Know your listener/market
 

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
. com...

"dxAce" wrote in message
...

Fractured? WBBM's IBOC (QRM) signal renders 790 unlistenable here.

Most likely the 790 signal is not supposed to cover your area with a
listenable (and thus protected) signal. If you are referring to the 790 in
Saginaw, it is not protected to Grand Rapids.

That's reality, no matter which way you decide to slice, dice, or spin
it.

Yep, radio is moving on. You aren't.

That's where you're wrong. We are moving on. But not to your QRM generating
three channel wide garbage that it takes a $300 radio to hear at all (and
that's only if you have a large antenna or are within sight of the towers).
We're moving on to Ogg-Vorbis, mp3, etc., where we can provide our own
selections of music for hours on end, and without your 15 minutes plus of
commercials per hour, and without paying $13 a month for a sketchy satellite
signal. Radio is dying, it's commiting slow suicide. Sad to see it
happening, when I was growing up, radio served it's audience.. now it only
serves itself, and does a **** poor job of even that.

Know your listener/market
 

On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 19:47:28 GMT, D Peter Maus
wrote:


Except for the DVD players, all my TV/Video gear. With the exception
of the XM receiver, the Fanfare tuners, and my studio gear, all my audio
hardware. The microwave is an AMANA commercial unit that I bought in
'86. The radio in my office is Proton 300 I bought in the early 90's
and my clock radio is a Proton 320 from '88.

You don't want to know about what's in my radio room.

Quite a bit of the electronics in my house is 12+ and counting. And
of the people I know, I'm the radical one whose stuff is 'all new.'


Except for my radios and speakers, I buy new CE stuff about every 3
years. The state of the art is usually an order of magnitude advanced
by that time.

Know your listener/market
 

On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 20:23:33 GMT, Telamon
wrote:

In article ,
"Frank Dresser" wrote:


The situation would be much better if the band was split up between
analog and digital.

Digital audio broadcasting or DAB is a technology for broadcasting
audio programming in digital form that was designed in the late 1980s.
The original objectives of converting to digital systems were to
enable higher fidelity, greater noise immunity, mobile services, and
new services, but sadly DAB now invariably offers audio quality that
is lower than that available on FM.

The acronym DAB is used both to identify the generic technology of
digital audio broadcasting, and specific technical standards,
particularly the Eureka 147 standard described below. Standardization
of DAB technology is promoted by the World DAB Forum, which represents
more than 30 countries but excluding the United States, which has
opted instead for a system called HD Radio.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_audio_broadcasting

Know your listener/market
 

"Brenda Ann" wrote in message
...

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
. com...

"dxAce" wrote in message
...

Fractured? WBBM's IBOC (QRM) signal renders 790 unlistenable here.

Most likely the 790 signal is not supposed to cover your area with a
listenable (and thus protected) signal. If you are referring to the 790
in Saginaw, it is not protected to Grand Rapids.

That's reality, no matter which way you decide to slice, dice, or spin
it.

Yep, radio is moving on. You aren't.

That's where you're wrong. We are moving on. But not to your QRM
generating three channel wide garbage that it takes a $300 radio to hear
at all (and that's only if you have a large antenna or are within sight of
the towers). We're moving on to Ogg-Vorbis, mp3, etc., where we can
provide our own selections of music for hours on end, and without your 15
minutes plus of commercials per hour, and without paying $13 a month for a
sketchy satellite signal. Radio is dying, it's commiting slow suicide. Sad
to see it happening, when I was growing up, radio served it's audience..
now it only serves itself, and does a **** poor job of even that.


Addendum:

As a former broadcast engineer myself, I would have been ashamed of creating
interference to another station, no matter whether it was in our supposed
'market' or not. In Portland, a LOT of people listen to stations outside
the market. Stations from Salem, Hillsboro, and even The Dalles are quite
popular and can (or at least COULD) be heard easily in most parts of town
(well, the station in The Dalles mainly in east and northeast areas). The
point really should not be whether a statistically large portion of a market
listens to rimshots or even DX, the point should be good engineering
practices. IBOC is not a good engineering practice.

Know your listener/market
 

"David" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 21:41:49 GMT, "David Eduardo"
wrote:


"David" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 15:44:16 GMT, "David Eduardo"
wrote:


Satellite has run commercials since its offset on the talk channels, and
XM
started with commercials on all music channels but took them off.
Neither
believes more than 5% of revenues will ever come from advertising.


Not true. XM has always had some commercial-free music channels.

Wrong. When the sytem launched, all music channels had 6 minutes of "ad
quota" which was not used because nobody wanted to advertise on satellite
int he first few years. Later, when Sirius made inroads and started
promoting commercial free music channels, XM killed the commercial
opportunities on their music channels to be equal to Sirius.

From the start, I was programming 5 of the music channels, and two years
and
a couple of months later the commercial avails were eliminated.

That's bogus. Ask Abrams.

That is who worked with. All music channels were to be commercial, 6' max,
at the offset. They changed in reaction to Sirius going non-commercial on
all music channels.

Know your listener/market
 

"Brenda Ann" wrote in message
...

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
. com...

"dxAce" wrote in message
...

Fractured? WBBM's IBOC (QRM) signal renders 790 unlistenable here.

Most likely the 790 signal is not supposed to cover your area with a
listenable (and thus protected) signal. If you are referring to the 790
in Saginaw, it is not protected to Grand Rapids.

That's reality, no matter which way you decide to slice, dice, or spin
it.

Yep, radio is moving on. You aren't.

That's where you're wrong. We are moving on. But not to your QRM
generating three channel wide garbage that it takes a $300 radio to hear
at all (and that's only if you have a large antenna or are within sight of
the towers).

The receivers are getting cheaper and better. I have a newer Boston
Acoustics HD, and it gets all the HD2 channels inside a building that faces
away fromt he transmitters. By the time there is more content, there will be
many more recievers out, and the price point will move down. My first VHS
was $800. My first CD player was $1500. My first DVD player was over $300. A
year or so later, prices were down by more than half. Now you can get a DVD
player for $19 after a rebate.

We're moving on to Ogg-Vorbis, mp3, etc., where we can provide our own
selections of music for hours on end, and without your 15 minutes plus of
commercials per hour, and without paying $13 a month for a sketchy
satellite signal.

Actually, the big players, starting with Clear Channel, have 10 minute
commercial limits.

Radio is dying, it's commiting slow suicide.

Radio is changing, not dying. The cume is within 2% of what it was in the
late 60's. The usage by target demos, 18-54, is only off a few percent from
the levels of the 60's and 70's in Arbitron, and the levels of the 50's in
other surveys. Radio may be used less in the overall entertainment mix, but
it serves 95% of the people well, as it always has.

Sad to see it happening, when I was growing up, radio served it's
audience.. now it only serves itself, and does a **** poor job of even
that.

No evidence of that.

Know your listener/market
 

"David" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 21:43:39 GMT, "David Eduardo"
wrote:



That is HD-1. All HD main channels repeat the analog channel with a delay
that fills a digital buffer for fallback. The HD-2 channels are as listed.
And they are on, for Emmis, Clear and CBS. There is no "agreement" with
CBS
and Clear as that would be collusion.


I was listening to Harry Shearer on KROQ with the 2 icon on my
Recepter HD glowing bright blue as I was typing that message. Same
program as the analog and HD1, delayed a few seconds longer than HD1.

Technical trouble? They have separate programming for HD-2.

Know your listener/market
 

On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 23:17:15 GMT, "David Eduardo"
wrote:


"David" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 21:41:49 GMT, "David Eduardo"
wrote:


"David" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 15:44:16 GMT, "David Eduardo"
wrote:


Satellite has run commercials since its offset on the talk channels, and
XM
started with commercials on all music channels but took them off.
Neither
believes more than 5% of revenues will ever come from advertising.


Not true. XM has always had some commercial-free music channels.

Wrong. When the sytem launched, all music channels had 6 minutes of "ad
quota" which was not used because nobody wanted to advertise on satellite
int he first few years. Later, when Sirius made inroads and started
promoting commercial free music channels, XM killed the commercial
opportunities on their music channels to be equal to Sirius.

From the start, I was programming 5 of the music channels, and two years
and
a couple of months later the commercial avails were eliminated.

That's bogus. Ask Abrams.

That is who worked with. All music channels were to be commercial, 6' max,
at the offset. They changed in reaction to Sirius going non-commercial on
all music channels.



''XM's programming lineup features 71 music channels, more than 30 of
them commercial-free; and 29 channels of sports, talk, children's and
entertainment including 13 premiere news channels covering the latest
national, world and financial developments like CNBC, CNN Headline
News, CNNfn, FOX News, ABC News & Talk, USA Today, Bloomberg, BBC
World Service, C-SPAN and its own XM News. People for the first time
will be able to receive on the radio the diverse selection of 24-hour
news sources that they're used to getting at home on cable and
DirecTV.''

http://www.xmradio.com/newsroom/scre...25_launch.html

Know your listener/market
 

On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 23:22:34 GMT, "David Eduardo"
wrote:


"David" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 21:43:39 GMT, "David Eduardo"
wrote:



That is HD-1. All HD main channels repeat the analog channel with a delay
that fills a digital buffer for fallback. The HD-2 channels are as listed.
And they are on, for Emmis, Clear and CBS. There is no "agreement" with
CBS
and Clear as that would be collusion.


I was listening to Harry Shearer on KROQ with the 2 icon on my
Recepter HD glowing bright blue as I was typing that message. Same
program as the analog and HD1, delayed a few seconds longer than HD1.

Technical trouble? They have separate programming for HD-2.


Not ever that I've heard, and I check at least once a day.

Know your listener/market
 

D Peter Maus wrote:


And the final analogy would be that the elephant is only a tool.

No! The elephant is the audience. The sightless people use their
hands to examine the tail. Their hands are the tool; feeling the tail
only is their misuse of the tool.

The condition the tail and ply it with skin and hair treatments. All
the other blind people come over to feel the wonderful tail in envy.
But the elephant is dying -- it hasn't been fed.

Eventually the elephant dies and the blind caretakers will wonder what
happened. Likewise, eventually the house of cards that is radio today
will fall down, and all the "wise men" will wonder what the hell
happened.



You, like me, are one who is no longer being served. It happens. The
more desirable are younger, hipper, or less demanding in areas not
easily provided for. The emperor may be naked. But we, and a few like
us, are the only non nudists in the empire. The those who advise the
emperor only listen to the many who are also naked.

Some of those younger people will have ears, too, and they'll want to
listen to something besides hip-hop. When they hear live jazz, then
hear it on their "HD" radio, they will be disgusted.


And they were. Digital recordings by engineers recording with analog
mindsets. Too much equalization. Preemphasis. Compression.

Only some of them. I can think of notorious examples off the top of
my head.

But the pain was hearing the unfiltered aliasing above 22 kHz.
*Those* folks noticed.

Some CD's still suck. But
nothing sounds like those early discs.

So it will be with HD. If it lasts, it will evolve. Like the CD, it
will eventually be embraced as a fidelity medium.


No. I utterly disagree. Today I can hear the artifacts on a stream
from NPR. The technology isn't constrained by any format -- the
satellite service to feed the local stations is compressed, and they
chose to compress it too much, because whoever made that decision
couldn't tell or didn't care.

And *THAT* is how it will be with HD.

For the record, though, CD's were never intended to be high fidelity.

I disagree there, too. Wasn't the initial capacity of a CD set by the
head of Sony to correspond to the length of his favorite orchestral
piece?

Philips promoted them as mid-fi media. Of course Philips also intended
the cassetted to be a dictation only medium...so things don't always fly
as intended.

It wouldn't surprise me that Phillips and Sony were on different
pages, but that's too far a reach for me to believe. I remember how
everyone was talking about DAD's as they were called initially.
"We're gonna blow away metal tape," gloated one. With reason -- they
did. But all the publicity they sought was about the medium -- 100dB
dynamic range, infrasonic to 22 kHz, flat response.



This time, one won't need a golden ear to hear the artifacts. I
cringe on what comes out of my car radio from NPR when they have a
feed filled with artifacts. When you can hear it over the road noise
on a car radio... that's an accomplishment.


It's one of the reasons I listen to less radio, these days.



It won't just sound bad, it will be painful to listen to.


And it will improve.


Not enough. Receiver designers will struggle to deal with the limited
amount of information present in the heavily compressed,
low-sample-rate streams. They will make it sound better, but DAC/ADC
technology for sound reproduction is mature now. You can't recreate
the analog signal if the information isn't in the digital stream.



I don't care for it. But then, I don't do much listening, anymore,
either.


Bottom line. No matter what the advertisers are willing to pay,
there's no return if there are no listeners.


Reality: listeners lost will be replaced. Every assault to radio over
the last 75 years has resulted in a revolution of sorts. With new
listeners being replaced by the old.

You and I will be replaced.

We already have been.


By iPods and MP3 players. By software on a computer and 24/96 sound
cards. People will only flock to the radio after a disaster that
leaves them without internet service.


That I disagree with. The growth of podcasts, satellite radio, etc.,
will fill the void. For the longest time, I felt that radio would
endure, because of the low amount of infrastructure to keep it going.
I didn't count on the sheer stupidity of people behind radio.


We're not in disagreement here. There will be options to Radio. There
ARE options to Radio. My point was that for those who choose Radio,
there will be little option but to embrace HD. And those who choose
Radio will embrace it.


As to the sheer stupidity...I can tell you from my 4 decades + of
experience on the inside...that hasn't changed. It's always been stupid
on the inside.


That's true, but there was always someone to break the model. When
DJs were forced to use boring playlists after the Payola scandal,
Wolfman Jack did just fine with his border blaster clear up to L.A.
He also made a ton of money doing so.

Today... well, the model may not be broken. We'll see what the
classical and jazz stations do.



We're simply witnessing the death of radio.

Obituaries may be premature.


Time will tell. This message will last in archives that long, so
people like Edwardo can point and laugh in 10 years after radio grows
under his mercenary hand.

But my money is riding against it.


I'd hedge that bet, if I were you.


I've stated my position and have staked it out. See Brenda-Ann's post
in this thread for another dissenting opinion.

--
Eric F. Richards,
"It's the Din of iBiquity." -- Frank Dresser

Know your listener/market
 

"Brenda Ann" wrote:


"David Eduardo" wrote in message
. com...

"dxAce" wrote in message
...

Fractured? WBBM's IBOC (QRM) signal renders 790 unlistenable here.

Most likely the 790 signal is not supposed to cover your area with a
listenable (and thus protected) signal. If you are referring to the 790 in
Saginaw, it is not protected to Grand Rapids.

That's reality, no matter which way you decide to slice, dice, or spin
it.

Yep, radio is moving on. You aren't.

That's where you're wrong. We are moving on. But not to your QRM generating
three channel wide garbage that it takes a $300 radio to hear at all (and
that's only if you have a large antenna or are within sight of the towers).
We're moving on to Ogg-Vorbis, mp3, etc., where we can provide our own
selections of music for hours on end, and without your 15 minutes plus of
commercials per hour, and without paying $13 a month for a sketchy satellite
signal. Radio is dying, it's commiting slow suicide. Sad to see it
happening, when I was growing up, radio served it's audience.. now it only
serves itself, and does a **** poor job of even that.


....the audience is leaving. Will the last one out please turn off the
noise generators?

Good post. Good luck convincing Peter...


--
Eric F. Richards,
"It's the Din of iBiquity." -- Frank Dresser

Know your listener/market
 

"David Eduardo" wrote:


Sure it does. How many electronic devices that are 12 years old are
currently being used in the average household? R-390's don't count, btw.


My microwave, my main TV, my small portable TVs, my Rotel reciver, my
speakers, my video source switch, my audio source switch, my VCR, my
laserdisk player. My DVD player is approaching that age. My clocks,
my last car (and its AM-stereo receiver)... hell, even my CF light
bulbs are coming up on 10 years!

Not everyone buys something new every year. Not everyone *can*. Some
things are also so good that they really aren't improved upon -- I'd
like to see a receiver/tuner that's better than my Rotel. Good
freakin' luck.


--
Eric F. Richards,
"It's the Din of iBiquity." -- Frank Dresser

Know your listener/market
 

"David Eduardo" wrote:


"Eric F. Richards" wrote in message
...

That's true, but there was always someone to break the model. When
DJs were forced to use boring playlists after the Payola scandal,
Wolfman Jack did just fine with his border blaster clear up to L.A.
He also made a ton of money doing so.

Radio stations used rudimentary research and tightly controlled playlists
from the time the first Top 40 station debuted in August of 1952. The reason
they were called Top 40 was that they played the top 40 selling / requested
/ jukebox played songs. The jocks could not change the songs, and those
stations, often with numbers like a 40 share, prospered enormously.

Except that they weren't Top 40 at that time. They did the scandalous
thing of playing black artists for white audiences, and played the new
artists.


The payola incidents were hardly a scandal. Most of the nation knew nothing
about them.

Nice revisionism.

The Miami scandal, congressional hearings, Alan Freed, no one noticed.


Today... well, the model may not be broken. We'll see what the
classical and jazz stations do.

The only jazz stations are non-cpommercial,

*snork*
and there are very few
commercial classicals left, either. Neither format generates ratings. I have
worked at a jazz station, and both managed and owned a classical one, so I
am not against the format... it is just not viable today.

I'll remember that next time I see one on the dial.


I've stated my position and have staked it out. See Brenda-Ann's post
in this thread for another dissenting opinion.

And one which is based on a total refusal to look at facts about radio
listening.


If your above statements are based on "facts," I'll stick with
Brenda-Ann's view any time. Brenda-Ann talked about engineering
standards and physics... but we know marketing is the ultimate law in
the universe, not the laws of nature.

Idiot.


--
Eric F. Richards,
"It's the Din of iBiquity." -- Frank Dresser

Know your listener/market
 

"David Eduardo" wrote:


"Eric F. Richards" wrote in message
...

...the audience is leaving. Will the last one out please turn off the
noise generators?

Good post. Good luck convincing Peter...

You can convince neither of us,

I have no interest in convincing you. I respect Peter, even though I
disagree with him often.


--
Eric F. Richards,
"It's the Din of iBiquity." -- Frank Dresser

Know your listener/market
 

"Eric F. Richards" wrote in message
...
"David Eduardo" wrote:


"Eric F. Richards" wrote in message
...

That's true, but there was always someone to break the model. When
DJs were forced to use boring playlists after the Payola scandal,
Wolfman Jack did just fine with his border blaster clear up to L.A.
He also made a ton of money doing so.

Radio stations used rudimentary research and tightly controlled playlists
from the time the first Top 40 station debuted in August of 1952. The
reason
they were called Top 40 was that they played the top 40 selling /
requested
/ jukebox played songs. The jocks could not change the songs, and those
stations, often with numbers like a 40 share, prospered enormously.

Except that they weren't Top 40 at that time. They did the scandalous
thing of playing black artists for white audiences, and played the new
artists.

The first top 40 station was KOWH in Omaha in 8/52. It played pop hits of
the day. It was not until the mid-50's that Top 40 stations added rock 'n'
roll, and they were nearly 100% consistent with playing 40 researched songs.
Period. There was nothing scandalous, as the target young demos accepted the
new music trends and no station that got a 30 or 40 share was "scndalous."


The payola incidents were hardly a scandal. Most of the nation knew
nothing
about them.

Nice revisionism.

They affected Lana Freed and NY. Most of hte nation had no idea who he was.
Most of the nation had no interest in payola.

The Miami scandal, congressional hearings, Alan Freed, no one noticed.

Very few noticed, as it was not relevant. It did not affect everyday life,
and was limited in interest.

and there are very few
commercial classicals left, either. Neither format generates ratings. I
have
worked at a jazz station, and both managed and owned a classical one, so
I
am not against the format... it is just not viable today.

I'll remember that next time I see one on the dial.

There are very few commercail classicals left. Period.


I've stated my position and have staked it out. See Brenda-Ann's post
in this thread for another dissenting opinion.

And one which is based on a total refusal to look at facts about radio
listening.


If your above statements are based on "facts," I'll stick with
Brenda-Ann's view any time. Brenda-Ann talked about engineering
standards and physics... but we know marketing is the ultimate law in
the universe, not the laws of nature.

No, Brenda Ann spoke about engineering standards that are outdated and
arcane. Interference on first adjacents is irrelevant if nobody in the
interference zone listens to first adjacents. The principles of physics do
not change. It is the way radio is used that has changed, and there are more
than a few Luddites here trying to bring back things that died decades ago.

Know your listener/market
 

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 10:25:40 -0500, "Michael Lawson"
wrote:


"Eric F. Richards" wrote in message
.. .
Telamon wrote:


The situation would be much better if the band was split up
between
analog and digital.

The situation would be far better if they had a separate band for
digital-only broadcasts, perhaps high in UHF where the radio waves
behave more like Edwardo's myopic view of the world.

I have to agree. It's one thing to add a band,
like FM when it came along, but quite another
to simply replace one mode with another within
a band.

It's no accident that the time limit for the television
stations to stop broadcasting the old analog
methods got extended; people simply weren't
lining up for the digital televisions.

--Mike L.


The NAB didn't want a new band for DAB because everyone would have had
an equal signal and the entrenched powerhouses would have lost their
signal advantage. So instead, they get 300 new SDARS stations to
compete with in every market. Brilliant.

Know your listener/market
 

David Eduardo wrote:

"Eric F. Richards" wrote in message
...
"David Eduardo" wrote:


"Eric F. Richards" wrote in message
...

That's true, but there was always someone to break the model. When
DJs were forced to use boring playlists after the Payola scandal,
Wolfman Jack did just fine with his border blaster clear up to L.A.
He also made a ton of money doing so.

Radio stations used rudimentary research and tightly controlled playlists
from the time the first Top 40 station debuted in August of 1952. The
reason
they were called Top 40 was that they played the top 40 selling /
requested
/ jukebox played songs. The jocks could not change the songs, and those
stations, often with numbers like a 40 share, prospered enormously.

Except that they weren't Top 40 at that time. They did the scandalous
thing of playing black artists for white audiences, and played the new
artists.

The first top 40 station was KOWH in Omaha in 8/52. It played pop hits of
the day. It was not until the mid-50's that Top 40 stations added rock 'n'
roll, and they were nearly 100% consistent with playing 40 researched songs.
Period. There was nothing scandalous, as the target young demos accepted the
new music trends and no station that got a 30 or 40 share was "scndalous."


The payola incidents were hardly a scandal. Most of the nation knew
nothing
about them.

Nice revisionism.

They affected Lana Freed and NY. Most of hte nation had no idea who he was.
Most of the nation had no interest in payola.

The Miami scandal, congressional hearings, Alan Freed, no one noticed.

Very few noticed, as it was not relevant. It did not affect everyday life,
and was limited in interest.

and there are very few
commercial classicals left, either. Neither format generates ratings. I
have
worked at a jazz station, and both managed and owned a classical one, so
I
am not against the format... it is just not viable today.

I'll remember that next time I see one on the dial.

There are very few commercail classicals left. Period.


I've stated my position and have staked it out. See Brenda-Ann's post
in this thread for another dissenting opinion.

And one which is based on a total refusal to look at facts about radio
listening.


If your above statements are based on "facts," I'll stick with
Brenda-Ann's view any time. Brenda-Ann talked about engineering
standards and physics... but we know marketing is the ultimate law in
the universe, not the laws of nature.

No, Brenda Ann spoke about engineering standards that are outdated and
arcane. Interference on first adjacents is irrelevant if nobody in the
interference zone listens to first adjacents. The principles of physics do
not change. It is the way radio is used that has changed, and there are more
than a few Luddites here trying to bring back things that died decades ago.

When did it die, gringa? Please tell us.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

Know your listener/market
 

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
. com...

Good post. Good luck convincing Peter...

You can convince neither of us, as the listening figures show only minute
erosion over historical levels. Today, average individual listening is 20
hours 15 minutes a week. In 1950, during the freeze, listening was 21
hours.
In 1970, about 94.5% of Americans listened to radio. today, the figure is
between 93% and 94% in every US market.

Wow. That's impressive. Just about a statistical "everybody". So how many
more people will be listening after IBOC is fully rolled out?



the audience is not leaving. Some demos (teens and over-55) are listening
less, but that is because stations do not program for those ages.
Otherwise,
radio is far better off than you think it is. facing problems and
challenges? Sure. Dying rapidly? Nope.

Know your listener/market
 

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
. com...

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...
So, please reassure us. Tell us Bob Struble was misquoted by the New
York
Times. Tell us analog radio will remain for HD radio receivers to be
compatible with.

I took the context of the post I replied to te be "today" and not 12 years
in the future. By tha6t time, most of today's analog receivers will be
gone,
irrespective of the nature of broadcasting over a decade from now.

The cheap radios will be gone and replaced with other cheap radios. Most of
the better radios will still be around.

Just saying HD radio is currently compatible with analog doesn't really
address the point, does it?

Sure it does. How many electronic devices that are 12 years old are
currently being used in the average household? R-390's don't count, btw.



In my case, aside from a VCR, a DVD player, an electronic camera and a DX
440, nearly all of my electronic devices are over 12 years old. But I'm
just one person, and as we've learned from these discussions, any one person
means nothing. Well, one person means nothing unless he can put something
after his name like "President and CEO" or "Chairman of the FCC".

Anyway, R-390s count more in considering the lifecycle of radios than other
electronic devices such as cellphones, personal computers and MP3 players.
Although all the other electronic devices may have a bright future in audio
entertainment.

What the hell is wrong with those Luddites, anyway? Thanks to digital
technology, people will be listening to what they want when they want!
Can't the Luddites see the newfangled digital threat poised at good 'ol Big
Radio? Why, the profits of our favorite networks may be diluted!!

Damn Luddites. They're never there when you need them.

Frank Dresser

Know your listener/market
 

In article ,
David Eduardo wrote:
The receivers are getting cheaper and better. I have a newer Boston
Acoustics HD, and it gets all the HD2 channels inside a building that faces
away fromt he transmitters. By the time there is more content, there will be
many more recievers out, and the price point will move down. My first VHS
was $800. My first CD player was $1500. My first DVD player was over $300. A
year or so later, prices were down by more than half. Now you can get a DVD
player for $19 after a rebate.

And pretty soon, somebody will have a radio with Tivo like features for
$39.95 that records several (or all of the available) stations and has
fast forward buttons so that no one will ever need to listen to a
commercial. And then what happens to your business?

Mark Zenier
Googleproofaddress(account:mzenier provider:eskimo domain:com)

Know your listener/market
 

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
. com...

Good post. Good luck convincing Peter...

You can convince neither of us, as the listening figures show only minute
erosion over historical levels. Today, average individual listening is 20
hours 15 minutes a week. In 1950, during the freeze, listening was 21
hours.
In 1970, about 94.5% of Americans listened to radio. today, the figure is
between 93% and 94% in every US market.

Wow. That's impressive. Just about a statistical "everybody". So how
many
more people will be listening after IBOC is fully rolled out?

HD could, with HD2 channels, bring light users up in listening level.
However, since total radio cume has been so flat for decades, it is
unl,ikely it will increase reach. On the other hand, it reduces the appeal
of paid media significantly by doubling the FM offerings.

To be fair, there has always been about 5% to 6% that do not listen in a
week, and another 6% to 10% that listens very lightly.

Many of these non-users or light users are potential satellite users. 15% of
the US adult population is around 40,000,000 persons who don't much use
radio right now.

On the other hand, before changing to the Portable People Meter, the BBM in
Canada (the broadcaster owned ratings company there) a study was done to
show why that 5% did not listen and why the light listeners were light.

The 5% in Canada was made up of about half who did not use radio, period.
the other half did not use that week due to travel, a family emergency,
hospitalization, travel, etc. but usually did.

The light users were often people who only listened when they could, but
could not listen while commuting on public transportation, at work, etc., so
they listened avidly but less. The rest listened less because they did not
find what they wanted on the radio.

These figures have been pretty consistent for decades.

Know your listener/market
 

dxAce wrote:

David Eduardo wrote:

"Eric F. Richards" wrote in message
...
"David Eduardo" wrote:


"Eric F. Richards" wrote in message
...

That's true, but there was always someone to break the model. When
DJs were forced to use boring playlists after the Payola scandal,
Wolfman Jack did just fine with his border blaster clear up to L.A.
He also made a ton of money doing so.

Radio stations used rudimentary research and tightly controlled playlists
from the time the first Top 40 station debuted in August of 1952. The
reason
they were called Top 40 was that they played the top 40 selling /
requested
/ jukebox played songs. The jocks could not change the songs, and those
stations, often with numbers like a 40 share, prospered enormously.

Except that they weren't Top 40 at that time. They did the scandalous
thing of playing black artists for white audiences, and played the new
artists.

The first top 40 station was KOWH in Omaha in 8/52. It played pop hits of
the day. It was not until the mid-50's that Top 40 stations added rock 'n'
roll, and they were nearly 100% consistent with playing 40 researched songs.
Period. There was nothing scandalous, as the target young demos accepted the
new music trends and no station that got a 30 or 40 share was "scndalous."


The payola incidents were hardly a scandal. Most of the nation knew
nothing
about them.

Nice revisionism.

They affected Lana Freed and NY. Most of hte nation had no idea who he was.
Most of the nation had no interest in payola.

The Miami scandal, congressional hearings, Alan Freed, no one noticed.

Very few noticed, as it was not relevant. It did not affect everyday life,
and was limited in interest.

and there are very few
commercial classicals left, either. Neither format generates ratings. I
have
worked at a jazz station, and both managed and owned a classical one, so
I
am not against the format... it is just not viable today.

I'll remember that next time I see one on the dial.

There are very few commercail classicals left. Period.


I've stated my position and have staked it out. See Brenda-Ann's post
in this thread for another dissenting opinion.

And one which is based on a total refusal to look at facts about radio
listening.


If your above statements are based on "facts," I'll stick with
Brenda-Ann's view any time. Brenda-Ann talked about engineering
standards and physics... but we know marketing is the ultimate law in
the universe, not the laws of nature.

No, Brenda Ann spoke about engineering standards that are outdated and
arcane. Interference on first adjacents is irrelevant if nobody in the
interference zone listens to first adjacents. The principles of physics do
not change. It is the way radio is used that has changed, and there are more
than a few Luddites here trying to bring back things that died decades ago.

When did it die, gringa? Please tell us.

And gringa, also please tell us why it's a good practice to use three channels
instead of just one.

Know your listener/market
 

"dxAce" wrote in message
...

When did it die, gringa? Please tell us.

You are such a moron.

Know your listener/market
 

David Eduardo wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...

When did it die, gringa? Please tell us.

You are such a moron.

Can't tell us, gringa? I thought not.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

End Mexico's exportation of poverty. Stop illegal immigration NOW.

Know your listener/market
 

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


David Eduardo wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...

When did it die, gringa? Please tell us.

You are such a moron.

Can't tell us, gringa? I thought not.

Ad hominem aside, there has not been any significant usage of night skywave
AM radio since TV took over as the provider of night time entertainment to
America. Then, when FM took over the majority position in audience int he
mid-70's, there was not enough AM listening at night to worry about even in
the local home market.

Technical regulations based on now non-existent needs are arcane and
antiquated. And other countries in this Hemisphere show that US spacing
requirements are also unreasonable. AM radio regulation in the US is about
20 years behind the times.

Know your listener/market
 

David Eduardo wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


David Eduardo wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...

When did it die, gringa? Please tell us.

You are such a moron.

Can't tell us, gringa? I thought not.

Ad hominem aside, there has not been any significant usage of night skywave
AM radio since TV took over as the provider of night time entertainment to
America. Then, when FM took over the majority position in audience int he
mid-70's, there was not enough AM listening at night to worry about even in
the local home market.

Technical regulations based on now non-existent needs are arcane and
antiquated. And other countries in this Hemisphere show that US spacing
requirements are also unreasonable. AM radio regulation in the US is about
20 years behind the times.

But when did it die, gringa? Stop bull****ting, and back up your statement.

Also, gringa, please tell us why it's good practice to use three channels
instead of one.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

End Mexico's exportation of poverty. Stop illegal immigration NOW.

Know your listener/market
 

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


David Eduardo wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


David Eduardo wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...

When did it die, gringa? Please tell us.

You are such a moron.

Can't tell us, gringa? I thought not.

Ad hominem aside, there has not been any significant usage of night
skywave
AM radio since TV took over as the provider of night time entertainment
to
America. Then, when FM took over the majority position in audience int he
mid-70's, there was not enough AM listening at night to worry about even
in
the local home market.

Technical regulations based on now non-existent needs are arcane and
antiquated. And other countries in this Hemisphere show that US spacing
requirements are also unreasonable. AM radio regulation in the US is
about
20 years behind the times.

But when did it die, gringa? Stop bull****ting, and back up your
statement.

I already told you. go back asd see the radio usage in the three yearss
following the lift of the freeze. Night radio died in less than 36 months.

Also, gringa, please tell us why it's good practice to use three channels
instead of one.

Because the others are not usable by the average listener. Mexico, and many
other Hemisphere countries, license MW every 20 kHz in the local market.

Know your listener/market
 

David Eduardo wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


David Eduardo wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


David Eduardo wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...

When did it die, gringa? Please tell us.

You are such a moron.

Can't tell us, gringa? I thought not.

Ad hominem aside, there has not been any significant usage of night
skywave
AM radio since TV took over as the provider of night time entertainment
to
America. Then, when FM took over the majority position in audience int he
mid-70's, there was not enough AM listening at night to worry about even
in
the local home market.

Technical regulations based on now non-existent needs are arcane and
antiquated. And other countries in this Hemisphere show that US spacing
requirements are also unreasonable. AM radio regulation in the US is
about
20 years behind the times.

But when did it die, gringa? Stop bull****ting, and back up your
statement.

I already told you. go back asd see the radio usage in the three yearss
following the lift of the freeze. Night radio died in less than 36 months.

Also, gringa, please tell us why it's good practice to use three channels
instead of one.

Because the others are not usable by the average listener. Mexico, and many
other Hemisphere countries, license MW every 20 kHz in the local market.

What does that have to do with us, gringa? And what the hell does that have to
do with QRMing two adjacent channels?

Pull your head out of your ass, little girl, and stop being a shill for
iBiquity.

LMFAO at the HFBPO

dxAce
Michigan
USA

Know your listener/market
 

Arra,what's a gringa?
cuhulin

Know your listener/market
 

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


David Eduardo wrote:

Because the others are not usable by the average listener. Mexico, and
many
other Hemisphere countries, license MW every 20 kHz in the local market.

What does that have to do with us, gringa?

If you want to discuss, cut out the stupid efforts to offend. They are
merely distractions.

What it has to do with the USA is that the AM rules were mostly written in
the 30's when night AM reception was where most tune-ins occured. Today,
most AM listening is in daytime hours, on receivers that are musch more
selective. So the adjacent channel rules are simply 50 years out of date,
and do not reflect current analog technology or the use of radio.

And what the hell does that have to
do with QRMing two adjacent channels?

It is only objectionable if people have regular listening disturbed by it.
They don't.

Pull your head out of your ass, little girl, and stop being a shill for
iBiquity.

The system is good. Better than any other alternative.

Know your listener/market
 

"David Eduardo" wrote:



Nice revisionism.

They affected Lana Freed and NY. Most of hte nation had no idea who he was.
Most of the nation had no interest in payola.

The Miami scandal, congressional hearings, Alan Freed, no one noticed.

Very few noticed, as it was not relevant. It did not affect everyday life,
and was limited in interest.


You really are stupid.

With your poor judgement, I wouldn't trust you to cut my grass.

--
Eric F. Richards,
"It's the Din of iBiquity." -- Frank Dresser

Know your listener/market
 

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 20:19:54 GMT, "David Eduardo"
wrote:


"dxAce" wrote in message
...


David Eduardo wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...

When did it die, gringa? Please tell us.

You are such a moron.

Can't tell us, gringa? I thought not.

Ad hominem aside, there has not been any significant usage of night skywave
AM radio since TV took over as the provider of night time entertainment to
America. Then, when FM took over the majority position in audience int he
mid-70's, there was not enough AM listening at night to worry about even in
the local home market.

Technical regulations based on now non-existent needs are arcane and
antiquated. And other countries in this Hemisphere show that US spacing
requirements are also unreasonable. AM radio regulation in the US is about
20 years behind the times.

I get Seattle very solid every night. Must be ducting on the coastal
discontinuityor something. Doesn't sound like normal skywave DX.

''KO-MO One Thousand News...''

Know your listener/market
 

"Eric F. Richards" wrote in message
...
"David Eduardo" wrote:



Nice revisionism.

They affected Lana Freed and NY. Most of hte nation had no idea who he
was.
Most of the nation had no interest in payola.

The Miami scandal, congressional hearings, Alan Freed, no one noticed.

Very few noticed, as it was not relevant. It did not affect everyday
life,
and was limited in interest.


You really are stupid.

The fact is that a local DJ in New York and his dealings with record
companies is not of much interest to anyone outside the listening audience
of that station.

As to the hearings, how many committee hearings are there that get
essentially no press coverage? The payola hearings were not of much interest
then, any mor ehtan they are today.

With your poor judgement, I wouldn't trust you to cut my grass.

This is not judgment. This is fact. You, on the other hand, did not know
when Top 40 started, that it was not originally a rock 'n' roll format, and
that such stations had very tight regimented rotations and playlists.

Know your listener/market
 

wrote in message
...
Arra,what's a gringa?

I guess he thinks it is a female gringo.

Know your listener/market
 

David Eduardo wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


David Eduardo wrote:

Because the others are not usable by the average listener. Mexico, and
many
other Hemisphere countries, license MW every 20 kHz in the local market.

What does that have to do with us, gringa?

If you want to discuss, cut out the stupid efforts to offend. They are
merely distractions.

What it has to do with the USA is that the AM rules were mostly written in
the 30's when night AM reception was where most tune-ins occured. Today,
most AM listening is in daytime hours, on receivers that are musch more
selective. So the adjacent channel rules are simply 50 years out of date,
and do not reflect current analog technology or the use of radio.

And what the hell does that have to
do with QRMing two adjacent channels?

It is only objectionable if people have regular listening disturbed by it.
They don't.

Pull your head out of your ass, little girl, and stop being a shill for
iBiquity.

The system is good. Better than any other alternative.

You got your head up your ass, gringa!

dxAce
Michigan
USA

Know your listener/market
 

"David Eduardo" wrote:


You can convince neither of us, as the listening figures show only minute
erosion over historical levels. Today, average individual listening is 20
hours 15 minutes a week. In 1950, during the freeze, listening was 21 hours.
In 1970, about 94.5% of Americans listened to radio. today, the figure is
between 93% and 94% in every US market.

So, effectively, the only direction to go is down.

Hopefully your clients read the Wall Street Journal and are starting
to wake up to the fraud that you are.

--
Eric F. Richards,
"It's the Din of iBiquity." -- Frank Dresser

Know your listener/market
 

"Eric F. Richards" wrote:

"David Eduardo" wrote:


You can convince neither of us, as the listening figures show only minute
erosion over historical levels. Today, average individual listening is 20
hours 15 minutes a week. In 1950, during the freeze, listening was 21 hours.
In 1970, about 94.5% of Americans listened to radio. today, the figure is
between 93% and 94% in every US market.

So, effectively, the only direction to go is down.

Hopefully your clients read the Wall Street Journal and are starting
to wake up to the fraud that you are.

He's a fraud all right. I sat around today considering writing a book. The working
title is 'HFBPO' The Unauthorized Biography of David Frackelton Gleason.

It should be a hoot.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

Know your listener/market
 

David Eduardo wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


David Eduardo wrote:

Because the others are not usable by the average listener. Mexico, and
many
other Hemisphere countries, license MW every 20 kHz in the local market.

What does that have to do with us, gringa?

If you want to discuss, cut out the stupid efforts to offend. They are
merely distractions.

What it has to do with the USA is that the AM rules were mostly written in
the 30's when night AM reception was where most tune-ins occured. Today,
most AM listening is in daytime hours, on receivers that are musch more
selective. So the adjacent channel rules are simply 50 years out of date,
and do not reflect current analog technology or the use of radio.

Who says? You, gringa? You need to take your little dog and pony show back
across the border.

LMFAO

dxAce
Michigan
USA

Know your listener/market
 

"Eric F. Richards" wrote in message
...
"David Eduardo" wrote:


You can convince neither of us, as the listening figures show only minute
erosion over historical levels. Today, average individual listening is 20
hours 15 minutes a week. In 1950, during the freeze, listening was 21
hours.
In 1970, about 94.5% of Americans listened to radio. today, the figure is
between 93% and 94% in every US market.

So, effectively, the only direction to go is down.

Hopefully your clients read the Wall Street Journal and are starting
to wake up to the fraud that you are.

The sector of radio I am in has reported double digit growth in each of the
last 10 years, and should do the same this year. In fact, that same sector
has about 25% higher radio usage than "the rest" of the market.

Know your listener/market
 

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


David Eduardo wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


David Eduardo wrote:

Because the others are not usable by the average listener. Mexico, and
many
other Hemisphere countries, license MW every 20 kHz in the local
market.

What does that have to do with us, gringa?

If you want to discuss, cut out the stupid efforts to offend. They are
merely distractions.

What it has to do with the USA is that the AM rules were mostly written
in
the 30's when night AM reception was where most tune-ins occured. Today,
most AM listening is in daytime hours, on receivers that are musch more
selective. So the adjacent channel rules are simply 50 years out of date,
and do not reflect current analog technology or the use of radio.

Who says? You, gringa? You need to take your little dog and pony show back
across the border.

Except for some changes in the skywave protection rules and the breakdown of
the (useless) clears, the exiting rules are based on the 1934 ones. So the
source there, fella, is the FCC.

As to listening. I refer you to any library that has a full collection of
Broadcasting Yearbooks through the late 50's. All those show the usage of
radio, and one can see the post-lift of the freeze effect on night radio,
where in a matter of 30 months, night listening to radio declined to very
low levels. As to the later history of AM and night listening, Arbitron
started measuring in 1965 and you can track AM shares at night to the
present very tiny levels.

All this data is independently verifiable. But admitting that would be tough
for you.