Curing A Sticky Ampex 407 Reel (a must read!)

[Lance Lawson]

I decided rather than trash my new reel of sticky Ampex 407 that I’d try the Nu Finish remedy. I did however spool the 407 on to one of my cheapo gray reels . The nice Ampex reel and box now houses RMGI LPR-35 but maybe that was a premature decision.

Anyway I set the reels on my TEAC going directly reel to reel bypassing the transport. From there I saturated a cotton disk swab with Nu Finish. I hit fast forward . I stopped every 200 ft to reload the swab and turn it to a counter pointing angle. I proceeded to the end then did the same procedure in rewind. I repeated the operation three times. Once I was certain that I had done all I could and the swab was picking up less crud I took a clean dry swab and rewound and fast forwarded the tape twice. Gradually the swab ran cleaner and cleaner. Then I removed the reels and put NuFinish on all the guides and cleaned the facia. This stuff is nice and it works great as a polish.

Then it was time to test the tape. I loaded my newly purchased Counting Crows August And Everything After CD. I love this collection and have only known it on cassette since 1993! I set the levels and put the monitor into off the heads mode donned the Sennheiser 280’s crossed my fingers and hit record. Rround Here came off the heads through the headphones loud and clear, picture perfect! Ok so 3 minutes of good recording…big deal! Omaha repeated the performance of Round Here and midway through I said “Hmmm maybe there’s something to this.” By the time Mr. Jones screamed across I knew this reel of tape had been saved and saved well! I couldn't help but laugh out loud and I watch the VU's pegging to this classic song! This is Ampex as I remember it and I know why I loved it so much! Well the entire CD recorded perfect and even though I had tortured the tape when first run as it stuck to the transport a half dozen times and it bunched up and twisted more than once! But this didn’t seem to matter! There’s no dropouts or indications that the tape twisted! But more importantly it runs and runs fine. Also it sound amazing just as it should!

So whatever is in Nu Finish it does seem to cut and into the bad layers of coating and it also seems to coat the tape and act as a lubricant for both the tape and transport. Call me an optimist but I have the feeling that this stuff does a better job than baking. I think using it before baking is best as the last thing you want is to have the unstable coating stabilized so it can’t be removed by the Nu Finish. Maybe bake it after just for good measure? I wouldn’t bother heat treating the tape as this easy enough and more or less mess free. Lastly the tape now spools even just like normal tape should!

This is the treated reel and bottle of Nu Finish.

 

[Numistrek09]

Interesting, i wonder how long it will last. This will be a nice little research project for you. Come back every month and replay to see how well it's holding up.

Have you done any pure frequency response testing yet? I'm curious if the wax is affecting the heads ability to put out high frequency signals.

 

[Zygmo]

Bummer. I recently threw away a couple of 10in reels worth of old tape, due to being sticky. It did not have music I necessarily wanted to keep, but maybe I could have reused it.
Please keep us posted on how well it lasts.

 

[jlb2]

Hi, hhmmmmm this is a risky fix. Sorry to sound like a killjoy, but if you frown at baking a tape, think about baking a tape with some unknown chemical on it, plus how is it going to evolve with time :scratch2: Also, what's the effect of that stuff on the transport and the heads? Baking does not cure all the problems, but then there are other solutions to try that are known to be valid, and do not involve jeopardizing the preservation of the tape and possibly of the player. I would try them instead. One useful link for info on this topic: http://www.richardhess.com/tape/index.htm, and especially http://www.richardhess.com/tape/history/HESS_Tape_Degradation_ARSC_Journal_39-2.pdf

 

[Lance Lawson]

Hi, hhmmmmm this is a risky fix. Sorry to sound like a killjoy, but if you frown at baking a tape, think about baking a tape with some unknown chemical on it, plus how is it going to evolve with time :scratch2: Also, what's the effect of that stuff on the transport and the heads? Baking does not cure all the problems, but then there are other solutions to try that are known to be valid, and do not involve jeopardizing the preservation of the tape and possibly of the player. I would try them instead. One useful link for info on this topic: http://www.richardhess.com/tape/index.htm, and especially http://www.richardhess.com/tape/history/HESS_Tape_Degradation_ARSC_Journal_39-2.pdf

IMO risky is tossing tape in an oven. Since I posted this I've treated several other tapes. Ampex 632 and an ancient Scotch 144 were treated not for sticky shed but just to test the sound and running characteristics of treated tape. Both pre recorded reels ran great and sound fine and 632 was re recorded over with perfect results.

There is no negative effect of treatment on the heads and guides! I have treated my guides with Nu Finish now too. The tapes (all tapes) can be felt to roll easier when reels are rocked by hand when loaded in the transport.

The risk is damage to the tape by careless handling during treatment. As of now I've no quams about using this treatment and I'm considering treating more tapes just for the silky smooth running it gives to the tapes. It has to be easier on the heads and transport as well!

My treated 407 is running cleaner than my very clean running 632!

 

[jlb2]

IMO risky is tossing tape in an oven.

What? No, you NEVER, EVER bake a tape in an oven! Absolutely NOT!!!:nono: Here is how it's done, according to a now expired Ampex patent (here):

- The amateur way: http://www.tangible-technology.com/tape/baking1.html

- In a professional installation: http://www.videointerchange.com/video_recovery.htm#Tape Baking

This procedure has been extensively tested and is now SOP for play tapes suffering from SSS, for two reasons: (1) it is effective, taking into account the chemical causes of the SSS, and (2) it does not cause further damage, and does not compromise its future conservation for when a better way of restoring it shows up, or if the copy proves defective or degrades faster than the original - a far more common case than you'd think.

Your procedure, OTOH, may address point (1), but certainly not (2), all the less so since it surely does not stop the evolution of the SSS.

The danger is not in mishandling with your treatment, it's in your treatment itself. As you say yourself, you have absolutely no idea what chemicals you are adding to your tape, let alone how they will react in time. It can cause chemical decay worse than SSS, so one may possibly use it if you don't care about keeping the original afterwards, but that's the only legitimate use I can see.

There is no negative effect of treatment on the heads and guides! I have treated my guides with Nu Finish now too. The tapes (all tapes) can be felt to roll easier when reels are rocked by hand when loaded in the transport.

Are you really sure? No build-up of the substance? No increased abrasion? No head gap clogging? No softening of the binder? How can you be so sure after only a few tapes and such a limited time?

I keep seeing this same "miracle" treatment emerging from time to time, using various substances with no known validity, and so far the only solutions that have been proven to be effective and safe are the thermal treatment (heat or cold, according to the nature of the disease) - and also a very specific procedure using IPA, but not at all the way you do it.

But again, you are free to do anything you want if preserving the originals is not a priority for you, and if you don't care too much about your machines. What I am concerned about is seeing it advertised without a word of caution.

 

[Numistrek09]

I'd also like to know if treating the guides and rollers with this finish has had any affect on wow and flutter. Since everything is now slipperier, those numbers may have gone up some.

But i do agree that caution is in order. Go ahead and treat your 406/7 tapes all you please, but don't coat all the rest until you see how this stuff holds up over time.

 

[Lance Lawson]

What? No, you NEVER, EVER bake a tape in an oven! Absolutely NOT!!!:nono: Here is how it's done, according to a now expired Ampex patent (here):

- The amateur way: http://www.tangible-technology.com/tape/baking1.html

- In a professional installation: http://www.videointerchange.com/video_recovery.htm#Tape Baking

This procedure has been extensively tested and is now SOP for play tapes suffering from SSS, for two reasons: (1) it is effective, taking into account the chemical causes of the SSS, and (2) it does not cause further damage, and does not compromise its future conservation for when a better way of restoring it shows up, or if the copy proves defective or degrades faster than the original - a far more common case than you'd think.

Your procedure, OTOH, may address point (1), but certainly not (2), all the less so since it surely does not stop the evolution of the SSS.

The danger is not in mishandling with your treatment, it's in your treatment itself. As you say yourself, you have absolutely no idea what chemicals you are adding to your tape, let alone how they will react in time. It can cause chemical decay worse than SSS, so one may possibly use it if you don't care about keeping the original afterwards, but that's the only legitimate use I can see.



Are you really sure? No build-up of the substance? No increased abrasion? No head gap clogging? No softening of the binder? How can you be so sure after only a few tapes and such a limited time?

I keep seeing this same "miracle" treatment emerging from time to time, using various substances with no known validity, and so far the only solutions that have been proven to be effective and safe are the thermal treatment (heat or cold, according to the nature of the disease) - and also a very specific procedure using IPA, but not at all the way you do it.

But again, you are free to do anything you want if preserving the originals is not a priority for you, and if you don't care too much about your machines. What I am concerned about is seeing it advertised without a word of caution.

The inventor of the process treated a batch of severely sticky Ampex and Sony tape in 1993. The treated tapes were packed away and left in storage for 14 years. When the treated tapes were played they were found to be perfect and had not developed further stickiness.

That said yes I care about my machines and I am astute enough to know what a head/transport looks like when running in distressful conditions. Sticky tape is just one of those distressful conditions if I'm not mistaken. When a machine records normally, plays back normally, erases normally, has positive transport operation and is free of deposits it's pretty clear that the machine is running in a safe condition. When reels threaded through the transport can be felt to move easier due to less friction that is a positive condition.

The Nu Finish treatment leaves a film thickness measured in molecules. Nobody is being forced to try this and it is no loss to me if no one does but there were naysayers in the original postings on Tape Op in 2007. Fortunately I've located the original poster and I've learned some more of his experience with treating tapes. The tapes treated in 1993 are still fine. If that isn't significant than please tell me what is.

 

[Cadillac Kid]

I'm surprised Ampex actually took out a Patent on the baking process for their defective tapes.

 

[Lance Lawson]

I'm surprised Ampex actually took out a Patent on the baking process for their defective tapes.

But did it cure the problem or treat the problem? Everything I've heard about baking tapes indicates that produces only a temporary usable window.

 

[goldear]

Baking treats it for no more than a month at best. But the tapes still shed pretty badly, even after being baked. But they are not sticky. Occording to lance this 407 playes cleanly too, so its not just the stickies that this cures.

 

[Lance Lawson]

Baking treats it for no more than a month at best. But the tapes still shed pretty badly, even after being baked. But they are not sticky. Occording to lance this 407 playes cleanly too, so its not just the stickies that this cures.

As I see it tape once it develops sss might as well be written off if all that's sanctioned is baking it. Thus far every article on baking has stated that it's a temporary fix and not to be drawn to think it's permanent. Here at least is a treatment that has had at least one long term success of 14 years. Magnetic tape is pretty robust stuff when not plagued with binder breakdown. A treatment that comes in contact with the tape for a period of about 10 minutes then gets removed leaving only the polymer that is the intended finish of the treatment is highly unlikely to degrade the tape. Remember once a tape has gone sticky its junk so there's nothing to loose by treating it.

I'm tracking down another NOS reel of 407 and a used reel of 456. I'm hoping the 456 has had a lot of use as it'll be a good test of treating tired sticky tape. My 407 was a NOS virgin reel and all recordings done to it are post treatment.

 

[Cadillac Kid]

Here at least is a treatment that has had at least one long term success of 14 years.

I would like to read more about this, can you provide a link to the original test?

I loaded my newly purchased Counting Crows August And Everything After CD. I love this collection and have only known it on cassette since 1993! ]

I found this interesting, since I made the first cassette copies of 'August' from DAT for the band. I used a Nakamichi MR-2 and BASF Chrome tape in clear shells. This is before the band signed to Geffen, they were shopping their demo.

I also am dubious of the Nu Finish treatment, but would like to read more. Thanks.

 

[Lance Lawson]

Here's the text of the original test. The person responsible for discovering this is a member of Tapeheads.net and goes by ggoat.

For anyone interested, here is a copy of my original post on this subject about four years ago...

I'm reposting this as its own topic (it was originally in an update to
my other thread regarding my tapes that were damaged by ziplock
storage) because I think it is an important breakthrough in tape
restoration necessitated by "Sticky Shed Syndrome." As I addressed
elsewhere, I discovered that a box of tapes I have had in storage for
a few years were consumed with mold growth from sitting in a moist/wet/
damp/fungus-infested cardboard box in an outside un-climate controlled
storage shed in the swamps of South Louisiana. Ziplock bags and
silica gel didn't stop the rot. Some of the tapes are not fixable,
but some that I was ABSOLUTELY SURE would be the LAST likely to
survive have indeed been some of the LEAST problematic, and a true
testament to a tape restoration project's effectiveness and longevity
that I ingloriously performed 14 years ago...

Here's the most amazing discovery: as many know, Sony ULH tape is one
of the worst for not only sticky shed but also the backcoating
"oozing" and making the tape stick together. One of the worst examples
of sticky shed EVER. Well, back around 1993, before sticky shed was
widely known, I had a case of 10 of these tapes that wouldn't play. I
cleaned and cleaned, and NOTHING would fix them. Well, I was
professionally refinishing guitars/basses at the time, and one of the
most amazing polishes I've ever used for getting rid of tiny hairline
scratch and haze was NuFinish (in the orange bottle). This stuff never
ceased to amaze me in a painting environment, and one of the qualities
NuFinish has is that is amazing at removing "gum" and old adhesive
tape residue; say, from an old bumper sticker. Just a tiny bit of
NuFinish, and you can polish away nearly any old gummy residue. Works
AMAZING for that. I figured the Sony tapes were ruined, so why not try
to "NuFinish" the gumminess away? I used a broken Pioneer RT-707 with
the face removed for its high torque motors, and literally soaked a
terry cloth rag and the tape itself with copious amounts of NuFinish;
so much so that it was oozing through the layers of tape. I soaked it
several times, passing the tape over my sloppy wet rag held with my
fingers. You can't imagine the mess...and you would NEVER think that
the tape would play well again! After I had a reel of sloppy wet
dripping NuFinish engulfed tape, I then did the same procedure but
with a dry terry cloth towel, and proceeded to "polish" the NuFinish
off the tape, as you would when applying it as a car polish, thus
removing the goo as well as all contaminants (dust, fingerprints,
etc.). I passed the tape countless times, and after several (and I
mean several) passes with a new rag each time I polished off all
traces of the NuFinish AND the tape goo. You know what??? IT WORKED!!!
The worst of the worst tapes played FLAWLESSLY, with NO sound
degradation (I'm sure some information had to be lost, but I couldn't
hear any difference) and NO drop outs! You have to be VERY careful as
one screw-up and you can easily bend or crease the tape. But, the
tapes sounded like the day I recorded them, and after a TON of work,
they left NO sign of oxide/binder breakdown of ANY kind on the
transport! OK, that was 14 years ago...


I haven't played any of these tapes in years. Some of them were in
this moldy box. I figured, "There's no WAY these will play." Well,
guess what. THESE TAPES PERFORMED FLAWLESSLY! They had NO mold growth
(thanks to the clear plastic type Sony box covering) and exhibited NO
sticky shed whatsoever! Remember, this was after YEARS in outdoor
moldy/muggy/moist/wet/damp storage, surrounded by tapes covered in
mold. Also, remember that 14 years ago these tapes oozed and shed so
much that they wouldn't last 15 seconds on a machine. NUFINISH FIXED
THESE TAPES PERMANENTLY! This MAY be an alternative to baking a
tape...especially since baking is a temporary fix. Concerns? Well,
NuFinish is petroleum based and contains silicone (apparently a good
thing). But, although it seems this would be harmful to tape in the
long-term (the petroleum aspect) these tapes EVEN AFTER being
subjected to the WORST conditions imaginable had NO sticky shed! This
WORKS. I hope this may work for someone else who wants a "permanent"
fix for a tape.


BTW...I've read where someone did a similar thing using alcohol. But,
any time I've gotten any alcohol residue on a tape by accident (even
91%) it has caused drop-outs. You would HAVE to remove any deposit/
residue from any tape that you clean with alcohol. I can't think of
anything better to clean any sort of residue off of a tape than
NuFinish. This stuff works wonders for this. If it hadn't worked
nearly 15 years later (i.e., no long term damage to the tape from
NuFinish application 14 years ago) then I wouldn't recommend using it
now. But I can say with certainty that it DID work on this worst-case
scenario.


Hope this helps!

 

[jlb2]

That said yes I care about my machines and I am astute enough to know what a head/transport looks like when running in distressful conditions. Sticky tape is just one of those distressful conditions if I'm not mistaken.

You are, actually. Sticky tape is not a transport condition.

When a machine records normally, plays back normally, erases normally, has positive transport operation and is free of deposits it's pretty clear that the machine is running in a safe condition. When reels threaded through the transport can be felt to move easier due to less friction that is a positive condition.

I can think of quite a few such treatments (silicone and WD40 being notorious for that) that improve things at first, and then degrade them. Sorry, I am not convinced.

The Nu Finish treatment leaves a film thickness measured in molecules.

How do you know that? Did you do a laboratory study?

Fortunately I've located the original poster and I've learned some more of his experience with treating tapes. The tapes treated in 1993 are still fine. If that isn't significant than please tell me what is.

What can you say about him? Is he a professional? How extensive is his experience with this treatment: 10 tapes of a couple of models, or thousands of tapes from various origins and various degradation problems? How did he validate the method, did he show actual explanations or evidence of how it works, or did he just say "look, it works"? Did he publish an article in JAES or any other publication in the field of archival/restoration? Tapeshead is just a forum, so there is no validation process there.

I'm surprised Ampex actually took out a Patent on the baking process for their defective tapes.

I agree, it is not a nice commercial move. Note that more brands than just Ampex suffered from SSS, so they could argue they brought a solution to a general problem in the industry, not just a fix to their own blunder. Anyway this is of no consequence now, since the patent is long expired so you can sell dedicated tape baking machines and not owe anything.

But did it cure the problem or treat the problem? Everything I've heard about baking tapes indicates that produces only a temporary usable window.

Baking is not intended to cure SSS permanently. It reverses it for a while (about a month) by removing the water that has replaced more useful compounds in the binder (SSS is basically hydrolysis), so the tape can be read for a while. Then the water comes back, but the copy is done and archival is not compromised - no, baking does not accelerate the SSS, cause other decay or other nonsense you've certainly read on forums: the tape just progressively reverts to the condition it was in prior to baking, which can be mistakenly interpreted as accelerated decay.

As I see it tape once it develops sss might as well be written off if all that's sanctioned is baking it.

Baking does not "sanction" anything. It is a method allowing to play it (in most cases) and when it's done the tape is in no worse shape than before. On the contrary, it allows waiting until an actual, proven-good cure exists.

Here at least is a treatment that has had at least one long term success of 14 years.

Again, based on what experience? What validation? What you have brought here is only you and ggoat saying "look, it works!" with no supporting data, no explanation of how, no assessment of the physical or chemical processes involved, and thus no idea of the side effects. Sorry, no cigar on this one.

A treatment that comes in contact with the tape for a period of about 10 minutes then gets removed leaving only the polymer that is the intended finish of the treatment is highly unlikely to degrade the tape.

So you DO leave something, it is not removed! And as a consequence, yes it CAN degrade the tape :nono: All the more so since your car polish can very well have seeped into the binder - something you have not checked, or have you?

Also, you use a specific car polish and find it is great. What if you use another car polish (after all, nufinish is not for sale here in Europe), or if the manufacturer decides to change the formula as they do all the time? Do you still guarantee the results? Even though you admit to not knowing what makes it work in the first place?

BTW...I've read where someone did a similar thing using alcohol. But, any time I've gotten any alcohol residue on a tape by accident (even 91%) it has caused drop-outs. You would HAVE to remove any deposit/ residue from any tape that you clean with alcohol. I can't think of anything better to clean any sort of residue off of a tape than NuFinish.

Ok, this calls for a clarification on the alcohol treatment that I talked about in a previous post. Just applying 90% alcohol on the tape does NOT work and is NOT safe. The one working process using alcohol involves applying a thin layer of IPA on the oxide, then sweeping it immediately (less than a second after application) and reading the tape immediately afterwards (again, less than a second), so the only practical way to do it is on a heavily modified tape recorder. AFAIK only one person ever did it, although extensively (to back up the NZ radio archives), and the studies led on this process seem to indicate it could be a thermal effect caused by the evaporation, rather than chemical. There is also a bit of concern, if the tape suffers from loss of lubricants, that IPA might worsen this disease (although this has not been practically observed AFAIK). The experience was related by the author in an article here

 

[Old Busted H]

Sounds to me like it's worth a try. Worst case scenario, you screw up a tape that was bound for Dumpsterville anyway.

 

[jancumps]

Sounds to me like it's worth a try. Worst case scenario, you screw up a tape that was bound for Dumpsterville anyway.

... and the heads and the guides

 

[jlb2]

Sounds to me like it's worth a try. Worst case scenario, you screw up a tape that was bound for Dumpsterville anyway.

You would think differently if there was an important recording on that tape Then the worst case scenario is, you had a chance that it could be played some day, and now it's lost forever. A restoration professional would never take such a risk but again, there is no law forbidding it. If you don't care that much for the recording, the tape, or the machine, by all means take your chance. It may even work very well, who knows. But if it fails, you only have made the problem worse than it was, possibly unrecoverable. My point is that you should have this in mind when you make a decision to use or not Lance's recipe.

 

[Lance Lawson]

You would think differently if there was an important recording on that tape Then the worst case scenario is, you had a chance that it could be played some day, and now it's lost forever. A restoration professional would never take such a risk but again, there is no law forbidding it. If you don't care that much for the recording, the tape, or the machine, by all means take your chance. It may even work very well, who knows. But if it fails, you only have made the problem worse than it was, possibly unrecoverable. My point is that you should have this in mind when you make a decision to use or not Lance's recipe.

Oh played someday? Someday when? None of us are getting any younger I bet. Magnetic tape is hardly the stuff that major corrective research is going into the sticky shed problem. Having once tossed 35 reels of original recordings done on Ampex 456 I know what its like to lose material. I would have killed for a solution (any solution) when in 1998 those tapes were lost. I did though try and save those tapes.

The above poster seems concerned that the treatment is somehow bad for the machine as if sticky sluggish grinding to a halt isn't bad for a machine. To that I'll say let him worry about his machine and I'll worry about mine. But I see where this is all going and to that I'll reply before signing out of this place for good. I've put my money where my mouth is and anyone who's afraid to try this treatment can send me all their sticky Ampex I'll make good use of it..promise!

I hope a few members try this but I don't care if they do or not. I've confidence in the treatment and I'm searching out all the 456, 406 and 407 I can find.

 

[jlb2]

Take a deep breath Lance, I don't mean to look down at you. I just say there are known solutions that work and are known safe, and yours has not proven its validity. If your post above shows all the extent of your knowledge on tape conservation/restoration and ongoing research on the topic, then you will gain a lot by reading the sources I mentioned, and those in "a sticky (tape) subject" in this same section of audiokarma. You will see what can be done to salvage a recording (not only from SSS) without taking chances. Don't be upset, this is good news: contrary to what you take for granted, tossing valuable recordings or just watching them decay are not accepted options - not even back in 1998, did you see the date on the patent? They CAN be played safely :yes: And not only the Ampex

BTW, the new tapes available today do not suffer from the sticky shed syndrome. My advice is to stop looking for those notoriously flawed Ampex tapes, and go for RMG instead, you will get vastly better results for much less efforts, and not necessarily more cash if I refer to the insane prices they ask for old tapes on the 'bay.