Subject: [removed] Digest V2001 #351
From: "OldRadio Mailing Lists" <[removed]@[removed];
Date: 11/3/2001 10:03 AM

To: <[removed]@[removed];

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

                                The Old-Time Radio Digest!
                                  Volume 2001 : Issue 351
                             A Part of the [removed]!
                                     ISSN: 1533-9289

                                     Today's Topics:

      Tape Storage                          [ Henry Howard <hhoward@[removed] ]
      Tape print-through                    [ "S Skuse" <sskuse@[removed]; ]
      Tape and CDs                          [ "[removed]" <swells@[removed]; ]
      Tape Failure                          [ Henry Howard <hhoward@[removed] ]
      tape vs. CD                           [ "Joe Salerno" <sergei01@[removed] ]
      OTR -- Its Death Was Inevitable       [ Elizabeth McLeod <lizmcl@[removed] ]
      Why OTR Died In the US                [ Udmacon@[removed] ]
      Death of otr                          [ Neal Ellis <bstenor@[removed]; ]
      The Arch Oboler Challenge             [ "[removed]" <swells@[removed]; ]
      Today in Radio History                [ Joe Mackey <joemackey5@[removed]; ]
      KAAM -- DALLAS                        [ Sandy Singer <sinatradj@[removed]; ]
      Not Greed                             [ "Stephen A Kallis, Jr." <skallisjr@ ]
      The possibility of new creative radi  [ Carmelo Montalbano <carmelo@starpow ]
      Re: Green Hornet                      [ RWGOTR@[removed] ]
      The Archer's                          [ badaxley@[removed] ]
      death of OTR                          [ "Kierniesky, Nicholas C." <kiernies ]
      Re: Hollywood Theatre Group           [ "D. Fisher" <dfisher@[removed]; ]

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

    Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 09:36:44 -0500
    From: Henry Howard <hhoward@[removed];
    To: [removed]@[removed]
    Subject:  Tape Storage

    Thomas Mason writes

>     they advocated storing
>     the tapes tails out also and never really gave a reason for doing so

    There are two reasons that professional studios store tapes tail out.
    The first is that any print through that does occur is heard as
    echo.  When tapes are stored head out the print through is heard
    as pre echo, that is you hear the sound coming before it gets there which
    is very annoying.

    The more important reason is that for a professional tape that is
    recorded in one direction only, the played "onto the reel" and then
    stored tension and the smoothness of the wind results in less
    print through.  A tape that has been rewound will all most always
    be packed tighter than a tape played onto a reel and subject to
    more print through.

    Lastly, a tail out tape that is rewound just before playing will suffer
    least from any stickeyness  that might have occurred as the rewinding
    breaks the packing loose.

            Henry Howard  770 923 7955
       Audio Production for entertainment
                 and communications.
    [removed]

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

    Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 09:36:52 -0500
    From: "S Skuse" <sskuse@[removed];
    To: [removed]@[removed]
    Subject:  Tape print-through

    On Thursday 1 Nov 2001 at 09:05 Thomas Mason wrote:

>     Talking to some of the engineers in the audio library at ABC, they
>     advocated storing the tapes tails out also and never really gave a
>     reason for doing so, other than "it was better", but nine times out
>     of ten they never followed their own advice. In the old days they
>     used to buy a type of Scotch tape that had a different emulsion on
>     it that helped to keep print-through down to a minimum, but it is
>     the nature of the medium that print-through happens over time.

    It seems to be the case that cassette tapes suffer less from print-through
    than open reel tapes do, provided the recording  on the cassette is made
    using Dolby noise reduction (eg the ubiquitous Dolby B system).

    The compression circuitry in the Dolby B chip processes the sound at the
    moment the recording is made (obviously!) - ie before any print-through
    caused by long-term storeage of the tape can occur.

    The print-through still occurs, but when the Dolby B circuit retrieves the
    signal from the tape (years later), it effectively treats the additional
    print-through as if it was just surface noise (tape hiss), and leaves it
    behind, only amplifying the original signal.

    I'm no engineer, but that's been my experience over 25 years of recording
    with cassette. Let's raise a glass to Ray Dolby!

    Anyone with greater technical knowledge care to comment?

    Sandra Skuse
    [removed]

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

    Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 09:49:49 -0500
    From: "[removed]" <swells@[removed];
    To: <[removed]@[removed];
    Subject:  Tape and CDs

        I loved all the posts on this subject, I really didn't know that it
    would gain all this attention. Anyway, I probably should clarify my position
    on the matter. Don't get me wrong, I am not against tape, as I said before I
    own a ton, alomost literally, of open reels, I just think that the CD is the
    way to go.
        For my post about the challenge ; I was attempting to get at the "active
    life" of tape vs. CD. I too have reels that are over 30 years old, but I
    will say that the ones I have listened to most often are the ones that
    suffer in audio quality the most. You don't get that with a CD or any
    digital media. You get the same quality time after time.
        I am sure most OTR fans are like me in that the reason we collect shows
    is to listen to them, not to just put them on the bookshelves and look at
    them.
        I agree that tape has a proven record for archiving, with some added
    flaws that will eventually occur,  and that CD is too new to tell. But if
    the manufactures of the discs are just partically correct about their claims
    of longivity, then I doubt most of us will be around to prove them wrong.
        CD's have to be taken care of just like other forms of recordable media.
    I think most people would agree that transcription was better than tape, in
    regards to audio reproduction, but it had to be handled with extreme care.
    Tape took over because it was not only more durable, but you could put more
    audio on a reel that what could fit on transcription. Plus the fact that we
    could own an open reel deck and it was very expensive to own your own
    transcription recorder. Cassettes took over not becasue they were better,
    rather for ease of use and their portability.
        Now CD's have been around for about 20 years or so, and they have slowly
    taken over the market, I think that is a fair statement. I believe the
    reason for this is that CD's reproduce better audio quality than cassettes,
    and are also just as portable. You still have to take care of them just as
    you would with tape.
        Tell you what, I will offer up another challenge. Later today or
    tomarrow I will post a link to a downloadable show and I would like people
    to compare it to the same show on cassette or open reel. I am betting that
    the downloadable show will be better. Anyway, I will post a link to the show
    here in the digest. The show will be , "Alley Cat" for the Devil & Mr. O
    series of Arch Oboler's, original broadcast 09-17-71 . The reason for this
    selection is that that is something that I am currently working on along
    with the Lum & Abner. I am forever doing a few things at once.
    Shawn

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

    Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 10:02:55 -0500
    From: Henry Howard <hhoward@[removed];
    To: [removed]@[removed]
    Subject:  Tape Failure

    Michael Biel says

>     A LARGE percentage of tapes--including the highest grades--made from the
>     mid 70s thru the early 90s have failed.

    I am aware of no such massive "failure".

    It is true that many many tapes using a new backing treatment
    by Ampex and especially 3M developed what is known as
    sticky tape syndrome, but if properly baked they definitely
    were salvageable.   (Assuming they were not damaged prior
    to baking.)

    Digital formats on the other hand either work or don't.
    The don't work I would call a failure.
    The sticky tape I would call a major inconvenience.

            Henry Howard  770 923 7955
       Audio Production for entertainment
                 and communications.
    [removed]

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

    Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 10:42:08 -0500
    From: "Joe Salerno" <sergei01@[removed];
    To: "OTR List" <[removed]@[removed];
    Subject:  tape vs. CD

    Ok let's beat this horse real good.

    A statement was made previously:

    "The advantage of cassettes is that if a cassette falls from the shelf, it
    won't get scratched and permanently damage the listening quality."

    Ever had a CD damaged by a faulty player? I haven't. Ever had a tape
    crinkled to bits by a faulty player? I have. If you record in both
    directions, 2 shows are damaged, even the one you weren't listening to at
    the time.

    "If a CD falls from the shelf there is a good chance it WILL Get
    scratched and affect the [removed] no?"

    No. Store it in at least a paper envelope.

    "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"

    On this point we agree. I regard the digital revolution as one of the WORST
    things that could ever have happened to OTR. Poorly compressed shows
    distributed over the internet (and CDRs with hundreds of shows on a single
    disc) has contributed greatly to the loss of fidelity, exactly the opposite
    of what digital was supposed to do.

    Joe Salerno

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

    Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 10:43:28 -0500
    From: Elizabeth McLeod <lizmcl@[removed];
    To: <[removed]@[removed];
    Subject:  OTR -- Its Death Was Inevitable

    I'll get in a few whacks at the "Who Killed OTR" dead horse by taking a
    non-idealized, non-sentimentalized view of the situation. I've discussed
    these issues before, but they seem to be worth repeating for those who
    may have tuned in late.

    OTR-style radio was doomed in the United States from the moment of its
    birth -- because the economic system constructed to support it was
    inherently flawed. That system depended on a very delicate balance of
    power between networks, advertising agencies, and network affiliates. As
    soon as that balance was disturbed by the economic upheaval caused by the
    advent of television, the system fell apart. Had it not been for outside
    historical developments, the OTR era *should* have been dead and gone by
    1950 -- but World War II and then the 1948 licensing freeze on new TV
    stations imposed by the FCC bought the medium additonal time. As soon as
    the freeze was lifted in 1952, radio's days were numbered.

    What was happening behind the scenes was that payments to affiliates were
    being cut back sharply by all the networks thruout the early fifties --
    amounting to as much as a twenty-five per cent reduction in network
    revenue for the average affiliate -- and the savings thus accrued were
    helping to fund the cost of television development. Local affiliates had
    to make up the lost revenue by selling more local advertising time.
    Invariably, this ended up cutting into the network portion of their
    schedules -- it was simply ended up being more profitable for a station
    to sell the time locally than it was for them to clear a network program
    for the same slot. The amount of time local stations were willing to cede
    to networks became less and less thru the mid fifties -- and by the end
    of the decade, the networks were finding it more trouble than it was
    worth to maintain OTR-style radio schedules. The system could simply no
    longer sustain itself.

    Had there been a meaningful nationwide system of public broadcasting in
    the 1950s, radio might very well have continued to develop as a creative
    form, and OTR would very likely have survived in some way -- and, indeed,
    tts survival in other countries can be laid primarily to the presence of
    government-funded broadcasting services. But there was simply no way it
    *could* have survived under the private-sector economic conditions that
    existed in US broadcasting in the late 1950s and early 1960s. For local
    broadcasters it wasn't a simplistic question of "greed." It was a matter
    of economic survival.

    Elizabeth

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

    Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 10:44:20 -0500
    From: Udmacon@[removed]
    To: [removed]@[removed]
    Subject:  Why OTR Died In the US

    I was eleven years old when dad had delivered to our Queens apartment a brand

    spanking new 12 inch Muntz TV.

    For me, that was it for radio. The kids' hour from 5 to 6 no longer appealed
    to me, and the only time radio came on was in the morning as we all ate
    breakfast.

    (I remember turning on the TV one morning to see the first "Today" show. Dad
    asked me why in the world was I turning on the television at 7 [removed] I told
    him about the new show. "Nobody will ever watch TV at that hour of the
    morning" was his interesting prediction).

    It was like the public's reaction to talkies at the movies. Only Chaplin kept

    going with silent pictures.

    I think the TV went off only once a week when Mom insisted on listening to
    the Bing Crosby show.

    That's how it was for most of us in 1949, especially in New York City where
    we already had seven channels (I watched WOR-TV's premiere program, which
    featured radio pioneer John B. Gambling).

    Bill Knowlton, "BLUEGRASS RAMBLE," WCNY-FM: Syracuse, Utica, Watertown NY
    (since Jan. 1973). Sundays, 9 pm est: [removed]

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

    Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 11:07:13 -0500
    From: Neal Ellis <bstenor@[removed];
    To: [removed]@[removed]
    Subject:  Death of otr

    I have to take exception to the comments of Lee Munsick concerning
    the death of otr.  Granted he has a great point.  However, don't you
    think that this hobby will live on with a newer generation better if we
    don't keep telling them that everything from their generation is not
    worthy?

>     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?

    Having been a broadcast performer for the last 30 years I find
    comments like these both uniformed and uncalled for.  Has Mr. Munsick
    ever heard of Dan Ingram, Joey Reynolds, Cousin Brucie.  And by the
    way, why is recorded music referred to as a "stack of noise".

    If we ever hope to have our beloved form of radio to be passed to a
    new generation we must STOP with the everything past "Golden Age"
    period
    isn't worth while.  It require a great deal of talent to work at Top
    40 stations like WABC.  Like it or not this is as much a part of the
    legacy of radio as dramas and comedies.  Finally, it is fine that you
    may not like a type of radio entertainment however, let us not be so
    quick to dismiss it as not being worth while.

    Sorry but I hate to see the industry I so love attacked.

    Neal Ellis
    Audio Engineer (National Public Radio)
    Librarian (First Generation Radio Archives)

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

    Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 11:09:20 -0500
    From: "[removed]" <swells@[removed];
    To: <[removed]@[removed];
    Subject:  The Arch Oboler Challenge

    Greetings Again:
        Well, good to my word, I have uploaded the first episode in the Devil &
    Mr. O series. It is, as it was broadcast just a short 30 years ago,
    commericals intact. It is in the "terrible lossy format" known as an mp3.
    For those who have this show on tape, reel, etc. get it ready and do an
    side-by-side comparison. As I stated earlier, I am betting that this "lossy
    format" will be better than your tape. Bear in mind that the file is just
    over 16 MB , so if your using a fast connection to the interent you should
    have no problem, but for those you use a slower connetion, just be patient.
    In the event that you don't happen to have it on tape, reel, etc. then you
    can still download it and enjoy it along with the rest of us.
        I hope no one took offense to my comments on tape. We all have our own
    opinions that we like to voice and that is what makes America great.
        Anyway, just click on the link below and it will automatically start to
    download.

    [removed](01)%20Alley%[removed]

    Shawn

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

    Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 11:44:58 -0500
    From: Joe Mackey <joemackey5@[removed];
    To: otr-net <[removed]@[removed];
    Subject:  Today in Radio History

      From Today's History and Birthday's --

      10/31

    In 1942, one of the great wartime radio shows premiered when CBS debuted
    "Thanks to the Yanks," starring Bob Hawk.

      11/1

    In 1937, the first broadcast of "Hilltop House" aired on CBS radio;
    while over on NBC radio, the comic strip character "Terry and the
    Pirates" debuted.

      11/2

    In 1920, radio station KDKA in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, broadcast
    returns from the Harding-Cox presidential election.

      Joe

    --
    Visit my home page:
    [removed]~[removed]

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

    Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 13:12:08 -0500
    From: Sandy Singer <sinatradj@[removed];
    To: [removed]@[removed]
    Subject:  KAAM -- DALLAS

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

    Mid-day and A Date With Sinatra, Bill.

                      Sandy Singer
              A DATE WITH SINATRA

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

    Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 14:15:57 -0500
    From: "Stephen A Kallis, Jr." <skallisjr@[removed];
    To: [removed]@[removed]
    Subject:  Not Greed

    Speaking of the question of what killed OTR, Lee Munsic observes,

>     To answer the question from Owens Pomeroy and others, I think it's fair
>     to answer the question in one word:  Greed! <snip> The hell with anything
>     worth while.  Screw the listener, who cares about him?

    Well, having lived through the era, I have to disagree.  Unless the
    American public wanted TV, radio would have continued as it had been,
    indefinitely.  Note that there was TV before World War II -- but only in
    major cities.  One of the limiting factors of the time was that the mass
    production of larger cathode-ray tubes (CRTs or "picture tubes") was
    quite difficult and uneconomical.  Another was that linking TV stations
    was much more difficult than radio, and the recording process (which
    involved motion picture film for TV) was far more elaborate.  After the
    war, one of those problems had been solved -- mass production of picture
    tubes -- and that was enough.

    Emerging from the war, the average [removed] citizen was extremely optimistic
    about the future.  The wonders of science and technology promised an
    exciting future, with new inventions popping up with great frequency.
    Things we take for granted today were almost futuristic in the mid 1940s
    and early 1950s.  Even such a commonplace appliance as a self-defrosting
    refrigerator was a wonder back then.  Television, in those days, was an
    almost irresistible draw.  The first house on the block to get a TV set
    had a lot of visitors.  People were so excited at the prospect of seeing,
    as well as hearing, broadcasts that they clamored for TV.  Even the
    newspaper comic strips mentioned TV.

    I think one could say unequivocally that as soon as TV became available,
    people switched to it immediately.  Some shows, like Arthur Godfrey's,
    were simulcast on TV and radio, but where possible, people preferred to
    watch it.

    "Greed" isn't the same as "financial sense."  A sponsor isn't obliged to
    pay for something that might not generate enough revenues to pay for
    itself, and with the dwindling radio audience, it only made sense for
    sponsors to concentrate their advertising budget on the most desirable
    medium.  And that wasn't radio.

    Now have lived my formative years with OTR, I have a good appreciation
    with the best of the shows.  But I cannot fault the [removed] public for
    switching to the video medium.  It's one thing to hear a Lux Radio
    Theater recreation of a movie in audio; it's another thing to see that
    movie (if available) in one's living room.  To the average citizen, TV
    was a quantum-leap forward.

    Both OTR and TV are separate art forms; the only thing, they both are
    broadcast electromagnetically.  The radio version of Captain Midnight is
    significantly different than the TV version  -- and better, more suitable
    for an adult audience.  But realistically, the production budget of any
    TV show of the day couldn't have supported a Captain Miidnight radio
    adventure, such as the X Island adventure, or the quest for Juvarium in
    the Phantom City sequence.

    OTR has tremendous strengths, but it also has weaknesses.  I happen to
    enjoy OTR tremendously, but my wife, whose formative years were during
    the TV period, doesn't share my enthusiasm.  She likes a few shows, but I
    usually listen from tapes while working in the yard or walking our dog.

    Stephen A. Kallis, Jr.

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

    Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 14:16:10 -0500
    From: Carmelo Montalbano <carmelo@[removed];
    To: <[removed]@[removed];
    Subject:  The possibility of new creative radio shows

    I guess my question is whether there would be enough interest to produce
    new shows today if you had a station to play them?

    Eventually what goes around comes around and I think the ever-increasing
    narrow  ownership of station content will not translate into people
    listening.  Isn't that what internet narrow casting stations are doing?

      After all, I have a cd and tape player in my car.
    Carmelo

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

    Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 14:35:48 -0500
    From: RWGOTR@[removed]
    To: [removed]@[removed]
    Subject:  Re: Green Hornet

    I'm way behind in the digests, so I'm not sure if the Green Hornet question
    asked a few days ago was fully answered; if so, please excuse the repetition.

    In a Green Hornet broadcast I have, "Exposed," dated 28 October 1947, a woman
    sneaks a ride in the Black Beauty and is taken to Britt Reid's place, where
    she learns that he and the Green Hornet are one and the same.  Unfortunately,
    I do not have the follow-up broadcast, because "Exposed" ended as a
    cliffhanger, with the Green Hornet wondering just how he was going to get out
    of this.  I think, though I'm not sure, that this broadcast might have been
    the start of Britt Reid telling people he was the Green Hornet.  This woman
    was, if I remember correctly, sent by Reid's father to check up on playboy
    Britt.  Britt will eventually reveal his identity to his father, to show the
    old man that he is following in the footsteps of their illustrious relative,
    The Lone Ranger, in fighting crime.  I do know that by the time of "A Matter
    of Evidence" (20 January 1948), the police commissioner knows that Reid is
    the Hornet.  If Lenore Case didn't know by then, she probably found out a
    couple weeks later.  "Miss Case Meets the Hornet" on 3 February 1948, and
    "Miss Case Keeps
    a Secret" on 17 February 1948 seem to indicate she found out by then.

    Hope this helps.

    Rob

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

    Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 15:07:04 -0500
    From: badaxley@[removed]
    To: [removed]@[removed]
    Subject:  The Archer's

    Many, many thanks to those who responded to my question
    on the Archer's.  I always know if I have a question
    related to OTR, all I have to do is post in the digest
    and I will receive wonderful answers.  Thanks again!
    Bob Axley

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

    Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 16:04:32 -0500
    From: "Kierniesky, Nicholas C." <kiernies@[removed];
    To: <[removed]@[removed];
    Subject:  death of OTR

    With regard to the recent discussion regarding the comparative death of
    OTR, I have two brief comments.   First, no other country in the
    post-war era had the powerful industry forces to move TV technology
    quickly over radio, and to sell the public on it.  Thus other countries
    continued stronger radio traditions.  This situation is similar to the
    car/plane train influence of the railroads (compared to other
    countries).   Second, I offer a speculation, which I hope doesn't offend
    OTR buffs (golly gee, I'm one of them!).  Had there not been a
    depression, nor a World WarII, it is quite possible that there may not
    have been a golden age of radio.  TV may have come in the 1930s instead
    of the post-war era.

    -Nik Kierniesky
    -Gettysburg, PA

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

    Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 23:50:49 -0500
    From: "D. Fisher" <dfisher@[removed];
    To: <[removed]@[removed];
    Subject: Re: Hollywood Theatre Group

    Hopefully Lois can answer this. I have a couple of shows titled "Hollywood
    Theatre Group" that stars Howard Culver that states they aired some time in
    the 30's. Can someone shed some light on this show?

    Don Fisher

    --------------------------------
    End of [removed] Digest V2001 Issue #351
    *********************************************

    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]