Squeaky cassettes

Occasionally the odd cassette turns up for which there is no CD or LP version, or at least not conveniently.  So a careful capture in AA3, gentle de-hissing applied, burn to CD, and there you have it.  Right? 

Just now listening to the beginning of the last one I did before the busy holiday season.  Not good.  My work was fine, but the tape is not happy, and it's not the first time I've run into this problem.  Transfer stopped midway and abandoned.

A Google check confirms I'm not alone: cassettes manufactured for the EMI classical label (and probably any EMI) lose their ability to play over time, as though the oxide turns to a mild adhesive.  At first the playback will start to droop in speed as friction builds, and eventually the tape squeaks across the tape path quite audibly.  Both are ruinous to a successful transfer, obviously.  Unlike typical sticky-oxide syndrome, these tapes have no back coating and also don't tend to deposit layers of crud inside the machine while squeaking.

I've tried changing the tape to a different, high quality shell; baking it; lightly appliying silicone; and drowning it in silicone (tape now ruined).  All of these have NO affect on the problem.

I'm wondering if any of you have knowledge of the problem, specifically what is changing over time in the chemical composition of the oxide, and if there is any antidote.

I'm wondering if any of you have knowledge of the problem, specifically what is changing over time in the chemical composition of the oxide, and if there is any antidote.

I'm aware of the problem, and it's not just limited to EMI tapes. As far as I know it's caused by the lubricant on the slip sheets that prevent the tape making contact with the cassette itself. The lubricant sort-of mingles with the tape, and becomes a part of it - and not a lubricant any more. Unfortunately what I don't know is whether there's any cure. It's been suggested that the one thing you shouldn't do is to bake them - that is apparently likely to make things worse, not better. The squeaking seems to be related to whatever the oxide coating has become being forced into contact with the playback head, presumably by the pressure pad.

As a result of this, the one sensible thing I've heard that's been suggested is to try to play the tapes on a dual-capstan 3-head Nakamichi, some models of which incorporate a small lifter for the pressure pad, and rely on the dual capstan drive to keep the tape in contact with the heads. This is apparently a lot easier on the tape, and assuming that it will actually come off the pancakes without destroying itself, may be a way forward - if you can find/requisition/borrow/whatever a Nak... (My LX-5 doesn't have the lifter, but it certainly uses the capstans to control the head pressure, so it plays cassettes without any pressure pads at all without problems. I think that it's the really expensive Naks that have the lifters, and one of those hasn't come my way yet.)

Experiments have been made with attempting to re-lubricate the tapes, but I'm not aware of any successes. Silicone apparently won't cure the problem at all, although it has been suggested that a wipe with alcohol will at least temporarily ease the problem - but this is really hard to do with a cassette unless you can get it out of the shell. If you can, run it through a pad soaked with Isopropanol, and things might well improve for a while. Other than these, I have no immediate idea of what else to try, though.

Maybe this ties in with two tapes manufactured in 1991 that I recently acquired, both of which broke when I attempted to play them (in a two-capstan Akai).  On breaking the shells open with a view to splicing them, I found that successive turns were in places stuck at one edge, which would match the idea that the slip sheet was the source of the trouble.  Mind you, there were also signs that their storage conditions had been poor at some time.  Fortunately (because they are very rare) I have since been able to track down CD copies of both releases.

Paul

I can't say that it isn't a totally different problem with the same, or similar, symptoms, but I’ve made major improvements in a number of squealing cassettes by taking the slip sheets out.

One simple thing is to use a tape deck with the cassette sides running horizontal. Try to rewind the tape several times backward and forward. This helps to bring the tape stack to the lower side. If it plays so - OK. If not, reverse the tape and repeat the same. Then the stack goes to the other side - may be succesful this time. However I agree this to be a matter of desperance.

The duplication or restoration of music from one format to another is of course forbidden without a license from the copyright owner, in your case MC, most likely EMI Publishing. 

Having said that, you could 'download' the songs on your cassette, from SoulSeek, and burn your CD.  This advice is  given on the understanding that the final use of your CD is for 'Educational or Critical' purposes, an exemption allowed by the 2008 copyright act.

I haven't used SoulSeek myself for a while, but for a few years I haven't found any version of a song, that I couldn't find from the sharers at SoulSeek, yet.

Time is money.

The duplication or restoration of music from one format to another is of course forbidden without a license from the copyright owner, in your case MC, most likely EMI Publishing. 

No it's not, certainly in the US. There is a fair use clause in the copyright law, for a start, and as far as I'm aware no case has ever been bought against an individual copying a cassette for him or herself onto a format that they can sensibly reproduce.

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107

We've had detailed discussions about extensions to this principle in the past, and now we have a pretty clear idea of what restorers can and can't do - and what it amounts to is that if you make a single restored copy for a client on a different format, and also include all of the original copyright information, and importantly don't retain a copy for yourself, you're pretty much okay - they can't sue you and expect to win.

This thread is now the most helpful information I've heard yet.  Perhaps Google searches will be bringing others here for years to come...

Steve, it's not out of the question to break the shell and attempt to clean the tape with alcohol.  My concern is that other tape shells that I could try to use may or may not have good slip sheets.  We'll see about that!  And while it might not have the pad-lifting feature of a Nak 3, I do have occasional access to a Sony dual-capstan machine and may give that a try.  (I've no idea where to find a Nak.)  Great stuff.  Thank you.

Paul, the problem you describe sounds like a different one.  This tape is in no danger of stretching or breaking.  Well, at least I didn't think it was....  hmm....

Bert, your suggestion makes sense, and anything we can do to lower tension will be good.

Keith, your reply is amusing to me, but I am glad that you are concerned about copyright.  As a professional musician it bothers me greatly when people aren't willing to pay a little for something they enjoy.  Such an attitude of entitlement puts us out of business, and I'm not talking about the multi-million dollar artists here.  At the same time, Steve is absolutely right about Fair Use in the USA, and my copying one format of a recording to another for my own personal use is not an infringement. 

My amusement comes from your suggestion to use SoulSeek, invented by that same bastion of high morals who, years before, invented Napster.  I am convinced that a person can't be respectful of copyright and use or recommend such a peer-to-peer service.    Sure, their policy is to encourage sharing of only those materials to which you own the copyright , or have permission, but let's get real.  Much of what's there, whether music or DVDs or whatever, has no permission given and is purely illegal.  I won't join such a site.  (Plus, I expect the likelihood of someone having Previn's version of the Rachmaninoff 3rd Symphony is slim to none.  With a little time, I could probably find it on LP.)

Sure, time is money, but I'm a patient craftsman and will go to some lengths to not have to acquire my music in some displeasing compressed format from shady sources.  It's worth it to me.

Paul, the problem you describe sounds like a different one.  This tape is in no danger of stretching or breaking.  Well, at least I didn't think it was....  hmm....

I hope it is different! But I had no warning when the breaks happened...

The duplication or restoration of music from one format to another is of course forbidden without a license from the copyright owner, in your case MC, most likely EMI Publishing. 

No it's not, certainly in the US. There is a fair use clause in the copyright law, for a start, and as far as I'm aware no case has ever been bought against an individual copying a cassette for him or herself onto a format that they can sensibly reproduce.

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107

We've had detailed discussions about extensions to this principle in the past, and now we have a pretty clear idea of what restorers can and can't do - and what it amounts to is that if you make a single restored copy for a client on a different format, and also include all of the original copyright information, and importantly don't retain a copy for yourself, you're pretty much okay - they can't sue you and expect to win.

Hmmm, as I said there are 'happily' exemptions that "allow" music to be utilised in some circumstances, specifically intended to avoid ridiculous law suits, but can I clarify for everyone Steve, as a Partner in a publishing company and the outright owner of 'many' copyrights, I still reserve the right to litigate against anyone that uses any part of any of the music we own, for any purpose, if they haven't first sought a license or our permission to use it.  The 'Hip Hop' sampling generation has turned the 'Cease and Desist' employee into a department over the last 5 years.

Universal not pursuing an individual for restoring a tape to a CD, should not be interpreted as they don't have the 'statutory right' to do so, even in instances covered by exemptions.

Keith, your reply is amusing to me, but I am glad that you are concerned about copyright.  As a professional musician it bothers me greatly when people aren't willing to pay a little for something they enjoy.  Such an attitude of entitlement puts us out of business, and I'm not talking about the multi-million dollar artists here.  At the same time, Steve is absolutely right about Fair Use in the USA, and my copying one format of a recording to another for my own personal use is not an infringement.

My amusement comes from your suggestion to use SoulSeek, invented by that same bastion of high morals who, years before, invented Napster.  I am convinced that a person can't be respectful of copyright and use or recommend such a peer-to-peer service.    Sure, their policy is to encourage sharing of only those materials to which you own the copyright , or have permission, but let's get real.  Much of what's there, whether music or DVDs or whatever, has no permission given and is purely illegal.  I won't join such a site.  (Plus, I expect the likelihood of someone having Previn's version of the Rachmaninoff 3rd Symphony is slim to none.  With a little time, I could probably find it on LP.)

"Previn's version of the Rachmaninoff 3rd Symphony" - Most likely Decca own the rights to this one.  Amusement was my intention MC, and I roundly accept your intention to support Artists, but it seems to escape you that the people that really support Artists are Labels, and by making your own copy of an old cassette 'that came along' you're ultimately avoiding, or helping someone else avoid, purchasing a new copy of a recording that is currently available at Amazon for $13.99, thereby depriving musicians of income they could and should rightly receive.  When things get old or break if we love them we have to replace them, music is no different.

The old "it's just one copy it's harmless" used to have some relevance in the 'gravy train' days, but with audio software readily available now and a 'revenue devastated' industry, multiply yourself by 500,000, a million, and the lost revenue is 'significant.' 

Do you still perceive copying an old casstte, and having or supplying a sparkly new recording, sits comfortably with your stated support of musicians?

File-sharing is no longer the the industry enemy, unless you're in the Sony/Universal league, but even they now accept that it is something that needs to be embraced into their business model.  The phenomenon is now 'universally' accepted as one of the best ways to get new music 'out there,' and most labels actively submit music themselves to SoulSeek and others.

You may find this video interesting, it's from 2007, Mark Goldstein,former VP of Business Affairs at Warner Bros. Records talks about the industry's 'then' changing attitude to file-sharing and new technologies.  We've come a long way since.

http://www.artistshousemusic.org/videos/the+truth+about+file+sharing+and+the+future+of+the+music+industry

All the best, K.

Hmmm, as I said there are 'happily' exemptions that "allow" music to be utilised in some circumstances, specifically intended to avoid ridiculous law suits, but can I clarify for everyone Steve, as a Partner in a publishing company and the outright owner of 'many' copyrights, I still reserve the right to litigate against anyone that uses any part of any of the music we own, for any purpose, if they haven't first sought a license or our permission to use it.  The 'Hip Hop' sampling generation has turned the 'Cease and Desist' employee into a department over the last 5 years.

Fine words butter no parsnips... and you have clarified precisely nothing. You should try looking at real world examples of what actually happens when you even attempt to do this (especially by entrapment, as one of our members will tell you), because you'll find that the reality is somewhat different from your threatening assertions.

And I can't find the 1968 version of the Previn Rachmaninov 3 anywhere on Amazon, which is the version that would be available on cassette, and if you can, it's likely to be a secondhand copy that will produce absolutely zero revenue for the copyright owner (this appears to be an RCA/Victor recording).

I have been a publisher and copyright owner for decades, and I think that I have a pretty good idea of what you can and can't get away with. And I have a sense of reality over fair usage, which you don't appear to. Also I happen to know that because of the nature of his job, MusicConductor's support for musicians in general is indisputable. And this is real support, not the so-called 'support' that publishers and record labels give, whilst feathering their own nests rather comfortably. That's why a lot of  artistes have chosen to run their affairs themselves, rather than leaving it to dinosaur record labels.

If you want a detailed explanation of just where royalty money doesn't go in classical recording circles as far as publishing copyright goes, I can provide it - basically in most cases it's a complete rip-off forced onto producers by a ridiculous bit of legislation, and it doesn't benefit minor composers at all. Which is why I often use a legal loophole to circumvent it - I can provide more support myself than royalty collection does.

["If you make unauthorized copies of copyrighted music recordings, you're stealing. You're breaking the law and you could be held legally liable for thousands of dollars in damages."]

Hmmm, as I said there are 'happily' exemptions that "allow" music to be utilised in some circumstances, specifically intended to avoid ridiculous law suits, but can I clarify for everyone Steve, as a Partner in a publishing company and the outright owner of 'many' copyrights, I still reserve the right to litigate against anyone that uses any part of any of the music we own, for any purpose, if they haven't first sought a license or our permission to use it.  The 'Hip Hop' sampling generation has turned the 'Cease and Desist' employee into a department over the last 5 years.

Fine words butter no parsnips... and you have clarified precisely nothing. You should try looking at real world examples of what actually happens when you even attempt to do this (especially by entrapment, as one of our members will tell you), because you'll find that the reality is somewhat different from your threatening assertions.

And I can't find the 1968 version of the Previn Rachmaninov 3 anywhere on Amazon, which is the version that would be available on cassette, and if you can, it's likely to be a secondhand copy that will produce absolutely zero revenue for the copyright owner (this appears to be an RCA/Victor recording).

I wasn't threatening anyone.

From The Washington Post, December 30, 2007, two excerpts from the full text you can read by clicking the link:

"RIAA's hard-line position seems clear. Its Web site says: "If you make unauthorized copies of copyrighted music recordings, you're stealing. You're breaking the law and you could be held legally liable for thousands of dollars in damages."  They're not kidding. In October, after a trial in Minnesota -- the first time the industry has made its case before a federal jury -- Jammie Thomas was ordered to pay $220,000 to the big record companies. That's $9,250 for each of 24 songs she was accused of sharing online."

"At the Thomas trial in Minnesota, Sony BMG's chief of litigation, Jennifer Pariser, testified that "when an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." Copying a song you bought is "a nice way of saying 'steals just one copy,' " she said."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/28/AR2007122800693.html

Just one parsnip, 'real world' enough?  There are more, over 230,000 cases globally in the last 4 years, the industry doesn't shout about them, they're not media friendly.  As an Administrator of a public forum dedicated to the industry of mastering, a trade for which the invariable paymasters are Record Companies, you should be advising members of the law itself, not advocating that breaking it will 'most likely' be OK, because one of your members got away with it.

My apologies MC if you misunderstood my post as in anyway 'threatening,' I and the industry in general have no interest in you copying an old squeaky cassette, but don't let others convince you it's 'okey-dokey' legal to do so.  My post was purely to clarify most 'misunderstood' copyright law.

All the best, K.

It's absolutely okey-dokey to do so.  These are completely unrelated issues.  I paid full retail for my Rachmaninoff cassette years ago.  The label and artists (hopefully) benefitted.  The RIAA prohibits unauthorized copies; under Fair Use, my "copy" is authorized simply because I'm using a second form of media instead of the original media, and the original purchaser is the only one doing so, and I'm keeping the original media.  Apples to Oranges.  My conscience is clear.

Again, it's ironic that Keith's violation example involves file sharing (and I agree with that part of the point).  Keith, you justified using SoulSeek because labels sometimes use such services to promote new music by giving some away.  I'm well aware of that.  However, wouldn't we all find it interesting to know how much P2P music or movies exchanged under SoulSeek is actually legal?  It wouldn't surprise me if it's 80-90% piracy.  It sounds like you're trying to play both ends of the field.  Same with the cease-and-desist scenario involving samples in hip-hop, also unrelated because it's the creation (and likely dissemination) of derivative works without permission of the source owner.

Anyway, my mind won't be changed.  I'm rather fond of Previn's interpretation.  If I have to go find another copy secondhand, I will.  $13.99 on Amazon won't get me Previn, sorry.  A number of my favorite 1970s-80s orchestral recordings by Previn or Maazel aren't on CD, sadly.  Would love to have them.  But paying full retail for a second copy probably only benefits the label at this point in time (though I'm not against helping them for giving me wonderful music).

By the way, Decca is owned by Universal Music Group.  EMI is a competitor.

Just one parsnip, 'real world' enough?  There are more, over 230,000 cases globally in the last 4 years, the industry doesn't shout about them, they're not media friendly.  As an Administrator of a public forum dedicated to the industry of mastering, a trade for which the invariable paymasters are Record Companies, you should be advising members of the law itself, not advocating that breaking it will 'most likely' be OK, because one of your members got away with it.

That's not a parsnip, it's a soggy old turnip. Nobody mentioned file sharing at all - in fact if you read back what I wrote about this, that sort of activity is by default completely excluded. We don't advise on the law, because we're not lawyers. What we do in mastering terms is to advise on what really happens, and that's not what you've been saying at all. For instance, read this thread. Here you will read how to go about getting permission from the record companies to make individual copies if you are doing this for a living, and also, if you dig back further, you'll find out about the illegal methods that the enforcement agency here used which effectively forced the issue - entrapment. Yes it backfired on them, and a damn good job too.

Fair enough guys 

The Publisher with "We're not particularly interested in protecting your music" on his letterhead, and the copier who thinks it's ok, coz he never paid for the music in the first place. 

Quality.

All the best.  K.