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]