For what it's worth, I'm talking about reels I assembled myself in the 80s for
broadcast purposes and where I want to transfer some tracks, ignore others (I
have the discs) and save anything where the original source material is no
longer available to me, as well as dub off a few items to answer some requests.
Baking the entire tape at a slow rate MIGHT work but there are often some hard
cases that need extra time, and it's senseless to expose undamaged tape to this
in my opinion. Besides, I assessed the risk of permanent oxide removal before
splitting the tapes.
On the other hand, I also found an entire reel of Shamrock 041 (green box), not
back coated, black oxide, and THAT reel is absolutely shot to hell with oxide
adhering to the adjacent layers. Fortunately there's a backup copy made on 176.
dl
Brandon Burke wrote:
Some good (and certainly responsible) points here, but I feel
compelled to say that i'm uncomfortable with the idea that there
exists somewhere a *true* sticky shed, and that only tapes "bound
together
until treated" qualify. This not only delegitimizes anything less than
over-the-top obvious hydrolysis, it also implies that (1) absolutely any
and every reel of poly tape, provided it contains at least one splice,
should be frozen before playback just in case the inner splice is sticky
and (2) we all have the option of freezing reels and playing them back
in a refrigerator.
That's bananas..
Brandon Burke
On Oct 9, 2006, at 3:32 AM, Tom Fine wrote:
Hi Brandon:
The problem is, there could well be parts of the tape pack that are
stuck together (pinning and I forgot the other word Richard uses).
So unrolling those parts before they are treated will destroy them
(peel the oxide off). I asked Richard about this very type of reel
before and if I recall the answer is freeze it and then play it
cold (ie tape machine in a fridge) at very slow speed, which should
unstick the bound portions enough to spool onto a reel for baking.
The other parts, like 176, don't respond to baking and need the
full cold treatment, if I recall. It's much more complicated that
just spooling pieces off because true sticky-shed tape is probably
bound together until treated and thus will be destroyed by spooling
until it's treated.
Don't take what I say is gospel truth. Let Richard weigh in since
he's done the research.
-- Tom Fine
----- Original Message ----- From: "Brandon Burke"
<burke@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 1:52 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Tape baking question
First of all, i mean not to steal
Richard H's thunder, as he knows quite
a bit more about this subject than me.
That said, it strikes me that the solution
proposed here only accounts for splices
*so* sticky as to be identifiable by touch alone.
Thus allowing selections exhibiting less
ridiculously obvious stages of hyrolysis
to miss the boat.
Brandon Burke
Quoting Tom Fine <tflists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
Guys, this is not all correct. Wait for Richard Hess to chime in.
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Lennick" <dlennick@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2006 10:38 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Tape baking question
That was sort of what I expected the answer to be.
dl
"joe@xxxxxxxxxxx" wrote:
If memory serves, baking is known to be detrimental to some
types of
tape, so I'd suggest separating them out as best you can, bake,
reassemble and Xfer.
Joe Salerno
Industrial Video Services
PO Box 273405
Houston Texas 77277-3405
David Lennick wrote:
Here's one for the team. Let's say you have a reel made up of
several short
pieces of tape, either a compilation or a master or just
something
where it was
convenient to group similar pieces of material together.
Let's say
SOME of the
selections are recorded on 176, some on 456, some on god knows
what....and of
course, now you have a tape that has sticky shed on only
some of the
tracks. Do
you bake the whole thing or try and remove only the portions
that
need
treatment and bake them?
--Stuck
--
Brandon Burke
Archivist for Audio Collections
Hoover Institution Archives
Stanford University
Stanford, CA 94305-6010
vox: 650.724.9711
fax: 650.725.3445
email: burke@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
____________________________________
Brandon Burke
Archivist for Audio Collections
Hoover Institution Archives
Stanford University
Stanford, CA 94305-6010
vox: 650.724.9711
fax: 650.725.3445
email: burke@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
__________ NOD32 1.1795 (20061009) Information __________
This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com