AMPEX:
406, 407, 456, 457, 20/20, 373, 499

SCOTCH:
226, 227, Classic, 206, 207, 986

SONY:
SLH, ULH, FeCr

--------------------------------------------------------------------
This is by no means a complete list, but the aforementioned tapes are both the worst offenders *and* the most common.

And now for the tapes with the best proven reliability records. Of all of these, I have never encountered even the slightest signs of sticky shed, never.

MAXELL:
LN, UD, UD-XL, XLI, XLII

TDK:
AUDUA-L, AUDUA-LB, LX, GX, SA

DENON:
DX-1101B

CAPITOL:
"MUSIC TAPE"

QUANTEGY:
406, 407, 456, 457, 499, GP9

MEMOREX:
"QUANTUM"

---------------------------------------------------------------------

I have not sampled or tested BASF/EMTEC, Fuji, or AGFA. Likewise, I have not bothered testing "trash" or "rebranded/reject" tapes such as SHAMROCK or RADIO SHACK either. Other seasoned users, feel free to interject your experiences.

 Older formulation Acetate based tapes never have this sticky shed problem - Jeremy123 12:18:22 07/07/06 (0)
 I would add BASF to the tapes without difficulty n/t - Bung 18:51:38 06/25/06 (0)
 Re: The Sticky Shed Tape Hall Of Shame (and Fame) - Inmate51 11:38:57 06/23/06 (0)

...

Show full thread outline!

 Older formulation Acetate based tapes never have this sticky shed problem - Jeremy123 12:18:22 07/07/06 (0)
 I would add BASF to the tapes without difficulty n/t - Bung 18:51:38 06/25/06 (0)
 Re: The Sticky Shed Tape Hall Of Shame (and Fame) - Inmate51 11:38:57 06/23/06 (0)
 Before everyone gets scared to death, we need to recognize something. - Dave Pogue 13:50:39 06/21/06 (3)
 Re: Before everyone gets scared to death, we need to recognize something. - Dogface1956 16:49:42 06/21/06 (2)
 Well, I confess I don't understand this - Dave Pogue 18:39:47 06/21/06 (1)
 Re: Well, I confess I don't understand this - Dogface1956 19:45:27 06/21/06 (0)
 Re: The Sticky Shed Tape Hall Of Shame (and Fame) - Dogface1956 12:52:14 06/21/06 (0)
 Re: The Sticky Shed Tape Hall Of Shame (and Fame) - Jon 11:57:16 06/21/06 (2)
 Re: The Sticky Shed Tape Hall Of Shame (and Fame) - Inmate51 11:58:45 07/02/06 (0)
 Modern day Ampex/Quantegy - scooter 05:27:59 07/02/06 (0)

I did have one TDK tape that had the sticky shed problem maybe it was just a bad tape, or someone switched the tape on the reel and in the box.

Jeff

Squealing and binding might be a tape deck maintenance issue, but sticky shed is not, I have seen tapes that even when just fast forwarded and rewound they leave the tape path a real mess taking a lot of time and effort to clean. In fact I think you could say sticky shed is going to make deck maintenance all that much harder, which is way I use an old "beater" to fastforward and rewind all NOS and Used tapes.

I don't think the intent is to scare anyone, but to provide a warning to folks who are new to R2R and buying used tapes. Until about 6 months ago I had never heard of sticky shed (I purchased my first R2R in December of 2005) and I was buying a lot of tape on eBay, now I know which brands are prone to Sticky Shed and not to run any suspect tapes on my good, well maintained machines unless I want to spend time to clean up the mess.

Jeff

I recently dug out a bunch of tapes I recorded in the 60s and they all played okay. I've never experienced "sticky shed" and I honestly can't figure out why. I've heard that Ampex-produced prerecorded tape was troublesome (and I confess some of these tapes used to be, including a favorite Modern Jazz Quartet album that now sounds fine. Am I just blessed, or what? Maybe it's partly an environmental issue -- keeping the tapes in reasonably controlled, moderate humidity condition, although that wouldn't necessarily apply to the Ebay purchases. Beats me.

Don't complain just hope you luck holds, I have had many of the Ampex tapes with sticky shed, plus some Scotch brand tapes (at this point I try not to knowingly purchase any Ampex or Scotch tapes). I am not enough of an expert to be able to tell when they were manufactured, but I understand from the mid 70's to the early 90's is where the problems are. I have not had a single used pre-recorded tape with Sticky Shed so my luck there has been pretty good, but NOS/Used tapes is another issue.

Jeff

On the other hand, I would not advise people to view it as "the final word", even if you explicitly say a tape doesn't have the problem. I bake EVERY polyester high-output tape that I know is from the affected era.

The basic problem is that, back in the early 70's, as part of an effort to make higher output tapes, an approach to the chemistry and design was used which offered obvious advantages: higher output, reduced static charge, and better tape handling during FF and FR. (It might have also been an effort to reduce binder costs and warranty return rates, but that's another question.)

In any case, the "sticky shed" problem is limited to polyester-based tapes (not the 60's vintage acetate - do NOT bake acetate) produced in the "heyday" of making tapes which were designed to outperform their competitors (at least from a marketing standpoint), i.e., the early 70's and beyond, until the problem was discovered and identified.

As one person pointed out, "squealing", etc. can be corrected by proper machine maintainance. But that is a normal issue associated with improperly maintained machines, and is a different problem than the problems which occur with tapes which actually have deteriorated due to the absorption of moisture into the binder, making it undesirably viscous and susceptible to being deposited onto tape machine components.

As a result, my position continues to be: If you have polyester-based tapes from the early 70's through the mid-80's (after which, manufacturers started to fix binder chemistry problems), that tape is probably useless at this point. If it contains audio which you wish to keep, this is the best way to handle it: 1. Bake it at 130 - 140 degrees Farenheit (I bake at 133). 2. Transfer it to a new media within two weeks, before it begins to absorb significant moisture again. 3. For archive purposes, keep the tape, because it can be re-baked at a later date.

As a guy who has a bunch of old 406/407 and 456, I'm well aware of the problem. The newer tapes under the Quantegy name are "apparently" fine. We'll know in a few years. ;)

But because of the problems with the older tapes, I've built a tape baking oven, and am having excellent results copying them to hard disk. See my site regarding tape baking.

Dave
www.youramerica.net