UnsteadyKen wrote:
lid wrote...

lol. Your newsreader is at fault, or has been set up with a funny font
association for that valid charset.


oh I was trying to pretend I hadn't seen his reference to Stockhausen
on Radio 3, I find that listening to R3 one tends to get lost in the
music, instead of paying attention to how the system is sounding.
What am I saying? Stockhausen = music?

I enjoyed the Blumlein program, i'd beeen aware of his audio
discoveries but was surprised to hear about the extent of his
contributions to the development of TV and Radar.
What a loss to electronics and Britain his death was, as was that of
Michael Gerzon

The quality of the stereo recordings heard on the program were
excellent for that date, does anyone know on what medium they would
have been recorded? Wax cylinders or optical film is my guess.


Well, consider that Blumleins first work was producing a rival disk
recording system and associated driver electronics.

--
Nick

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...


Wax cylinders stopped being used in the very early part of the last
century - it would have been acetate discs. Optical film was pretty poor
until Dolby digital arrived.


Blumlein made stereo films, using essentially the same idea as Dolby
Stereo - dividing the standard 0.1" soundtrack into two, as well as stereo
disc recordings. And I don't agree about optical film being "pretty poor".
By comparison with the other recording technologies available in the 1930s
it really wasn't at all bad. Stripped of the requirement to be played back
in a standard cinema via the notorious "academy curve" it could give a good
account of itself. The Bell Labs experimental stereo recordings were all
made on optical film, and the soundtrack of "Fantasia", the first commercial
film to have a stereo soundtrack, was made using optical sound-on-film
recording throughout the recording and dubbing process. The sound print for
the initial release (on a separate film from the picture) used three
double-width soundtracks and a noise reduction system very similar to DBX.
The last generation of analogue Dolby Stereo soundtracks, using Dolby SR
noise reduction, are pretty damn good.

David.

wrote...
Wax cylinders stopped being used in the very early part of the last
century - it would have been acetate discs.

Of course, can I plead brain fade?

Quite a bit of detail of the methods and recordings he
http://www.doramusic.com/chapterthree.htm

--
Ken
http://www.members.lycos.co.uk/buddyduck/

In article ,
David Looser wrote:
Wax cylinders stopped being used in the very early part of the last
century - it would have been acetate discs. Optical film was pretty
poor until Dolby digital arrived.


Blumlein made stereo films, using essentially the same idea as Dolby
Stereo - dividing the standard 0.1" soundtrack into two, as well as
stereo disc recordings. And I don't agree about optical film being
"pretty poor". By comparison with the other recording technologies
available in the 1930s it really wasn't at all bad. Stripped of the
requirement to be played back in a standard cinema via the notorious
"academy curve" it could give a good account of itself. The Bell Labs
experimental stereo recordings were all made on optical film, and the
soundtrack of "Fantasia", the first commercial film to have a stereo
soundtrack, was made using optical sound-on-film recording throughout
the recording and dubbing process. The sound print for the initial
release (on a separate film from the picture) used three double-width
soundtracks and a noise reduction system very similar to DBX.

But that's not a standard optical track. Which was what I was talking
about. And having had quite a bit to do with optical recording on TV
telerecording machines they were always much poorer than even early video
tape. And IMHO not as good as some early electronic disc recording - which
could be surprisingly good.

The last
generation of analogue Dolby Stereo soundtracks, using Dolby SR noise
reduction, are pretty damn good.

Err, they are digital. Film stock lends itself very well to digital
recording.

Magnetic stripe film was never very satisfactory as it had a short life
and was very expensive to produce. Hence the quest for a decent optical
system that could be processed and have a life as per the pictures.

--
*Happiness is seeing your mother-in-law on a milk carton

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

The last
generation of analogue Dolby Stereo soundtracks, using Dolby SR noise
reduction, are pretty damn good.

Err, they are digital. Film stock lends itself very well to digital
recording.


Err... They aren't!!! Dolby Stereo was analogue for many years, originally
with Dolby A noise reduction, later with Dolby SR. Dolby Labs put a lot of
work into dealing with the factors which limited the performance of analogue
optical soundtracks and the performance of analogue Dolby Stereo was pretty
damn good, especially the SR version. Modern theatrical 35mm film prints
have both digital (Dolby Digital and possibly DTS and/or Sony SDDS as well)
and analogue SR Dolby Stereo soundtracks. Cinema audio processors will
revert to the analogue track if the digital track(s) becomes unreadable,
which they are likely to do as the print ages and gets damaged with use.

Magnetic stripe film was never very satisfactory as it had a short life
and was very expensive to produce.

Which is one reason for the lack of success of the 4-track magnetic stereo
sound system introduced as part of the Cinemascope package in 1952. Fox had
to back-track on that and put an optical track on Cinemascope prints as
well. The space taken up by the optical track reduced the picture aspect
ratio from 2.66:1 to 2.55:1. 70mm, though, only ever had magnetic stripe
sound until the advent of digital.

Hence the quest for a decent optical
system that could be processed and have a life as per the pictures.

Digital optical probably *wont* have a life "as per the pictures", analogue
optical will.

Of course with Cinema going all-digital the "soundtracks" are now magnetic
again (being recorded on an HDD!).


David.

Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , Nick Gorham
writes

Eiron wrote:

UnsteadyKen wrote:

The man who invented stereo!

On radio 4 tonight at 8 pm a profile of Alan Blumlein, including; if
heard the trailer correctly this morning, some
early stereo recordings from 1933.
Set your MiniDiscs chaps.

Let's not forget the evening of Stockhausen on Radio 3.
You wouldn't want to *accidentally* miss that, would you?


Bugger, missed that, hope it will be on the iPlayer.

I can reccoment the Blumlein Biog though if you fancy a read.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Times-Blumle...PBHT0240/dp/08
5296773X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1217722161&sr=8-1

It's on 'Listen Again'.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/archivehour/pip/i7o6j/

Thanks for that.

--
Nick

"UnsteadyKen" wrote in message
m...
The man who invented stereo!

On radio 4 tonight at 8 pm a profile of
Alan Blumlein, including; if I heard
the trailer correctly this morning, some
early stereo recordings from 1933.
Set your MiniDiscs chaps.


I've just got around to listening to this. It was fascinating, especially
listening to those experimental stereo recordings. There's no doubt that
Blumlein was a genius, one of the greatest electronics engineers who ever
lived. One can only speculate as to what he might have achieved if he hadn't
tragically died so young.

But I regard the comment that he should be regarded as the "true inventor"
of television as absurd. As far back as 1912 Campbell-Swinton had outlined
the basic block-diagram of electronic TV, and Zworykin had patented an
electronic camera tube in 1923. Both long before Blumlein turned his talents
to TV.

And why did the programme claim that the Television Committee's
specification for the Alexandra Palace TV service was for a minimum of 250
lines, when it was for a minimum of 240 lines? Not a particularly important
mistake, but why get it wrong when it's so easy to get it right?

David.

In article , David Looser
wrote:


And why did the programme claim that the Television Committee's
specification for the Alexandra Palace TV service was for a minimum of
250 lines, when it was for a minimum of 240 lines? Not a particularly
important mistake, but why get it wrong when it's so easy to get it
right?

Maybe for the same reason that the 'expert' in BBC Music Mag a month ago
told readers that UK SD TV has 480 lines... :-)

Mind you, that may tie up with the way BBC Music Mag released their first
cover DVD in 'NTSC' sic format despite it being a prom that had been
broadcast in the UK and was clearly available in UK format. I had recorded
it, and yes, my recording looks better than the cover disc version.
Whenever the camera moves the cover disc version give the impression the
camera is on square wheels as the image jumps. So a lousy and needless
conversion, degrading both the resolution and the temporal smoothness.

....and the way BBC badged commercial DVDs of music now tend also be to
converted into 'NTSC' sic format. Albeit better done than the cover disc.
(Early discs were UK format.)

Apparently, only 7 percent of students now take all three 'single science'
topics at A-level/Higher.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Change 'noise' to 'jcgl' if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , David Looser
wrote:



...and the way BBC badged commercial DVDs of music now tend also be to
converted into 'NTSC' sic format. Albeit better done than the cover
disc.
(Early discs were UK format.)

Are you saying that the BBC supplies UK customers with "NTSC" DVDs? That
seems absurd, bearing in mind that not all TV sets used in the UK will cope
with a 60Hz field rate. And since, AFAIK, all BBC DVDs supplied to the UK
have region 2 coding, they can't even claim that it's a matter of only
having to create one version.

As for "'NTSC'sic", that's a moot point. There were two NTSCs. The first,
which reported in 1941, specified the 525-line 60Hz monochrome standard. The
second, which reported in 1955, specified the colour system that we know as
"NTSC". So any 525-line 60Hz recording, regardless of whether it's B&W or
colour, or the colour system used, *could* be correctly called "NTSC", from
the 1941 NTSC. This is quite different from PAL and SECAM which are colour
coding systems only. A 625-line B&W recording is *not* "PAL", whatever the
DVD packaging might claim (actually, of course, neither is a colour DVD
since DVDs carry component signals).


David.

In article , David Looser
wrote:
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , David Looser
wrote:



...and the way BBC badged commercial DVDs of music now tend also be to
converted into 'NTSC' sic format. Albeit better done than the cover
disc. (Early discs were UK format.)

Are you saying that the BBC supplies UK customers with "NTSC" DVDs? That
seems absurd, bearing in mind that not all TV sets used in the UK will
cope with a 60Hz field rate. And since, AFAIK, all BBC DVDs supplied to
the UK have region 2 coding, they can't even claim that it's a matter
of only having to create one version.

There is a 'depends what you mean by' caution to add here. ;-

For classical music recordings the BBC mainly operate by licensing or
arranging for their video recordings to be issued by others. Typically by
EMI or Opus Arte, etc.

A recent exampe: Nathan Milstein and Adrian Boult on an EMI 'Classic
Archive' DVD 38845690. I bought this for the VW 8th.

It is 'NTSC' (525/60).

The disc carries BBC logos, etc.

Note that these discs are usually 'Region 0' or 'Region Free'. The aim is
clearly to sell them in all countries where they have copyright. One size
shall fit all.

Yet earlier discs in the same series were 'PAL' (625/50).

And the cover disc on BBC Music Mag last year was also 'NTSC' (525/60),
from a Prom concert broadcast on BBC4 nominally in 625/50 format.

Another complication, of course, is that some of the early material is from
405 line days, and/or may be on film. So not always 625 line VT, but made
at the 25/50 Hz rate.


As for "'NTSC'sic", that's a moot point. There were two NTSCs. The
first, which reported in 1941, specified the 525-line 60Hz monochrome
standard. The second, which reported in 1955, specified the colour
system that we know as "NTSC". So any 525-line 60Hz recording,
regardless of whether it's B&W or colour, or the colour system used,
*could* be correctly called "NTSC", from the 1941 NTSC. This is quite
different from PAL and SECAM which are colour coding systems only. A
625-line B&W recording is *not* "PAL", whatever the DVD packaging might
claim (actually, of course, neither is a colour DVD since DVDs carry
component signals).

I would myself not want to call any of these discs 'PAL' or 'NTSC' since
that seems to me to define the colour system used for analogue broadcasing.
There are no such colour codings on the disc. The problem here seems to be
that lazy manufacturers have used 'NTSC' and 'PAL' to mean 525/60 or
625/50.

I suspect the problem with the use of 'NTSC' Region 2 by the BBC (and,
indeed, many other European producers of classical music on DVD) is an
obsession with the USA. Put simply, they seem to think, "Most viewers in
the UK/EU Region 2 will have dual-standard playback, but people in the USA
can only cope with the USA system, so we'll produce 'NTSC' format sic.
The USA people won't expect more detail, and the UK/EU people can put up
with it."

A recent non-BBC but European example is the DVD of Barenboim and WEDO
playing Brahms 1st, etc. Also a European performance in 'NTSC' format.
Excellent performance, but limited in detail by the 525 line format. (And
with a weak acoustic due to the venue. Looking forwards to their
performances at the RAH this week as they should be better.)

How true their assumptions are, I dunno. But it is hard otherwise to fathom
their behaviour.

The puzzle for me is that the BBC go along with this when they have the
original material. The result is that home-made recordings in the UK can
look better than the commercial versions when they appear. A somewhat daft
situation - particularly given that our license fees (partly) paid for the
performance in the first place!

Slainte,

Jim

--
Change 'noise' to 'jcgl' if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html