Richard, do any of these researchers know the actual "recipes" for the tapes they are studying? If 
not, is it possible to get that knowledge? Has anyone interviewed in detail the tape manufacturers' 
chemists? It sounds to me like we have a bunch of stabs in the dark and theories. Are first-person 
details of actual recipes already non-attainable?

Also, I would think a modern manufacturer like Mike Spitz or Zonal could shed some light, perhaps 
talking about other companies recipes rather than their own?

I really think it's time to get down in the weeds with the chemistry, I can't see why the whole 
process of sticky-shed is not understandable, quantifiable and measurable???

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Richard L. Hess" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, April 05, 2013 6:02 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Sticky SHRED

> Hi, Nigel,
> Thank you for this very useful insight! This has been part of the mantra for a long time, but it 
> is wonderful to receive further confirmation.
> We cannot forget the "running changes" that Benoit Thiebaut discovered specifically in U-Matic 
> tapes, but I suspect that process "improvements" were common as tapes were running and if this 
> 60-70 % factor is involved it doesn't even have to be a process improvement.
> Cheers,
> Richard
> On 2013-04-05 4:53 PM, Nigel Champion wrote:
>> At last year's IASA conference in New Delhi, Dietrich Schueller presented information gleaned 
>> from discussions with retired employees of the major German tape manufacturers, BASF & AGFA. 
>> Some expressed the opinion that subtleties in the manufacturing procedures had more influence on 
>> the finished quality of magnetic tape than the actual chemical mix by a factor of 60% or 70%.
>> I infer from this that, even if one tape has exactly the same chemical constituents as another, a 
>> small variation in one step of the manufacturing processes can result in pronounced differences 
>> in measures of quality such as performance, stability and/or longevity.  Such a situation makes 
>> comparisons very difficult at this late stage for those considering chemical analysis of 
>> constituents or assessing differing degradation under controlled climatic conditions as suggested 
>> recently on this list for sticky-shed.  It would also explain the differing experiences of many 
>> on this list with the "same" tape.
>> Nigel
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Tom 
>> Fine [[log in to unmask]]
>> Sent: 06 April 2013 07:23
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Sticky SHRED
>> I think Dennis is bringing up a really important point. Sarah and Richard, do you have any 
>> contacts
>> with original tape manufacturer chemists, people who were familiar with the "brew" of the tapes?
>> Before these people die, it's important to get information from them about what chemicals were 
>> used
>> in the binders. There's no "state secret" anymore -- all of those tape manufacturers are out of
>> business now (and I'm afraid, given how things work, that corporate records detailing the "brew" 
>> are
>> probably lost to time).
>> <SNIP>
>> -- Tom Fine
> -- 
> Richard L. Hess                   email: [log in to unmask]
> Aurora, Ontario, Canada                             647 479 2800
> Quality tape transfers -- even from hard-to-play tapes.