EMI Emitape (1960s) - different grades?

Just curious about the in house brand of tape used by EMI way back when.

Was the 1" tape for multitracking of the same formulation as the 1/4" tape that was used for mixdowns?
What about the "Emitape" that was made for home use, or came prerecorded at 3 3/4 ips? How did this compare to what the Beatles were mixing down their tracks onto?

I also see references to Emitape 77 and 811... How do these compare and where do they fit into the Beatles recorded output? Were there other formulations?

 

Standard play acetates
Mylar long play and double play for 1/4 inch
1" thicker mag layer,different binder,standard play possibly mylar

 

Thanks for the info Roger. Would be interesting to cut an album to some NOS 1", if that even exists. I'm trying to find some of the 1/4" stuff for mixing purposes on one project. I'll be sure to keep an eye out for the acetate standard play stuff, I'm assuming that's the same as what was used at abbey road.

There is a full 10.5" reel of the stuff on eBay at the moment... Sure looks like acetate to me. Maybe I'll take the plunge.

 

I though Acetate was a disc?

 

Correct, lacquers can be referred to acetates. In this context we are referring to tapes which are made of acetate. Here's a quick timeline.

1940's - paper tapes, coated with oxide on one side (scotch 100)
1950's - acetate base, coated with oxide
1960's - acetate base falls out of favor with the introduction of sturdier mylar/polyester bases coated with oxide. Also better stability for archival use, although if temperature and humidity is regulated well, and the tape pack is even, acetate backed tapes can be just as good as new even 60 years later.

1970's - use of synthetic oil rather than natural whale fat becomes the norm when preparing the glue which is used as the binder that holds the oxide to the tape surface. Binder decomposes, enter the digital age and now we have many tapes which are turning to goo.


Acetate is also what most films are made of. At least for 16mm, as far as I know. But I'm not any authority on the history of moving pictures so don't quote me on that.

 

Wax was the preferred 30s medium
Did not travel well but could be shaved and erased
Cecil Watts invented alumium disc with cellulose acetate coating when he was working for BSR and the dust bug and other cleaning devices.
Acetates tapes did loose a lot of backing and transports needed constant cleaning
Mylar was better and did not snap like acetate
It also enabled LP and DP which ran longer but printed through worse.
Binder synthetics wreaked havoc with archive tapes though not with BASF and AGFA binders
Germans, great chemists
Mag stock was Mylar with sprockets.

 

Actetate tape is also vulnerable to vinegar syndrome, and 50 years is really pushing it. A reel of acetate came in a few years ago that stunk so bad I couldn't be in the same room with it.

 

It's on account of the thickness of the tape. 1.5 mil was common in the early years, but as time went by, they figured out how to make it thinner and thinner, which of course resulted in more and more print through. 0.5 mil tape is terrible, like a reel of saran wrap.

 

Poor temperature and humidity levels can do that. I've seen some real basket cases. Smelled em too. Mine are all fine though, my oldest goes back to 1956. Good as new. Storage is the key to preservation and longetivity.

With all the print through in some portions of the White Album, something tells me the Beatles switched over to a non-emi tape, or Emi changed their base to something more prone to print through than acetate base. Perhaps this is where the 811 formulation comes into play?

 

Chunks of The White Album were recorded at studios other than EMI's (Abbey Road) so it's more than likely that non-EMI tape was used at those sessions, especially if they were tracking dates. I bet this accounts for a lot of those issues.

 

This is true. I took this into account, but the one that mainly comes to mind is "happiness is a warm gun". I don't have Lewisohn's book near me at the moment, but if I recall correctly, Happiness was tracked and mixed at Abbey Road

Also, I do remember seeing images of an Emitape box for Hey Jude in the book, even though that was tracked at Trident on an 8 track machine and NOT at EMI. Although I also do recall there was an issue with shedding on that tape at the session, so that may have been a eq'd dubbing to Emitape.

 

Snapping is preferable to stretching. A clean break can be spliced.

 

Well, I just acquired this today.
A still sealed reel of emitape. I'd date this to 1966 or earlier just based on the packaging, estimated guess really, I've no way to be sure. I'd probably say it's earlier than 66 but I'm trying to be conservative with my estimate, haha.
The plastic case has never been opened. This is literally fresh from the factory. Just look how smooth that tape pack is! Pure audio porn.

Can't tell if this is acetate yet, as there is a paper covering one side of the reel. Can't quite shine light through it. But I can make out on the stamp on the box what appears to be "88/12EH". Is this meant to imply there were other types at the time? Is this the type that would've graced the heads of that J37 which recorded our most treasured music? (besides the difference in width of course)

 

Actually did an unboxing video for anyone who'd be interested in seeing such things!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A57nXrtOX2E

What I learned from the slip included inside the package upon opening it is that their pro-grade stuff was referred to as Emitape "77"
gotta find me some of that.

 

Anyone remember Tenzar? It was a 3M formulation. I thought it was 1.5mil. For some reason 175 rings a bell, but it was a while back.

 

I've no experience with the stuff, but I believe it's polyester based. Nice artwork on the packaging. Seems to have held up well over time from what I can determine.

 

I watched your video. Your tape is circa 1964 (certainly no later). It can be dated by the inclusion of the plastic reel cover on the boxart as well as the "old" EMI logo on the back. The previous boxart didn't have the plastic case in the image, and the subsequent boxart had the "new" EMI logo. The subsequent tape reel also used the new more contemporary font for EMITAPE.

Curiously, what size is your spool? It looks only 5" to me. If so, then it's not 88/12E. 88/12E was a 7" spool with 1200' tape. If yours is 5" then it's most likely 88/6E (6E meaning 600').

Re tape types, type 88 was standard play, type 44 was acetate, tape 99 long play (thin) and type 100 double play (ultra thin). These were the consumer types available in 1963. Type 77 was professional grade; used in-house. Type 811 came in the mid 1960s. Looking at my scans of The Beatles tape boxes, I can confirm that PPM through RS were on type 77 and from Revolver on type 811.

As an aside, each box typically contained a flyer detailing each type, the playing time, and cost.

 

Some info on 3M's Tenzar backing. Scotch 175 used this. I still have some reels of it.

 

Thanks so much for all of this info. The reel is 7", and I've confirmed your info with the information on the included flyer, so the tape is indeed the 88/12E as stamped on the side of the box. I wonder how the 77 and 88 compared. Was it a matter of different thicknesses, or base material? Different oxide coating? Or perhaps just manufactured to stricter tolerances? I'd love to run some analytical comparisons between the two if I ever get my hands on the stuff.

Looking at the Beatles tape box scans, one interesting thing of note is that Revolver lists both 811 and 77. My guess is that it is so because some of the mixes may have been completed prior to the switch to 811, and were spliced in when the reel was comped.

 

3M's Tenzar backing was introduced in 1965 and came in a couple "models" throughout the years. 175 and 176 are the most common. Both were 1.5 mil polyester tapes and recommended for heavy-duty, non-critical use. 176 debuted in 1972. 177 was a 1 mil version.

175 seems to have long term issues with stability. There are many documented instances of the formulation having apparent lubrication issues resulting in tapes that squeal and cause decks to stop from extreme drag. It's kind of like sticky shed syndrome except there is no flaking, or build up of residue on the heads, guides etc. Baking does not help these tapes, which also separates it from sticky shed prone formulations. No one is quite sure what the problem is and there is no consensus on how to deal with the issue.

 

There are many tape enthusiasts who polish tapes which exhibit SSS with my-finish. I've never tried it, even though I mainly buy 456, I've never come across a bad reel. So I can't comment. But I'm curious as to how 175 and it's cousins would respond to this treatment.

 

I've heard of the nu-finish technique, but I have no opinion as I've no experience with it. But as far as I know it doesn't help with 175. Preliminary tests show 175 responds to...and I'm not kidding...being played as close to frozen as possible.

 

Yep. Acetate has to "breathe". What kills it is the outgassing in tightly sealed containers. I've seen them make perfect reel-shaped brown shadows on the inside of the box.

 

Clean the heads with Rain-X. Rain doesn't stick to the windshield, and tape doesn't stick to the head. It doesn't last for very long, sometimes not even the full length of the tape, but it's enough of a stopgap measure to pull the audio from a "squealer". I also removed the erase and record heads from my machines. The less in the tape path, the better.

 

Never heard of the rain-x technique, but I assume it'd work. Most tape restoration decks have only the playback head needed, and rolling guides wherever possible to minimize friction.

That is actually funny in a way, I'm surprised the tape doesn't become more very brittle.