David Eduardo wrote:
"Steve" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Sep 3, 12:44 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Steve" wrote in message

ps.com...



Sounds like you've finally matured a bit and now see the merits of FM
and the folly of HD-AM. Congratulations.
Quite the contrary. It has been known by broadcasters for some time that
there is no way to get any significant number of listeners under 55 to
tune
to AM, and the average age of AM listeners is increasing each year as a
consequence.
Quite the contrary? What is contrary to what? You seem to be replying
to someone else's post.


"Quite the contrary" to what you said my thought process is.

I now see HD as perhaps the _only_ hope for AM radio to survive.





I think that is a false hope.

A lot of the examples, here have been about AM sound quality. That
under 55 demos will not make the attempt, due to bad sound quality. That
the move to FM boosts prime demo performance without change of
programming. The move to FM alone is all that matters. And that appears
to be true. But the reasons given are always involve sound quality, when
it's been demostrated for decades, that content, not sound quality drive
listening. You've quoted them, yourself. But this is now the decisive
factor when a move to FM boosts younger demos.

There is another factor that's not been mentioned, that will far
outweigh sound quality as the razor between AM and FM listening.

Consider that when WNIB was on the air, it was playing classical
music against WFMT, also playing classical music. It was widely
recognized, acknowledged and even discussed that WFMT had superior sound
quality to WNIB. And expecially to WNIZ, in Zion, simulcasting WNIB off
an NAD tuner at 96.9. (WNIB was at 97.1)

WNIB routinely beat WFMT in the ratings. Widely acknowledged poorer
audio. Same format. So....what was the difference? The content. WNIB
played 'the hits.' WFMT played much deeper longhair. The playlists
overlapped considerably. But WNIB, with poorer audio quality, beat WFMT
in listenership. And in listener loyalty.

Content drives listening. You've said it yourself.

So, the ratings boost after moving an AM to FM may have less to do
with audio quality than it does with a much more important factor....the
cache associated with FM.

Even as far back in my high school days, AM stations were struggling
against FM penetration. Not once did I hear 'audio quality' spoken of
when I heard someone discussing FM superiority. But I did hear, 'You
still listen to AM? OK, Grandpa. Stay in the 30's;' and many other
derisive comments about the fact that FM was now, AM was your father's
radio station. Listening to AM for whatever reason, meant you were out
of touch. Even though KMOX still dominated the market, and KXOK was the
St Louis music station. WLS had a 20 share and WGN was coming on. But
the talk was of The Loop. And ABC's FM du jour. The era of FM
penetration was on...driven as much by the hipness of a 'new' fad as it
was by the quality of a new technology.

Now, everyone knows now, as they did then, that FM has more
compelling sound than AM. And the conventional wisdom holds that AM has
never, could never, and can never sound as good. Or be as listenable.
Even though in it's native, unprocessed form, AM can be quieter and
cleaner than FM. And some of us fossillized curmudgeons know it. More
than you will ever realize. Or admit.

But AM is yesterday's news. AM is a Packard. AM is a Zenith console.
AM is simply not intrinsically hip enough to face the competition and
reclaim it's crown. Not incapable of performance. Just not possessed of
the cache other alternatives are revelling in.

And then, AM has Rush. Granted he's not Howard Stern. Not quite the
youth appeal of an iPod full of Rilo Kiley and Plain White T's. But
there is listening. And it IS broader than typical local AM. Which
indicates content does matter. And it DOES make a difference.

So, while FM has come to dominate listening in so many areas,
through, yes, audio quality...Stereo... (though Dolby FM and Quad were
busts--what does THAT tell you?) what's keeping listeners away from AM
is the fact that it's not hip. It's not happ'nin'. For two generations,
now, FM has had the cache while AM radios have gotted horrible. The
younger demos haven't even given AM a real sampling. Because everyone
THEY know...only listens to FM. And that's where they do their
listening. Old habits, and all that.

David, they're not listening to AM because it's AM. They haven't
even GOTTEN to the sound quality, yet.

In that context, OF COURSE moving AM to FM is going to make a
difference in the demo spread. The younger demos are discovering the
content where they listen. Some, for the first time. And some are going
to stay. But going digital on AM....won't make the difference.
Especially when the interstation noise is so dramatically much louder
than that on FM. And so much of the band is trashed with hash.

HD Radio isn't going to change AM's perception, nor is it going to
flag FM's cache. Because you're not going to get younger demos to sample
AM. Not even give it a serious attempt. Audio quality alone cannot make
any difference. Because that's not what drives listening. They may hear
AM HD and think it's ok. But that's not where they listen. And, absent
any compelling change in content to get them to sample something new,
they're not going to try. All you're doing is trashing the band. And
hastening what you believe is inevitable. While blaming AM technology
for being substandard.

AM stereo went nowhere. There's a reason for that. Several,
actually. Dolby FM went nowhere. There's a reason for that. Quad and
FMX went nowhere. There are all improvements in audio quality...well,
FMX wasn't really, but go with me, here...if audio quality really
mattered, we wouldn't be able to count the number of DOLBY FM, Quad
stations with FMX. And you'd have to have a second car, just to contain
all the sound. But we don't. The public didn't see the value in each of
these technologies, because audio quality doesn't drive listening.
(KMOX-FM even had a Sunday afternoon Quad program that got fewer
listeners than police radios.) Content matters. Get that wrong, and
you've got a pig in a party dress. As cute as she may be, she's still a
pig. You won't get anyone to get close enough to dance with her. They
won't even GET to the smell.

And if you really want a pointed nail, here...2/3's of all FM
listening is done in mono. Even among listeners to FM stereo stations on
FM stereo receivers. Because of the blend circuit that engages out of
prime signal conditions (not just level within the prime contour, but
actual conditions of reception). 2/3 of all FM listening is in mono. You
don't hear anyone bitching.

Try this once. Take one of your FM's mono. But leave the pilot on.
Write down the names of everyone who complains. If you fill a Post-it,
I'll buy you dinner at the 95th. You and a guest.

Try it. I dare you.

Why? Because audio quality doesn't drive listening.


The reason AM isn't being listened to by the younger demos isn't
really about audio...it's about the fact that its AM.

HD Radio will not change that.

As the dismal monthly reports about the adoption of HD demonstrate.



Let me know when you're coming for dinner.