Re: [ARSCLIST] Edward R. Murrow "Hear It Now", etc.

[Tom Fine <tflists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I think fast with proper diction for optimal AM listening quality was the
order of the day. Good radio announcers -- and good voice-over guys even to
this day -- can tailor their reading to fit whatever time envelope their
given. The age of computer audio has made it all easier because if your
reader goes, say 1:10 for a 58-second spot, the software can squeeze it
faster than he can re-record it.

Don, make sure your OTR source material has not been digi-time-compressed. A
lot of the stuff out their in Internetland has been screwed around to make
it fit file sizes or time constraints. Also, some of the stuff dating back
to when you could buy OTR shows on LP was shortened with tape edits to fit
in what were already the outer limits of LP sides. But none of that should
be very noticeable. But, that said, I dubbed a book on tape and did only a
12-15% time compression on it to make 90 minute tapes fit on 80-minute CD's
and it's very noticeable. Still very understandable, but definitely rushed
sounding. People all have a natural speaking cadence and mussing with it
stands right out.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <Dnjchi@xxxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 10:19 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Edward R. Murrow "Hear It Now", etc.


> Mention was made regarding the homogenizing of speech due, possibly, to
TV.
> As one with some hearing loss, I am surprised, when listening to old radio
> shows, at apparently the correct playback speed, hearing how FAST the
announcers
> spoke in the '30s and later.  Was this for a reason?  Or have my ears
become
> accustomed to the more laid-back style of today's announcers?
> Don Chichester