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  October 2016

ARSCLIST October 2016

Subject:

Re: Scotch 206 issues

From:

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

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Fri, 7 Oct 2016 17:50:38 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (178 lines)

Hi, Jonathan,

Welcome to a long ramble full of speculation and few contract facts, but 
some possible ideas that can help you narrow this down.

Jonathan showed me this off-list prior to posting here.

While I am monitoring this new development, I must confess that 
"investigating" might be a bit hopeful. Right now, we have two 
diametrically opposed perspectives, one from Southern California and the 
other from Israel, both noted by extremely competent tape restorers.

We also have some good things to look into.

I think further areas to investigate relate to exactly where the mag 
coating is separating from the base film.

The fact that you reported to me that an A80 played it with much less 
shedding further has me questioning if there is anything going on with 
the A810.

John Haley and I discussed this a bit off list regarding the different 
reel sizes in the photo. I did not mention this in my original 
conversation because I don't think it's a factor in the shedding, but 
for best performance takeup reel mass and moment arm need to be as 
matched as possible.

What I might do if the tape can survive it is library wind the tape onto 
a large-hub 7-inch reel, then rewind it onto a second large hub 7-inch 
reel, then play it onto its original 5-inch reel. I would never use a 
10.5" takeup reel with anything smaller than a 10.5 inch reel on the 
supply side. Too much difference in mass and inertia.

Also,when winding the tape on the A810, you can easily thread the tape 
after it comes over the two large rollers directly, bypassing the head 
assembly completely. If I recall correctly (I don't have any A810s 
here), there is about a quarter of an inch between the tape and the top 
of the head cover...more room with the machine in the current condition 
without the head cover.

Malcolm made an astute observation and in reviewing the shards they do 
look as if they are coming off the edges of the tape. As a point of 
reference, on my A80s and Sony APR-5000s, many of my head assemblies are 
single head reproducers. I see that your A810 is a timecode head 
assembly, which means there are three extraneous heads touching the face 
of the tape.

If the shedding is coming from the edges, I would look for grooves worn 
in the ceramic erase and timecode heads (esp. erase) that might be 
catching the edge. I would also look at the non-rotating guides. It is 
possible that something got missed even with a thorough cleaning in the 
corner of a guide that is attacking the edge.

If the shedding is in the centre of the tape, I would look for little 
hooks on the heads. It is possible that there could be a chip in the 
ceramic/ferrite erase head gap that is scoring the mag coat. I don't 
know. Something could have adhered anywhere along the tape path that 
doesn't rotate.

Anyway, please keep us posted if you can refine any of your observations 
or if you find anything.

The different sources of manufacture having completely different results 
is not surprising at all. Dr. Ric Bradshaw told me when he was involved 
in moving the IBM tape manufacturing facility from Colorado to Tucson, 
it took about a year of fine tuning (and he almost always fine-tuned 
AFTER obtaining hard scientific data) to make the Tucson plant work well.

<soapbox>

So putting together all of these unknowables--Indiana University is 
doing the right thing. While it may be late for this tape, doing a mass 
digitization of campus wide tape resources was a very wise choice and 
should serve as a model for other institutions.

</soapbox>

Cheers,

Richard

On 10/7/2016 13:03, Malcolm wrote:
 > Hmmm... the pictures don't look like shedding to me. It looks like
 > stripping. I've seen tape do this when the tape manufacturer's slitter
 > is mis-set or goes off spec. Then the first guide on the reproducer
 > strips off the offending extra width because the tape will be slightly
 > too wide to fit through the guide. This can be especially prevalent on
 > high tape tension machines.

On 10/7/2016 14:01, Aaron Coe wrote:
 > Hi Jonathan,
 >
 > For what it’s worth, there was a thread about Scotch 206 back in 
April of this year discussing extreme cases where the mag coat 
completely separates from the substrate.  Here’s a pic I took that shows 
a section with shedding: http://goo.gl/id4pNu
 >
 > Based on that thread, this appears to be a newly discovered issue 
that I believe Richard Hess is currently investigating.
 >
 > If you can search the email archive, look for the thread "Tapes with 
shedding mag coat”, otherwise you can search here: 
http://listserv.loc.gov/listarch/arsclist.html



On 10/7/2016 15:32, Corey Bailey wrote:
> Hi Jonathan,
>
> Like any magnetic audio tape, analog or digital, it will all come down
> to the storage conditions the tape was stored in over time. In my
> experience, here in Southern California, Scotch 206 has been extremely
> stable. Shai Drori has had just the opposite experience with 206 in
> Israel. Factory slitting issues can be detected by observing the tape
> running through the transport at very slow speed. Since you show the
> tape on a Studer 810, try playing a short section the tape at 3-3/4IPS
> and observing it. Slitting irregularities can often be measured with
> calipers. If slitting irregularities are the problem, I can give you
> some hints on how to get the best transfer possible, either on or off-list.
>
> If SS or SBS are not evident, you can try lubricating the oxide side of
> the tape. I use TAPE LAST form Last Factory. Richard Hess uses D-5 with
> good results. DO NOT scrape the tape across the stationary tape lifters
> under any circumstances. The exception would be PLAY mode where the tape
> lifters are not involved but the tape is coming into contact with the
> heads and guides. For handling, (fast-forwarding, rewinding, etc.) the
> tape should come in contact with bearing surfaces only. Obviously, there
> are a lot of possibilities here so, to a great extent, I'm spitting into
> the wind.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Corey
> Corey Bailey Audio Engineering
> www.baileyzone.net
>
> On 10/7/2016 8:21 AM, Richardson, Jonathan Carrithers wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I accidentally posted to the ARSCLIB list this question so apologies
>> for the cross post.
>>
>> Hoping someone can help with a problem that we have been having with
>> one particular Scotch 206 tape. Links to photos below:
>>
>> Photo
>> 1<https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4OPruHNUu42VzdrMUZIc2M4bFk/view?usp=sharing>
>>
>>
>> Photo
>> 2<https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4OPruHNUu42QXdPa3lEZG9DR28/view?usp=sharing>
>>
>>
>> As you can see there is some extreme shedding. Has anyone ever
>> encountered this with Scotch 206? It is not historically a SSS or SBS
>> prone brand.
>>
>> Any information would be appreciated
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>>
>> Jonathan Richardson
>> Audio Visual Specialist
>> Media Digitization and Preservation Initiative
>> Indiana University
>> 812-320-8485
>> [log in to unmask]
>> https://mdpi.iu.edu/
>>
>>
>
-- 
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