MOTUnation.com

Someone asked me to transfer some music from cassette to cd. These are TDK SA90 and Maxell XLII-90 tapes. The tapes were recorded about 1990, some may be a few years older. I'm told they've been stored at room temp, no exposure to excessive moisture. I've read through about 8 articles on old tape restoration, most of them focus on studio reel tapes (Ampex, 3M) and various methods of oven baking. The articles indicate that moisture and age contribute to the degradation of the binder compound that holds the oxide particles to the tape.

On one hand, I could just give it a go and hope that I don't get the squealing noise that results when the binder compound sheds and gunks up the heads and playback mechanisms. It's also reported that poor sound quality may also indicate tape deterioration. On the other hand, I could go through the bother of baking... maybe it comes down to time, money, and a rabbit's foot.

Since these tapes aren't that old, I may just give it a brief go and see if residue is present. I have some old (70's) tapes that I transferred w/ no problem. Does anyone have any experience with this? A few comments or ideas might be helpful to anyone who may need to address the issue of transferring from old tapes. Thanks.

Tough question. I've heard both sides of the "to bake or not to bake" argument. What I can tell you is that I recently did some transfers of some cassette tapes that were circa 1980 and didn't run into any problems (without baking). I think they were TDK SA 90. Might have been 60, can't remember. I think the 90's are thinner (I could be wrong). Don't know if I was any help.

Phil

I wouldn't bake them. It was only the hygroscopic Ampex tapes that were problematic. Baking them won't clean them, though. Try FF them with a bit of lint free cloth on the tape. Also, the heat might warp the cassette mechanism, but then again, I've seen cassettes that have lived their lives on car dashboards and remain perfectly playable.

I agree not to bake. I have some 1970's vintage cassette tapes that I have transferred with great success. They have been through all sorts of temp and humidity changes, and they were not the high quality types you mentioned. Mine were Memorex. I do hope you have a really good playback deck. That will make all the difference.

A little while ago I transferred some old cassette tapes. Certain of them had a lot of warble and I was ready to ditch them, however in some cases simply rewinding and fastforwarding repeatedly, up to twelve times, brought some of them back to listenable, but not others.

SmilesLots wrote:I do hope you have a really good playback deck. That will make all the difference.

I agree. I bought a nice tape deck (to replace an old one that died) and I get nice results transferring tapes from the '80s and '90s onto my computer. A quality deck is probably the most significant factor in getting the most out of what you've got on tape.

Thanks all for your replies. No problems w/ gunk or buildup thus far. I have a decent Denon machine (770-R) that works well. So, unbaked they shall be.

Here are a few reference articles that I found. It seems that the large format of reel tapes, and in particular certain brand(s) were susceptible to "shedding" of the oxide particles and binder.


http://www.tangible-technology.com/tape/baking1.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.josephson.com/bake_tape.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.sonicraft.com/guide.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tape_baking" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.loopers-delight.com/tips/tap ... Tapes.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://radiomagonline.com/notebook/radi ... cording_2/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.audio-restoration.com/baking.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.airmedia.org/PageInfo.php?PageID=197" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

1- In my open reel days (usually on a TEAC 2340 of which I still have 2 or 3 in storage) I would buy Maxell 7" reels by the case with a few random Ampex reels thrown in from time to time. The Maxell tapes also are affected by the problem. Sucks.

2- Crazy solution: About 2 years ago I was given a 7" reel of a theater score and sound design to resurrect for a pro production in L. A. The syndrome was evident and the idea of baking was foremost on my mind. As I could reconstruct most of the recording from scratch, that was indeed what I did, but there were some rare recordings that the director insisted had to be used. (You know how these directors can be ☺ )

So on a fluke, I played around with some ideas and what worked (at least for short transfers which were later joined together in DP) was to [don't laugh, it worked!] was to put Saran Wrap over the heads and other non-moving tape paths. The heads read the signal and the recordings were preserved.

I also wonder if some sort of "super Teflon" coating might have the same effect? I probably have 200-300 open reels of my early scores, rehearsals, performances, etc., that are in need of preservation. Before I mess with this stuff and ruin the tapes forever, I am always thinking about ways around the problem. Baking 300 tapes a few at a time (for 8 hours each after transferring to metal reels) is not something I really want to do.

WoW! Das crayzy! But it worked. So ya need real slippery slick molecules. Like the skin of eels (aka Goldman Sachs execs & accountants, or similar slippery creatures).

My jr. high woodshop teacher suggested rubbing a bar of soap, or the base of a candlestick on the binding parts of a sticky wooden drawer. YMMV.

Or, you could load up them tapes and take 'em on down to Earl Scheib's and have them bake the whole batch en masse in their drying oven.

But seriously, the Teflon concept sounds viable, but you need to talk to a materials scientist/engineer or chemist who understands such molecular magic.

Phil O wrote:Tough question. I've heard both sides of the "to bake or not to bake" argument. What I can tell you is that I recently did some transfers of some cassette tapes that were circa 1980 and didn't run into any problems (without baking). I think they were TDK SA 90. Might have been 60, can't remember. I think the 90's are thinner (I could be wrong). Don't know if I was any help.

Phil

The 90's may have been thinner, but I do recall reading about the 120's being susceptible to breakage/damage because of their thinner material.

GMT wrote:...you need to talk to a materials scientist/engineer or chemist who understands such molecular magic.

Duh! My father in law is a retired research chemist for Monsanto. I bet he'd know what to do. I'm calling him tomorrow. This could be a life saver, or maybe just a Jr Mint. They're very refreshing!



BTW, I never had a problem with any cassette, even from the mid 1960's. Just lucky, I guess.

In the "80's" (last century), Radio Shack® produced a tape-head lubricant. Now, I'll stand back.

Duh! My father in law is a retired research chemist for Monsanto. I bet he'd know what to do.

ain't that somethin how the obvious manages to hide like an elephant behind a tree?

cuttime wrote:In the "80's" (last century), Radio Shack® produced a tape-head lubricant. Now, I'll stand back.

I miss big black rotary dial desk phones (waxing nostalgic).

[quote="Denon machine (770-R) that works well. So, unbaked they shall be. [/quote]

Those are good machines. The heads just never wear out. I have five of them for back when I used to record talks on cassette. Five other dual recorders and I could make 20 cassettes at one time. A lot of clicking when they auto-reversed though.

Anytime anyone brings me a cassette, I always tell them, "Look,
we'll proceed at your own risk with these. I'm not
responsible for the condition the cassette is in".

Baking, cleaning - bleh, that will do nothing. The number one
reason cassettes end up in such crappy condition is that
people never clean the heads of the machines they played
them on.

My first thought when someone brings me cassettes is, wow,
this person is clueless. But of course, I don't openly
express that...