Re: [ARSCLIST] Risk assessment tool Q2

[Steven Smolian <smolians@xxxxxxxxx>]

Cassettes sold by responsible manufacturers were a different formulaion than 
reel to reel tapes.  They were optimized to run at 1-7/8 and had a different 
lubricant/anti fungus, etc. formulation.  Those made for sale in tropical 
countries were designed to play well at higher temperatures, etc.  There was 
no need for backcoating as the slip-sheet and balance of the cassette 
interior design covered the flat winding issues.

Of couse there are more problems with cassettes that were fast-forwarded 
before storage, but even this seems minimal.

There was a period of time when used computer tape was reslit and stuffed 
into cassettes.  This practice could be a source of some of the problems 
others mention.  Remember, the direction of the particles had to be 
realigned and there were carelesnesses in that process as well.

My source for much of the above was Del Eilers just before 3M went out of 
the tape business.  I gave a paper on the audio cassette, based in part on 
his input, at an Oral History Society meeting, perhaps 1990.  It was never 
published and is out of date by now.

Steve Smolian

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <Mwcpc6@xxxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 5:34 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Risk assessment tool Q2


> In a message dated 1/5/2006 3:58:19 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> smolians@xxxxxxxxx writes:
>
> That said, they are probably the most stable of the tape formats, long 
> term.
>
> Steve Smolian
> ************
>
> When I was borrowing recorded books from local libraries, lack of 
> lubricant
> was a serious problem. However I've seen very few problems with the tape 
> itself
> in name brand cassettes.
>
> How did cassettes escape the SSS plague of the 70s?
>
> Mike Csontos
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.13/221 - Release Date: 1/4/2006