wrote in news:1144848657.029497.133730
@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com:

Also selected was a recording of the Modesto, Calif., High School band,
which did well in competitions of the 1920s and 1930s. Few high school
bands were recorded until the late 1940s, making the Modesto school's
1930 version of Beethoven's "Egmont Overture" a rarity.

What medium is this on? I assume that wax cylinters were no longer used in
the '30's, but what technology replaced that medium? Did they have some
way to record directly to a ceramic, 78 rpm platter?

On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 17:11:28 GMT, Agent Smith
wrote:

wrote in news:1144848657.029497.133730
:

Also selected was a recording of the Modesto, Calif., High School band,
which did well in competitions of the 1920s and 1930s. Few high school
bands were recorded until the late 1940s, making the Modesto school's
1930 version of Beethoven's "Egmont Overture" a rarity.

What medium is this on? I assume that wax cylinters were no longer used in
the '30's, but what technology replaced that medium? Did they have some
way to record directly to a ceramic, 78 rpm platter?

Not ceramic - shellac. And yes, there were many direct recordings -
they didn't have a choice at first. They recorded mechanically through
a horn straight onto a master disc.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

(Don Pearce) wrote in
:

On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 17:11:28 GMT, Agent Smith
wrote:

wrote in news:1144848657.029497.133730
:

Also selected was a recording of the Modesto, Calif., High School
band, which did well in competitions of the 1920s and 1930s. Few
high school bands were recorded until the late 1940s, making the
Modesto school's 1930 version of Beethoven's "Egmont Overture" a
rarity.

What medium is this on? I assume that wax cylinters were no longer
used in the '30's, but what technology replaced that medium? Did they
have some way to record directly to a ceramic, 78 rpm platter?

Not ceramic - shellac. And yes, there were many direct recordings -
they didn't have a choice at first. They recorded mechanically through
a horn straight onto a master disc.

Yeah, shellac. I remember that from sometime long ago. They used a
gramophone in reverse to make the grooves. Advanced WW II technology
replaced shellac, right? Was that magentic, or was there another stage
before tapes came in?

On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 18:48:20 GMT, Agent Smith
wrote:

(Don Pearce) wrote in
:

On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 17:11:28 GMT, Agent Smith
wrote:

wrote in news:1144848657.029497.133730
:

Also selected was a recording of the Modesto, Calif., High School
band, which did well in competitions of the 1920s and 1930s. Few
high school bands were recorded until the late 1940s, making the
Modesto school's 1930 version of Beethoven's "Egmont Overture" a
rarity.

What medium is this on? I assume that wax cylinters were no longer
used in the '30's, but what technology replaced that medium? Did they
have some way to record directly to a ceramic, 78 rpm platter?

Not ceramic - shellac. And yes, there were many direct recordings -
they didn't have a choice at first. They recorded mechanically through
a horn straight onto a master disc.

Yeah, shellac. I remember that from sometime long ago. They used a
gramophone in reverse to make the grooves. Advanced WW II technology
replaced shellac, right? Was that magentic, or was there another stage
before tapes came in?

Before tape there was the wire recorder. It used fine steel wire as
the magnetic medium. The big problem was that the stuff was
unbelievably dangerous - it ran under high tension - and the
recording machine was usually left in a room by itself while it was
running.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Don Pearce wrote:
On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 18:48:20 GMT, Agent Smith
wrote:

(Don Pearce) wrote in
:

On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 17:11:28 GMT, Agent Smith
wrote:

wrote in news:1144848657.029497.133730
@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com:

Also selected was a recording of the Modesto, Calif., High School
band, which did well in competitions of the 1920s and 1930s. Few
high school bands were recorded until the late 1940s, making the
Modesto school's 1930 version of Beethoven's "Egmont Overture" a
rarity.
What medium is this on? I assume that wax cylinters were no longer
used in the '30's, but what technology replaced that medium? Did they
have some way to record directly to a ceramic, 78 rpm platter?
Not ceramic - shellac. And yes, there were many direct recordings -
they didn't have a choice at first. They recorded mechanically through
a horn straight onto a master disc.
Yeah, shellac. I remember that from sometime long ago. They used a
gramophone in reverse to make the grooves. Advanced WW II technology
replaced shellac, right? Was that magentic, or was there another stage
before tapes came in?

Before tape there was the wire recorder. It used fine steel wire as
the magnetic medium. The big problem was that the stuff was
unbelievably dangerous - it ran under high tension - and the
recording machine was usually left in a room by itself while it was
running.

d

Before that there was optical recording, same technology as recording
soundtracks on film; modulated light exposing moving film...read back
with a light and a photocell.

I'd never heard of wire recording being hazardous. I guess Sister
William Ann put herself and the rest of my first grade class at great
risk. I'm glad I didn't understand the danger to which we were being
subjected.

Are you sure you got that right?

jak

(Don Pearce) wrote in
:

On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 18:48:20 GMT, Agent Smith
wrote:

(Don Pearce) wrote in
:

On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 17:11:28 GMT, Agent Smith
wrote:

wrote in news:1144848657.029497.133730
:

Also selected was a recording of the Modesto, Calif., High School
band, which did well in competitions of the 1920s and 1930s. Few
high school bands were recorded until the late 1940s, making the
Modesto school's 1930 version of Beethoven's "Egmont Overture" a
rarity.

What medium is this on? I assume that wax cylinters were no longer
used in the '30's, but what technology replaced that medium? Did
they have some way to record directly to a ceramic, 78 rpm platter?

Not ceramic - shellac. And yes, there were many direct recordings -
they didn't have a choice at first. They recorded mechanically
through a horn straight onto a master disc.

Yeah, shellac. I remember that from sometime long ago. They used a
gramophone in reverse to make the grooves. Advanced WW II technology
replaced shellac, right? Was that magentic, or was there another
stage before tapes came in?

Before tape there was the wire recorder. It used fine steel wire as
the magnetic medium. The big problem was that the stuff was
unbelievably dangerous - it ran under high tension - and the
recording machine was usually left in a room by itself while it was
running.

Fascinating and scary. Was that the WW II technology?

On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 14:59:17 -0500, jakdedert
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 18:48:20 GMT, Agent Smith
wrote:

(Don Pearce) wrote in
:

On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 17:11:28 GMT, Agent Smith
wrote:

wrote in news:1144848657.029497.133730
@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com:

Also selected was a recording of the Modesto, Calif., High School
band, which did well in competitions of the 1920s and 1930s. Few
high school bands were recorded until the late 1940s, making the
Modesto school's 1930 version of Beethoven's "Egmont Overture" a
rarity.
What medium is this on? I assume that wax cylinters were no longer
used in the '30's, but what technology replaced that medium? Did they
have some way to record directly to a ceramic, 78 rpm platter?
Not ceramic - shellac. And yes, there were many direct recordings -
they didn't have a choice at first. They recorded mechanically through
a horn straight onto a master disc.
Yeah, shellac. I remember that from sometime long ago. They used a
gramophone in reverse to make the grooves. Advanced WW II technology
replaced shellac, right? Was that magentic, or was there another stage
before tapes came in?

Before tape there was the wire recorder. It used fine steel wire as
the magnetic medium. The big problem was that the stuff was
unbelievably dangerous - it ran under high tension - and the
recording machine was usually left in a room by itself while it was
running.

d

Before that there was optical recording, same technology as recording
soundtracks on film; modulated light exposing moving film...read back
with a light and a photocell.

I'd never heard of wire recording being hazardous. I guess Sister
William Ann put herself and the rest of my first grade class at great
risk. I'm glad I didn't understand the danger to which we were being
subjected.

Are you sure you got that right?

jak

100%

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

(Don Pearce) wrote in
:

On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 14:59:17 -0500, jakdedert
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 18:48:20 GMT, Agent Smith
wrote:

(Don Pearce) wrote in
:

On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 17:11:28 GMT, Agent Smith
wrote:

wrote in news:1144848657.029497.133730
@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com:

Also selected was a recording of the Modesto, Calif., High
School band, which did well in competitions of the 1920s and
1930s. Few high school bands were recorded until the late 1940s,
making the Modesto school's 1930 version of Beethoven's "Egmont
Overture" a rarity.
What medium is this on? I assume that wax cylinters were no
longer used in the '30's, but what technology replaced that
medium? Did they have some way to record directly to a ceramic,
78 rpm platter?
Not ceramic - shellac. And yes, there were many direct recordings
- they didn't have a choice at first. They recorded mechanically
through a horn straight onto a master disc.
Yeah, shellac. I remember that from sometime long ago. They used
a gramophone in reverse to make the grooves. Advanced WW II
technology replaced shellac, right? Was that magentic, or was
there another stage before tapes came in?

Before tape there was the wire recorder. It used fine steel wire as
the magnetic medium. The big problem was that the stuff was
unbelievably dangerous - it ran under high tension - and the
recording machine was usually left in a room by itself while it was
running.

d

Before that there was optical recording, same technology as recording
soundtracks on film; modulated light exposing moving film...read back
with a light and a photocell.

I'd never heard of wire recording being hazardous. I guess Sister
William Ann put herself and the rest of my first grade class at great
risk. I'm glad I didn't understand the danger to which we were being
subjected.

Are you sure you got that right?

jak

100%

What was the tension?

Before tape there was the wire recorder. It used fine steel wire as
the magnetic medium. The big problem was that the stuff was
unbelievably dangerous - it ran under high tension - and the
recording machine was usually left in a room by itself while it was
running.

I'd never heard of wire recording being hazardous. I guess Sister
William Ann put herself and the rest of my first grade class at great
risk. I'm glad I didn't understand the danger to which we were being
subjected.

But Sears and other companies marketed home wire recorders. Did these use
lower tension or something?

Don Pearce wrote:
On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 14:59:17 -0500, jakdedert
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 18:48:20 GMT, Agent Smith
wrote:

(Don Pearce) wrote in
:

On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 17:11:28 GMT, Agent Smith
wrote:

wrote in news:1144848657.029497.133730
@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com:

Also selected was a recording of the Modesto, Calif., High School
band, which did well in competitions of the 1920s and 1930s. Few
high school bands were recorded until the late 1940s, making the
Modesto school's 1930 version of Beethoven's "Egmont Overture" a
rarity.
What medium is this on? I assume that wax cylinters were no longer
used in the '30's, but what technology replaced that medium? Did they
have some way to record directly to a ceramic, 78 rpm platter?
Not ceramic - shellac. And yes, there were many direct recordings -
they didn't have a choice at first. They recorded mechanically through
a horn straight onto a master disc.
Yeah, shellac. I remember that from sometime long ago. They used a
gramophone in reverse to make the grooves. Advanced WW II technology
replaced shellac, right? Was that magentic, or was there another stage
before tapes came in?
Before tape there was the wire recorder. It used fine steel wire as
the magnetic medium. The big problem was that the stuff was
unbelievably dangerous - it ran under high tension - and the
recording machine was usually left in a room by itself while it was
running.

d

Before that there was optical recording, same technology as recording
soundtracks on film; modulated light exposing moving film...read back
with a light and a photocell.

I'd never heard of wire recording being hazardous. I guess Sister
William Ann put herself and the rest of my first grade class at great
risk. I'm glad I didn't understand the danger to which we were being
subjected.

Are you sure you got that right?

jak

100%

No offense, but...second opinion(s), anyone?

jak

d

jakdedert spake thus:

Don Pearce wrote:

On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 14:59:17 -0500, jakdedert
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 18:48:20 GMT, Agent Smith
wrote:

(Don Pearce) wrote in
:

On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 17:11:28 GMT, Agent Smith
wrote:

wrote in news:1144848657.029497.133730
@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com:

Also selected was a recording of the Modesto, Calif., High School
band, which did well in competitions of the 1920s and 1930s. Few
high school bands were recorded until the late 1940s, making the
Modesto school's 1930 version of Beethoven's "Egmont Overture" a
rarity.

What medium is this on? I assume that wax cylinters were
no longer used in the '30's, but what technology replaced
that medium? Did they have some way to record directly to
a ceramic, 78 rpm platter?

Not ceramic - shellac. And yes, there were many direct
recordings - they didn't have a choice at first. They
recorded mechanically through a horn straight onto a master
disc.

Yeah, shellac. I remember that from sometime long ago. They used
a gramophone in reverse to make the grooves. Advanced WW II
technology replaced shellac, right? Was that magentic, or was
there another stage before tapes came in?

Before tape there was the wire recorder. It used fine steel wire as
the magnetic medium. The big problem was that the stuff was
unbelievably dangerous - it ran under high tension - and the
recording machine was usually left in a room by itself while it was
running.

Before that there was optical recording, same technology as recording
soundtracks on film; modulated light exposing moving film...read back
with a light and a photocell.

I'd never heard of wire recording being hazardous. I guess Sister
William Ann put herself and the rest of my first grade class at great
risk. I'm glad I didn't understand the danger to which we were being
subjected.

Are you sure you got that right?

100%

No offense, but...second opinion(s), anyone?

Here's one: no offense, but all that "hazardous" stuff is BS.

Here's my evidence: I once, as a kid, had a wire recorder in my room at
home that I played around with. Never got it to work, but it did run:
play, fast forward and rewind. I remember the "magic eye" volume
indicator on it--remember those?

I'd say there was, at best, modest tension on the wire. Think about it:
this is fairly thin stuff, and high tension would have snapped it. It
was *maybe* a little more than the tension on a tape recorder.

The reason I had one is that one of my friends, who was an
electronics-geek buddy, somehow got us into the basement of a hotel in
Chicago which had a ton of old electronics stuff in it, going back to
the 1930s. (I think one of his relatives was connected with the hotel or
with the company that went out of business.) We got to pick what we
wanted and take it home. It was an electronics-tinkerer kid's wet dream.


--
Pierre, mon ami. Jetez vous une plus de Scientologiste
dans le vat de l'acide.

- from a posting in alt.religion.scientology titled
"France recommends dissolving Scientologists"

In David Nebenzahl writes:

[about the deadly hazards of wire recorders]

Here's one: no offense, but all that "hazardous" stuff is BS.

Here's my evidence: I once, as a kid, had a wire recorder in my room at
home that I played around with. Never got it to work, but it did run:
play, fast forward and rewind. I remember the "magic eye" volume
indicator on it--remember those?

I'd say there was, at best, modest tension on the wire. Think about it:
this is fairly thin stuff, and high tension would have snapped it. It
was *maybe* a little more than the tension on a tape recorder.

I think a lot of people have a misunderstanding of the physics
of a wire in tension. They seem to believe that once parted, the
two ends will continue to whip about the room on their own.

Doesn't happen unless there's still stored energy in the wire,
such as with a phonograph spring. For an ordinary wire, once you
cut it the tension is released and it'll just sit there. If the
spools keep turning, well, yeah, the wire ends will flail about.
But they're not gonna reach out and bite you.

And I would assume recorder wire was very soft steel, with little
or no spring constant.

--
Tim Mullen
------------------------------------------------------------------
Am I in your basement? Looking for antique televisions, fans, etc.
------ finger this account or call anytime: (212)-463-0552 -------

"Don Pearce" wrote ...
Before tape there was the wire recorder. It used fine
steel wire as the magnetic medium. The big problem
was that the stuff was unbelievably dangerous - it ran
under high tension - and the recording machine was
usually left in a room by itself while it was running.

Quite to the contrary. If you do a casual Google search
you will discover that one of the problems frequently
mentioned is spools of recording wire that are too loosely
packed (because of inadequate tension). The stuff was
way too fine to pull any kind of "dangerous" tension on.

"Agent Smith" wrote ...
(Don Pearce) wrote ...
Before tape there was the wire recorder. It used fine steel wire as
the magnetic medium. The big problem was that the stuff was
unbelievably dangerous - it ran under high tension - and the
recording machine was usually left in a room by itself while it was
running.

Fascinating and scary. Was that the WW II technology?

It was during WW2 that the Germans first used mag tape
for delayed broadcasting, etc. Alexander M. Pontioff
(The AMP of AMPex) brought one of the German machines
home with him after the war and started producing equipment
first used in the US broadcasting industry (Bing Crosby was
one of the first customers).

Nothing scary about wire recorders. The wire was much too
fine to take much tension without breaking. Inadequate tension
was much more a problem when the reels weren't solidly
packed and produced uneven wire speed (because they were
"rim-drive").

I always thought Newton said an object in motion tends to continue in
that motion....unless influenced by another body.

By that I mean a loose wire if not subject to great tension would
continue to spin in that path on that plane, as I regularly observe
with Mylar.

I wasn't talking about construction workers mind you...

In . com "Steven_" writes:

I always thought Newton said an object in motion tends to continue in
that motion....unless influenced by another body.

s/body/force/, but yes, you have the general idea.

By that I mean a loose wire if not subject to great tension would
continue to spin in that path on that plane, as I regularly observe
with Mylar.

That's because it's still being propelled by the spinning reel
motors. If the reels stop turning the wire or mylar won't keep
unravelling on its own.

And here's the relevant point: If the reels don't stop turning
there won't be any extra kinetic energy due to the wire (or mylar)
itself. You'll have the force imposed by the reel motor, but that's
hardly sufficient to be any danger.

--
Tim Mullen
------------------------------------------------------------------
Am I in your basement? Looking for antique televisions, fans, etc.
------ finger this account or call anytime: (212)-463-0552 -------

On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 21:28:52 -0700, "Richard Crowley"
wrote:

"Don Pearce" wrote ...
Before tape there was the wire recorder. It used fine
steel wire as the magnetic medium. The big problem
was that the stuff was unbelievably dangerous - it ran
under high tension - and the recording machine was
usually left in a room by itself while it was running.

Quite to the contrary. If you do a casual Google search
you will discover that one of the problems frequently
mentioned is spools of recording wire that are too loosely
packed (because of inadequate tension). The stuff was
way too fine to pull any kind of "dangerous" tension on.

Here is what I was thinking of - the Blattnerphone. It actually used a
steel tape rather than wire, and the machines were huge
industrial-sized things. The tape was of similar consistency to razor
blades, and when it snapped the ends would fly around dangerously.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Richard Crowley wrote:

"Don Pearce" wrote ...
Before tape there was the wire recorder. It used fine
steel wire as the magnetic medium. The big problem
was that the stuff was unbelievably dangerous - it ran
under high tension - and the recording machine was
usually left in a room by itself while it was running.

Quite to the contrary. If you do a casual Google search
you will discover that one of the problems frequently
mentioned is spools of recording wire that are too loosely
packed (because of inadequate tension). The stuff was
way too fine to pull any kind of "dangerous" tension on.


A guy in the UK recently restored his grandfather's c. 1949 *home made*
wire recorder. He describes the fascinating process below and you can
listen to some of the wire recordings (recorded both live and off -
air), they are not too bad:

http://www.gentweb.co.uk/wirerecorder.htm

Here is the thread about it on rec.antiques.radio+phono:

http://tinyurl.com/ku2pf

Probably one of the more ubiquitous commercial brands of wire recorder
was the Webster - Chicago (later Webcor); you can find them on eBay.
C. 1940 or so you could buy wire recorders, for the home luxury market
these were usually incorporated into a very expensive radio -
phonograph console. Post - war the more "portable" Webster - Chicago
and other units became available...IIRC even Sears offered a Silvertone
model...

[remember when Chicago was the headquarters of the US home electronics
industry!?]

As others have mentioned, Bing Crosby was a big force behind modern
tape recording. He was basically pretty lazy and abhorred doing his
shows "live" at broadcast time, he'd rather be out golfing; also the
16" shellac discs that were used for transcription recording could be
of poor quality. In 1948 a tape recorder (IIRC it was one of the
German magnetophons that was liberated from Radio Luxembourg) was
brought in and demonstrated for him, he loved it and thus modern tape
recording was born...Ampex was the first producer of recorders, many
others followed.

-----

There was also something called a "Blattnerphone" in the 30's, this was
a recorder that used reels of steel tape for recording; a reel of tape
weighed over 15 kilos and only 12 machines were ever made:

http://www.acmi.net.au/AIC/BLATTNER_STILLE.html

"Historical note on the Marconi-Stille steel tape recording machine.

At the beginning of the century Professor Poulsen, one of radio's
earliest pioneers, discovered that a magnetic impression could be made
on a moving length of wire which remained on the wire even after it had
been rolled up. He used his machine to record the Morse code only, that
is magnetism `on' and 'off'. In 1924 Dr.Stille in Germany made a
machine which could record sounds. The B.B.C. sent two engineers to
Berlin, and after a demonstration they offered to buy the machine, but
in the end they returned to England empty-handed.

In 1931 Mr Louis Blattner managed to buy a machine and bring it to
England. He called it the Blattnerphone. By this time Dr. Stille had
replaced Poulsen's wire with a flat steel tape 6 mm wide. Each reel of
tape could only accommodate 20 minutes of recording. There was a
constant and heavy background hiss, due to the inherent quality of the
steel tape itself.

Stille Inventions Ltd. joined forces with Marconi's Wireless Telegraph
Co. Ltd. to produce, with the close co-operation of the B.B.C. Research
Department, the Marconi-Stille machine which was put into use in 1934.
The tape width was reduced to 3 mm and the thickness to only 0.08 of a
millimetre. In order to secure the reproduction of the higher audio
frequencies, it was found necessary to run the tape at a rate of 90
metres per minute past the recording and reproducing heads. This meant
that the length of tape required for a half-hour's programme was nearly
3 kilometres!"

/

"Tim Mullen" wrote in message

In
David Nebenzahl writes:

[about the deadly hazards of wire recorders]

Here's one: no offense, but all that "hazardous" stuff
is BS.

Here's my evidence: I once, as a kid, had a wire
recorder in my room at home that I played around with.
Never got it to work, but it did run: play, fast forward
and rewind. I remember the "magic eye" volume indicator
on it--remember those?

I'd say there was, at best, modest tension on the wire.
Think about it: this is fairly thin stuff, and high
tension would have snapped it. It was *maybe* a little
more than the tension on a tape recorder.

I think a lot of people have a misunderstanding of the
physics
of a wire in tension. They seem to believe that once
parted, the
two ends will continue to whip about the room on their
own.

Doesn't happen unless there's still stored energy in
the wire,
such as with a phonograph spring. For an ordinary wire,
once you
cut it the tension is released and it'll just sit there.
If the
spools keep turning, well, yeah, the wire ends will flail
about.
But they're not gonna reach out and bite you.

And I would assume recorder wire was very soft steel,
with little or no spring constant.

I've had reels of recording in my hands from time to time.

Recording wire is often more like stainless steel. It has to be magnetically
"hard".

Thing is, if the wire breaks the part that whips around has a length that is
limted by the distance between the two reels, which is a few inches. It
could hurt you and you might even bleed to death if you put your wrists in
the right place when the take-up reel was whipping around.

In practice the danger to a high school band that was being recorded is so
slim as to be totally rediculous.

Don Pearce spake thus:

On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 21:28:52 -0700, "Richard Crowley"
wrote:

"Don Pearce" wrote ...

Before tape there was the wire recorder. It used fine
steel wire as the magnetic medium. The big problem
was that the stuff was unbelievably dangerous - it ran
under high tension - and the recording machine was
usually left in a room by itself while it was running.

Quite to the contrary. If you do a casual Google search
you will discover that one of the problems frequently
mentioned is spools of recording wire that are too loosely
packed (because of inadequate tension). The stuff was
way too fine to pull any kind of "dangerous" tension on.

Here is what I was thinking of - the Blattnerphone. It actually used a
steel tape rather than wire, and the machines were huge
industrial-sized things. The tape was of similar consistency to razor
blades, and when it snapped the ends would fly around dangerously.

Yikes--now that thing *is* pretty frightening (for example, see
http://www.tfpro.com/lectures/cow_jan_2005.php). Interestingly, the BBC
recently had some Blattnerphone reels transcribed using some restored
equipment.

From that page:

The main problems with fine steel tape were the danger aspects ... One
was constantly in danger of being cut to ribbons by fast moving
razor-blade-thick steel, and the constant problems of tape breakage ...
The only way to repair the tape was to weld it together, and all the
machines had elaborate electro-welding splicing blocks!


--
Pierre, mon ami. Jetez vous une plus de Scientologiste
dans le vat de l'acide.

- from a posting in alt.religion.scientology titled
"France recommends dissolving Scientologists"

Don Pearce wrote:
On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 21:28:52 -0700, "Richard Crowley"
wrote:

"Don Pearce" wrote ...
Before tape there was the wire recorder. It used fine
steel wire as the magnetic medium. The big problem
was that the stuff was unbelievably dangerous - it ran
under high tension - and the recording machine was
usually left in a room by itself while it was running.
Quite to the contrary. If you do a casual Google search
you will discover that one of the problems frequently
mentioned is spools of recording wire that are too loosely
packed (because of inadequate tension). The stuff was
way too fine to pull any kind of "dangerous" tension on.

Here is what I was thinking of - the Blattnerphone. It actually used a
steel tape rather than wire, and the machines were huge
industrial-sized things. The tape was of similar consistency to razor
blades, and when it snapped the ends would fly around dangerously.

Yeah, it did occur to me that you might have been speaking of some kind
of prototype or early version of the technology...before commercial
introduction.

jak
d

In rec.audio.tech jakdedert wrote:
: No offense, but...second opinion(s), anyone?

About 15 years ago, I had two working wire recordings.
They both worked great, made surprisingly good recordings,
and as near as I could tell totally safe to use.

Scott

wrote in message
...
In rec.audio.tech jakdedert wrote:
: No offense, but...second opinion(s), anyone?

About 15 years ago, I had two working wire recordings.
They both worked great, made surprisingly good recordings,
and as near as I could tell totally safe to use.

Scott

I think the confusion about the danger stems from the early German steel
tape machines of the mid thirties. They ran at 60 ips and used a very thin
steel tape that would cut the crap out of anyone who was near when a tape
break occurred. It was probably like band saw blade steel, but much thinner.
Stuff can be nasty.
This was well before wire, and all recording wire I have ever seen was mild
steel, very, very thin, ran at 7 ips or less and probably couldn't hurt you
if you tried.
Clearly not the same stuff as steel tape.
Tom