Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/delist/Fireside Chat 1 On the Banking Crisis (March 12, 1933) Franklin Delano Roosevelt

Delist: Fireside Chat 1 On the Banking Crisis (March 12, 1933) Franklin Delano Roosevelt

This was the first of

• Fireside chats
• Franklin D. Roosevelt
• History of the United States (1918–1945)

I should have attempted to do some noise reduction. Here is what I should have produced in the prior nomination:

Previous nomination: Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Fireside Chat 1 On the Banking Crisis (March 12, 1933) Franklin Delano Roosevelt

• Nominate to delist and replace.
  WP:FOUR) 01:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Nicely done! What did you do, blend together several noise reductions taken from different sections of static? I wouldn't have guessed you could do much with this. I would blend in a little of the staticy version at low volume, though: It's a slight strain listening to this, but the static, though you wouldn't think it, actually makes it easier to listen to, even at a low volume. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The original starts at about 3.9 seconds. With a lot of static before that. I sampled the first three seconds (actually probably from about 0.5 to 3.7) for the noise profile and used default noise reduction parameters for the whole file. It was pretty simple. I don't know how to blend. Also I just chopped off the first three seconds that are now almost silent so a blend would require synchronization, which probably is not that big a deal.--
    WP:FOUR) 02:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep original The "sss" and "zzz" sounds are barely audible at average speaking volume, I'd rather have background noise with audible pronunciations than little background noise and inaudible pronunciations. When he says "What the next steps are" it sounds like "what the nect teps are", and it sounds like someone's muffled the microphone because some of the speech becomes fuzzy. —
  Talk) • 3:42pm • 05:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Can you give me a time marker for the point that you are illustrating.--
    WP:FOUR) 06:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I found it and am not so sure the original is any clearer for this particular point. Interested parties may listen at about 36 seconds on the original and 33 seconds on the edit.--
    WP:FOUR) 06:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delist and replace The sizzling is worse than the slight change in the tone of voice of the president. As for the "what the nect teps are" thing, I found it to be the same in both versions.
  Wha? 22:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I performed some noise reduction of my own, including machine and hand edited click removal and some lite machine noise reduction with a less edited track remixed at -15dB. Zginder 2011-04-19T23:46Z (UTC)

I think that this edit does not change Roosevelt's speech much while reducing noise greatly. Zginder 2011-04-19T23:46Z (UTC)

• Comment The "s" noises are inaudible if they weren't (by which I mean if the s's were audible) I'd support either of the edits, though at this stage I'm leaning towards the second edit primarily because it doesn't sound like someone wrapped a dishcloth around the microphone. —
  Talk • Contribs) • 11:06am • 01:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I personally prefer the first edit because of the lower level of distracting scratches and hisses.--
  WP:FOUR) 04:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • While the first edit is not bad, it doesn't have that air of authenticity to it. —
    Talk • Contribs) • 7:53pm • 09:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delist and replace with Edit 2 - a more sympathetic noise reduction which does not remove entirely the authentic sound of 1933.Major Bloodnok (talk) 21:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist and replace with Edit 2, Sven makes a good point, the problem with the audibility of s sounds exists on the original as well and because this edit doesn't sound like the microphone's been muffled with a dishcloth. —
  Talk • Contribs) • 9:57am • 23:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Per James and Major B. But could I ask, at nearly 14 minutes, much of it is a yawn. If it ever appeared on the main page, what bits could one point people to as being the kernel of his message? I suggest that adding a few of the critical word-strings to the SDP would add value to the file and help subsequent editors who are considering whether or not to include it in another article.
  • There is no content on WP at this time that points to any particular highlight of this speech, so I would say that there is nothing to point them to. This is not like the Clinton Lewinsky speech, the
    WP:FOUR) 13:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • I think this could be added to
      Glass–Steagall Act, Great Depression, Great Depression in the United States, and New Deal. Zginder 2011-04-27T16:54Z (UTC
      )
      • I added the original file in all of those locations. When this nomination is over the closer will replace with the proper version, I assume.--
        WP:FOUR) 17:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
        ]
• Can you please stop adding files to random articles. If this wasn't important, iconic, or groundbreaking it shouldn't be a FS. We are slipping on our EV and letting any good sound slip by. This discussion has been open for 20 days and does not seem to meet the quorum. There is no clear consensus about this except that the original is not worth of being a FS. I am going to close this bloated discussion without any future prejudice against either edit. Edit two is close but not close enough right now. --Guerillero | My Talk 04:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]