[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ARSCLIST] Ampex & Sticky Shed Syndrome
But wait! There's more!
Let us not forget Karex! UGH - and dare I say that Kodak for a while sold
1" C tape (that I am almost positive they did not make) - and that tape was
really nasty too.
But I think that my nominee for the absolutely and most consistently worst
was the Memorex 1" Type B video tape. Now it takes allot to win such
notoriety - as most of you know, I have polished (directly or indirectly)
quite a pile of tape over the years - but that stuff is just horrendous.
Consistently bad - tape after tape after tape. The stuff smelled so bad I
had to air it out just so the smell didn't make me want to puke. Just
terrible stuff. I did a few for ABC once - some Barbara Walters stuff - oh
my. Just horrible. It took me forever to do those transfers.
I do agree with Peter - given enough time and the right (which means wrong)
environment - I have not seen a single manufacturer that over the years has
not had at least some product turn to goo.
jim
*
Jim Lindner
*
Media Matters, LLC
*
Email: jim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
*
Address: 500 West 37th Street, 1st FL
New York, N.Y. 10018
*
eFax (646) 349-4475
*
Mobile: (917) 945-2662
*
www.media-matters.net
-----Original Message-----
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
[mailto:ARSCLIST@xxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 11:54 AM
To: ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Ampex & Sticky Shed Syndrome
The problem of binder hydrolysis (sticky shed) is obviously, from the other
responses, not limited to a particular brand or a particular type of tape.
As this is an audio list, I thought I might add some additional information
from the video field that might not be as familiar to some of the list
members.
"Sticky shed" is quite common in the video tape field. The most common
offenders are: Ampex 2", Memorex 2", 3M 2", Kodak 1", Fuji 1" (H621 only),
Sony 3/4" and Agfa 3/4". It does appear in other tapes but less frequently
and is, usually, less severe. Of course, if you expose any polyester tape
to enough moisture for a long time, you are likely to get binder hydrolysis.
Peter Brothers
President
SPECS BROS., LLC
(201) 440-6589
www.specsbros.com
Restoration and Disaster Recovery Service Since 1983
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
> [mailto:ARSCLIST@xxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Steve Green
> Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 12:38 PM
> To: ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Ampex & Sticky Shed Syndrome
>
>
> Thread was: and what about that patent?
>
> Has anyone compiled a definitive list of tape manufacturers and tape
> types for which bonafide cases of Sticky Shed Syndrome have turned up?
>
> It's my understanding that Ampex 406 was one of the major problematic
> tapes, but I've also heard that other brands and types of tape have
> also been found with SSS. If the main cause was a problematic formula
> developed by Ampex, why would other brands also suffer? Did some
> companies repackage Ampex tape under other names? Did they obtain
> rights to use the formula in manufacturing their own tape?
>
> It would be great to see a list of known brands exhibiting SSS. In the
> early 1990s, I encountered some way serious Sticky Shed on Shamrock
> reels from the 1970s. They were in a humid climate (Kentucky), which
> leads me to ask whether Sticky Shed is believed to be a manufacturing
> problem or a climate problem or a combination of the two?
>
> Can anyone elaborate for the List?
>
> Thanks!
>
>
> Steve Green
> Western Folklife Center
>
> *******
>
> On Dec 15, 2004, at 8:20 AM, David Seubert wrote:
>
> > While legally Ampex could enforce this patent, ethically and
> > practically they could not. They created a defective product and it was
> > their responsibility to find a solution. I suspect that this patent was
> > filed without ever intending to enforce it, knowing that it would be a
> > customer relations disaster to try to profit from their mistake. At
> > least I hope that was their intent. Ten years later it's hard to say
> > what their lawyers and accounts might think, but frankly, I don't care.
> >
> > I'm surprised that there has never been any legal action against Ampex
> > for the sticky-shed problem. While nobody has died from their defective
> > product, it still has caused millions of dollars in damage to their
> > customers. Enforcing this patent would be a bit like Merck selling
> > heart attack medicine to patients who took Vioxx. Ampex took some
> > responsibility for the mistake and developed a solution and made the
> > information available, while not profiting from the solution. For that
> > they are to be commended, but it still doesn't change the fact that
> > their product was defective. Regardless of who "owns" this technique, I
> > will continue to bake tapes with no remorse and I think others should
> > do the same.
> >
> > David Seubert
> > UCSB
> >
> >
> > On Tuesday, December 14, 2004, at 06:37 PM, James Lindner wrote:
> >
> >> FYI a follow up on articles regarding Ampex and Patent enforcement.
> >>
> >> http://www.nwfusion.com/news/2004/1130sonytopa.html
> >>
> >> http://www.forbes.com/associatedpress/feeds/ap/2004/11/29/
> >> ap1678714.html
> >>
> >> And this from the "Chairman's Letter" in the 2003 annual report
> >>
> >> Snip..." The greatest contributor to Ampex's 17.2% increase in overall
> >> revenues and to the improved operating profits in 2003 was income from
> >> our
> >> licensing portfolio of digital imaging patents. As I forecasted in
> >> last
> >> year's letter, royalty income improved significantly, rising to $10.1
> >> million from $4.0 million in the previous year. Some of the increase
> >> resulted from payments by licensees that were actually due to us in
> >> earlier
> >> periods, but ongoing royalties are now running at a rate significantly
> >> greater than in 2002. Encouragingly, substantially all of our
> >> royalties now
> >> come from digital video recorders and camcorders rather than from
> >> analog
> >> products that are now largely obsolete.
> >>
> >> As discussed in previous annual reports, licensing income has tended
> >> to be
> >> volatile and difficult to forecast. In 2003 our royalty income was
> >> solely
> >> generated by digital videotape recorders and camcorders. Starting two
> >> years
> >> ago we have been moving aggressively to broaden the base of royalties
> >> to
> >> include additional areas of consumer electronics where we believe our
> >> patented technology is being used. These markets include DVD recorders
> >> and
> >> players, digital still cameras and digital television receivers, each
> >> of
> >> which represents large future market opportunities.
> >>
> >> I am pleased to report that, after the year end, we negotiated our
> >> first
> >> license for DVD recorders, which we expect to sign shortly. This new
> >> licensee, a multi-billion dollar manufacturer of consumer electronic
> >> products based in Japan, has informed us that they expect to begin
> >> production later this year of certain new products that will use our
> >> patents. Since these products have not yet been marketed, it is not
> >> possible
> >> to forecast the revenue impact on Ampex this year, but is an
> >> indication that
> >> developments in the DVD market may be moving favorably for us.
> >>
> >> At the end of 2002, we had notified 17 manufacturers of digital still
> >> cameras of their potential infringement of our patents and, as of
> >> today, we
> >> believe we have put substantially all major manufacturers on notice.We
> >> are
> >> currently in advanced negotiations for our first patent license in the
> >> digital still camera field with one of the largest manufacturers in
> >> this
> >> market, but we are at present far apart on financial terms. While we
> >> hope to
> >> arrive at a satisfactory agreement it is reasonably likely that, as I
> >> mentioned in last year's letter, litigation will become necessary. We
> >> will,
> >> of course, announce developments in this situation as they occur.
> >>
> >> There are several negotiations under way with other potential
> >> licensees, not
> >> just digital still cameras but also other products that we believe to
> >> be
> >> infringing our patents. It is too early to say what impact, if any,
> >> these
> >> negotiations will have in 2004. However, Ampex has been in the
> >> licensing
> >> business for more than 30 years and our patent portfolio is the result
> >> of
> >> substantial and forward-looking investments in research and
> >> development of
> >> digital imaging technology over many years. An expanded licensing
> >> program
> >> has the potential to produce a dramatic change in Ampex's financial
> >> outlook
> >> and our strategy is to pursue these opportunities aggressively.
> >>
> >> As we have said in previous letters, our preference is to avoid the
> >> substantial expenses that patent lawsuits involve. However, if we do
> >> have to
> >> litigate, our recent financial performance has substantially improved
> >> our
> >> ability to do so. The management team has done an excellent job of
> >> cash
> >> generation and our liquid resources should be more than adequate for
> >> any
> >> litigation costs that can currently be foreseen." Snip....
> >>
> >> Clearly Ampex is now in the patent enforcement business. 'Nuff said on
> >> this
> >> topic.
> >>
> >> jim
> >>
> >> *
> >> Jim Lindner
> >> *
> >> Media Matters, LLC
> >> *
> >> Email: jim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> *
> >> Address: 500 West 37th Street, 1st FL
> >> New York, N.Y. 10018
> >> *
> >> eFax (646) 349-4475
> >> *
> >> Mobile: (917) 945-2662
> >> *
> >> www.media-matters.net
> >>
> >
> >
>
>