|
TV Band ?
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. |
TV Band ?
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. Ah yes, Red Skelton. Man, they don't make them like him anymore. |
Red Skelton
Someone wrote Ah yes, Red Skelton. Man, they don't make them like him anymore. Indeed - but we now have Steven Wright see URL: http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fu...d=13147 89229 He once asked "What the hell happened to the B Battery?" The Shadow Knows - do you? LC |
TV Band ?
I always enjoyed Red Skelton's radio and tv shows and movies.His tv
shows, he always ended them by saying, God Bless. If I may throw in a www.devilfinder.com thingy? Biography Red Skelton I own a few old radios which have tv audio channels.(now y'all know why I call it Radiio tb.(tb, Dennis the Menance, tb and Cowboy Bob) Television is Radio with pictures. Maybe the guy in Italy can buy a Sling Box www.slingbox.com and do something with that? I want to buy a wireless speaker I can use with my tv set (RCA 27 inch screen CRT tv set) which is used with my WebTV.Reason is, so I can put the wireless speaker in the window of my front bedroom (the side window facing the side of the house next door to me and when them women are sitting around in their yard, I can pull up some internet Irish and Scotish music and and turn it up real loud let them give a listen.Do y'all know where I can find such a wireless speaker? cuhulin |
WIRELESS SPEAKERS FOR cuhulin
SNIP I want to buy a wireless speaker I can use with my tv set (RCA 27 inch screen CRT tv set) which is used with my WebTV.Reason is, so I can put the wireless speaker in the window of my front bedroom (the side window facing the side of the house next door to me and when them women are sitting around in their yard, I can pull up some internet Irish and Scotish music and and turn it up real loud let them give a listen.Do y'all know where I can find such a wireless speaker? cuhulin RCA WSP150 900 MHz Wireless Speakers http://www.amazon.com/RCA-WSP150-900.../dp/B00000J0D8 $65 OR CHECK LOCAL GOODWILL STORE (:-) DA SHADOW |
WIRELESS SPEAKERS FOR cuhulin
Amazon.com? OK, DA SHADOW, I will look and see.By the way, I used to
listen to them Shadow radio programs many years ago on our family radio.I can still hear that creaking door now.I am sixty five years young (sixty six November the fifth, if I live long enough) and I listened to everything on our radio.Stella Dallas and all of them. cuhulin |
WIRELESS SPEAKERS FOR cuhulin
wrote in message ... Amazon.com? OK, DA SHADOW, I will look and see.By the way, I used to listen to them Shadow radio programs many years ago on our family radio.I can still hear that creaking door now.I am sixty five years young (sixty six November the fifth, if I live long enough) and I listened to everything on our radio.Stella Dallas and all of them. cuhulin Very good cuhulin. I have the RCA Wireless speakers -- I use them for rear channel sound - works well. Stella Dallas -- ah yes -- radio serial, which aired daily for 18 years, and which is often credited as being the first soap opera. Hey -- How bout Ma Perkins and Jack Armstrong who was the ____ __________ Boy And the Secret Decoder Ring ?? http://cgi.ebay.com/1937-Jack-ARMSTR...QQcmdZViewItem ONLY $150.00 - DAMN I SHOULD HAVE KEPT MINE DA Shadow remembers (sometimes) |
TV Band ?
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. |
WIRELESS SPEAKERS FOR cuhulin
And those old Ma and Pa Kettle on the Farm movies.Tune in your local
area radio programs nowadays and what do you get? Many years ago, (in my opinion) those old radio programs were much better. I listened to Stella Dallas (and become to like those Stella Dallas radio programs) when I was a kid because my mom used to tune in Stella Dallas. cuhulin |
WIRELESS SPEAKERS FOR cuhulin
|
TV Band ?
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. |
TV Band ?
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 |
TV Band ?
Married With Children has just now cranked up on Radio tb.
cuhulin |
TV Band ?
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 |
TV Band ?
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 |
TV Band ?
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 ! :o) ~ RHF |
TV Band ?
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 - |
TV Band ?
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. |
TV Band ?
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. |
TV Band ?
Lucille Ball from Jamestown,New York, I think.She has played some
serious parts in some old movies before.I Love Lucy. cuhulin |
TV Band ?
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 |
TV Band ?
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 |
TV Band ?
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 - |
TV Band ?
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 |
TV Band ?
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. :) |
TV Band ?
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. |
TV Band ?
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 - |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:10 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com