[Radium[_4_]]

Hi:

I like using variable-density analog B&W monaural negative [no
positive and no "reversal"; just the negatives] film optical tracks
for audio. The audio characteristics of the film make my mouth-water.
Yes, for some weird reason, the film's audio makes me hungry. To add
to the delicious audio quality, I would like to coat the film with bad
butter* and tiny traces of bituminous and anthracite coals [as well
the smoke of those coals] before recording. After recording, I would
like to clean it in a dark environment and then develop the clean
film.

*Here is the link which describes how my "bad butter" is made:

http://groups.google.com/group/uk.fo...111377c?hl=en&

Why didn't they make an audio-only equivalent of this for music [i.e.
an optical audio tape]?

Why not replace *Analog Magnetic Audio Tapes* with *Analog Optical
Audio Tapes*??

Analog optical audio is used in films and sound better than analog
magnetic audio.

Magnetic tape contains static, humming, and other electromagnetic
disruptions whereas optical tape does not.

Optical tape is resistant to bar magnets whereas magnetic tape is not.

Analog optical audio records and plays in the same manner as film
does.

The difference for me, is, I'd like to use only the negative film and
no positive.

Any chance of my "Variable Density B&W Film for monaural audio"
fantasy turning real?

Audio signal, in the form of light changing its intensity in an
analogous manner to the sound, is shined onto a negative film. The
film is developed and playback is accomplished by shining light of a
constant intensity onto the developed film. As the light goes through
the film, the patterns on the film will change the intensity of the
light that is received by a photoelectric cell. The change in light
intensity results in a changing electric current which is sent into an
amplifier and then to a loudspeaker.

http://www.mtsu.edu/~smpte/twenties.html

"The Tri Ergon Process uses a technology known as variable density,
which differed from a later process known as variable area. The Tri
Ergon process had a patented flywheel mechanism on a sprocket which
prevented variations in film speed. This flywheel helped prevent
distortion of the audio. Tri Ergon relied on the use of a photo-
electric cell to transduce mechanical sound vibrations into electrical
waveforms and then convert the electrical waveforms into light waves.
These light waves could then be optically recorded onto the edge of
the film through a photographic process. Another photo-electric cell
could then be used to transduce the waveform on the film into an
electrical waveform during projection. This waveform could then be
amplified and played to the audience in the Theater. The Fox Film
Corporation acquired the rights to the Tri Ergon technology in 1927."

The ERPI system, Fox-Case's Movietone, and De Forest's Phonofilm use
variable-density recording film audio.

I think mono and VD are better in quality. I don't like stereo or VA.
But then, "quality" is highly subjective. One's worst enemy can be
another's best friend.

Oh, and equally important. The source of light should be from the
flames of burning anthracite, ignited bituminous coals, and bad butter
that has caught fire -- instead of electric lights.

I would like to record my favorite songs into a variable-density
analog B&W monaural negative film track. I want to listen to these
songs after they are "filmed".

Last, but not least, the intensity-varying light shined onto the film
[during recording] is intentionally [by my choice] too dim. So the
signal is "amplified" within the film by using a stronger
concentration of film-developing chemicals.


Regards,

Radium

[William Graham]

"Radium" wrote in message
oups.com...
Hi:

I like using variable-density analog B&W monaural negative [no
positive and no "reversal"; just the negatives] film optical tracks
for audio. The audio characteristics of the film make my mouth-water.
Yes, for some weird reason, the film's audio makes me hungry. To add
to the delicious audio quality, I would like to coat the film with bad
butter* and tiny traces of bituminous and anthracite coals [as well
the smoke of those coals] before recording. After recording, I would
like to clean it in a dark environment and then develop the clean
film.

*Here is the link which describes how my "bad butter" is made:

http://groups.google.com/group/uk.fo...111377c?hl=en&

Here is the sentence that I do not believe/understand:
"the new bacteria then flee the milk case."

Tell me.....How do they do that?

[Radium[_4_]]

On Apr 28, 10:59 pm, "William Graham" wrote:

Tell me.....How do they do that?

Magic!

[m II]

William Graham wrote:

Here is the sentence that I do not believe/understand:
"the new bacteria then flee the milk case."

Tell me.....How do they do that?



I'm still wondering how the former, now dead bacteria can send out
invitations.

=====================================
Then these bacteria die [for some mysterious reason] and invite more
anaerobic bacteria into the milk.
=====================================

[Bill Penrose]

On Apr 28, 10:00 pm, Radium wrote:
Hi:

I like using variable-density analog B&W monaural negative [no
positive and no "reversal"; just the negatives] film optical tracks
for audio.

Be aware that photo film has about 10-15 dB dynamic range, much less
than a good magnetic or digital recorder.

On the other hand, the butter idea sounds great. Do you toast it
first?

Dangerous Bill

[Radium[_4_]]

On Apr 29, 11:33 am, Bill Penrose wrote:

On the other hand, the butter idea sounds great. Do you toast it
first?

The butter is raw and uncooked and it stinks like stale swiss cheese
thats been left in an anaerobic, warm, humid environment for at least
30 years.

[Radium[_4_]]

On Apr 29, 10:13 am, m II wrote:
William Graham wrote:
Here is the sentence that I do not believe/understand:
"the new bacteria then flee the milk case."

Tell me.....How do they do that?

I'm still wondering how the former, now dead bacteria can send out
invitations.

=====================================
Then these bacteria die [for some mysterious reason] and invite more
anaerobic bacteria into the milk.
=====================================

I apologize profusely. The stuff in the link is outdated. Here is a
more palatable version of my bad butter:

Raw, uncooked, organic, un-homogenized, un-pasteurized cow's milk is
used. Purely-anaerobic, non-pathogenic bacteria are what indirectly
turn the milk into butter. Throughout the process, the butter is
mysteriously protected completely against any degradation or
abnormality [e.g. rancidity] other than bacterial decay.

No microbes other than purely-anaerobic, non-pathogenic bacteria enter
the milk/butter or travel anywhere near the milk/butter or their
containers.

First, any and all minerals, metals, ions, and electrolytes are
removed from the milk. Then the bacteria enter the milk. These
bacteria initially feed on all substances in the milk *excluding* the
following entities naturally present in the milk:

Lipids [including non-greasy lipids]
Greasy substances [including greasy substances not classified as
lipids]
Elastic substances
Natural emulsifiers
Creamy substances
Slimy substances

The bacteria produce odorous compounds - including but not limited to
-- skatole, indole, acetoin, methyl ketones [such as diacetyl],
amines, butyric acid, isobutryic acid, caproic acid, propionic acid,
isovaleric acid, and valeric acid.

After all the bacterial processes are finished, the water content in
the concoction is decreased to 15% [about the same water as most high-
quality butter].

This butter smells bad like stinky cheese [including stale Swiss
cheese that has been left in an anaerobic, warm, humid environment for
at least 30 years], smelly feet, sweaty shirts, dirty socks, neck-
sweat, back-sweat, filthy scalp and unwashed hair.

You now have 1st-class butter!!!!

Anyone want to try some of this delicious butter??

Important note on bacteria: All bacteria used in the above process are
not pathogenic. IOW - much like intestinal bacteria -- they do not
cause any disease or infection. In addition, none of these bacteria
use oxygen for any of their biochemical processes. Some of them can
survive in oxygen, while others can't. However, none of them use
oxygen. Acetic-acid bacteria are an example of bacteria that are not
used in the butter-making processes because - while they maybe
anaerobic - they still require oxygen to produce acetic acid.

[Richard Crowley]

"William Graham" wrote ...
Here is the sentence that I do not believe/understand:
"the new bacteria then flee the milk case."

Tell me.....How do they do that?

Remember that "Radium" is posting from an alternate universe.
The laws of physics, biology, etc that we take for granted don't
apply in "Radium"s Troll-land.

[Mr.T]

"Radium" wrote in message
oups.com...
Hi:

I like using variable-density analog B&W monaural negative [no
positive and no "reversal"; just the negatives] film optical tracks
for audio. The audio characteristics of the film make my mouth-water.
Yes, for some weird reason, the film's audio makes me hungry. To add
to the delicious audio quality, I would like to coat the film with bad
butter* and tiny traces of bituminous and anthracite coals [as well
the smoke of those coals] before recording. After recording, I would
like to clean it in a dark environment and then develop the clean
film.

*Here is the link which describes how my "bad butter" is made:


http://groups.google.com/group/uk.fo...7fa111377c?hl=
en&

Why didn't they make an audio-only equivalent of this for music [i.e.
an optical audio tape]?

Why not replace *Analog Magnetic Audio Tapes* with *Analog Optical
Audio Tapes*??

Analog optical audio is used in films and sound better than analog
magnetic audio.

Magnetic tape contains static, humming, and other electromagnetic
disruptions whereas optical tape does not.

Optical tape is resistant to bar magnets whereas magnetic tape is not.

Analog optical audio records and plays in the same manner as film
does.

The difference for me, is, I'd like to use only the negative film and
no positive.

Any chance of my "Variable Density B&W Film for monaural audio"
fantasy turning real?

Audio signal, in the form of light changing its intensity in an
analogous manner to the sound, is shined onto a negative film. The
film is developed and playback is accomplished by shining light of a
constant intensity onto the developed film. As the light goes through
the film, the patterns on the film will change the intensity of the
light that is received by a photoelectric cell. The change in light
intensity results in a changing electric current which is sent into an
amplifier and then to a loudspeaker.

http://www.mtsu.edu/~smpte/twenties.html

"The Tri Ergon Process uses a technology known as variable density,
which differed from a later process known as variable area. The Tri
Ergon process had a patented flywheel mechanism on a sprocket which
prevented variations in film speed. This flywheel helped prevent
distortion of the audio. Tri Ergon relied on the use of a photo-
electric cell to transduce mechanical sound vibrations into electrical
waveforms and then convert the electrical waveforms into light waves.
These light waves could then be optically recorded onto the edge of
the film through a photographic process. Another photo-electric cell
could then be used to transduce the waveform on the film into an
electrical waveform during projection. This waveform could then be
amplified and played to the audience in the Theater. The Fox Film
Corporation acquired the rights to the Tri Ergon technology in 1927."

The ERPI system, Fox-Case's Movietone, and De Forest's Phonofilm use
variable-density recording film audio.

I think mono and VD are better in quality. I don't like stereo or VA.
But then, "quality" is highly subjective. One's worst enemy can be
another's best friend.

Oh, and equally important. The source of light should be from the
flames of burning anthracite, ignited bituminous coals, and bad butter
that has caught fire -- instead of electric lights.

I would like to record my favorite songs into a variable-density
analog B&W monaural negative film track. I want to listen to these
songs after they are "filmed".

Last, but not least, the intensity-varying light shined onto the film
[during recording] is intentionally [by my choice] too dim. So the
signal is "amplified" within the film by using a stronger
concentration of film-developing chemicals.


Use a SB/Creative FM synth :-)

MrT.

[Radium[_4_]]

On Apr 30, 8:31 am, "Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:

Use a SB/Creative FM synth :-)

OOOOOH!


A "variable-density analog B&W monaural negative film" version of
Creative Music Synth! How fun!

Add some metal-free, oxide-free, mineral-free, ion-free, electrolyte-
free volatiles of anthracite and bituminous coal in a base of this bad
stinky butter http://groups.google.com/group/uk.fo...7fa111377c?hl=
to the film prior to recording. Record with light that is too dim.
Wash off the butter and coal-volatiles. Then, develop with unusually
strong concentration of chemicals to make up for the light that was
too dim to encode with any efficiency. Wash off the chemicals. Then
playback those delicious FM signals of Creative Music Synth.

Just can't wait to listen to it.

[Ron Jones]

Richard Crowley wrote:
"William Graham" wrote ...
Here is the sentence that I do not believe/understand:
"the new bacteria then flee the milk case."

Tell me.....How do they do that?

Remember that "Radium" is posting from an alternate universe.
The laws of physics, biology, etc that we take for granted don't
apply in "Radium"s Troll-land.

An excellent use of the "kill-file" IMHO...

--
Ron Jones
Process Safety & Development Specialist
Don't repeat history, unreported chemical lab/plant near misses at
http://www.crhf.org.uk
Only two things are certain: The universe and human stupidity; and I'm not
certain about the universe. ~ Albert Einstein

[Bill Penrose]

On Apr 29, 12:31 pm, Radium wrote:
On Apr 29, 11:33 am, Bill Penrose wrote:

On the other hand, the butter idea sounds great. Do you toast it
first?

The butter is raw and uncooked and it stinks like stale swiss cheese
thats been left in an anaerobic, warm, humid environment for at least
30 years.

Mm. Gets better all the time. A little kim-chi on top, too?

DB

[Jay Rose]

On 2007-04-30 14:35:14 -0400, Radium said:

Add some metal-free, oxide-free, mineral-free, ion-free, electrolyte-
free volatiles of anthracite and bituminous coal in a base of this bad
stinky butter...
to the film prior to recording. Record with light that is too dim.

Then audition in a special oxygen-free listening environment.



--
Jay Rose CAS
tutorials and other sound goodies at dplay.com
email is "jay@" plus the dot-com in the previous line.

[Richard Crowley]

"Jay Rose" wrote ...
Radium said:
Add some metal-free, oxide-free, mineral-free, ion-free, electrolyte-
free volatiles of anthracite and bituminous coal in a base of this bad
stinky butter...
to the film prior to recording. Record with light that is too dim.

Then audition in a special oxygen-free listening environment.

Excellent suggestion! :-)

[[email protected]]

On Apr 29, 3:31 pm, Radium wrote:
On Apr 29, 11:33 am, Bill Penrose wrote:

On the other hand, the butter idea sounds great. Do you toast it
first?

The butter is raw and uncooked and it stinks like stale swiss cheese
thats been left in an anaerobic, warm, humid environment for at least
30 years.

Pretty much like everything you write.

You're an idiot, and have put an exquisite amount of
effort into demonstrating this beyond any notion of doubt.

[martin griffith]

On 28 Apr 2007 22:00:09 -0700, in rec.arts.movies.production.sound
Radium wrote:

Hi:

I like using variable-density analog B&W monaural negative [no
positive and no "reversal"; just the negatives] film optical tracks
for audio.
Regards,

Radium
1) you are an idiot
2) have you figured out what GNR is yet?
3) does it do binaural, or do I need optically coupled headphones
4) you are still an idiot


martin

[Radium[_4_]]

On Apr 30, 11:35 am, Radium wrote:

Add some metal-free, oxide-free, mineral-free, ion-free, electrolyte-
free volatiles of anthracite and bituminous coal in a base of this bad
stinky butter http://groups.google.com/group/uk.fo...7fa111377c?hl=

OOPS!!

Wrong link.

http://groups.google.com/group/uk.fo...c0a10ce870fe91

Now thats the right link.

F--king typos.

[Radium[_4_]]

On Apr 30, 3:46 pm, martin griffith wrote:

2) have you figured out what GNR is yet?

Generalized Noise Resonance

3) does it do binaural, or do I need optically coupled headphones

Its monaural, so whether its optically-coupled or not, you'll still
hear the same thing from both left and right.

[martin griffith]

On 30 Apr 2007 17:53:41 -0700, in rec.arts.movies.production.sound
Radium wrote:

On Apr 30, 3:46 pm, martin griffith wrote:

2) have you figured out what GNR is yet?

Generalized Noise Resonance

not even close


martin

[Radium[_4_]]

On May 1, 2:03 am, martin griffith wrote:
On 30 Apr 2007 17:53:41 -0700, in rec.arts.movies.production.sound

Radium wrote:
On Apr 30, 3:46 pm, martin griffith wrote:

2) have you figured out what GNR is yet?

Generalized Noise Resonance

not even close

martin

Okay. Then what is GNR?

I did my own research and it came out to be Generalized Noise
Resonance. From what you know, what is GNR?