Ibiquity's "Gag Order" on engineers
 

David Frackelton Gleason, still posing as 'Eduardo', the Hispanic persona he
dreamed up in the year 2000, wrote:

"Steve" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Sep 3, 8:11 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Steve" wrote in message

ps.com...

On Sep 3, 8:07 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
the real
issue here.

There are currently more AM listeners under 50 than over 50. That is
per
Arbitron. The issue is that only 20% of all radio listening is to AM,
because in the rated markets there are so few good AM facilities that
can
compete. The ones that can, get great ratings and huge billing.- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Only 20%. Good grief. You're in more trouble than I thought.

The people in trouble are those with AMs with bad signals. Since we only
have about a dozen AMs (including 7 with 50 kw) they are not a major part
of
the business. Our FMs do just fine, too.

Yes but when you're part of an entire industry in decline, it's going
to catch up with you sooner or later. Maybe you should post your
resume on hotjobs or something.


The radio industry is in slow growth, not decline. 2006 ended higher than
any year in the past, and since 1950, radio has grown every year but tow
(2001 and a recession year in the 70's) and you can find a chart of this at
the RAB website.

Certain sectors of radio have sustained double digit growth for the last 20
or so years, and I am in one of those sectors; we were up 12% in revenue in
Q2 of 2007 when the rest of the industry was down about 2%.

I am not going to be spending much time on a resume, methinks.

How could you, when shilling occupies so much of your time, oh fake one?

Ibiquity's "Gag Order" on engineers
 

On Sep 3, 8:19 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Steve" wrote in message

oups.com...





On Sep 3, 8:11 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Steve" wrote in message

oups.com...

On Sep 3, 8:07 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
the real
issue here.

There are currently more AM listeners under 50 than over 50. That is
per
Arbitron. The issue is that only 20% of all radio listening is to AM,
because in the rated markets there are so few good AM facilities that
can
compete. The ones that can, get great ratings and huge billing.- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Only 20%. Good grief. You're in more trouble than I thought.

The people in trouble are those with AMs with bad signals. Since we only
have about a dozen AMs (including 7 with 50 kw) they are not a major part
of
the business. Our FMs do just fine, too.

Yes but when you're part of an entire industry in decline, it's going
to catch up with you sooner or later. Maybe you should post your
resume on hotjobs or something.

The radio industry is in slow growth, not decline. 2006 ended higher than
any year in the past, and since 1950, radio has grown every year but tow
(2001 and a recession year in the 70's) and you can find a chart of this at
the RAB website.

Certain sectors of radio have sustained double digit growth for the last 20
or so years, and I am in one of those sectors; we were up 12% in revenue in
Q2 of 2007 when the rest of the industry was down about 2%.

I am not going to be spending much time on a resume, methinks.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Slow growth is just as good as decline if it's slow enough.

You think that AM as it currently exists faces no serious challenges.
Well, the facts will teach you otherwise.

Ibiquity's "Gag Order" on engineers
 

On Sep 3, 3:57 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"dxAce" wrote in message
So solly cholly, I'm receiving Social Security, not welfare. I also
receive my
pension from the Union, and next year I'll get my pension from the
Company. I also
have about $180,000 invested that I can tap into as well.

In other words, you have no job. That means you are not employed.
Steve-the-toe-tapper-in-the-men's-room is trying to obfuscate. (And
Larry Craig rejected him with a "QLF?") If the payments from the
Social Security Administrtaion are for disability, and not a pension,
they are welfare. In fact, anything he receives from SSA above and
beyond what he paid in (plus interest) is welfare. If he were an
honest conservative, he would recognize that.

He may not be collecting unemployment benefits because, to collect,
you have to be able to demonstrate that you are willing and able to
contribute to society.

Ibiquity's "Gag Order" on engineers
 

" wrote:

On Sep 3, 3:57 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"dxAce" wrote in message
So solly cholly, I'm receiving Social Security, not welfare. I also
receive my
pension from the Union, and next year I'll get my pension from the
Company. I also
have about $180,000 invested that I can tap into as well.

In other words, you have no job. That means you are not employed.
Steve-the-toe-tapper-in-the-men's-room is trying to obfuscate.

So solly cholly, I don't tap.

(And
Larry Craig rejected him with a "QLF?") If the payments from the
Social Security Administrtaion are for disability, and not a pension,
they are welfare.

No, they are not.

In fact, anything he receives from SSA above and
beyond what he paid in (plus interest) is welfare.

If he were an
honest conservative, he would recognize that.

I recognize that I'm receiving the benefits I paid for!

He may not be collecting unemployment benefits because, to collect,
you have to be able to demonstrate that you are willing and able to
contribute to society.

My unemployment benefits expired a long time ago!

You really need to get a clue.

Ibiquity's "Gag Order" on engineers
 

" wrote:

On Sep 3, 3:57 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"dxAce" wrote in message
So solly cholly, I'm receiving Social Security, not welfare. I also
receive my
pension from the Union, and next year I'll get my pension from the
Company. I also
have about $180,000 invested that I can tap into as well.

In other words, you have no job. That means you are not employed.
Steve-the-toe-tapper-in-the-men's-room is trying to obfuscate. (And
Larry Craig rejected him with a "QLF?") If the payments from the
Social Security Administrtaion are for disability, and not a pension,
they are welfare. In fact, anything he receives from SSA above and
beyond what he paid in (plus interest) is welfare.

SSA doesn't pay interest, 'tard boy.

Best you ask mommy for a clue come Christmas!

Ibiquity's "Gag Order" on engineers
 

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
.
..
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"IBOCcrock" wrote in message
oups.com...

The digital signals are only 1% of the analog - IBOC's
coverage isn't even 50% that of analogs !


Digital has totally different properties than analog. I have
seen plenty of data showing the HD signal, on a 3rd generation
receiver, is robust beyond the "usable" signal range of analog
AM or FM, which is the 10 mv/m AM curve and the 64 dbu FM
contour.

Gee, to bad you don't understand what that means.

I understand perfectly. I did one of the first studies of
listenership vs. signal strength over a decade ago.

I'm pretty sure reading your posts you have no understanding volts
per meter means. I don't think you know what dBu is either.


As stated previously, I actually built the first FM station in
Ecuador from scratch, including transmitter, studio gear and antenna.
I certainly know what the terms of field strength mean. I think
anyone who can build an FM exciter from scratch probably can
understand voltages pretty well.

I have also lugged field strength meters around various FCC
jurisdictions while working on directional antenna patterns ranging
from WEEL to WQII to KTNQ.

I didn't ask you about your fake imagined history that you shoe horn in
at every opportunity.

The minimum contour for FM stations to get significant listening is
the 64 dbu, roughly 1.5 mv/m. For AM in metros, it is about 10 mv/m.
Both AM and FM are measurements of the strength of the EMF from a
transmitter at some point of distance from it dBu used to be called
dBv but got confused with dBV, and was changed. It's a decibel
measurement of voltage.... as my equivalency shows.

dBuV is not the same thing as dBV. Care to try again.

While you are at it explain how 1.5 mV/m equates to either 64dBuV or
64dBV.

You mentioned these voltage numbers are in decibels so does that
mean a change from 32 to 64 is twice as much?

And just what does 1.5mV/m mean anyway to a person reading this post?

The whole point here is that the average listener... about 96% to 97%
of them, in fact, will not listen to a signal below a certain level
and all but three to four percent of stationary AM and FM listening
in rated metros comes from areas within the 10 vv/m and 64 dbu
contours of AM and FM stations.

My radio needs 10V/m to receive a station decently? My God no wonder you
didn't believe my posts on the signal strength of local stations. I'm
glad we finally figured that out.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

Ibiquity's "Gag Order" on engineers
 

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.

Ibiquity's "Gag Order" on engineers
 

David Eduardo wrote:


You do know, I hope, that during the entire period
that data was available, from the mid-50's to the mid-90's, half of all US
radio stations did not make money?


And with a total revenue share of 100 in any market, that isn't going
to change. Consolidation can move that red line a few positions
deeper, but all the technology in the world, all the cost cutting in the
world, will not change the fact that there is only a 100 revenue share
in any market, and not all stations can survive.

Ibiquity's "Gag Order" on engineers
 

David Eduardo wrote:
"Brenda Ann" wrote in message
...
"Steve" wrote in message
ups.com...
Whatever. It's an aging audience nonetheless, and getting older with
every tick of the clock. You must modernize or you will soon be
extinct.

You know what it would take to make terrestrial commercial radio extinct?
If XM and Sirius both had a non-pay basic tier that was commercially
funded, that would pretty much do it. Nearly universal coverage, and now
they have walkman-sized personal portables.

Those portables only work well in areas with terrestrial repeaters. They
suck elsewhere. I bought one to travel with, and in 9 place out of 10, the
signal is not listenable. And it cost $300.




That sounds like the one I bought. It goes with me everywhere. And I
rarely have a signal outage....except for under bridges in rural areas.

Everywhere I go, I can listen to what I enjoy via satellite.

Ibiquity's "Gag Order" on engineers
 

In article
,
Telamon wrote:

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
..
.
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message

t.
..
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"IBOCcrock" wrote in message
oups.com...

The digital signals are only 1% of the analog - IBOC's
coverage isn't even 50% that of analogs !


Digital has totally different properties than analog. I have
seen plenty of data showing the HD signal, on a 3rd generation
receiver, is robust beyond the "usable" signal range of analog
AM or FM, which is the 10 mv/m AM curve and the 64 dbu FM
contour.

Gee, to bad you don't understand what that means.

I understand perfectly. I did one of the first studies of
listenership vs. signal strength over a decade ago.

I'm pretty sure reading your posts you have no understanding volts
per meter means. I don't think you know what dBu is either.


As stated previously, I actually built the first FM station in
Ecuador from scratch, including transmitter, studio gear and antenna.
I certainly know what the terms of field strength mean. I think
anyone who can build an FM exciter from scratch probably can
understand voltages pretty well.

I have also lugged field strength meters around various FCC
jurisdictions while working on directional antenna patterns ranging
from WEEL to WQII to KTNQ.

I didn't ask you about your fake imagined history that you shoe horn in
at every opportunity.

The minimum contour for FM stations to get significant listening is
the 64 dbu, roughly 1.5 mv/m. For AM in metros, it is about 10 mv/m.
Both AM and FM are measurements of the strength of the EMF from a
transmitter at some point of distance from it dBu used to be called
dBv but got confused with dBV, and was changed. It's a decibel
measurement of voltage.... as my equivalency shows.

dBuV is not the same thing as dBV. Care to try again.

While you are at it explain how 1.5 mV/m equates to either 64dBuV or
64dBV.

You mentioned these voltage numbers are in decibels so does that
mean a change from 32 to 64 is twice as much?

And just what does 1.5mV/m mean anyway to a person reading this post?

The whole point here is that the average listener... about 96% to 97%
of them, in fact, will not listen to a signal below a certain level
and all but three to four percent of stationary AM and FM listening
in rated metros comes from areas within the 10 vv/m and 64 dbu
contours of AM and FM stations.

My radio needs 10V/m to receive a station decently? My God no wonder you
didn't believe my posts on the signal strength of local stations. I'm
glad we finally figured that out.

The master of BS must have stopped to eat dinner after 56 posts today.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California