I'm currently watching (PBS America, 19:40-21:55; it's a repeat from a
day or two ago - Friday, I think) "Agatha Christie: 100 Years of Poirot
and Miss Marple", and we keep getting shots of a domestic tape recorder,
I think when we're hearing recordings of AC herself (some were found relatively recently).
The silly thing is, it shows the left - feed - spool as a fairly full, I would guess, 5" reel - and the right - take-up - spool as a small (3",
or possibly smaller) one, which is already full and about to overflow.
Surely, anyone who hasn't even seen a tape machine before would realise
I'm currently watching (PBS America, 19:40-21:55; it's a repeat from a
day or two ago - Friday, I think) "Agatha Christie: 100 Years of Poirot
and Miss Marple", and we keep getting shots of a domestic tape recorder,
I think when we're hearing recordings of AC herself (some were found relatively recently).
The silly thing is, it shows the left - feed - spool as a fairly full, I would guess, 5" reel - and the right - take-up - spool as a small (3",
or possibly smaller) one, which is already full and about to overflow.
Surely, anyone who hasn't even seen a tape machine before would realise
On 05/07/2026 20:56, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
I'm currently watching (PBS America, 19:40-21:55; it's a repeat from a
day or two ago - Friday, I think) "Agatha Christie: 100 Years of Poirot
and Miss Marple", and we keep getting shots of a domestic tape recorder,
I think when we're hearing recordings of AC herself (some were found
relatively recently).
The silly thing is, it shows the left - feed - spool as a fairly full, I
would guess, 5" reel - and the right - take-up - spool as a small (3",
or possibly smaller) one, which is already full and about to overflow.
Surely, anyone who hasn't even seen a tape machine before would realise
but domestic tape recorders didn't appear until the 1950s.
J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:[]
The silly thing is, it shows the left - feed - spool as a fairly full, I
would guess, 5" reel - and the right - take-up - spool as a small (3",
or possibly smaller) one, which is already full and about to overflow.
Surely, anyone who hasn't even seen a tape machine before would realise
They very likely couldn't find the right size of spool for the takeup so
they just bunged on anything they had to hand or used what was already
on the machine.
On 2026/7/6 9:24:31, Liz Tuddenham wrote:If it was shot in the 1970s, I'd expect the sound guy to have a few
They very likely couldn't find the right size of spool for the takeup soThey'd have to have been running it long enough to fill the smaller
they just bunged on anything they had to hand or used what was already
on the machine.
spool. And/or to have threaded the tape leader round a full-ish spool.
But you're probably right. Depressing.
On 06/07/2026 22:05, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
On 2026/7/6 9:24:31, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
If it was shot in the 1970s, I'd expect the sound guy to have a fewThey very likely couldn't find the right size of spool for the takeup so >>> they just bunged on anything they had to hand or used what was alreadyThey'd have to have been running it long enough to fill the smaller
on the machine.
spool. And/or to have threaded the tape leader round a full-ish spool.
But you're probably right. Depressing.
spare full and empty reels in his kit.
The other thing to bear in mind is that the audio you hear was very
unlikely to be from the recorder or even the tape that was in shot.
On 2026/7/6 8:0:1, Charles Hope wrote:
On 05/07/2026 20:56, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
I'm currently watching (PBS America, 19:40-21:55; it's a repeat from a
day or two ago - Friday, I think) "Agatha Christie: 100 Years of Poirot
and Miss Marple", and we keep getting shots of a domestic tape recorder, >>> I think when we're hearing recordings of AC herself (some were found
relatively recently).
The silly thing is, it shows the left - feed - spool as a fairly full, I >>> would guess, 5" reel - and the right - take-up - spool as a small (3",
or possibly smaller) one, which is already full and about to overflow.
Surely, anyone who hasn't even seen a tape machine before would realise
but domestic tape recorders didn't appear until the 1950s.
I'm not sure of what your point is: I've just asked and "Agatha Christie
died peacefully from natural causes on January 12, 1976"; the prog.
didn't claim to be before the 1950s either.
On 2026/7/6 22:19:36, John Williamson wrote:
On 06/07/2026 22:05, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
On 2026/7/6 9:24:31, Liz Tuddenham wrote:If it was shot in the 1970s, I'd expect the sound guy to have a few
They very likely couldn't find the right size of spool for the takeup so >>>> they just bunged on anything they had to hand or used what was already >>>> on the machine.They'd have to have been running it long enough to fill the smaller
spool. And/or to have threaded the tape leader round a full-ish spool.
But you're probably right. Depressing.
spare full and empty reels in his kit.
Oh, I'd say the prog. was made this century.
Sure; I'm sure all the clips of Agatha's sound diaries (or whatever they >were) were on hard disc. Just the shots irritated me being such an
The other thing to bear in mind is that the audio you hear was very
unlikely to be from the recorder or even the tape that was in shot.
obvious crassness. (I'd find you a link, but not sure if "PBS America"
is on catchup/streaming.)
It is actually available on YouTube:LOL. Another 30 seconds or so and there will be tape spilling from the
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRdbq-2JX3c>
Look at 24:11
On 06/07/2026 22:02, J. P. Gilliver wrote:Yes, 100 years since the first Poirot novel; the prog. was about the Britain/World that existed then, _and throughout the time she was
On 2026/7/6 8:0:1, Charles Hope wrote:
On 05/07/2026 20:56, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
I'm currently watching (PBS America, 19:40-21:55; it's a repeat from a >>>> day or two ago - Friday, I think) "Agatha Christie: 100 Years of Poirot >>>> and Miss Marple", and we keep getting shots of a domestic tape recorder, >>>> I think when we're hearing recordings of AC herself (some were found>>>> relatively recently).but domestic tape recorders didn't appear until the 1950s.
The silly thing is, it shows the left - feed - spool as a fairly full, I >>>> would guess, 5" reel - and the right - take-up - spool as a small (3", >>>> or possibly smaller) one, which is already full and about to overflow. >>>>
Surely, anyone who hasn't even seen a tape machine before would realise >>>
I'm not sure of what your point is: I've just asked and "Agatha Christie
died peacefully from natural causes on January 12, 1976"; the prog.
didn't claim to be before the 1950s either.
the title "100 years....." implies something
On 07/07/2026 10:10, Chris J Dixon wrote:
It is actually available on YouTube:LOL. Another 30 seconds or so and there will be tape spilling from the take-up spool. Bye bye precious archive tape...
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRdbq-2JX3c>
Look at 24:11
J. P. Gilliver wrote:I looked at your youtube link, and the tape recorder first appears about
On 2026/7/6 22:19:36, John Williamson wrote:
On 06/07/2026 22:05, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
On 2026/7/6 9:24:31, Liz Tuddenham wrote:If it was shot in the 1970s, I'd expect the sound guy to have a few
They very likely couldn't find the right size of spool for the takeup so >>>>> they just bunged on anything they had to hand or used what was already >>>>> on the machine.They'd have to have been running it long enough to fill the smaller
spool. And/or to have threaded the tape leader round a full-ish spool. >>>> But you're probably right. Depressing.
spare full and empty reels in his kit.
Oh, I'd say the prog. was made this century.
Sure; I'm sure all the clips of Agatha's sound diaries (or whatever they
The other thing to bear in mind is that the audio you hear was very
unlikely to be from the recorder or even the tape that was in shot.
were) were on hard disc. Just the shots irritated me being such an
obvious crassness. (I'd find you a link, but not sure if "PBS America"
is on catchup/streaming.)
I remember seeing the programme when originally broadcast, and
having similar thoughts.
It is actually available on YouTube:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRdbq-2JX3c>
Look at 24:11
Chris
On 07/07/2026 10:10, Chris J Dixon wrote:
J. P. Gilliver wrote:I looked at your youtube link, and the tape recorder first appears about
On 2026/7/6 22:19:36, John Williamson wrote:
On 06/07/2026 22:05, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
On 2026/7/6 9:24:31, Liz Tuddenham wrote:If it was shot in the 1970s, I'd expect the sound guy to have a few
They very likely couldn't find the right size of spool for theThey'd have to have been running it long enough to fill the smaller
takeup so
they just bunged on anything they had to hand or used what was
already
on the machine.
spool. And/or to have threaded the tape leader round a full-ish spool. >>>>> But you're probably right. Depressing.
spare full and empty reels in his kit.
Oh, I'd say the prog. was made this century.
Sure; I'm sure all the clips of Agatha's sound diaries (or whatever they >>> were) were on hard disc. Just the shots irritated me being such an
The other thing to bear in mind is that the audio you hear was very
unlikely to be from the recorder or even the tape that was in shot.
obvious crassness. (I'd find you a link, but not sure if "PBS America"
is on catchup/streaming.)
I remember seeing the programme when originally broadcast, and
having similar thoughts.
It is actually available on YouTube:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRdbq-2JX3c>
Look at 24:11
Chris
4 minutes in, illustrating the commentary that tapes had been
discovered. The tape recorder reappears at various points in the
programme, but the amount of tape on the 3" reel varies randomly up and down!
Only a bunch of Usenet nerds would spend 3 days discussing this. Normal viewers neither notice it nor care. If asked they would guess that the producer needed video clips to accompany an old audio interview and
included a few random shots of an old tape recorder. God knows why its supposed to be "silly".
Only a bunch of Usenet nerds would spend 3 days discussing this. Normal viewers neither notice it nor care. If asked they would guess that the producer needed video clips to accompany an old audio interview and
included a few random shots of an old tape recorder. God knows why its supposed to be "silly".
On 08/07/2026 16:08, MikeS wrote:
Only a bunch of Usenet nerds would spend 3 days discussing this.
Normal viewers neither notice it nor care. If asked they would guess
that the producer needed video clips to accompany an old audio
interview and included a few random shots of an old tape recorder. God
knows why its supposed to be "silly".
At one time, there would have been sound recordist on the crew who would
be using a Nagra tape recorder for recording the sepmag sound to
accompany the film. He would have spotted if he saw the cameraman about
to film a "prop tape recorder" that had too small a take-up spool.
But now sound is recorded digitally, either separately, or in the camera
as a data stream within the AVI/MPEG/whatever video file. So the sound recordist may never have seen a tape recorder.
It's like any technology: the world is divided into those who notice
every inconsistency and solecism, and those who have no knowledge or interest.
My grandpa was a steam train enthusiast and he spotted train-related
goofs - a GWR loco hauling Midland coaches on an Southern railway line,
or an impossible route between stations. To the rest of it, it was
obvious when he pointed it out but we never noticed till he mentioned it.
The same would occur if you saw shots of a car that had a three-speed gearbox and you hear the engine note rise and fall more than three times
as the car was accelerating, implying that it had four or five gears. Sometimes it's a deception that is built into the script. In "Vera",
Brenda Blethyn has an automatic-only driving licence so Vera's Land
Rover was retro-fitted with an automatic gearbox. But in the script she occasionally made reference to a manual gearbox: I think once she got
her sergeant to drive and she warned him about the Landy's dodgy clutch.
On 2026/7/8 16:8:33, MikeS wrote:
[]
Only a bunch of Usenet nerds would spend 3 days discussing this. Normal
viewers neither notice it nor care. If asked they would guess that the
producer needed video clips to accompany an old audio interview and
included a few random shots of an old tape recorder. God knows why its
supposed to be "silly".
It depends how much incompetence you accept. which of the following
would you accept?
rCo An ambulance with a flashing green light
rCo Something supposed to be set in London, where everyone drives on the right (or New York, left)
rCo Someone (in either country) dialling 833 for the emergency services
rCo computers failing by blowing up spectacularly
I'm sure there are plenty of other such examples. And, given the name of
this newsgroup, this one - especially the 24:11 example - jarred. It did
with me, and I've never actually worked in broadcasting, though have
always had great interest in particularly the technical side.
As I said, only nerds notice or care ....
On 2026/7/8 16:8:33, MikeS wrote:
[]
Only a bunch of Usenet nerds would spend 3 days discussing this. Normal
viewers neither notice it nor care. If asked they would guess that the
producer needed video clips to accompany an old audio interview and
included a few random shots of an old tape recorder. God knows why its
supposed to be "silly".
It depends how much incompetence you accept. which of the following
would you accept?
rCo An ambulance with a flashing green light
rCo Something supposed to be set in London, where everyone drives on the right (or New York, left)
rCo Someone (in either country) dialling 833 for the emergency services--
rCo computers failing by blowing up spectacularly
I'm sure there are plenty of other such examples. And, given the name of
this newsgroup, this one - especially the 24:11 example - jarred. It did
with me, and I've never actually worked in broadcasting, though have
always had great interest in particularly the technical side.
Sometimes it's a deception that is built into the script. In "Vera",
Brenda Blethyn has an automatic-only driving licence so Vera's Land
Rover was retro-fitted with an automatic gearbox.
But in the script she
occasionally made reference to a manual gearbox: I think once she got
her sergeant to drive and she warned him about the Landy's dodgy clutch.
On 08/07/2026 19:13, NY wrote:
But in the script she
occasionally made reference to a manual gearbox: I think once she got
her sergeant to drive and she warned him about the Landy's dodgy clutch.
I remember that episode. I wonder if that was a cockup that wasn't
noticed or if it had been left in as a joke.
On 09/07/2026 19:36, Laurence Taylor wrote:
On 08/07/2026 19:13, NY wrote:
But in the script she
occasionally made reference to a manual gearbox: I think once she got
her sergeant to drive and she warned him about the Landy's dodgy clutch.
I remember that episode. I wonder if that was a cockup that wasn't
noticed or if it had been left in as a joke.
If you occasionally see the gear selector in shot, they they weren't
trying to hide it and perpetuate a "Vera drives a manual Landy"
illusion, so I wonder if it was done as a joke to see who was paying >attention.
I wonder how many people of Brenda Blethyn's age passed their test in an >automatic car and therefore were only licensed to drive automatics. When
I was learning in 1980/81, my instructor said that only a few
instructors had automatic cars, and that he would advise anyone to pass >their test in a manual if humanly possible so they were covered for
either, even if they only planned to drive automatics afterwards.
On 09/07/2026 19:36, Laurence Taylor wrote:
On 08/07/2026 19:13, NY wrote:
But in the script she
occasionally made reference to a manual gearbox: I think once she got
her sergeant to drive and she warned him about the Landy's dodgy clutch.
I remember that episode. I wonder if that was a cockup that wasn't
noticed or if it had been left in as a joke.
If you occasionally see the gear selector in shot, they they weren't
trying to hide it and perpetuate a "Vera drives a manual Landy"
illusion, so I wonder if it was done as a joke to see who was paying attention.
I wonder how many people of Brenda Blethyn's age passed their test in an automatic car and therefore were only licensed to drive automatics. When
I was learning in 1980/81, my instructor said that only a few
instructors had automatic cars, and that he would advise anyone to pass their test in a manual if humanly possible so they were covered for
either, even if they only planned to drive automatics afterwards.
On Thu, 9 Jul 2026 21:44:56 +0100, NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:
On 09/07/2026 19:36, Laurence Taylor wrote:
On 08/07/2026 19:13, NY wrote:
But in the script sheI remember that episode. I wonder if that was a cockup that wasn't
occasionally made reference to a manual gearbox: I think once she got
her sergeant to drive and she warned him about the Landy's dodgy clutch. >>>
noticed or if it had been left in as a joke.
If you occasionally see the gear selector in shot, they they weren't
trying to hide it and perpetuate a "Vera drives a manual Landy"
illusion, so I wonder if it was done as a joke to see who was paying
attention.
I wonder how many others noticed that the letters on the registration
plate on that Landrover spell the Latin for "I am".
I wonder how many people of Brenda Blethyn's age passed their test in an
automatic car and therefore were only licensed to drive automatics. When
I was learning in 1980/81, my instructor said that only a few
instructors had automatic cars, and that he would advise anyone to pass
their test in a manual if humanly possible so they were covered for
either, even if they only planned to drive automatics afterwards.
My parents learned to drive during the war, and never had to pass a
test at all.
Rod.
On 09/07/2026 21:44, NY wrote:[]
If you occasionally see the gear selector in shot, they they weren't
trying to hide it and perpetuate a "Vera drives a manual Landy"
illusion, so I wonder if it was done as a joke to see who was paying
attention.
I wonder how many people of Brenda Blethyn's age passed their test in an
automatic car and therefore were only licensed to drive automatics. When
I was learning in 1980/81, my instructor said that only a few
instructors had automatic cars, and that he would advise anyone to pass
their test in a manual if humanly possible so they were covered for
either, even if they only planned to drive automatics afterwards.
nothing to stop anyone with an "automatic" pass taking it again for "manual". It makes sense: worry about traffic for test one, then worry
about clutch.
When
I was learning in 1980/81, my instructor said that only a few
instructors had automatic cars, and that he would advise anyone to pass
their test in a manual if humanly possible so they were covered for
either, even if they only planned to drive automatics afterwards.
I don't remember my instructor(s) saying that as such, but it never
occurred to me to consider auto-only.
There wasn't a specific theory one when I did mine - around 1980 - it was just part of the practical.
Mine was 1981. My second test (I passed on my third) was on my 18th birthday, because I remember the examiner commiserating that he couldn't give me a pass certificate as a birthday present.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 74 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 54:39:23 |
| Calls: | 1,101 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 1,339 |
| Messages: | 276,321 |