I had something like this from Samsung, though it was years ago and I've also been unable to find em again.

"The mirror finish on these discs adds a special luminescence to the applied label." - I don't get it, were you using a paper-sticker label or something else? I don't remember this happening to me, it's just not fair! :)

oh, first thing that popped up in google:

http://www.ioproducts.com/trusilcdrmed.html

Yep I do the same thing with the clear labels. I too had the same replenishment issue. Now I have two spools of a hundred on my shelf and 2/3's of another to use. Buy 'em when you find 'em or go to computer show or fair-- they are always available there.
They are also much better than the others- the recording media is sandwiched between two layers of plastic unlike the ones that you find all the time where the recording media is on the top surface of a clear platter--these are easily damaged on the top from abrasion.-- unless labled, leave these bottomside down on your desk if nessisary

Look at some of the geekier retailers, you'll find them at CompUsa and MicroCenter.

This discussion hasn't commented on the actual performance of these discs. Has anyone checked the error rates and/or have used them as masters? A slick looking disc is great but. . .??

drbam

The ones I had several years ago (samsung) were all fine, not one error

>>The ones I had several years ago (samsung) were all fine, not one error<<

Perhaps you're referring to "coasters" or other obvious problems that would cause the media to fail. I've NEVER heard of ANY CDR media that didn't produce at least some C1 errors even on the best of burners. The issue is *how many* C1 errors. Red Book standards allow for a certain amount and this is what I was asking about. Without proper diagnostic software (that tests for C1, C2, & CU errors) you cannot know what this is. Just because an audio CDR may play fine on several players doesn't mean it meets standards. What software did you use to determine that you had "not one error"?

Thanks,

drbam

I think I must've used CD Architect back then - it's "Verification" process never caught anything. You're right though, that doesn't mean there are absolutely no errors.

I was gonna use the word "coaster" but I feared somebody would not know what I was talking about - sorry :)

I generally burn at 1 or 2 speed and don't go for this lower quality stuff it really matters alot.

The burning "verification" notice on Sony's apps is misleading in this regard because "without errors" only refers to something serious which would end up as a coaster. It doesn't measure C1or C2 errors. I was shocked to discover the amount of errors I was getting on certain media and various burners. I've since upgraded to a Plextor Premium burner with includes Plex Tools Professional software. The Plex Tools software is worth double the price of the burner alone and now I am completely confident in the quality of material I give to clients or send to manufacturers. After doing some extensive testing of several brands of media, like many others I've settled on Taiyo Yunden CDR media as it consistently gives me an almost unbelievably low error rate. Although many other brands proved to be quite acceptable, I decided to just use what gives me the best results.

drbam

If these CDs are silver then they're using an aluminium reflective layer which is not the best for mastering / archiving. Gold seems to give a higher BLER result but much longer life. The media I use for mastering has a tested lifetime of 100 years but should last 300.
I tend to avoid the Audio Master CDs as these are really designed for use in real time recorders which are a bit antiquated and none of the modern CD burners perform well at 4x and will not go any slower. Burning at 20x gives lower C1 errors in any case due to less media jitter.
You can see the stuff I'm talking about at www.prodisc.com.au Please note this has NOTHING to do with the Taiwanese manufacturer Prodisc who market their product under that name in the USA. Look under CD-R media and dig around a bit further for independant test results on a wide range of CD-R media subjected to accelerated aging tests. You'll also find copies of some pretty full on research papers outlining research into CD technology.

The top line CD mastering media has a clear matte finish suitable for inkjet printing and apart from the excellent performance makes for very spiffy looking masters. I really don't understand why there's ever an argument over not using the best and most expensive media for mastering, given all the effort that went into creating the content what's a few dollars more for the media when you know your work will outlive you and probably your grandchildren.

Bob.

Youn:
I have yet to read through all the replies, but, no, my sticker wasn't paper. It is the Avery clear CD label - available in most USA Staples outlets. A real challenge to apply - forget the hypa Avery includes on the packaging that you can apply them with a Stomper or Neato applicator. Won't work. You'll get gross bubbles every single time. I wrote Avery about this, and they sent me their very own version of the Stomper/Neato applicator at no charge. I didn't waste time (or labels) trying it out.

To apply these things, you have to use their template method - and a CD case as they describe. Place the CD, label side up, in the CD case, use the case and the Avery alignment template attached to each label for alignment, then, work the label on carefully to insure that air doesn't get trapped as you go. A real challenge. I still waste a few labels with every large order run, but, once I get into the groove, I can apply them perfectly - and, IMO, they look better than any other label out there when applied correctly.

Caruso

drbam:
I'm replying as I work through this thread, so, excuse if my reply is less than current. I don't produce "masters" for repro in some fancy repro house. If I did, my motive and process would change dramatically. What I aim to do (with some success, I might add), is produce a really slick looking (and good sounding) disc for clients who, while showing some true talent, have not reached the stage where they can afford all the top end methods/processes.

I don't mean to put myself (or my clients) down. I'm a classically trained musician, accomplished as a composer and performer who does this recording stuff on the side because I am intrigued by computers, love mixing that interest with the true passion of my life (music), and, instead of taking refuge on the golf course at $100 or so per round, would rather spend the same time making five times that much doing something I enjoy that also is appreciated by those who engage me.

If I reach that stage (or stumble onto a client of sufficiently high profile) that mass production becomes necessary, you can bet that I'll be looking for media that is as error free as possible, and neither the surface of the disc or the label will be of concern, since all of that would be handled upstream of me.

Regards,
Caruso

" I really don't understand why there's ever an argument over not using the best and most expensive media for mastering"

Farss:
I don't perceive an argument here. The thread wasn't initiated to discuss mastering. I don't consider what I'm putting out to remotely resemble mastering. These things simply sound and look attractive, and, as such, meet the most immediate needs of my clients, who, because they are satisfied and are able to derive some income by selling these CD's, are happy to favor me with repeat business.

I realize that what I produce simply masquerades as an approximation of what is infinitely more professional in reality, but at much greater cost to the client.

But, it is that ability to achieve quasi-pro results that intrigues me with respect to computers. I remember being equally wowed as word processing/page layout software achieved monumental capability at less than insurmountable prices. I could design pages with text fit to odd paths without spending a fortune on soft- or hardware. It was a fantastic time for me when computers and associated software reached that stage.

The results would probably make an engraver sick to his/her stomach; so crude were (and probably still are) the results. But, we consumers continue to change reality in the marketplace.

There are plenty of weddings, whatever, where "good enough" printing passes for all but the most discriminate on the cheap. Obviously, the same is happening in photography and in audio, all a result of the increasing availability and capability of computers and software.

As one who has spent many an hour in the practice room running scales to become a proficient performer, I am insulted by all the performers who rely on the studio for their "live" performance capability - but, as one who loves computers, I continue to be intrigued at the same time. Go figure.

What I posted as a simple question has evolved into a totally different sort of thread, but I've enjoyed reading each response, and thank you all.

Regards,
Caruso