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  January 2016

ARSCLIST January 2016

Subject:

Re: One more sticky-shed data point - Richardson treated tape

From:

Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Sun, 24 Jan 2016 15:09:10 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (113 lines)

RICHARD HESS, YOU ARE THE MAN! Thank you for summarizing all of this in plain English!

I do very much advocate testing about whether baking degrades the sonic outcome of playback. Goran 
Finberg has indicated he has taken measurements, and perhaps kept written records of those 
measurements. That's certainly a start, along with Goran providing exact details of his baking and 
playback methods, so others can test the results and see if they are duplicatable (I believe they 
will prove to be true and repeatable, based on what I've heard with my own ears on 
several-times-baked tapes). The step after that is to find out WHY. The fact that the polymers don't 
re-assemble as they were when the tape was recorded may have something to do with it, I theorize. I 
also theorize that something may be happening to the magnetic surface, preventing as good tape-head 
contact and movement through the transport as when the tapes were pre-sticky.

We shall see about Richardson's method. I will contine to test my treated tape and will report each 
time I play it. I am swabbing all surfaces for residue and noting the general performance of the 
tape. I wish Richardson would be more forthcoming about his process, and we could subject his 
methods to more detailed testing. To my thinking, his process holds promise and could be scaled to 
become affordable, but I want to know more details in a non-NDA discussion. I think Richardson feels 
he's been subjected to hostility because he's proposing something outside of the norm and something 
that may disprove Ampex and 3M claims that baking "is harmless." As a "neutral party" merely 
interested in what is the best thing to do with a client tape, I wish a message of welcome and 
non-agenda curiosity would be transmitted to Richardson, and perhaps he'd be more open to careful 
study and would share his findings in an open forum.

In general, for a tape I get in for transfer, unless I can reasonably certainly indentify it as 
Scotch 206/207/208 (they are all-black, have a distinct smell, and may or may not be in a Scotch/3M 
box or on a Scotch/3M reel), if it's back-coated I will bake it before playing it. To me, failure as 
a transfer engineer is putting a sticky tape through a transport and having oxide stick to back-coat 
and ruin the tape.

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Richard L. Hess" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2016 2:46 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] One more sticky-shed data point - Richardson treated tape


> On 1/24/2016 2:05 PM, John Chester wrote:
>> On 1/24/16 1:33 PM, John Haley wrote:
>>> I have followed this long thread but frankly have found a lot of it
>>> confusing.  David, I have always assumed it is in fact the black
>>> back-coating that is what has turned sticky and gums up the machine on
>>> unbaked tapes.  It wouldn't be the oxide layer coming off like that.
>>
>> In my experience, which is mostly with Ampex tape, both the oxide and
>> the backcoating are sticky, and some of the oxide is coming off when an
>> unbaked tape is played.  The deposit that forms on heads and guides
>> exposed to the oxide side of the tape is mostly oxide, although
>> initially it seems to be somewhat darker in color than the oxide.  I
>> think some of the backcoating becomes embedded in the oxide.
>>
>> In the worst case, large chunks of oxide are so solidly attached to the
>> backcoating that they are pulled off the base.  (But I've never seen
>> large chunks of backcoating pulled off the base.....)
>>
>> The deposit that forms on static surfaces exposed to the back of the
>> tape is mostly backcoating.
>
> John (Haley),
>
> John Chester's description accurately describes my experience. I think where we went with this 
> thread--at least where I went--was to better understand how such different perspectives can be 
> unified by better understanding what actually happens.
>
> (1) Both the mag coat and back coat are susceptible to hydrolysis.
>
> (2) The back coat is more susceptible to hydrolysis and perhaps even actively slurps up moisture 
> from the air due to the large amount of carbon black in the back coat.
>
> (3) The back coat's higher moisture level directly in contact with the mag coat accelerates and 
> exacerbates the hydrolysis of the mag coat.
>
> (4) Richardson's process of removing the back coat plus some added processing to re-stabilize the 
> mag coat appears to be working (although I still hold to my contention that removing the back coat 
> may be a risky and time-consuming process, although Richardson holds to his contention that baking 
> is harmful, too).
>
> (5) Baking causes the short, sticky chains to re-polymerize into longer chains but not as long as 
> the original chains.
>
> (6--Richard's next conjecture) There is contention that multiple baking cycles can degrade the 
> sonic quality of a tape. What would be interesting to note is the physical scale we are talking 
> about with the re-polymerization (as contrasted to wavelength) such that perhaps after several 
> cycles, the magnetic domains are moved enough (at random) to start causing some gap-scatter-type 
> losses (not dissimilar to azimuth losses), although in this case it is the opposite: magnetic 
> domain scatter. I don't know if this is possible or if the measurement scale is correct. This is 
> really a question, because if it is possible, it would neatly allow us to tie a bow around the 
> theory of this process. We all look for a unified theory of everything. This is on a scale and of 
> such a nature that we cannot easily observe the details.
>
> As to John Chester's comment about large chunks of mag coat coming off, it is from that experience 
> that I take a very conservative approach and bake anything that looks like it might need baking. I 
> had large sections of mag coat fly off in the last 1/8-inch of radius near the hub when a client 
> and I agreed the tape didn't look like it needed baking. It was a rare recording of the late Stan 
> Rogers live. The tape gods were with me that day...all the flying off mag coat was Stan's guitar 
> introduction and we didn't miss a phrase of his singing. It was my worst experience with this. I 
> will NEVER again give in to the temptation of "lets try it without baking...it doesn't look like 
> it needs baking." Oh and it was on a generic empty reel in a white box and the rest of the tapes 
> in the batch did not need baking.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Richard
>
> -- 
> Richard L. Hess                   email: [log in to unmask]
> Aurora, Ontario, Canada                             647 479 2800
> 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

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