Tape 1

[saipanda]

Rocker,

What I was thinking for this problem is we can easily keep the idea of numbering the 
tapes, but with the date indexing that's there we can have more than one date per tape.

Eg,

Tape 1 is currently on the Wiki main 400 Box page with only a link for 7 July 1978  -- 
linking through to the date index for that date.

Let's imagine the show you are currently doing is 10 July 1978.

Therefore we add a date entry on under the Tape 1 entry for 10 July 1978.

Then for the Tape 2 entry,  we also put a date entry for 10 July 1978.  Then on the Tape 3 
entry, say, we also have a date link for 10 July 1978.

On the individual date entry for 10 July we would have a combined tracklisting (wondering 
if "playlist" a better word) for the show, with links for Tape 1, Tape 2, Tape 3, with 
individual file names given (indicating the show is in four parts) and which file is on which 
tape.

Eg.

peel_19780710-1.flac
peel_19780710-2.flac
peel_19780710-3.flac
peel_19780710-4.flac

Does this seem to work? If you put the files up, I'll try and give the indexing a quick go 
tomorrow before I go to work to demonstrate (hopefully!)

Many thanks again, Rocker, for all your work on this. Can't wait to hear the next show! 

Now, though, I really am going to bed.

Cheers,

Steve


--- In peel@yahoogroups.com, rockerq@... wrote:
>
> Here lies the problem with numbering the tapes - this show is actually spread 
> over "tape1" and most of "tape 2" - so the audio is in 4 sections. I am 
> pleased you did not notice my edits! - there are therefore three places where a 
> varying amount of time has been lost - eg The middle of the Dick Gaughan track, 
> the end of the Dire Straits track - the gap could be as short as 5 seconds if 
> he was "watching the reel as it comes to a close" - or could be a few minutes 
> if he didn't like the track playing, or more if he'd gone to the pub!
> 
> The first tape definitely sounds fast, but as you say the second tape is even 
> faster - Either he has 2 machines (unlikely as he then would have allowed the 
> sections to overlap) - or the second tape was unevenly wound and thus running 
> slower - which reinforces our theory that he was using one of those crap mono 
> cassette decks that we all got for Christmas in the mid-70s - after a year or 
> two the motors would start to wear out. Also posssible that the batteries 
> were running out - although in that case you'd expect the speeding up to occur 
> gradually throughout the show, rather than one tape faster than the other.
> 
> Cheers!
> 
> Rocker
> 
> 
> > <<Has anyone else noticed that this show (7/7/78) seems to run a bit fast?
> >  I slowed it down by 2.5% using Audacity, but noticed that after about 1 
> > hour it seems to speed up again. 
> >  Presumably the tape is a C120, so maybe it speeds up after the tape flip.
> >  From 1:03.44 (the Dick G back-announce) to the end I've slowed it by a 
> > further 2.5%
> >  I'm listening again now and it's still not perfect, but sounds much better 
> > to my cloth ears.
> >   
> >  Presumably the original show was two hours.
> >  The 10:25 timecheck comes after 14 mins, so there's 11 mins missing from 
> > the beginning of the show.
> >  The final pips come at 1:44
> >  1:44 + 11 = 1:55
> >  Unless my logic/maths are flawed (surely not), there's still another 5 mins 
> > missing.
> >  Surely it's not running that fast!?
> >   
> >  Alan>>
>