
“Talking rubber”, a forgotten audio format - shawndumas
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/01/a-really-obscure-forgotten-audio-format-talking-rubber/
======
WalterBright
"in 1954 the only way to record sound was to press a phonograph or record
sound on film for a movie."

There was wire recording:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wire_recording](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wire_recording)

~~~
joezydeco
AMPEX demonstrated magnetic tape recording in 1947, based on the German
magnetophone technology used during WWII. Shipments to radio stations began in
1948.

[http://www.aes.org/aeshc/docs/company.histories/ampex/leslie...](http://www.aes.org/aeshc/docs/company.histories/ampex/leslie_snyder_early-
days-of-ampex.pdf)

~~~
coroxout
The Dictabelt also became available in 1947, according to Wikipedia:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictabelt](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictabelt)

An interesting article about archiving of Dictabelt and other audio format
recordings: [http://thequietus.com/articles/18004-sound-library-
british-l...](http://thequietus.com/articles/18004-sound-library-british-
library)

------
dexen
Speaking of forgotten audio formats: Tefifon, old german analog loop of
elastic, non-magnetic, tape.

More or less ``8-track meet vinyl''.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBNTAmLRmUg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBNTAmLRmUg)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tTURrAWVYE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tTURrAWVYE)

------
danjayh
I find it odd that the corporate research lab is popularly acknowledged to be
dead when so many large companies maintain corporate research labs:

[http://www.geglobalresearch.com/](http://www.geglobalresearch.com/)

[http://research.ibm.com/](http://research.ibm.com/)

[https://research.google.com/](https://research.google.com/)

[https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/](https://www.microsoft.com/en-
us/research/)

[https://www.cbinsights.com/blog/corporate-innovation-
labs/](https://www.cbinsights.com/blog/corporate-innovation-labs/) <\- a giant
list of more labs

...

Now, I will admit that corporate research has tapered off significantly since
then, but 'tapered off' and 'dead' are two entirely different things.

You might think 'But wait! the kind of basic physics research that used to be
done by Bell _is_ dead'. I counter with two arguments:

\- Basic computer science research is an equally valid, equally fundamental
thing, and many of the labs listed above conduct it as their primary business

\- Basic physics research _does_ still happen. I included GE Global Research
at the top of my list because they in particular do a lot of research into
materials, chemistry, etc (which will eventually be applied to things like
turbine blades, batteries, LEDs, etc.).

~~~
batbomb
CS research, for the most part, is a fractional cost compared to basic physics
research, materials research, chemistry, etc... mostly due to the capital
costs associated with setting up proper labs.

The majority of science research, especially the risky exploratory kind vs.
the incremental efficiency/process improvement kind, is mostly in universities
and to a lesser extent, national labs.

~~~
shagie
IBM's research projects ( [http://research.ibm.com/#featured-
projects](http://research.ibm.com/#featured-projects) ) seem to include areas
such as polymer research (
[http://www.research.ibm.com/articles/industrialpolymers.shtm...](http://www.research.ibm.com/articles/industrialpolymers.shtml#fbid=7xlcoAUWFhM)
), semiconductors (
[http://www.research.ibm.com/articles/chipchallenge.shtml#fbi...](http://www.research.ibm.com/articles/chipchallenge.shtml#fbid=7xlcoAUWFhM)
) amongst other domains.

While there is certainly CSesque research in the list of areas, it is not the
only area.

------
upofadown
I think I once actually saw this. When I first started at the local telephone
company back in the day I was shown the corporate PBX system which was
interesting because it was a small step by step system in an era where such
things were considered obsolete. There was a rubber belt running on pulleys in
a transparent box. There were several magnetic recording/playback heads in
contact with the belt. The bottom of the belt passed through a pool of
lubricant. It picked up so much that the heads left a wake and had a kind of a
bow wave. lubrication was apparently very important.

~~~
Gibbon1
Likely that the heads rode on a film of oil. Thus was no actual contact
between the rubber belt and the heads and so no wear. And also probably the
oil film meant that belt moved smoothly under the heads. One could imagine if
there was any friction the belt would tend to move unevenly (skips and jerks)
leading to crummy voice quality.

------
agumonkey
thetechmoan on youtube often brings old audio formats into light:

[https://www.youtube.com/user/Techmoan](https://www.youtube.com/user/Techmoan)

not as old as talking rubber usually though

------
jacobush
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speaking_clock](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speaking_clock)

I believe some of these used the same tech

