TDK DATs were, back in the day, the reason I learned to take the covers
off and wet-clean my DAT machines. Good to know baking works with them,
it stands to reason.
The one DAT I baked was, I believe, and Ampex 467. I know Ampex called
many tapes 467, but the R-to-R digital (DASH) tapes now need to be
baked--certainly the 467 but I think also the Sony now. I have NOS of both.
The Agfa mass dup cassettes were a mess from the get-go. I often use D5
on those mass-dupe (assumed to be Agfa) tapes. I've not had luck with
baking. I believe the cassette baking I've done or talked to people
about has been mostly Ampex.
There have been some Canadian C120s that really severely "coned" so I
had to loosen the shell to allow it to still wind. Really warped, but I
hate C120s anyway.
On 1/21/2016 2:09 PM, Tom Fine wrote:
> Richad, have you noticed any pattern of brands/types for cassettes
> needing baking? All of the ones I've successfully baked and transferred
> were "duplicator tape" of unknown brand/type. One of those cassettes was
> Tape 1 of a 2-tape set, and Tape 2 played just fine, so go figure! Those
> were circa early 1990's mass-duped tapes out of Canada. The other tapes
> have been from my personal collection and were cast-off duplicator tapes
> from a duplicating place in Westchester that went out of business (was
> closed down for piracy) in the 1980s. I think the tapes are circa first
> half of the 80s, all black-oxide, perhaps Agfa?
> As for DATs needing baking and successfully transferring after baking,
> the only brand I've encountered with this situation is TDK, and it seems
> to be all the TDK tapes I've come across.
> The Scotch cassettes that get so wrinkled that they "outgrow" their
> housing didn't need baking, they just got something like what happens to
> acetate tapes with bad vinegar syndrome. But those Scotch tapes didn't
> smell like vinegar, and they definitely weren't acetate base. I have no
> idea what causes that, but I encountered it on several Scotch brand
> C-120 tapes. Then there's the Memorex tapes with the too-tight housing.
> I suspect that's just plastic warping and shape-shifting over time,
> perhaps shrinking a little as it gets more brittle. The tape inside
> doesn't seem to deteriorate.
> -- Tom Fine
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard L. Hess"
> <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 1:48 PM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] One more sticky-shed data point - Cassette tapes
>> Hi, Lou,
>> We are starting to see some cassettes that benefit from baking.
>> Cassettes used thinner base film and mag coating plus very few (if
>> any) were back-coated. This all contributes to less material to
>> degrade to start with.
>> We have had several reports here of digital tapes needing to be baked,
>> and they have thinner mag coats.
>> On 1/20/2016 2:36 PM, Lou Judson wrote:
>>> Here’s a slightly offtopic question. I shared the post of Peters’
>>> with an associate, with whom I am involved in a restoration project
>>> involving cassttes tapes from the 70s through the 1990s. We are
>>> wondering why audio cassettes are so rarely having sticky-shed
>>> problems. I know that has been discussed occasionally here, but why
>>> are cassetes relatively immune?
>>> Lou Judson
>>> Intuitive Audio
>>> On Jan 20, 2016, at 10:33 AM, lists <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>> Hello all:
>>>> Coming very late to this thread. I don't intend to talk here about Mr.
>>>> Richardson's process but, in answer to Tom's post, I'll try to
>>>> address some
>>>> of the issues with "sticky shed".
>> Richard L. Hess email: [log in to unmask]
>> Aurora, Ontario, Canada 647 479 2800
>> Quality tape transfers -- even from hard-to-play tapes.
Richard L. Hess email: [log in to unmask]
Aurora, Ontario, Canada 647 479 2800
Quality tape transfers -- even from hard-to-play tapes.