I should note that in the 43 years of dealing with 176 I have never had one
squeal. I’m surprised to learn that some batches squeal. Luckily they
haven’t made it to Israel.
One last note, the 3 reels of 177 that squeal have been stored in a proper
On Mon, 23 Nov 2020 at 23:08 Richard L. Hess <[log in to unmask]>
> Hi, Corey,
> Thanks for the concern over my time...I do have other things to do, but,
> for now, I seem to be the only one doing this.
> In fact, I just updated this page based on Dennis's comment and wove it
> in with a larger analysis of the 3M spreadsheet of tape types. The
> 3M175+ and 3M 176+ sections under Soft Binder Syndrome have been
> updated, Note that 201+ also appears in the light edge shedding section.
> There was a good deal of energy generated for just such a database
> following the AES Archiving conference at the Library of Congress in
> Culpeper, VA, in 2018.
> Following that, some people who said they'd share datasets did not do so
> with no explanation.
> Also, Dr. Federica Bressan and I spent hours discussing this issue and
> have come to the conclusion that not enough accurate raw data are
> available at this point to legitimately construct such a database.
> We have ample anecdotal evidence of significant batch variations in many
> manufacturers' tapes. Since the vast majority of recordings do not have
> the tape batch number recorded with it, many do not have traceable
> documentation of the published tape type, the tape type may have changed
> over time,(one U-Matic tape type had four different FTIR signatures over
> time and there we're pretty certain that the type number is on the
> cassette (Benoit Thiebaut, Prestospace Project c. 2006)), and there is
> usually little to no record of the storage conditions for the tape.
> So, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to make an accurate
> database that goes beyond the type of general narrative that I've been
> providing. While I think we'd all love to have a database that says,
> "Use this technique to remediate tape type X."
> Rather than a documentation approach, I have been pushing for a
> "pool-test-kit" type of system where applying drops of something or
> other to a small sample of the tape would suggest what to do.
> Andrew Davis of the Library of Congress has suggested a water droplet
> test which I have tried and found cumbersome, slow, and subject to
> interpretation...and this was only to say, "does the tape need baking."
> It seemed promising until I tried it, but maybe he's onto something.
> I would be curious if anyone has any further ideas on this, I don't want
> to throw a bucket of ice water on the idea, but it is fraught with
> On 2020-11-23 1:06 p.m., Corey Bailey wrote:
> > As Dennis Rooney pointed out: "3M 176 and 177 both can squeal."
> > Shai's post points out the need for a centralized database because this
> > list is sprinkled with a wealth of valuable information on many subjects.
> > Richard Hess maintains a page on audio tape known to have problems but
> > he should not have to keep up a centralized database (He has other
> > things to do, I'm sure).
> > Anyone know of some good email mining software?
> > My $0.02,
> > CB
> Richard L. Hess email: [log in to unmask]
> Aurora, Ontario, Canada 647 479 2800
> Track Format - Speed - Equalization - Azimuth - Noise Reduction
> Quality tape transfers -- even from hard-to-play tapes.
Expert digitization services for Audio Video
3K scanning for film 8mm-35mm
Timeless Recordings Music Label
[log in to unmask]