Subject: [removed] Digest V2006 #330
From: [removed]@[removed]
Date: 11/25/2006 9:15 AM

To: [removed]@[removed]

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

                                The Old-Time Radio Digest!
                                  Volume 2006 : Issue 330
                             A Part of the [removed]!
                                 [removed]
                                     ISSN: 1533-9289

                                     Today's Topics:

      loss of Shawn Wells                   [ <tjmartin12866@[removed]; ]
      Dream Girl                            [ "Frank McGurn" <[removed]@sbcgloba ]
      Digital vs analog                     [ "Wayne Johnson" <wayne_johnson@mind ]
      Re: mp3 transmitters for cars and ca  [ Brent Pellegrini <brentpl@rocketmai ]
      Mono vs. Stereo, Etc.                 [ "Glenn P.," <C128User@[removed]; ]
      11-25 births/deaths                   [ Ronald Sayles <bogusotr@[removed] ]
      Listening to OTR Recordings -- And H  [ "Stephen A Kallis, Jr" <skallisjr@j ]
      digital audio                         [ ddunfee@[removed] ]
      trading rules                         [ "Martin Grams, Jr." <mmargrajr@hotm ]

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

    Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 16:26:40 -0500
    From: <tjmartin12866@[removed];
    To: <[removed]@[removed];
    Subject:  loss of Shawn Wells
    X-Converted-To-Plain-Text: from multipart/alternative
    X-Converted-To-Plain-Text: Alternative section used was text/plain

    I had inquired of this list several times as to what happened to Shawn Wells.
    I am truly saddened for the loss of such a nice young man who taught many of
    us that quality MP3s were not just a possibility but a fact.
    Shawn and I became close and traded many shows and talked for hours weekly
    about OTR. He had many plans for converting the best of OTR to MP3 and did
    quite a grand job of it.
    Shawn was very close to his grandfather and the tales of their fishing
    expeditions will live forever in my mind.
    It is not unusual to see the passing of OTR personalities in this list but one
    of such a young age and a bright future as an OTR dealer is very sad indeed.
    I thank Craig for finally letting us all know of Shawn's [removed] is
    missed.
    Tom Martin
    (formally Vintage Audio)

      *** This message was altered by the server, and may not appear ***
      ***                  as the sender intended.                   ***

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

    Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 16:28:38 -0500
    From: "Frank McGurn" <[removed]@[removed];
    To: "The Old Time Radio Digest" <[removed]@[removed];
    Subject:  Dream Girl

    I never made, or was close to, the Honor  Roll in any school I attended, but
    if there was an Honor Roll for trivia I would have made it.
    In to days local newspaper the entertainment section  had story about new
    movies soon to be [removed] title is "Dream Girls"  it was originally a
    stage play. My trivia mind snapped to attention to the OTR Luster Cream
    Shampoo singing commercial "Dream Girl, Dream Girl Wonderful Luster Cream
    Girl". At the breakfast table I told my wife about the commercial and said
    it was "Dream Shampoo" I know I'm right, but my wife says she is. What
    program did Luster Cream sponsor?

    Pleas help keep a 56 year marriage out of the divorce court., and tell us,
    I'm [removed]
    Hope all of you had a great Thanksgiving, we did with our kids and grand
    children 31 for dinner.
    Frank McGurn

    [ADMINISTRIVIA: I believe our friend Chris Holm is uniquely qualified to
    answer this question, as those who attended the Cincinnati Convention a
    year-and-a-half ago will surely [removed]  --cfs3]

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

    Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 17:48:17 -0500
    From: "Wayne Johnson" <wayne_johnson@[removed];
    To: <[removed]@[removed];
    Subject:  Digital vs analog

>     Wayne Johnson states:

> >     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.

>     Wayne, you mention your transferring is from tape to tape. There is
>     an interesting phenomenon that I have noticed when doing just that.

    ...........>

    Sorry Ken, that wasn't me.  That was a snippet that I included with my
    reply.

    FOR THE RECORD:

    I prefer vinyl over CD.  I think that music sounds better ... warmer ...
    [removed] with vinyl versus CD.  Then there is that old thing called JITTER
    which for years no one could define but just "knew" it was there.  That is
    why I started making my own recordings ... I had more control over the
    process.  And I even would introduce an analog transfer now and then just to
    see how it sounded.  Most of the time it sounded pretty good.  That is just
    me.  Opinions vary.

    Speaking of opinion:  My 'arguements' concerning MP3 were twofold: 1) to
    explain a little of the digital recording process and 2) to explain that MP3
    files do not have to be as large as possible since most of what is getting
    left off or thrown away was never there to begin with.   OTR and MP3 seem to
    be made for each other, in my opinion, since there isn't a lot of bottom or
    top in the original recordings.

    As for our New Mexico audiophile friend ... EXCELLENT explanation.  I, too,
    have heard that before.  Sennheiser 580 headphones have/had a published
    frequency response of up to 39,000 hz.  Way outside of normal human hearing.
    Why?  Because it could be felt rather than heard.  Not sure that I buy that
    as I have yet to hear or feel 39,000 hz.

    Again, my defintion of a good record or what one should hope to attain in
    recording is to duplicate the live performance.  When I listen to something
    and it makes me feel that I am in there, in person then I know it is a good
    recording.  Some OTR MP3s do just that  and they are about 6Mb in size so
    there has been quite a bit of compression.

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

    Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 18:17:05 -0500
    From: Brent Pellegrini <brentpl@[removed];
    To: [removed]@[removed]
    Subject:  Re: mp3 transmitters for cars and cassette
     adapters

    I've had better luck with those cassette adapters. They have a wire coming off the cassette and
    it goes into the headphone jack of the mp3 player. I bought three on ebay for about $5 each, one
    for each car. Of course you need a cassette player in your car which are becoming [removed] have so
    so luck with the transmitters.

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

    Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 21:37:32 -0500
    From: "Glenn P.," <C128User@[removed];
    To: Old-Time Radio Mailing List <[removed]@[removed];
    Subject:  Mono vs. Stereo, Etc.

    On Fri., 24-Nov-2006, at 04:14:30pm EST (-0500 GMT), "Mr. Sammy Jones"
    <SJones69@[removed]; posted to [The Old-Time Radio Mailing List]
    under the subject of "Mono vs. Stereo":

    I (Glenn P.,) wrote:

> >     ...If yo record a mono piece in stereo, there might not SEEM to be
> >     any difference but there definitely IS one when you carefully compare
> >     them [removed]

    You replied:

     > Can you please be more specific? How are you recording mono in stereo?
     > Recording mono in stereo by definition yields two identical tracks.
     > Perhaps you meant to refer to full- or half-track mono compared to
     > quarter-track?

    I know nothing of that; I deal exclusively with either ordinary cassette
    tapes (well, not really ORDINARY, since I prefer metal tapes [so-called
    "Type IV"] -- but nothing you'd count as unusual, such as reel-to-reel
    anything fancy like that) or phonograph records.

     > Or maybe you're using a quarter-track stereo head to play back
     > half-track mono. The sound will definitely be different than if
     > you're playing back with a half- or full-track head: the right
     > channel should go in and out of phase (this is not necessarily
     > a good thing).

    In the case of phonograph records particularly, this may well be the case,
    since I have NO IDEA of how they are recorded. If the record was produced
    using "half-track" and I record it using "quarter-track" (I believe that's
    what normal cassettes use -- one half-track per side, and each half-track
    split into two for each stereo channel, that's quarter-track per channel),
    will not this result in the change you describe?

     > I'm really curious to know what you mean about the sound being sharper
     > and clearer. A mono source cannot be improved simply by copying it to
     > 2-channel (unless some tricky equalization/restoration is employed).

    Perphaps it would be better to say that it certainly sounds better and
    clearer to ME. Perhaps not so objectively!   :(

              -=-  -=-  -=-

    AND, on Fri., 24-Nov-2006, at 04:25:15pm EST (-0500 GMT), "Mr. Ken
    Greenwald" <Radio@[removed]; posted to [The Old-Time Radio Mailing
    List] under the subject of "Just a 'bit' more on Sound":

     > Wayne Johnson states:

     >> Here I MUST disagree. I am an old hand at recording mono material,
     >> [removed]

    First of all, Wayne didn't write this, I (Glenn P.,) did. You've mixed
    up your attributions.   :)    I've corrected this below.

     >> ...at transferring recordings from device to device ([removed], from tape
     >> to tape), and my long experience (many years) has taught me that if
     >> yo 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.

     > [Glenn], you mention your transferring is from tape to tape. There
     > Is an interesting phenomenon that I have noticed when doing just
     > that. Let's say I have two open reel machines and the show I want
     > to transfer to one machine has been recorded half track. But the
     > playback machine is only a quarter track machine. So, I have to
     > feed the left channel into the second recorder to make the copy.
     > What I have noticed is that the sound from the quarter track
     > playback machine appears to be clearer and [removed] the answer
     > lies in the electronics of the [removed] giving the sense that
     > the new tape dub is actually cleaner and [removed] In the long
     > run, different people hear what they interpret as better or poorer
     > [removed]

    That is very probably what is happening.   :)

    There may be yet another factor, which I have not yet seen mentioned.

    I remember reading, ages ago when CD's first came out, that "4x
    oversampling" (for example) actually sounded WORSE -- DULLER -- than
    "2x oversampling". Analysis showed that the sound from 4x oversampling
    was "purer", yet people reported that the 2x oversampling sounded
    clearer and brighter! The conclusion was that the human brain is
    either accustomed to, or else actually needs, a certain amount of
    white noise thrown in with what it hears, in order to interpret it
    properly, and that to a certain extent a poorer recording may actually
    SOUND better than a better one!

    It is perfectly within the realm of possibility, therefore, that the
    ONLY that reason my dubs sound clearer to me is that my dubs are simply
    inferior, unintentionally adding white noise!!!   :o

    If anyone wishes to argue this, he or she is welcome to do so. I have
    neither the education, nor the wherewithal (analytical software, etc.)
    to say either "Yea" or "Nay" to the matter, and I am content with the
    sound of my dubs in any case.   :)

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

    Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 00:42:41 -0500
    From: Ronald Sayles <bogusotr@[removed];
    To: Olde Tyme Radio Digest Digest <[removed]@[removed];
    Subject:  11-25 births/deaths
    X-Converted-To-Plain-Text: from multipart/alternative
    X-Converted-To-Plain-Text: Alternative section used was text/plain

    November 25th births

    11-25-1871 - Kate McComb - Sacramento, CA - d. 4-15-1959
    actor: Mrs. Kerrigan "The Goldbergs"; Nannie "Lora Lawton"
    11-25-1886 - Rex Maupin - St. Joseph, MO - d. 7-28-1966
    orchestra leader: "Breakfast Club"; "National Farm and Home Hour"
    11-25-1893 - Jack Frost - Boston, MA - d. 10-21-1959
    producer: "The National Barn Dance"
    11-25-1894 - Laurence Stallings - Macon, GA - d. 2-28-1968
    writer: "Captain Flagg and Sergeant Quirt" based on his play "What
    Price Glory?"
    11-25-1896 - Virgil Thomson - Kansas City, MO - d. 9-30-1989
    composer: "Columbia Workshop"
    11-25-1897 - Willie The Lion' Smith - Goshen, NY - d. 4-18-1973
    jazz pianist: "Eddie Condon's Jazz Concerts"
    11-25-1899 - Kay Strozzi - Swan's Point Plantation, VA - d. 1-18-1996
    actor: Shelia Blade "I Love Linda Dale"; Victoria Lorring "Young
    Widder Brown"
    11-25-1900 - Helen Gahagan Douglas - Boonton, NJ - d. 6-28-1980
    actor: (Wife of Melvin Douglas) "Hollywood Fights Back"; "A Report to
    the Nation"
    11-25-1904 - Jessie Royce Landis - Chicago, IL - d. 2-2-1972
    actor: "We Are Always Young"
    11-25-1905 - Will Osborne - Toronto, Canada - d. 10-22-1981
    bandleader, singer: "Abbott and Costello"
    11-25-1912 - Henry Denker - NYC
    writer: "Cavalcade of America"; "Greatest Story Ever Told"
    11-25-1914 - Joe DiMaggio - Martinez, CA - d. 3-8-1999
    baseball superstar: "Joe DiMaggio Show"
    11-25-1919 - Norman Tokar - Newark, NJ - d. 4-6-1979
    actor: Henry Aldrich "The Aldrich Family"
    11-25-1920 - Ricardo Montalban - Mexico City, Mexico
    actor: "Lux Radio Theatre"; "As Easy as [removed]"

    November 25th deaths

    02-22-1879 - Philip F. Lord - San Francisco, CA - d. 11-25-1968
    actor: Pop Gunn "Great Gunns"; Frazier Mitchell "Mary Marlin"
    03-04-1909 - Harry Elders - d. 11-25-1993
    actor: Dr. Bill Evans "Road of Life"; David Houseman "Stepmother"
    04-04-1914 - Rosemary Lane - Indianola, IA - d. 11-25-1974
    singer: (The Lane Sisters) "Fred Waring Show"; "Your Hollywood Parade"
    04-29-1912 - Richard Carlson - Albert Lea, MN - d. 11-25-1977
    actor: "Lux Radio Theatre"
    06-16-1907 - Jack Albertson - Malden, MA - d. 11-25-1981
    actor: "Milton Berle Show"; "Phil Harris/Alice Faye Show"; "Cavalcade
    of America"
    07-13-1889 - Frank M. Thomas - St. Joseph, MO - d. 11-25-1989
    actor: Police Captain "Martin Kane, Private Eye"
    07-30-1912 - Edward L. Bliss - Fizhou, China - d. 11-25-2002
    cbs news correspondent: (One of Morrow's Boys) CBS News Twentieth
    Century Roundup"
    08-28-1895 - H. Norman Schwarzkopf - Newark, NJ - d. 11-25-1958
    narrator: "Gangbusters"
    11-19-1905 - Eleanor Audley - NYC - d. 11-25-1991
    actor: Elizabeth Smith "Father Knows Best"
    12-25-1907 - Matt Brooks - NYC - d. 11-25-1990
    writer: "The Eddie Cantor Show"

    Ron Sayles

      *** This message was altered by the server, and may not appear ***
      ***                  as the sender intended.                   ***

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

    Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 00:43:09 -0500
    From: "Stephen A Kallis, Jr" <skallisjr@[removed];
    To: [removed]@[removed]
    Subject:  Listening to OTR Recordings -- And Hearing
     Them

    As has been pointed out, the discussion of MP3 files versus .wav, tape,
    disk, and the like raises its head every six months ago.  I suspect that
    the basis for some of the discussion is less audiophilic than nostalgic.
    Those of us who are old enough to have heard the broadcasts as aired
    might have something to do with our individual opinions.

    Many children heard the broadcasts on radios that were less than ultimate
    in fidelity.  Many broadcasts I heard were on steel-diaphragm earphones.
    Thus, optimum fidelity, while enjoyable, isn't critical, as long as the
    programs are listenable.

    Once in a while, when I listen to a program, I'll pull out the associated
    radio premium to it, such as a Jack Armstrong Dragon's Eye Ring while
    listening to the 1940 Sulu Sea adventures.  I might copy down and
    (re)decipher a Secret Squadron Signal Session from a Captain Midnight
    show with the appropriate Code-O-Graph.  Or I might listen to Curley
    Bradley as Tom Mix while manipulating a luminous Tom Mix
    compass-magnifier.  What might be lacking in fidelity is more than
    compensated for by the emotions these pieces from the past evoke.

    Listening isn't the same as hearing.

    Stephen A. Kallis, Jr.

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

    Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 11:05:10 -0500
    From: ddunfee@[removed]
    To: [removed]@[removed]
    Subject:  digital audio

    Not to put too fine a point on it, I too am an audiophile and the entire
    discussion about the limitations of cd reproduction are off base and not
    scientifically accurate but I don't want to pursue the subject.

    As for mp3 there is another part not yet discussed.  It is more then which
    is the highest frequency reproduced which changes with choice of bit rate.

    The basic idea of encode techniques such as mp3, there are others such as
    those for satellite radio for example, is to remove sounds that will not be
    perceived during some parts of the playback. This allows sound files to be
    much smaller.

    For example there is the effect where lower level quiet sounds during loud
    parts will not be heard,  The encoding then removes those quiet sounds
    while the sound level is high enough and puts them back when levels fall
    again.

    Another example is that often sounds lower in frequency mask higher
    frequencies.  The encoding will also cut higher frequencies when lower
    dominate.  Using these techniques the encoding tries to present the sounds
    that will be perceived and removing those which will not depending on the
    sound content from second to second.

    The lower the bit rate chosen the more aggressive are the removal of sounds
    to make the smaller sound files.  At the higher bit rates it is impossible
    to hear the difference.

    XB
                                    IC|XC

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

    Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 11:08:15 -0500
    From: "Martin Grams, Jr." <mmargrajr@[removed];
    To: [removed]@[removed]
    Subject:  trading rules

    Richard Smith asked:

    I was wondering what the new rules are for trading OTR on Mp3 and how should
    I set up the ID3 tags?  Any help would be greatly apprecated.

    I don't go for the MP3 format because of the sound quality issues.  I still
    listen to audio cassettes and my highly treasured audio cassettes that are
    "remastered" from original materials.  However, I was curious what the "old"
    rules were since I did not know there were "new" rules.  My assumption would
    be one disc for one disc but Charlie is correct - as cheap as blank audio
    discs are, what expense would there be in trading?

    >From my own personal trading (as everyone has probably traded before), I
    trade DVDs with people who have something of interest.  I myself go by a few
    rules when trading . . . perhaps others follow the same light?  (There's no
    right or wrong answer for trading, just opinions and preferences, by the
    way.)

    1.  I never trade for materialI intend to circulate beyond my own house.  If
    someone tells me they have something they think I'd be interested in, and
    offer to trade for it, I usually remind them that anything I sell or trade
    has been from my own collection and my own transfers.  Not from others
    unless there is that odd execption to the rule.  I have a lot of recordings
    at home that are not in circulation or rarely available though I have broken
    that rule when helping supply a film or radio recording for a movie
    convention or a documentary and I don't usually getanything out if so I
    wouldn't even consider it [removed]
    2.  I don't get anything from someone by trade intending to see the best
    quality production available on disc.  If I do, I find myself disappointed
    so I pretty much live with "what I get is what I get."  If the quality is
    awful, I just get rid of it and wait till later.  I don't complain to the
    person I got the recording from because I myself cannot guarentee the
    quality I have will meet their standard but I am picky and that's what makes
    me proud of what I have.
    3.  I don't trade for anything I don't want to listen or watch.  I have been
    at friends' houses where they have more radio shows than they could possibly
    listen to in their lifetime and they are still [removed]

    Case in point: There's a friend of mine in NYC who trades DVDs all the time
    and I humor him.  90% of what he sends me is awful quality.  Harshly edited,
    multi-generation, logos and watermarks in the corners, and so on.  He
    apparently has a 5 inch TV so for him, everything is superb quality but on
    my 22 inch TV it gets pixelated.  (I don't think he's on the digest so I'm
    not afraid of posting this.)  But I continue to trade with him because he's
    a good friend, and I don't mind so long as it doesn't cost me a lot of money
    for blank discs.  Most of the 90% of what I can't use or watch I either
    throw away or mail to a friend in the mid-west for their own use if they
    have a use.

    I have a friend in Brooklyn who hands me MP3s at conventions all the time,
    asking me if I have an interest in making a copy for myself and has
    constantly insisted that I take them home and make a copy for myself and
    bring them back when I next meet up with him.  Had I accepted all of his
    offers of kindness, I would have easily more than 50,000+ radio shows in my
    collection but I would probably never have time to listen to them.  I think
    I made a copy of three discs total and it was for research purposes only.
    At the last FOTR I purchased about 10 MP3 discs from a total of two vendors,
    Bob Faulkner and Jerry Randolph and that was about it.  I'm using them as
    gifts to friends for the holiday season coming up.  I preferred to
    financially help out the vendors rather than get the same discs for free
    from my friend.  I have my morals.

    When it comes to trading, however, I have had some weirdos.  One fella in
    Australia actually wanted to trade recordings on an hour-for-hour basis.  He
    sent me a DVD containing 8 1/2 hours of TV shows which, had I known he would
    have crammed so much on one disc and thus damaged the quality, I would never
    have done the trade.  I sent him in return a disc from a TV series he asked
    about and I prefer not to have more than 2 hours on a DVD unless there is a
    logical exception, to keep the quality excellent.  Sadly, after he got his
    disc, he sent me a nasty e-mail telling me I owed him 6 1/2 hours of TV
    shows because he sent me 8 1/2.  I told him that I have always traded one
    disc for one disc, because of the cost factor in the blank disc.  Why trade
    four or five discs for one and especially when the one had bad quality cause
    it was all crammed on one DVD?  I never traded with him again and that's
    been a couple years.  I even sent his DVD back cause the quality was so
    pixeled that I couldn't watch two of the shows.  Never made a copy for
    myself either.

    In short, I do not think there are any official rules for trading OTR and
    OTTV but there are a few rules that EVERYONE should abide by:
    1.  Clarify with the trader exactly what the deal is in advance (I didn't
    with the fella in Australia, oops) and that both parties will be okay with
    the trade before a second trade.
    2.  Start small at first if you do not know them, so you can che check their
    quality and to ensure you don't get ripped off by someone who wants to do an
    initial 200+ disc trade.

    Now I'm off to watch the first few episodes of BIRDS OF PREY, which I traded
    with a friend last week.  My wife and I are eagerly looking forwrad to
    watching throughout the next week or [removed]

    Martin

    --------------------------------
    End of [removed] Digest V2006 Issue #330
    *********************************************

    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]