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  February 2009

ARSCLIST February 2009

Subject:

Re: Ampex 456 and Shamrock 041 Manufacturing Specs?

From:

Michael Biel <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Sun, 22 Feb 2009 17:27:40 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (61 lines)

Tom Fine wrote:
> 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.
>
>
> 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  . . . 
> Just what did a batch of tape have to do to get badged Shamrock 
> instead of Irish?

I have no answers, only a bunch of urban legends.

1)  The tape might have been the outside slits from the original 18-inch 
wide rolls -- that the regular grade tapes were the ones in the center.  
That might mean the oxide was full grade but they didn't trust the 
slitting.  Or maybe the oxide might be thinner towards the edges.

2)  These were the short ends of the rolls and are made from two shorter 
parts spliced together.  I remember that some tapes seemed to have a 
splice about 2/3s of the way into the reel.  Remember that most 
full-grade boxes mentioned that they are "splice-free".  The tape might 
be fine but might change specs at the splice!

3) The slitting might have been bad.  I have one reel I bought in1965 
that is slightly too narrow.   In 1967 one of  the prolific producers at 
our station bought three or four reels that were slightly too wide and 
wouldn't play on the two home-grade Ampex machines in our main air 
studio.  The tapes would just stop dead because these had the 
self-thread guides the full width of the tape slot. Unfortunatly, before 
we discovered this,  he was assembling dozens of shows from things done 
on different reels of tape, so a segment on almost any of his shows 
might have come from those wide reels.  For the rest of the year we had 
to run any of his shows from a machine in one of our other studios and 
patch it into the air studio board. 


4) These were computer tapes that didn't make the specs for computer 
tapes but would be just fine for audio when they slit them down from 
1/2-inch.  This was the rumor especially when the highly polished oxides 
started appearing.  Of course computer tapes needed different bias 
levels than audio machines and were designed for different wavelengths 
than audio.  Then came the rumors these could be slit videotape.  That 
would be even worse since the oxide particles might have been optimized 
for the different azimuith angles.

5)  The black oxide backcoated tapes were 456 that didn't meet specs but 
were still better than regular grade tape.  Oy veh.

6) The graphite lubricated backcoated tapes didn't meet the grade for 
tapes for cartridges.  THIS, I believe.  Whenever I got a reel of this, 
I set it aside to rewind carts.  I don't think this stuff wore well.

Why oh why oh why did we buy this crap??  Because we were starving 
students or poorly paid professors, etc.  And now we get that vicarious 
thrill knowing that those who could afford the GOOD stuff are having the 
same or worse problems now that we have with the crap!!!! 

Mike Biel  [log in to unmask] 

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

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