1. Home
  2. Hobby Electronics Basics
  3. My favorite analog audio storage = B&W variable-density optical track of old films

My favorite analog audio storage = B&W variable-density optical track of old films

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

Reply to
Green Xenon [Radium]
Loading thread data ...

cut

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.

Reply to
Sjouke Burry

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.

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

Reply to
Richard Crowley

On Apr 9, 5:27=A0pm, "Green Xenon [Radium]" wrote: > Hi: >

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

Reply to
stratus46

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

Reply to
John Larkin

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

Reply to
Green Xenon [Radium]

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

Reply to
Green Xenon [Radium]

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

Reply to
Green Xenon [Radium]

Your statement above is what makes me think you don't know what you're talking about.

OTOH, When was the last time you had your ears tested?

Reply to
Richard Crowley

On Apr 9, 6:35=A0pm, "Green Xenon [Radium]" wrote: > snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com wrote: > > 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) >

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

I will now stop feeding the troll.

GG

Reply to
stratus46

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

Reply to
John Larkin

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
Reply to
Michael R. Kesti

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

Reply to
Richard Crowley

Actually, what he describes is similar, if not identical, to my very old

16mm sound camera and projector.

Old aluminum hat.

Reply to
Don Bowey

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.

Reply to
Green Xenon [Radium]

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
Reply to
Michael R. Kesti

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.

Reply to
Green Xenon [Radium]

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.

Reply to
Green Xenon [Radium]

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?

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

A close, long-time friend used to be one of the go-to guys in this city for optical transfers. Detroit used to be a center for the production of training films (now on video), so this was a very non-trivial business at the time.

There is no doubt in his mind, or the minds of almost anybody who understands electronic media, that optical sound is rife with daunting technically challenges and unresolved issues. It was a major stumbling block to sound quality in the theatre even in the late 1930s.

Reply to
Arny Krueger

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.