All sorts of problems can beset tape, from winding defects to edge frilling, brittleness and drying. The latter is very common but hydration treatment can actually weaken the base film. Acetate also shrinks as it degrades and believe it or not turns to vinegar!
Corrosion on the aluminum reels the tape is stored on can cause problems, and problems can also arise when it is stored in steel cans for a prolonged period of time.
There can be "soft binder syndrome" which is apparent when a tape feels sticky to the touch. Sometimes this can be remedied, believe it or not, by baking it briefly.
Besides bad storage practices there is often mishandling of tapes. Mary Reeves told me that when they would use Jim's masters they would rewind by hand so as not to endanger breaking the tape. Engineers in those days knew how to do this. But in the digital age, how many engineers have any insight into the proper handling of analog tape?
The reason I mention all this is that I am always suspicious when I hear of some new CD being created DIRECTLY from the ORIGINAL source tapes. I simply don't believe it. I suspect it's just marketing hype. Do you really think a big company like Sony or Universal is going to dig into the vaults and retrieve THE master tapes just so some little indie label somewhere can release product on an artist? Not likely. I don't even think the big labels themselves are using original sources when they do their own releases, with few exceptions.
There was one executive at RCA years ago (while Jim was still alive) who was such a skinflint he ordered vast amounts of master tapes to be erased and re-used to save money. Much music was lost.
So there is vast ignorance about the problems associated with the storage and preservation of analog tapes. My engineer, David Lawrence, and I have encountered a lot of these problems in handling tapes for our various projects. Sometimes they are damaged past the point of usability, having developed a wobble that affects the sound, or drop-outs, or hums that can't be eradicated merely by zeroing in on the frequency and trying to get rid of it (as it also throws the baby out with the bath water).
One secret is if companies can find pristine original vinyl, still sealed in the packaging, because with the right playback equipment, it can be better than the taped masters. We have found that to be true in some of our projects.
I was just thinking today how in the last year and a half I have produced 68 overdubs for various CDs (and am presently working on an exciting new CD release featuring a well known American artist where the sound quality of what we issue will be just as stunning as the recent "Bing Crosby and Rosemary Clooney: The New Recordings" or "Jim Reeves: The New Recordings." It's exciting work but in each case, although the end result was excellent, it didn't start out being that way! Hours of restoration was required (especially for "Patsy Cline: The Divine Ms. Cline." It is nothing short of miraculous we got it sounding as good as it does, because what we had to work with was pretty terrible. Decca was using a very inferior brand of tape in those days).
A lot of labels won't invest that time or attention to restore old recordings and as a result, the market has been flooded with inferior product on a range of artists in every genre... This does not serve the artists well. I have tracks I've never been able to use because they are not up to par. I COULD put them out, but I won't do so. If we can't make it sound good, we won't issue it.
Just some random thoughts about this whole subject. Hope I haven't bored you!
1
Responses
« Back to index | View thread »
TO RETURN TO THE JIM REEVES WAY, CLICK ON JIM'S NAME AT TOP OF PAGE