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  December 2009

ARSCLIST December 2009

Subject:

Re: Tape Squeal

From:

Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Fri, 18 Dec 2009 06:46:21 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (69 lines)

Corey:

This history is wrong about Scotch formulations.

Scotch released 206, 207 and 208 in the late 1960's. Around the same time, Ampex released the 
original formula of 406 and 407. I can tell you for a fact that 206, 207 and 208 (which was designed 
for low print-through and low noise for sound-for-picture work) were around before 1970, I have 
reels dated 1968 and 1969.

As I understand the sticky-shed story, at some point in the 1970s, I think the early 1970s, Ampex 
changed some ingredient in their binder "stew" and this was the root cause of the problem. It effect 
406/407 from that point onward and also effected the later Grand Master 456/457 line. Richard or 
someone else can say for fact whether it effected more advance Ampex formulations like GP9. At 3M, 
the chemistry was not changed for 206/207/208 but the new 226/227 that was introduced in the late 
70's or early 80's had the same sticky-shed problems as Ampex tapes. Also 250, I think. Also the 
formula that 3M came out with for Nagra location-sound recorders, I think.

After the sticky-shed problem was discovered and baking was deemed a suitable solution to play a 
sticky tape, Quantegy (the former Ampex tape division) supposedly changed the formula of all their 
back-coated tapes to prevent sticky-shed. There are varying reports whether this is true. I have 
406, 456 and 457 stock from as far back as 1998-99 timeframe that has not gotten sticky so far, but 
others report other results. 3M exited the tape business in the 1990's, so their formulations with 
problems were never changed.

Somewhere online used to be an annotated history of 3M formulations.

-- Tom Fine


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Corey Bailey" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, December 18, 2009 1:40 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Tape Squeal


> Hi Shai,
>
> Scotch 206 was 1.5 mil polyester, back coated and the top of the 3M line until
> the introduction of 250. 207 was the 1 mil version of 206 and, as far as I
> know, was the same formulation. During the 80's, 3M released Scotch 208, aimed
> for the feature film production sound community claiming it was as reliable as
> 206. I till have some 208 from that era. I should check it out.
>
> "If it ain't Scotch 206, Bake it!" was somewhat of a tongue-in-cheek statement.
> However, of all the formulations that were produced, 206 seems to have been the
> most stable over the years. This doesn't mean that it should not or cannot be
> baked, but I am comfortable with playing it before making that decision.
>
> Cheers!
>
> Corey Bailey
> Corey Bailey Audio Engineering
>
>
> Quoting Shai Drori <[log in to unmask]>:
>
>> Please continue this discussion on list. I have also found that baking
>> most tapes helps them run on the machine. Don't have much experience
>> with 206 so I must ask why should this be excluded? Is it the standard
>> length version of the 207. I had a couple of these that were back
>> coated. The emulsion just came off the tape one day. I tried Last's
>> product for vinyl and was very disappointed. What product did you use?
>> Maybe different products produce different results.  I'm still waiting
>> to see photos from Marie's mods.
>> Shai
>>
> 

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

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