Non-member submission from [Graeme Jaye <gjaye@retemail.es>]

[Esther Gillie <esth@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 14:16:32 +0200
>To: ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>From: Graeme Jaye <gjaye@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: arsclist RE:Re-evaluating Tape Stock for Mastering
>Cc: AV-Media-Matters@xxxxxxxxxx
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>At 16:07 01/06/00 -0400, Jim wrote:
>
>>Comments on back coating vs. non-back coating. Our rationale for using
>>non-back coating is the tremendous problems we have seen with back coat
>>failure, and no back coat eliminates that issue  - AND  we can't really
>>figure out what the real value of backcoat is anyhow these days. Does
>>this logic hold?
>
>While not in the archival business, I must say I was surprised to see this
>statement.  I can't recall ever having seen a case of backcoat failure from
>any of the manufacturers.
>
>The logic of using a backcoat is one which I would have though was very
>important for archivists, as it promotes a better wind, stops tape blocking
>and eliminates tape slip.  As it is primarily carbon based, it will also
>reduce static charge building up on the tape.  I would have thought that
>any one of these reasons would have been enough to promote its universal
>use for archival puposes.
>
>>Comments regarding 1.5 mil vs 1.0 mil relating to print through and
>>other performance characteristics of base film thickness. i.e. with the
>>new PET basefilm stocks being used is 1.5 REALLY that much better then
>>1.0 mil these days. Is there really a reason to use 1.5 mil for 1/4"?
>
>Yes - there is.  No matter what the material used to manufacture the base
>film, the problem of print-through is still directly related to its
>thickness.  Thicker tape = lower print-through.  
>
>On top of that, thicker tapes are easier to handle, less prone to stretch
>and generally tougher all-round.  Again, I would have thought these were
>all very good reasons to use such a tape for archival purposes.
>
>It might also be argued that thinner tape = better head contact, but I
>presume these tapes would be played on professional equipment where this is
>not really an issue - it's more a way  for domestic equipment manufacturers
>to be looser with their mechanical specifications :-).
>
>>Any feedback on storing as pancake vs. NAB metal reels? 
>
>This is moving out of my field, but personally I would avoid the use of
>pancakes for a purely practical reason.  If, for whatever reason, one comes
>apart, you have 1200' of tape on the floor - that is a good enough reason
>for me to not even think of using them.  However, archivists may take a
>different view for more important (to them) reasons.
>
>Long-term storage containers for archive is a subject where I can't comment.
>
>>Any comments on current binder systems - are they REALLY that different.
>>Performance v. Longevity in actual practice.
>
>I have little to do with tape these days - but I don't think they are any
>worse than they used to be (before the sticky-shed nonsense, that is).
>
>>Any bad experiences with recent stocks other then the usual occasional
>>bad batches.
>
>Not enough recent experience to comment on this.
>
>>Abrasivity issues?
>
>Similarly - although I would have thought the days of *really* abrasive
>tapes was long gone.
>
>
>Graeme Jaye
>gjaye@xxxxxxxxxxx
> 
>Personal-CD - Affordable Audio Restoration
> 
>http://www.personal-cd.com
>
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Esther Gillie	                          esth@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sound Recording Archivist, Eastman School of Music	
Sibley Music Library, 27 Gibbs Street, Rochester, New York 14604
(716) 274-1330	                           fax (716) 274-1380
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~