"Telamon" wrote in message
...

The radios were designed before HD became a standard. So they were not
designed to receive analog signals when HD was being broadcast
simultaneously, as the design predates HD. Duh.

HD is supposed to be compatible with existing radios Eduardo. Oh! I see
now that was just another lie. You got me good that time.

I don't think radios that have production runs of a few hundred or a
thousand or so were taken into consideration. There are relatively few
radios that are incompatible by 100%... most have the "DX receivers" have
the ability to change mode.

Such marginal reception areas outside the primary contours of AMs is
exactly what both the FCC and American broadcasters were willing to
sacrifice to get digital capability. Everything has tradeoffs.

Ah yes the signal strength fallback position. You are about the only
person that thinks this is a good tradeoff.

Most broadcasters and the FCC think this; it was the basis for approving an
in band on channel system.

What can I say about your reading comprehension that is already known to
readers of the news group. He did not ask why or if a station should
have HD he asked how HD could be used more than it is now.

It will expand to the remaining good signals and to smaller markets... if AM
is even around that long.

The digital side bands could be
increased in power or bandwidth.

We can hope the power is eventually raised; on FM there have been
studies of raising the digital signal by as much as 10 db.

You can hope that. I don't and I think most people reading the news
group would not want that either.

and how many people would that be?

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...

The radios were designed before HD became a standard. So they were not
designed to receive analog signals when HD was being broadcast
simultaneously, as the design predates HD. Duh.

HD is supposed to be compatible with existing radios Eduardo. Oh! I see
now that was just another lie. You got me good that time.

I don't think radios that have production runs of a few hundred or a
thousand or so were taken into consideration. There are relatively few
radios that are incompatible by 100%... most have the "DX receivers" have
the ability to change mode.

So how many Sony 7600G radios do you think were produced?

If HD is supposed to be compatible with existing radios I really don't
see how you logically segregate one brand from another. Duh.

Such marginal reception areas outside the primary contours of AMs is
exactly what both the FCC and American broadcasters were willing to
sacrifice to get digital capability. Everything has tradeoffs.

Ah yes the signal strength fallback position. You are about the only
person that thinks this is a good tradeoff.

Most broadcasters and the FCC think this; it was the basis for approving an
in band on channel system.

They didn't ask the listeners and they did not listen to the stations
that have good regional coverage.

What can I say about your reading comprehension that is already known to
readers of the news group. He did not ask why or if a station should
have HD he asked how HD could be used more than it is now.

It will expand to the remaining good signals and to smaller markets... if AM
is even around that long.

That is your flawed theory and you don't care do you.

The digital side bands could be
increased in power or bandwidth.

We can hope the power is eventually raised; on FM there have been
studies of raising the digital signal by as much as 10 db.

You can hope that. I don't and I think most people reading the news
group would not want that either.

and how many people would that be?

The number is not as important as the fact that this is the interest of
the people that read this news group rec.radio.shortwave. I know that
you are incapable of understanding that. We all have our limitations and
that is just one of yours.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

"Telamon" wrote in message
...

I don't think radios that have production runs of a few hundred or a
thousand or so were taken into consideration. There are relatively few
radios that are incompatible by 100%... most have the "DX receivers" have
the ability to change mode.

So how many Sony 7600G radios do you think were produced?

I'd be surprised to know that they sold over 20 thousand in the US. There
are various estimates, but the range is 700 million to 1 billion for all
working radios in the US.

Most broadcasters and the FCC think this; it was the basis for approving
an
in band on channel system.

They didn't ask the listeners and they did not listen to the stations
that have good regional coverage.

All 25 or 30 of them? Most of those stations, perhaps nearly all, do not
care about anything except the strongest groundwave coverage areas.

It will expand to the remaining good signals and to smaller markets... if
AM
is even around that long.

That is your flawed theory and you don't care do you.

Do a nice little straight line history and project into the future the total
AM listenership in the US and its age level. Within th enext decade, it will
be almost entirely over 55, and down to about 6% to 7% of all radio
listening.

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...

I don't think radios that have production runs of a few hundred or a
thousand or so were taken into consideration. There are relatively few
radios that are incompatible by 100%... most have the "DX receivers" have
the ability to change mode.

So how many Sony 7600G radios do you think were produced?

I'd be surprised to know that they sold over 20 thousand in the US. There
are various estimates, but the range is 700 million to 1 billion for all
working radios in the US.

I would not know but that doesn't stop you does it.

Most broadcasters and the FCC think this; it was the basis for approving
an
in band on channel system.

They didn't ask the listeners and they did not listen to the stations
that have good regional coverage.

All 25 or 30 of them? Most of those stations, perhaps nearly all, do not
care about anything except the strongest groundwave coverage areas.

One would be enough but the number is a lot more than 25 to 30.

It will expand to the remaining good signals and to smaller markets... if
AM
is even around that long.

That is your flawed theory and you don't care do you.

Do a nice little straight line history and project into the future the total
AM listenership in the US and its age level. Within th enext decade, it will
be almost entirely over 55, and down to about 6% to 7% of all radio
listening.

The only straight line I see is the HD driving listeners away evenings.
Using statistics to predict the future is foolhardy at best. You don't
know the future.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

"Telamon" wrote in message
...

They didn't ask the listeners and they did not listen to the stations
that have good regional coverage.

All 25 or 30 of them? Most of those stations, perhaps nearly all, do not
care about anything except the strongest groundwave coverage areas.

One would be enough but the number is a lot more than 25 to 30.

No, it is actually not. You are perhaps missing the point that radio markets
are not single cities or even counties. Chicago is an 11 county metro, for
example. Very few signals cover it all. Only a couple get any significant
listening outside the metro, either... despite pretty good coductivity
there.

So there are really only a handful of staitons by day, on AM, that cover
adequately outside their radio market. And at night, there are even fewer
due to interference, directionality, and the fact that AM is only listened
to lightly at night demonstrates this.

The number is basically the 25 former 1-As, plus a handful of the old 1-Bs.
No former regionals get any really useful skywave, as the channels are too
crowded. And some of the 1-As are chewed up at night by other stations, like
KFI and KNX do to the East of the LA market.

Do a nice little straight line history and project into the future the
total
AM listenership in the US and its age level. Within th enext decade, it
will
be almost entirely over 55, and down to about 6% to 7% of all radio
listening.

The only straight line I see is the HD driving listeners away evenings.
Using statistics to predict the future is foolhardy at best. You don't
know the future.

The decline of AM listening is mostly a function of age. The band "average
age" increases by 1 year every 18 months, nationally, and there are two
whole rated generations that for all practical purposes don't use AM at all
or only for some special occurrence. I steadfastly predict that Americans
will continue to age one year each 12 months, so there will be ongoing
ageing of AM listeners until the band is totally unprofitable. This will be
hastened by the current "we already read the tea leaves" move of many AM
news talk operators to transfer the format to FM and put the AM to some
other niche use until it no longer produces anything.

On Sep 30, 12:19 am, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Telamon" wrote in message

...



They didn't ask the listeners and they did not listen to the stations
that have good regional coverage.

All 25 or 30 of them? Most of those stations, perhaps nearly all, do not
care about anything except the strongest groundwave coverage areas.

One would be enough but the number is a lot more than 25 to 30.

No, it is actually not. You are perhaps missing the point that radio markets
are not single cities or even counties. Chicago is an 11 county metro, for
example. Very few signals cover it all. Only a couple get any significant
listening outside the metro, either... despite pretty good coductivity
there.

So there are really only a handful of staitons by day, on AM, that cover
adequately outside their radio market. And at night, there are even fewer
due to interference, directionality, and the fact that AM is only listened
to lightly at night demonstrates this.

The number is basically the 25 former 1-As, plus a handful of the old 1-Bs.
No former regionals get any really useful skywave, as the channels are too
crowded. And some of the 1-As are chewed up at night by other stations, like
KFI and KNX do to the East of the LA market.



Do a nice little straight line history and project into the future the
total
AM listenership in the US and its age level. Within th enext decade, it
will
be almost entirely over 55, and down to about 6% to 7% of all radio
listening.

The only straight line I see is the HD driving listeners away evenings.
Using statistics to predict the future is foolhardy at best. You don't
know the future.

The decline of AM listening is mostly a function of age. The band "average
age" increases by 1 year every 18 months, nationally, and there are two
whole rated generations that for all practical purposes don't use AM at all
or only for some special occurrence. I steadfastly predict that Americans
will continue to age one year each 12 months, so there will be ongoing
ageing of AM listeners until the band is totally unprofitable. This will be
hastened by the current "we already read the tea leaves" move of many AM
news talk operators to transfer the format to FM and put the AM to some
other niche use until it no longer produces anything.

Instead of posting this crap, you'd better start altering your web
resume some more. Quick!

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...

They didn't ask the listeners and they did not listen to the
stations that have good regional coverage.

All 25 or 30 of them? Most of those stations, perhaps nearly all,
do not care about anything except the strongest groundwave
coverage areas.

One would be enough but the number is a lot more than 25 to 30.

No, it is actually not. You are perhaps missing the point that radio
markets are not single cities or even counties. Chicago is an 11
county metro, for example. Very few signals cover it all. Only a
couple get any significant listening outside the metro, either...
despite pretty good coductivity there.

So there are really only a handful of staitons by day, on AM, that
cover adequately outside their radio market. And at night, there are
even fewer due to interference, directionality, and the fact that AM
is only listened to lightly at night demonstrates this.

The number is basically the 25 former 1-As, plus a handful of the old
1-Bs. No former regionals get any really useful skywave, as the
channels are too crowded. And some of the 1-As are chewed up at night
by other stations, like KFI and KNX do to the East of the LA market.

Snip

You are full of crap. KFI and KNX come in just fine here at night. I
also regularly listen to KKOH out of Nevada, KOGO San Diego, KGO in San
Francisco to name a few. I'm beginning to think you don't live in LA
when you post this crap. They all come in well on a portable radio I
hold in my hand so drop the jealousy act over my table top radios.

You do not seem to know what can be picked up on the West coast at all.
You seem to get your information from the Internet instead of actually
listening to a radio. You are a real nut job pretender. How can you not
know about the reception I get if you live in LA? I can only conclude
you are full of crap and that you don't live in LA or anywhere on the
West coast.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

"Telamon" wrote in message
...


You are full of crap. KFI and KNX come in just fine here at night. I
also regularly listen to KKOH out of Nevada, KOGO San Diego, KGO in San
Francisco to name a few. I'm beginning to think you don't live in LA
when you post this crap. They all come in well on a portable radio I
hold in my hand so drop the jealousy act over my table top radios.

Right. I said there were a handful of stations that get any kind of regional
coverarage. KFI and KNX are licensed within the market you live in, although
you are in an area outside the radio metro, but inside the TV metro
(marketing terms like MSA and DMA were set up precisely so advertisers would
know where the influence of a market's stations extends to... it's not
arbitrary.... it is based on listening) where the signals may be receivable,
but few people listen.

KOGO is probably receivable as you are near the coast. I have no usable
night signal in Glendale, as 600 is very congested inland. 780 and 810 are
former 1 B clears.

You have proven my case. Many 1 Bs shoot out over the water, but the As and
usable B's combined are not even 1% of all the radio stations in the US, and
none of them has registered skywave based listening in ratings for many,
mnay years... decades perhaps.

All we are looking at here is whether the FCC and the broadcast industry did
the right thing. A sacrifice of a quantity of listening so small it is
statistically not quantifiable looks to many to be a fair price to try to
move AM to digital and to try to "reinvent" it. I happen to think AM is too
dead to save in the long run, but standing in the way of perhaps its only
chance to survive is also not appropriate.

You do not seem to know what can be picked up on the West coast at all.
You seem to get your information from the Internet instead of actually
listening to a radio.

I can get Kota Kinabalu many mornings, but that is no indication that anyone
else in the US is listening to it. My point... what I have apparently failed
to convey to you, is that reception of night skywave signals is not how
99.999% of people want to hear radio. The levels of such reception are so
low that they do not register in radio ratings, where every listening
incident is captured, including distant stations, in the current system.

You are a real nut job pretender. How can you not
know about the reception I get if you live in LA? I can only conclude
you are full of crap and that you don't live in LA or anywhere on the
West coast.

The fact is that many LA stations are unusable to me, let alone distant
ones. The noise level is so extreme that anything but a huge signal is not
worth listening to. You are talking about a theoretical ability to pick up a
station and I am talking about what people actually do when they listen to
the radio.

Our KTNQ, a 50 kw AM, of which a decade ago I was program director, did not
have a usable night signal much of the time where I lived in Toluca Lake; it
has no consistently usable signal in Orange County, either. And guess what:
we got no diary mentions in those areas, either. Listeners don't seek out
signals that sound bad.

On Sep 29, 11:36 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Telamon" wrote in message

...

I don't think radios that have production runs of a few hundred or a
thousand or so were taken into consideration. There are relatively few
radios that are incompatible by 100%... most have the "DX receivers" have
the ability to change mode.

So how many Sony 7600G radios do you think were produced?

I'd be surprised to know that they sold over 20 thousand in the US. There
are various estimates, but the range is 700 million to 1 billion for all
working radios in the US.



Most broadcasters and the FCC think this; it was the basis for approving
an
in band on channel system.

They didn't ask the listeners and they did not listen to the stations
that have good regional coverage.

All 25 or 30 of them? Most of those stations, perhaps nearly all, do not
care about anything except the strongest groundwave coverage areas.



It will expand to the remaining good signals and to smaller markets... if
AM
is even around that long.

That is your flawed theory and you don't care do you.

Do a nice little straight line history and project into the future the total
AM listenership in the US and its age level. Within th enext decade, it will
be almost entirely over 55, and down to about 6% to 7% of all radio
listening.

Don't look now, but Tardo's website resume is changing again....it's
like a damned chameleon.

On Sep 29, 8:23 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Telamon" wrote in message

...



The radios were designed before HD became a standard. So they were not
designed to receive analog signals when HD was being broadcast
simultaneously, as the design predates HD. Duh.

HD is supposed to be compatible with existing radios Eduardo. Oh! I see
now that was just another lie. You got me good that time.

I don't think radios that have production runs of a few hundred or a
thousand or so were taken into consideration. There are relatively few
radios that are incompatible by 100%... most have the "DX receivers" have
the ability to change mode.

Such marginal reception areas outside the primary contours of AMs is
exactly what both the FCC and American broadcasters were willing to
sacrifice to get digital capability. Everything has tradeoffs.

Ah yes the signal strength fallback position. You are about the only
person that thinks this is a good tradeoff.

Most broadcasters and the FCC think this; it was the basis for approving an
in band on channel system.



What can I say about your reading comprehension that is already known to
readers of the news group. He did not ask why or if a station should
have HD he asked how HD could be used more than it is now.

It will expand to the remaining good signals and to smaller markets... if AM
is even around that long.



The digital side bands could be
increased in power or bandwidth.

We can hope the power is eventually raised; on FM there have been
studies of raising the digital signal by as much as 10 db.

You can hope that. I don't and I think most people reading the news
group would not want that either.

and how many people would that be?

And how many degrees do you hold?