Date:         Tue, 19 Feb 2008 21:00:32 -0500
Reply-To:     Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
              <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
              <[log in to unmask]>
From:         Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: Analog tape preservation project
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
              reply-type=original

I'll echo Eric, loudly, about scanning all bits of information. I transferred a very large pile of 
privately recorded tapes for a client. Part of the deal was scan everything so they had a PDF right 
in the same hard drive as the reel sides. As they slice, dice, process and make available the audio, 
the scanned stuff is turning out more valuable than we thought because they were able to learn more 
about the recordist and thus could make more sense of the somewhat cryptic notes on the boxes.

Also be aware, in the case of badly deteriorated tapes, the very act of spooling to a new reel can 
make them unplayable in rare but fatal cases. My MO is always to play back a tape as early in the 
process as possible and get a transfer, on the assumption that it could mal-form or self-destruct 
from being unspooled and better have it do that right after it passes a playback head. The 
exception, of course, is a sticky tape that must be baked.

Back to Eric's point -- more documentation is better.

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Eric Jacobs" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 7:36 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Analog tape preservation project


> On Tuesday, February 19, 2008 6:07 AM, Gregoria G. Karman wrote:
>>
>> About one third of the tapes are in unoptimal condition
>> (mechanical degradation, curly tape, some are affected by
>> molds ...) and a number of them are spliced tape assemblies.
>>
>> As I don't know how long it will take before the project can be
>> accomplished, would you reccomend to migrate now the tapes to
>> new archival containers? Migrating from the original boxes has
>> the problematic that they contain annotations and documentation
>> bound to the tapes.
>
> Hi Gregorio,
>
> Rather than re-box the collection, I would suggest some other
> intermediate steps: (1) separate out the moldy material, (2)
> separate out the acetate tapes and re-box those, and (3) collect
> metadata from the boxes in preparation for the project.  Some
> details...
>
> We collect the descriptive, administrative and technical metadata
> from the tape boxes during the digitizing process.  Where there
> are significant notations on the box (track listings, engineering
> notes), we scan the box (and sometimes even the reel itself) on a
> flat bed scanner and bind the digital image scan files to the
> reel metadata.
>
> So one suggestion would be to fully document all the notations on
> the boxes and reels, including image scans where needed, before
> re-boxing the collection.
>
> At the very least, you should separate the moldy media from the
> non-moldy media.  If you can put the moldy reels into ziploc
> bags together with some silica gel packs, the low humidity in
> the bag should at least drive the mold into dormancy and
> stabilize the collection, and the sealed ziploc bags will
> prevent the mold from migrating to other media.
>
> Moldy media should be handled separately from storage to
> digitizing, so separating the reels along these lines would be
> a valuable effort, as you may need to outsource the treatment and
> digitizing of these moldy reels.  Even after the reels have been
> treated, you should still consider keeping this material separate
> from other collections - it only takes a few spores and the right
> environment to spawn a new mold colony.  I'm not aware of any
> process that can guarantee 100% eradication of mold.
>
> For the non-moldy media, if the reels are stable (ie. no mold,
> no Vinegar Syndrome), then there is little or no benefit to
> re-boxing the reels, except perhaps some mechanical protection
> if the box is starting to fall apart.  New boxes will have no
> impact on curling, sticky shed, or the splices.
>
> If the original boxes are cardboard, this can actually be good,
> as cardboard seems to minimize the potential for an acidic
> environment that can lead to Vinegar Syndrome.  However, new
> base-buffered boxes may stave off future Vinegar Syndrome among
> the acetate tapes in your collection.
>
> In summary and other notes:
>
> 1.  If you foresee replacing all the boxes, consider documenting
>    and/or imaging the notations on the boxes and reels themselves.
>
> 2.  Separate moldy media from the collection and stabilize with
>    ziploc bags and silica gel packs.
>
> 3.  Identify acetate based tapes, and perhaps re-box with base-
>    buffered cardboard boxes.  Separating out the acetate tapes
>    may also provide some insurance against accidental baking
>    with polyester tapes suffering from sticky shed.
>
> 4.  Hope that you don't have any reels that are a spliced mix of
>    acetate and polyester, with polyester that suffers from sticky
>    shed, as these will have to be carefully unspliced, polyester
>    segments baked or pelloned, and then re-assembled for transfer.
>
>
> I'm sure others on this list will have additional perspectives.
>
> Eric Jacobs
>
> The Audio Archive, Inc.
> tel: 408.221.2128
> fax: 408.549.9867
> mailto:[log in to unmask]
>