My favorite analog audio storage = B&W variable-density opti

[Green Xenon [Radium]]

Hi:

My favorite analog audio storage medium consist of the optical
equivalent of magnetic tape. It is similar to the optical tracks of old
analog B&W films -- except without the video or any images. My optical
tape records audio optically on a tape using variable-density encoding
[not variable-area] and is monaural. As with any photography, the tape
must not be exposed to light before recording or development and must
not be exposed to extraneous light [light other than the optical audio
signal] during or before recording/development. Such exposure will
corrupt the film. After recording. The film is developed using
photographic chemicals. This tape is like a reel-to-reel [i.e. not a
cassette] film using optics and chemistry instead of magnetism.


Regards,

Radium

 

[Sjouke Burry]

Green Xenon [Radium] wrote:

Hi:

My favorite analog audio storage medium consist of the optical
equivalent of magnetic tape. It is similar to the optical tracks of old
analog B&W films -- except without the video or any images. My optical
cut
Regards,

Radium
As a notorious troll you should move over to other

newsgroups, dont try this on a group for people trying
to learn something. And your purposely stupid, impossible
questions to troll reactions on several newgroups, shows
you in possession of an extremely infantile mind, smashing
things just for the hell of it, rather well describes your
additude.

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 18:27:04 -0700, "Green Xenon [Radium]"
<glucegen1@excite.com> wrote:

Hi:

My favorite analog audio storage medium consist of the optical
equivalent of magnetic tape. It is similar to the optical tracks of old
analog B&W films -- except without the video or any images. My optical
tape records audio optically on a tape using variable-density encoding
[not variable-area] and is monaural.

Film is nonlinear as hell, which translates to distortion. That's one
reason that variable-area is better. They figured that out a long,
long time ago.

John

 

[Green Xenon [Radium]]

Richard Crowley wrote:

" wrote ...
My favorite analog audio storage medium consist of the optical equivalent
of magnetic tape.....

Which would be remarkable if ANYONE reading this throught
you even knew what a variable density optical track was, or
that you had ever seen one. You have clearly never HEARD
one or even you wouldn't make such a silly statment.

What makes you think I've never heard music from a variable density
optical track?

 

[Green Xenon [Radium]]

stratus46@yahoo.com wrote:

" <gluceg...@excite.com
wrote:
Hi:

My favorite analog audio storage medium consist of the optical
equivalent of magnetic tape. It is similar to the optical tracks of
old
analog B&W films -- except without the video or any images. My
optical
tape records audio optically on a tape using variable-density
encoding
[not variable-area] and is monaural. As with any photography, the
tape
must not be exposed to light before recording or development and
must
not be exposed to extraneous light [light other than the optical
audio
signal] during or before recording/development. Such exposure will
corrupt the film. After recording. The film is developed using
photographic chemicals. This tape is like a reel-to-reel [i.e. not
a
cassette] film using optics and chemistry instead of magnetism.

Regards,

Radium

The best that could be done in the day but with all things, there was
a GOOD reason to get away from that method. Any density variations
from chemical processes translate into amplitude variations. This is a
BAD thing and guess what, they sound bad too. Also there is stereo
optical variable area because I used to have to align them on the Rank
MkIII (actually Turbo 1 and Turbo 2) flying spot scanners (telecine)

I prefer mono over stereo. Also, variable-density sounds better than
variable-area. Lee De Forest's technique.

 

[Green Xenon [Radium]]

John Larkin wrote:

"
glucegen1@excite.com> wrote:

Hi:

My favorite analog audio storage medium consist of the optical
equivalent of magnetic tape. It is similar to the optical tracks of old
analog B&W films -- except without the video or any images. My optical
tape records audio optically on a tape using variable-density encoding
[not variable-area] and is monaural.

Film is nonlinear as hell, which translates to distortion. That's one
reason that variable-area is better. They figured that out a long,
long time ago.

I've listened to both variable-density and variable-area. I prefer the
former over the latter.

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 19:38:00 -0700, "Green Xenon [Radium]"
<glucegen1@excite.com> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 18:27:04 -0700, "Green Xenon [Radium]"
glucegen1@excite.com> wrote:

Hi:

My favorite analog audio storage medium consist of the optical
equivalent of magnetic tape. It is similar to the optical tracks of old
analog B&W films -- except without the video or any images. My optical
tape records audio optically on a tape using variable-density encoding
[not variable-area] and is monaural.




Film is nonlinear as hell, which translates to distortion. That's one
reason that variable-area is better. They figured that out a long,
long time ago.


I've listened to both variable-density and variable-area. I prefer the
former over the latter.

Well, some people like distortion. But there are lots easier ways to
make distortion.

What sort of light modulator do you use for recording?

John

 

[Michael R. Kesti]

"Green Xenon [Radium]" wrote:

Hi:

My favorite analog audio storage medium consist of the optical
equivalent of magnetic tape. It is similar to the optical tracks of old
analog B&W films -- except without the video or any images. My optical
tape records audio optically on a tape using variable-density encoding
[not variable-area] and is monaural. As with any photography, the tape
must not be exposed to light before recording or development and must
not be exposed to extraneous light [light other than the optical audio
signal] during or before recording/development. Such exposure will
corrupt the film. After recording. The film is developed using
photographic chemicals. This tape is like a reel-to-reel [i.e. not a
cassette] film using optics and chemistry instead of magnetism.

Your statements concerning what you favor and prefer in the way of audio
media are on-topic, but I am far more interested in details concerning
the gear you use, the performance levels you experience (bandwidth,
signal to noice ratio, distortion level, wow-and-flutter, etc.), and
the techniques you use. And there doesn't seem to be much point in
stating what you prefer without also telling why you prefer it.

--
========================================================================
Michael Kesti | "And like, one and one don't make
| two, one and one make one."
mrkesti at hotmail dot com | - The Who, Bargain

 

[Richard Crowley]

"Michael R. Kesti" wrote...

Your statements concerning what you favor and prefer in the way of
audio
media are on-topic, but I am far more interested in details concerning
the gear you use, the performance levels you experience (bandwidth,
signal to noice ratio, distortion level, wow-and-flutter, etc.), and
the techniques you use. And there doesn't seem to be much point in
stating what you prefer without also telling why you prefer it.

This should be entertaining. (Not.)
Good luck. I'm not interested in even more fiction from the
radioactive nut. Bye.

 

[Don Bowey]

On 4/9/08 7:10 PM, in article 665b99F2i6v9nU1@mid.individual.net, "Richard
Crowley" <rcrowley@xp7rt.net> wrote:

" wrote ...
My favorite analog audio storage medium consist of the optical equivalent
of magnetic tape.....

Which would be remarkable if ANYONE reading this throught
you even knew what a variable density optical track was, or
that you had ever seen one. You have clearly never HEARD
one or even you wouldn't make such a silly statment.

Actually, what he describes is similar, if not identical, to my very old
16mm sound camera and projector.

How about sending your random thoughts to some new
newsgroups. Expand your horizons. You're old-hat here.

Old aluminum hat.

 

On Apr 9, 5:27 pm, "Green Xenon [Radium]" <gluceg...@excite.com>
wrote:

Hi:

My favorite analog audio storage medium consist of the optical
equivalent of magnetic tape. It is similar to the optical tracks of
old
analog B&W films -- except without the video or any images. My
optical
tape records audio optically on a tape using variable-density
encoding
[not variable-area] and is monaural. As with any photography, the
tape
must not be exposed to light before recording or development and
must
not be exposed to extraneous light [light other than the optical
audio
signal] during or before recording/development. Such exposure will
corrupt the film. After recording. The film is developed using
photographic chemicals. This tape is like a reel-to-reel [i.e. not
a
cassette] film using optics and chemistry instead of magnetism.

Regards,

Radium

The best that could be done in the day but with all things, there was
a GOOD reason to get away from that method. Any density variations
from chemical processes translate into amplitude variations. This is a
BAD thing and guess what, they sound bad too. Also there is stereo
optical variable area because I used to have to align them on the Rank
MkIII (actually Turbo 1 and Turbo 2) flying spot scanners (telecine)

GG

 

[Green Xenon [Radium]]

John Larkin wrote:

What sort of light modulator do you use for recording?

I don't have this analog audio storage device I described. It is
something I would like to have but I don't. While it is possible to make
this device, I am probably the only individual in the world who wants
it. Nobody else cares for something like this. This is mainly because I
am the only one who enjoys the artifacts associated with the
variable-density audio of old B&W movies. Most everyone else prefers VA
over VD. Not to mention, most also prefer magnetic over optical.

 

[Michael R. Kesti]

Richard Crowley wrote:

"Michael R. Kesti" wrote...
Your statements concerning what you favor and prefer in the way of
audio
media are on-topic, but I am far more interested in details concerning
the gear you use, the performance levels you experience (bandwidth,
signal to noice ratio, distortion level, wow-and-flutter, etc.), and
the techniques you use. And there doesn't seem to be much point in
stating what you prefer without also telling why you prefer it.

This should be entertaining. (Not.)
Good luck. I'm not interested in even more fiction from the
radioactive nut. Bye.

That's fine, Richard, but why is it, then, that you bother to read the
threads he starts and even expend the effort to post to them?

--
========================================================================
Michael Kesti | "And like, one and one don't make
| two, one and one make one."
mrkesti at hotmail dot com | - The Who, Bargain

 

On Apr 9, 6:35 pm, "Green Xenon [Radium]" <gluceg...@excite.com>
wrote:

stratu...@yahoo.com wrote:
snip
The best that could be done in the day but with all things, there
was
a GOOD reason to get away from that method. Any density
variations
from chemical processes translate into amplitude variations. This
is a
BAD thing and guess what, they sound bad too. Also there is
stereo
optical variable area because I used to have to align them on the
Rank
MkIII (actually Turbo 1 and Turbo 2) flying spot scanners
(telecine)

I prefer mono over stereo. Also, variable-density sounds better
than
variable-area. Lee De Forest's technique.

Of course you do. Everyone is entitled to their opinions even when
they're wrong.

I will now stop feeding the troll.

GG

 

[Green Xenon [Radium]]

Michael R. Kesti wrote:

" wrote:

Hi:

My favorite analog audio storage medium consist of the optical
equivalent of magnetic tape. It is similar to the optical tracks of old
analog B&W films -- except without the video or any images. My optical
tape records audio optically on a tape using variable-density encoding
[not variable-area] and is monaural. As with any photography, the tape
must not be exposed to light before recording or development and must
not be exposed to extraneous light [light other than the optical audio
signal] during or before recording/development. Such exposure will
corrupt the film. After recording. The film is developed using
photographic chemicals. This tape is like a reel-to-reel [i.e. not a
cassette] film using optics and chemistry instead of magnetism.

Your statements concerning what you favor and prefer in the way of audio
media are on-topic, but I am far more interested in details concerning
the gear you use, the performance levels you experience (bandwidth,
signal to noice ratio, distortion level, wow-and-flutter, etc.), and
the techniques you use. And there doesn't seem to be much point in
stating what you prefer without also telling why you prefer it.

The problem is my film device does not exist because there is no demand
for it. I am the only one in the world who cares to have such a device.
No one else has any interest in the audio quality of the old VD audio
tracks.

As for performance levels I would like the artifacts specifically
associated with VD tracks to be clearly noticeable without ruining the
musical quality of the audio.

Two things I do not want -- at all -- are any clipping or aliasing. At
the same time, I want high-quality treble. I am a fan of treble but not
bass.

 

[Green Xenon [Radium]]

Michael R. Kesti wrote:

there doesn't seem to be much point in
stating what you prefer without also telling why you prefer it.

For some reason, I find the artifacts associated with B&W VD tracks to
be appetizing. Even I can't understand why. It's something about the
noise/distortions in VD that I enjoy. It's like the sound of fresh
garlic bread baking in clay oven fueled by bituminous coal. That's the
best description I can give.

 

[Michael R. Kesti]

"Green Xenon [Radium]" wrote:

Michael R. Kesti wrote:

there doesn't seem to be much point in
stating what you prefer without also telling why you prefer it.

For some reason, I find the artifacts associated with B&W VD tracks to
be appetizing.

Just minutes before posting this statement you posted an article in
which you said your film device does not exist. How is it that you
find the artifacts of a nonexistent device appetizing?

Even I can't understand why. It's something about the
noise/distortions in VD that I enjoy. It's like the sound of fresh
garlic bread baking in clay oven fueled by bituminous coal. That's the
best description I can give.

--
========================================================================
Michael Kesti | "And like, one and one don't make
| two, one and one make one."
mrkesti at hotmail dot com | - The Who, Bargain

 

[Bob Woodward]

Green Xenon [Radium] wrote:

things from a sick brain with the sole purpose to irritate
visitors of usenet that mostly try their best to help
each other and discuss interesting matters.

irˇriˇtate (r-tt)
v. irˇriˇtatˇed, irˇriˇtatˇing, irˇriˇtates
v. tr.
1. To rouse to impatience or anger; annoy: a loud bossy voice that
irritates listeners. See Synonyms at annoy.
2. To chafe or inflame.
3. Physiology To cause physiological activity or response in (an organ
or tissue), as by application of a stimulus.
v.intr.
To be a cause of impatience or anger.

Robert


Well, I wanna be of some help to the Green-guy...

Dear Green-guy.

For the hyper-intelligent, lets say, post-mensa people
it must be amusing to pose questions that challenge
physics like it is known to men as for today.

Like inventing a sort of darkness-bulb that, when switched
on makes darkness where there was light before.
( it's not mine, I heard that from someone )))

But for rec.audio.tech and sci.electronics.basics you would be
taken more serious if you would recognize both the limitations
of science and the achievements that have been made over the
last decades. Also when it comes to audio.

To your idea;

it is possible to record sound, SAMPLED, with signal to noise
ratio 1000 times of what can be achieved by the method you describe
with apparatus that is available for very little money today
( like computers )
The sampling will leave much less of a residue than the grain
of an optical film will.

No need to develop or keep away from light, in contrary to you !

Robert.

 

[Eeyore]

"Green Xenon [Radium]" wrote:

I am a fan of treble but not bass.

You're weird !

Graham

 

[Green Xenon [Radium]]

Michael R. Kesti wrote:

Just minutes before posting this statement you posted an article in
which you said your film device does not exist. How is it that you
find the artifacts of a nonexistent device appetizing?

I've listened to audio artifacts from very old B&W movies [which used
VD]. That's where I get my opinion. I've compared it with movies that
came out later [with VA instead of VD]. From there, is where I got my
preference for VD over VA.