Subject: [removed] Digest V2006 #328
From: [removed]@[removed]
Date: 11/23/2006 5:41 PM
To: [removed]@[removed]

------------------------------


                            The Old-Time Radio Digest!
                              Volume 2006 : Issue 328
                         A Part of the [removed]!
                             [removed]
                                 ISSN: 1533-9289


                                 Today's Topics:

  mp3s                                  [ "Sammy Jones" <sjones69@[removed] ]
  Re: MP3's (& Other Formats)...        [ "Glenn P.," <C128User@[removed]; ]
  ET sound                              [ Ken Greenwald <radio@[removed]; ]
  Re: OTR and MP3                       [ "Glenn P.," <C128User@[removed]; ]
  Re: Disc Response                     [ Elizabeth McLeod <lizmcl@[removed] ]
  Sad news about a good guy             [ Wich2@[removed] ]
  Great, [removed]                         [ Wich2@[removed] ]
  iPod and OTR                          [ "James Yellen" <clifengr3@[removed] ]
  More OTR and MP3                      [ "Wayne Johnson" <wayne_johnson@mind ]
  Opry/Phones                           [ "Bill Knowlton" <udmacon1@[removed] ]
  Phone numbers                         [ "Ted Kneebone" <tkneebone1@[removed] ]
  Henry Morgan shows                    [ "Ted Kneebone" <tkneebone1@[removed] ]

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 00:35:04 -0500
From: "Sammy Jones" <sjones69@[removed];
To: <[removed]@[removed];
Subject:  mp3s

"If my own memory (brain) serves
correct, AM radio frequency response tops out at about 7khz so a sampling
rate if 14000 or slightly greater would be all that is necessary to record
anything from an AM transmission."

But you're not taking into account the fact that most radio transcriptions
(at least by the beginning of the 1940s) were not made from AM transmissions
at all.  They were made by direct wire-line connection from radio studio to
recording facilities.  Direct connection yielded MUCH higher fidelity than
AM reception, and many recordings from this period certainly rival
commercial recordings by the record labels.  Just listen to any of the CEDAR
restorations available from the First Generation Radio Archives and you will
be astounded at how great radio can sound when you're listening to first gen
recordings (my only connection to the FGRA is as a very satisfied customer).

Radio ETs can certainly benefit from the full resolution offered by
CD-quality audio.  I for one can't stand mp3s.  Even the good ones usually
aren't as good as a CD can be, and most that I've heard aren't good.  This
is not meant as a knock at those of you who collect mp3s, but I value good
sound over the number of episodes I can fit onto one CD or DVD.

Sammy Jones

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 09:59:30 -0500
From: "Glenn P.," <C128User@[removed];
To: Old-Time Radio Mailing List <[removed]@[removed];
Subject:  Re: MP3's (& Other Formats)...

On Tue., 21-Nov-2006, at 10:09:44am EST (-0500 GMT), "Mr. Rodney Bowcock"
<PastTense_78@[removed]; posted to [The Old-Time Radio Mailing List]
under the subject of "uncompressed file formats":

 > Any time you use a compressed format, you're stripping layers
 > of sound away from what you're [removed] [ Snip! ] Has anyone
 > considered using lossless formats like SHN or FLAC (in particular)
 > for their OTR collection?

You state (or at least clearly imply) that ANY COMPRESSED format
will automatically be lossy.

You then ask about the usage of SHN or FLAC formats -- neither
one of which I have ever heard of -- but both of which I presume
are uncompressed, since you declare them lossless.

At that rate, why not simply store them in *.WAV format and be
done with it? My understading is that the *.WAV format is also
uncompressed.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 10:00:20 -0500
From: Ken Greenwald <radio@[removed];
To: [removed]@[removed]
Subject:  ET sound

Craig W. wrote, and I quote:

However, I think we've all heard the amazing dynamic range  and
transparency
of a STUDIO-originated disc (or later, tape.)

Such  sound, that has come right from the Mics, and went straight to a
Cutter/Recorder  from the Board, would be much "fuller" - wider in
range - yes?

Yes! Absolutely! No doubt about it!
I have listened to and dubbed actual network ETs. Not only that, an
engineer I know, who once worked at NBC TV BURBANK, did an audio
analysis on two types of ET discs. One was of the 16" ETs that run at
33 1/3 rpm and the other was of the 12" ETs that run at 78 rpm. Of
course, the discs were cleaned and brought back as close as possible
to the condition they were in when they were new.
The conclusion? The frequency range for the 16" ETs ran from 50
cycles up to 15,000 cycles!
The frequency range for the 12" ETs ran from 20 cycles up to 20,000
cycles!
Bear in mind that these discs are network discs, cut and recorded in
the networks own recoding studio, directly off the line feed, just as
the show was being aired across the country.
Clean up a 16" ET and you have rich, full fidelity. Those engineers
knew exactly what they were doing. One of the interesting things that
happened when they were recording was that there was no compression
of the signal. The engineer in the control room usually had a script
by his side. He also went through the rehearsals of the show, setting
the volumes for loud and soft passages. So, in those days, what the
engineer would do would be to "ride the gain" - keep his hand on the
volume control and adjust for loud and soft passages (as marked in
his script). That's how they kept the level of sound constant for the
ET and for the audience listening on their little radios with the 4"
speakers. "Riding the gain" allowed the original discs to be totally
dynamic in frequency range.
Listening to an original network ET is like being right there in the
studio, watching the broadcast unfold, live.

One last thing: when a radio show was broadcast from New York to Los
Angeles (or the other way) a choice of telephone lines were
available. Usually, the network chose to use the phone company's
triple A line. The best sound. Radio recorders, here in Los Angeles,
cut discs transmitted on phone lines from New York of Fletcher
Markle's "STUDIO ONE" shows. I had the pleasure of dubbing them to
master tapes a few years ago and the fidelity, even from 3,000 miles
away, was awesome.
Most OTR fans usually get shows that are a number of generations away
from the original source. The shows are still wonderful to listen to,
but the dynamics are missing. Now, transferring to mp3 is another
story altogether. By the way, everything that has been said about mp3
lately on the digest, is correct. I'm glad someone brought it up. I
even learned a few things. Thanks fellas!

Ken Greenwald

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 10:00:42 -0500
From: "Glenn P.," <C128User@[removed];
To: Old-Time Radio Mailing List <[removed]@[removed];
Subject:  Re: OTR and MP3

On Tue., 21-Nov-2006, at 10:05:04pm EST (-0500 GMT), "Mr. Wayne Johnson"
<Wayne_Johnson@[removed]; posted to [The Old-Time Radio Mailing List]
under the subject of "OTR and MP3":

 > As for [removed] I know of no OTR that was broadcast or recorded in
 > stereo so don't waste the memory. It won't help the quality nor will
 > it sound different. A mono recording will still come out of both
 > speakers.

Here I MUST disagree. I am an old hand at recording mono material, and
at transferring recordings from device to device ([removed], from tape to
tape), and my long experience (many years) has taught me that if you
record a mono piece in stereo, there might not SEEM to be any difference,
but there definitely IS one when you carefully compare them side-by-side.
The difference is admittedly hard to pinpoint -- the sound is simply
sharper, clearer, and has subtly more presence to it. I also notice
that in many cases the bass stands out better.

I'm not sure WHY there should be this difference, but of this I am
certain: there IS a difference.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 10:01:21 -0500
From: Elizabeth McLeod <lizmcl@[removed];
To: <[removed]@[removed];
Subject:  Re: Disc Response

On 11/23/06 12:34 AM [removed]@[removed] wrote:


Such  sound, that has come right from the Mics, and went straight to a
Cutter/Recorder  from the Board, would be much "fuller" - wider in range -
yes?

Exactly. Hearing a radio program taken directly from an original studio
linecheck is quite a different experience from a muffled, overprocessed
MP3 sourced from a multi-generation tape dub.

Some high-quality transcriptions recorded for syndication by Western
Electric as early as the mid-thirties were capable of audio response as
high as 14,000 cycles, and even run-of-the-mill linecheck transcriptions
made by NBC were capable of flat response between 50 and 10,000 cycles,
although the playback quality was limited by the response of the
eqiuipment of the time. According to "The Radio Engineering Handbook" by
Keith Henney (Third Edition, 1941), the standard audio chain in a network
radio studio was designed for flat response from 30 to 15,000 cycles --
but once the program went out over the network lines, the audio degraded
considerably. A recording of a Hollywood-originated program made off the
line in New York will be of noticeably lesser quality than a New York
program recorded directly off the program circuit in New York.

The problems start when these discs are played back on poorly-maintained,
incorrectly equalized equipment -- especially antique pickups where the
damping blocks have hardened with age. And it's essential to remember
that the initial playback from the original disc is by far the most
important stage in the preservation of the program -- if that's not done
according to the highest possible standards, no amount of manipulation or
"restoration" of the transfer will preserve the full quality of the
material on the disc. If one prefers to listen to muddy, noisy audio for
the sake of the nostalgic AM-radio experience, that's fine -- but don't
think it's an accurate representation of what's actually on the disc.

Elizabeth

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 10:01:56 -0500
From: Wich2@[removed]
To: [removed]@[removed]
Subject:  Sad news about a good guy

From: Jim Kitchen  jkitchen@[removed]

Does anyone know what
happened to Shawn and his  high quality MP3 collection?

Dear Jim-
I wondered the same for a  long time; I'd met Shawn at FOTR. Liked him very
much, and admired his excellent  work.

Alas, we lost him in an auto accident, very young.

His work  WAS terrific (proof of the contention that, if used right
tecnically, mp3 can be  worthy.) Does anyone know if said body of work found
a  home?

Best,
-Craig

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 10:02:35 -0500
From: Wich2@[removed]
To: [removed]@[removed]
Subject:  Great, [removed]

From: Michael Shoshani  <mshoshani@[removed];

The BBC also maintains one of the most  intricate archives of sound
effects in the world

Dear  Michael-

And, am I the only one that wishes they used it with a freer  hand?

I usually find the Beeb's stuff much UNDER  [removed]

I've been spoiled by classic stuff like the later  SUSPENSE, and sublime
DRAGNET & GUNSMOKE; often, when auditing BBC shows, my  inner voice cries out,
"lord, can I please get a footstep or a door,  here?"

It's often "Three Guys At A Mic," which ain't audio theater to my  ears.

Best,
-Craig

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 10:12:02 -0500
From: "James Yellen" <clifengr3@[removed];
To: [removed]@[removed]
Subject:  iPod and OTR

Forgive me if this  subject has been covered before. If it has, I missed it.

But I was wondering if anyone has experience using an iPod or similar MP3
player for listening to OTR. Specifically, I was wondering how much memory I
would need to be able to listen for a reasonable length of time without
having to frequently download new stuff. Does anyone know how much OTR one
can expect to store on a player that has, say, 2G of memory? Can I get say,
10 hours of listening time with the 2G? Or do I have to go to the full 240G
for reasonable capacity. I know this may get into some techno talk of
bitrate etc. but I was inquiring, in general, what the experience of others
is.

Thanks in advance to all who may respond, and to all a HAPPY THANKSGIVING.

Jim Yellen, (rushing through this so that I can get the bird into the oven
in time.)

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 11:53:43 -0500
From: "Wayne Johnson" <wayne_johnson@[removed];
To: <[removed]@[removed];
Subject:  More OTR and MP3

Thanks for the feedback and comments, both the personal replys and the ones
on the digest.  IF I may have a little more space to address this and how it
relates to OTR.

Shawn Wells at The Old Time Radio Shop digitally restored his MP3
Collection to 44/192 (in stereo). In his opinion, this is the best
combination for high quality MP3. I'm listening to Frontier Gentleman
CD1 from Shawn's Old Time Radio Shop. There are 14 episodes on this CD.
It appears that you give up quantity for quality. All his MP3 CDs have
"Highest Quality Anywhere" on their label.

There is no doubt in my mind that recording at 192 yields better quality
that recording at 96.  NO DOUBT.

That being said, I ask you to think of what you have to start with.  You
most likely have a recording of voice, a little Hammond Organ music and a
few sound effects.  Everything that you hear will probably fall into the
range of 100hz to about 5000 hz.  ABSOLUTELY nothing will fall in the
12000hz or above.  Not because it couldn't be recorded but because the
"everyday world" of our hearing exists in this range with few exceptions.
Second, the entire program has a dynamic range of probably 6-9 db.  NOT
because it couldn't be recorded but because that is probably the way it was
written and directed. (Most 'yelling' on episodes of, say, Dragnet, have the
yelling taking place further away from the mics so that you can still tell
that there is yelling but also not to distort the sound by over-driving the
microphones.  The volume, in this case, remains pretty much constant.)

OK, I have now established the parameters of the program to record.  There
is one more thing that we must establish.  No matter what you do, you can
NOT improve the quality of the recording simply by making another recording.
If you started with garbage, you will end with garbage.  In fact, if any
analog process is used at all, you WILL have some loss no matter how slight.
That is just the nature of the process.  My definition of recording is that
it is an attempt to recreate the original performance as accurately as
possible.  That is MY definition.  Other folk's definitions are that they
want to 'improve' the original performance and they add all kinds of junk
from reverb to equalization.  Me?  I want to accurately capture the
original.  If the original is an OTR recording and the dynamic range is only
a 9 db (I'll even give you that it might be 12 db) WHY would I set up my MP3
to capture a dynamic range of 18 or 21 db or greater?  And if I know that
the frequency response is only about 5000 which, mathematically means that I
only need a sampling rate of 10000 per second or slightly greater ... why
would I set it at [removed] and try to capture frequencies up to 22kHz when I
know they aren't there?

My personal opinion is that the overwhelming majority of folks have no idea
what the numbers mean and think that "bigger is better".  TRUE!  The numbers
do mean that the quality is greater.  ONLY IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING THAT WILL
MAKE FULL USE OF THE NUMBERS.  As for OTR, those higher settings are a
waste.

You can easily prove this too.  AUDACITY is a free sound processing software
application that will allow you to graphically "see" the sound waves.  Get
one of those high quality recordings and take a look at the amount of 'dead'
space that is reserved but not used.

- If I follow you, you are speaking as  if EVERY OTR source is an
AIRCHECK;
in other words, an "off-site" recording of  sound that has already been
subjected to compression (sometimes, at more than  one stage.)

However, I think we've all heard the amazing dynamic range  and
transparency
of a STUDIO-originated disc (or later, tape.)

Such  sound, that has come right from the Mics, and went straight to a
Cutter/Recorder  from the Board, would be much "fuller" - wider in range -
yes?

The answer is YES ... if it was there to begin with.  The human voice
operates WELL BELOW the threshold of AM broadcasts.  Whether straight into
the mics and cutter or over an air check ... the difference would be
minimal.  TRUE ... there is distortion and it will sound different coming
from an aircheck but we are still talking about only two parameters:
frequency (how many waves per second) and amplitude (how 'tall' those waves
are).   The Sampling rate is what determines the frequencies that one can
capture.

Digitally speaking, if you are running [removed] sampling and need a full 16
bits of information then one gets 16 X 44100 = 705600 X two channels
(stereo) = 1411 kbps to record every possible sound within the full spectrum
of human hearing.  MP3 is a lossy (it throws away information that can never
be retrieved) format and you can actually get it to throw away stuff that
you either don't hear or stuff that isn't there.  Sampling at 12000 (6000Hz)
instead of 44,100 with full dynamic range in mono would be 176 kbps.  But we
don't need full dynamic range because OTR usually doesn't use it.  So, let's
operate at about 1/3 of the dynamic range and that is about 58kbps.  What I
mentioned before was EXPERIMENT.  Have fun with it.

STEREO:  Don't get me started!!!!  If I were to run into 1000 people on the
street and ask them to tell me what stereo was, I would be jaw-dropping
amazed if ONE could do it.  Stereo is an attempt to accurately record what
each ear would hear and then play it back so that each ear actually will
hear it.  Sometimes it is the same.  A person standing directly in front of
you speaking ... each ear hears the same thing (minus any room noise) and
that is why your brain tells you, even if your eyes are closed, that the
person is in front of you.  As the sound varies from one ear to another, the
brain processes this information and attempts to add both width and depth to
your "sound stage".  I have spent many years just in the pursuit of
'perfect' sound stage reproduction and many times have been pleased with the
results but have by no means, come up with a perfect formula.  (The
conductor of one of the symphonies keeps trying to get me to use strereo
mics on just the wind section thinking that this will improve the recording
when, in fact, it will really goof it up.)  Binaural sound applications are
the easiest to do and produce the best results and I will send anyone a
sample if you will email me.  Now, hear (pun intended) comes the "BUT".
MONO is MONO is MONO.  That means that the same sound is coming out of BOTH
track (stereo has two tracks).  I can either have two physical tracks (which
takes up room) OR I can set a single 'information' bit in the MP3 that tells
the player to send the ONE recorded track to BOTH ears.  Guess which one
takes up less room on the CD??!!??!!

So, I stand by my original premise:  the higher numbers do promise better
quality HOWEVER OTR does not present a high enough quality to begin with to
justify the use of those numbers.  Running a sampling rate of 12000 and a
bit rate of about 48 and recording in mono should be enough to capture the
better quality OTR recordings without significant loss during the
conversion.  Of course, your converter also has a lot to do with it!  I use
Mp3PRO.

There is a TON of information on the internet.  Probably some of the best
information is available from

[removed]

[removed]

Charlie ... thanks for the use of your forum.  I think that any addition
information should be handled off-line.

[ADMINISTRIVIA: I think you mean, "off-list," as "off-line" implies something
divorced from telecommunications, like snail-mail. (I'm not picking on Wayne,
he just gave me an excuse to address one of my little technical annoyances
that pops up here from time to time. Email is not "off-line," while it is
off-list.)  --cfs3]

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 14:18:59 -0500
From: "Bill Knowlton" <udmacon1@[removed];
To: [removed]@[removed]
Subject:  Opry/Phones

To this day the Martha White portion of the Grand Ole Opry is opened and
closed by the recorded voice of Lester Flatt singing the theme.

Aside to Elizabeth: HA in Queens NY was also an exchange: HAvermeyer. We had
it for our Jackson Heights number.

BILL KNOWLTON

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 16:03:49 -0500
From: "Ted Kneebone" <tkneebone1@[removed];
To: "Old Time Radio Digest" <[removed]@[removed];
Subject:  Phone numbers

The phone numbers in South Dakota were quite short.  I remember Sisseton was
212-J.  Can't remember Winner, but it was probably something like 45-R.  The
country folk had a certain number of rings added to their number.  23 ring
5, or something like that.  And no one in my towns had dial service.  You
picked up the phone and the operator asked, "Number, [removed]"  Mother used
to call the operator "Central."  I think there was a popular song of the day
that went, "Hello, Central, give me [removed]"  Or something like that.

In an emergency, you had to be quite confrontational:  "Please clear the
line!  My house is on fire?" OR "I need to call my doctor.  The baby is
really sick."  Doctors made house calls then.  And the black bag they
carried had pills for just about any illness.

The dial telephone was invented by C. L. W. Zietlow, of Aberdeen.  His
Central Telephone Company was the biggest corporation in Aberdeen, maybe
South Dakota.  I think Bell tried to sue Zietlow for the patent rights, but
I think Zietlow won.  Have to check our local museum.

In 1955, my first teaching job was in Wilmot.  The whole town (pop. 700) was
on party lines. My wife and a friend sometimes "rubbered."   You really
didn't need to buy the local newspaper -- just listen in on the telephone!
I think that was a form of radio -- a really local "station."  About the
smallest towns in South Dakota that had their own radio stations were
Yankton (WNAX) and Pierre (KGFX), populations about 10,000, then and now.

In an emergency, you had to be quite confrontational:  "Please clear the
line!  My house is on fire?" OR "I need to call my doctor.  The baby is
really sick."  Doctors made house calls then.  And the black bag they
carried had pills for just about any illness.

Ted Kneebone, 1528 S. Grant St.,  Aberdeen, SD 57401/Phone 605-226-3344
OTR website:  [removed]

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 16:04:00 -0500
From: "Ted Kneebone" <tkneebone1@[removed];
To: "Old Time Radio Digest" <[removed]@[removed];
Subject:  Henry Morgan shows

One of my favorite radio comedians is Henry Morgan.  I have some of his
shows from 1941, 1942, and 1947.  Would like to get more of his really funny
programs.  If you want to view my holdings, go to my OTR catalog at the
Geocities website below.  Will trade in cassettes and CDs.

Ted Kneebone, 1528 S. Grant St.,  Aberdeen, SD 57401/Phone 605-226-3344
OTR website:  [removed]

--------------------------------
End of [removed] Digest V2006 Issue #328
*********************************************

Copyright [removed] Communications, York, PA; All Rights Reserved,
  including republication in any form.

If you enjoy this list, please consider financially supporting it:
   [removed]

For Help: [removed]@[removed]

To Unsubscribe: [removed]@[removed]

To Subscribe: [removed]@[removed]
  or see [removed]

For Help with the Archive Server, send the command ARCHIVE HELP
  in the SUBJECT of a message to [removed]@[removed]

To contact the listmaster, mail to listmaster@[removed]

To Send Mail to the list, simply send to [removed]@[removed]