[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ARSCLIST] wire recordings - archival storage
I wasn't aware of the dissertaion. Can you supply a more complete
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott D. Smith" <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 6:48 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] wire recordings - archival storage
The discussion of various wire piqued my curiosity, so I did a little
digging. I didn't find the exact reference I was looking for, but found a
couple of similar citations. I think most of this research was done by
Brush Magnetics and Marvin Camras at Armour Research, with similar
research done by the Geramns.
The best reference I found was from "The Recording and Reproduction of
Sound" (Oliver Read-Author; Howard Sams-Publisher; ©1952). In the section
on wire recording, there is a reference to the use of medium carbon steel
wire, which was produced from medium carbon steel rod. I think this was
probably what some of the early Pierce wire stock was. There is also
reference from a Fidelitone source which outlines differences between
/"Regular Stainless Steel Wire"/ and /"Stainless Steel Recording Wire"/.
It essentially outlines the fact that the Stainless Steel Recording Wire
undergoes some specific QC and other treatments during manufacture. There
was quite a bit of research that went into this at the time, and I haven't
had a chance to look up all the references. I do recall that there tended
to be a high rejection rate of the stainless steel rod used to produce the
wire, and that it had to fall within specific limits on the B & H curve.
In the excellent book titled "Elements of Sound Recording" by John Frayne
and Halley Wolfe (John Wiley & Sons, ©1949), there are references in a
response chart from Brush Development to /"Carbon Steel Wire", "420
Stainless Steel Wire", "Brush Wire Type BK-913",/ and /"Coated Paper
Tape"/. (If you're curious, the paper tape beats them all!).
As I recall, the reference that I had previously seen wire stock referred
to as "Type 1" and "Type 2" wire. Wish I could find the damn thing...
I think the part of oxidation problem is as a result of the pot metal that
was used for making the wire spools, which in the case of Webster-Chicago,
I believe are anodized aluminum, although I have frankly never researched
it. I have seen problems in the past with various anodizing, where either
the metal was contaminated, or the anodizing was not done quite properly,
resulting a sort of white powder substance. I'm not a chemist, so I will
leave it to someone else to speculate on exactly what the nature of this
Your comments on print-through are interesting. It certainly would seem
that wire would be prone to this-strange that it doesn't appear more often
(on the other hand, the 40 db S/N ratio might have something to do with
One of these days, in my spare time (yeah, right), I'm going to go down to
the IIT archives and take a look at the Armour papers relating to the
research on wire recording, although David Morton has already covered much
of this in his dissertation on Webster-Chicago.
(BTW-the Webster-Chicago plant still stands at 5610 W. Bloomingdale in
Chicago. I took some exterior photos a few years ago, and hope to make a
tour of it sometime).
Scott D. Smith
Chicago Audio Works, Inc.
Angie Dickinson Mickle wrote:
Scott D. Smith wrote:
I always thought all the wire made by W-C was stainless as well, but
apparently there were at least couple of different grades (which I've
seen reference to in some literature from the 1940s. Would have to dig
for the source).
I would be very interested in your reference to this when you get a
I have seen some wire which has exhibited a crystalline type of
oxidation (usually easily cleaned).
I've seen this also. To me oxidation is rust, but this is definitely
some environmental reaction. It does not seem to effect the recording or
the integrity of the wire in the least. And I find it more often on the
metal spool itself than the actual wire.
I've never really experienced any issues with print-through on wires.
I hadn't either until very recently. A very loud volume passage on a
wire definitely could be heard seconds later. It could be argued that
that low level garbling that is frequently heard on wire could be
print-through. On the other hand, it could be incomplete erasure of
previous recordings. I could never tell. Weighing tails out storage to
future playback equipment compatibility, I'd continue storing heads out
with a proper, even wind. Because, here's my question. After being
stored heads out for 50 or 60 years, how much worse can any print-through
Angie Dickinson Mickle