Subject: [removed] Digest V2006 #328
From: [removed]@[removed]
Date: 11/23/2006 5:41 PM

To: [removed]@[removed]

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

                                The Old-Time Radio Digest!
                                  Volume 2006 : Issue 328
                             A Part of the [removed]!
                                 [removed]
                                     ISSN: 1533-9289

                                     Today's Topics:

      mp3s                                  [ "Sammy Jones" <sjones69@[removed] ]
      Re: MP3's (& Other Formats)...        [ "Glenn P.," <C128User@[removed]; ]
      ET sound                              [ Ken Greenwald <radio@[removed]; ]
      Re: OTR and MP3                       [ "Glenn P.," <C128User@[removed]; ]
      Re: Disc Response                     [ Elizabeth McLeod <lizmcl@[removed] ]
      Sad news about a good guy             [ Wich2@[removed] ]
      Great, [removed]                         [ Wich2@[removed] ]
      iPod and OTR                          [ "James Yellen" <clifengr3@[removed] ]
      More OTR and MP3                      [ "Wayne Johnson" <wayne_johnson@mind ]
      Opry/Phones                           [ "Bill Knowlton" <udmacon1@[removed] ]
      Phone numbers                         [ "Ted Kneebone" <tkneebone1@[removed] ]
      Henry Morgan shows                    [ "Ted Kneebone" <tkneebone1@[removed] ]

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

    Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 00:35:04 -0500
    From: "Sammy Jones" <sjones69@[removed];
    To: <[removed]@[removed];
    Subject:  mp3s

    "If my own memory (brain) serves
    correct, AM radio frequency response tops out at about 7khz so a sampling
    rate if 14000 or slightly greater would be all that is necessary to record
    anything from an AM transmission."

    But you're not taking into account the fact that most radio transcriptions
    (at least by the beginning of the 1940s) were not made from AM transmissions
    at all.  They were made by direct wire-line connection from radio studio to
    recording facilities.  Direct connection yielded MUCH higher fidelity than
    AM reception, and many recordings from this period certainly rival
    commercial recordings by the record labels.  Just listen to any of the CEDAR
    restorations available from the First Generation Radio Archives and you will
    be astounded at how great radio can sound when you're listening to first gen
    recordings (my only connection to the FGRA is as a very satisfied customer).

    Radio ETs can certainly benefit from the full resolution offered by
    CD-quality audio.  I for one can't stand mp3s.  Even the good ones usually
    aren't as good as a CD can be, and most that I've heard aren't good.  This
    is not meant as a knock at those of you who collect mp3s, but I value good
    sound over the number of episodes I can fit onto one CD or DVD.

    Sammy Jones

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

    Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 09:59:30 -0500
    From: "Glenn P.," <C128User@[removed];
    To: Old-Time Radio Mailing List <[removed]@[removed];
    Subject:  Re: MP3's (& Other Formats)...

    On Tue., 21-Nov-2006, at 10:09:44am EST (-0500 GMT), "Mr. Rodney Bowcock"
    <PastTense_78@[removed]; posted to [The Old-Time Radio Mailing List]
    under the subject of "uncompressed file formats":

     > Any time you use a compressed format, you're stripping layers
     > of sound away from what you're [removed] [ Snip! ] Has anyone
     > considered using lossless formats like SHN or FLAC (in particular)
     > for their OTR collection?

    You state (or at least clearly imply) that ANY COMPRESSED format
    will automatically be lossy.

    You then ask about the usage of SHN or FLAC formats -- neither
    one of which I have ever heard of -- but both of which I presume
    are uncompressed, since you declare them lossless.

    At that rate, why not simply store them in *.WAV format and be
    done with it? My understading is that the *.WAV format is also
    uncompressed.

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

    Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 10:00:20 -0500
    From: Ken Greenwald <radio@[removed];
    To: [removed]@[removed]
    Subject:  ET sound

    Craig W. wrote, and I quote:

>     However, I think we've all heard the amazing dynamic range  and
>     transparency
>     of a STUDIO-originated disc (or later, tape.)

>     Such  sound, that has come right from the Mics, and went straight to a
>     Cutter/Recorder  from the Board, would be much "fuller" - wider in
>     range - yes?

    Yes! Absolutely! No doubt about it!
    I have listened to and dubbed actual network ETs. Not only that, an
    engineer I know, who once worked at NBC TV BURBANK, did an audio
    analysis on two types of ET discs. One was of the 16" ETs that run at
    33 1/3 rpm and the other was of the 12" ETs that run at 78 rpm. Of
    course, the discs were cleaned and brought back as close as possible
    to the condition they were in when they were new.
    The conclusion? The frequency range for the 16" ETs ran from 50
    cycles up to 15,000 cycles!
    The frequency range for the 12" ETs ran from 20 cycles up to 20,000
    cycles!
    Bear in mind that these discs are network discs, cut and recorded in
    the networks own recoding studio, directly off the line feed, just as
    the show was being aired across the country.
    Clean up a 16" ET and you have rich, full fidelity. Those engineers
    knew exactly what they were doing. One of the interesting things that
    happened when they were recording was that there was no compression
    of the signal. The engineer in the control room usually had a script
    by his side. He also went through the rehearsals of the show, setting
    the volumes for loud and soft passages. So, in those days, what the
    engineer would do would be to "ride the gain" - keep his hand on the
    volume control and adjust for loud and soft passages (as marked in
    his script). That's how they kept the level of sound constant for the
    ET and for the audience listening on their little radios with the 4"
    speakers. "Riding the gain" allowed the original discs to be totally
    dynamic in frequency range.
    Listening to an original network ET is like being right there in the
    studio, watching the broadcast unfold, live.

    One last thing: when a radio show was broadcast from New York to Los
    Angeles (or the other way) a choice of telephone lines were
    available. Usually, the network chose to use the phone company's
    triple A line. The best sound. Radio recorders, here in Los Angeles,
    cut discs transmitted on phone lines from New York of Fletcher
    Markle's "STUDIO ONE" shows. I had the pleasure of dubbing them to
    master tapes a few years ago and the fidelity, even from 3,000 miles
    away, was awesome.
    Most OTR fans usually get shows that are a number of generations away
    from the original source. The shows are still wonderful to listen to,
    but the dynamics are missing. Now, transferring to mp3 is another
    story altogether. By the way, everything that has been said about mp3
    lately on the digest, is correct. I'm glad someone brought it up. I
    even learned a few things. Thanks fellas!

    Ken Greenwald

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

    Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 10:00:42 -0500
    From: "Glenn P.," <C128User@[removed];
    To: Old-Time Radio Mailing List <[removed]@[removed];
    Subject:  Re: OTR and MP3

    On Tue., 21-Nov-2006, at 10:05:04pm EST (-0500 GMT), "Mr. Wayne Johnson"
    <Wayne_Johnson@[removed]; posted to [The Old-Time Radio Mailing List]
    under the subject of "OTR and MP3":

     > As for [removed] I know of no OTR that was broadcast or recorded in
     > stereo so don't waste the memory. It won't help the quality nor will
     > it sound different. A mono recording will still come out of both
     > speakers.

    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.
    The difference is admittedly hard to pinpoint -- the sound is simply
    sharper, clearer, and has subtly more presence to it. I also notice
    that in many cases the bass stands out better.

    I'm not sure WHY there should be this difference, but of this I am
    certain: there IS a difference.

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

    Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 10:01:21 -0500
    From: Elizabeth McLeod <lizmcl@[removed];
    To: <[removed]@[removed];
    Subject:  Re: Disc Response

    On 11/23/06 12:34 AM [removed]@[removed] wrote:

>     Such  sound, that has come right from the Mics, and went straight to a
>     Cutter/Recorder  from the Board, would be much "fuller" - wider in range -
>     yes?

    Exactly. Hearing a radio program taken directly from an original studio
    linecheck is quite a different experience from a muffled, overprocessed
    MP3 sourced from a multi-generation tape dub.

    Some high-quality transcriptions recorded for syndication by Western
    Electric as early as the mid-thirties were capable of audio response as
    high as 14,000 cycles, and even run-of-the-mill linecheck transcriptions
    made by NBC were capable of flat response between 50 and 10,000 cycles,
    although the playback quality was limited by the response of the
    eqiuipment of the time. According to "The Radio Engineering Handbook" by
    Keith Henney (Third Edition, 1941), the standard audio chain in a network
    radio studio was designed for flat response from 30 to 15,000 cycles --
    but once the program went out over the network lines, the audio degraded
    considerably. A recording of a Hollywood-originated program made off the
    line in New York will be of noticeably lesser quality than a New York
    program recorded directly off the program circuit in New York.

    The problems start when these discs are played back on poorly-maintained,
    incorrectly equalized equipment -- especially antique pickups where the
    damping blocks have hardened with age. And it's essential to remember
    that the initial playback from the original disc is by far the most
    important stage in the preservation of the program -- if that's not done
    according to the highest possible standards, no amount of manipulation or
    "restoration" of the transfer will preserve the full quality of the
    material on the disc. If one prefers to listen to muddy, noisy audio for
    the sake of the nostalgic AM-radio experience, that's fine -- but don't
    think it's an accurate representation of what's actually on the disc.

    Elizabeth

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

    Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 10:01:56 -0500
    From: Wich2@[removed]
    To: [removed]@[removed]
    Subject:  Sad news about a good guy

    From: Jim Kitchen  jkitchen@[removed]

>     Does anyone know what
>     happened to Shawn and his  high quality MP3 collection?

    Dear Jim-
    I wondered the same for a  long time; I'd met Shawn at FOTR. Liked him very
    much, and admired his excellent  work.

    Alas, we lost him in an auto accident, very young.

    His work  WAS terrific (proof of the contention that, if used right
    tecnically, mp3 can be  worthy.) Does anyone know if said body of work found
    a  home?

    Best,
    -Craig

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

    Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 10:02:35 -0500
    From: Wich2@[removed]
    To: [removed]@[removed]
    Subject:  Great, [removed]

    From: Michael Shoshani  <mshoshani@[removed];

>     The BBC also maintains one of the most  intricate archives of sound
>     effects in the world

    Dear  Michael-

    And, am I the only one that wishes they used it with a freer  hand?

    I usually find the Beeb's stuff much UNDER  [removed]

    I've been spoiled by classic stuff like the later  SUSPENSE, and sublime
    DRAGNET & GUNSMOKE; often, when auditing BBC shows, my  inner voice cries out,
    "lord, can I please get a footstep or a door,  here?"

    It's often "Three Guys At A Mic," which ain't audio theater to my  ears.

    Best,
    -Craig

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

    Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 10:12:02 -0500
    From: "James Yellen" <clifengr3@[removed];
    To: [removed]@[removed]
    Subject:  iPod and OTR

    Forgive me if this  subject has been covered before. If it has, I missed it.

    But I was wondering if anyone has experience using an iPod or similar MP3
    player for listening to OTR. Specifically, I was wondering how much memory I
    would need to be able to listen for a reasonable length of time without
    having to frequently download new stuff. Does anyone know how much OTR one
    can expect to store on a player that has, say, 2G of memory? Can I get say,
    10 hours of listening time with the 2G? Or do I have to go to the full 240G
    for reasonable capacity. I know this may get into some techno talk of
    bitrate etc. but I was inquiring, in general, what the experience of others
    is.

    Thanks in advance to all who may respond, and to all a HAPPY THANKSGIVING.

    Jim Yellen, (rushing through this so that I can get the bird into the oven
    in time.)

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

    Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 11:53:43 -0500
    From: "Wayne Johnson" <wayne_johnson@[removed];
    To: <[removed]@[removed];
    Subject:  More OTR and MP3

    Thanks for the feedback and comments, both the personal replys and the ones
    on the digest.  IF I may have a little more space to address this and how it
    relates to OTR.

>     Shawn Wells at The Old Time Radio Shop digitally restored his MP3
>     Collection to 44/192 (in stereo). In his opinion, this is the best
>     combination for high quality MP3. I'm listening to Frontier Gentleman
>     CD1 from Shawn's Old Time Radio Shop. There are 14 episodes on this CD.
>     It appears that you give up quantity for quality. All his MP3 CDs have
>     "Highest Quality Anywhere" on their label.

    There is no doubt in my mind that recording at 192 yields better quality
    that recording at 96.  NO DOUBT.

    That being said, I ask you to think of what you have to start with.  You
    most likely have a recording of voice, a little Hammond Organ music and a
    few sound effects.  Everything that you hear will probably fall into the
    range of 100hz to about 5000 hz.  ABSOLUTELY nothing will fall in the
    12000hz or above.  Not because it couldn't be recorded but because the
    "everyday world" of our hearing exists in this range with few exceptions.
    Second, the entire program has a dynamic range of probably 6-9 db.  NOT
    because it couldn't be recorded but because that is probably the way it was
    written and directed. (Most 'yelling' on episodes of, say, Dragnet, have the
    yelling taking place further away from the mics so that you can still tell
    that there is yelling but also not to distort the sound by over-driving the
    microphones.  The volume, in this case, remains pretty much constant.)

    OK, I have now established the parameters of the program to record.  There
    is one more thing that we must establish.  No matter what you do, you can
    NOT improve the quality of the recording simply by making another recording.
    If you started with garbage, you will end with garbage.  In fact, if any
    analog process is used at all, you WILL have some loss no matter how slight.
    That is just the nature of the process.  My definition of recording is that
    it is an attempt to recreate the original performance as accurately as
    possible.  That is MY definition.  Other folk's definitions are that they
    want to 'improve' the original performance and they add all kinds of junk
    from reverb to equalization.  Me?  I want to accurately capture the
    original.  If the original is an OTR recording and the dynamic range is only
    a 9 db (I'll even give you that it might be 12 db) WHY would I set up my MP3
    to capture a dynamic range of 18 or 21 db or greater?  And if I know that
    the frequency response is only about 5000 which, mathematically means that I
    only need a sampling rate of 10000 per second or slightly greater ... why
    would I set it at [removed] and try to capture frequencies up to 22kHz when I
    know they aren't there?

    My personal opinion is that the overwhelming majority of folks have no idea
    what the numbers mean and think that "bigger is better".  TRUE!  The numbers
    do mean that the quality is greater.  ONLY IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING THAT WILL
    MAKE FULL USE OF THE NUMBERS.  As for OTR, those higher settings are a
    waste.

    You can easily prove this too.  AUDACITY is a free sound processing software
    application that will allow you to graphically "see" the sound waves.  Get
    one of those high quality recordings and take a look at the amount of 'dead'
    space that is reserved but not used.

>     - If I follow you, you are speaking as  if EVERY OTR source is an
>     AIRCHECK;
>     in other words, an "off-site" recording of  sound that has already been
>     subjected to compression (sometimes, at more than  one stage.)

>     However, I think we've all heard the amazing dynamic range  and
>     transparency
>     of a STUDIO-originated disc (or later, tape.)

>     Such  sound, that has come right from the Mics, and went straight to a
>     Cutter/Recorder  from the Board, would be much "fuller" - wider in range -
>     yes?

    The answer is YES ... if it was there to begin with.  The human voice
    operates WELL BELOW the threshold of AM broadcasts.  Whether straight into
    the mics and cutter or over an air check ... the difference would be
    minimal.  TRUE ... there is distortion and it will sound different coming
    from an aircheck but we are still talking about only two parameters:
    frequency (how many waves per second) and amplitude (how 'tall' those waves
    are).   The Sampling rate is what determines the frequencies that one can
    capture.

    Digitally speaking, if you are running [removed] sampling and need a full 16
    bits of information then one gets 16 X 44100 = 705600 X two channels
    (stereo) = 1411 kbps to record every possible sound within the full spectrum
    of human hearing.  MP3 is a lossy (it throws away information that can never
    be retrieved) format and you can actually get it to throw away stuff that
    you either don't hear or stuff that isn't there.  Sampling at 12000 (6000Hz)
    instead of 44,100 with full dynamic range in mono would be 176 kbps.  But we
    don't need full dynamic range because OTR usually doesn't use it.  So, let's
    operate at about 1/3 of the dynamic range and that is about 58kbps.  What I
    mentioned before was EXPERIMENT.  Have fun with it.

    STEREO:  Don't get me started!!!!  If I were to run into 1000 people on the
    street and ask them to tell me what stereo was, I would be jaw-dropping
    amazed if ONE could do it.  Stereo is an attempt to accurately record what
    each ear would hear and then play it back so that each ear actually will
    hear it.  Sometimes it is the same.  A person standing directly in front of
    you speaking ... each ear hears the same thing (minus any room noise) and
    that is why your brain tells you, even if your eyes are closed, that the
    person is in front of you.  As the sound varies from one ear to another, the
    brain processes this information and attempts to add both width and depth to
    your "sound stage".  I have spent many years just in the pursuit of
    'perfect' sound stage reproduction and many times have been pleased with the
    results but have by no means, come up with a perfect formula.  (The
    conductor of one of the symphonies keeps trying to get me to use strereo
    mics on just the wind section thinking that this will improve the recording
    when, in fact, it will really goof it up.)  Binaural sound applications are
    the easiest to do and produce the best results and I will send anyone a
    sample if you will email me.  Now, hear (pun intended) comes the "BUT".
    MONO is MONO is MONO.  That means that the same sound is coming out of BOTH
    track (stereo has two tracks).  I can either have two physical tracks (which
    takes up room) OR I can set a single 'information' bit in the MP3 that tells
    the player to send the ONE recorded track to BOTH ears.  Guess which one
    takes up less room on the CD??!!??!!

    So, I stand by my original premise:  the higher numbers do promise better
    quality HOWEVER OTR does not present a high enough quality to begin with to
    justify the use of those numbers.  Running a sampling rate of 12000 and a
    bit rate of about 48 and recording in mono should be enough to capture the
    better quality OTR recordings without significant loss during the
    conversion.  Of course, your converter also has a lot to do with it!  I use
    Mp3PRO.

    There is a TON of information on the internet.  Probably some of the best
    information is available from

    [removed]

    [removed]

    Charlie ... thanks for the use of your forum.  I think that any addition
    information should be handled off-line.

    [ADMINISTRIVIA: I think you mean, "off-list," as "off-line" implies something
    divorced from telecommunications, like snail-mail. (I'm not picking on Wayne,
    he just gave me an excuse to address one of my little technical annoyances
    that pops up here from time to time. Email is not "off-line," while it is
    off-list.)  --cfs3]

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

    Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 14:18:59 -0500
    From: "Bill Knowlton" <udmacon1@[removed];
    To: [removed]@[removed]
    Subject:  Opry/Phones

    To this day the Martha White portion of the Grand Ole Opry is opened and
    closed by the recorded voice of Lester Flatt singing the theme.

    Aside to Elizabeth: HA in Queens NY was also an exchange: HAvermeyer. We had
    it for our Jackson Heights number.

    BILL KNOWLTON

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

    Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 16:03:49 -0500
    From: "Ted Kneebone" <tkneebone1@[removed];
    To: "Old Time Radio Digest" <[removed]@[removed];
    Subject:  Phone numbers

    The phone numbers in South Dakota were quite short.  I remember Sisseton was
    212-J.  Can't remember Winner, but it was probably something like 45-R.  The
    country folk had a certain number of rings added to their number.  23 ring
    5, or something like that.  And no one in my towns had dial service.  You
    picked up the phone and the operator asked, "Number, [removed]"  Mother used
    to call the operator "Central."  I think there was a popular song of the day
    that went, "Hello, Central, give me [removed]"  Or something like that.

    In an emergency, you had to be quite confrontational:  "Please clear the
    line!  My house is on fire?" OR "I need to call my doctor.  The baby is
    really sick."  Doctors made house calls then.  And the black bag they
    carried had pills for just about any illness.

    The dial telephone was invented by C. L. W. Zietlow, of Aberdeen.  His
    Central Telephone Company was the biggest corporation in Aberdeen, maybe
    South Dakota.  I think Bell tried to sue Zietlow for the patent rights, but
    I think Zietlow won.  Have to check our local museum.

    In 1955, my first teaching job was in Wilmot.  The whole town (pop. 700) was
    on party lines. My wife and a friend sometimes "rubbered."   You really
    didn't need to buy the local newspaper -- just listen in on the telephone!
    I think that was a form of radio -- a really local "station."  About the
    smallest towns in South Dakota that had their own radio stations were
    Yankton (WNAX) and Pierre (KGFX), populations about 10,000, then and now.

    In an emergency, you had to be quite confrontational:  "Please clear the
    line!  My house is on fire?" OR "I need to call my doctor.  The baby is
    really sick."  Doctors made house calls then.  And the black bag they
    carried had pills for just about any illness.

    Ted Kneebone, 1528 S. Grant St.,  Aberdeen, SD 57401/Phone 605-226-3344
    OTR website:  [removed]

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

    Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 16:04:00 -0500
    From: "Ted Kneebone" <tkneebone1@[removed];
    To: "Old Time Radio Digest" <[removed]@[removed];
    Subject:  Henry Morgan shows

    One of my favorite radio comedians is Henry Morgan.  I have some of his
    shows from 1941, 1942, and 1947.  Would like to get more of his really funny
    programs.  If you want to view my holdings, go to my OTR catalog at the
    Geocities website below.  Will trade in cassettes and CDs.

    Ted Kneebone, 1528 S. Grant St.,  Aberdeen, SD 57401/Phone 605-226-3344
    OTR website:  [removed]

    --------------------------------
    End of [removed] Digest V2006 Issue #328
    *********************************************

    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]