Des-Lab
05-26-2008, 01:36 PM
Well now I'm more confused than ever. Most tapes, I have nailed down pretty good as to what I can expect from them. But the one that stubbornly remains an elusive moving target for me is the Scotch "Classic". It was [from what I've been able to learn] Scotch/3M's "flagship" 'audiophile' tape from about 1975-1978, give or take a year.
I've been acquainted with this tape for most of my entire life; my father has/had a few of them in his collection. But it was also the tape I first discovered "sticky shed" with. The ones in my dads collection (10" X 3600's) first began to stick in the late 80's. They got progressively worse and by the mid 1990's, were completely unplayable and had essentially seized up beyond repair (thankfully my father had track sheets written down for all of this tapes).
In the late 90's or early 2000's, I bought a ten-pack sealed/NOS case of 7" X 1800' of these. All of them. Every single one. Was sticky and unusable straight out of the box. I tried to fast wind them just to see, and less than halfway through them, it brought my deck to a screeching halt. So all but one (which I kept for "scent"imental reasons) of them were unceremoniously disposed of.
A short time later, I happened across a dozen or so 10" X 3600' NOS ones for about $5 or $6 per tape. I figured they were worth more than that just in the boxes and reels alone. So I bought them. I opened up about five or six of them. I noticed something unusual: they varied substantially in both scent (c'mon...who here DOESN'T like the smell of a fresh tape?) as well as fill height in the reel. Some filled the reel to just about the top level of the windage hole cutouts. Others, a good half inch above that. Yet they were all 3600's. I noticed that the "fuller" ones had the same scent as the ones in my fathers collection as well as the one 7" I still had. So naturally, I assumed it would be no good. So I dumped a couple of them and [re]filled with fresh pancakes.
Then, I took one of the "other" types. The one that had a different scent and was a lot 'shorter' in terms of filled height on the reel. I tested it and much to my surprise...NO sticky shed! It unwound and re-wound perfectly without the slightest signs of drag, hesitation, or stickiness. I tried doing a test recording on it and it actually didn't come out half bad. The threshold of distortion was a bit lower than I was used to. No doubt due to the fact that no deck at the time could possibly deliver the punch of a signal that the X-2000R does. But it recorded with crystal clear clarity and if I would remember to record a little 'cooler' than I normally do, this tape would perform like a champ; essentially undifferentiated from Maxell XLI or Quantegy #407.
Today, I made VinylDavids tape. I pulled out a roll of the "suspicious" smelling Classic, removed it in pancake form, loaded it onto an empty reel, loaded Davids pancake, and recycled the box and reel. I was going to dump it. But something inside told me to preserve it intact.
Well curiosity finally got the better of me. Since I had never, actually TRIED this particular flavor of Classic on these 10" tapes; I had, based on past experience, simply been assuming they were no good. And had been dumping them straight out of the box. So I decided to give it a whirl. I had a pile of towels and Q-tips and was ready to spend a half hour on my back cleaning up a sticky shed mess. But for some reason, I went ahead with it anyway. And I loaded it on the X-2000R and hit the fast-forward.
Imagine my jaw on the ground when it went the full length at full speed without hesitation. Here I was thinking that within a few hundred feet, the deck would be down to 'play' speed in fast-forward mode.
Nope.
It went all the way to the end. No hesitation. No sticking. Nothing. No mess on the heads or guide pins. No pile of oxide below the deck. Nothing. Which is even more amazing considering that the tape was 30+ years old and being unspooled for the very first time.
Nope.
Was 'rarin' to go'. Did a test record and the results were the same as my last test: crystal clear recording with a low point of saturation. Would work great on a deck from that era (such as a Teac A-3300SX). But on mine, I'd have to reduce the gain a bit.
So now, I'm more confused than ever. I have repeatedly advised others to avoid this tape like the plague. I based that on FIRST HAND experience with that tape indeed failing to sticky shed.
But now, here I have a whole bunch of them that, as far as I can tell, are as good as new and would work just fine. So I am troubled for three reasons.
1. Why did SOME of them (from different batches) fail while others have stood the test of time?
2. How many people have read my posts advising to stay away from it did just that, could've very well passed up some perfectly fine tape at a reasonable cost?
3. I hate the inconsistency. As I said. All other tapes I've tried have consistently produced the same results with predictable regularity. It really helps me in giving descriptions and advice. But with this tape, now I have to elevate it from the "stay away" column and move it to the "use at own risk" category.
What are your thoughts an experiences on the matter?
Attached are a couple of "stock"/ "file" photos I have of the stuff.
I've been acquainted with this tape for most of my entire life; my father has/had a few of them in his collection. But it was also the tape I first discovered "sticky shed" with. The ones in my dads collection (10" X 3600's) first began to stick in the late 80's. They got progressively worse and by the mid 1990's, were completely unplayable and had essentially seized up beyond repair (thankfully my father had track sheets written down for all of this tapes).
In the late 90's or early 2000's, I bought a ten-pack sealed/NOS case of 7" X 1800' of these. All of them. Every single one. Was sticky and unusable straight out of the box. I tried to fast wind them just to see, and less than halfway through them, it brought my deck to a screeching halt. So all but one (which I kept for "scent"imental reasons) of them were unceremoniously disposed of.
A short time later, I happened across a dozen or so 10" X 3600' NOS ones for about $5 or $6 per tape. I figured they were worth more than that just in the boxes and reels alone. So I bought them. I opened up about five or six of them. I noticed something unusual: they varied substantially in both scent (c'mon...who here DOESN'T like the smell of a fresh tape?) as well as fill height in the reel. Some filled the reel to just about the top level of the windage hole cutouts. Others, a good half inch above that. Yet they were all 3600's. I noticed that the "fuller" ones had the same scent as the ones in my fathers collection as well as the one 7" I still had. So naturally, I assumed it would be no good. So I dumped a couple of them and [re]filled with fresh pancakes.
Then, I took one of the "other" types. The one that had a different scent and was a lot 'shorter' in terms of filled height on the reel. I tested it and much to my surprise...NO sticky shed! It unwound and re-wound perfectly without the slightest signs of drag, hesitation, or stickiness. I tried doing a test recording on it and it actually didn't come out half bad. The threshold of distortion was a bit lower than I was used to. No doubt due to the fact that no deck at the time could possibly deliver the punch of a signal that the X-2000R does. But it recorded with crystal clear clarity and if I would remember to record a little 'cooler' than I normally do, this tape would perform like a champ; essentially undifferentiated from Maxell XLI or Quantegy #407.
Today, I made VinylDavids tape. I pulled out a roll of the "suspicious" smelling Classic, removed it in pancake form, loaded it onto an empty reel, loaded Davids pancake, and recycled the box and reel. I was going to dump it. But something inside told me to preserve it intact.
Well curiosity finally got the better of me. Since I had never, actually TRIED this particular flavor of Classic on these 10" tapes; I had, based on past experience, simply been assuming they were no good. And had been dumping them straight out of the box. So I decided to give it a whirl. I had a pile of towels and Q-tips and was ready to spend a half hour on my back cleaning up a sticky shed mess. But for some reason, I went ahead with it anyway. And I loaded it on the X-2000R and hit the fast-forward.
Imagine my jaw on the ground when it went the full length at full speed without hesitation. Here I was thinking that within a few hundred feet, the deck would be down to 'play' speed in fast-forward mode.
Nope.
It went all the way to the end. No hesitation. No sticking. Nothing. No mess on the heads or guide pins. No pile of oxide below the deck. Nothing. Which is even more amazing considering that the tape was 30+ years old and being unspooled for the very first time.
Nope.
Was 'rarin' to go'. Did a test record and the results were the same as my last test: crystal clear recording with a low point of saturation. Would work great on a deck from that era (such as a Teac A-3300SX). But on mine, I'd have to reduce the gain a bit.
So now, I'm more confused than ever. I have repeatedly advised others to avoid this tape like the plague. I based that on FIRST HAND experience with that tape indeed failing to sticky shed.
But now, here I have a whole bunch of them that, as far as I can tell, are as good as new and would work just fine. So I am troubled for three reasons.
1. Why did SOME of them (from different batches) fail while others have stood the test of time?
2. How many people have read my posts advising to stay away from it did just that, could've very well passed up some perfectly fine tape at a reasonable cost?
3. I hate the inconsistency. As I said. All other tapes I've tried have consistently produced the same results with predictable regularity. It really helps me in giving descriptions and advice. But with this tape, now I have to elevate it from the "stay away" column and move it to the "use at own risk" category.
What are your thoughts an experiences on the matter?
Attached are a couple of "stock"/ "file" photos I have of the stuff.