Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Is it possible to determine whether a phone call is local or long distance by analyzing the audio?
0 views
Skip to first unread message
Ramon F Herrera
Mar 11, 2015, 10:37:43 AM3/11/15
to
I am sure the answer is "it depends", so the better question is: To what
extent is this possible?
The calls in question were made in the 70s, so we are in luck there. One
of them can be heard here:
JFK Facts:
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/dismantling-oreilly-the-last-chapter/
CNN Channel in YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meiGNwH3H30
TIA
-Ramon
bitrex
Mar 11, 2015, 1:26:34 PM3/11/15
to
Ramon F Herrera <ra...@patriot.net> Wrote in message:
What is the purpose of this exercise? Bill O'Reilly obviously was
in Dallas. Why would he be talking about getting a flight if it
was a local phone call?
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
in Dallas. Why would he be talking about getting a flight if it
was a local phone call?
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
Jeff Liebermann
Mar 11, 2015, 8:48:00 PM3/11/15
to
resurrection.
In the 1970's all long lines telephony was analog. There were channel
bank filters and mixers that upconverted base band audio to higher
frequencies for transmission, and back down at the destination. Also
known as FDM (frequency division multiplex:
<http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Communication_Systems/Frequency-Division_Multiplexing#Analog_Carrier_Systems>
The conversion process is not perfect and it is possible to see mixes
and intermodulation products of the carrier and local oscillator
frequencies of this up/down conversion process on the resultant
audio[1]. There was also about a 1 to 5 Hertz Bode frequency shift
introduced to prevent feedback and oscillation. You can't hear the
beatnotes and frequency shift, but you can see them with PC based
spectrum analysis. I suggest:
<http://audacity.sourceforge.net>
or better yet Spectrum Lab:
<http://www.qsl.net/dl4yhf/spectra1.html>
You will need to look at the "blank" spaces between the words, where
there is no voices or background noises to muddle the display. You're
looking for continuous carriers, buried well under the voices.
Autocorrelation:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocorrelation>
is a big help for seeing these tones by removing the audio and
background rubbish.
Interpreting the residual tones, and separating them from recording
artifacts, is going to be difficult. You'll need to find someone with
experience in 1970's telco muxes as well as some clue as to where
these recording have been, whether they were converted from previous
recordings, and possibly what equipment was used. You'll also need to
know which CO handled the call, which will point to which carrier
handled the call (AT&T, GT&E, ITT, etc), and then what brand and model
of carrier equipment might have been used. That's not going to be
easy and will probably be a huge time burn for little benefit.
Hopefully, I've given you enough hints to get started. You're on your
own. Don't bother sending me email as I won't help.
[1] I still do some of this looking for residual PL/DCS and control
tones on stuck FM land mobile and public safety transmitters to
identify the culprits. Since the frequency of operation is known,
that limits the likely culprits to known licencees and a known list of
equipment. However, the introduction of digital radios has made this
technique both too difficult and no longer necessary due to built in
transmitter ID.
--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
Robert Baer
Mar 12, 2015, 12:16:10 AM3/12/15
to
Name, number, voice, sound real or sound recorded, static, backgrund
sounds, etc.
Robert Baer
Mar 12, 2015, 12:22:58 AM3/12/15
to
LOST.
Ramon F Herrera
Mar 12, 2015, 1:06:39 AM3/12/15
to
On 3/11/2015 7:47 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> You can't hear the
> beatnotes and frequency shift, but you can see them with PC based
> spectrum analysis. I suggest:
> <http://audacity.sourceforge.net>
Small world! As luck would have it, my e-buddy Paul Licameli, who has
> You can't hear the
> beatnotes and frequency shift, but you can see them with PC based
> spectrum analysis. I suggest:
> <http://audacity.sourceforge.net>
been helping me with JFK-related audio processing, happens to be the
programmer in charge of Audacity's "Noise Reduction" feature.
Gossip 1: Filled with braggadocio, they used to call it "Noise
Elimination", but they humbled down and renamed it. A certain poster had
something to do with this. See p.s. below.
Gossip 2: A certain poster was talking too much about non-Audacity
applications, and being helpful to participants so he is currently under
threat to be banned from the Audacity Forum. To make it more
frightening, the threat was "private".
I use Adobe Audition and iZotope RX4. They are supposed to be the top of
the crop. Will download and take Spectrum Lab for a spin. What specific
feature do I need?
-Ramon
ps: Jeff, take a look at the thread "What will be the status of Adobe
Audition... in the year 2017?" by a certain poster, in rec.audio.pro.
Ramon F Herrera
Mar 12, 2015, 6:15:08 PM3/12/15
to
I posted this question in the Stack Exchange Forum:
http://dsp.stackexchange.com
and was asked for an "Audio Corpus".
It is here:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/yobkvx8j7suqr4u/AACrm3tf8mijFirGmwPSRMQga?dl=0
In one of the audio clips, I removed some of the background noise, most
likely caused by Fonzi's tape recorder.
TIA (again),
-Ramon
Ramon F Herrera
Mar 13, 2015, 4:44:26 PM3/13/15
to
On 3/11/2015 7:47 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> Yes, but I'm not going to get involved in a conspiracy theory
> resurrection.
We wouldn't dare insulting you or professional dedication.
> resurrection.
:-)
-Ramon
Jeff Liebermann
Mar 13, 2015, 5:52:25 PM3/13/15
to
On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 17:01:15 -0500, Ramon F Herrera
<ra...@patriot.net> wrote:
>In one of the audio clips, I removed some of the background noise, most
>likely caused by Fonzi's tape recorder.
Bad idea. Every time you process and re-record that audio, you both
<ra...@patriot.net> wrote:
>In one of the audio clips, I removed some of the background noise, most
>likely caused by Fonzi's tape recorder.
introduce and lose important artifacts. For example, by chopping off
the high end noise, you lose the tape recorders 100 or 150 KHz bias
signal and its low level mixing products from the recording. The bias
leakage is one of the easy ways I can tell if the recording was really
made on a tape recorder, or if it was digitally faked on a PC. Also,
if I see more than one tape bias carrier, I know that it was
re-recorded on two different machines, which implies that it has been
edited or tweaked.
For the S.E.D. readers, the 100 KHz bias leak usually shows up at
around -60dB below maximum audio level, which is difficult to see
under the tape hiss. The better tape machines use 150 KHz, which is
almost impossible to see. Both can be found with filters if the exact
frequency is known. Fortunately, junk tape recorders leak much worse,
and are easier to see.
Ramon F Herrera
Mar 13, 2015, 5:59:21 PM3/13/15
to
On 3/11/2015 7:47 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> Yes, but I'm not going to get involved in a conspiracy theory
> resurrection.
Hi Jeff:
> resurrection.
What conspiracy? What resurrection?
This is about Mr. O'Reilly denying that was called from Dallas that day.
Some claim that it is an insult to the American people, but we rather
prefer to see this clarified by EXPERTS.
I gather that you are familiar with research? Scientific method? Trial
by fire before your peers? Free and open information?
Forget about Kennedy, he is dead and buried
For the life of me, I cannot understand your fear.
I am even more amazed what you assume, you told me on the phone that
*all* your peers (do you folks have some sort of industry association?
Of which you are the spokesperson? Can you send me an application?) have
subject to the same fear as you are!
Sincerely,
-Ramon
Ramon F Herrera
Mar 13, 2015, 6:27:45 PM3/13/15
to
On 3/11/2015 7:47 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> Yes, but I'm not going to get involved in a conspiracy theory
> resurrection.
>
Esteemed Jeff:
> resurrection.
>
You would be a *perfect* replacement for the spot that I left in
Venezuela, when I emigrated to this, the greatest country in history.
As we speak a very good friend of mine, Leopoldo Lopez, Harvard
Educated, presidential candidate is in a Venezuelan jail. He has been
there for a year. His only crime? Disagreeing with the Venezuelan regime.
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/02/17/americas/gallery/cnnee-conclusiones-leopoldo-quotes/
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/02/24/americas/caracas-venezuela-mayor/
Additionally, you are not making sense. Pretend for a second that great
progress is made in the analysis of the O'Reilly-Fonzi conversation's
audio. I receive all kinds of accolades (right, in my dreams!, but bear
with me).
Ramon, during the interview with CNN or Oscar Awards (?), maybe Nobel
Peace Prize (Hey! It is *my* dream):
"I would like to publicly acknowledge the fundamental assistance of
telephone engineer Jeff Liebermann, without the extraordinary help that
he provided, this could not been achieved. In fact, I respectfully would
like to donate this award to him."
[Next, I provide your posts, with all the amazing, world class
information that you have provided].
Big Question: WHAT exactly would you do then?
Regards,
-Ramon
"Keeping a secret does not imply not revealing it. Additionally, you
must NOT tell anybody that you are in possession of such secret"
You violated that very important rule, esteemed amigo.
========================
"Those who sacrifice freedom in exchange for security, deserve neither"
-Ben Franklin
Ramon F Herrera
Mar 13, 2015, 6:52:11 PM3/13/15
to
On 3/13/2015 4:52 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 17:01:15 -0500, Ramon F Herrera
> <ra...@patriot.net> wrote:
>
>> In one of the audio clips, I removed some of the background noise, most
>> likely caused by Fonzi's tape recorder.
>
> Bad idea. Every time you process and re-record that audio, you both
> introduce and lose important artifacts. For example, by chopping off
> the high end noise, you lose the tape recorders 100 or 150 KHz bias
> signal and its low level mixing products from the recording. The bias
> leakage is one of the easy ways I can tell if the recording was really
> made on a tape recorder, or if it was digitally faked on a PC. Also,
> if I see more than one tape bias carrier, I know that it was
> re-recorded on two different machines, which implies that it has been
> edited or tweaked.
>
> For the S.E.D. readers, the 100 KHz bias leak usually shows up at
> around -60dB below maximum audio level, which is difficult to see
> under the tape hiss. The better tape machines use 150 KHz, which is
> almost impossible to see. Both can be found with filters if the exact
> frequency is known. Fortunately, junk tape recorders leak much worse,
> and are easier to see.
>
Thanks again, Jeff.
> On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 17:01:15 -0500, Ramon F Herrera
> <ra...@patriot.net> wrote:
>
>> In one of the audio clips, I removed some of the background noise, most
>> likely caused by Fonzi's tape recorder.
>
> Bad idea. Every time you process and re-record that audio, you both
> introduce and lose important artifacts. For example, by chopping off
> the high end noise, you lose the tape recorders 100 or 150 KHz bias
> signal and its low level mixing products from the recording. The bias
> leakage is one of the easy ways I can tell if the recording was really
> made on a tape recorder, or if it was digitally faked on a PC. Also,
> if I see more than one tape bias carrier, I know that it was
> re-recorded on two different machines, which implies that it has been
> edited or tweaked.
>
> For the S.E.D. readers, the 100 KHz bias leak usually shows up at
> around -60dB below maximum audio level, which is difficult to see
> under the tape hiss. The better tape machines use 150 KHz, which is
> almost impossible to see. Both can be found with filters if the exact
> frequency is known. Fortunately, junk tape recorders leak much worse,
> and are easier to see.
>
Check out Bob Primeau [kinda] colleague of yours:
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/whats-the-most-important-piece-of-jfk-assassination-evidence-to-surface-in-the-past-5-years/
http://www.audioforensicexpert.com/john-f-kennedy-assassination-air-force-one-recordings/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrvKtXbYX_U&list=UUSDq2dycdWkU6pu0Uyvbw2w
He is getting lots of new clients, nobody has dropped a horse's head in
his bed, etc.
Incidentally, I was privileged to work with *the* company that created
the Internet, Bolt, Beranek & Newman.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBN_Technologies
http://www.amazon.com/Where-Wizards-Stay-Up-Late/dp/0684832674
They happen to be the ones who analyzed the "Dictabelt Recording":
again, they gained a lot of professional respect and are in excellent
health.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictabelt_evidence_relating_to_the_assassination_of_John_F._Kennedy
Regards,
-Ramon
Ramon F Herrera
Mar 13, 2015, 7:01:29 PM3/13/15
to
Jeff, please bear with me. I am honestly trying to see your point of view.
Suppose there is a lawsuit and a court calls you as an *expert witness*.
We experts (you in your field, I in mine) are supposed to have high
ethical standards, we are supposed to be above the yelling, accusations,
etc.
How about jury duty? That is your citizen's obligation. That is the
price we pay for our system, the greatest in the world.
Well, an expert is more important for Democracy than some uneducated
member of the jury.
-Ramon
Jeff Liebermann
Mar 13, 2015, 10:31:21 PM3/13/15
to
On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 17:47:34 -0500, Ramon F Herrera
<ra...@patriot.net> wrote:
>Jeff, please bear with me. I am honestly trying to see your point of view.
I have no point of view.
<ra...@patriot.net> wrote:
>Jeff, please bear with me. I am honestly trying to see your point of view.
>Suppose there is a lawsuit and a court calls you as an *expert witness*.
attorneys or by the court.
<http://www2.mnbar.org/benchandbar/1999/jul99/experts_lal.htm>
"...courts hold to the traditional rule that an expert cannot
be subpoenaed to serve as a witness against his or her will."
The few times I've played expert witness, I testified by deposition
and never appeared in court. The one time I was scheduled to testify,
I sat waiting outside for days, and was never called (or paid).
>We experts (you in your field, I in mine) are supposed to have high
>ethical standards, we are supposed to be above the yelling, accusations,
>etc.
character assassinations, bluster, conjecture, lying, and juvenile
pissing matches are the norm. Oh yeah, welcome to Usenet.
>How about jury duty? That is your citizen's obligation. That is the
>price we pay for our system, the greatest in the world.
to be on a real jury so that I could experience the American legal
system. What I got was a voluntary manslaughter trial, where
literally everyone including the police were lying and seriously
incompetent. I was the foreman. It was an interesting experience in
the reality of trial by a collection of people not smart enough to get
out of jury duty. If that was the greatest in the world, I would hate
to see the lesser legal systems.
>Well, an expert is more important for Democracy than some uneducated
>member of the jury.
is run by the experts. However, I suspect that it's easier to obtain
a decision from a jury selected from the GUM (great unwashed masses),
than from a panel of university scholars, who derive so much enjoyment
from endless debate and hair splitting.
In 1963, I believe that the Dallas PD was using Motorola Dispatcher
radios, probably D33AAT:
<http://www.wb6nvh.com/cyclerad/Cyclerad2.htm>
These were part germanium and part tube radios. Over the air, they
had some interesting and obvious characteristics. The first second or
more (depending on battery voltage) of each transmission was cut off
as the quick heat tube filaments (1AD4 6397 2E24) warmed up. Officers
using these radios had to push HARD on the PTT button, wait about 1
second, and then talk. There was no way to accidentally jam one of
these radios into transmit using the PTT button. Most of the radio
transmissions I heard on various recordings found on YouTube appeared
to involve motorcycle police.
The D33AAT produced about 10 watts of RF at VHF at about 10%
efficiency from a vibrator power supply. One could usually hear the
vibrator hash on the transmissions. Despite that claim by someone on
the recording that it was a motorcycle with a stuck transmitter, I
doubt it because there was no vibrator hash, and the PTT on the
microphone intentionally required a death grip to depress. It's been
50 years, but I'm fairly familiar with what those old radios sounded
like on the air, having used them in commercial and ham service in the
late 1960's. The motorcycle radio mics of the day were not noise
canceling mics. Instead, to minimize wind and road noise, they simply
reduced the mic gain requiring the office to yell into the microphone
to be heard. An open mic wouldn't hear much beyond mechanically
coupled noise from whatever it's sitting upon (i.e. engine noise).
All the recordings I heard sound like noise and distortion had been
added to what would normally be a very clear wide-band (+/-30Khz
deviation) audio system. I've heard some crappy radios in the 1960's
but nothing that awful sounding. Yet, nobody asked for a repeat
transmission, which suggests that it was perfectly clear to the
officers involved. Hmmm...
Anyway, have fun with your conspiracy. I'll pass.
Jan Panteltje
Mar 14, 2015, 5:05:09 AM3/14/15
to
On a sunny day (Fri, 13 Mar 2015 14:52:23 -0700) it happened Jeff Liebermann
<je...@cruzio.com> wrote in <nbl6ga11ntcn3l8q1...@4ax.com>:
>On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 17:01:15 -0500, Ramon F Herrera
><ra...@patriot.net> wrote:
>
>>In one of the audio clips, I removed some of the background noise, most
>>likely caused by Fonzi's tape recorder.
>
>Bad idea. Every time you process and re-record that audio, you both
>introduce and lose important artifacts. For example, by chopping off
>the high end noise, you lose the tape recorders 100 or 150 KHz bias
>signal and its low level mixing products from the recording. The bias
>leakage is one of the easy ways I can tell if the recording was really
>made on a tape recorder, or if it was digitally faked on a PC. Also,
>if I see more than one tape bias carrier, I know that it was
>re-recorded on two different machines, which implies that it has been
>edited or tweaked.
>
>For the S.E.D. readers, the 100 KHz bias leak usually shows up at
>around -60dB below maximum audio level, which is difficult to see
>under the tape hiss. The better tape machines use 150 KHz, which is
>almost impossible to see. Both can be found with filters if the exact
>frequency is known. Fortunately, junk tape recorders leak much worse,
>and are easier to see.
It is d*mn good to read somebody who knows what he is talking about.
Yes, the bias issue is a good tool.
There is a catch however: Some old cheap tape recorders used DC bias,
I once had one like that,
There is also such a thing as bias symmetry, you get the lowest tape
noise for a purely symmetrical bias (so bias harmonics should or could exist too).
The profi recorders in the studio had a balanced bias generator for symmetry,
the cheap consumers ones just a single transistor oscillator,
the latter ones achieved usually no better than -45 or at the most -50 dB noise level.
When the VHS video recorders came on the market, the FM modulated video signal,
so a FM carrier, was used as BIAS for an analog color chroma signal.
So the bias was about 1.5 MHz (sweeping), the modulating chroma about 560 kHz IIRC.
Rotating heads to get that (bias = FM video) of the tape again.
Old tape days....
For forensic investigation to know details like what you describe is of high value.
Few more years an nobody remembers,
Maybe google will store it a while.
Posted from s.e.d BTW :-)
<je...@cruzio.com> wrote in <nbl6ga11ntcn3l8q1...@4ax.com>:
>On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 17:01:15 -0500, Ramon F Herrera
><ra...@patriot.net> wrote:
>
>>In one of the audio clips, I removed some of the background noise, most
>>likely caused by Fonzi's tape recorder.
>
>Bad idea. Every time you process and re-record that audio, you both
>introduce and lose important artifacts. For example, by chopping off
>the high end noise, you lose the tape recorders 100 or 150 KHz bias
>signal and its low level mixing products from the recording. The bias
>leakage is one of the easy ways I can tell if the recording was really
>made on a tape recorder, or if it was digitally faked on a PC. Also,
>if I see more than one tape bias carrier, I know that it was
>re-recorded on two different machines, which implies that it has been
>edited or tweaked.
>
>For the S.E.D. readers, the 100 KHz bias leak usually shows up at
>around -60dB below maximum audio level, which is difficult to see
>under the tape hiss. The better tape machines use 150 KHz, which is
>almost impossible to see. Both can be found with filters if the exact
>frequency is known. Fortunately, junk tape recorders leak much worse,
>and are easier to see.
Yes, the bias issue is a good tool.
There is a catch however: Some old cheap tape recorders used DC bias,
I once had one like that,
There is also such a thing as bias symmetry, you get the lowest tape
noise for a purely symmetrical bias (so bias harmonics should or could exist too).
The profi recorders in the studio had a balanced bias generator for symmetry,
the cheap consumers ones just a single transistor oscillator,
the latter ones achieved usually no better than -45 or at the most -50 dB noise level.
When the VHS video recorders came on the market, the FM modulated video signal,
so a FM carrier, was used as BIAS for an analog color chroma signal.
So the bias was about 1.5 MHz (sweeping), the modulating chroma about 560 kHz IIRC.
Rotating heads to get that (bias = FM video) of the tape again.
Old tape days....
For forensic investigation to know details like what you describe is of high value.
Few more years an nobody remembers,
Maybe google will store it a while.
Posted from s.e.d BTW :-)
Jeff Liebermann
Mar 14, 2015, 1:43:30 PM3/14/15
to
On Sat, 14 Mar 2015 09:04:48 GMT, Jan Panteltje <pant...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>There is a catch however: Some old cheap tape recorders used DC bias,
>I once had one like that,
During the early 1960's, when I was starting college, I worked for a
repair shop that did warranty repair for various importers, mostly on
tape recorders. The bottom of the line recorders had a magnet that
swung in front of the tape on record. The result was a tape that was
magnetically polarized perpendicular to the tape path. Play such a
tape on any tape recorder often enough, and you get the thoroughly
magnetized tape head, when then had to be demagnetized. I saw various
schemes to self-demagnetize the heads, none of which really worked.
>There is also such a thing as bias symmetry, you get the lowest tape
>noise for a purely symmetrical bias (so bias harmonics should or could exist too).
In the 1960's, I had a Roberts something 1/4" reel to reel tape
recorder with cross field heads. I'm not certain of the timing, but I
think they were introduced in that late 1960's, a few years after the
assassination.
The tape bias leak is important because the recording had to be
transferred from the original Dictaphone plastic belt to reproducible
media, which in its day, was 1/4" reel to reel tape. It would be
amusing to obtain one of these early recordings and see how many bias
leaks could be found, possibly indicating how many times the audio was
re-recorded. From this web page, it's been through many hands:
<http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/scally.htm>
<http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Essay_-_Acoustics_Overview_and_History>
(3 pages). My guess(tm) is that it would take several days of DSP
"sweeps" across the frequencies of interest to extract coherent bias
signals and probably prove nothing more than inept handling of
evidence.
I skimmed through a few of these recordings and suspect this one might
be good:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0geaCsFFTz8>
Not much to be seen on the compressed audio using Spectrum Lab
software. I did find some noise compression, which makes me suspect
that it may have been "enhanced" for clarity. I found another
recording claiming to be the original, which sounded far worse.
The commentary mumbles something about crosstalk between Ch1 and Ch2
in the recorder. This is the AT2C recorder used:
<http://i.ytimg.com/vi/0geaCsFFTz8/hqdefault.jpg>
When one 15 min belt becomes full, it switches to the other recorder
so that the first belt on the first recorder can be changed without
losing anything. Therefore, the alleged Ch2 -> Ch 1 crosstalk did not
happen in the recorder. The alleged crosstalk probably came from the
dispatch console, which likely had separate speakers for each channel,
which would partially retransmit anything heard on Ch2 onto the Ch1
recording.
Enough conspiracy theory for one day. Gone to do somethine useful.
wrote:
>There is a catch however: Some old cheap tape recorders used DC bias,
>I once had one like that,
repair shop that did warranty repair for various importers, mostly on
tape recorders. The bottom of the line recorders had a magnet that
swung in front of the tape on record. The result was a tape that was
magnetically polarized perpendicular to the tape path. Play such a
tape on any tape recorder often enough, and you get the thoroughly
magnetized tape head, when then had to be demagnetized. I saw various
schemes to self-demagnetize the heads, none of which really worked.
>There is also such a thing as bias symmetry, you get the lowest tape
>noise for a purely symmetrical bias (so bias harmonics should or could exist too).
recorder with cross field heads. I'm not certain of the timing, but I
think they were introduced in that late 1960's, a few years after the
assassination.
The tape bias leak is important because the recording had to be
transferred from the original Dictaphone plastic belt to reproducible
media, which in its day, was 1/4" reel to reel tape. It would be
amusing to obtain one of these early recordings and see how many bias
leaks could be found, possibly indicating how many times the audio was
re-recorded. From this web page, it's been through many hands:
<http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/scally.htm>
<http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Essay_-_Acoustics_Overview_and_History>
(3 pages). My guess(tm) is that it would take several days of DSP
"sweeps" across the frequencies of interest to extract coherent bias
signals and probably prove nothing more than inept handling of
evidence.
I skimmed through a few of these recordings and suspect this one might
be good:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0geaCsFFTz8>
Not much to be seen on the compressed audio using Spectrum Lab
software. I did find some noise compression, which makes me suspect
that it may have been "enhanced" for clarity. I found another
recording claiming to be the original, which sounded far worse.
The commentary mumbles something about crosstalk between Ch1 and Ch2
in the recorder. This is the AT2C recorder used:
<http://i.ytimg.com/vi/0geaCsFFTz8/hqdefault.jpg>
When one 15 min belt becomes full, it switches to the other recorder
so that the first belt on the first recorder can be changed without
losing anything. Therefore, the alleged Ch2 -> Ch 1 crosstalk did not
happen in the recorder. The alleged crosstalk probably came from the
dispatch console, which likely had separate speakers for each channel,
which would partially retransmit anything heard on Ch2 onto the Ch1
recording.
Enough conspiracy theory for one day. Gone to do somethine useful.
Jan Panteltje
Mar 14, 2015, 3:53:02 PM3/14/15
to
On a sunny day (Sat, 14 Mar 2015 10:43:39 -0700) it happened Jeff Liebermann
<je...@cruzio.com> wrote in <4vo8gahggv0lu29cr...@4ax.com>:
>recorder with cross field heads. I'm not certain of the timing, but I
>think they were introduced in that late 1960's, a few years after the
>assassination.
I never had one, was popular with audiophiles I think, or at least marketed to that group.
Akai?
>The tape bias leak is important because the recording had to be
>transferred from the original Dictaphone plastic belt to reproducible
>media, which in its day, was 1/4" reel to reel tape. It would be
>amusing to obtain one of these early recordings and see how many bias
>leaks could be found, possibly indicating how many times the audio was
>re-recorded. From this web page, it's been through many hands:
><http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/scally.htm>
><http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Essay_-_Acoustics_Overview_and_History>
>(3 pages). My guess(tm) is that it would take several days of DSP
>"sweeps" across the frequencies of interest to extract coherent bias
>signals and probably prove nothing more than inept handling of
>evidence.
>
>I skimmed through a few of these recordings and suspect this one might
>be good:
><https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0geaCsFFTz8>
>Not much to be seen on the compressed audio using Spectrum Lab
>software. I did find some noise compression, which makes me suspect
>that it may have been "enhanced" for clarity. I found another
>recording claiming to be the original, which sounded far worse.
Not sure about the timing, now we are in 1978 or so,
but companding-expanding was used by some on international satellite telephone links
that used FM modulation.
>The commentary mumbles something about crosstalk between Ch1 and Ch2
>in the recorder. This is the AT2C recorder used:
><http://i.ytimg.com/vi/0geaCsFFTz8/hqdefault.jpg>
>When one 15 min belt becomes full, it switches to the other recorder
>so that the first belt on the first recorder can be changed without
>losing anything. Therefore, the alleged Ch2 -> Ch 1 crosstalk did not
>happen in the recorder. The alleged crosstalk probably came from the
>dispatch console, which likely had separate speakers for each channel,
>which would partially retransmit anything heard on Ch2 onto the Ch1
>recording.
There is also tape <dunno the English word> press through?
that creates a copy of the signal on the same reel where the turns overlap:
(0)<--
at the arrow the signal on the outer tape on the reel magnetizes the tape below that on the reel,
the presence or absence could reveal something.
>Enough conspiracy theory for one day. Gone to do somethine useful.
Yea, I am not going to listen to all that stuff, I remember Kennedy for wanting the moon,
and it got done, his speeches gave me the creeps though.
I used to stay up to listen to Reagan...
That old recorder with DC bias I had, had a permanent magnet erase head :-)
Did not even have a capstan, just drove the reels with a DC motor, variable tape speed,
sort of a dictation machine, cheap though :-)
<je...@cruzio.com> wrote in <4vo8gahggv0lu29cr...@4ax.com>:
>recorder with cross field heads. I'm not certain of the timing, but I
>think they were introduced in that late 1960's, a few years after the
>assassination.
Akai?
>The tape bias leak is important because the recording had to be
>transferred from the original Dictaphone plastic belt to reproducible
>media, which in its day, was 1/4" reel to reel tape. It would be
>amusing to obtain one of these early recordings and see how many bias
>leaks could be found, possibly indicating how many times the audio was
>re-recorded. From this web page, it's been through many hands:
><http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/scally.htm>
><http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Essay_-_Acoustics_Overview_and_History>
>(3 pages). My guess(tm) is that it would take several days of DSP
>"sweeps" across the frequencies of interest to extract coherent bias
>signals and probably prove nothing more than inept handling of
>evidence.
>
>I skimmed through a few of these recordings and suspect this one might
>be good:
><https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0geaCsFFTz8>
>Not much to be seen on the compressed audio using Spectrum Lab
>software. I did find some noise compression, which makes me suspect
>that it may have been "enhanced" for clarity. I found another
>recording claiming to be the original, which sounded far worse.
but companding-expanding was used by some on international satellite telephone links
that used FM modulation.
>The commentary mumbles something about crosstalk between Ch1 and Ch2
>in the recorder. This is the AT2C recorder used:
><http://i.ytimg.com/vi/0geaCsFFTz8/hqdefault.jpg>
>When one 15 min belt becomes full, it switches to the other recorder
>so that the first belt on the first recorder can be changed without
>losing anything. Therefore, the alleged Ch2 -> Ch 1 crosstalk did not
>happen in the recorder. The alleged crosstalk probably came from the
>dispatch console, which likely had separate speakers for each channel,
>which would partially retransmit anything heard on Ch2 onto the Ch1
>recording.
that creates a copy of the signal on the same reel where the turns overlap:
(0)<--
at the arrow the signal on the outer tape on the reel magnetizes the tape below that on the reel,
the presence or absence could reveal something.
>Enough conspiracy theory for one day. Gone to do somethine useful.
and it got done, his speeches gave me the creeps though.
I used to stay up to listen to Reagan...
That old recorder with DC bias I had, had a permanent magnet erase head :-)
Did not even have a capstan, just drove the reels with a DC motor, variable tape speed,
sort of a dictation machine, cheap though :-)
Jeff Liebermann
Mar 14, 2015, 4:31:36 PM3/14/15
to
On Sat, 14 Mar 2015 19:53:01 GMT, Jan Panteltje <pant...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>On a sunny day (Sat, 14 Mar 2015 10:43:39 -0700) it happened Jeff Liebermann
><je...@cruzio.com> wrote in <4vo8gahggv0lu29cr...@4ax.com>:
>
>>recorder with cross field heads. I'm not certain of the timing, but I
>>think they were introduced in that late 1960's, a few years after the
>>assassination.
>
>I never had one, was popular with audiophiles I think, or at least marketed to that group.
>Akai?
Yes. Akai is the parent company of Roberts. As I recall, Roberts was
their trademark in the US only. Tensai and Transonic were the
European names.
>There is also tape <dunno the English word> press through?
"Print through"
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Print-through>
>that creates a copy of the signal on the same reel where the turns overlap:
> (0)<--
>at the arrow the signal on the outer tape on the reel magnetizes the tape below that on the reel,
>the presence or absence could reveal something.
Unlikely. Print through only happens on adjacent layers of tape,
requires some time to happen, and is really a problem only with thin
0.5 mil tapes. That math also doesn't work. At 3.75 inches/sec on a
7" dia reel, the longest distance and delay would be on a
circumference of:
3.14 * 7" = 21 inches
for a timing delay of:
21 inches / 3.75 inches/sec = 5.6 seconds
The delay would be much less towards the center of the reel. At 7.5
ips, the delay would be half. The Dictaphone recording "hold
everything secure" delay was something like a full minute after the
assassination, so print through is probably not a suitable
explanation.
wrote:
>On a sunny day (Sat, 14 Mar 2015 10:43:39 -0700) it happened Jeff Liebermann
><je...@cruzio.com> wrote in <4vo8gahggv0lu29cr...@4ax.com>:
>
>>recorder with cross field heads. I'm not certain of the timing, but I
>>think they were introduced in that late 1960's, a few years after the
>>assassination.
>
>I never had one, was popular with audiophiles I think, or at least marketed to that group.
>Akai?
their trademark in the US only. Tensai and Transonic were the
European names.
>There is also tape <dunno the English word> press through?
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Print-through>
>that creates a copy of the signal on the same reel where the turns overlap:
> (0)<--
>at the arrow the signal on the outer tape on the reel magnetizes the tape below that on the reel,
>the presence or absence could reveal something.
requires some time to happen, and is really a problem only with thin
0.5 mil tapes. That math also doesn't work. At 3.75 inches/sec on a
7" dia reel, the longest distance and delay would be on a
circumference of:
3.14 * 7" = 21 inches
for a timing delay of:
21 inches / 3.75 inches/sec = 5.6 seconds
The delay would be much less towards the center of the reel. At 7.5
ips, the delay would be half. The Dictaphone recording "hold
everything secure" delay was something like a full minute after the
assassination, so print through is probably not a suitable
explanation.
k...@zzz.com
Mar 14, 2015, 9:49:58 PM3/14/15
to
On Sat, 14 Mar 2015 19:53:01 GMT, Jan Panteltje <pant...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>On a sunny day (Sat, 14 Mar 2015 10:43:39 -0700) it happened Jeff Liebermann
><je...@cruzio.com> wrote in <4vo8gahggv0lu29cr...@4ax.com>:
>
>>recorder with cross field heads. I'm not certain of the timing, but I
>>think they were introduced in that late 1960's, a few years after the
>>assassination.
>
>I never had one, was popular with audiophiles I think, or at least marketed to that group.
>Akai?
I had an Akai reel to reel from the late '60s, that I bought used in
'71 or so from a friend who brought it back from Japan. It was a
decent deck but it couldn't be considered "audiophile" class. It had
the cross-field heads.
<...>
wrote:
>On a sunny day (Sat, 14 Mar 2015 10:43:39 -0700) it happened Jeff Liebermann
><je...@cruzio.com> wrote in <4vo8gahggv0lu29cr...@4ax.com>:
>
>>recorder with cross field heads. I'm not certain of the timing, but I
>>think they were introduced in that late 1960's, a few years after the
>>assassination.
>
>I never had one, was popular with audiophiles I think, or at least marketed to that group.
>Akai?
'71 or so from a friend who brought it back from Japan. It was a
decent deck but it couldn't be considered "audiophile" class. It had
the cross-field heads.
<...>
Michael A. Terrell
Mar 15, 2015, 5:27:55 AM3/15/15
to
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>
> Yes. Akai is the parent company of Roberts. As I recall, Roberts was
> their trademark in the US only. Tensai and Transonic were the
> European names.
machines. They had an exclusive contract with them, and they were
private branded for them. The head of the company saw them on a buying
trip to Japan, and liked what he saw.
--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.
Bob Masta
Mar 15, 2015, 8:51:17 AM3/15/15
to
On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 14:52:23 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
<je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 17:01:15 -0500, Ramon F Herrera
><ra...@patriot.net> wrote:
>
>>In one of the audio clips, I removed some of the background noise, most
>>likely caused by Fonzi's tape recorder.
>
>Bad idea. Every time you process and re-record that audio, you both
>introduce and lose important artifacts. For example, by chopping off
>the high end noise, you lose the tape recorders 100 or 150 KHz bias
>signal and its low level mixing products from the recording. The bias
>leakage is one of the easy ways I can tell if the recording was really
>made on a tape recorder, or if it was digitally faked on a PC. Also,
>if I see more than one tape bias carrier, I know that it was
>re-recorded on two different machines, which implies that it has been
>edited or tweaked.
>
>For the S.E.D. readers, the 100 KHz bias leak usually shows up at
>around -60dB below maximum audio level, which is difficult to see
>under the tape hiss. The better tape machines use 150 KHz, which is
>almost impossible to see. Both can be found with filters if the exact
>frequency is known. Fortunately, junk tape recorders leak much worse,
>and are easier to see.
Interesting stuff!
<je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 17:01:15 -0500, Ramon F Herrera
><ra...@patriot.net> wrote:
>
>>In one of the audio clips, I removed some of the background noise, most
>>likely caused by Fonzi's tape recorder.
>
>Bad idea. Every time you process and re-record that audio, you both
>introduce and lose important artifacts. For example, by chopping off
>the high end noise, you lose the tape recorders 100 or 150 KHz bias
>signal and its low level mixing products from the recording. The bias
>leakage is one of the easy ways I can tell if the recording was really
>made on a tape recorder, or if it was digitally faked on a PC. Also,
>if I see more than one tape bias carrier, I know that it was
>re-recorded on two different machines, which implies that it has been
>edited or tweaked.
>
>For the S.E.D. readers, the 100 KHz bias leak usually shows up at
>around -60dB below maximum audio level, which is difficult to see
>under the tape hiss. The better tape machines use 150 KHz, which is
>almost impossible to see. Both can be found with filters if the exact
>frequency is known. Fortunately, junk tape recorders leak much worse,
>and are easier to see.
I assume that the digitized versions of these recordings
(which is what I assume everyone is talking about analyzing
here) were done at sample rates well below the 200-300 kHz
needed to capture the bias signal directly. Then you'd be
looking for the alias of the bias signal, at some lower
in-band frequency... true?
So if the bias is normally -60 dB on the tape itself, how
much of it gets through the anti-alias filter when
converting to digital? Or do they digitize with special
setups that use *no* (or minimal) anti-aliasing specifically
to allow these sorts of analyses?
Best regards,
Bob Masta
DAQARTA v7.60
Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
www.daqarta.com
Scope, Spectrum, Spectrogram, Sound Level Meter
Frequency Counter, Pitch Track, Pitch-to-MIDI
FREE Signal Generator, DaqMusiq generator
Science with your sound card!
Jeff Liebermann
Mar 15, 2015, 2:04:04 PM3/15/15
to
On Sun, 15 Mar 2015 13:54:03 GMT, N0S...@daqarta.com (Bob Masta)
wrote:
Yes, that's one method that barely works. The 2nd harmonic of the
common 44 KHz audio sampling frequency would bring the bias signal
into the audible region at 12 KHz. 48 KHz would be better with a 4
KHz mix. The problem is that the sampling frequency is usually quite
symmetrical, and therefore lacks sufficient 2nd harmonic energy to do
much mixing. 4 and 12 KHz are also in the audio region, making it
difficult to see under that recorded audio. Originating from a
computah clock, which might be dithered (spread spectrum clock) to
reduce emissions, the result is a wide, dirty, low level, and useless
mix. The 3rd harmonic of 44 KHz would be at a higher level, but it
mixes to 32 KHz, which might be better, but is out of the range of my
equipment. Might be worth a try.
In the distant past, I've detected the tape bias signal by slowing
down the original 7 ips tape to 15/16 ips. That kills most of the
audio, and shifts the 100 KHz bias signal down to 12.5 Khz, which can
be detected. Lots of problems with this method and more than a few
tricks involved, but it can be made to work. The big problem is that
it has to be done with the original tape, which is often unavailable.
Much better is a ferrite tape head that offers expanded frequency
response, typically to 1 Mhz. These are now commonly available but
were previously rather specialized devices. They're used in systems
that phase(?) lock onto the bias signal to provide an AFC (automagic
frequency control) to eliminate flutter and wow from the tape:
<http://www.nab.org/xert/scitech/2012/radioTechCheck/RD020612.asp>
<http://www.plangentprocesses.com> (See links at bottom of page)
>So if the bias is normally -60 dB on the tape itself, how
>much of it gets through the anti-alias filter when
>converting to digital?
I don't have any examples available, so I'm guessing from memory. I
would guess(tm) a 16 bit digitized bias level would be about -100 dB
below the peak audio level. That's fairly horrid when the audio band
noise floor is probably about -60dB. Trying to extract a signal 40 dB
into the noise is not my idea of fun. Yet, given time, it can be
done. Plenty of articles on detecting signals below the noise floor:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=detecting+signals+below+noise+floor>
The easiest is a sliding narrow band filter, that slowly and
repeatedly scans across the 100 KHz area of interest, collecting
signal level data and bin counting. I built one of these which
produced its output on an x-y plotter. It was a crude autocorrelator,
that looked for coherent signals. After about 1,000 passes, I could
see a bump at the expected frequency, if the pen didn't rip the paper:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocorrelation>
It was also mechanically sensitive enough that I could see doors
closing and changes in air pressure on the plot. The catch is that it
could easily take a day or two to see anything meaningful.
Today, there are certainly better methods of audio forensics. I'm
mostly familiar with older analog techniques and am somewhat lost in
todays digital DSP world. The stuff I do today is far less
sophisticated. Mostly it's signature analysis by looking at waterfall
plots, spectrograms, sonograms, etc of radio transmissions, looking
for residual tones and junk that can help identify the source. I've
used your program (Daqarta) for this, but prefer Spectrum Lab for
signal analysis.
The big problem with using a computah to look under the noise is that
the FFT requires a huge number of samples. For example, with a common
44 Khz sampling rate, in order to resolve 0.1 Hz (to reduce the
noise), I would need 880,000 data samples.
>Or do they digitize with special
>setups that use *no* (or minimal) anti-aliasing specifically
>to allow these sorts of analyses?
I don't believe there's a single established method for extracting
such signals. There are too many different types of recorders, media,
and encoding schemes for one solution to work well with all of them.
The wide band tape head is probably the most useful, but only with
original media.
I don't know of any arrangement that does not use some form of
anti-aliasing filtering to keep the audio and the bias signals from
mixing. The better recorders place their cutoff frequencies quite
high (about 50 KHz) to prevent group delay problems at the high end of
the audio spectrum. Some people claim that they can hear phase
shifts, so preserving the original waveforms has become a requirement.
wrote:
common 44 KHz audio sampling frequency would bring the bias signal
into the audible region at 12 KHz. 48 KHz would be better with a 4
KHz mix. The problem is that the sampling frequency is usually quite
symmetrical, and therefore lacks sufficient 2nd harmonic energy to do
much mixing. 4 and 12 KHz are also in the audio region, making it
difficult to see under that recorded audio. Originating from a
computah clock, which might be dithered (spread spectrum clock) to
reduce emissions, the result is a wide, dirty, low level, and useless
mix. The 3rd harmonic of 44 KHz would be at a higher level, but it
mixes to 32 KHz, which might be better, but is out of the range of my
equipment. Might be worth a try.
In the distant past, I've detected the tape bias signal by slowing
down the original 7 ips tape to 15/16 ips. That kills most of the
audio, and shifts the 100 KHz bias signal down to 12.5 Khz, which can
be detected. Lots of problems with this method and more than a few
tricks involved, but it can be made to work. The big problem is that
it has to be done with the original tape, which is often unavailable.
Much better is a ferrite tape head that offers expanded frequency
response, typically to 1 Mhz. These are now commonly available but
were previously rather specialized devices. They're used in systems
that phase(?) lock onto the bias signal to provide an AFC (automagic
frequency control) to eliminate flutter and wow from the tape:
<http://www.nab.org/xert/scitech/2012/radioTechCheck/RD020612.asp>
<http://www.plangentprocesses.com> (See links at bottom of page)
>So if the bias is normally -60 dB on the tape itself, how
>much of it gets through the anti-alias filter when
>converting to digital?
would guess(tm) a 16 bit digitized bias level would be about -100 dB
below the peak audio level. That's fairly horrid when the audio band
noise floor is probably about -60dB. Trying to extract a signal 40 dB
into the noise is not my idea of fun. Yet, given time, it can be
done. Plenty of articles on detecting signals below the noise floor:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=detecting+signals+below+noise+floor>
The easiest is a sliding narrow band filter, that slowly and
repeatedly scans across the 100 KHz area of interest, collecting
signal level data and bin counting. I built one of these which
produced its output on an x-y plotter. It was a crude autocorrelator,
that looked for coherent signals. After about 1,000 passes, I could
see a bump at the expected frequency, if the pen didn't rip the paper:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocorrelation>
It was also mechanically sensitive enough that I could see doors
closing and changes in air pressure on the plot. The catch is that it
could easily take a day or two to see anything meaningful.
Today, there are certainly better methods of audio forensics. I'm
mostly familiar with older analog techniques and am somewhat lost in
todays digital DSP world. The stuff I do today is far less
sophisticated. Mostly it's signature analysis by looking at waterfall
plots, spectrograms, sonograms, etc of radio transmissions, looking
for residual tones and junk that can help identify the source. I've
used your program (Daqarta) for this, but prefer Spectrum Lab for
signal analysis.
The big problem with using a computah to look under the noise is that
the FFT requires a huge number of samples. For example, with a common
44 Khz sampling rate, in order to resolve 0.1 Hz (to reduce the
noise), I would need 880,000 data samples.
>Or do they digitize with special
>setups that use *no* (or minimal) anti-aliasing specifically
>to allow these sorts of analyses?
such signals. There are too many different types of recorders, media,
and encoding schemes for one solution to work well with all of them.
The wide band tape head is probably the most useful, but only with
original media.
I don't know of any arrangement that does not use some form of
anti-aliasing filtering to keep the audio and the bias signals from
mixing. The better recorders place their cutoff frequencies quite
high (about 50 KHz) to prevent group delay problems at the high end of
the audio spectrum. Some people claim that they can hear phase
shifts, so preserving the original waveforms has become a requirement.
Brian Gregory
Mar 17, 2015, 1:29:49 PM3/17/15
to
On 13/03/2015 21:52, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 17:01:15 -0500, Ramon F Herrera
> <ra...@patriot.net> wrote:
>
>> In one of the audio clips, I removed some of the background noise, most
>> likely caused by Fonzi's tape recorder.
>
> Bad idea. Every time you process and re-record that audio, you both
> introduce and lose important artifacts. For example, by chopping off
> the high end noise, you lose the tape recorders 100 or 150 KHz bias
> signal and its low level mixing products from the recording. The bias
> leakage is one of the easy ways I can tell if the recording was really
> made on a tape recorder, or if it was digitally faked on a PC. Also,
> if I see more than one tape bias carrier, I know that it was
> re-recorded on two different machines, which implies that it has been
> edited or tweaked.
>
> For the S.E.D. readers, the 100 KHz bias leak usually shows up at
> around -60dB below maximum audio level, which is difficult to see
> under the tape hiss. The better tape machines use 150 KHz, which is
> almost impossible to see. Both can be found with filters if the exact
> frequency is known. Fortunately, junk tape recorders leak much worse,
> and are easier to see.
>
How exactly would you be expecting to get the output from a tape player
> On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 17:01:15 -0500, Ramon F Herrera
> <ra...@patriot.net> wrote:
>
>> In one of the audio clips, I removed some of the background noise, most
>> likely caused by Fonzi's tape recorder.
>
> Bad idea. Every time you process and re-record that audio, you both
> introduce and lose important artifacts. For example, by chopping off
> the high end noise, you lose the tape recorders 100 or 150 KHz bias
> signal and its low level mixing products from the recording. The bias
> leakage is one of the easy ways I can tell if the recording was really
> made on a tape recorder, or if it was digitally faked on a PC. Also,
> if I see more than one tape bias carrier, I know that it was
> re-recorded on two different machines, which implies that it has been
> edited or tweaked.
>
> For the S.E.D. readers, the 100 KHz bias leak usually shows up at
> around -60dB below maximum audio level, which is difficult to see
> under the tape hiss. The better tape machines use 150 KHz, which is
> almost impossible to see. Both can be found with filters if the exact
> frequency is known. Fortunately, junk tape recorders leak much worse,
> and are easier to see.
>
to analyse for 100kHz signals?
If the player isn't right there in front of you playing the tape nothing
is likely to have a frequency response up anywhere near as far as that.
--
Brian Gregory (in the UK).
To email me please remove all the letter vee from my email address.
Ramon F Herrera
Mar 17, 2015, 10:05:14 PM3/17/15
to
On 3/15/2015 8:54 AM, Bob Masta wrote:
> Interesting stuff!
>
Tell me about it! I am so freakin' envious (in THE most positive sense!)
of you guys. I have a degree in EE, but one of my frustrations in life
is that I seldom/never get to use it. Imagine the coolest car, locked in
a garage, with 0 miles/km. in the odometer. :-(
I do get to use my other car... err, engineering degree (CS), a lot though.
> I assume that the digitized versions of these recordings
> (which is what I assume everyone is talking about analyzing
> here) were done at sample rates well below the 200-300 kHz
> needed to capture the bias signal directly. Then you'd be
> looking for the alias of the bias signal, at some lower
> in-band frequency... true?
>
> So if the bias is normally -60 dB on the tape itself, how
> much of it gets through the anti-alias filter when
> converting to digital? Or do they digitize with special
> setups that use *no* (or minimal) anti-aliasing specifically
> to allow these sorts of analyses?
>
Bob:
I can fill some of the blanks. Marie Fonzi is the widow of Gaeton Fonzi,
the guy who was friend of Bill O'Reilly. He helped Bill a lot when he
was a nobody. Gaeton was an investigator (it pisses me off when people
say that he was a reporter, or writing a book -- He was doing the
business of *We The People*, since the House is even more of that than
the Senate) who recorded all his job-related calls.
But I digress. The familiarity of Marie with technology is nothing short
of tragic. It is a tragedy. (Pardon my hot-blooded hyperbole). She can
post in forums, and e-mail, though. She told me that she was worried
that after all these years of playing them (for book authors,
investigators, etc.), the tapes may break, and some actually have. At
this point, I was pulling the few hairs I have left.
[Ramon to Marie:] "You don't have to play the tapes anymore!! About 20
years ago, the technology to digitize audio and put it in a computer
reached the masses."
[Question for the gurus: Am I correct?, can the maximum settings, WAV
file capture *everything* in a cassette tape?]
She e-mailed me: "Ramon, the CNN cameraman is here, he is asking what
kind of copy you want".
[Ramon:] "Just tell him to make a copy at the highest quality possible.
He will know what I mean."
The cameraman spent 3 hours, in 2 phases: first, he plugged a cable
between her cassette player and his huge, tripod-mounted camera. Next,
he repeated the exercise through the air, into a "huge microphone" (her
words).
When she said: "I gave him 2 [virgin] DVDs, they are going to make 2
copies in CNN-Miami, one for me, the other for you" my cynical reaction
was "Boy! They are really in dire financial straits!! Fox is beating the
crap of CNN! They can't even afford a couple of optical disks!!". Then I
realized that all she wanted was to put a little pressure on the guy:
"You are not going to steal disks from a poor window, are you'?"
Back to techie-land: Let's say this was needed to save the earth: Would
you analyze the info in the tapes or in the optical disk? I am betting
that at the highest sample rate, you get everything, correct?
-Ramon
> Interesting stuff!
>
Tell me about it! I am so freakin' envious (in THE most positive sense!)
of you guys. I have a degree in EE, but one of my frustrations in life
is that I seldom/never get to use it. Imagine the coolest car, locked in
a garage, with 0 miles/km. in the odometer. :-(
I do get to use my other car... err, engineering degree (CS), a lot though.
> I assume that the digitized versions of these recordings
> (which is what I assume everyone is talking about analyzing
> here) were done at sample rates well below the 200-300 kHz
> needed to capture the bias signal directly. Then you'd be
> looking for the alias of the bias signal, at some lower
> in-band frequency... true?
>
> So if the bias is normally -60 dB on the tape itself, how
> much of it gets through the anti-alias filter when
> converting to digital? Or do they digitize with special
> setups that use *no* (or minimal) anti-aliasing specifically
> to allow these sorts of analyses?
>
I can fill some of the blanks. Marie Fonzi is the widow of Gaeton Fonzi,
the guy who was friend of Bill O'Reilly. He helped Bill a lot when he
was a nobody. Gaeton was an investigator (it pisses me off when people
say that he was a reporter, or writing a book -- He was doing the
business of *We The People*, since the House is even more of that than
the Senate) who recorded all his job-related calls.
But I digress. The familiarity of Marie with technology is nothing short
of tragic. It is a tragedy. (Pardon my hot-blooded hyperbole). She can
post in forums, and e-mail, though. She told me that she was worried
that after all these years of playing them (for book authors,
investigators, etc.), the tapes may break, and some actually have. At
this point, I was pulling the few hairs I have left.
[Ramon to Marie:] "You don't have to play the tapes anymore!! About 20
years ago, the technology to digitize audio and put it in a computer
reached the masses."
[Question for the gurus: Am I correct?, can the maximum settings, WAV
file capture *everything* in a cassette tape?]
She e-mailed me: "Ramon, the CNN cameraman is here, he is asking what
kind of copy you want".
[Ramon:] "Just tell him to make a copy at the highest quality possible.
He will know what I mean."
The cameraman spent 3 hours, in 2 phases: first, he plugged a cable
between her cassette player and his huge, tripod-mounted camera. Next,
he repeated the exercise through the air, into a "huge microphone" (her
words).
When she said: "I gave him 2 [virgin] DVDs, they are going to make 2
copies in CNN-Miami, one for me, the other for you" my cynical reaction
was "Boy! They are really in dire financial straits!! Fox is beating the
crap of CNN! They can't even afford a couple of optical disks!!". Then I
realized that all she wanted was to put a little pressure on the guy:
"You are not going to steal disks from a poor window, are you'?"
Back to techie-land: Let's say this was needed to save the earth: Would
you analyze the info in the tapes or in the optical disk? I am betting
that at the highest sample rate, you get everything, correct?
-Ramon
Ramon F Herrera
Mar 17, 2015, 10:24:07 PM3/17/15
to
On 3/17/2015 12:29 PM, Brian Gregory wrote:
> How exactly would you be expecting to get the output from a tape player
> to analyse for 100kHz signals?
>
> If the player isn't right there in front of you playing the tape nothing
> is likely to have a frequency response up anywhere near as far as that.
>
Brian: That was my concern (minus the specific numeric frequency, of
> How exactly would you be expecting to get the output from a tape player
> to analyse for 100kHz signals?
>
> If the player isn't right there in front of you playing the tape nothing
> is likely to have a frequency response up anywhere near as far as that.
>
which I am clueless) as well.
See below Jeff's post. Maybe the residuals that he mentions contain some
of the info that I need?
Regards,
-Ramon
===============================
Yes, but I'm not going to get involved in a conspiracy theory
resurrection.
In the 1970's all long lines telephony was analog. There were channel
bank filters and mixers that upconverted base band audio to higher
frequencies for transmission, and back down at the destination. Also
known as FDM (frequency division multiplex:
<http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Communication_Systems/Frequency-Division_Multiplexing#Analog_Carrier_Systems>
The conversion process is not perfect and it is possible to see mixes
and intermodulation products of the carrier and local oscillator
frequencies of this up/down conversion process on the resultant
audio[1]. There was also about a 1 to 5 Hertz Bode frequency shift
introduced to prevent feedback and oscillation. You can't hear the
bank filters and mixers that upconverted base band audio to higher
frequencies for transmission, and back down at the destination. Also
known as FDM (frequency division multiplex:
<http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Communication_Systems/Frequency-Division_Multiplexing#Analog_Carrier_Systems>
The conversion process is not perfect and it is possible to see mixes
and intermodulation products of the carrier and local oscillator
frequencies of this up/down conversion process on the resultant
audio[1]. There was also about a 1 to 5 Hertz Bode frequency shift
beatnotes and frequency shift, but you can see them with PC based
spectrum analysis. I suggest:
<http://audacity.sourceforge.net>
spectrum analysis. I suggest:
<http://audacity.sourceforge.net>
Les Cargill
Mar 17, 2015, 10:31:51 PM3/17/15
to
Ramon F Herrera wrote:
> On 3/15/2015 8:54 AM, Bob Masta wrote:
<snip>
> On 3/15/2015 8:54 AM, Bob Masta wrote:
>
> [Question for the gurus: Am I correct?, can the maximum settings, WAV
> file capture *everything* in a cassette tape?]
>
Even at 16 bit 44.1 kHz sampling ( which is pretty mild these days )
> [Question for the gurus: Am I correct?, can the maximum settings, WAV
> file capture *everything* in a cassette tape?]
>
it'll be fine. -96dB digital noise floor, 20-21KHz bandwidth.
<snip>
>
> -Ramon
>
>
--
Les Cargill
Jeff Liebermann
Mar 17, 2015, 11:45:09 PM3/17/15
to
On Tue, 17 Mar 2015 21:05:08 -0500, Ramon F Herrera
<ra...@conexus.net> wrote:
>[Question for the gurus: Am I correct?, can the maximum settings, WAV
>file capture *everything* in a cassette tape?]
For the audio that you can hear, a WAV file, which is uncompressed,
<ra...@conexus.net> wrote:
>[Question for the gurus: Am I correct?, can the maximum settings, WAV
>file capture *everything* in a cassette tape?]
will catch everything that you could hear on the tape in the range of
what a human can hear over maybe a dynamic range of maybe 60dB (my
guess). The 20-20KHz frequency range is somewhat of a crap shoot as
the upper end is often -10 to -30 dB down and the response curve is
anything but flat. The typical 44 or 48 KHz WAV file digitization is
far better than the cassette tape. Just make sure the recording is
not clipping on peaks, compressed in any way (no MP3), not noise
reduced (Dolby), and not "enhanced" by the WAV recording software.
While these may make the audible part of the recording easier on the
ears, it also causes low level artifacts to disappear forever. Such
"enhancements" can always be done on the WAV file later. I'm not sure
if a FLAC file is appropriate.
>Back to techie-land: Let's say this was needed to save the earth: Would
>you analyze the info in the tapes or in the optical disk?
information is going to be part of some media circus, of which I want
no part.
>I am betting
>that at the highest sample rate, you get everything, correct?
Digitizing much over the Shannon limit (2*20KHz = 40 KHz) isn't going
to magically deliver sounds on the tape that were over about 20 KHz.
However, what a higher frequency will do is prevent the 40 KHz
digitization rate from creating aliasing frequencies that will appear
below 20 KHz and mangle the digitized copy. 96 KHz 24 bit and 192 KHz
24 bit digitizers are cheap and common. Use one.
<http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=192+khz+sound+card>
The problem for this recording is NOT the electronic copy, which is
potentially of far better quality than the original cassette tape. The
problem is that the cassette tape is by its very nature a piece of
disgusting technology that should have died before it was inflicted on
the general public. It would be difficult to design something of
lesser quality. Even 8 track was better. When you digitize the audio
(hopefully not using a microphone like the CNN reporter), it will
probably not be worse than the original cassette, but also not any
better. In other words a close to perfect reproduction.
The next step would probably be to "clean up" or "enhance" the
digitized WAV file recording. Over simplified, you can emphasize any
part of the recording, at the expense of other parts of the recording,
in either the frequency domain, time domain, or amplitude range.
However, there's no free lunch. To make low level noises more
audible, you have to limit, clip, chop, compress, or otherwise reduce
the high level sounds. To bring out sounds with a limited frequency
range, you have to reduce the level of other sounds outside this
range. To bring up the level of gunshots and echos, you'll need to
reduce other loud noises. Anyway, welcome to forensic acoustic
analysis.
Ramon F Herrera
Mar 18, 2015, 8:43:15 AM3/18/15
to
On 3/17/2015 10:45 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> Conspiracy theories are not going to save the earth. More likely, the
> information is going to be part of some media circus, of which I want
> no part.
>
You are very uninformed, esteemed Jeff...
> Conspiracy theories are not going to save the earth. More likely, the
> information is going to be part of some media circus, of which I want
> no part.
>
How can a person with the most beautiful music in the whole web can be
so cranky!!???
(a) The media is not interested in the JFK case. See how they mention it
in a rush in all the videoclips, and that's OKAY!
Even if they were:
(b) This is *not* about Kennedy. See these two videos:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2015/03/05/msnbcs-rachel-maddow-highlights-falsehoods-of-fox-news-host-bill-oreilly/
[Fast forward to Minute 3:00]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4d-nR0d-O8
(c) It will end up in my poor man's "web site" since I cannot afford a
real one. It will not go further, rest assured. Geeky stuff is not news,
unless you land a probe in Mars. You are specially invited to take a
look at the *two* folders named "Learning Material", and any suggestion
of papers (specially readable by those of us without PhDs!) are welcome.
http://goo.gl/mREmd2
This is about the insult of Mr. O'Reilly to the work continuing done by
the likes of me [and those co-inventing the Internet with Al Gore (*)]
and all participants in the sci.electronics forums.
-Ramon
(*) Let the wisecracks begin.
Ramon F Herrera
Mar 18, 2015, 10:37:46 AM3/18/15
to
On 3/18/2015 7:49 AM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
> And what does it have to do with electronics design?
Excellent question!
Bear with me, Jan ... This is a multi-post answer.
Among some related stuff, I am *attempting* to broadcast the fact that
soon, the job of:
- People who perform Noise Reduction for a living
- People who perform Voice Identification for a living
- etc.
Will become as obsolete as slide rule operator or travel agencies. We
will do it ourselves with tools such as:
• Adobe Audition
• iZotope RX4
• Audacity
• Spectrum Lab (recommended by Jeff Liebermann, will try it soon)
It all started with my task of cleaning up the "Lancer" speech, and my
obsession with perfection (have to learn to downgrade my expectations).
See the material in my repository (can't afford a real web site!):
http://goo.gl/mREmd2
by Paris Smaragdis, under the folder "Learning Material".
[For those unfamiliar with Google Drive, you should click ONCE]
[There are TWO "Learning Material" folders - One, dedicated to Speaker
Recognition, obviously inside the "O'Reilly" folder]
After following many dead leads, in my search for "The Perfect Audio
Application" (or algorithm) I kept on finding a name: Paris. I chased
all his paper co-authors from Japan, to Sweden to Illinois. I tried the
Adobe Audition forums as well.
https://forums.adobe.com/message/7108157#7108157
Finally, the guy replied. I was as thrilled as when I saw the first
Liebermann post here!! What a gentleman! He *apologized* for taking so long.
Real Geniuses tend to be humble... [oh, well some are]
See my thread "What will be the status of Adobe Audition... in the year
2017?" in rec.audio.pro.
Paris told me that it will take about two years for Adobe development to
bring his creation to the marketplace.
Well, I said:
"All I need is one of those long-term animated suspension machines, used
in sci-fi space travel. Just wake me up when:
- The historic version of Adobe Audition will be out.
- On Thursday, October 26th, 2017 the remaining JFK documents will be
released.
-Ramon
> And what does it have to do with electronics design?
Excellent question!
Bear with me, Jan ... This is a multi-post answer.
Among some related stuff, I am *attempting* to broadcast the fact that
soon, the job of:
- People who perform Noise Reduction for a living
- People who perform Voice Identification for a living
- etc.
Will become as obsolete as slide rule operator or travel agencies. We
will do it ourselves with tools such as:
• Adobe Audition
• iZotope RX4
• Audacity
• Spectrum Lab (recommended by Jeff Liebermann, will try it soon)
It all started with my task of cleaning up the "Lancer" speech, and my
obsession with perfection (have to learn to downgrade my expectations).
See the material in my repository (can't afford a real web site!):
http://goo.gl/mREmd2
by Paris Smaragdis, under the folder "Learning Material".
[For those unfamiliar with Google Drive, you should click ONCE]
[There are TWO "Learning Material" folders - One, dedicated to Speaker
Recognition, obviously inside the "O'Reilly" folder]
After following many dead leads, in my search for "The Perfect Audio
Application" (or algorithm) I kept on finding a name: Paris. I chased
all his paper co-authors from Japan, to Sweden to Illinois. I tried the
Adobe Audition forums as well.
https://forums.adobe.com/message/7108157#7108157
Finally, the guy replied. I was as thrilled as when I saw the first
Liebermann post here!! What a gentleman! He *apologized* for taking so long.
Real Geniuses tend to be humble... [oh, well some are]
See my thread "What will be the status of Adobe Audition... in the year
2017?" in rec.audio.pro.
Paris told me that it will take about two years for Adobe development to
bring his creation to the marketplace.
Well, I said:
"All I need is one of those long-term animated suspension machines, used
in sci-fi space travel. Just wake me up when:
- The historic version of Adobe Audition will be out.
- On Thursday, October 26th, 2017 the remaining JFK documents will be
released.
-Ramon
Ramon F Herrera
Mar 18, 2015, 10:55:21 AM3/18/15
to
On 3/18/2015 7:49 AM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
> And what does it have to do with electronics design?
This is part of the answer.
> And what does it have to do with electronics design?
Back in my MIT days (*), there was a popular joke.
In a building in Mass Av (located between Harvard and MIT) there was a
building elevator with 7 people inside. It had a sign that read:
"CAPACITY: 8 people".
A couple of guys walked in. Somebody wise fellow from the inside told them:
"Either you two are from Harvard, and therefore don't know how to add...
... or you are from MIT, and therefore don't know how to read!!"
-Ramon
(*) I have never claimed that I *went* to MIT. I had to choose: academic
work or some newfangled gizmo called The Internet. Guess which one I chose.
Jeff Liebermann
Mar 18, 2015, 1:19:30 PM3/18/15
to
On Wed, 18 Mar 2015 07:43:08 -0500, Ramon F Herrera
<ra...@conexus.net> wrote:
>On 3/17/2015 10:45 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> Conspiracy theories are not going to save the earth. More likely, the
>> information is going to be part of some media circus, of which I want
>> no part.
>You are very uninformed, esteemed Jeff...
Hardly. I have Google to find all my answers. What more could I
<ra...@conexus.net> wrote:
>On 3/17/2015 10:45 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> Conspiracy theories are not going to save the earth. More likely, the
>> information is going to be part of some media circus, of which I want
>> no part.
>You are very uninformed, esteemed Jeff...
want?
>How can a person with the most beautiful music in the whole web can be
>so cranky!!???
be a classic curmudgeon.
>(b) This is *not* about Kennedy.
>See these two videos:
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2015/03/05/msnbcs-rachel-maddow-highlights-falsehoods-of-fox-news-host-bill-oreilly/
Have you ever been quoted by the press? I have a few times. Every
time, what is printed is a total distortion of what I said or what
happened, usually to fit someones agenda. I suppose it might be
possible to report the news accurately, but it would bore the
audience, irritated the sponsors, and probably vilify the owners. What
people want is entertainment from literally everything they read,
watch, or do. If it's not fun, find something else. Much of
entertainment is fantasy. The only question for the press is how much
fantasy.
If you want examples, just watch any "action" movie and see how many
gross violations of basic physics you can see. Long ago, I went to a
movie theater only to find that it had been taken over the Naval
Postgraduate Skool to watch the 1972 version of the Poseidon
Adventure. The students were expected to catch and detail the
numerous distortions of hydraulics, maritime technology, buoyancy,
physics, etc. There were plenty. It might have been nice to correct
all those mistakes, but then, the movie would be terminally boring.
Todays news has more in common with movie style "creativity" than with
reality.
>(c) It will end up in my poor man's "web site" since I cannot afford a
>real one.
friends junk. I suspect you can afford that.
>It will not go further, rest assured. Geeky stuff is not news,
for the future or we may not have any engineers.
>You are specially invited to take a
>look at the *two* folders named "Learning Material", and any suggestion
>of papers (specially readable by those of us without PhDs!) are welcome.
>http://goo.gl/mREmd2
Sorry.
Also, this is nothing new. There is specialized software for removing
vocals from music to produce Karaoke CD's available. You can sorta do
it with Audacity:
<http://audacity.sourceforge.net/help/faq_i18n?s=editing&i=remove-vocals>
With a stereo recording, I can also filter by differential audio delay
to remove or enhance voices or instruments.
Ramon F Herrera
Mar 18, 2015, 2:29:10 PM3/18/15
to
On 3/18/2015 12:19 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> I pay 1and1.com about $10/month for hosting my junk and some of my
> friends junk. I suspect you can afford that.
Can 1and1.com even approach Google's bandwidth?
> I pay 1and1.com about $10/month for hosting my junk and some of my
> friends junk. I suspect you can afford that.
I need lots of disk space (WAV files sampled at max rates) and
bandwidth. Video, too. For example, I would like to have several
revisions of the "Lancer" videoclip, with monotonically increasing quality.
Why that? Why not? (*) I consider it a cool example, that broaches my 2
passions. The contents is cool, for us JFK buffs, anyway. It is not too
hard or too easy. With the current state of the art, it needs a lot of
*hand* work (careful visual erasure).
Have I said that I am obsessed with quality? A perfectionist?
Can they host all this?
http://goo.gl/mREmd2
I just got started filling it up.
-RFH
(*) "There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why...
I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?"
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/r/robertkenn121273.html
Ramon F Herrera
Mar 18, 2015, 2:48:39 PM3/18/15
to
On 3/18/2015 7:49 AM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
> To put it straight into your face,
> you are self-promoting *nothing*.
I couldn't agree more, Jan.
What could I possibly gain from this?
[Answering my rhetorical question]
"Hey, Ramon: you can put in your CV this skill:
- I can fire up a Usenet thread (*) quicker than a dog tail's shake"
Somehow, I have serious doubts that any potential client/employer will
be impressed.
-Ramon
(*) Never mind that some 20 people (tops!) are reading the thread, and
many will forget it in a few minutes.
Ramon F Herrera
Mar 18, 2015, 3:41:50 PM3/18/15
to
On 3/18/2015 11:38 AM, Ramon F Herrera wrote:
> The US government considers us a valid counterpart. In fact, JFK
> Facts in probably the only site/group that has permanent contacts with
> Uncle Sam. They keep us posted of upcoming developments.
See this announcement that the National Archives sent us.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04K5t--D4ro
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/national-archives-creates-a-team-to-review-jfk-records-for-2017-release/
This is history in the making, before our eyes, Jeff. As usual, the
media coverage was nil. The relationship between the media (MSM + Fox)
and the JFK case is complex. You need to make a lot of noise to get any
coverage.
Jeff (a former Washington Post reporter) denounced O'Reilly and the
Fonzi tapes 2 years ago in JFK Facts! He sent the stuff to the media.
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/reporters-tape-exposes-bill-oreillys-jfk-fib/
Result: He was ignored, not only by FAUX but by all media.
In reference to "the circus" (your words)...
We are not interested/complaining about the National Enquirer. They can
go in their merry way to Hades. We are pissed and disappointed at the
New York Times.
I am royally pissed at MSNBC.
-Ramon
> The US government considers us a valid counterpart. In fact, JFK
> Facts in probably the only site/group that has permanent contacts with
> Uncle Sam. They keep us posted of upcoming developments.
See this announcement that the National Archives sent us.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04K5t--D4ro
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/national-archives-creates-a-team-to-review-jfk-records-for-2017-release/
This is history in the making, before our eyes, Jeff. As usual, the
media coverage was nil. The relationship between the media (MSM + Fox)
and the JFK case is complex. You need to make a lot of noise to get any
coverage.
Jeff (a former Washington Post reporter) denounced O'Reilly and the
Fonzi tapes 2 years ago in JFK Facts! He sent the stuff to the media.
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/reporters-tape-exposes-bill-oreillys-jfk-fib/
Result: He was ignored, not only by FAUX but by all media.
In reference to "the circus" (your words)...
We are not interested/complaining about the National Enquirer. They can
go in their merry way to Hades. We are pissed and disappointed at the
New York Times.
I am royally pissed at MSNBC.
-Ramon
Jeff Liebermann
Mar 18, 2015, 4:55:26 PM3/18/15
to
On Wed, 18 Mar 2015 13:15:02 -0500, Ramon F Herrera
<ra...@patriot.net> wrote:
>On 3/18/2015 12:19 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> I pay 1and1.com about $10/month for hosting my junk and some of my
>> friends junk. I suspect you can afford that.
>
>Can 1and1.com even approach Google's bandwidth?
I don't know, don't have the numbers, don't know your requirements,
<ra...@patriot.net> wrote:
>On 3/18/2015 12:19 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> I pay 1and1.com about $10/month for hosting my junk and some of my
>> friends junk. I suspect you can afford that.
>
>Can 1and1.com even approach Google's bandwidth?
and don't have the time to research or guess. 1and1 does unlimited
bandwidth, same as some of the other providers. Google is probably
cheaper. I vaguely recall my storage limit is 2 GBytes per account:
<http://help.1and1.com/hosting-c37630/storage-products-c76537/1and1-online-storage-c85121/filefolder-limitations-of-1and1-online-team-storage-a755927.html>
<http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2009/09/03/11-goes-unlimited-with-hosting-bandwidth/>
I just checked my account and I'm half way there. Hmmm... looks like
two downloads of my entire site by someone in Korea. This could be
interesting.
What's that in Mega/Gigabytes?
>I just got started filling it up.
that applied to my disorganized sites.
>(*) "There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why...
>I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?"
>http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/r/robertkenn121273.html
they seem. My background is in repair, service, redesign and damage
control. Reverse engineering someone else's stupidity is all too
common. Nobody will pay me to create the next big thing. Instead, I
get to determine why things aren't working as someone had dreamt, and
occasionally fix the problems. I do have some dreams of things to
come, but they're not for public consumption.
Ramon F Herrera
Mar 19, 2015, 11:38:39 AM3/19/15
to
On 3/18/2015 4:03 PM, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
> what wrong with youtube? they do 1080p HD, upto 60 frames/sec
> and I think they just added 4K video
>
> -Lasse
>
Thanks, Lasse.
I am putting together a web site with plenty of features, based on this
material:
http://goo.gl/mREmd2
In addition to those multimedia files and "Play/Pause/Stop" control it
will have folders with "Learning Material" (audio-related papers), plus
spectrograms which users will analyze in order to determine if the
formants coincide (i.e. whether it is the voice of Bill O'Reilly).
Call it "The Revenge of the Techies Against the Pointy-Haired Boss"
BTW: Space-wise, 1and1.com is perfect. My only concern is download speed
of audio and videoclips. Will get an account there.
Regards,
-Ramon
============================================
Background info:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2015/03/05/msnbcs-rachel-maddow-highlights-falsehoods-of-fox-news-host-bill-oreilly/
[Fast Forward to minute 3:00]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4d-nR0d-O8
> what wrong with youtube? they do 1080p HD, upto 60 frames/sec
> and I think they just added 4K video
>
> -Lasse
>
Thanks, Lasse.
I am putting together a web site with plenty of features, based on this
material:
http://goo.gl/mREmd2
In addition to those multimedia files and "Play/Pause/Stop" control it
will have folders with "Learning Material" (audio-related papers), plus
spectrograms which users will analyze in order to determine if the
formants coincide (i.e. whether it is the voice of Bill O'Reilly).
Call it "The Revenge of the Techies Against the Pointy-Haired Boss"
BTW: Space-wise, 1and1.com is perfect. My only concern is download speed
of audio and videoclips. Will get an account there.
Regards,
-Ramon
============================================
Background info:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2015/03/05/msnbcs-rachel-maddow-highlights-falsehoods-of-fox-news-host-bill-oreilly/
[Fast Forward to minute 3:00]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4d-nR0d-O8
Ramon F Herrera
Mar 21, 2015, 10:56:33 AM3/21/15
to
On 3/14/2015 7:49 AM, mako...@yahoo.com wrote:
> The story of the forensic audio analysis of the stuck mic is fasinating.
> A young man named Steve Barber heard something on the
> recording that all the experts missed which invalidated the experts
> analysis.
>
> "Hold everything secure" are the famous words.
>
> Regardless of what you think about the assasination,
> This is an interesting story.
>
> http://jfk007.com/1053-2/
>
> Mark
>
Thank you so much, Mark!!!
Thanks to your contribution of info in your post, I decided to create a
new folder, named "Dictabelt" in the repository that I have been preparing:
http://goo.gl/mREmd2
It will soon become a web site (only geeks allowed :-)
Regards,
-Ramon
ps: My best evidence is the violent back snap, the government version is
laughable: physically impossible unless bullets can make U-turns.
> The story of the forensic audio analysis of the stuck mic is fasinating.
> A young man named Steve Barber heard something on the
> recording that all the experts missed which invalidated the experts
> analysis.
>
> "Hold everything secure" are the famous words.
>
> Regardless of what you think about the assasination,
> This is an interesting story.
>
> http://jfk007.com/1053-2/
>
> Mark
>
Thank you so much, Mark!!!
Thanks to your contribution of info in your post, I decided to create a
new folder, named "Dictabelt" in the repository that I have been preparing:
http://goo.gl/mREmd2
It will soon become a web site (only geeks allowed :-)
Regards,
-Ramon
ps: My best evidence is the violent back snap, the government version is
laughable: physically impossible unless bullets can make U-turns.
John Fields
Mar 28, 2015, 10:02:19 AM3/28/15
to
On Wed, 18 Mar 2015 09:41:10 -0500, Ramon F Herrera
<ra...@patriot.net> wrote:
.
.
.
>(*) I have never claimed that I *went* to MIT. I had to choose: academic
>work or some newfangled gizmo called The Internet. Guess which one I chose.
---
I don't really think it was a matter of choice.
<ra...@patriot.net> wrote:
.
.
.
>(*) I have never claimed that I *went* to MIT. I had to choose: academic
>work or some newfangled gizmo called The Internet. Guess which one I chose.
I don't really think it was a matter of choice.
0 new messages