[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ARSCLIST] Risk assessment tool Q3--DAT
I've had more problems with DAT machines aging than with the tapes themselves,
which I've been using extensively since '92 or '93. The only problems I had were
with using discarded dats on a different machine, till I made the acquaintance of
the right bulk eraser (there are such things). There were one or two cheap brands
such as DicDat, which were to be avoided and which quickly disappeared.
For the last 7 or 8 years I've used DDS tapes exclusively, having been informed
that they were manufactured to higher standards than commercial DAT tapes. Never
used 90m but the 60m tapes (incidentally, that's the length, 60 metres, providing
120 minutes of recording time..or double that if you use the 32k "archive" rate on
some machines) have been available from a variety of sources for around $2 each,
which was certainly a factor in my decision to try them. I wouldn't even know
where to find brand name dats today but I suppose they're still out there.
"Richard L. Hess" wrote:
> At 04:41 PM 1/10/2006, Casey, Michael T wrote:
> >Again, I very much appreciate the responses to my last two posts.
> >Here is the last set of questions, concerning DAT:
> >1. What problems are encountered in transferring DATs?
> Head clogs with some brands of tapes - from day one. I think TDK had
> a bad run that I got. The best results were with KAO and Maxel DDS 60 m tapes.
> >2. Have you noticed tape deterioration with this format?
> None so far.
> >3. Are there any brands that are more problematic than others?
> I think TDK had some bad runs.
> >4. Are there problems with thinner tapes (probably 120 minute or above)?
> Thinner than 120, yes. 60 m tapes are fine - they are the standard
> for DDS and work well in all the DAT machines I've tried. The DDS
> tapes were widely sold into the taper community. There were 90 m and
> longer tapes. I have found all of those to be problematic.
> >5. Playback compatibility problems between machines?
> >6. Have you noticed any age-related problems?
> Not yet
> >7. If you had to choose between preservation transfer of a DAT tape from
> >the mid-1990s, an open reel tape with sticky shed, an acetate-based open
> >reel tape from the late 1950s, or an audio cassette from the 1970s,
> >which would you choose and why?
> >[Assume that the content is different on each but each has been rated as
> >equivalent in value. Assume also that you are conducting a visual survey
> >of your collection and you have no further information on the individual
> >recording. Therefore, your choice is based solely on what is known about
> >how the format itself deteriorates and the risk that it represents, or
> >on factors relating to the obsolescence of the format.]
> Acetate if it has vinegar syndrome
> DAT due to risk of machine obsolescence
> Reel with SSS since we have been hearing some opinions that it can get worse
> Acetate without vinegar syndrome because it may develop it
> cassette because I have more faith it won't deteriorate and I've got
> 6.5 Dragons and just found a local place that says they can repair them.
> >Mike Casey
> >Associate Director for Recording Services
> >Archives of Traditional Music
> >Indiana University
> >(812) 855-8090
> >Co-chair, ARSC Technical Committee
> Richard L. Hess richard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Aurora, Ontario, Canada http://www.richardhess.com/
> Detailed contact information: http://www.richardhess.com/tape/contact.htm