LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  January 2009

ARSCLIST January 2009

Subject:

Re: rehousing audio cassettes

From:

"Richard L. Hess" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 22 Jan 2009 00:16:37 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (88 lines)

Hi, Tom,

I agree with your points,  but there are batches of tapes that are 
failing in odd ways -- and I'm not even referring to the horrid 
feri-chrome tape in my blog from a few years ago.

We're seeing some second-tier tapes which are becoming dimensionally 
unstable and won't wind well. This is where I've been pointed towards 
metal cassette shells and other "fixes" short of a Studer A80QC to 
play this stuff back on.

The tapes tend to "cone up" on their hubs and then wedge against the 
inside of the case. I've seen this with mostly second-tier Canadian 
tapes, but have had a half dozen out of several hundred mixed lots 
that have done this. They are often C-120s, but I think I had some 
C90s do it as well.

There is another phenomenon that has only been very poorly documented 
and that is loss of highs just sitting in a wood drawer with no 
magnets around. Some suggest that it is a magnetostriction effect 
with the small radii that the tapes in cassettes move over. I don't 
know and I haven't seen anything in the literature, but I haven't 
done a comprehensive search for this specific item.

It seems to happen shortly after recording ( ~ < 1 year ), so it 
doesn't appear to be something that is limiting life, but has already 
degraded the magnetic record. This may be some of the reason that 
Dolby NR doesn't track as well as we'd hoped it would, especially on 
cassettes (where this problem is most noticeable).

And yes, of course, always transfer from the best available source. 
Sadly, with many oral history collections, the cassettes are the best 
available source. My big project that I've had in here for a while is 
dragging on because I'm trying to find the best copy of stuff and all 
are horrid. But the metadata the client is doing is farther behind 
than my transfers so if I get to keep ahead of the metadata I can do 
other work.

I did transfer one nice collection of about 50 reels that had been 
previously transferred to cassettes. I had to throw in the baking, 
because the client thought the cassettes were "good enough" but I 
just couldn't see not doing it from the reels. It was such a joy to 
hear real 1/2-track mono, on 1/4-inch tape without the cassette 
"filter" over it. Even if the reels were mostly 1.88 in/s. I think 
they were done on a Uher or similar.

Cheers,

Richard

At 07:23 PM 2009-01-21, Tom Fine wrote:
>Hi Richard:
>
>I very much agree with you that all magnetic tapes are finite, so 
>anything of value on them should be transferred as the clock is always ticking.
>
>That said, I've been transferring a group of about 50 cassettes I 
>recently inherited and have been happily surprised by the results. A 
>few of these tapes are, literally from the very dawn of cassettes as 
>a mass medium (made at the first mass-duping plant in NY to do 
>compact cassettes). Others were stored in very non-ideal conditions 
>(a basement damp enough that paper labels were warped and stuck to 
>the plastic cases). Others, including one of historical 
>significance, were made on very low-grade examples of the cassette 
>art. All except one played perfectly the first time in the machine. 
>That one needed a shell transplant, mainly because the tape splice 
>to the leader had dried out and the pressure pad glue had dried out. 
>The audio quality varied from mediocre to very good but none was 
>terrible (even an early mass-duped tape made from a 1940's disk 
>recording). To be fair, almost all were spoken-word so the need for 
>excellent speed stability and reliable frequency range extension was 
>not as great. I was never a fan of cassettes in their heyday, on 
>audio quality grounds (with music), but in recent years, my respect 
>for the design of the medium grows. It is a cockroach-like audio 
>storage medium, relatively non-fragile and usually fixable if the 
>problems are mechanical.
>
>Compared to finicky digital-tape media, cassettes are likely to 
>remain playable decades longer. But, Richard is right -- all tape is 
>finite and everything of value on it should be transferred. In the 
>case of cassettes, if you have a better source you will have better 
>audio quality.

Richard L. Hess                   email: [log in to unmask]
Aurora, Ontario, Canada       (905) 713 6733     1-877-TAPE-FIX
Detailed contact information: http://www.richardhess.com/tape/contact.htm
Quality tape transfers -- even from hard-to-play tapes. 

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager