Subject: [removed] Digest V01 #115
From: <[removed]@[removed]>
Date: 4/13/2001 9:10 PM
To: <[removed]@[removed];

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


                      The Old-Time Radio Digest!
                         Volume 01 : Issue 115
                   A Part of the [removed]!
                           ISSN: 1533-9289


                           Today's Topics:

 Re: MP3                              [Fred Berney <berney@[removed];      ]
 kid's OTR records, MP3 recordings fr ["Dixon H. Chandler II" <dchandler@n]
 MP3                                  ["Mike Kerezman" <philipmarlowe@eart]
 Re:Sound Degradation                 [TedOTR@[removed]                     ]
 Standard Time                        ["Stephen A Kallis, Jr." <skallisjr@]
 Re: Noise Reduction                  [Fred Berney <berney@[removed];      ]
 Re: echo sound                       [Fred Berney <berney@[removed];      ]
 [removed] Appleyard                [Peter Appleyard <pappleyard_ca@yaho]
 Re: Horatio Hornblower               [wa5pdk@[removed] ([removed] L.)         ]
 Dick Beals Live Interview            [Duane Keilstrup <duanek9@[removed]; ]
 MP3                                  ["David L. Easter" <david-easter@hom]

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

Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 01:01:29 -0400
From: Fred Berney <berney@[removed];
To: [removed]@[removed]
Subject:  Re: MP3

---- I agree that a 192 kbps
compression is quite good, and that some OTR doesn't start with excellent
sound anyway though some of it does. But does most trading happen at 192 or
much lower rates? In my experience it is lower, and that is where the sound
quality disappears.
Joe Salerno

Sometime last year, I made a test with MP3 files. I encoded some material
at many different rates. I received about 40 or 50 responses and almost
everyone felt that 128 kps was as high as encoding needed to go for OTR. I
even had 320 and everyone felt that was over kill.

My reason for the test was to determine what the best encoding for OTR
should be. I was trying to develop a standard. My first inclination was to
encode at the best I could. 320. But, everyone felt that was just a waste
of space, since no one could hear a difference between 320 and 128.

Several people felt that even lower rates were acceptable, but the
consensus was 128. I'm in the process of converting my entire collection to
digital from reel to reel. Right now everything is on a standard WAV file.

 From that WAV file I can create any kind of MP3 file I want. I was going
to standardize on 128 kps and [removed] sample rate. The goal is quality.

Joe, are you saying that 192 is better than 128? I mean I now if we were
talking music it is better, but for OTR is it better? My ears can't hear
the difference. I've made some test, where I created MP3 files at different
rates. Then I transferred those MP3 files into standard audio CD files and
played them back in my hi fi system. Encoding such as 32 and 64 did not
sound as good as 128. But I honestly couldn't hear a difference with OTR
material above 128.

It could be my ears. We do loose high frequencies as we age. In my 20's my
hearing was off the testing charts. But that was 40 years ago, so I admit
that some things can get by me. However, the sound of sound is something
you don't loose that quickly.

I can hear distortion, background noises, and changes in levels. After all,
sound has been my profession for nearly 45 years.

Do some test comparing 128 to 192. I'll do some of my own. If you and
others feel that 192 is actually better, I will change my standard to 192.
There is not a big difference in file size between the two. Again, whatever
I release in MP3, I want it to be of the highest quality. I think you will
agree that 320 is not necessary for OTR. I had to have others convince me
of that, since I was all set to make everything 320.

But then I still prefer reel to reel to cassette. Now I prefer audio CD to
tape. When CDs were expensive MP3 looked like a good storage system. But
when I can buy brand name high quality CDs at 20 cents each, I can afford
to store all my shows on WAV files. A lot less expensive than reel to reel
and even less than chrome cassettes.

Anyone else is invited to jump in here and agree or disagree with me. It is
inevitable that eventually all OTR will be on a digital format and more
than likely a good percentage will be MP3. As collectors who have kept
these shows alive for all these years and are now restoring these shows for
future generations to enjoy, we owe it to ourselves to come up with a
standard that will not degrade the quality of these programs.

I'm sure many of you are getting tired of me saying this and I'm actually
getting tired of typing it, but we are right at the start of a new format.
Let's try and get it right. Those that want to store hundreds of shows on a
single CD have every right to encode at what ever rate gives them that
storage capacity. But, when trading with collectors that have a high
concern about quality, I would like to see only high quality files fall
into that category.

Fred
For the best in Old Time Radio Shows [removed]
New e-commerce page [removed]

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

Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 01:18:03 -0400
From: "Dixon H. Chandler II" <dchandler@[removed];
To: <[removed]@[removed];
Subject:  kid's OTR records, MP3 recordings from cassette

Speaking of children's records ...

I have recorded much of my own collection of children's records on cassette
(Karl Swensen as "Merlin" from Walt Disney's Sword in the Stone, anyone?).

I'd now like to be able to put these in .wav format and burn them onto a CD.
I have a brother willing to burn the cd, and I can FTP the material to him,
but how do I get the material FROM cassette to my computer?  What software
do you all recommend?

Be gentle, please, I'm new at audio manipulation ... filters?  freeware?

Thanks in advance for all your suggestions,

-dc
dchandler@[removed]

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

Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 01:42:13 -0400
From: "Mike Kerezman" <philipmarlowe@[removed];
To: <[removed]@[removed];
Subject:  MP3

It was written that

Right now the Internet is loaded with programs in very small file format
and I would guess questionable quality. For someone that wants quantity, go
for it. I really wonder if there are enough hours in ones life time to
listen to 16,000 shows

-- Just because you go for the gold and encode to create a deliberately
large file size assoicated with higher bit rates such as 64, 96, 128, 96 is
no guarantee of any degree of Quality. I regularly collect in 32 Kbps. I
recently received a batch of shows in trade encoded at 64 Kbps and above
which were absolutely horrible. Similarly, there is individual in Alt
Binaries that uses the name The Marshall that uploads encodes of Gunsmoke
encoded at higher file size of 48 or 64 that are absolutely horrible quality
that suffer from severe distortion. It my opinion that some people encode
and upload without ever listening to it before they upload to check on the
quality of their encode.

    In addition, someone made the point that within a few years high speed
access will be universal among the population paving the way for 128+ Kbps
downloads. I find this very unlikely. Where I live 50 miles east of Oklahoma
City, Oklahoma, USA there is no DSL, Cable or other service and proably
never will be. Since there are only five people on my road, there is is five
miles of telephone cable from my house to the nearest source of
amplication. Consequently, a 26K connection is standard. This not likely to
change due to the prohibitive costs. As to Satellite, the problem is (I am
told) the high speed is only one way. You still must have a modem connection
to "send" or upload information.

The beauty of MP3 is it brings Old Time Radio to a wider audience. I
collected it since 1977  largely by expensive mail order on cassettes. My
budget only allowed this grow to 2,000 shows in that many years. Since July,
2000 it has grown to over 6,000. MP3 makes OTR accessible to a wider
audience, and not just a select a few.

Mike Kerezman


[ADMINISTRIVIA: Ok, folks, we're beating a dead horse here; let's just bury
it and move along. MP3s are going to be around until the Next Great Format
takes its place, at both high and low bitrates; let's just assume that 1)
some are going to want high quality,; 2) some are going to want low bitrates;
3) group from 1 thinks group from 2 is wrong, and group from 2 thinks group
from 1 is wrong; 4) MP3 is a lousy archival medium at _any_ bitrate; and get
back to discussing the shows.  --cfs3]

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

Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 10:05:46 -0400
From: TedOTR@[removed]
To: [removed]@[removed]
Subject:  Re:Sound Degradation

I've held off getting into this, but I decided to go ahead and put my two
cents in.  I know next to nothing about recording digitally.  That is why I
send masters off to someone who knows how to make the CD's I offer for sale.
I only have audio CD's with no compression whatsoever.  When digital first
began to be talked about, I was very excited.  I mean, here is what we have
been looking for for years & years!  It wouldn't make any difference what
generation your CD was as it would sound exactly the same as the 1st
generation.  There would be no more backtracking (tracking back to find who
has sourced the material for the lowest generation possible).  Then came the
MP3's.  I don't know much about digital, but I can add.  If you take a CD
that will hold 74 minutes of uncompressed audio and fit 3000 minutes on
there, well it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what has
happened.  In my opinion, what started out as the biggest blessing to OTR is
slowly turning into it's biggest nightmare.  Don't get me wrong - OTR
collecting is a very personal thing and the only person you have to please
with your collection is yourself.  If this is what you want - more power to
you.  But if you think you are preserving or archiving OTR, you're only
kidding yourself.  What's to prevent someone from downloading a highly
compressed OTR show from the web, converting it, and passing it off as an
audio CD?  Nothing, and the result is sound degradation, pure and simple.  I
don't want MP3's or any show that has ever been an MP3 at any time.  That's
why I will not accept any new traders - I only deal with people that I know
DO NOT use MP3's in any way.  I could have the wrong slant on this (it
certainly wouldn't be the first time), but that is the approach I am taking.
I've spent all my life trying to make the shows sound BETTER, and I'm sure
not going to start to try to make them sound worse so I can get more programs
on a CD.

Ted Davenport
Radio Memories
<A HREF="[removed]">
[removed]</A>

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

Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 10:05:49 -0400
From: "Stephen A Kallis, Jr." <skallisjr@[removed];
To: [removed]@[removed]
Subject:  Standard Time

Fred Berney, speaking of audio quality, notes,

If someone wants to mess things up, they can do it with analog or
digital.  The format doesn't really [removed];<

... And even if they don't want to.  A little knowledge is a dangerous
thing.

But then he adds the concept of quantity,

I really wonder if there are enough hours in ones life time to listen
to 16,000 [removed];<

Which brings up an important point.  There's an old cliche about one's
eyes being bigger than one's stomach, or biting off more than one can
chew.

I can't imagine listening to every show ever broadcast (even if I had
omnivorous tastes).  At my age, even if I attempted to do so, things like
eating, sleeping, and other life activities would get in the way.

Stephen A. Kallis, Jr.

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

Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 10:05:51 -0400
From: Fred Berney <berney@[removed];
To: [removed]@[removed]
Subject:  Re: Noise Reduction

A quick note about the use of sound reduction. Without knowing what the
original material sounded like it is hard to criticize the end result.

For example, I just worked on a program that had a loud buzz running
through it. I had recorded the program off the air and some how had a buzz
in the sound. I was able to remove the buzz, but at the expense of some
high end frequencies.

If you were to listen to the original and then the noise reduced program,
you would certainly choose to listen to the latter since it sounds much
better. But, if you heard only the [removed] program, you might say it doesn't
have a full sound.

When cleaning up any sound there is compromise. Care should be taken not to
generate more anomalies into the finished material than there were at the
start. The goal should be a sound that is comfortable to listen to. In some
cases leaving just a little bit of noise and having a resulting sound that
is normal, is better than removing all the noise and ending up with a
hollow sound.

It is all very subjective.

Fred
For the best in Old Time Radio Shows [removed]
New e-commerce page [removed]

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

Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 10:05:53 -0400
From: Fred Berney <berney@[removed];
To: [removed]@[removed]
Subject:  Re: echo sound

A while back someone made the remark about receiving a Lone Ranger tape
that had an echo sound in it. The answer he received from someone else was
that this was the result of too much sound processing.

This may have been the case, but back in the 1960's, AM radio stations were
looking for things to make listeners tune to their station. In Miami, WQAM,
which happened to broadcast The Lone Ranger, decided to broadcast
everything through an echo chamber.

It added a unique sound to music, but sounded bad when putting a dramatic
program through the process. I have some of these programs. I recorded them
off the air. Excellent recordings except for this echo chamber sound.

I'm trying to remember if it was WQAM or WIOD. Either way it was one of
those Miami stations. If this was being done in Miami, it was probably
being done all over the country.

Fred
For the best in Old Time Radio Shows [removed]
New e-commerce page [removed]

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

Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 13:42:13 -0400
From: Peter Appleyard <pappleyard_ca@[removed];
To: [removed]@[removed]
Subject:  [removed] Appleyard

I suppose I should'nt name names and I wont but I
would like to get things sorted out re my name. I am
Peter Appleyard a retired old man that spent all his
life in [removed] Music.  I cant read music
and havnt got a clue how to play any musical
instrument.
I appreciate the mail I received and the trouble
people have gone to to help. You are a great bunch and
should be very proud of yourselves and especially this
OTR Digest. Charlie, you are quite a guy, I hope
others think as much of you as I do.
Thank you all once [removed]


[ADMINISTRIVIA: Well, maybe _before_ the April First prank, but now I'm not
so [removed]   ;)   --cfs3]

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

Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 17:50:33 -0400
From: wa5pdk@[removed] ([removed] L.)
To: [removed]@[removed]
Subject:  Re: Horatio Hornblower

I was pleased to hear that a radio series was produced on the Horatio
Hornblower stories.  I would like to check out a couple of them to see
how they approached he material.  The recent TV series was pretty
[removed] did a marvelous job in many respects.  Thanks for any
additional [removed]
............
Bob Burns And Friends Radio Humor site:
[removed]

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

Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 18:31:54 -0400
From: Duane Keilstrup <duanek9@[removed];
To: <[removed]@[removed];
Subject:  Dick Beals Live Interview

Dick Beals will be interviewed live Monday, April 16, 10:30 [removed] EST, on The
Yesterday USA Radio Networks.  Dick, of course, played virtually 1000's of
roles in radio and TV.  Perhaps he is known best as the voice of Speedy in
the Alka-Seltzer commercials.  Coming later on April 22 will be Buddy Ebsen!

One feature among several this Sunday night, April 15, after 7:40 EST on the
Bill Bragg Show will be 2  Easter musical favorites on Classics & Curios.

These things and more on [removed] where family entertainment and
OTR go together.
Happy Easter to all and God bless!
Duane Keilstrup

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

Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 20:01:43 -0400
From: "David L. Easter" <david-easter@[removed];
To: "Old-Time Radio Digest (E-mail)" <[removed]@[removed];
Subject:  MP3

For those of you that might read the Wall Street Journal and saw the article
about MP3 you might be interested in what Paul Thurrott has to say in his
WinInfo Daily UPDATEs:

[removed]

David L. Easter
Email: David-Easter@[removed]

--------------------------------
End of [removed] Digest V01 Issue #115
*******************************************

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]

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]