LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


[email protected]


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  February 2009

ARSCLIST February 2009

Subject:

Re: Ampex 456 and Shamrock 041 Manufacturing Specs?

From:

Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Sun, 22 Feb 2009 08:24:25 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (87 lines)

3M also had cheapo "Highlander" brand tape for a while. I'm not sure if that was stuff that didn't 
meet spec or if it was 3M's last generation of brown-oxide, no-backcoat duplicator grade tape.

3M spinoff Imation also used the Highlander brand for cheapo floppy discs in the 1990's.

My experience with olden days Shamrock (brown-oxide acetate and early polyester days) is that it's 
not destruction-prone like some tape of that vintage but it usually country-lanes all over the place 
and so good playback of well-recorded music in hard. Most of what I've dealt with, though, is 
half-track voice-grade stuff so no biggie that the tape quality isn't great. Like I said, at least 
it's not self-destructed like vinegar-prone Scotch 111 and Kodak tapes. BTW, "full quality" Irish 
tape isn't much better, in my experience. It brings to mind the old Dennis Miller routine: "Just 
what do you have to do to get kicked out of Guns 'N Roses?" Just what did a batch of tape have to do 
to get badged Shamrock instead of Irish?

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Richard L. Hess" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2009 7:39 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Ampex 456 and Shamrock 041 Manufacturing Specs?


> At 06:59 PM 2009-02-21, Sarah Norris wrote:
>>Hello,
>>
>>I'm looking for any manufacturing information available about Ampex 456 and Shamrock 041 tape. 
>>Anything would help, including manufacturing dates and anything known about materials or 
>>formulations used.  All information and references are much appreciated.
>>
>
> Hello, Sarah,
>
> What an interesting question. May I suggest that you read my recent ARSCJ paper
> http://is.gd/kqVy    or found here:
> http://www.richardhess.com/tape/history/index.htm
> if you haven't already for background and some chipping away at the problem.
>
> Michael Biel provided a more in-depth analysis of the Shamrock tape that I could have, but his 
> explanation expands on what I would have said, which is basically, Shamrock tape is anything that 
> didn't meet spec that might still show some ability to record and play back. 3M/Scotch did this 
> too with Melody tape, but when the FTC required location of manufacture to be placed on the box, 
> 3M stopped selling the stuff (at least in the U.S.) but Orradio/Irish/Ampex/Quantegy (that's the 
> lineage of the plant) proudly put Opelika, Alabama on the boxes. Think of it this way, selling 
> "seconds" (or "thirds" or "fourths") was a LOT cheaper than paying the trash man to haul it away.
>
> As to 456, it is the poster child for Sticky Shed Syndrome (SSS), however, all tape manufacturers 
> seemed to have created batches of tape which suffered from this. In discussing this recently with 
> Ric Bradshaw, a PhD chemist and tape expert, he said that polyester polyurethane is a good choice 
> for a binder, but the reaction has to be controlled. He also said that crosslinking may not have 
> been the correct choice to achieve the best long-term performance (he has yet to elaborate on that 
> to me).
>
> Another thing I think we know is that there were oligomers and other remnants of the manufacturing 
> process which may not have completely reacted remaining in the tapes when they were shipped. The 
> incomplete reactions and the excess component parts MAY be a contributing factor to tape 
> degradation and could very well explain the batch-to-batch variations we've seen from all 
> manufacturers.
>
> Some hints can be teased out of this and related papers
> http://mint.ua.edu/pdf/reviews/Spring%202002/Pollution%20Prevention.pdf
> http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/rd/302/ibmrd3002H.pdf
>
> I do have the reference somewhere to the typical family of polyester polyurethanes probably used, 
> but can't spend any additional time at the moment on this and the above two were what I could 
> quickly find in Google. The second one has two authors that deserve to be noted Bradshaw and 
> Bhushan.
>
> As to manufacturing specs, much of this lived in the minds of the operators, I suspect, who are 
> now long-gone. Some of the people from Redwood City may know something, but they are all getting 
> on in years and I suspect most if not all of the documentation is well-recycled. The real details 
> were considered trade secrets and even some people who are still around are loathe to discuss all 
> the details.
>
> On the other hand, the lack of control and the us-vs-them attitude that may have existed at some 
> level between Opelika and Redwood City cannot be ignored as factors. The folks in Opelika were 
> making tape before being bought by Ampex and that could be a root of some of the issues.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Richard
>
> 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

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
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