 |
 |
ummm, what is that from Roger Kulp? On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Roger Kulp <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > > > > I could put together a group like that in a few months of buying at > Goodwill.The trouble is,most of them would be tapes of Trini Lopez or New > Christy Minstrels records,or some such.You will notice the seller does not > say what is actually on these tapes,as such the $2.99 per lot of 60 tapes > is about right.I don't see why for that money,it would even be worth the > trouble to list and ship them. Roger > Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2013 09:26:31 > -0700> From: [log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] tape > chemistry/processing> To: [log in to unmask]> > If we're looking > for how many different brands of reel to reel tape we're being sold in "the > good 'ole days", this eBay guy/girl seems to have bought them all...... > > http://www.ebay.com/itm/60-Reel-Reel-Tapes-Buy-1-All-/390550178641?_trksid=p11021.m2364&_trkparms=aid%3D555001%26algo%3DPW.CURRENT%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D216%26meid%3D6768180066040736328%26pid%3D100084%26prg%3D1115%26rk%3D8%26sd%3D281088813854%26&ssPageName=ADME:B:SS:US:1120> > > --- On Fri, 4/5/13, Dan Nelson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:> > From: > Dan Nelson <[log in to unmask]>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] tape > chemistry/processing> To: [log in to unmask]> Date: Friday, April > 5, 2013, 9:38 PM> > At DAK we got our binder and dry oxide from MagNox, > these were mixed in a drum mixer along with MEK as a thinning agent that > also improved adhesion to the base polyester (aka dupont mylar) film.> Mag > tape coating is similar to the first step in Offset printing. The oxide > (ink) is supplied to a roller and passes through a metering blade that > leaves a smooth thin layer of oxide on the roller that rotates against the > film base and transfers the oxide coating. > Traveling through an oven > evaporates the solvent and begins to harden the coating, which next passes > through calendar rollers which smooths and compresses the oxide coating > under pressure and heat to finish hardening the coating. > Two types of > calendar rollers were used with different tape surface textures. A Nylon > roller would leave a soft matte finish while a hard chrome roller would > give the oxide a highly polished sheen which looked nice but would cause > increased odixe to tape head adhesion because of the lack of microscopic > air pockets in the oxide..... often to the point of squealing noise.> The > highly polished hard chrome surface was mostly used for video and high > speed instrumentation tape.> At DAK we coated on 6-8-12" web widths. Rotary > slitters converted the webs to 1/8" cassette and 1/4" reel stock into > master pancakes. > One step that could contribute to oxide flaking is the > calendaring processing where pressure and heat are critical to long term > adhesion.> The hard chrome finished surface of the oxide can contribute to > head/tape squeal due to surface adhesion. The hard chrome finish at one > time was promoted as providing few drop outs and more uniform output in > Master tape products when used at higher tape speeds.... where did the > seconds end up ? you guessed in the bargain boxed 3M and Ampex, which > accounts for the inconsistency of the bargain box stock. > Also the Melody > brand used reslit 1/2" computer stock that was returned to the mfgr for > credit toward new stock... it was part of a gov buy back program... again > nothing goes to waste, find a way to reuse it.> Even DAK secured 1000's > of reels of computer and instrumentation tape to be reslit.> > d nelson > ward > > > Beautiful Music you will never forget, at; > http://www.americanbeautiful.podbean.com/> > > > > --- On Fri, 4/5/13, > Richard L. Hess <[log in to unmask]> wrote:> > > From: Richard L. > Hess <[log in to unmask]>> > Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Sticky > SHRED/tape chemistry> > To: [log in to unmask]> > Date: Friday, > April 5, 2013, 4:44 PM> > 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.> > >