LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


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  August 2014

ARSCLIST August 2014

Subject:

Re: Accidental stereo (again)

From:

Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Sun, 31 Aug 2014 08:14:27 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (193 lines)

Thanks for all this information, George.

The Sunier book can be downloaded as a nicely made PDF here:
http://tinyurl.com/lqjs6rb

Hard copies of the book range from the $35 range and up on Abebooks.

Film restoration expert and historian Robert Harris used to have his office and archive in my 
building, upstairs from my office. We became friends and often talked about old-school film sound 
techniques. Bob said that almost from the day electronic (optical) sound-film was invented, movie 
production folks were figuring out ways to mix and blend different sound recordings. He said some of 
the earliest optical-sound films had elements of dialog, music and SFX recorded at different times 
and places, sync'd and mixed together into a final (mono) soundtrack. So it serves to reason that 
thinking about stereophony happened almost immediately. My father did a lot of sound-for-picture 
work, dating from his earliest job at Miller Sound Studio in NYC (Mr. Miller developed the 
Miller-Philips mechanical/optical recording system, which allowed re-takes and editing for music 
recordings in the era before magnetic tape recording spread out of Germany). He said repeatedly that 
film production folks were well aware of stereophony and keen on integrating it into released 
products from early on in sound films. "Fantasia" had a big effect on Hollywood sound departments 
because it was successful and showed the way to future developments in surround-sound and 
wide-screen "enveloping experience" cinema. At Reeves Sound Studios in the late 40's, my father 
worked on the team led by Hazard "Buzz" Reeves that developed the multi-channel sound system for 
Cinerama. My point is that just because the music business "discovered" and got keen on stereophony 
in the mid-50s doesn't mean the ideas and concepts weren't well-developed elsewhere, much earlier.

By the way, just to cite some irony of modern times on a Sunday morning, it's interesting that the 
present young generation consumes most of their movies on tiny screens with earbuds or tinny 
built-in speaker sound. The Hollywood innovators who spent (and often lost) fortunes bringing 
"full-emersion cinema" (widescreen, multi-channel sound) to the masses are rolling in their graves!

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "George Brock-Nannestad" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2014 6:34 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Accidental stereo (again)


> From: Patent Tactics, George Brock-Nannestad
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
> I rarely contribute to the list these days, but when the old myths concerning
> stereo are called upon again, it is time to step in with some historical
> background.
>
> The post that started this long thread (until it disappeared into
> phantom-powered ribbon mikes) was Lani Spahr's from 5 August 2014.
>
> However, let me state once and for all: there is no reason to believe in
> accidental stereo, unless we have an absolutely stable timebase in both
> channels, and identical at that. If you take any two mechanical recordings of
> the identical performance, even via the same mike feed, you will inevitably
> obtain spaciousness due to flutter in one or both channels, which by willing
> ears is interpreted as stereo. The general public is gullible and will
> eagerly grasp anything that is presented as unexpected, such as the
> experience by Brad Kay and Steve Lasker in 1985 concerning Duke Ellington. By
> the way, the same gullibility goes for the "phonograph effect" invented by
> Mark Katz in 1994 and "proved" by the increase in vibrato in violin
> performance after recordings came along. He had no interest in listening to
> meek protests that it was merely another, already existing performance
> tradition or "school" growing in those years. And his PhD supervisors
> obviously knew no better, but were dazzled.
>
> Secondly, my years of study of the acoustic recording process, including
> research in the EMI Music Archives and the Eldridge R. Johnson Archive (in
> Wyoming, not the photocopies in Dover, Delaware) have never revealed that two
> recording setups were used in acoustic recording. The quality of the
> recording was much too dependent on having precise distances from the
> performers to the horn(s). Hence, no "usually from both sides of the room".
> If anybody has a reference that shows that e.g. Columbia (whose sound is
> frequently more distant, although very clear) had the practice of doubling, I
> would be very interested to have my views changed.
>
> Now for some real stereo. Arthur C. Keller was a proud man, and he
> fortunately wrote a posthumously published book that is a must for all
> historians of recorded sound: "Reflections of a Stereo Pioneer", San
> Francisco Press, Inc., 1986.
>
> On p. 53 he starts his account of his work with stereo. He mentions stereo
> recordings made by systems as later re-invented by de Boer (Philips) and Cook
> in having an inner area and an outer area and synchronised pickups. This was
> on April 28, 1928. He says "That stereo system was not thought to be
> patentable". He does not say who said it: the in-house BTL patent department
> or the authority, the United States Patent Office.
>
> If Bell Labs had filed patent applications, they would have met the prior
> filed applications by W. Bartlett Jones of Chicago. He began filing
> applications on stereo recording on 13 April 1927, most aptly entitled
> "Methods and means for the ventriloquial production of sound", and his 4
> patents issued quite late, all April 19, 1932. Another Jones creating havoc
> in the history of disc recording!
>
> This late issuance of his patents filed 1927-29 could have been caused by
> so-called interference proceedings: the USPTO had to determine who had been
> the first to invent and first to reduce to practice of several virtually
> simultaneous applicants. The activities of Bell Labs would inevitably make
> them file patent applications, and they would inevitably clash with Jones'.
> There can be no doubt that the late 1920s experiments at BTL were in fact
> using Jones' ideas.
>
> I have not investigated it, but there is a good chance that the old file
> wrappers of Jones' patents are still available. Mind you, it would only be
> Jones', because at that time US patent applications were held in secrecy
> until the patents issued. Once granted, they had a life of 17 years. I cannot
> imagine that BTL did not take out licenses from Jones if they wanted to sell
> stereo records. But that was not their line of business, and experimenting
> does not require a license. However, they apparently never acknowledged
> Jones, because if they had, many myths would not have existed.
>
> But the first patent that I have been able to find concerning stereo disc
> recording is by Franklin M. Doolittle assigned to RCA. It was filed in 1921
> and was only granted in 1931, so again here, there may have been interference
> proceedings. He talks about "two separate versions of the same sounds, which
> versions may differ in phase relation". He used two parallel mono grooves,
> i.e. half as many grooves per inch on a side.
>
> Keller's first single-groove attempts used band splitting to reduce
> distortion and the result from the combined lateral-vertical pickup would
> combine to make a mono sound. No stereo here.
>
> Next we should mention that Keller's first single-groove stereo records were
> made by the multiplex system, in essence using a sub-carrier, much like
> Haddy's original stereo system and the much later 4-channel systems.
>
> It was not until 1936 that Keller and Rafuse applied for a patent for a
> stereo groove as we know it, and it was not published until 1938.
>
> In the meantime, Blumlein had writen his complete stereo system patent
> application in 1931, which was patented in England as GB 394,325, all 70
> claims, which were directed to most of the well-known details of stereo. It
> also issued in the US, with no more than 18 claims (a rarity for US patents),
> and although it was filed in 1932 it was only granted on September 21, 1937.
> The claims were not to details but to systems. No doubt this patent also had
> met with considerable problems, most likely filed with all 70 claims, perhaps
> interference proceedings. I am quite convinced that the BTL patent department
> knew all about this, but perhaps they had a policy of not wanting to scare
> their inventors off. Keller recounts on p. 55 that John G. Frayne had learnt
> about Blumlein from the inhouse Bell Lab patent department, and Keller heard
> it from Frayne.
>
> One reason that the above US patents were not cited against Blumlein's
> British patent application was that under the patent act in force, the
> application was examined, using only British patents from the last 100 years
> as prior art. A US patent would have been irrelevant at the time. And the
> relevant patents would have been too late, anyway.
>
> On p. 101 Keller quotes ARSC member Tom Owen, who said "The truth is that
> EMI, in order to circumvent the Westrex patent and the subsequent payment of
> royalties, embarked on a separate course of stereo reproduction under A. D.
> Blumlein, including a moving-coil cutting system, which was not under Westrex
> patents. Keller said "This was all news to me".
>
> Well, Tom was not correct, or Keller misinterpreted him. EMI did not try to
> circumvent any Westrex stereo patents, because there weren't any in 1931, but
> the rubber line recorder patents for mono recording. And when Blumlein
> developed this, it was still under Schoenberg at Columbia, pre-merger.
>
> Incidentally, Alex Kogan wrote a post to ARSCLIST on 19 March 2008 concerning
> an "Instrument of Gift of Keller Recordings" to the Library of Congress. Go
> consult.
>
> A final remark concerns stereo recording on film. The earliest I have been
> able to find concerns sound and image on the same film, and stereo at that,
> by Augustus Rosenberg, British patent No. 23,620 from 1911. It mentions all
> the advantages that we still enjoy today.
>
> There are plenty of leads to follow concerning the development of stereo, and
> modern history-writing should move above the mere  traditional
> Blumlein-Keller controversy. A good place to start is the book from 1960 by
> John Sunier: "The Story of Stereo: 1881-", Gernsback Library Inc., if only
> for the references provided.
>
> After having written the above I googled W.Bartlett. Jones, and apart from a
> couple of Polish web sites, googlebooks had one reference to a book on Frank
> Sinatra (by Granata in 2003) in which Jones is mentioned. However, the author
> conflates Jones with the accidental stereo Ellington.
>
> The timeline from LibCon found in the same search also mentions Jones, but is
> completely silent on BTL, which is unfair.
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
>
>
> George
>
> 

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

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