Print

Print


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.> >
>