What's on the air (Nov 1929-Feb 1931)

uul iu ijju yjyy yo'^o WHAT'S ON THE AlR THE MAGAZINE FOR THE RADIO LISTENER VOLUME I. AUGUST, 1930 NO. 10 By Ctarle/ M &g'ee flckm/ HAVE you "radio ear"? It will do you no good to stall uneasily or register an indignant protest, for, if you read this magazine, the odds are a thousand to one that you have. Besides, though you have, there is no reason to be uneasy or indignant about it. "Radio ear" is not something to be confused with "cauliflower ear," the professional badge so popular before prize-fighting became boxing. Certain cynics, of course, will retort that it must then be a disease, to judge by the program choices of some of their acquaintances. But, despite the evidence to support that wisecrack, "radio ear" is not a disease either, like "housemaid's knee," "writer's cramp" or "stone-cutter's asthma." It is nothing more than a normal and natural psychological adjustment. In other words, one who has "radio ear" has become accustomed to listening to radio. That sounds quite simple and obvious, doesn't it? But, like so many simple and obvious things in this hectic world, it goes considerably deeper and farther, and explains more things than it might seem at first glance. For instance, the very fact that one must become accustomed to listening to radio is something to think over. On the face of things, that shouldn't be necessary. Apparently all one needs to do is throw the switch, cock an attentive ear and let the dynamic do the rest. But not so. To prove that, get hold of some one who has never heard a radio (if that can be done), sit him down before your loud-speaker, and watch a strained look come over his face while he does his first listening. You have doubtless forgotten, since it happened so long ago, but you felt that same strain when you had your first earful of radio, and for good reason. Until you become accustomed to it, listening to radio does involve a certain amount of strain, because broadcasting is more or less artificial. And that is no heresy to modern tone-quality perfection, either. Even with the best of transmission and reproduc You felt the same strain when you got your first earful of radio. tion, broadcasting is certain to be more or less artificial. A master oil portrait never quite equals the living subject. A movie newsreel is never just as realistic as the big event itself. Whenever you copy or transfer, there is certain to be a loss. That is a law of nature, and radio is not exempt from its operation. With any good, modern receiver picking up high-grade, modern transmission, this loss of fidelity is astonishingly small. Yet it is there. Listening to the radio version is not quite like hearing the same artists or speakers in person. Hence the necessity to become accustomed to the difference, which can be called "radio ear," just as the film addict comes to acquire what might be called "movie eye." This business of being accustomed explains, among other things, why musicians in the main are such poor judges of radio tone quality. Here is a paradox which has puzzled and surprised many listeners for a long time. Seemingly, trained musicians should be ideal judges of tone. But experience — and some of it quite dear for the manufacturers — has shown that most of them are not. The answer is that they simply do not have radio ear. Even though they do spend leisure time listening to radio, their working-hours are devoted to listening to music in person. So, the unconscious adjustment which radio requires is doubly difficult for them, as compared with the average lay listener who attends a concert or opera only now and then, and gets most of his music through a loud-speaker. Besides, when they do become more or less accustomed to broadcasting, their musical training still predominates over their later-acquired radio habits. This is illustrated rather strikingly by two friends of mine.