 |
 |
Jim, so let's narrow this down, please. Are you finding sticky 206/207 stock? Also 226/227? How about 250? Thanks. -- Tom Fine ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Sam" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Friday, December 18, 2015 6:35 PM Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Interesting sticky-shed data point Tom, A variety of stocks. Jim On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 2:53 PM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Hi Jim: > > Just to be clear, are your sticky 3M tapes exclusively 226/227, or other > types? Thanks in advance. This is a very useful discussion! > > -- Tom Fine > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Sam" <[log in to unmask]> > To: <[log in to unmask]> > Sent: Friday, December 18, 2015 5:30 PM > Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Interesting sticky-shed data point > > > Richard, > > We have excellent storage conditions here and while I see SSS uniformly on > back-coated polyester tapes--most tapes 3M and here >15 years--8 hours > always is sufficient. > > Jim Sam > Hoover Institution Library & Archives > Stanford University > > > > On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Richard L. Hess < > [log in to unmask]> > > wrote: > > Tom, >> >> The one semi interesting data point that I have is that in 2012 when I was >> at LoC, they said that they are NOT seeing the increase in baking time >> requirement that many of us on this list have noticed. I confirmed with >> them that the tapes they are transferring have been in their vaults for an >> extended period of time. They bake 8 hours and the tapes play fine with no >> residue. >> >> So, I take that to be at least some support for the cold, dry storage >> environment that they have buried into the hillside. >> >> Nothing scientific, just an overall impression based on a confirmed >> conversation. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Richard >> >> >> >> >> On 12/18/2015 2:24 PM, Tom Fine wrote: >> >> One thing I'd like to see tested is whether these dry/cold vaults really >>> make any difference with sticky-shed. I know of a vault that has Ampex >>> 406 tapes, NOS, that have been stored there since the vault was built, >>> either before the tapes were purchased or soon afterwards. Acting on the >>> assumption that all Ampex-branded 406 is likely sticky-shed, especially >>> later-era 406 (which this is), I'd love for a real-deal lab to get hold >>> of one of these tapes and test if it's gone sticky. If it has, I would >>> say the cold/dry vault -- which is likely NOT GOOD for acetate tapes -- >>> turns out to be no help to stave off sticky-shed. If the tape, or a test >>> batch of tapes, are not sticky, then we have a proven data point about >>> storage. >>> >>> My overall point is, I think there are still a lot of assumptions made >>> about sticky-shed, which aren't proven and may not be true. The only >>> thing that does seem to be true is that a sticky tape can be baked and >>> it will playback in a mechanically successful manner. As I've said, my >>> experience is that the audio deteriorates after a handful of bakes, but >>> others disagree and I think we all admit we haven't done rigorous >>> science on that. >>> >>> -- Tom Fine >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard L. Hess" >>> <[log in to unmask]> >>> To: <[log in to unmask]> >>> Sent: Friday, December 18, 2015 2:03 PM >>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Interesting sticky-shed data point >>> >>> >>> Tom, >>> >>>> >>>> It is harder than you think. Work has been done and continues to be >>>> done on identifying, the causation, and the remediation. >>>> >>>> Since we have no new tape (only NOS) to play with, controlled tests >>>> are practically impossible. One paper I read on potting compound >>>> hydrolysis, the experimenters made new batches of the polymer to test. >>>> >>>> Needless to say, that is more difficult with tape, especially when we >>>> have anecdotal (at least) evidence that the process control was >>>> sometimes sub-optimum. And the looooong time it has been around. >>>> >>>> Cheers? >>>> >>>> Richard >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 12/18/2015 8:53 AM, Tom Fine wrote: >>>> >>>> I submit, then, that we don't have a clear understanding of what causes >>>>> sticky-shed. Since we know that baking makes the tapes playable, >>>>> knowing >>>>> the cause may not matter at this point, but it would be good to close >>>>> the circle. I'm surprised the government hasn't spent more time and >>>>> money on nailing this down, given how much instrumentation and audio >>>>> tape is archived. It seems like one of the defense-contractor labs >>>>> would >>>>> have the chemistry analysis and science expertise to figure this out. >>>>> It >>>>> seems to have something to do with polymer science, as I understand it. >>>>> But then it may not, since we see that what's essentially the same >>>>> material (tapes from the same batch, assumed from the same rolled out >>>>> mass of slurry) may or may not go sticky or may not go the same amount >>>>> of sticky, under same storage conditions. >>>>> >>>>> By the way, there seems to be a similar thing with some brown-oxide >>>>> acetate-backed tapes and vinegar syndrome. I told the tale of two >>>>> Audiotape masters made around the same time, but likely from different >>>>> batches, the A and B side masters of the MLP mono "1812 Overture." The >>>>> A >>>>> side tape is badly decayed from vinegar syndrome. It is actually a >>>>> later-time tape than the B side master because it was mixed at the >>>>> studio (music master combined with SFX master to create LP master), >>>>> whereas the B side master is a first-generation recording, edited into >>>>> a >>>>> master. Both are Audiotape acetate-backed tapes, which have a track >>>>> record of not going vinegar. So why did one go vinegar and one didn't? >>>>> I >>>>> think it's safe to assume they've been stored together all these years. >>>>> My experience has been that Audiotape acetate-backed rarely goes >>>>> vinegar, Scotch 111 variants seem to be about 50-50 and are dependent >>>>> on >>>>> storage conditions, Kodak is 100%, and Irish (pre-Ampex) trends more >>>>> like Audiotape (unlikely to go vinegar unless stored in damp >>>>> conditions). So again, why? We've talked about different impurities in >>>>> the iron oxide in any given batch. Might that also relate to >>>>> sticky-shed, that the impurities in the iron are the actual culprit? >>>>> Both conditions seem to relate to moisture being pulled into the tape >>>>> chemistry. >>>>> >>>>> Some food for thought, by real scientists. Too bad no one with that >>>>> kind >>>>> of expertise can get the time or funding to nail down the real answers. >>>>> >>>>> -- Tom Fine >>>>> >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Corey Bailey" >>>>> <[log in to unmask]> >>>>> To: <[log in to unmask]> >>>>> Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2015 11:23 PM >>>>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Interesting sticky-shed data point >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Back in the day, I had a few occasions where batch numbers were not >>>>> >>>>>> the same with bulk 1/4" (406 & 456) on hubs. Tape that was on reels in >>>>>> boxes, when purchased in case lots, were consistent. >>>>>> >>>>>> I've also had Marie's experience with Sticky Shed where the same tape, >>>>>> from the same batch (Based on the batch #'s from the tape ends stored >>>>>> with the reels), stored on the same shelf, had different levels (some >>>>>> with none) of SS. >>>>>> >>>>>> Corey >>>>>> Corey Bailey Audio Engineering >>>>>> www.baileyzone.net >>>>>> >>>>>> On 12/17/2015 7:47 PM, Marie O'Connell wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> When I was in the States I made a largish order of about 1000 reels of >>>>>>> Emtec 911 open reel tapes. From memory the boxes contained 20 >>>>>>> reels per >>>>>>> box and my immediate boss liked me to record the batch number as part >>>>>>> of my >>>>>>> workflow. Not all the tapes in the boxes were from the same batch. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We had a situation here where the Mitsui Gold CDR's, shrink wrapped >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> all, not only had pit holes in them on the gold layer, but when you >>>>>>> opened >>>>>>> the shrink-wrap and case they were full of dust!. We sent them >>>>>>> back but >>>>>>> heard that another institution in Asia had complained about the >>>>>>> pit-holes >>>>>>> and sent theirs back after opening them. It appears they were then >>>>>>> re-shrink-wrapped and we got them! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The joys of archiving! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Marie >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Richard L. >>>>>>> Hess<[log in to unmask]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Tom, what you describe is the theory. I have heard rumours that >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> was not >>>>>>>> the case in Opelika. Cases were filled with reels when needed. I >>>>>>>> suspect >>>>>>>> that bulk packs were perhaps a bit more likely to be all the same >>>>>>>> batch. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> How wide were the jumbos in Opelika? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Richard >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 12/17/2015 9:27 PM, Tom Fine wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I thought the numbers on the box and on the stickers box indicated >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> batch >>>>>>>>> numbers and dates of manufacture, indicating that all pancakes in >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> box were from that batch and date. At least that's how I always >>>>>>>>> understood 3M and Ampex boxes. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- Tom Fine >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lou Judson"<[log in to unmask]> >>>>>>>>> To:<[log in to unmask]> >>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2015 7:54 PM >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Interesting sticky-shed data point >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Tom, is it a documented fact that all (12) rolls (reels or >>>>>>>>> pancakes) of >>>>>>>>> tape in a box would be from the same manufacturing/slurry batch? I >>>>>>>>> never >>>>>>>>> looked, but it would not surprise me if there were different >>>>>>>>> manufacturing runs on the same delivery carton… >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <L> >>>>>>>>> Lou Judson >>>>>>>>> Intuitive Audio >>>>>>>>> 415-883-2689 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Dec 17, 2015, at 4:38 PM, Tom Fine<[log in to unmask]> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi Marie: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This is very strange: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I have also had reels of Ampex 456 come out of the same box of >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 10 or >>>>>>>>>>> 20 and >>>>>>>>>>> purchased at the same time where 1/2 have SSS and the rest are >>>>>>>>>>> fine! >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I've never heard of that from anyone else. That would almost >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> seem to >>>>>>>>>> defy all theories of what causes sticky-shed, because one would >>>>>>>>>> assume >>>>>>>>>> by a "box" of tapes you mean a real-deal Ampex case with a batch >>>>>>>>>> number on it. If that's so, it's really freaky that some tapes >>>>>>>>>> in the >>>>>>>>>> same batch (which I think means the same production run of the >>>>>>>>>> chemical slurry) would get sticky-shed and others wouldn't. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I'm not doubting your testimony at all, just saying that is calls >>>>>>>>>> into >>>>>>>>>> question what is believed to be the cause of sticky-shed, in that >>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>> can't see how the binder chemistry could differ within a batch. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>> >> 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. >> >>