Talk:Magnetic-tape sound recording

Technical Information
I think this article would be much improved by a greater discussion of the physical means of magnetic tape sound recording. There is very little about how the data is actually encoded on the magnetic tape. I would edit it myself, but I came here to learn about the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.92.231.118 (talk) 03:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Information on tape speeds
I moved all the information on tape speeds here from inches per second, where it clearly didn't belong. (See Talk:Inches per second). The following note on "Microcassettes" is moved here from that talk page to keep it with the content to which it refers. — Johan the Ghost seance 16:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Microcassettes
I expect some people to do a double take on the claim that the playback speed is not specified, but it's true!

Nor in the case of a microcassette is it implied that the playback speed will be identical to the record speed, far from it. The function of a dictating machine is (or was, it's an obsolete technology) to allow transcription to typed pages by a professional secretary or typist. For this purpose, the quality of the voice was irrelevant, so long as intelligibility was unimpaired. It didn't matter whether the secretary liked or even understood what they were hearing just so long as they typed it accurately. So far as speed was concerned, the ideal was the secretary's maximum accurate typing speed, which could be faster or (possibly more commonly) slower than the speed at which the material was dictated. Continuously variable playback speed was therefore a feature of all the best machines designed for the secretary to use.

Some secretaries got very proficient at typing for particular people using a variable speed playback machine, and would rarely need to stop or rewind a tape. So long as the playback speed wasn't a lot slower than the recording speed (which would have affected intelligibility anyway), the ability to avoid stopping and rewinding was far more important than a high playback speed in determining the overall time a transcription would take. In the days before word processors, typing accuracy was also very important.

Some will I imagine do another double take at the claim that it didn't matter whether the secretary understood what they were typing. But that was my experience! I worked in two technical areas in which I had professional secretarial services (although never my own secretary). In both cases I had the pleasure of working with typists who had an uncanny ability to type accurately things of which they had very little understanding. They quickly learned the vocabulary without needing to know its meaning, and the office could not have functioned without this talent.

So while this is a form of sound reproduction, and the accuracy of this reproduction is as important here as in any other application, the criteria for this accuracy are radically different to those for some other applications. Most notably and obviously they differ to those for recorded music where tempo is important and pitch extremely critical. Andrewa 19:09, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Are you sure about microcassette speed being unspecified? Perhaps you're confusing microcassettes with minicassettes.  Minicassettes don't use a pinch roller, so tape speed will vary with pack diameter and the machine on which the cassette is played.  Microcassettes, on the other hand, use a precision capstan and pinch roller, so their speed is regulated just as well as that of their full-size cousins.&mdash;QuicksilverT @ 23:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Relative pitch is important; absolute speed not so much. Example from a different technology: PAL DVD version often at entirely different absolute pitch to the film, as no correction is made for 24fps v 25fps. Most people don't notice, much less care, even on concert DVDs. Infojunkie23 (talk) 14:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources/references
These materials are very detailed, but seem to be out of sync a little. Please add more source links if you can. -- Austin Murphy 03:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * http://www.acmi.net.au/AIC/MAGN_REC_CHRON.html
 * http://www.richardhess.com/tape/history/

latin american contribution
I removed the section about "the latin american contribution to the subject" because it was not relevant. It has nothing to do with the german and american developments. If any other country or region should receive special note it is japan or possibly the netherlands, not latin america. Sony, Matsushita, and Philips did far more than Oscar Bonello. Discrimination between contributions that were notable to the development of the field and minor developments after the field was mature is not just acceptable, but necessary. -- Austin Murphy (talk) 17:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Mr Murphi:

Thank you for your comments, I appreciate your opinion but I do not share it for some reasons:

1-The decision about what is important or not in History is reserved for the future. The people who is writing History must have a basic condition ”he must write ALL the available information”  I agree with you that some irrelevant details can not be included. But this is not the case (see below)

2- I agree with you that a lot of people, inventions and countries are not described. I encourage you and other Wikipedia collaborators, to include more comments in this article, that now is very short and suffers lack of information about Magnetic tape sound recorders. My work was to include R & D and real equipments manufactured in my zone. I understand that is not my work to include articles from Japan, Netherlands, etc

3-I do not agree with your “merits ranking” that gives our work not valuable for listing. Please note that your references to the AMPEX people that goes to Germany after WW II only to copy the German inventions (AF Bias and Magnetic Tape) does not reserve a great merit. Not to said the reference at IG Farben (I read at Wikipedia “IG Farben held a near total monopoly on chemical production, later during the National Socialist (Nazi) regime, including manufacturing Zyklon B. This was a poison commonly used at the time for delousing, which became notorious as the lethal agent in the gas chambers of the death camps of Auschwitz and Majdanek. The company was a major user of slave labour.” ) I don not think that this company is able to head a rank of achievements...

4- My article about new tape recorder technology (I add some references) was selected for publication at the Journal of Audio Engineering Society, after 10 months of revision by the best minds involved in taper recorder industry. It is the classic procedure in scientific Journals. If they consider enough innovation to be published, Why you do not agree with JAES ? (Have you read the paper ?) The improvements we did deserves an Invention Patent after 3 years researching of the Patents Office to be sure that it is a real advance,

5- Finally the mention of Bing Crosby is not a very fortunate decision  if you wish to be selective. He was not an engineer, not a scientyst. He only promote the advance of technology. Is what the journalism uses to name “a color note” You really think that is superior to the R & D work we do at University ?

regards OscarJuan (talk) 03:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)OscarJuanOscarJuan (talk) 03:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry but this article is only intended to cover the large developments in the field. Ampex's contribution counts: they took what amounted to a large run of prototypes that were produced and used by edict under a war economy and developed them into mass-produceable, commercially successful products. Bing Crosby provided funding and a guaranteed initial market. And IG Farben's other chemical products notwithstanding, the whole enterprise would have been impossible without a supply of usable tape... These are all fundamental, enabling steps. But the machine described in the subject paragraphs represents a very late, incremental development. The fact that AES published your paper does not prove that it should be cited here. Should we also list the various varieties of NR (both Dolby and dbx), the various tape formulations, etc., etc.? No, not here. Jeh (talk) 06:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

OscarJuan reply: Dear Sir; I wait some time to reply you (according Wikipedia recommendations about dispute). I note that this page has a one year from creation and it have not any significant improvement. You know perfectly that only minor developments are described. But you are “sitting on the article” not allowing others (or yourself) to improve it. I do not understand this situation and probably we will must use the Wiki dispute procedures (maybe the POV alert ?). In the meantime I advance one step reducing the claims of my work to avoid interfere with your opinions. Maybe we can solve our difference of opinions by ourselves. Of course all the further improvement that you (and others) do will be welcomed. Regards OscarJuan


 * Thank you for bringing up the topic of POV. Wikipedia's policy on it is quite clear.  See WP:NPOV.  Since you state above that it is your own work that you are attempting to reference in Wikipedia, your neutrality is compromised.  That is understandable considering that you probably put a lot of work into your project and JAES article.  While it is possible for you to make contributions to this article and subject, you need to defer to others when POV issues arise.  Jeh and I and probably others share a different POV.  Since I have no direct connection to the subject matter, my  POV is likely to be relatively neutral.
 * You also mentioned above (in point #2) that you were not able to contribute information about developments from other parts of the world. Why not?  Be Bold!  As a researcher in the field, you probably have a great deal of knowledge that would be useful here.  These contributions from you would probably not have POV problems and as long as you can verify what you add, there is no problem. -- Austin Murphy (talk) 19:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's hard to assume good faith with a user who already has been confirmed as a sock puppeteer (see: ) but I will try. This user is, at the very least, extremely misguided with respect to WP policy and the use of guidelines . I have been trying to give him information but he ignored everything I said and continued posting un-researched claims that lack of verifiability  and and external link to his own website . His name maybe Leonardo not Oscar. Maybe they are both acting in concert. You can never be sure who is who. In case I am not around, someone please help keep an eye on him. Jrod2 (talk) 19:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe I'm being naive, but to me, it seems like a case of cultural unfamiliarity. His main goal, up until now at least, seems to be promoting his work in the field.  Lots of people new to wikipedia want to do this.  If he really is who he says he is, he may well be able to make meaningful contributions.  I'm not too worried about the WHOIS info, it could have been a relative that registered his domain.  I'm also inclined to believe that the "cooperative" editing was a meat puppet thing more than a sock puppet thing.  In any case, I'm watching... -- Austin Murphy (talk) 20:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say naive, but maybe too trusting. He is no newbie, you know?. They usually don't know how to code citation links, make footnotes and let alone place images on articles. Oh, he knew what he was doing alright: . This doesn't mean that some day someone else can't find his contributions verifiable in some major audio journal web site. But, as long as he persists in posting this content and that external link on every WP audio page himself, whether he had a sock or a meat puppet, he should be monitored. Jrod2 (talk) 21:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Something missing.
The article, for all practical purposes, starts the historical discussion with:


 * "Early tape recorders were created by replacing the steel wire of a wire recorder with a thin steel tape."

But the article never mentioned recording on wire apart from a brief reference to the inventor prior to this revealing statement.

Someone needs to add a section on the development of wire recording. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 14:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Issues with the technology
I've had a look around some related articles and can't find any good summary of the common issues - eg flutter / other speed regulation issues, degradation, head cleaning, etc...

Does this belong here or is there a better article for it? Infojunkie23 (talk) 14:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Since when did Richard H Ranger work for the Nazis?

 * "During World War II, the Allies noticed that certain Ger:man officials were making radio broadcasts from multiple time zones almost simultaneously.[1] The broadcasts had to be transcriptions (much of this due to the work of Richard H. Ranger), but their audio quality was indistinguishable from that of a live broadcast[1] and their duration was far longer than was possible with 78 rpm discs. At the end of the war, the Allied capture of a number of German Magnetophon recorders from Radio Luxembourg aroused great interest."

Really... the transcriptions used in the German broadcasts were due to the work of Mr. Ranger??? That whole paragraph needs to be rewritten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.231.129.103 (talk) 16:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Ive heard the "Allied monitors mystified at Nazi broadcasts" story several times but Im a tad sceptical.

Given that the technology was available commercially (albeit priced beyond the means of home users) for at least three years before the outbreak of WW2 surely word of the new development must have spread outside of Germany (at least in broadcast engineering circles) during that time ? Incidently it wasnt just a case of "German officials making radio broadcasts from multiple time zones" There were also broadcasts at different times on Germanys (regionalised) domestic network and propaganda broadcasts to various overseas target audiences. 89.242.194.4 (talk) 10:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)