Subject: [removed] Digest V2001 #350
From: "OldRadio Mailing Lists" <[removed]@[removed];
Date: 11/2/2001 8:40 AM
To: <[removed]@[removed];

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


                            The Old-Time Radio Digest!
                              Volume 2001 : Issue 350
                         A Part of the [removed]!
                                 ISSN: 1533-9289


                                 Today's Topics:

  OTR Archiving/Storage                 [ "Jeff G" <jeffg@[removed]; ]
  Re:Skip Wave Broadcast                [ Michael Biel <mbiel@[removed]; ]
  Re: The Colmans                       [ Gerry Wright <gdwright@[removed]; ]
  Re: what killed "our" radio           [ leemunsick@[removed] ]
  Mr. Armstrong's old FM tower          [ leemunsick@[removed] ]
  Re: Tape Versus CD Storage            [ "mbiel" <mbiel@[removed]; ]
  Why did OTR in the [removed] die?          [ "Robert Paine" <macandrew@[removed] ]
  Far-away places                       [ Richard Carpenter <sinatra@ragingbu ]
  hop SKIP jump                         [ Bill Harris <radioguy@[removed]; ]
  Re: hop SKIP jump                     [ Elmer Standish <elmer_standish@telu ]
  Re: Ronnie & Benita                   [ StevenL751@[removed] ]
  Why Radio Drama "Died"                [ "Tim Lones" <tallones@[removed]; ]
  TV or not TV, that is the Question    [ "Stephen A Kallis, Jr." <skallisjr@ ]
  Re: Tape Vs CD                        [ Fred Berney <berney@[removed]; ]
  Re: storing tape tails out            [ Fred Berney <berney@[removed]; ]
  re: WRVO Playhouse                    [ "Poindexter" <poindexter@[removed]; ]
  Distant stations                      [ "Roby McHone" <otr_alaska@[removed] ]
  Pleasures of Old Reel-to-Reel Tape    [ GEORGE WAGNER <gwagneroldtimeradio@ ]

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

Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 19:59:00 -0500
From: "Jeff G" <jeffg@[removed];
To: [removed]@[removed]
Subject:  OTR Archiving/Storage

Hey All!

[removed] what a debate; TAPE vs [removed] I personally imagine that it boils down
to a personal preference and that there isn't one method that will prove more
adequate than another is someone's eyes.

I will, however, try to defend good ol' audio cassettes.  This is all, of
course, from my personal experience, so arguable or not, take it for what its
worth.

First; the life of CD's.
I have CD's that I bought THIS YEAR that are now skipping and have tracks
that are unplayable.  The advantage of cassettes is that if a cassette falls
from the shelf, it won't get scratched and permanately damage the listening
quality.  If a CD falls from the shelf there is a good chance it WILL Get
scratched and affect the [removed] no?  Clearly, tape is superior
(personally!) in life span.

Secondly, I've found the MAJORITY (I'm not joking, here) of MP3 OTR shows
MUCH LESS listenable than most of the cassettes I own.  The problem with
Mp3's is that most people are encoding their shows like madmen/women and are
absolutely NOT paying attention to the right method.  We end up with Mp3's
that are either low volume with irritating wheezes, or that are so distorted
you can't understand the dialogue (again, personal experience).

I have turned to trading Mp3's simply because most people are doing it [removed]
Who cares WHAT the shows sounds like, I want MORE MORE [removed] right?
[removed] but that's the way it is, now.

I would be more persuaded to trade Mp3 CD's and use CD-R's for archiving
purposes if there was some definitive "Rules & Regulations" book on how to
make GOOD mp3's from [removed]  Until the quality of Mp3's improve
dramatically, I will pledge my allegeance to the Analog.

Anyone wanna trade cassettes?

jeff

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

Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 20:55:40 -0500
From: Michael Biel <mbiel@[removed];
To: [removed]@[removed]
Subject:  Re:Skip Wave Broadcast

In the movie Contact, the opening sequence starts out as if the
movie patron is being propelled away from earth. As the earth
fades in the distance you hear snippets of old radio shows as if
one is catching up with these long ago radio signals. This would
be quite impossible for anything broadcast on the AM BC band the
frequency is so low (long wavelengths) that these signals never
penetrate the ionosphere, thus never travel into space. The only
signals still traveling out there are the VHF/UHF and higher
frequencies which do penetrate this layer.    Bill Harris

Of course, starting in the late 30s there were some network affiliated
FM stations, and these shorter wavelengths do pass thru the
ionosphere--so this OTR might still be out there!  However, once the
number of stations increased to the point where there were many stations
on the same frequency, listeners in outer space would no longer be able
to separate them out to hear only one station at a time.  A listener
would hear everything on that frequency in the hemisphere facing towards
them.

That is why the astronauts in orbit cannot listen to a regular radio and
must get their news thru capsule communications.  They'd hear all the
stations on that frequency within their visible horizon and slightly
beyond.  If you were allowed to listen to a radio on an airplane you
would get great reception because of being so high up, but you would
still be low enough to not have too much interference.  But the higher
up you go the wider is the visible horizon, and the more stations that
would be interfering with each other.

Michael Biel  mbiel@[removed]

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

Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 20:55:53 -0500
From: Gerry Wright <gdwright@[removed];
To: [removed]@[removed]
Subject:  Re: The Colmans

Note: Ronald's last name is actually spelled Colman (no 'e')

Peter Kinder asked:

Was Ronald Coleman actually married to Benita?

Yes, Ronald married Benita Hume, as his second wife, Sept. 30, 1938.

If so, was it she who appeared on the Bennyshow?

Yes.

Did the Colemans live next to the Bennys?

No, but they both lived in Beverly Hills.

Gerry Wright
ZoneZebra Productions
San Francisco

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

Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 21:09:37 -0500
From: leemunsick@[removed]
To: [removed]@[removed]
Subject:  Re: what killed "our" radio

To answer the question from Owens Pomeroy and others, I think it's fair to
answer the question in one word:  Greed!

So much less expensive to hire someone to sit at a control panel with a
stack of noise, a binder full of commercials, IDs and station promos, and a
log schedule.  The hell with anything worth while.  Screw the listener, who
cares about him?

Look around you at the corporate world today.  Gasoline companies with dual
names (and nationalities).  Merged airlines merging into others.  Banks
changing names every 5 days.  See any difference?

Happy days!  Lee Munsick   That Godfrey Guy

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

Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 21:09:33 -0500
From: leemunsick@[removed]
To: [removed]@[removed]
Subject:  Mr. Armstrong's old FM tower

Interesting items in the news.  Because the major TV stations in New York
City had their xmtrs atop the WTC, they were knocked off the air 9-11 in
those horrific plunges of people, steel, glass, and stone.

So the TV bigwigs looked around for other sites.  They found they couldn't
get back on the Empire State Building, where they were before WTC was built
and they left.  Too much weight there already.

So what do they spy out there in good old New Jersey?  Right!  That
marvelous, famous FM transmitting tower on which friend Armstrong is seen
swinging around like King Kong on the Empire State, in the wonderful
documentary "Empire of the Air" recently discussed here.  That beautiful
giant tower is still there!

So guess who now have operating emergency transmitters on that self-same
structure?  Right:  Among others, there's the NYC TV arm of NBC, the
holdover from Armstrong's nemesis David Sarnoff.  The "General's" corporate
children went squealing for help, to be bailed out by the present owners of
Armstrong's tower.

"One never knows, do one?"  (With a nod to 'Fats' Waller)

Lee Munsick   That Godfrey Guy

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

Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 21:28:12 -0500
From: "mbiel" <mbiel@[removed];
To: <[removed]@[removed];
Subject:  Re: Tape Versus CD Storage

From: "jstokes" <jstokes@[removed];
In the tape versus CD storage question, tape wins.   That's a
no-brainer.  I can prove that tape is superior. I have my 1964-65
tapes recorded on Scotch 111 acetate of my radio "Science Spotlight"
radio shows on KUOM, Minneapolis.   Once in a while just for fun,
I'll take out a show  and play it back.   It plays back
P-E-R-F-E-C-T-L-Y.

Your reels of Scotch 111 were manufactured prior to the time that many
manufacturers switched to polyurithane binders which have been the source of
the "Sticky-Shed Syndrome."  If you had recorded on some of the Scotch 200
family of tapes you might not be singing this same tune.  A LARGE percentage
of tapes--including the highest grades--made from the mid 70s thru the early
90s have failed.  You have ONLY proved that Scotch 111 made in the early to
mid-60s will still play back perfectly.  You have proved nothing else.

PROPER STORAGE, THE SECRET TAPE LIFE!  Now then. I store ALL my open
reel tapes   "tails out."  That is absolutely essential.   All of us
old-time radio producer/engineers know, you store tapes "backwards,"
which we call "tails out," and then we rewind them and play them
forward to listen to them.  However, if you happen to store your
tapes "heads out," that is, not rewound, then woe to you. You will
get print-through. ... And don't be a cheap ass and record on both
sides of the tape.   You are again asking for trouble with
print-through.

Your statements on print-thru are very misleading.  Storing your tapes
tails-out will NOT reduce the amount of print thru one iota.  But it will
tend to have that print-thru as a pre-echo rather than a post-echo.
Print-thru tends to happen more from the inner layer to the one above it.  If
your tape is heads-out, that will cause the print thru to echo before the
actual recording--which is unnatural.  If the echo happens after the actual
sound, that is more natural and less noticable, and this is the type of
print-thru that is more usually found on tails-out tapes.  If you record in
both directions you will have the same amount of print-thru on both tracks,
only one will tend to be pre- and the other post-.

Because print thru is an "unbiased" recording it is less permanent than one
that has been made by the machine with the application of bias to those exact
oxide particles.  Flexing tape tends to self-erase unbiased recordings, so
the act of rewinding tapes can reduce the print thru by a few decibels.  But
this would happen if you had a heads-out tape and fast forward and rewind it
back.

Find a cool, un-humid place to store them.  It is not critical that
you have archival storage conditions.   That's a bunch of effete
hogwash.   I store mine down in a musty, but not damp, basement.
Watch the moisture though!   Heat won't hurt tapes either.
Moisture is a bad factor, though.

Actually, heat is a factor in accelerating print-thru.  But the advice about
avoiding moisture is a good point, except that archival storage conditions is
NOT "a bunch of effete hogwash."  If your basement is musty it is probably
too damp to avoid the eventual development of what will kill acetate tape
like your Scotch 111: "Vinegar Syndrome."  This is when the acetate itself
starts to become broken down.  It will eventually turn white and flakey.
Before it starts to do that it gives off acetic acid which smells like
vinegar.  Whenever you open a box of tape you must always give it a snif.  If
you smell vinegar, the tape must be segregated from all the others because
this condition is contageous.

Actually this has been more of a problem with safety motion picture film,
especially if it has a magnetic soundtrack stripe.  The two brands of regular
recording tape that have been noticed by archives to be the most likely to
have vinegar syndrome are Kodak and East German "Orwo" brands.

Moisture has also been a factor in Sticky Shed Syndrome, but it has been
noted that moisture exposure can start the problem even if the storage
conditions have been dry thereafter.  Ampex lost a suit from a European
archive which could prove proper cool and dry storage conditions from the
moment the shipments arrived on their doorstep.  They had continual printed
monitoring records of the environment in the archive.  But the tapes had been
shipped to the Ampex distributor by sea, and that was found to have been the
source of the problem.

Storage standards are constantly being revised by the major archival
organizations, but in general it is recommended that the storage be cool,
dry, relatively consistant in temperature and humidity, away from direct
sunlight and fluorescent lighting, and have air flow to remove any outgassing
from the materials.  Sealing of tapes or discs in airtight containers is NOT
recommended anymore.

Michael Biel  mbiel@[removed]

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

Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 21:30:50 -0500
From: "Robert Paine" <macandrew@[removed];
To: "OTR Digest" <[removed]@[removed];
Subject:  Why did OTR in the [removed] die?

 OTR was fading as I was born and as I grew up in the 50's. I wasn't there
so I can't say why, at least with any authority. I can state my view, based
on what I've read and from talking to people of my parent's and
grandparent's generation.

The thing that seems most obvious comes to me over and over. Simply put,
real radio, as I call it, died because: a)TV was becoming popular; b) there
was a growing audience for it; and c) the networks, ad agencies,
consultants, PR people and who know how many others, decided that the
American public didn't "want" radio but preferred TV. And they set out to
convince that public that such was the case.

TV was growing, no doubt about that. But my impressions are that there was
still a good audience for radio and it was still a very viable entertainment
medium. One example comes from Jim Cox' book, The Great Radio Soap Operas.
When the last two cancellations of soaps on CBS Radio took place, June 24
and November 25(?), 1960, the reaction of the fans ranged from vowing not to
listen to radio till the anger died down to swamping the switchboards. One
more thing, directly related to the last, is that CBS's affiliates were
clamoring for more control over there time and didn't want to clear even one
hour a day for the last four remaining soaps.

Did radio die prematurely? I think so. My gen has been made to believe it's
not interested in radio drama. That you can't do it and make it palatable.
All I can say is, some of my peers from the "Now Generation" have not the
ability to use their imaginations. I'm a product of the TV boom and as early
as my teens I realized that TV was lacking something. As Stan Freberg
proved, on radio you can drain a Great Lake and create the world's largest
chocolate (or was it hot fudge?) sundae. He then said, try to do that on TV.
Can you cloud someone's mind on TV? How do you "see" The Shadow and not see
him at the same time? Answer: on the radio.

Can you destroy the world and the CBS Radio Network on TV or the big screen?
The 1950's flick War of the Worlds was a good production, but it could not
come close to having the impact Orson Welles achieved with a script, a group
of actors, musicians, sound effects techs and studio engineers. And he did
it in a room that was maybe about, oh, 50' by 50' (Bill Murtough, am I
close?).

Again, these are my perceptions and I acknowledge there is probably more to
it. But these are at least some of the factors, I believe. Radio can
co-exist with TV and offer more than the current electronic pablum it
operators put forth.

 Macandrew

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

Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 21:54:35 -0500
From: Richard Carpenter <sinatra@[removed];
To: [removed]@[removed]
Subject:  Far-away places

  On the subject of radio signals heard far away: While in Turkey in the late
1950s, a friend heard disc jockey Arnie "Woo Woo" Ginsberg broadcasting from
WMEX in Boston. Lasted about a minute.

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

Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 22:04:50 -0500
From: Bill Harris <radioguy@[removed];
To: [removed]@[removed]
Subject:  hop SKIP jump

Sandy Singer <sinatradj@[removed]; wonders:

Maybe a technical person can figure THIS one out -- I watched channel 2,
Bangor, Maine one day around noon on a television set [no antenna] in
Peoria, Illinois.

This was probably due to a phenomenon known as tropospheric
bending. This is a result of the change in the refractive index of
the atmosphere at the boundary between air masses of differing
temperature and humidity characteristics. This allows frequencies
in the VHF range to bounce along this 'duct' and emerge at some
distant point, anywhere from around fifty to several hundred miles
from the point of origin.

I listen to KAAM almost every day, the station is now on 770. Just
curious what you did when you were there Sandy.

Bill Harris

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

Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 23:17:47 -0500
From: Elmer Standish <elmer_standish@[removed];
To: Old Time Radio Digest <[removed]@[removed];
Subject:  Re: hop SKIP jump

Hi Sandy: From an old aircraft radio technician.

What you experienced may have been "Sporadic E Skip". One afternoon in
Trenton, Ontario, Canada when I was stationed there with the Royal
Canadian Air Force (about 1965), I watched very clear television
signals from Florida stations (low band - channels 2 thru 6) that
totally over-rode signals from Buffalo, New York, the nearest USA
stations received via our tower mounted antenna.

A search on the net for "sporadic E skip" should give you several hits
with explanations of this phenomenon.

Hope this helps ===> ELMER

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

Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 23:41:55 -0500
From: StevenL751@[removed]
To: [removed]@[removed]
Subject:  Re: Ronnie & Benita

In a message dated 11/01/2001 8:05:07 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[removed]@[removed] writes:

    On another list, the question's come up:  Was Ronald Coleman
actually married to Benita?   If so, was it she who appeared on the Benny
show?  Did the Colemans live next to the Bennys?

Yes, Ronnie and Benita were actually married and it was really the two of
them on the Benny show.  They also co-starred together on their own series,
THE HALLS OF IVY.  But no, in real life the Colmans did not live next door to
the Bennys.  Jack's actual next door neighbor at the time was Lucille Ball.

Steve Lewis

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

Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 09:28:31 -0500
From: "Tim Lones" <tallones@[removed];
To: <[removed]@[removed];
Subject:  Why Radio Drama "Died"

     Realizing i am not exactly qualified to answer this question myself
since I was born near the end of the OTR [removed](44 next month)..I have read
here on the list and in other places there was a number of reasons Radio
"Shows" were [removed] networks put more and more resources into
television and they found that recorded music was cheaper to program on
Radio. Once TV began to flourish, Advertisers flocked to the new [removed]
one other [removed] might have to do with the fact that other countries TV
systems have a major public [removed](noncommercial)..CBC, BBC, etc. That
for a long time was not as dependent on [removed] would keep Radio shows
on the air longer. I hope that makes some [removed] anyone would like to
correct me on some assumptions [removed] would be quite all right

Regards,
Tim Lones
East Sparta, Ohio

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

Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 09:29:43 -0500
From: "Stephen A Kallis, Jr." <skallisjr@[removed];
To: [removed]@[removed]
Subject:  TV or not TV, that is the Question

Owens Pomeroy asks,

Can anyone on the thread tell me why America is the only country in the
World that is not currently broadcasting the kind of radio we were
familiar with on a Network basis (CBS, NBC, ABC, Mutual, etc.)  <snip>
Why did we allow it to disappear from the scene in favor of all-talk, or
top 40, or just plain junk.

Without beating a dead horse, I'll give a simple answer: because that's
not what the public wanted or, for the most part, wants.  Any
entertainment medium is subject to the marketplace, and sometimes that
creates complications.  This is further complicated by the historical
context.

When television first spread in the United States, it did so in the
context of the peace following World War II.  At this time, all sorts of
technical advances, some driven by wartime research, that vastly
increased possibilities for consumer items.  In the United States, one of
the most exciting things of the time was the concept of television.  To
the average citizen, the idea of having the equivalent of a movie theater
in one's living room was extraordinarily exciting.  By 1950, television
was spreading across the United States as a nearly exponential rate.  As
a result, _most_ people abandoned radio listening in favor of the visual
medium.  And the writers and sponsors followed to the new medium.

In short, nobody "allowed" OTR to disappear; it was something
evolutionary.

The United States' media are basically market driven.  In many other
countries, government support of one or more radio channels means that no
matter how small the audience share, certain styles of programming would
be supported.  If powers-that-be decide that variety, dramatic, comedic,
etc., radio shows should air, they will.  But in the United States, with
only a come-lately Public Radio, the market drove people to The Tube, and
OTR effectively ended.

Note that it isn't always easy being a pioneer; others can learn by the
first guy's experiences.

I bet you that if someone who is "in the chips" that loves OTR, would
buy a station, and start staffing it with those of his (or her) kind that
love it as well, and start hiring actors old and new, it would be a start
in the right direction

Possibly, but more likely not too many would listen.  People are too
conditioned to watch TV unless they're talk-show junkies.  The way to
interest people in OSR is to get them to listen at a time they can't
watch TV.

Stephen A. Kallis, Jr.

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

Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 09:29:47 -0500
From: Fred Berney <berney@[removed];
To: [removed]@[removed]
Subject:  Re: Tape Vs CD

Shawn Wells asked if anyone ever wore out a tape. As far as the tape
itself, audio tape will take a lot of playing. Back when I was a young kid,
and like to try experimenting, I recorded some music on a 1/4" tape. Cut it
into a 30 second loop and set it up to play on one of my recorders.

I ran it for about a week. At the end of that time I looked at it. Both
sides were very shinny. In fact it was almost impossible to tell which side
was which, but when I played it, the music sounded just fine. I always
meant to run a frequency response test on this kind of experiment, but
never got around to it. However, I do know that the highs will probably
drop off after a lot of playing, but unlike video tape, an audio tape can
be played many times and still be listenable.

Cassettes are a different story. The tape may be fine, but even if you just
put a cassette in storage, after about 15 years, the felt pads will come
loose and the splice that holds the tape to the leader will come apart.

This is one of the reasons I never liked cassettes, although we have built
a very nice business of duplicating about 80,000 cassettes per year for our
clients. They are handy to play in the car, but when I actually have the
time to sit down at home to listen to a tape, I pull out something on reel
to reel.

As far as tape vs CD, I transferring everything I have to audio CDs. I've
only had one reel to reel tape go bad. The oxide just fell off the backing.
Several tapes squeaked and I can see some of my old acetate tapes playing
with warping on one side. Another reason why I never recorded any of my
radio shows on 1/4 track. Everything in my collection is on half track.
This way, even if the edge of the tape is warped, the head is still picking
up a good signal from an area away from the edge of the tape.

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

Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 09:31:55 -0500
From: Fred Berney <berney@[removed];
To: [removed]@[removed]
Subject:  Re: storing tape tails out

I was told this back in the 50s. One reason for doing this is that it makes
you re-wind the tape before you play it. Again, when you are young, you are
told many things that you don't always question, you just do.

It is better to rewind a tape that has been stored for a while before
playing it. Why? I can make some guesses, but I'm not sure if they are the
real reason. Rewinding a tape takes out the kinks and allows it to run
smother in the player.

Storing a tape in tails out position will not stop print through, but I was
told it would put the echo at the start of the sound, rather than at the
end, so that the actual sound would drown out the echo. When you think this
through, it doesn't seem to make sense. One layer of tape is always going
to be on top of another and at some point there will be silence where the
echo will come through.

So, maybe it was just to make you rewind the tape before playing it, that
was the reason you were suppose to store it tails out. However, if you
recorded in both directions, then there is no real tails out.

Which bring up a point. You don't record on both sides of the tape. That is
front and back. You record on different tracks on the same side of the tape.

Full track means you're recording on the full width of the tape.

Half track, means that there are two tracks on the tape. Both on the same side.

Quarter track, means that the tracks are narrow enough to allow for 4
separate tracks on the same side of the tape.

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

Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 09:32:12 -0500
From: "Poindexter" <poindexter@[removed];
To: <[removed]@[removed];
Subject:  re: WRVO Playhouse

I have to heartily agree with Chris.  I live on the west coast but listen
regularly to great old radio via the WRVO stream.

I've supported the Playhouse with $30 a year for the past three years and
encourage all who love OTR to do the same. I challenge anyone to come up
with more entertainment for a dime a day.

Usual disclaimer, I have no affiliation other than being a happy listener.

Poindexter

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

Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 09:33:01 -0500
From: "Roby McHone" <otr_alaska@[removed];
To: [removed]@[removed]
Subject:  Distant stations

Owens Pomeroy asks:

I wonder if anyone on the thread
has had a similar experience of receiving broadcasts outside of your
listening area?

Yes, in the early to mid 60s I could often pick up a San Francisco radio
station here in interior Alaska.  Television reception was not all that good
here and there were few local radio stations and even they were hard to get
sometimes. Late at night I would surf the dial to see what was out there. I
found other distant stations also, but I was able to pick up the SF station
on a regular basis.

Roby McHone

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

Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 09:33:33 -0500
From: GEORGE WAGNER <gwagneroldtimeradio@[removed];
To: [removed]@[removed]
Subject:  Pleasures of Old Reel-to-Reel Tape

     I've never had the bad experiences with aging
reel-to-reel tape that many other archivists have
reported.
     Perhaps this is due to the fact that when
reel-to-reel collecting was at its height, most of my
colleagues purchased very expensive studio grade
tapes, while I bought what I could afford - bottom of
the line Radio Shack stuff at the (then) price of
$[removed] per 1800 foot reel. My friends roundly
criticized me for this at the time, but today their
studio grade tapes squeak like so many mice, and they
borrow my tapes which are still in excellent shape.
     Just a few years back I tracked down some old
paper tapes of Boston Symphony broadcasts from the
late 1940s. While the tapes themselves were fragile,
the fidelity remained nearly perfect.
     I regularly buy lots of old reel to reel tapes
from local antique and "junk" stores. I first go
through each tape looking for OTR, spoken arts and
specialty stuff before stacking the reels on my blank
tape shelf. (It was in this manner that I discovered
the only known surviving MOON RIVER broadcast with
Ruby Wright as vocalist.)
     I'm currently using tapes last recorded during
the years 1959-1961. No problem at all, thank you VERY
much.

     George Wagner
     GWAGNEROLDTIMERADIO@[removed]

--------------------------------
End of [removed] Digest V2001 Issue #350
*********************************************

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]