Hi Richard, 

Actually, I think a database or repository of some kind regarding tape formulations and their conditions as they age would be a huge benefit DESPITE the fact that we have no real empirical evidence of how each one should always behave. You're right in that it's all anecdotal, but there is value in that. I envision some sort of list where user comments from ARSC and beyond would be quoted or described for each tape type. Sort of a "use at your own risk" thing, but it could be simply collecting all the experiences presented in this entire listserv and archive. How to do this exactly is beyond my pay grade. 

Jeff Willens
New York Public Library



On Mon, 23 Nov 2020 16:07:45 -0500, Richard L. Hess <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Hi, Corey,
>
>Thanks for the concern over my time...I do have other things to do, but,
>for now, I seem to be the only one doing this.
>
>In fact, I just updated this page based on Dennis's comment and wove it
>in with a larger analysis of the 3M spreadsheet of tape types. The
>3M175+ and 3M 176+ sections under Soft Binder Syndrome have been
>updated, Note that 201+ also appears in the light edge shedding section.
>
><https://richardhess.com/notes/formats/magnetic-media/magnetic-tapes/analog-audio/degrading-tapes/>
>
>There was a good deal of energy generated for just such a database
>following the AES Archiving conference at the Library of Congress in
>Culpeper, VA, in 2018.
>
>Following that, some people who said they'd share datasets did not do so
>with no explanation.
>
>Also, Dr. Federica Bressan and I spent hours discussing this issue and
>have come to the conclusion that not enough accurate raw data are
>available at this point to legitimately construct such a database.
>
>We have ample anecdotal evidence of significant batch variations in many
>manufacturers' tapes. Since the vast majority of recordings do not have
>the tape batch number recorded with it, many do not have traceable
>documentation of the published tape type, the tape type may have changed
>over time,(one U-Matic tape type had four different FTIR signatures over
>time and there we're pretty certain that the type number is on the
>cassette (Benoit Thiebaut, Prestospace Project c. 2006)), and there is
>usually little to no record of the storage conditions for the tape.
>
>So, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to make an accurate
>database that goes beyond the type of general narrative that I've been
>providing. While I think we'd all love to have a database that says,
>"Use this technique to remediate tape type X."
>
>Rather than a documentation approach, I have been pushing for a
>"pool-test-kit" type of system where applying drops of something or
>other to a small sample of the tape would suggest what to do.
>
>Andrew Davis of the Library of Congress has suggested a water droplet
>test which I have tried and found cumbersome, slow, and subject to
>interpretation...and this was only to say, "does the tape need baking."
>It seemed promising until I tried it, but maybe he's onto something.
>
>I would be curious if anyone has any further ideas on this, I don't want
>to throw a bucket of ice water on the idea, but it is fraught with
>difficulties.
>
>Thanks!
>
>Cheers,
>
>Richard
>
>
>
>On 2020-11-23 1:06 p.m., Corey Bailey wrote:
>> As Dennis Rooney pointed out: "3M 176 and 177 both can squeal."
>>
>> Shai's post points out the need for a centralized database because this
>> list is sprinkled with a wealth of valuable information on many subjects.
>>
>> Richard Hess maintains a page on audio tape known to have problems but
>> he should not have to keep up a centralized database (He has other
>> things to do, I'm sure).
>>
>> Anyone know of some good email mining software?
>>
>> My $0.02,
>>
>> CB
>>
>
>--
>Richard L. Hess                   email: [log in to unmask]
>Aurora, Ontario, Canada                             647 479 2800
>http://www.richardhess.com/tape/contact.htm
>Track Format - Speed - Equalization - Azimuth - Noise Reduction
>Quality tape transfers -- even from hard-to-play tapes.