RV Camping and Outdoors Videos

ftsjr (October 29th, 2008 @ 3:06 am)

As a lifelong fan of early animation, this film is a joy to behold. Max Fleisher's style is very evident.I've often wondered about the initial coupling of sound and film. This cartoon simplifies it so that even a non-tech like me can understand it. Wonderful posting!

JCJasion (October 26th, 2008 @ 2:41 pm)

I think the newly acquired voice of "Mutie" may have been actually that of veteran recording artist Billy Murray.

nickca420 (January 25th, 2008 @ 8:07 pm)

Wow, what a an awesome snapshot of the time. When you watch this and see the little strip of film roll up into the little guy who starts playing the xylophone, imagine how mind-blowing it was for a 1929 audience. It would be like the first time you saw Ghost In The Shell or Toy Story or some similar landmark piece of animation.

1920slover (January 9th, 2008 @ 1:54 am)

this is aewsome man ware woud find a grat cartoon like this one lol 1929 was a varey long time a go daring the space age lol .

jerryaltman (November 1st, 2007 @ 5:31 pm)

I once saw a site of recreated horns, from that periode, for sale.But talking this way you make us imagine the sound of eraly films was good, but we hear clearly that was not, and the video is a proof. If the speakers and Mics was fine, what was responsible to the sound get a bad response???

HartfordTommy (November 1st, 2007 @ 7:08 am)

And what do you suppose was needed to drive those horns to full power--very loud power? 1W of electrical input sufficed. Horn speakers, then and now, rule in efficiency and in clarity and projection of sound. All of the amplification then was done by simple triode tubes. These produced then, and now, the most natural and undistorted (to the trained ear) of all possible means of amplification.

HartfordTommy (November 1st, 2007 @ 7:03 am)

(cont) Being an analog recording, same as a sinuous groove recording, "surface speed" of the recording defined the maximum possible high frequency. In early sound recording on film, a tradeoff was made and high frequencies were not captured. In a short time, higher resolution optical tracks pushed the HF response upward. But the early mics and horns of that period were superb and natural in sound. (tbc)

HartfordTommy (November 1st, 2007 @ 6:58 am)

No, the limitation was not the microphones; they were condenser mics of the highest quality, of a principle still used today. Nor was the limitation in the fantastically efficient, huge, horn-loaded compression drivers. The nasal sound is a lack of high frequency response owing to the relatively low film speed (tbc)

Maliejandra (September 15th, 2007 @ 9:54 pm)

That's awesome, and pretty educational.

RayPointer (September 9th, 2007 @ 9:07 pm)

The "nasal" sound of early sound films is due to the quality of the microphones and the room the sound was record in, first. Second, it was a result of the signal response of the recording system. As for the quality of reproduction being, "worse," this is nonsense since Western Electric had the best amplifiers and reproduction equipment based on much of the foundation research work done by Dr. Lee deForest.

renoguard2 (July 28th, 2007 @ 7:31 am)

It took ALL this stuff 80 years ago to do what a simple cell phone can do now days. TIMES, THEY ARE A CHANGIN!!!

renoguard2 (July 28th, 2007 @ 7:26 am)

THIS IS INTERESTING!!! :-)