Print

Print


Hello,

I should also add that although my transfer was succesful, I also still
had a considerable amount of residue on the tape guides and the heads. I
was just happy to get the tape transferred without any squealing, and it
doesn't seem like the residue affected the final transfer dramatically.
I don't think I could get it any better.

Regards,
mike

----------------------------------

Michael Bridavsky

Audio Engineer

Digital Audio Archiving Project

Indiana University School of Music

 

Office: 812-855-6061

Cell:   812-327-7939


-----Original Message-----
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tom Fine
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 10:11 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] scotch 227

Following up on this, even after all that baking and cooling, there was
a little residue on the 
guides after the reels passed. The residue seemed to come much more off
the back-coat side -- very 
little of anything on the heads or takeup guide but some crud on the
supply guide and pinchroller. 
Not enough to gum up the works but more than would be expected from one
pass of a good tape. Got a 
good transfer so hopefully that's it for these tapes. Made a safety dub
at the same time, onto 
supposedly "cured" Quantegy 457. Check back in 10 years and we'll see if
it's really cured.

-- Tom Fine


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tom Fine" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 5:49 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] scotch 227


> I'm right now transferring one of two Scotch 227's from 1986 (10.5"
reels). Baked 12 hours, cooled 
> 12 hours in the American Harvest air oven. No residue on the tape path
of my Technics 1500, which 
> I used to run though so as to get a good, even wind. Now transferring
on my Ampex AG-440B and it 
> sounds darn good. I'm very surprised it turned out so well because I
was afraid it was stuck for 
> good. This is a pair of tapes I did not want to lose. Of course,
high-resolution transfer because 
> I'm not optimistic they'll play this well a second time.
>
> -- Tom Fine
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Bridavsky, Michael G" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 12:08 PM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] scotch 227
>
>
> UPDATE:
>
> I re-baked the 227 for 24 hours straight, followed by a 32 hour cool
> down, and the tape played well from head to tail.
>
> Thanks for the advice!
>
> mike
>
> ----------------------------------
> Michael Bridavsky
> Audio Engineer
> Digital Audio Archiving Project
> Indiana University School of Music
>
> Office: 812-855-6061
> Cell:   812-327-7939
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of David Lennick
> Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2006 8:14 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] scotch 227
>
> Parker Dinkins wrote:
>
>  on 3/30/06 4:51 PM US/Central, David Lennick at [log in to unmask]
> wrote:
>
>  > One thing I'd add to this (which is interesting..I'd never seen
> anything
>  > about allowing them to cool for 12 hours)
>
>  Actually in 1999 an engineer at Quantegy asked that I advise website
>  visitors that the cooldown period should be 24 hours:
>
>  > allow them to cool to the control room environment for 24 hours
> prior to
>  > working with the tapes. This allows the tapes to cool, relieves
pack
>
> stresses,
>  > gives the binders time to re-adhere to the base film, and allows
> residual
>  > lubricants deep in the layers of the tape to exude to the surface
to
>
> make the
>  > tapes runnable.
>
>  It's at
> http://www.masterdigital.com/24bit/analogtape.htm#anchor1163399
>
>  ---
>  Parker Dinkins
>  MasterDigital Corporation
>  CD Mastering + Audio Restoration
>  http://masterdigital.com
>
>
>
> Now, what about these people who swear by a vegetable hydrator or a
> drawer
> with 60-watt light bulbs in it or a copper bracelet or an exorcist?
>
> dl