The C120s are a real problem; the tape is so thin that you can almost see
through it, and output is generally low. But my point is just because
something is on a cheap
tape doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be a major issue -- my
experience has been that Normal bias C60s hold up well. I have had
multitudes of problems with higher
end tapes, particularly later tapes from 1988 forward. Metal tapes,
particularly ones made on machines with faulty bias settings, are terrible,
and they were supposed to be
the best.

And I agree -- these "so many factors" do need to be accounted for.

Uncle Dave Lewis
Lebanon, OH

On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 4:48 PM, Richard L. Hess
<[log in to unmask]>wrote:

> On 2012-10-29 3:58 PM, David Lewis wrote:
>> This comes from someone who has been digitizing cassettes, outside the
>> studio environment, for more than 15 years. At the Cleveland conference, I
>> called on ARSC to
>> establish some standards for digitizing and restoring cassettes, and I am
>> disappointed that we have been dragging out feet on that as it is still
>> needed. If I am wrong, please
>> point me to the documentation, but I have not seen it if so.
> Someday, I hope the Canadian Conservation Institute publishes a note I
> helped write on this subject.
>  High bias tapes may hold better signal up top, but Normal bias tapes tend
>> to be more stable and have less dropouts, just more noise.
> I think generalizations don't work for this--I have found that the
> high-bias tapes often hold up better in many ways, but then, many of them
> were premium tapes to begin with. Generally, the most troublesome tapes I
> come across are low-end normal bias C120 tapes, but your experience may be
> all depends on so many factors.
> Cheers,
> Richard
> --
> Richard L. Hess                   email: [log in to unmask]
> Aurora, Ontario, Canada           (905) 713 6733     1-877-TAPE-FIX
> Quality tape transfers -- even from hard-to-play tapes.