Roadie wrote:
On Aug 29, 9:39 am, D Peter Maus wrote:
Roadie wrote:
On Aug 29, 8:40 am, wrote:
Many radios for the US market has not only the AM and FM bands but
they also have the TV band.
Can anyone explain what is the TV band ?
Can you hear to television broadcasts in that band ?
If so, could it work in Italy too ?
Thanks
It's the audio portion of a TV broadcast. For me it would be useless
because TV audio is typically written to assume there are
acccompanying pictures.
Surprisingly, not so.

There was a study done some 25 years ago, now, that specifically
addressed the issue of whether pictures were actually needed for TV
enjoyment.

The results were quite interesting. Of the TV shows up to that point
which would have been early 80's, now, only two shows on television had
ever REQUIRED picture to transmit the content, intent, and story (if
any) of the show. One was 'Mission: Impossible.' The other was 'the
prisoner.'

In virtually all other cases, the audio portion was all that was
necessary. Even visual gag shows like Red Skelton worked with audio
only. No surprise there...he had been successful on Radio also.

The study was roundly panned by the TV industry, for one. For obvious
reasons. The study was also the source of some mirth among Radio wags.
This is something radio listeners had known for decades.

Dramas, comedy, variety shows, mysteries. Even science fiction and
westerns like Gunsmoke and Have Gun Will Travel had all been successful
Radio shows. Have Gun Will Travel was unique in that it began on TV in
1957, and migrated to Radio for the conclusion of the story in which
Paladin returned to Boston to collect an inheritance.

When the radio shows began to move to TV, the same writers were
producing the scripts in the style to which they'd been accustomed: with
emphasis on audio content. In other words, TV scripts were being written
as for Radio.

With few exceptions, that style hasn't changed.

And even today, in very nearly all cases, the audio channel is the
only thing needed to carry the program.

TV band radios make a good deal of sense.

Something we, as active Radio listeners today have continued to enjoy.

Well, certainly someone like Red Skelton, or possibly Gunsmoke would
certainly be listenable. Most of the modern shows rely a lot on
visual tricks to make them interesting and the listener would be in
for a very flat and ultimately boring experience while trying to
figure out what was happening on CSI-like crime programs, most of the
dopey sitcoms, Discovery and Nature programs, etc. Imagine listening
to only the audio feed for the Antiques Roadshow. Today's programming
relies much more on visual imagery to provide detail to situations.


Research disagrees with you.

As should your own experience. Remember there are a lot of visual
cues in audio media. 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.

Right next to my RCA 27 inch screen CRT tv set I use only for WebTV is
my Sony 27 inch screen CRT flat screen Trinitron Wega tv set I use only
for watching the old, old, old movies I like to watch on DirecTv.On my
coffee table is my NEC Multisync 22 inch flat screen CRT computer
monitor hooked up to my Velocity Micro ProMagix tall desktop
computer.Computer is sitting on an end table by my end of doggy's
couch.I am surfing Vista on there right now.It is busy, bussy, busy in
my living room.Screw!!!!!! them fake and phoney thin screen pieces of
S..T!!!! I prefer big heavy stuff.
cuhulin

Married With Children has just now cranked up on Radio tb.
cuhulin

On Aug 29, 6:39 am, D Peter Maus wrote:
Roadie wrote:
On Aug 29, 8:40 am, wrote:
Many radios for the US market has not only the AM and FM bands but
they also have the TV band.
Can anyone explain what is the TV band ?
Can you hear to television broadcasts in that band ?
If so, could it work in Italy too ?
Thanks

It's the audio portion of a TV broadcast. For me it would be useless
because TV audio is typically written to assume there are
acccompanying pictures.

Surprisingly, not so.

There was a study done some 25 years ago, now, that specifically
addressed the issue of whether pictures were actually needed for TV
enjoyment.

The results were quite interesting. Of the TV shows up to that point
which would have been early 80's, now, only two shows on television had
ever REQUIRED picture to transmit the content, intent, and story (if
any) of the show. One was 'Mission: Impossible.' The other was 'the
prisoner.'

In virtually all other cases, the audio portion was all that was
necessary. Even visual gag shows like Red Skelton worked with audio
only. No surprise there...he had been successful on Radio also.

The study was roundly panned by the TV industry, for one. For obvious
reasons. The study was also the source of some mirth among Radio wags.
This is something radio listeners had known for decades.

Dramas, comedy, variety shows, mysteries. Even science fiction and
westerns like Gunsmoke and Have Gun Will Travel had all been successful
Radio shows. Have Gun Will Travel was unique in that it began on TV in
1957, and migrated to Radio for the conclusion of the story in which
Paladin returned to Boston to collect an inheritance.

When the radio shows began to move to TV, the same writers were
producing the scripts in the style to which they'd been accustomed: with
emphasis on audio content. In other words, TV scripts were being written
as for Radio.

With few exceptions, that style hasn't changed.

And even today, in very nearly all cases, the audio channel is the
only thing needed to carry the program.

TV band radios make a good deal of sense.

Something we, as active Radio listeners today have continued to enjoy.

DPM,

This is why I say using the HD-2 Audio Channel of the
IBCO FM Radio Stations would be one of the most
effective uses of "HD" Radio. The TV Program Audio
is already there and it extends the 'Listening' Audience
particularly while they are Driving to and from work in
their Cars. ~ RHF

On Aug 29, 10:52 am, Roadie wrote:
On Aug 29, 9:39 am, D Peter Maus wrote:





Roadie wrote:
On Aug 29, 8:40 am, wrote:
Many radios for the US market has not only the AM and FM bands but
they also have the TV band.
Can anyone explain what is the TV band ?
Can you hear to television broadcasts in that band ?
If so, could it work in Italy too ?
Thanks

It's the audio portion of a TV broadcast. For me it would be useless
because TV audio is typically written to assume there are
acccompanying pictures.

Surprisingly, not so.

There was a study done some 25 years ago, now, that specifically
addressed the issue of whether pictures were actually needed for TV
enjoyment.

The results were quite interesting. Of the TV shows up to that point
which would have been early 80's, now, only two shows on television had
ever REQUIRED picture to transmit the content, intent, and story (if
any) of the show. One was 'Mission: Impossible.' The other was 'the
prisoner.'

In virtually all other cases, the audio portion was all that was
necessary. Even visual gag shows like Red Skelton worked with audio
only. No surprise there...he had been successful on Radio also.

The study was roundly panned by the TV industry, for one. For obvious
reasons. The study was also the source of some mirth among Radio wags.
This is something radio listeners had known for decades.

Dramas, comedy, variety shows, mysteries. Even science fiction and
westerns like Gunsmoke and Have Gun Will Travel had all been successful
Radio shows. Have Gun Will Travel was unique in that it began on TV in
1957, and migrated to Radio for the conclusion of the story in which
Paladin returned to Boston to collect an inheritance.

When the radio shows began to move to TV, the same writers were
producing the scripts in the style to which they'd been accustomed: with
emphasis on audio content. In other words, TV scripts were being written
as for Radio.

With few exceptions, that style hasn't changed.

And even today, in very nearly all cases, the audio channel is the
only thing needed to carry the program.

TV band radios make a good deal of sense.

Something we, as active Radio listeners today have continued to enjoy.

Well, certainly someone like Red Skelton, or possibly Gunsmoke would
certainly be listenable. Most of the modern shows rely a lot on
visual tricks to make them interesting and the listener would be in
for a very flat and ultimately boring experience while trying to
figure out what was happening on CSI-like crime programs, most of the
dopey sitcoms, Discovery and Nature programs, etc. Imagine listening
to only the audio feed for the Antiques Roadshow. Today's programming
relies much more on visual imagery to provide detail to situations.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Roadie,

What you have to remember is that many of the early
TV Programs were in-fact Radio Programs first; and
the spoken word and sound effects were a great part
of early TV.

~ RHF

On Aug 29, 12:15 pm, D Peter Maus wrote:
Roadie wrote:
On Aug 29, 9:39 am, D Peter Maus wrote:
Roadie wrote:
On Aug 29, 8:40 am, wrote:
Many radios for the US market has not only the AM and FM bands but
they also have the TV band.
Can anyone explain what is the TV band ?
Can you hear to television broadcasts in that band ?
If so, could it work in Italy too ?
Thanks
It's the audio portion of a TV broadcast. For me it would be useless
because TV audio is typically written to assume there are
acccompanying pictures.
Surprisingly, not so.

There was a study done some 25 years ago, now, that specifically
addressed the issue of whether pictures were actually needed for TV
enjoyment.

The results were quite interesting. Of the TV shows up to that point
which would have been early 80's, now, only two shows on television had
ever REQUIRED picture to transmit the content, intent, and story (if
any) of the show. One was 'Mission: Impossible.' The other was 'the
prisoner.'

In virtually all other cases, the audio portion was all that was
necessary. Even visual gag shows like Red Skelton worked with audio
only. No surprise there...he had been successful on Radio also.

The study was roundly panned by the TV industry, for one. For obvious
reasons. The study was also the source of some mirth among Radio wags.
This is something radio listeners had known for decades.

Dramas, comedy, variety shows, mysteries. Even science fiction and
westerns like Gunsmoke and Have Gun Will Travel had all been successful
Radio shows. Have Gun Will Travel was unique in that it began on TV in
1957, and migrated to Radio for the conclusion of the story in which
Paladin returned to Boston to collect an inheritance.

When the radio shows began to move to TV, the same writers were
producing the scripts in the style to which they'd been accustomed: with
emphasis on audio content. In other words, TV scripts were being written
as for Radio.

With few exceptions, that style hasn't changed.

And even today, in very nearly all cases, the audio channel is the
only thing needed to carry the program.

TV band radios make a good deal of sense.

Something we, as active Radio listeners today have continued to enjoy.

Well, certainly someone like Red Skelton, or possibly Gunsmoke would
certainly be listenable. Most of the modern shows rely a lot on
visual tricks to make them interesting and the listener would be in
for a very flat and ultimately boring experience while trying to
figure out what was happening on CSI-like crime programs, most of the
dopey sitcoms, Discovery and Nature programs, etc. Imagine listening
to only the audio feed for the Antiques Roadshow. Today's programming
relies much more on visual imagery to provide detail to situations.

Research disagrees with you.

As should your own experience. Remember there are a lot of visual
cues in audio media. 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 -

DPM - Half of my TV Viewing is Listening to the TV
while I am doing something else that requires the
Use-of-My-Eyes -but- My-Ears-are-Free-to-Listen ! )
~ RHF

On Aug 29, 3:15 pm, D Peter Maus wrote:
Roadie wrote:
On Aug 29, 9:39 am, D Peter Maus wrote:
Roadie wrote:
On Aug 29, 8:40 am, wrote:
Many radios for the US market has not only the AM and FM bands but
they also have the TV band.
Can anyone explain what is the TV band ?
Can you hear to television broadcasts in that band ?
If so, could it work in Italy too ?
Thanks
It's the audio portion of a TV broadcast. For me it would be useless
because TV audio is typically written to assume there are
acccompanying pictures.
Surprisingly, not so.

There was a study done some 25 years ago, now, that specifically
addressed the issue of whether pictures were actually needed for TV
enjoyment.

The results were quite interesting. Of the TV shows up to that point
which would have been early 80's, now, only two shows on television had
ever REQUIRED picture to transmit the content, intent, and story (if
any) of the show. One was 'Mission: Impossible.' The other was 'the
prisoner.'

In virtually all other cases, the audio portion was all that was
necessary. Even visual gag shows like Red Skelton worked with audio
only. No surprise there...he had been successful on Radio also.

The study was roundly panned by the TV industry, for one. For obvious
reasons. The study was also the source of some mirth among Radio wags.
This is something radio listeners had known for decades.

Dramas, comedy, variety shows, mysteries. Even science fiction and
westerns like Gunsmoke and Have Gun Will Travel had all been successful
Radio shows. Have Gun Will Travel was unique in that it began on TV in
1957, and migrated to Radio for the conclusion of the story in which
Paladin returned to Boston to collect an inheritance.

When the radio shows began to move to TV, the same writers were
producing the scripts in the style to which they'd been accustomed: with
emphasis on audio content. In other words, TV scripts were being written
as for Radio.

With few exceptions, that style hasn't changed.

And even today, in very nearly all cases, the audio channel is the
only thing needed to carry the program.

TV band radios make a good deal of sense.

Something we, as active Radio listeners today have continued to enjoy.

Well, certainly someone like Red Skelton, or possibly Gunsmoke would
certainly be listenable. Most of the modern shows rely a lot on
visual tricks to make them interesting and the listener would be in
for a very flat and ultimately boring experience while trying to
figure out what was happening on CSI-like crime programs, most of the
dopey sitcoms, Discovery and Nature programs, etc. Imagine listening
to only the audio feed for the Antiques Roadshow. Today's programming
relies much more on visual imagery to provide detail to situations.

Research disagrees with you.

Research would appear to be beyond middle age, so research should
provide recent examples or conduct research projects that use current
television programs that typically use an extensive amount of visual
information. Research could then have a greater chance of making it's
research believable. Examples more current that Red Skelton would be
very helpful additions to a database of research into audio and visual
information.



As should your own experience. Remember there are a lot of visual
cues in audio media.

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.


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 -

On Aug 29, 6:11 pm, RHF wrote:
On Aug 29, 10:52 am, Roadie wrote:





On Aug 29, 9:39 am, D Peter Maus wrote:

Roadie wrote:
On Aug 29, 8:40 am, wrote:
Many radios for the US market has not only the AM and FM bands but
they also have the TV band.
Can anyone explain what is the TV band ?
Can you hear to television broadcasts in that band ?
If so, could it work in Italy too ?
Thanks

It's the audio portion of a TV broadcast. For me it would be useless
because TV audio is typically written to assume there are
acccompanying pictures.

Surprisingly, not so.

There was a study done some 25 years ago, now, that specifically
addressed the issue of whether pictures were actually needed for TV
enjoyment.

The results were quite interesting. Of the TV shows up to that point
which would have been early 80's, now, only two shows on television had
ever REQUIRED picture to transmit the content, intent, and story (if
any) of the show. One was 'Mission: Impossible.' The other was 'the
prisoner.'

In virtually all other cases, the audio portion was all that was
necessary. Even visual gag shows like Red Skelton worked with audio
only. No surprise there...he had been successful on Radio also.

The study was roundly panned by the TV industry, for one. For obvious
reasons. The study was also the source of some mirth among Radio wags.
This is something radio listeners had known for decades.

Dramas, comedy, variety shows, mysteries. Even science fiction and
westerns like Gunsmoke and Have Gun Will Travel had all been successful
Radio shows. Have Gun Will Travel was unique in that it began on TV in
1957, and migrated to Radio for the conclusion of the story in which
Paladin returned to Boston to collect an inheritance.

When the radio shows began to move to TV, the same writers were
producing the scripts in the style to which they'd been accustomed: with
emphasis on audio content. In other words, TV scripts were being written
as for Radio.

With few exceptions, that style hasn't changed.

And even today, in very nearly all cases, the audio channel is the
only thing needed to carry the program.

TV band radios make a good deal of sense.

Something we, as active Radio listeners today have continued to enjoy.

Well, certainly someone like Red Skelton, or possibly Gunsmoke would
certainly be listenable. Most of the modern shows rely a lot on
visual tricks to make them interesting and the listener would be in
for a very flat and ultimately boring experience while trying to
figure out what was happening on CSI-like crime programs, most of the
dopey sitcoms, Discovery and Nature programs, etc. Imagine listening
to only the audio feed for the Antiques Roadshow. Today's programming
relies much more on visual imagery to provide detail to situations.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Roadie,

What you have to remember is that many of the early
TV Programs were in-fact Radio Programs first; and
the spoken word and sound effects were a great part
of early TV.

~ RHF
.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes, that is true the early television programs were in sense radio
programs with audio added. And many of the actors had radio and
vaudeville experience too. But modern television programs as a
group incorporate a lot more visual information that requires you to
see it to have an idea of what is going on. Take a look at all the
visuals in CSI, Discovery Channel or something as simple as Antiques
Roadshow. Absent that visual information you miss a lot of what is
going on. Many but not all of the old I Love Lucy shows can be heard
and enjoyed in entirety because the set is all but irrelevant. One
exception would be the scene where Lucy is valiantly trying to make
chocolates on an assembly line. Absent the visual information the
scene would lose all of it's humor.

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. Only audio
information is transmitted by radio. That audio information is
interpreted by our brain and sometimes, if the radio broadcaster is
successful in his description and we are alert some of that audio
information is translated into visual images within our mind. But no
visual images are transmitted by radio.

The mental translation of audio information into visual images can
have results that are much less precise than a broadcast picture.
Nonethless audio only broadcasts can certainly be entertaining.

Lucille Ball from Jamestown,New York, I think.She has played some
serious parts in some old movies before.I Love Lucy.
cuhulin