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:

David Crosthwait <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Tue, 26 Jan 2016 08:49:32 -0800

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (154 lines)

Hello Tom,

I think it's safe to say the following: Once we think we have figured it out, we are setting ourselves up for a disappointment.

I have always been of the opinion that unless we are dealing with our own personal tapes in recovery (where we can guarantee 100% it's legacy of storage conditions), the history of the media we have been handed is a great unknown, no matter what the client states ("Oh it's always been in a cool, dry environment").  We heard it all. With that in mind, we open each container (if their is one) and start the preparation process on a case by case basis. Even if it looks familiar, we don't know the following:

1)	Manufacturing run and it's composition i.e. backing/binder/oxide "soup" version.
2)	The environment the tape experienced during it's travel from the manufacturer to the end user (Example: Did it sit on the airport tarmac palletized for extended periods and if so, in hot, cold, direct sunlight, dry, moist?)
3)	What physical abuses, if any, was the tape stock subjected to during recording i.e. severe tension swings due to mal-aligned first or second generation VTR's? Multiple-pass editing? Was this in a cigar-smoke filled VTR room? Was this a remote in Manhattan where the back door of the VTR 			area is open, exposing the tape stock to possible mid-city air contaminants? Or was it at Manhattan Beach at the ocean's edge where salt-spray is just outside the Compact Video truck window (been there)?
4)	After production and airing, who had their hands on that tape and where? How was the tape handled, abused and under what environmental conditions?
5)	For it's 40+ year storage history, what were the the uses, abuses and the temperature/humidity swings? Outhouse? Underground salt vaults?
6)	The container (if any): Was the tape wrapped in some sort of plastic bag and if so, how long? The plastic container: Was it outgassing any undesired particles (remember, it may have been a tightly-sealed closed environment for a long time)? The fire-retardanet properties of a 1" B format tape 			container manufacturer has been flagged as an issue in tape stock contamination. If in a cardboard box, was the acidic nature (if any) contaminating the tape? 
7)	The anodized flange has been seen to deteriorate, spreading microscopic particles onto the tape pack.

In summary, one has to look at other issues surrounding archived tape storage when encountering playback issues. 

When the Challenger blew up, an intensive study with analysis followed immediately. The entire team at NASA and it's suppliers were involved. Unfortunately, we don't have that sort of power in our business.


Regards,

David Crosthwait
DC Video

http://www.dcvideo.com/what-we-do


On Jan 26, 2016, at 5:56 AM, Tom Fine wrote:

> Hi Richard:
> 
> For me, the key learning from Peter Brothers and you is that baking doesn't "put humpty-dumpty together again," i.e. return the tape to its exact pre-SSS condition. That would be an avenue toward explaining audio degradation and also might explain why we've gotten some reports of recent re-baking of tapes baked in previous years are taking longer. The return to SSS after baking might be more gooey and insidious. I do think more scientific study is called for, and I think Richardson's knowledge should be brought to the table, as I suggested through treating him as less of a pariah. I think ARSC is the obvious venue for all of this because of its membership and because I've seen collegial discussions among people of differing views in various ARSC venues.
> 
> I think it would be helpful to review these questions:
> 
> 1. do we really understand the mechanism of binder breakdown and stickiness? For all its permutations?
> 
> 2. can we quantify what sonic damage occurs from repeated baking? Or, can this be measurably ruled out?
> 
> 3. do we need new guidelines for baking times, given the age of the Ampex patent and the recent field experiences?
> 
> 4. what of Richardson's claims that baking is inherently damaging to the content of magnetic tapes? Can we encourage him to share data he's collected and expound further on his ideas? Can we get a detailed description of Richardson's back-coat removal process, and his ideas on making this scalable and widely practical?
> 
> 5. it's clear that there are a lot of ideas on tapes that don't respond to baking, but what is the science?
> 
> 6. does cold/dry storage appropriate for binder-problem tapes actually harm acetate tapes by drying them out? Or, does it stave off vinegar syndrome, perhaps at the cost of making acetate tapes very brittle? Would cold but less dry storage be more appropriate for acetate tapes?
> 
> 7. how does this apply to all-digital tapes? Can we quantify if baking damages digital information beyond the capacity of error-correction? Can we be sure that baking is the appropriate action for digital tapes that won't move smoothly through a transport?
> 
> I thank especially Peter and Richard for leading this most interesting discussion (and thank everyone else who has chimed in because all data points from the field are interesting), and I hope we continue to get deep in the weeds on this topic, because it is absolutely vital for anyone with analog magnetic tapes.
> 
> -- Tom Fine
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard L. Hess" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2016 8:22 AM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] One more sticky-shed data point - Richardson treated tape
> 
> 
>> Hi, John,
>> 
>> I'm sorry, I said "deposition" to cover SSS tapes. Thanks for the clarification.
>> 
>> To further clarify, in my worldview--and I am only trying to use this taxonomy for the sake of clarification of failure modes and their treatment, Soft Binder Syndrome (SBS) is an over-arching condition and Sticky Shed Syndrome (SSS) is a subset with, at this point, nothing hanging outside the SBS representation in the Venn diagram.
>> 
>> While there may be degrading tapes which are not SBS, SSS tapes so far (with or without backcoat) are also SBS tapes. A degrading, non-SBS tape, for example, would be an acetate tape which is suffering from vinegar syndrome. It is also non-SSS.
>> 
>> To me, the definition of SSS is SBS that can be temporarily reversed through "baking" roughly following the rules of the Ampex patent, but allowing now for extended baking times.
>> 
>> The treatments that I have been discussing for almost the last decade (OY--has it really been that long--it was October 2006, that I presented the paper at the AES in San Francisco) such as D5, cold playback, and fast playback, are meant for tapes that normally do not respond to baking. I see these three methodologies overlapping to some extent within the SBS circle, but not overlapping with SSS, by definition.
>> 
>> It may be ultimately shown that those three treatments plus Marie O'Connell's isopropynol playback overlap to some extent, if not completely. I do not think that any of these four techniques overlap with SSS because none of them allow for the separation of the mag coat from the back coat when they are adhering firmly enough to pull off the mag coat. Those bonds seem to be broken during the baking.
>> 
>> This may be another validation of Peter Brothers' explanation that some repolymerization is occurring during the baking. I had always until now considered that the bonds between mag coat and back coat are broken during the baking cycle.
>> 
>> However, an alternate explanation of the process could be that the mag coat's internal bonds (to itself and to the base film on the proper side) are strengthened by the baking process to better allow the temporary bonds with the back coat to be broken with no ill effect. However, if that were the case, I would expect to still hear some "ripping" which I do not hear when winding a baked tape.
>> 
>> So that is why I have suggested that the baking process breaks the temporary bonds between mag coat and back coat that happen during the binder hydrolysis and related failure modes of SSS. I have carried on this bond-breaking-by-mechanical-means (thermal contraction and expansion) to include cold desiccation's partial success in un-pinning pinned, non-back-coated tapes that would suffer from mag coat pullout.
>> 
>> I realize we are putting a very fine point on all of this, but, ultimately, I think this increases our (at least my) understanding of the mechanism, variants, and cures for tape degradation modalities.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> Richard
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I realize that a symptom/cure-based taxonomy is less scientific than a cause-based taxonomy (binder hydrolysis, vinegar syndrome, etc), but it does have a practical application in the field for those of us struggling with tapes that are misbehaving. If they ain't misbehavin' then they don't get a classification other than, "tape" <smile>.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 1/25/2016 9:27 PM, John Schroth wrote:
>>> Hi Richard:
>>> 
>>> To be clear these tapes I talk about did not have back-coating and
>>> exhibited classic signs of sticky-shed, They quickly left large binder
>>> deposits on the heads when tested and responded very well to baking.
>>> 
>>> These were not squealing tapes, what you have referred to in the past as
>>> soft binder - that needed cold play or Marie O'Connel's playback method.
>>> These were sticky shed tapes that did not have back-coating.
>>> 
>>> My point was that we cannot ALWAYS associate sticky shed with back-coating.
>>> 
>>> Kind Regards,
>>> 
>>> John Schroth
>>> MTS
>>> 
>>> On 1/24/2016 11:10 PM, Richard L. Hess 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.
>> 

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