Dammit!!! 3m 996 has gone STICKY!!! >:(

[ggoat!!!]

Hi everyone...

I've been reading this site (as well as several others) forever now, but haven't posted. I've been recording since around 1975, and have used and/or owned just about every deck out there and have used and/or tried just about every tape that was reasonably available. My favorite since around 1993 has been 3m 996. Up until this week I thought it pretty much indestructible. I've sadly found out that it's not, and I've stockpiled hundreds of them NOS.

About four years ago, I posted on the Internet regarding how ziplock bag/silica gel storage ruined some of my tapes. To make a long story short, I had hundreds of reels stored with silica gel in ziplock bags in a south Louisiana non-climate-controlled storage where 90-100% humidity is the norm. These tapes were stored for 6 YEARS basically outside. Some survived, some didn't (the worst were Basf/Emtec 900/911/486 which grew some of the worst and strangest mold I've ever seen and were not salvageable). In 2007, two brands that survived virtually unscathed were all types of Maxells and 3m 996. 3m 966 suffered some strange "warping" to the tape pack that was never eradicated. But, 996 astounded me, as every single tape was completely undamaged by mold, humidity, temperature, and the worst storage situation imaginable...for 6 years. Here is a link to a thread I started about the situation in 2007:

http://www.audiobanter.com/showthrea...t=88926&page=1

Fast forward to 2011. After I "rescued" all these tapes from this storage-scenario-hell, I meticulously restored them, eradicating all mold from boxes, tape, and reels from the ones that required such. I painstakingly basically hand polished each tape itself with miles of pellon cloth until every affected tape played with no shed, no sticking, no problems. I threw away all the old ziplock bags, silica gel, and inner plastic bags. I purchased new 4 mil bags from bagsunlimited (unsealed) for the reels and boxes (I wasn't doing the ziplock sealed thing again), new packets of silica gel (with packs placed in the inner plastic bag next to the reels themselves, in the boxes themselves, and in the outer bags the boxes were placed in), and stored the tapes properly, climate-controlled, in my home. Sounds good, right?

Well, nearly all the tapes are FINE. Even some 1994 Ampex 456 reels that HAD gone sticky in 2007 from being outside that I "fixed" using my controversial "Nu-Finish" method STILL play with NO shed and NO signs of stickiness...even Sony ULH that I "Nu-Finish'd" show no signs of sticky shed. But, that's not the point. The point is...

3m 996 HAS GONE STICKY.

I honestly don't understand it. The tapes were OUTSIDE for 6 years, and were FINE. Not a SIGN of stickiness. I bring them into the PROPER storage conditions, and four years later of being treated to not the least BIT of humidity, they go STICKY??!?? How?!?!?! I even wrote in 2007 regarding 996 after the storage debacle:

"BTW...this has been the absolute BEST test for binder/sticky shed
problems with later 3m 996/966 tape...this stuff is STABLE to the max
(the binder at least)! BTW...I'm literally in the swamps of south
Louisiana. 100+ degrees and 99% humidity for years. The tapes have
been in an outside non-climate controlled storage unit, and have been
through several hurricanes (don't ask why). Most notably Rita and
Katrina. However...gotta hand it to Maxell. That tape is absolutely
undamaged and perfect. Sitting unwrapped/unprotected and wet. No
binder issues, no mold, no packing issues, no uneven tape, no
NOTHING. I've always heard great reliability cudos regarding Basf/
Emtec, but they are by far the worst "survivors" of this. I'll post
info on other tapes as I open them and experience problems.

3m 996 has no sticky shed problems whatsoever. Even after 10 or
so passes through a cleaning cloth with moderate pressure, there is
next to NO oxide binder, or backcoating shedding of ANY kind, not even
the "normal" amount you would expect. Out of dozens of reels, only
one has a bad spot to where the growth is being stubborn to remove."


I just don't understand it. I DO understand and expect horrible storage conditions for 6 years in constant heat and humidity to cause stickiness, mold, and general destruction for audio tapes. But, these 996 tapes (and others, most notably Maxell) survived being outside with absolutely NO ILL EFFECTS upon discovery. Now, 4 years later, in absolute PERFECT storage conditions, the 996 tapes become sticky? NONE of the other tapes, even the ones KNOWN for sticky shed, have gone sticky after being stored in the EXACT same conditions (both good and bad since 2001) as the 996. Why has the 996 gone sticky NOW?

I need to state that the stickiness isn't as damning as typical sticky shed in the following way. Most sticky shed R/T Ampex 456, Scotch Classic, Sony ULH, etc exhibits SO much "goo" that trying to pass the tape fast winding through pellon cloth basically ruins the tape; i.e., you do more damage than good. You can't "wipe" the sticky goo off. However, the state that the 996 is in right NOW, you CAN use pellon to wipe the stickiness off, with NO chemicals needed. I simply fast wind the tape back and forth (with NO guides in play, as the 996 exhibits enough sticky shed to gum up the machine and stop the tape) holding the pellon cloth only on the back-coated side for about an hour or so, until there is absolutely NO residue on the pellon cloth. Since this is on the back-coated side, any undamaged backcoating that comes off as a result of removing the goo doesn't matter . This is where MOST of the residue is. Then, I do the same to the oxide side of the tape, but for about half the time. I continue until there is a minimal or "normal" amount of oxide shed on the pellon (similar to what you'd get with a new tape), then I do a few runs using the "pinch both sides" method using hardly any pressure. This method, with the state the 996 is in right now, makes the tapes playable as if nothing ever happened. With normal or classic sticky shed, the goo is too great to correct in this way...which gives me a bit of hope. The 996 is shedding, and it's shedding "stick-illy," but not to an extreme point just yet. Will it get as bad as 456/Classic/ULH? Possibly, possibly not. There is no way of knowing. What I DO know is that for some unknown reason, the tape survived 6 years of basically being outside in the swamp with no signs of sticky shed. Subsequently, stored properly and untouched for 4 years inside a climate controlled home (basically the complete opposite conditions of the previous 4 years), and 996 has gone sticky.

Phruck.

[Judas Jetski]

I dunno... seems to me that sticky shed damage (like hearing loss) is cumulative. It's the nature of the problem--expose the tape to enough moisture over enough time, and it'll start to go goo. Seems to me, given the traumatic circumstances of the tape's storage, that you were *already* lucky in that they survived, and the last few years have just been the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back.

Incidentally, I've had Maxell tape that's gone sticky under far more controlled circumstances than the ones you mention. And Scotch Classic under similar conditions that hasn't gone bad. I think people tend to assume there's more consistency within a formulation than there actually is. With the exception being Ampex 456/406 etc. which for the most part is just bound to be mud.

By the way, I went through a whole mess of 031/041 (cut-rate 406/407/456/457) this summer. One box dated to the early-to-mid '80s. About one in 10 reels were still good. Of the stuff that was about 10 years newer, about one in 3 were good. All the stuff from the late 90s and beyond was fine.

[donny]

hmm ... are you sure it's sticky-shed and not another form of deterioration? I have a couple rolls of early '90s 996 that behave OKAY but not great ... strange dropouts, etc. I wasn't using them for anything critical, but I noticed that is was shedding some kind of white gunk.

The most stable tapes historically are from the pre-backcoat era. Some of these tapes still perform well after 40-50 years. Tapes like Ampex 631 and Scotch 203.

I believe any backcoated tape will eventually have problems. Some just haven't had enough time to go bad yet. The most stable so far is Scotch 206 and 207 ... been around since 1969 and never went sticky.

[Judas Jetski]

AFAIK, it's not just the back-coating that does it. If the binder's susceptible to moisture absorption, it'll go too. It seems like the problem got going with the switch from organic to synthetic binders. I could be wrong, but my understanding is that the organic binders tended to use whale oil, which is of course in somewhat more limited supply these days. Synthetic binders are typically polyurethane (again, that's what the internet tells me) and polyurethane will by nature tend to absorb moisture. The polyurethane with the shortest molecule chains will be most resistant to moisture absorption, and the stuff with the longest will be least resistant. (I might have that wrong. It might be the stuff that's medium-length is most resistant, with either extreme being more susceptible.)

Ampex wasn't too specific about who supplied their polyurethane & tended to mix it all together for uniformity's sake. That explains the variation in 'lots' from a company that didn't make tape in lots--as long as supplier A was the sole supplier, everything was fine, but as soon as supplier B got involved, the vat was 'compromised.' If they went back to only A for a few months, a new batch of lucky tape would be produced--without anyone realizing what was happening or why.

Also AFAIK, the Quantegy solution was to switch to higher quality polyurethane--which means Quantegy tape might also ultimately be susceptible to sticky shed. I have encountered a reel of tape from the very late Ampex years (after the problem was 'solved') that was sticky. And yet, even there I have yet to encounter a reel of 499 that's sticky. Dropout city, yes (on a very old reel). Sticky, no.

I've also encountered weirdness on 3M Scotch 175 (from the organic-binder days). I believe the problem there was in the back-coating.

As for other 3M tapes, I have yet to encounter a reel of 226 that's not junk--and yet I have a reel of what I think is 227 (same formulation, thinner caliper) that's doing just fine despite never having seen a kind day in its life. I hear people cussing out 250 night and day, and yet I've never had a problem with it. The only conclusion I can draw from this is that 3M Scotch stock must vary widely somehow, depending on some variable that I can't imagine... although as I recall, 3M had their manufacturing set up in a very decentralized fashion, with a bunch of different plants--so it may be that the variable has something to do with regional suppliers of binder material. I dunno. Tape-making is a pretty complex process, and there's a lot to go wrong.

I've had both Maxell and TDK tape go bad, but always with the back-coating, not with the oxide side. The Japanese whaling industry was still going strong throughout the years both companies were making tape, which might explain that (or, it might not, with tape-making being such a 'dark art'). I've never had a Quampex reel go bad on the back-coating side, without the oxide-side going bad as well. Seems to me that whatever they were using for their back-coating held up a lot better than the other stuff.

I've seen the 'white gunk' effect on 3M and TDK tapes, but they've always played fine after a pass or two.

[donny]

great info ...

The whale oil thing has been hotly debated (I've read some very knowledgeable people dismiss it on the Ampex list), but I suspect you're right and that it had SOMETHING to do with it.

I wish I could remember the details (I can't seem to find the info online), but Scotch 175 seems to have some kind of unique problem. Some older tapes suffer from 'loss of lubricant', which can cause squealing/screeching/squeaking sounds. I think 175 has some kind of unique variant that is not sticky-shed and not loss-of-lubricant, but it's own issue. But some 175 seems to work okay.

Acetate tapes (like Scotch 111) are prone to breaking and the dreaded 'vinegar syndrome' (which doesn't always affect performance but could be potentially hazardous). Vinegar syndrome is particularly problematic in that it can actually spread like a virus through a collection of tapes -- although I think only acetate tapes are vulnerable. so if any of your acetate tapes smell like vinegar, make sure to store them separately from the ones that don't.

I'm not that familiar with older Ampex tapes, but as far as Scotch goes, 202/203 is the most stable (and best sounding in my opinion) of all tapes. Some people don't like this tape though because it's non-backcoated and low output. Also, the tape works well but is fragile -- the oxide can come completely OFF fairly easily if the tape if it's not treated gently. I mixed my last two albums on 203.

Scotch 206 is generally the best backcoated tape.

Another thing I'd like to point out is that certain tapes behave better on specific machines ... machines with gentle handling can play iffy tapes okay.

[Judas Jetski]

Yeah, I've had good luck with 202/203 myself. I've got a guy interested in my 202/203 stash and I can't decide whether I want to part with it or not. It's very consistent, but I recently bought a ton of Ampex/Quantegy 632 so it looks like that's what I'm going to be using when I'm not using 456 or similar. I just don't know if I can bring myself to sell off my 202/203. I just like it, is all. I've got a bunch of 212 as well (it was a phase) so I may sell that instead.

Lotta love for the 632/642, though. I first encountered it in Radio Shack packaging. It's got a real classic "tape" sound to it. Quantegy's promo material states that their 'ferro-sheen' process lets the tape stick closer to the head while reducing head wear, and I believe it.

I recently dumped a bunch of acetate stuff that had gotten stinky, though. The acetate breaks down into acetic acid, which is what makes the smell. So if a non-stinky reel of acetate tape is close enough to a stinky real to share the smell, that means the two are sharing acetic acid. I've seen some really, really degenerated acetate tape. I was transferring some stuff for a friend and had a reel that was basically falling apart at the ends of the reel. I wound up putting like 4 or 5 splices in about 6 or 8 inches of tape. Another reel needed something like 15 splices for a six minute segment of tape (at 7.5 ips). A real labor of love, that.

I just got ahold of my first reel of 206. It's used, but I figure it'll give me a chance to play around with it and see what I think. For the most part, I prefer to stick to newer stock & higher print... I've still got a pretty good stash of fresh 456 (pre-drama) but it's nice to have something a little different to break things up a little every now and then.

I just got some nice results out of a used, twenty year old reel of BASF DP-26. A pleasant surprise that I was not expecting.

[donny]

interesting. I've never tried 632 on anything serious ... it seems like the bias is way different than 202 ... is that right? I might be thinking of something else like 404. 632 is super common and super cheap, and seems indestructible, so it certainly makes a good choice.

I have a pretty decent stash of 1/4" 202 and even more 203, although most is on 7" reels ... not a big deal. My Ampex 440 mono deck is set up for it, so I mix to that.

How much is the guy gonna give you for it? I've got probably too much 203 but I could use more 202. If you wanna keep your 203 and sell me the 202, I'll make a nice offer!