Talk:Stereobelt

How does it work?
So how does it actually work? is it based around cassete tapes?

Photographs
http://www.beemo.net/text/before-walkman-there-was-stereobelt

http://www.pcmag.com/slideshow_viewer/0,3253,l%253D241888%2526a%253D241884%2526po%253D1,00.asp?p=n — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.152.168.44 (talk) 08:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Inconsistencies in Andreas Pavel's account
Not sure how to resolve this. There are inconsistencies between what Andreas Pavel has told the press regarding past events and his own recorded answers under oath in a British courtroom. The general story he tells the media is encapsulated in this New York Times article dated December 2005, which has for the longest time formed the backbone of our article: "Mr. Pavel still remembers when and where he was the first time he tested his invention. [...] It was February 1972, he was in Switzerland with his girlfriend [...] "I was in the woods in St. Moritz, in the mountains," he recalled. "The snow was falling down. I pressed the button, and suddenly we were floating" [...] Over the next few years, he took his invention to one audio company after another -- Grundig, Philips, Yamaha and ITT among them -- to see if there was interest in manufacturing his device. But everywhere he went, he said, he met with rejection or ridicule. "They all said they didn't think people would be so crazy as to run around with headphones, that this is just a gadget, a useless gadget of a crazy nut," he said. In New York, where he moved in 1974, and then in Milan, where he relocated in 1976, "people would look at me sometimes on a bus, and you could see they were asking themselves, why is this crazy man running around with headphones?" Ignoring the doors slammed in his face, Mr. Pavel filed a patent in March 1977 in Milan.''"

The story of early setback and ridicule is told by authors and journalists elsewhere, furnished with similar quotes by Pavel. The story is reasonably summarized in our article this way:

"Pavel approached electronics manufacturers such as ITT, Grundig, Yamaha and Philips with his invention, but said the companies felt that no one would ever want to wear headphones in public for listening to music. Frustrated with his lack of progress, and learning that it was important to protect his idea, Pavel filed a patent for the Stereobelt in Italy in 1977, followed by patent applications in Germany and the United Kingdom in 1978, and later the United States and Japan."

Pavel attempted to sell the audio industry on his invention. He was entirely unsuccessful — all thinking his idea, if not himself, crazy. Frustrated but undeterred he pressed forward, wearing his prototype in public and attracting peculiar looks from passers-by. Pavel subsequently recognized the importance of protecting his invention and submitted a filing to the Italian patent registrar in 1977.

Reading over court documents dated March 1996, however, a different story emerges. British Judges wanted to know exactly which companies Pavel contacted and when. I will copy a small section of the court transcript below while being sensitive to Crown Copyright.

We learn from Pavel's testimony that from 1977 to 1980 he reached out to Beyer, Yamaha, Uher, Bang & Olufsen, Gradiente, Blaupunkt, Grundig and ITT. He does not appear to have contacted any company until after filing for patent in 1977 (which forms perfect understanding since why would anyone negotiate for his "invention" if he had not first protected it; they could simply construct a modular audio player fixed to a belt without his approval or involvement). The timeline shared in court is not consistent with the New York Times reference that says Pavel filed for patent after having "doors slammed in his face".

Secondly, almost all of the companies contacted were polite and a majority receptive to his pitch. It was Pavel who walked away from promising leads to peruse better offers elsewhere. The same court document later shows that two companies sought to enter negotiations. ITT Europe in particular — Pavel, his brother Claus, and their father all believed — was readying an offer of 10 million deutschemark, but eventually got cold feet as the market and doubts about the strength of the patent advanced past them. The current version of our article again references the New York Times quoting Andreas Pavel in good faith saying everyone dismissed him as "a crazy nut," but Pavel's own 1996 court testimony shows this narrative to be incompatible.

What action can be taken to improve the page? We could annotate the timeline to reflect the answers provided in court by use of note template but I'm not sure how to do this without casting a shadow over the New York Times reference and drawing attention to Pavel's conflicting account. Wikipedia does allow original sources in limited circumstances and court documents are referenced in other pages describing court affairs. Does anyone have a better idea? — Niche-gamer 16:09, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

False claim of origin of the first Walkman
All the available references state that the name was derived from the Pressman (no problem here). However: none claim that the actual design was derived from the Pressman. And indeed it could not have been because he Walkman bears no similarity to the Pressman whatsoever. A far better candidate is the TCS-300 with which it shares most of its features, not to mention, physical design - even down to an almost identical circuit - including the presence of the unused auto level circuits for the non existent record mode. It even has two headphone sockets. 86.164.128.201 (talk) 17:18, 12 July 2021 (UTC)