My understanding was that BF Goodrich Estane was used widely as the binder. Dr. Bob Perry would not share any Ampex secrets with me and said at the time they were still secrets in his mind. PDF page 6 of my paper discusses this a bit more formally than my previous post. This would be useful information... Let's all rattle whatever cages we can. Cheers, Richard On 2013-04-05 6:56 PM, Dan Nelson wrote: > Back in the 80s i was working for DAK industries and we were coating our own webs and slitting 1/8" and 1/4" stock. Before that i was familiar with Northridge magnetics who was making mastering quality 1/2" tape. > In fact i set DAK up to buy the Northridge facility. > MagNox was a prime supplier of odixe and coating chemistry to the industry as a whole. > IM looking for my folder of spec sheets which i thought i may have kept when the Air Quality Inspections in LA made it impossible to use the quantity solvents needed and DAK shut down the coating plant. > Our next step was buying raw stock from Ampex here on the West coast. > So any problems Ampex had in the 80s was passed onto DAK labeled products. > > d nelson ward > > Beautiful Music you will never forget, at; http://www.americanbeautiful.podbean.com/ > > > > > --- On Fri, 4/5/13, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> From: Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]> >> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Sticky SHRED >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Date: Friday, April 5, 2013, 3:23 PM >> 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 >>> http://www.richardhess.com/tape/contact.htm >>> Quality tape transfers -- even from hard-to-play >> tapes. -- Richard L. Hess email: [log in to unmask] Aurora, Ontario, Canada 647 479 2800 http://www.richardhess.com/tape/contact.htm Quality tape transfers -- even from hard-to-play tapes.