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: Baking times for Ampex 456 increasing? How Much? Why?

From:

Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Sun, 31 Jan 2016 08:46:32 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (129 lines)

Hi John,

Yes, the recommended storage for back-coated tapes (since many of them seem to have SSS problems) is 
cold and dry. My contention, which I stand by having dealt with MANY acetate-backed tapes, including 
tapes stored under such conditions, is that this is not optimal for acetate, that acetate tapes 
don't want it dry (cold seems to be fine in either case, probably better for both, especially if 
it's a cold and mold-free environment). Polyester non-back-coated tapes seem not to care, in fact 
many of these types seem to be the most durable (although we've had reports from Richard and others 
of polyester/no-back-coat types that get a very insidious kind of stiction problem, requiring slow 
playback under very cold conditions or constant lubrication through the playback cycle).

My experience, owning many acetate-backed tapes for many years, and those tapes always having been 
stored in ambient NY indoors condition, is that they want it relatively cool (ie not on the top 
shelves of a non-air-conditioned room, or yeas in an attic) and more humid (but not humid enough for 
mold to grow), and then they don't get wrinkled, edge-curled, etc. I haven't had too many develop 
vinegar syndrome, because most of them are Audiotape (the only tape brands I've had develop vinegar 
syndrome are acetate-backed Kodak [all tapes I've ever had hands on], Scotch 111 [only a few reels 
out of many I've had hands on], and Reeves Soundcraft [about half of the few reels I've had hands 
on]).

I keep saying that more research should be done whether it's really a good idea to store acetate and 
polyester tapes under the same vault conditions. I also keep saying that I haven't seen any science 
showing that dry conditions have any effect on staving off SSS or prolonging playability of treated 
tapes. So my contention has been, until it's proven that very-dry conditions actually benefit 
polyester tapes, I wouldn't keep it so dry as to damage acetate tapes, if both types are in the same 
vault. Also, as a general rule, were I in charge of a vault, I would make it a priority to do very 
high quality transfers of my acetate tapes because they are by now ancient in almost all cases and 
it's unreasonably optimistic to think they will remain playable indefinitely.

By the way, recent datapoint. I just went through about 30 yard-sale tapes, about half of them 
Scotch and Audiotape acetate-backed. I found a receipt for some of the Audiotape reels, indicating 
they were bought in the Cleveland area, so I'm guessing they migrated from the Midwest to middle NJ 
and spent most or all of their time in ambient environments. None of the Audiotape reels are warped, 
curled or vinegary. One Scotch 111 reel was badly warped and curled, but none of the thinner Scotch 
150 and Scoth 190 were warped or curled. Go figure! All of the Scotch tape was from that era where 
the 3M company orchestra is pictured on the box, I think that's mid-50's. The Audiotape packaging 
and the sales receipt indicated same time period. All of those were half-track 7.5IPS and 3.75IPS 
amateur recordings of LP records, and not all that good quality. It's worth saying that all of the 
acetate tapes were somewhat brittle (ie they snapped pretty easily when bent or pulled). The same 
person (based on the box handwriting) must have taken a long break from reel tapes and then got back 
into it in the 70s. In that batch, we have sticky Ampex 407, a few reels of Columbia-branded tape, 
which I assume was made in the old Reeves Soundcraft plant in Danbury CT, and early Maxell UD tape. 
The Maxell and Columbia tapes are in fine shape. Since I didn't like any of the music on them, I 
tested one of each on one of my Technics 1520 machines, which have front-panel recording bias and 
EQ. Using an external oscillator and watching the phase on a scope, I found both tapes to be 
mechanically stable and able to set up with rock-solid meter readings (meaning the tape wasn't 
screwed up so the bias was effecting every next bit differently from the previous bit -- I've seen 
this with very old and very damaged Scotch 206 tape and definitely with old acetate tape, which may 
have not been going through the transport smoothly with that low tension around the heads). The 
Maxell tape, in particular, was well preserved; the guy had kept it in its plastic bags within the 
boxes. The bags smelled a little bit and were somewhat "greasy," so I threw them out and replaced 
the tape boxes as well.

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Haley" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2016 12:57 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Baking times for Ampex 456 increasing? How Much? Why?


> Since the culprit for SS is hydrolysis, which results from the addition of
> moisture, and we bake a tape to desiccate it, shouldn't we assume that
> moist storage is bad for tapes that get SS, and dry storage is good, as a
> general proposition?
>
> How about temperature extremes?
>
> My experience is that for most tapes made prior to the SS era, tapes are
> not that picky about storage conditions, within reason.  I.e., in general,
> they seem to have held up well through a big variety of storage conditions.
>
>
> This discussion has dealt largely with troubled tapes.  What are the
> lessons learned applicable for regular tapes, if any?
>
> Thanks,
> John Haley
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 10:09 PM, Richard L. Hess <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi, Tom,
>>
>> Steve Smolian's comment makes me think it doesn't have to be a separate
>> plant, but perhaps a separate formula? Of course, shipping as discussed
>> does come into play.
>>
>> I wonder what the different climates are that Marie's tapes have been
>> stored in...
>>
>> I know many of the tapes I receive from Canada have been stored in very
>> humid locations. I rescued some tapes from a Toronto basement sixteen years
>> ago or so where I practically slipped on my rear in the slick mud on the
>> floor. My wife's office is in an old house where the basement gets wet with
>> each rain. It's an historic old house and she works for the Historical
>> Society that owns it.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Richard
>>
>>
>> On 1/29/2016 3:52 PM, Tom Fine wrote:
>> ...>
>>
>>> Richard, your theory about different formulas for Commonwealth
>>> Ampex-branded tapes may well be true, but you'd need to suss out for
>>> sure where all that tape was manufactured. I'm not aware of any Ampex
>>> plant except Opelika AL (formerly Orradio Industries). For that matter,
>>> did 3M have tape-making plants other than in Minnesota? I always thought
>>> that Ampex and 3M tapes were made in USA; Sony, Maxell, TDK and maybe
>>> Memorex were made in Japan; BASF was made in Germany and Agfa was made
>>> in Germany and Holland. As I understand it, there was a Russian tape
>>> manufacturer in the Cold War era, but Soviet and Eastern Bloc recordists
>>> also bought a lot of Agfa and BASF tape.
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> 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