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:

"Richard L. Hess" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Mon, 25 Jan 2016 14:42:18 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (257 lines)

Thank you, Peter!

To quote your earlier message (a paragraph that did not register amidst 
all the other wonderful paragraphs (2016-01-20  13:33 -0500)

> All that said, hydrolysis of the polyester binder is not the only decay
> vector identified in/on magnetic tape.  Laboratory testing has identified a
> number of other decay residues.  Among these are cyclic tri-mers from the
> polyester base, sodium or calcium impurities from the magnetic powder,
> various fatty acids or stearates from the lubricant and surfactants left
> over from the manufacturing process. Further testing has shown that "baking"
> does not seem to have a positive or "corrective" effect on these other
> residues.  In some testing, "baking" has made the surface effects of a few
> of these other residues worse.

Is it possible to relate any of these to the rubberization of the binder 
as indicated by the lowering Tg symptom?

Is it possible to indicate further symptoms/indicators that can identify 
the following (I'm not fully giving up my idea of the tape version of a 
"pool test kit" if some meaningful restoration information couild be 
gleaned):

---cyclic tri-mers from the polyester base

---sodium or calcium impurities from the magnetic powder

---various fatty acids or stearates from the lubricant and surfactants 
left over from the manufacturing process.

I agree with you that baking is not a 100 % cure-all, which is why I've 
advocated for cold playback, D5 lubrication, and fast playback over 
"sharper" profile heads as alternatives for squealing tapes.

You question about a specific flavour of mag coat shedding is 
interesting. One of the things that Jim Wheeler taught me (which he may 
have received from you) is "cold soak." I have struggled to understand 
what that does. We can assume that it drys out the tape (which is 
generally good), but I have also had some limited success with it 
reducing "pull out" damage from mag coat adhering to the previous 
layer's back (which is raw base film, not back coated).

One possible scenario I see in that is along the lines that you 
discussed: as the tape cools and the moisture content is reduced by the 
desiccant in the sealed environment, there is microscopic motion of the 
mag coat matrix--enough to break loose the adhesion (dare I suggest 
interlocking asperities?) in a manner that is less destructive than 
pulling the tape off the pack. I am thinking that it may be more of a 
shearing action while the tape is still packed.

Unrelated in a sense to your question, but we've both come up with 
microscopic motion as a possible explanation. I have never actually seen 
the issue that you describe, but I have received two tapes in the past 
year that had horrible shedding and cold soak did not help one. Both of 
these were so bad, I was finding mag coat on my clothes and hair and 
skin! These were not the individual mag particles,  but mm sized flakes 
of mag coat.

Speaking of dimensions, do you have a guess of the amount of 
differential movement we can see in the mag coat face due to any of 
these effects? Putting in perpective, the wavelength of 15 kHz at 15 
in/s is 0.001 inches--1 mil. We see destructive azimuth errors certainly 
around 1/4 of a wavelength offset and probably less, but at 3.75 in/s we 
have a wavelength 1/4 as long as at 15 in/s so 1/16 of a mil is likely 
to produce audible effects at 3.75 in/s. Is that the order of magnitude 
of mag coat face warpage (independent of base film warpage) that you 
might expect to see?

Cheers,

Richard

On 1/25/2016 1:52 PM, lists wrote:
> Richard:
>
> Good summary.
>
> As I indicated in an earlier post, binder hydrolysis is not the only
> decay vector in magnetic tape.  Baking will not cure 100% of the
> problems. I listed in my post about half a dozen other decay residues
> that have been detected and analyzed in the laboratory that were not
> binder hydrolysis.  The interaction of different residues may have
> effects that have not been tested.  Unfortunately, with the demise of
> tape, the huge labs with the expensive equipment set up to analyze
> these issues (often at a considerable cost) are not as readily
> available.  We know a lot about hydrolysis since it was detected as a
> major issue and studied.  It is not, however, the only issue.
>
> Here is a weird one that I cannot come up with a scientific answer
> for:
>
> If a tape (backcoated or not- happens to both types) throws a loop or
> cinches- and the oxide from one wrap is pressed tightly against the
> oxide from the adjacent wrap in the pack- and remains that way for a
> while (timing not determined); the oxide layers that are touching
> each other will occasionally fall off the tape when the tape is
> unwound.  It falls off in a "sheet" across the entire width of the
> tape and for as far along the tape as the two oxide layers are in
> contact.  This is not an issue of the oxide layer cracking where it
> is folded over and "peeling" off as the heads hit the crack/crease.
> We have unwound some of these tapes by hand (very slowly) and the
> oxide layer just falls off the tape.  It is also not an issue of the
> oxide layers sticking together, overcoming the oxide/base adhesion
> and ripping off.  The "sheets" of oxide are not adhering to the base
> layer and are not adhering to each other.  They appear not to be
> adhering to anything- they just fall off- very strange.
>
> The only thing I can come up with is that the oxide layers and the
> backcoat have different frictional properties.  In addition to all
> the other ingredients, the oxide layer of many tapes have an
> abrasive.  It is possible that the frictional coefficient of the
> oxide layers cause them to "lock" together to some degree when they
> are pressed tightly together inside the pack.  If the tape is exposed
> to temperature changes, the expansion/contraction of the pack, with
> these two contacting oxide layers "locked together" might,
> eventually, be enough to loosen the binder adhesion to the base.
> This is pure speculation but I can't come up with another
> explanation.  Any guesses?
>
>
>
> Peter Brothers SPECS BROS., LLC 973-777-5055 [log in to unmask]
> Audio and video restoration and re-mastering since 1983
>
>
>
> -----Original Message----- From: Association for Recorded Sound
> Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> Richard L. Hess Sent: Monday, January 25, 2016 10:52 AM To:
> [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] One more
> sticky-shed data point - Richardson treated tape
>
> Hi, Shai,
>
> The lowering of the Tg is a symptom and has to be caused by
> something. It is not as if there were a "Tg knob" to turn that down.
> There has to be a cause.
>
> I do not know whether or not hydrolysis is the engine behind the
> lowering of the Tg. Tg is like body temperature. You might find a way
> to lower your temperature, but the doctor would like to find the
> underlying (root) cause.
>
> I'm not ruling out Tg drops begin caused by hydrolysis...what other
> degradation modality might cause this? I will accept that hydrolysis
> may not always result in sticky shedding.
>
> That is why I started to create a symptom- and cure-based taxonomy of
> failure modes and why I thought "Soft Binder Syndrome" (caused by
> hydrolysis or not) was a good over-arching category with the Venn
> diagram circle for traditional sticky-shed syndrome included
> completely within the SBS circle.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Richard
>
>
>
> On 1/25/2016 9:44 AM, Shai Drori wrote:
>> No, I think Richards theory about the Tg is accurate about cold
>> play. These tapes do not show any of the signs of SSS but do
>> respond to other methods. Have I missed anything and someone was
>> able to play them fine after baking?
>>
>> Cheers Shai Drori Expert digitization services for Audio Video Hi
>> Res scanning for film 8mm-35mm www.audiovideofilm.com
>> [log in to unmask]
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 2:45 PM, Tom Fine
>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm wondering if this is an extreme case of what I've  been
>>> theorizing about the surface getting degraded from going sticky
>>> and then being baked. Maybe the Sony and 3M tape that Richard has
>>> to cold-play have a surface so screwed up, either because it goes
>>> very un-smooth or something happens where binder material "dries
>>> out" so it doesn't shed but remains somewhat "rubbery" right at
>>> the surface have a chemistry that makes hydrolysis particularly
>>> damaging to the physics of the material?
>>>
>>> -- Tom Fine
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Shai Drori"
>>> <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent:
>>> Monday, January 25, 2016 1:03 AM Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] One more
>>> sticky-shed data point - Richardson treated tape
>>>
>>>
>>> High Richard
>>>> I think we had a discussion about these two in the past. The
>>>> PR-150 has some batches that run fine but most do squeal. I
>>>> haven't even tried baking them except once just for the hell of
>>>> it and of course no luck. Double speed playback works when
>>>> possible but I haven't had any lately so haven't tried cold
>>>> play yet.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers Shai Drori Expert digitization services for Audio Video
>>>> Hi Res scanning for film 8mm-35mm www.audiovideofilm.com
>>>> [log in to unmask]
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 6:10 AM, Richard L. Hess <
>>>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi, John,
>>>>>
>>>>> This is indeed true. HOWEVER, my success rate for baking
>>>>> tapes that are suffering from squealing and/or deposition
>>>>> that are not back coated is much lower.
>>>>>
>>>>> This raises another question. If all binder breakdown is
>>>>> hydrolysis, then why doesn't baking cure it 100%? I'm
>>>>> thinking of Sony PR-150 and 3M-175.
>>>>>
>>>>> These two seem to show the falling Tg, but don't have the
>>>>> shedding. They are outliers and inconsistent.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>> Richard
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 1/24/2016 3:41 PM, John Schroth wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Back-coating may instigate or speed up the hydrolysis process
>>>>> but I
>>>>>> cannot ignore the fact that there are still obscure
>>>>>> instances where the tape had no back-coating and suffered
>>>>>> from SS. Richard, you have noted this in the past and I
>>>>>> have had this happen in at least two instances that I can
>>>>>> recall. I'm at home today so I don't have access to my
>>>>>> notes, but it was clearly sticky shed on tapes that had no
>>>>>> back-coating. So one should not "always" equate
>>>>>> back-coating with sticky shed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just my two cents...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John Schroth MTS
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
-- 
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