Roadie wrote:
On Aug 30, 11:45 am, D Peter Maus wrote:
Roadie wrote:
Visual information hasn't ever been transmitted or received by radio.
Radios transmit information in audio form that is heard by a listener
and interpreted. Televisions transmit both visual and audio
information that is seen and heard simultaneously the viewer and
interpreted. You appear to be mixing up the concepts of broadcast
audio and visual information. The pure listener may conjure up an
image of what could be going on, but the success or failure of that
imagery is dependent entirely on the ability of the reader at the
radio station to accurately convey audio information about the scene.
Visual information has always been transmitted and received by radio.
Even before the pictures.

Actually, there is an entire division of audio sciences dedicated to
the study of visual images created by audio only.

Interpretation is a part of that, true. But not as much as you may
imagine. Do some reading. Even Harry Olson addresses this as far back as
the 40's. And studies have shown that there are visual cues in audio
information that are astonishingly common to the bulk of listeners.
Simple phase relationships in stereo will create images in listeners
minds, that when sketched by different individuals, in separate
locations in the stereo field, even in different locations of test, the
images drawn resemble each other.

All of which is getting deeper into this matter than is necessary for
the point...and that point is that aural input creates visual information.

The eyes are not necessary to see the pictures. The National
Federation of the Blind has been carrying this evangel for decades. And
in all but a handful of TV shows over the last 60 years, only the audio
was necessary to create the full measure of the experience of a show in
the listener.





Radio dramas written for radio contain the same
audible visual cues as drama written for TV.
Listen carefully to the dialog. There's a great deal of verbal
exposition, even, if not especially, in shows like CSI. And surveys
support that respondents get the same level of detail and understanding
by listening to the audio only that they do watching video with audio.
The writing is still the same as it was in the days of Inner Sanctum
and the Shadow. The production still uses the same effects.
Consider the number of blind people that 'watch' TV regularly. Jose
Feliciano went into exquisite detail on Letterman some years ago about
this.
Try this:
Next time you're watching CSI, turn the audio up, go into the next
room and begin a hobby. Build a model. Repair a radio.
You'll see everything on the screen. Except you'll see it in your
mind's eye, where the images are dramatically clearer and always exactly
what you expect them to be. It will take some practice, and it will take
a while, but you'll get it.
Just as generations of radio listeners did before you.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Visual images are not in any way transmitted by radio.



Ok, now we're speaking the same language. I never said images were
transmitted by radio, but rather visual cues in audio information.

Big difference. And, actually, the very point: the image is not
necessary to produce a visual experience.

And yes, this information IS transmitted in audio.

Boyle and Magner, in a 1966 double blind study, with a sample of 100
subjects, sketching images using only audio descriptions, sound effects
and music, got more than 40 images that were virtually the same, over 60
that resembled each other in three out of four tests. Subjects exposed
to the audio individually, and producing their sketches without
consultation with either the testers, or each other. Before or after the
tests.

The visual details were transmitted in the audio.

Bell Labs in studies during the 40's, using musical tones, chords and
short selections were able to create visual responses in subject who
actually reported the same colors and the same physical objects.

The visual details were transmitted in the audio.

Debussey created visual images, as did Moussorgsky, with nothing more
than music.

National Federation of the Blind has volumes of experiences, visually
realized, auditorially created in blind members who had sight, but lost
it during development. These members exposed to the same auditory
material report similar visuals, even describing characters in radio
plays with similar physical characteristics.

Visual details transmitted in audio.

Boyle and Magner's study exposed its subjects to several radio
episodes of 'Gunsmoke' and sketches of Matt Dillon produced 30 similar
images resembling William Conrad, who played the character. Nothing
surprising, there. But sketches of the announcer for Rocky and
Bullwinkle produced about 35 images of a thinner much more youthful man.
That announcer was also William Conrad, 20 years later, but that
detail was not known at the time, and wouldn't be for 10 more years.

Visual cues, visual information have always been transmitted by radio
through the auditory experience. This has been known and studied since
the early writings of Bell, himself. The very concept of stereo imaging
is based on it. Radio sound effects men have careers because of it.

Images are not necessary to produce a visual experience. Literally,
it is the stuff of which dreams are made.

And radios bearing TV audio are more than what's necessary to
understand and enjoy in visual detail for all but a handful of TV shows
on the air today. EVEN CSI.

As I suggested, try it. Develop that eye. You will be astonished at
what is not necessary to enjoy television.


Thanks for the conversation. See you around.