I have had specific experience with this in preserving a number of tapes from the 70's of the same brand, year and storage history, but different containers. Some were stored in original cardboard containers while others were stored in "archival" storage containers. In a couple of different cases I came upon batches where the tapes stored in cardboard containers did exhibit sticky shed, and the tapes stored in tape care boxes did not. This was an eye opener for me and I did some research into it with the client. Documentation showed that at some point in the storage history of these tapes some were rehoused and some were not. It wasn't clear what the policy or motivating factors were for rehousing only parts of the collection, but the data provided as a result was conclusive. Of course there are truly so many variables in the chemical and physical makeup of tape as well as degradation mechanisms. I don't believe you can make a general statement that a certain set of parameters will always yield a certain set of results. However, my experience coupled with this data was certainly meaningful enough to conclude that an enclosed "archival" storage container can greatly decrease the rate and extent of hydrolysis relative to a tape stored in a cardboard box. Chris Lacinak Director of Operations VidiPax 450 West 31st St. 4th floor New York, NY 10001 212-563-1999 xt. 130 [log in to unmask] -----Original Message----- From: James Lindner [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 12:29 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Magnetic recordings tape vs. moisture Years ago it was considered "good engineering practice" to keep the tapes in the plastic bags that they were shipped in by the manufacturer. I do not know the derivation of that idea - but that is what I was taught as a tape operator in my youth. When I got started in this field, I questioned that notion - so I kept condition information about tapes that were being cleaned, and I tried to correlate whether tapes that were in a bag were in fact in better shape. It was not a truly scientific study because I did not have a way to empirically measure how dirty tapes were in the first place, and I did have other people cleaning tapes then me - so what may have been slightly dirty for one person may have been considered medium dirty for another. Nevertheless - I could not every find any meaningful correlation between binder degradation and tapes enclosed in plastic bags that should have provided some level of vapor barrier protection. The notion that I came up with to explain this is that over long periods of time the RH inside the bag (unless it was sealed and virtually none were) and outside the bag would have equalized - and if anything the vapor barrier would have provided a bit of latency against humidity cycling (for better or worse). But this was a hypothesis. In fact I could find no demonstrable correlation. * Jim Lindner * Media Matters, LLC * Email: [log in to unmask] * Address: 500 West 37th Street, 1st FL New York, N.Y. 10018 * eFax (646) 349-4475 * Mobile: (917) 945-2662 * www.media-matters.net -----Original Message----- From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dave Radlauer Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 12:56 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: [ARSCLIST] Magnetic recordings tape vs. moisture In a message dated 6/10/04 9:03:03 PM, [log in to unmask] writes: << Would a completely sealed tape box minimize sticky shed syndrome by insulating the tape from moisture in the environment? >> In theory . . . maybe. When the box is closed, any ambient moisture in the air, and in the tape would be trapped inside. Although dessicant (moisture absorbing crystals) in the box might absorb and lock-up any such moisture. But I don't know any of the tape manufacturers really claim there "archival storage containers" to really seal out moisture. Dave Radlauer www.JAZZHOT.Bigstep.com ------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/