From: Patent Tactics, George Brock-Nannestad
Hello,
Bob Olhsson wrote
>
> A high school friend was the son of Ford's lead patent attorney. He told me
> that according to his dad there is all kinds of advanced automotive
> technology from the first two decades of the twentieth century that will
> never see the light of day because it can't be patented and thus wouldn't
> provide enough competitive advantage to cover the cost of putting it into
> the level of mass production required to make it affordable.
----- sadly, this is also the case with pharmaceuticals. Now, I belong to a
community where health is considered a societal issue, and it is distinctly
possible to perform publicly funded research for the necessary testing of non-
patented substances that could potentially be very useful. However, auto-
locomotion is not a public issue, so competition still has a say. At least
until the oil pinch becomes real, and infrastructure gets threatened and can
no longer be supported on a private basis.
Best wishes,
George
>
> Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN
> Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
> Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined!
> 615.562.4346 http://www.bobolhsson.com http://audiomastery.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Milan P Milovanovic
> Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 4:13 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Noise floor and AM X-mitter bandwidth, was: The
> revival of the audio cassette
>
> Dear Michael,
>
> it is interesting that Magnetophon was still in use in some radio stations
> right about 1940. for recording program on location, radio interviews, sound
> effects and making master recordings for later transcription to 78rpm
> lacquer or Decelith discs.
>
> Radio Belgrade got two Magnetophon recorders that year and they used it
> extensively. It is interesting to read that quality of recordings was so
> well one can hear no difference from live program. Probably they got
> Magnetophon with bias that was made around 1939.
>
> Unfortunatelly no sample of such tapes I found, even I know son of that man
> who bought Magnetophon for radio station in 1940. His father was killed just
> right after the war, around 1945.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Milan
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Biel" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 4:44 AM
> 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]
|