Howsomever, back around 1969, I worked at the Krystal hamburger joint
night shift on Terry Road for a while (to earn some extra money) after I
got done with running my bread truck route, Sunbeam Bakery,,, don't say
bread, say Sunbeam.y'all know why Little Miss Sunbeam can't get
pregnant?) and Donna from Hornel,New York worked there too.One late
afternoon, a cat was crossing the parking lot area.Donna said to me, she
said, There goes some P...ey!
cuhulin

On Aug 30, 8:03 am, Roadie wrote:
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 -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Roadie,

Turn on any of the current "Reality TV" Programs
they are just as good when you Listen to them
"Sound Only" that includes Steinfeld and Everyboby
Loves Ramon the list goes on and on.

Remember listening to the Audio Only of Moives
on the CBC (RCI) late at night via the Shortwave.

i like what i hear on the radio and tv ~ RHF

On Aug 30, 8:45 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.

That It Does In-the-Mind's-Eye ! ~ RHF


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 -

On Aug 30, 9:39 am, 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. 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.

Roadie - More than TV - Radio is about the Imagination
and Exploring the Limits of your Mind's-Eye. ~ RHF

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.

RHF wrote:


- 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.


Actually, Roy, visuals created though audio are much more precise
than broadcast. And more dramatically more easily replicated over time.

On Aug 30, 2:12 pm, D Peter Maus wrote:
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.

You are still missing the point. Clearly it is possible to transmit
audio information that allows the recipient to construct mental
images. The correctness of that conjured image is clearly dependent
on both the ability of the sender to provide sufficient information
and for the recipient to have a base of other knowlege sufficient to
interpret and use that information.

Many newer television shows are heavily dependent on visual imagery
viewed through the eyes to tell a story. The pretty crime technician
working in the lab is holding a variety of pieces of evidence,
performing lots of tests and most of it goes without an accompanying
audio description. When the cops and bad guys are in a chase there is
little descriptive information to allow the listener to paint an
accurate picture of what is really going on. Imagine Star Wars minus
the visuals. On the Antiques Roadshow the appraiser from Sloans may
go on and on about condition and finish of the 17th century Highboy.
But if I've never seen a highboy it could be a lot of things unless
the appaiser takes the time to say it is a, exceptionally tall chest
of drawers. Since that information is self evident from the excellent
videos it likely will not be stated and as a listener I could be
thinking it is all manner of things. If the Nature Channel begins
talking about the Grebe that has popped into view I could think it was
a local native if nobody says it is a small diving bird. A simple
video shot fixes that.

I agree that sufficient audio information correctly presented to
someone with a reasonably active imagination will likely result in the
creation of some very entertaining and possibly correct mental images
of the scene at hand. But if Hoss is talking about entering a
mountain cabin for some grub and I've never seen a cabin before it
could be interpreted a lot of ways. A simple picture of the low
celinged pine log cabin clears it all up.



And yes, this information IS transmitted in audio.


No, visual information is NOT transmitted in audio. Audio or spoken
information is transmitted by a radio. The human mind may then
translate some of that information to a visual image that may or may
not correspond closely to the object being described. The speaker may
hope that his description results in the listener putting the pieces
together and conjuring up a correct image but that is only hope. A
transmitted visual image via television will likely result in far more
individuals correctly perceiving that I am talking about a small
diving bird when I mention a Grebe.


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. - Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -