LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


[email protected]


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  October 2011

ARSCLIST October 2011

Subject:

Re: Noise floor and AM X-mitter bandwidth, was: The revival of the audio cassette

From:

Steven Smolian <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 25 Oct 2011 00:13:35 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (112 lines)

Yes, it was a joke.  

However, I know I read it in one of Shirer's later books, none of which is
in my library.  Perhaps these are in a format that can be word searched
somewhere?

Steve Smolian 

-----Original Message-----
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Michael Biel
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 10:45 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Noise floor and AM X-mitter bandwidth, was: The
revival of the audio cassette



From: Patent Tactics, George Brock-Nannestad
>> As to noise, it is worth considering that it was European medium wave 
>> that carried the transmissions in which it was impossible to know 
>> where Hitler was when he spoke because they had used the Magnetophone and
not a lacquer disc.


This fairy tale makes no sense what-so-ever.  As for location, Hitler was
speaking where the announcer said he was speaking, whether it was true or
not.  A recording would only adjust the TIME he was speaking.
This fable was spread initially by Jack Mullen in describing this mysterious
machine they were hearing.  He first said that they heard Hitler speeches at
unlikely times and places, but he later changed his story to live CLASSICAL
CONCERTS they were hearing at unlikely times. 
Mullen was really covering up his ignorance of a machine which was not a
secret, was publicized and promoted before the war, and was discussed and
shown numerous times in numerous public German publications during the war.
I think that Rainer Lotz, who has done detailed research in German wartime
radio and recordings, will back me up that the Magnetophon was not used to
try to have Hitler in places he was not.  



From: Steven Smolian <[log in to unmask]>


> On the matter of Hitler on Magnetophon, Shirer, I can't recall which 
> book, talks about hearing Hitler at the Anschluss and the rebroadcast 
> as he was driving back to Germany, in which the pitch had been raised, 
> deliberately, to make it more exciting, he surmised.

> Thedre was no time to make a pressed record. It could have been done 
> from a lacquer on a vriable speed turntable, but the tape was simpler,
maybe?

The standard studio Magnetophons were not variable speed.  German radio did
not really use lacquers per se, they generally used vinyl Decelith. 
But the British had been using the steel tape Blattnerphone and
Marconi-Stille machines since 1930, so having long recordings with no record
scratch was commonplace even before the Magnetophon. 
Additionally, around 1937 some broadcasters used the Philips-Miller
mechanically recorded but optically played back film recorder, which also
allowed long continuous recordings of high quality and minimal
scratch.    

> That raises the quesation as to if they should be transferred at 
> normal pitch or as the one at which it was later distributed. I assume 
> it was broadcast in real time, sans helium, helium being a scarce
material.
> Steve Smolian

I assume this is a joke, because if there was a change in playback speed
that is not a change in the original broadcast nor is there any way you
could know what speed it was changed to unless a recording of THAT
transmission exists.   

From Michael Biel  
>> Although there were legal limitations in Europe to the frequency 
>> response of AM broadcast transmission to 4.5 KHz. to protect even 
>> adjacent channels, here in the U.S. there were no such limitations 
>> until the mid 1990s, and even then the limits were set at about 10 
>> KHz. In the mid 1930s there even was a class of stations which were 
>> REQUIRED to have a transmission frequency response that had to be at 
>> least to 10 KHz. Many AM stations exceeded 13 KHz. And receiver 
>> manufacturers did build radios which were wideband. It was only in 
>> the 1970s when the number of short-spaced stations skyrocketed that 
>> receiver manufacturers reduced bandwidth to reduce interference, and 
>> consequently the radios made every AM station sound like crap.

George B-N replied
>----- I am simply astounded. The US AM stations must have been quite 
>low  power, because an inter-channel distance of 20kHz was quite 
>unimaginable for the 1930s European system (we had 10kHz then). There 
>were definitely local low-power stations but that would not help if the 
>large transmitters were 10kHz apart and the small ones went above 5kHz.
>Well, well, learning never ends.  Best wishes, George

American AM stations ranged in power from 100 watts to 50,000 watts plus WLW
which had a transmitter in 1934 that was 500,000 watts.  The high powered
stations were placed on frequencies which were cleared of other stations,
called Clear Channels.  They were allocated their frequencies so that they
had several hundred miles of interference-free daytime coverage and a
thousand or more miles during the night.  The lower power stations were
closer together but most were day-timers, and they were far enough apart
that during the day they would not interfere.  They signed off at sunset.  A
10 KHz frequency response would give interference to the first adjacent
frequency, and anything more would give some splatter to the second
adjacent, but at night that would be less of a problem as the power of those
sounds were weak.  The current rules, called NRSC-2, keeps the sound to just
under 10 KHz to allow for the second adjacent frequency stations which are
now closer together than they had been allowed before the 1970s. 

Mike Biel  [log in to unmask]  

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager