 |
 |
Richard Hess quoted Peter Copeland: "Sometimes the binder has oozed so much that it sticks the oxide onto the back of the next layer, and of course the oxide comes off and you lose the recording. This would have happened even if you had tried a straight playback. The only cure I know is to run from one reel to another very slowly and at extremely high tension. The layers then separate slowly and tangentially without damage to the oxide; but you will need a specially-modified tape deck with servo control of slowly-rotating spooling motors, and it may take a day or two for one reel to unwind. Do this in a warm room to allow some of the stickiness to dry immediately. We have a prototype machine (called “the Grandfather Clock”), which supplies warm air to dry a few feet of tape as it crawls from one reel to the other." I ask: So in the case of a delaminating reel, if I was going to use the 'Grandfather clock' method, would I want the tape to be humidified, or un-humidified? I ask because when I was at the Louis Armstrong archive, I had one acetate tape that delaminated near the end of the reel. I lost several feet of oxide before I stopped the machine, and took the reel off the player. I read about the GFC at the time, and as I recall, one recommendation was to humidify the tape by placing it in a humid environment (we used a plastic garbage can with some water in it and a platform to suspend the reel of tape) for a period of weeks or months. I think I left the tape there for six weeks or so, and when I tried to play it I got the same delamination. I didn't get a chance to try slow unwinding, and the tape remains unfinished as far as I know. I would assume that the more supple the oxide layer was, the more likely it would be to adhere to the backing. -Matt Sohn