to feel warm and fuzzy.

If Verbatim didn't do make those, then they'd have given up business to Mitsui/MAM-A (which is what Kodak rebadged). Those gold Mitsui discs wer eawful, and that company eventually bankrupted -- twice -- and good riddance. Verbatim played their game, and won it.

People/companies (all small vendors) still try to sell gold CD-R for stupid high prices, still touting the myth/BS that Mitsui/MAM-A was some sort of pinnacle of disc manufacturing. That myth was all marketing frim Mitsui, zero truth to it. And yet, unsurprisingly, parroted online by the low-knowledge users of the era.

Quote:

Manufacturers like TY are now CMC. Some manufacturers like Optodisc have discs that appear as TY in CDRidentifyer, which is interesting.
Philips, Sony, TDK, Maxell, HP, Imation ... everything seems to be rebranding since long ago, so we are left with CMC or Ritek media. Between these the go-to is CMC, being their premium lines AZO (regular, datalife, datalifeplus) or CMC PRO (old TY)...
Am I correct in considering these as the best options right now? Having them, is it worth considering any (potentially superior) old stock media?

Almost all media is now made by CMC (largest) and Ritek (next largest). I don't think OptoDisc is actually making anything anymore either, it was having troubles in '19-20 from what I was told by industry insiders, and their site ceased to output new info in '21. I know ProDisc was heavily being clearances in '19 at some outlets, because I bought some from at least 2-3 places.

Most "brands" just rebadge whatever is available. Even the MIDs are misleading now, as companies like CMC can use multiples. What is true is that CMC and Ritek both have multiple lines, the low-end, mid, and high-end. High is still TY and MCC -- even if some conspiracists online insist otherwise (they are 100% false).

You have two risks with optical media now:
- old discs past their "use by" date
- new discs that are lousy compared to the older discs

Neither is a good options, but it is what it is. Anything old needs to be known where stored, to know if still viable.

Quote:

I'm new here, so (even though I've searched for similar questions on this forum and didn't find them) maybe this has already been answered. (sorry if so) I'm also not aware if Lordsmurf has already published his studies and conclusions (based on his extensive experience) on what CD-R are best and their reliability, which could help... If that's the case please provide me a link as I haven't yet found it out.
Thanks for your answers and I hope you can clarify my doubts.

Given the state of the optical ecosystem, I probably should produce one final article series, from start to finish. Because it is finished. CMC is still pure optical, and although bigger, it will probably fail eventually. Ritek has dived into NAND usage, other products.

Wikipedia tries to maintain a list of manufacturers, but it's essentially outright wrong, with non-manufacturers listed (media resellers, equipment suppliers like Anwell), outdated info, etc. Ignore it.

[diuco17]

Thanks for your reply, detailed and providing what I was looking for!
However some new doubts have emerged. I will organize with numbers if you don't mind.

#1:
Firstly, speed. It makes sense that if a laser is more powerful it should keep up with the disc's velocity, making the same work per pitch at any given speed. Therefore if stability wasn't a problem (which unfortunately is not the case) any CD could be burned at speeds faster than rated in the appropriate burner (with the power and precision needed). So the change in rated speed has nothing to do with the dye itself. Then...
1.1
Was "Super Azo" just marketing? Did they really need to change anything with the regular azo die for the increase in speed or was it done for marketing?
1.2
Making an analogy in my mind with an oven... I've got the option to cook the product fast or slow. If I cook it too fast, only the outside will be cooked. If I cook it too slow, the desired temperature for a correct result can't be reached because it would burn the food. Perhaps the whole depth of the older dyes won't be burned completely (like if i cook too fast) and that's where that "thin layer" stuff comes from? Also denser layers (like mdisc) may therefore burn slow?
Though the CD format is standarized as you said, there are some tollerances which for instance allow cd burners to record dualdiscs, m-disc reading... As long as the layer is able to be correctly recorded, there is no reason in my mind why there could't be depth or density variations, which would matter as in the case of the oven, because more depth requires more time. Also different dyes behave differently but that is something the drive's firmware probably takes care of.
I do realize these may be very stupid claims, but it makes sense in my mind. Sorry for asking such unusual questions...

#2:
Getting into the different dyes... (again...)
2.1
I thought TY made pthalo discs... If they made the cyanine ones (and knowing that cyanine was the first dye to be introduced), why did mitsui bankrupt themselves developing an inferior pthalocyanine dye for their claimed superior discs? What sense does that make?
Furthermore, if TY's dye was superior, why didn't they market it to sell more? I mean... how could mitsui even compete with a reputed brand like TY whilst making an inferior product for a higher price, how did they think they could... and how is it possible some people believe to this day pthalocyanine is better?
2.2
I already know what you think of the gold discs, but let's debate it if you wish, so I can understand you better. While marketing certainly played a big role (as always), it also could have been the same with any disc if they were on pair. I do understand that given the same propaganda for both a golden and a silver disc: "the discs last X years", people would still have a preference towards gold... and so more money could be made entering that niche than applying the same marketing to regular cd-s.
That perfectly explains why so many brands made these to compete with mitsui, and having those discs as the top of the line, didn't want to give the same marketing to their other "inferior" regular discs. It wouldln't make sense if you incentivated people to buy a better product for less money, when they are capable of giving you more profit if they fall for the gold one.
BUT... what about those brands that didn't compete in this niche? This was long ago, so there still were (relatively) independent brands in the industry. If these brands did not have a gold disc to market, why didn't they market their (superior) silver discs as lasting 100+ years to make some sales?
If they didn't it means either they didn't want to (which I don't understand) or they couldn't (perhaps investors, but still suspicious)... TY for instance made very few gold discs and was a much bigger company, so why didn't they, having such a reputation, want to compete with mitsui but with silver discs?
2.3
I have to say I've got zero experience with this media, so I obviously respect your opinion... but it can't be said that a certain disc is inferior just because of write errors. These claims on golden discs and m-disc dvd are often true, but it is due to the fact that these media are harder for the laser to properly burn. That's why not every burner is certified or able to detect and burn mdisc. However in the case of mdisc, once you do manage to get your data in it, there is no data rot, because there is no reflective layer and the dye is inorganic. Yes, the polycarbonate can deteriorate... but that is the last part to fail on any disc unless you are an I**ot and physically scratch or damage your archival media.
This also reminds me on server HDD's and how helium has conquered that market. Those helium drives have a super hight MTBF rate, but that is based on testing of many units during a brief period of time (not remotely the lifetime of a hdd). While there is less friction and internal components may be more reliable after leaving the factory, helium WILL leak inevitably and the hard drive will fail. This is obviusly not a problem for servers, as they regularly change their hard drives and therefore prefer lower energy consumption and higher MTBF these offer. But for the long term user, this "disc write errors" equivalent that is MTBF does not represent how reliable the drive will be in the long term, even if it is more precise and better performing when new. Helium, like the organic layer WILL fail, even if it takes a lifetime, because of the sheer nature of it.

#3:
Lastly but not least, I'd also love to know if there are any differences in Verbatim's current AZO line. I'm aware that they currently market "regular", crystal, datalife and datalifeplus. (I'll exclude ultralife because it's clear what it offers) What are the differeces between these? From my understanding it's only that the discs are certified, examined and selected (similar to the ones for medical/professional use) so that the percentage of faulty media is lower. Am I true? Do waterproof discs make sense?

#4:
When burning the media, I'd like to check if any errors are present and correct them. Does software make a difference for this? Does windows media player or Imgburn correct errors automatically and deliver the best possible result or is it advised to use the EAC software? I've seen many good reviews on this and it seems full of features like "Accurate rip", but is it exclusive to this complicated to use software?

Thanks for your understanding and patience.
Greetings from Madrid.