I was working at a major studio in Florida at the time, we often went
through 100 rolls of 2" a WEEK. True, the humidity is high there ,
although the studio climate was well controlled. On quite a number of
famous artists using 468, we had to transfer the master 2" tracks just
to get through tracking, let alone mixing. 1/4" and 1/2" were the same.
I really, really liked the sound of the tape, and dimensionally it was
very well slit and stable in the recorders. The sticky shed was the
issue. 469 was also used a good deal, and it didn't seem at the time to
do the shedding, but no one seemed to like the sound as much, and it was
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of David Lennick
Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 11:19 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] And on the plus side ...
Whatever BASF and AGFA tape was being used for EBU programs in the late
80s and early 90s, it's all held up beautifully for my purposes. Never
had a bad roll of the stuff. On the other hand, whatever Deutsche Welle
was sending out (1-mil back-coated brown oxide with a very smooth oxide
surface) was sticky almost immediately. This totally unscientific and
biased survey is based solely on what I was hauling out of CBC's Tape
Reclaim and the CJRT discard bin between about 1986 and 1996.
Scott Phillips wrote:
> Agfa 468 in the '80's I had many, terrible problems with, in all width
> formats including 2". Sticky shed was the presentation, looking back
> at it. It was as if after a certain number of passes it just fell
> apart. A pity, as it was VERY good sounding tape with a nice 'type' of
> noise floor.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Marie Azile O'Connell
> Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 5:33 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] And on the plus side ...
> I agree whole-heartedly. Virtually every tape I have encountered from
> the 50's and 60's presents with almost no problems, and the sound
> quality is very good, if not excellent. This has been with 3inch, 5
> inch and 7 inch reels, and most
> 10.5 inch reels. Strangely, the only brands I have had HUGE problems
> with in the 10.5 inch reels are AFGA 469 (I think) and PYRAL, or ones
> that have been spliced together with different brands of tape, having
> been recorded, in the field, on a Uher, and later spliced together and
> put onto a 10.5 inch reel.
> Once we hit the 70's, all hell broke loose, and they changed the
> formulas! In hindsight, they didn't do us a favour at all! Infact,
> they gave/give us endless problems - just because it it new, doesn't
> mean to say it is good, or the best!
> My sixpence worth!
> Quoting [log in to unmask]:
> > In a message dated 3/19/2006 6:40:23 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> > [log in to unmask] writes:
> > Wow, the tape fairies are in the air! I had the same experience with
> > an early
> > 60's reel of AudioTape
> > mylar-backed on Friday evening.
> > *****************
> > I've yet to have a problem playing a tape made between 1950 and
> > Most of this was the cheapest tape I could buy so I'm not talking
> > about high quality, just that it is now just as good (bad) as it was
> when new.
> > Unfortunately around 1980 I spent a considerable amount of time
> > transferring
> > and editing material from that era to new, professional grade tape.
> > I am having trouble playing some of those transfers.
> > Now should I go back to the originals and spend the time again,
> > though
> > less with the help of digital editing, to make new copies on a
> > possibly even less
> > durable medium? I'm too old to maintain the copies myself for
> > another
> > 25 years, and who else will?
> > Mike Csontos
> Marie O'Connell
> Sound Archivist/Sound Engineer/Sound Consultant Center for Oral
> History & Cultural Heritage University of Southern Mississippi
> Phone: 601-266-6514
> Mobile: 601-329-6911