![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Dave Holford" wrote in message
... I have been following this discussion with some interest and I also feel that the recording is unlikely to be genuine. Not only is the lack of noise a problem; I also have some difficulty in believing that the disc cutting machinery at that time was capable of being sufficiently isolated from the considerable vibration and G-forces due to combat maneouvring. Doctored, or even completely phony information for propaganda purposes (and let's face it this was pure propaganda) were, and still are, common. I used to have a recording of famous wartime speeches by Churchill and other WWII leaders and on the notes was the comment that some of the cuts were re-recordings due to the poor quality, or total lack, of original recordings. Unfortunately I transferred this to tape many years ago and no longer have the liner notes with the details, but I am quite certain that at least one of them was a well known speech by Churchill which was re-recorded in a BBC studio. I'm tempted to consign this to the collection of "official" items containing such things as "Cats Eyes Cunningham" and his carrots, which was widely believed at the time; and probably still is by some. It would seem likely that at least one person involved in this recording is still alive and could provide the truth - unless it is covered by the Official Secrets Act, as much WWII detail apparently still is. Dave I have to agree - only with modern DSP "anti-noise" technology could you have filtered out all the engine noise. Maybe a recording was attempted, found to be unuseable, and the resulting script was then re-recorded in the studio. I don't think this was an attempt to deceive though, just common practice at the time, as per Churchill's speeches. - Michael |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"MichaelJP" wrote:
Maybe a recording was attempted, found to be unuseable, and the resulting script was then re-recorded in the studio. I don't think this was an attempt to deceive though, just common practice at the time, as per Churchill's speeches. - Michael Certainly sounds plausable... (sorry, couldn't resist) ![]() -- -Gord. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In message , MichaelJP
writes snip I have to agree - only with modern DSP "anti-noise" technology could you have filtered out all the engine noise. Maybe a recording was attempted, found to be unuseable, and the resulting script was then re-recorded in the studio. I don't think this was an attempt to deceive though, just common practice at the time, as per Churchill's speeches. I put these points to a B/C ng group and several interesting points emerged: One poster said. Quote: Lip ribbon mics were first developed in 1937, so presumably they would have been available for this application in the war. Not only is the ribbon just 6cm or so from the speaker's mouth, but they have considerable LF cutoff to counter the proximity effect. This would have greatly reduced the very deep engine noise of a Lanc. AIUI, aircraft comms of the day used carbon mic inserts. The reported uselessness of the intercom does not necessarily mean that the intercom's mics were overwhelmed with engine noise. It might have been that the overwhelming occurred between the earphones and the ear. This seems plausible, because the SPL of speech is much higher in front of the speaker's mouth than adjacent to the listener's ear. A day or two ago there was something on the telly - I can't for the life of me remember what - in which the presenter was doing a piece to camera in a light aircraft using a lip ribbon mic. There was very little background noise audible. I once did a radio interview with someone while standing next to the main engines in a cross-channel ferry. (They have cylinders the size of dustbins.) We were both wearing ear defenders, and had to lip read to communicate with each other, but the speech on the recording - made using an omni mic very close up - was perfectly intelligible. The background noise on the tape was considerable, but the engines were bigger and closer than those on a Lancaster bomber, and we didn't use a lip ribbon mic. It's also interesting to note that in the recording which contains machine gun fire, as the Lanc shoots down a German fighter, that gunfire is much louder than the engine noise. On this basis, I think the Wynford V-T recording could perfectly well be genuine. Endquote. He raises several very good points here, I believe. Mike -- M.J.Powell |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
King KMA 20 TSO Audio Input | tony roberts | Home Built | 10 | November 20th 04 06:06 AM |
Audio recording of RAF Lancaster under nightfighter attack | Stolly | Military Aviation | 65 | October 8th 03 01:54 AM |
Bu$h Jr's Iran-Contra -- The Pentagone's Reign of Terror | PirateJohn | Military Aviation | 1 | September 6th 03 10:05 AM |
Lancaster returns to AWM | Graeme Hogan | Military Aviation | 2 | July 24th 03 01:08 PM |
Letter from USS Liberty Survivor | Grantland | Military Aviation | 1 | July 17th 03 03:44 PM |