I, too, recall but can't find the article, though it may have been one of
those 3M published bulletins as well.
I believe Del identified two kinds of print-through, one ccaused by too much
level and consequent leaf-to-leaf transfer of too much magnetism- I don't
know the techincal tern for that. The other was a storage phenomenon of
slowly generated (or whatever THAT term is) movement of alterady recorded
program that was discharged during rewind. In the former case, I believe it
was considered "baked in."
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Doug Pomeroy
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 10:17 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Tape tails out
Somewhere have a copy of the article published years ago in one of the audio
magazines about a study done by 3M of the reduction in print-thru achieved
by fast winding of tape before playing. Presumably the rapid passage of the
tape over the metal tape lifters is responsible for this.
Audio Restoration and Mastering Services
193 Baltic St
Brooklyn, NY 11201-6173
[log in to unmask]
On Mar 12, 2015, at 12:00 AM, ARSCLIST automatic digest system wrote:
> Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 06:39:43 -0400
> From: Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Tape tails out
> I'm not saying it's impossible that FFRR records were cut backwards,
> but I highly doubt it. I will check with my Decca-expert friends at UMG
and report back if I uncover any facts.
> As far as tails out, doesn't "rewinding" the tape (which no one should
> do with a fragile old tape -- play it back at normal speed or use a
> very gentle library-wind mode -- provide the benefit of reducing some
> print-through? We've discussed this on the Ampex list before, therre's
> some research-proven benefit of fast-winding tape before playback, to
> reduce print-through. Jay McKnight explained it in detail, it gets
> into physics beyond my pay grade. I apparently did not receive the
education some on this list have mentioned, because the whole concept of
electromagnetism remains somewhat vague to me.
> -- Tom Fine