|
Know your listener/market
"David Eduardo" wrote in message . com... 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 No, Brenda Ann spoke about engineering standards that are outdated and arcane.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. Good engineering doesn't become outdated, it simply gets ignored. Listeners are not irrelevant just because they may stand outside the 'market area'. It used to be that if a station was being interfered with, one could complain to the FCC and the interference would be cleared up. That seems to no longer be the case. And what of portable radios, of which there are many millions? Many of these tend to have very wide IF bandpass (some don't even use IF stages anymore, and instead broadband amplify the signal), and will therefore be susceptible to cochannel interference from the station that the listener is trying to listen TO. Add to this that FM AFC will try to lock onto strong second or third adjacent channels that are spilling over because of IBOC. I know people living IN New York City that receive interference from IBOC stations on stations they regularly listen to. This is on both AM and FM IBOC. This whole thing was ill thought-out, at best. It's as much a boondoggle (perhaps even moreso) than HDTV.. Most stations don't even run more than a meager percentage of HD programming, opting instead to run 720i on their main channel so that they can run extra programming to make more money.. I don't care what you or anyone else tries to say to blow smoke up my arse, 720i does NOT look as good as standard NTSC analog. HD does look nice, when you're in a signal area high enough to make use of it. Once you get outside of a large city, at least where I'm from, if you get far outside of Portland, digital is just not receivable. I'll take a bit of snow or a minor ghost over a nice blue screen any day, thank you. And again, what about all the millions of portable televisions that DTV will positively make worthless overnight? Is the government going to give us all tiny convertor boxes so that we can still use those, too? For many, those portable sets represent a larger expenditure than their living room televisions, just because of the difference in technology used to build them. Maybe us Luddites just don't like the government, or a bunch of stuffed shirt pencil pushers, telling us what's good for us? Hmmmmm. |
Know your listener/market
David Eduardo wrote: "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. Admitting that IBOC is a total mess and that it ruins my daytime reception here seems to be real tough for you, gringa. dxAce Michigan USA End Mexico's exportation of poverty. Stop illegal immigration NOW. |
Know your listener/market
"Brenda Ann" wrote:
Good engineering doesn't become outdated, it simply gets ignored. Listeners are not irrelevant just because they may stand outside the 'market area'. It used to be that if a station was being interfered with, one could complain to the FCC and the interference would be cleared up. That seems to no longer be the case. [...] Maybe us Luddites just don't like the government, or a bunch of stuffed shirt pencil pushers, telling us what's good for us? Hmmmmm. Brenda Ann, 1) Sorry about hypenating your name. Habit. 2) Careful, now, I thought I was the designated irrational screaming Luddite with the vein popping out my forehead. Your disgust with things is showing... 3) Marketing is the force that glues the universe together now, not the laws of physics. Just ask Eduardo, and he'll tell you. -- Eric F. Richards, "It's the Din of iBiquity." -- Frank Dresser |
Know your listener/market
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote: "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. What sector and demographic is that? -- Telamon Ventura, California |
Know your listener/market
Mark Zenier wrote:
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? Actually, the latest versions of TiVo and it's clones now are starting to display popup advertisements when the user attempts to fastforward through the commercials. As a joke a few years ago, the Onion had a story about a court decision that mandated advertising be viewed by the consumer. Less than that was 'theft of service' on advertising supported content, and criminal penalties could range from fines to maximum security imprisonment. Within weeks Ted Turner, in a speech before media types, said that skipping commercials was criminal theft of service, and efforts were underway to stop it. With product placement, and CCU's new 'adlets,' just being two methods, circumvention of listener's wishes to avoid the barrage of advertising will become an industry unto itself. SW, getting back onto the topic, is one of the very few media outlets that isn't advertising supported, with limited exceptions, of course. Shame that it's also going the way of the 50 gallon clears. Mark Zenier Googleproofaddress(account:mzenier provider:eskimo domain:com) |
Know your listener/market
"Telamon" wrote in message ... In article , "David Eduardo" wrote: "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. What sector and demographic is that? Hispanics. |
Know your listener/market
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote: "Telamon" wrote in message .com... In article , "David Eduardo" wrote: "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. What sector and demographic is that? Hispanics. Well, that certainly makes sense in southern California. I've seen stations go to Spanish language format in the past few years but not lately that I have noticed. You expect this trend to continue or has it settled down? -- Telamon Ventura, California |
Know your listener/market
"Telamon" wrote in message ... In article , "David Eduardo" wrote: 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. What sector and demographic is that? Hispanics. Well, that certainly makes sense in southern California. I've seen stations go to Spanish language format in the past few years but not lately that I have noticed. You expect this trend to continue or has it settled down? I work in markets ranging from San Juan, PR and NY and Miami to Houston, Dallas, Phoenix and California. The listening levels for Hispanics are high, and the average advertiser is becoming more aware that there is a huge opportunity in the $1 Trillion Dollar US Hispanic market. Most markets are close to saturation in Spanish language formats. The growth is in Hispanic formats in Spanglish and English, like KXOL in LA. LA, actually, has lost a half-dozen Spanish stations in the last few years, including the two on 93.5, the two on 103.1, 1540, 1480, 900 and 1580. |
Know your listener/market
In article ,
D Peter Maus wrote: Mark Zenier wrote: 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? Actually, the latest versions of TiVo and it's clones now are starting to display popup advertisements when the user attempts to fastforward through the commercials. And Tivo, as a company is now (or soon to be) roadkill. First, the cable set top box manufacturers are duplicating their boxes' functions. And anybody but the brain dead will think twice or three times to buying a box that requires a subscription, a phone line, and will snitch on you about every time you did a rewind to get another look at a good cleavage shot. And now this. They really needed to figure out who their customers are. Mark Zenier Googleproofaddress(account:mzenier provider:eskimo domain:com) |
Know your listener/market
In article ,
David Eduardo wrote: I work in markets ranging from San Juan, PR and NY and Miami to Houston, Dallas, Phoenix and California. The listening levels for Hispanics are high, and the average advertiser is becoming more aware that there is a huge opportunity in the $1 Trillion Dollar US Hispanic market. I read an interesting fact that came out after the 1989 earthquake in the San Francisco Bay area. The best stations for finding out emergency information were the Spanish ones. Most of the English language stations were so centralized and automated that they weren't able to provide any useful service, but the Spanish ones still had local staff. Maybe that's why Spanish Language radio is growing. It's still operating like radio used to for the rest of us. Mark Zenier Googleproofaddress(account:mzenier provider:eskimo domain:com) |
IBOC Article and bandwidth
Thank you for explaining the mysteries of modulation byproducts and
bandwidth in a way that makes the truth clear for people who may not have had radio schooling. Instead of making it sound harder than it really is.. The saddest part of it all is that MOST of the digihash flamethrower noise is describing to the demodulator that no modulation is present for most audio frequencies. Even if NO audio is present, the IBOC signal is still 45khz wide, describing each and every one of the possible audio passband frequencies as 0% modulation. Instead of just letting there BE no modulation, they've decided it's much better to have all these little subcarriers elaborately screaming "NO MODULATION AT 1200HZ!" "NO MODULATION AT 1201 HZ!", etc. It's like having a thousand people in a room screaming about nothing. In proper engineering, like with good manners, if you have nothing to say, you keep your mouth shut. Telamon wrote: In article , "Frank Dresser" wrote: "David Eduardo" wrote in message . com... "Frank Dresser" wrote in message ... "David Eduardo" wrote in message . net... wrote in message oups.com... You realize if they ever turn on HD at night, DXing will be history. And the couple of hundred AM DXers left, most of whom are anti-radio and luddites, will just be SOL. I'm not aware of any anti-radio luddites, but if I ever meet one, I'll be sure to remind him to get rid of both his radios and his internet connection. As to DXers, I find that most today are very opposed to changes in radio, whether formatically or technically, and are very negative towards the way stations operate. I have disassociate myself form DX organisaions as they almost all seem to be out to change radio to the detriment of those of us who work in the field. OK, but couldn't much the same be said of building preservationists? They don't like the changes and want to keep some things the way they love, despite the fact they have no ownership interest. I wouldn't call building preservationists anti-architecture, however. Since essentially no radio listening, in terms of percentage, is skywave night listening, the other poings are moot. However, to an Alex Jones SWL-type distrustful paranoid, Ibiquity's IBOC looks hidden adgenda-ish. It's not about "CD quality sound" it's about multicasting. It is about all of this. It is about giving radio the digital buzzword, more channels, and improved AM quality. Well, it's only my opinion, but the digital buzzword will soon be worth about as much as the shopworn "turbo" buzzword of a few years ago. Already, digital is being associated with pixellated video and cellphone audio. By the time affordable IBOC recievers become available, the term digital may be a negative. If there is really much demand for improved AM quality, there would be more demand for improved AM radios. Better skirt selectivity, lower distortion dectectors and real noise blankers would be installed in everyday radios. Such things are available in hobbyist radios. Most people don't want to pay even a little extra money for a radio. I think the multichannel capability might attract the most consumer interest, if such interest develops. So, if I've got it wrong, please tell me. Is it impossible for the IBOC-AM scheme to be used for multicasting? Pretty much so. Not enough bandwidth unless analog is dropped and all the signal is devoted to digital. Yes, but ibiquity anticipates digital radio will replace analog. Then what? Will the former analog channel be replaced with digital channels? And might some of these replacement digital channels be pay channels? Paranoid minds want to know! This is a simple concept that many people don't seem to get. Information rate directly correlates to bandwidth in this way, higher rate and more detail means larger bandwidth. Analog or digital is just a method of encoding information. Narrow filtered analog is similar to low rate digital. It does not matter what digital method you use you can't get around the fact that a better picture or audio means you need to use more bandwidth. There is more then one way to encode the analog world into digital and back and some methods are more efficient then others but there is no magic digital encoding system comprised of one or a combination of encoding methods that will magically stuff more information into the same bandwidth. The DRM controversy has gone on for a long time where the claim that DRM sounds better then analog in the same bandwidth. This is a bunch of BS. Not only does this violate the laws of physics it further makes less sense from the standpoint of conversion of analog to digital at the transmit end and then digital back to analog at the receive end. Technically changing from analog to digital and back introduces conversion errors so DRM in the same bandwidth has to sound worse than analog. The only way DRM can sound better is to use more bandwidth than analog. So there are are two basic concepts for anyone reading the news group. DRM and IBOC claims are a bunch of BS. Analog or any digital system will sound better the more bandwidth you use. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
IBOC Article
I'm in northern Ca and have stations on my car's presets that would
hardly pop up on the auto mode. Namely KDWN, KNX, and KFI. These signals are stronger than many local stations at night. Of course, IBOC will eventually make them unlistenable. David Eduardo wrote: "Eric F. Richards" wrote in message ... "David Eduardo" wrote: "Eric F. Richards" wrote in message ... "Brenda Ann" wrote: "David Eduardo" wrote in message et... Only those stations, like KOA, will be fully competitive because they cover the market. the rest willhave to figure out niche or brokered options to survive. Just as an aside, when I was 19 and living in Casper, WY, there was no local station that I could stand to listen to for more than a few minutes at a time. I worked for the local CATV company as an installer. Their trucks had no radios in them, so I was stuck with bringing my own. What I could afford was an old off brand 6 transistor pocket radio that I could leave on the dashboard as I drove around. My station of choice as I went about my workday? KOA. Loud and clear. Great daytime coverage, that. Doesn't matter -- David says you don't exist. :-) That is not skywave coverage, as Brenda Ann mentioned. She mentions that no where. She just mentions her location, which is out of your mytical world of coverage areas. She says, "great daytime coverag, that." There is no normal and regular daytime AM skywave. Therefore, she was listeing to groundwave. Today, with computer noise, ignition noise, dimmers, and all manner of other items, the daytime coverage that was useful in the 60's is significantly reduced by RFI. So you honestly believe that no one can get a clean signal in Casper from KOA? Hell, I'll do a trip and record an air-check to shoot that myth down! My point is, "why?" The nose on a fringe AM vs. the same programming on the local AM news talker (which has the same owner) makes the deep fringe daytime signal irrelevant as there are nearly a dozen choices in Casper,a ll local, that sound better than KOA. I can get KDWN from Las Vegas in Glendale, CA. A bit noisy, and I can hear my neighbor's aquarium heater go on and off, among other things. I can get it, but I would not want to listen to it. Heck, I can get Kota Kinabalu on 1475 nearly every morning... but I do not listen to it... I hear it. Today, if the seek button does not stop on a signal, people do not listen to it. -- Eric F. Richards "This book reads like a headache on paper." http://www.cnn.com/2001/CAREER/readi...one/index.html |
Know your listener/market
I think here in Jackson,Me see see pee pee eye,(Mississippi) (emma comes
first joke,google that) there is a pretty good listener market.Elsewise,why do them radio stations around here stay on the air? www.google.com Radio Stations Mississippi Thank God we aren't crazy around here. www.us963.com Jacksonnnnnnnn,,,,,,, where God isn't dead. cuhulin |
IBOC Article and bandwidth
Tom Wells wrote:
Thank you for explaining the mysteries of modulation byproducts and bandwidth in a way that makes the truth clear for people who may not have had radio schooling. Instead of making it sound harder than it really is.. The saddest part of it all is that MOST of the digihash flamethrower noise is describing to the demodulator that no modulation is present for most audio frequencies. Even if NO audio is present, the IBOC signal is still 45khz wide, The bandwidth used by IBOC is 30 kHz, not 45. describing each and every one of the possible audio passband frequencies as 0% modulation. Instead of just letting there BE no modulation, they've decided it's much better to have all these little subcarriers elaborately screaming "NO MODULATION AT 1200HZ!" "NO MODULATION AT 1201 HZ!", etc. It's like having a thousand people in a There is not a carrier for each discrete frequency. room screaming about nothing. In proper engineering, like with good manners, if you have nothing to say, you keep your mouth shut. You need to better understand the modulation method and how digital decoders work. Telamon wrote: snip This is a simple concept that many people don't seem to get. Information rate directly correlates to bandwidth in this way, higher rate and more detail means larger bandwidth. Analog or digital is just a method of encoding information. Narrow filtered analog is similar to low rate digital. It does not matter what digital method you use you can't get around the fact that a better picture or audio means you need to use more bandwidth. Oh, but it does matter. The choice if digital modulation and compression change things. For a given modulation method and compression scheme, what you say is valid. More content means more mandwidth. However, different modulation methods and compressions schemes result in differing bandwidth requirements for the same amount of content. If this isn't true, then PC modems would still be running at 1200 baud. There is more then one way to encode the analog world into digital and back and some methods are more efficient then others but there is no magic digital encoding system comprised of one or a combination of encoding methods that will magically stuff more information into the same bandwidth. The DRM controversy has gone on for a long time where the claim that DRM sounds better then analog in the same bandwidth. This is a bunch of BS. Not only does this violate the laws of physics it further makes less sense from the standpoint of conversion of analog to digital at the transmit end and then digital back to analog at the receive end. Technically changing from analog to digital and back introduces conversion errors so DRM in the same bandwidth has to sound worse than analog. The only way DRM can sound better is to use more bandwidth than analog. You are completely ingoring compression and modulation methods. Yes, converting analog to digital then back to analog will degrade the analog signal. A straight wire is always better. However AM, radio is not a straight wire. With AM radio, an analog signal is compressed, band width limited, converted to electromagnetic waves, mixed with any other waves on the same frequency between transmitter and receiver, converted to an electrical signal, passed through an IF that further bandwidth limits the signal, and then run through a detector that usually adds at least 1% distortion. So there are are two basic concepts for anyone reading the news group. DRM and IBOC claims are a bunch of BS. Analog or any digital system will sound better the more bandwidth you use. I can compress audio to a 64 kbps data rate for an iPod. This sounds better than _any_ AM broadcast I have ever heard. Better signal to noise, lower distortion, better audio bandwidth and stereo. I've also heard FM band IBOC, and I will say that it did sound better than the analog channel. However this may have been due to significant amounts of signal processing at one end of the chain or the other. -- Telamon Ventura, California (And no, I have no desire for IBOC on the AM broadcast band. I think there are too many associated issues, the primary one being the consumption of 30 kHz bandwidth. IBOC on FM may work and be viable in the long run. I am in favor of DRM.) craigm |
IBOC Article
www.google.com Loretta Lynn Songs Standing Room Only
ziplo,crank your puter bolume wideeeeee open and get your ears near the speakers,, just do it! cuhulin |
IBOC Article and bandwidth
OK, I admit that yes, there aren't separate sideband carriers for each
frequency, and I do know better. IF you are listening to AM BC on a high fidelity wideband receiver, the IBOC splatter is 45kHz wide, even though the bands only extend 30 Khz. But compression and Fourier transform equations mathematically proving audio response to any given frequency response glosses over the fact that you are no longer sending the *whole* waveform, and only plotting points on the curve. Taking the simple CD audio example, if we sample at a 44 khz rate, we can only measure a 22 khz sinewave twice per cycle. Is the intended waveform to be reproduced a sine wave, sawtooth, or what? We can't tell anymore, because we have not measured enough points on the wavefrom. Did we measure the wave at maximum peak, somewhere in the middle, or as it was crossing the zero line? We have to assume if it's audio that it's a sinewave, but this ignores the non-sinusoidal characteristics of real-life audio. This is why CDs (assuming the original audio exceeded 22 khz) end up sounding like they all got recorded through one particular make and model of microphone. A very good microphone, but one that added its own characteristics to the result. Just the same as taking a large-format negative photograph which could be blown up to billboard size with good resolution loses all that resolution when reproduced in a magazine with an 80, 135 or 175 line screen reproduction. All those dots, small as they may be, don't add up to as much information as there was with the billions of little silver halide grains in the original negative. I was trained as a radio engineer, and decided NOT to work in the business back in 1982, as I saw this train wreck coming. Not to mention the removal of variety from programming, limited playlists, etc. The real reason radio must be digitized is that radio is an ART, and art is not understood by accountants. Art always cost money, so it must be turned into a commodity to turn a profit. Too many people could not grasp the art, tune the antenna, calculate complex impedances on a Smith chart, etc. They should have gotten out of the business if they could not understand RF. The same thing happened with cars. For all the digitalization of engine controls, what we got was technicians who plug in a computer to tell them what's wrong. In the 70's and 80's its equivalent was mechanics who sprayed new parts at a problem until it went away, perhaps never knowing or caring where the true problem had been. Before that, you had mechanics who UNDERSTOOD how it all worked, what made it work, and why it was founded in the laws of physics. If you have current flowing in the primary circuit, and the points opened, and the condenser was good, you would have a collapsing magnetic field within the coil, and the secondary circuit would have a SPARK! It was necessary for a distributor to point to the right wire, etc for the engine to run , among other things, but the laws of physics always worked. It was comforting to know the parts did what they did inherently, without a central processor. I have a lot more faith in the laws of physics than I have in computers, and analogy of making a silk purse out of a pig's ear is very apt for IBOC. Noisiest ol' pig's ear I've ever heard. Sure as heck ain't radio. |
IBOC Article and bandwidth
On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 17:25:39 -0600, craigm
wrote: Yes, converting analog to digital then back to analog will degrade the analog signal. A straight wire is always better. However AM, radio is not a straight wire. With AM radio, an analog signal is compressed, band width limited, converted to electromagnetic waves, mixed with any other waves on the same frequency between transmitter and receiver, converted to an electrical signal, passed through an IF that further bandwidth limits the signal, and then run through a detector that usually adds at least 1% distortion. Almost all MW and HF AM broadcast transmitters built in the last 30 years have used an analog to digital conversion in the modulator stage. |
Know your listener/market
You can HAVE Seattle.
Hey,,, I have an old Seattle little plastic Space Needle thingy here that I bought at a Goodwill store a bunch of years ago.It is sitting on a shelf in my kichen.I wonder if it is worth anything? It isn't for sale anyway. Dang it,I have to babysit that little girl that lives next door to me tonight. cuhulin |
IBOC Article and bandwidth
Telamon wrote:
In article , craigm wrote: Tom Wells wrote: Thank you for explaining the mysteries of modulation byproducts and bandwidth in a way that makes the truth clear for people who may not have had radio schooling. Instead of making it sound harder than it really is.. The saddest part of it all is that MOST of the digihash flamethrower noise is describing to the demodulator that no modulation is present for most audio frequencies. Even if NO audio is present, the IBOC signal is still 45khz wide, The bandwidth used by IBOC is 30 kHz, not 45. describing each and every one of the possible audio passband frequencies as 0% modulation. Instead of just letting there BE no modulation, they've decided it's much better to have all these little subcarriers elaborately screaming "NO MODULATION AT 1200HZ!" "NO MODULATION AT 1201 HZ!", etc. It's like having a thousand people in a There is not a carrier for each discrete frequency. room screaming about nothing. In proper engineering, like with good manners, if you have nothing to say, you keep your mouth shut. You need to better understand the modulation method and how digital decoders work. Telamon wrote: snip This is a simple concept that many people don't seem to get. Information rate directly correlates to bandwidth in this way, higher rate and more detail means larger bandwidth. Analog or digital is just a method of encoding information. Narrow filtered analog is similar to low rate digital. It does not matter what digital method you use you can't get around the fact that a better picture or audio means you need to use more bandwidth. Oh, but it does matter. The choice if digital modulation and compression change things. For a given modulation method and compression scheme, what you say is valid. More content means more mandwidth. However, different modulation methods and compressions schemes result in differing bandwidth requirements for the same amount of content. If this isn't true, then PC modems would still be running at 1200 baud. One reason newer PC modems have higher baud rate it that they use more bandwidth than the old ones did. PC modems are limited by the bandwidth of the phone line. I'm sorry but there is a direct correlation between bandwidth and information that can not be changed. Compression methods are not some kind of black magic that can stuff more information in the same number of bits. Compression methods can cause a digitized description of analog information to be more efficient and some methods are better than others but that is it. An example would be a picture of a checker board could be described with fewer bits because there is not that much information but change that to a wide view of scenery where every bit is more random and it can't be compressed to any extent. Compression can not cause a better "digital description" using the same bandwidth to occur as analog representation of the same. To be abundantly clear here my point is that DRM can not sound better than analog in the same bandwidth. There is more then one way to encode the analog world into digital and back and some methods are more efficient then others but there is no magic digital encoding system comprised of one or a combination of encoding methods that will magically stuff more information into the same bandwidth. The DRM controversy has gone on for a long time where the claim that DRM sounds better then analog in the same bandwidth. This is a bunch of BS. Not only does this violate the laws of physics it further makes less sense from the standpoint of conversion of analog to digital at the transmit end and then digital back to analog at the receive end. Technically changing from analog to digital and back introduces conversion errors so DRM in the same bandwidth has to sound worse than analog. The only way DRM can sound better is to use more bandwidth than analog. You are completely ingoring compression and modulation methods. Yeah, it is not germane to what I wrote. Yes, converting analog to digital then back to analog will degrade the analog signal. A straight wire is always better. However AM, radio is not a straight wire. This is all a given. With AM radio, an analog signal is compressed, band width limited, converted to electromagnetic waves, mixed with any other waves on the same frequency between transmitter and receiver, converted to an electrical signal, passed through an IF that further bandwidth limits the signal, and then run through a detector that usually adds at least 1% distortion. Now you are bring other issues into the picture. I want to ignore these issues also. So there are are two basic concepts for anyone reading the news group. DRM and IBOC claims are a bunch of BS. Analog or any digital system will sound better the more bandwidth you use. I can compress audio to a 64 kbps data rate for an iPod. This sounds better than _any_ AM broadcast I have ever heard. Better signal to noise, lower distortion, better audio bandwidth and stereo. I've also heard FM band IBOC, and I will say that it did sound better than the analog channel. However this may have been due to significant amounts of signal processing at one end of the chain or the other. Music from an Ipod is not short wave analog or DRM. The point of my post is to dispel the notion that DRM can sound better in the same bandwidth space as an analog signal and the basic theory behind the reasoning, it can not regardless of the compression algorithms and modulation scheme. The encoding method for iPod and DRM and both forms of AAC. My point is that it is possible for DRM to be an improvement. (And no, I have no desire for IBOC on the AM broadcast band. I think there are too many associated issues, the primary one being the consumption of 30 kHz bandwidth. IBOC on FM may work and be viable in the long run. I'm not either. At the least they should split the existing band between IBOC and better would be another band. I am in favor of DRM.) I'm not. |
IBOC Article and bandwidth
Tom Wells wrote:
OK, I admit that yes, there aren't separate sideband carriers for each frequency, and I do know better. IF you are listening to AM BC on a high fidelity wideband receiver, the IBOC splatter is 45kHz wide, even though the bands only extend 30 Khz. By your method, an unmodulated AM carrier would be 15 kHz wide. By your method, using a tuner with a narrower bandwidth would result in a narrower signal. If your choice of measuring tool can give different results something is wrong. The receiver cannot change the amount of spectrum a signal occupies, that is determined at the transmitting end. IBOC uses 30 kHz, using your radio, you only perceive 45 kHz. But compression and Fourier transform equations mathematically proving audio response to any given frequency response glosses over the fact that you are no longer sending the *whole* waveform, and only plotting points on the curve. Taking the simple CD audio example, if we sample at a 44 khz rate, we can only measure a 22 khz sinewave twice per cycle. Is the intended waveform to be reproduced a sine wave, sawtooth, or what? We can't tell anymore, because we have not measured enough points on the wavefrom. Did we measure the wave at maximum peak, somewhere in the middle, or as it was crossing the zero line? We have to assume if it's audio that it's a sinewave, but this ignores the non-sinusoidal characteristics of real-life audio. This is why CDs (assuming the original audio exceeded 22 khz) end up sounding like they all got recorded through one particular make and model of microphone. A very good microphone, but one that added its own characteristics to the result. Just the same as taking a large-format negative photograph which could be blown up to billboard size with good resolution loses all that resolution when reproduced in a magazine with an 80, 135 or 175 line screen reproduction. All those dots, small as they may be, don't add up to as much information as there was with the billions of little silver halide grains in the original negative. I was trained as a radio engineer, and decided NOT to work in the business back in 1982, as I saw this train wreck coming. Not to mention the removal of variety from programming, limited playlists, etc. The real reason radio must be digitized is that radio is an ART, and art is not understood by accountants. Art always cost money, so it must be turned into a commodity to turn a profit. Too many people could not grasp the art, tune the antenna, calculate complex impedances on a Smith chart, etc. They should have gotten out of the business if they could not understand RF. The same thing happened with cars. For all the digitalization of engine controls, what we got was technicians who plug in a computer to tell them what's wrong. In the 70's and 80's its equivalent was mechanics who sprayed new parts at a problem until it went away, perhaps never knowing or caring where the true problem had been. Before that, you had mechanics who UNDERSTOOD how it all worked, what made it work, and why it was founded in the laws of physics. If you have current flowing in the primary circuit, and the points opened, and the condenser was good, you would have a collapsing magnetic field within the coil, and the secondary circuit would have a SPARK! It was necessary for a distributor to point to the right wire, etc for the engine to run , among other things, but the laws of physics always worked. It was comforting to know the parts did what they did inherently, without a central processor. I have a lot more faith in the laws of physics than I have in computers, and analogy of making a silk purse out of a pig's ear is very apt for IBOC. Noisiest ol' pig's ear I've ever heard. Sure as heck ain't radio. |
IBOC Article and bandwidth
Screw them iPods!!!
cuhulin |
IBOC Article and bandwidth
In article , craigm
wrote: Telamon wrote: In article , craigm wrote: Tom Wells wrote: Thank you for explaining the mysteries of modulation byproducts and bandwidth in a way that makes the truth clear for people who may not have had radio schooling. Instead of making it sound harder than it really is.. The saddest part of it all is that MOST of the digihash flamethrower noise is describing to the demodulator that no modulation is present for most audio frequencies. Even if NO audio is present, the IBOC signal is still 45khz wide, The bandwidth used by IBOC is 30 kHz, not 45. describing each and every one of the possible audio passband frequencies as 0% modulation. Instead of just letting there BE no modulation, they've decided it's much better to have all these little subcarriers elaborately screaming "NO MODULATION AT 1200HZ!" "NO MODULATION AT 1201 HZ!", etc. It's like having a thousand people in a There is not a carrier for each discrete frequency. room screaming about nothing. In proper engineering, like with good manners, if you have nothing to say, you keep your mouth shut. You need to better understand the modulation method and how digital decoders work. Telamon wrote: snip This is a simple concept that many people don't seem to get. Information rate directly correlates to bandwidth in this way, higher rate and more detail means larger bandwidth. Analog or digital is just a method of encoding information. Narrow filtered analog is similar to low rate digital. It does not matter what digital method you use you can't get around the fact that a better picture or audio means you need to use more bandwidth. Oh, but it does matter. The choice if digital modulation and compression change things. For a given modulation method and compression scheme, what you say is valid. More content means more mandwidth. However, different modulation methods and compressions schemes result in differing bandwidth requirements for the same amount of content. If this isn't true, then PC modems would still be running at 1200 baud. One reason newer PC modems have higher baud rate it that they use more bandwidth than the old ones did. PC modems are limited by the bandwidth of the phone line. Well, since the phone line is the medium that the information goes through that is true but older modems did not use all that was available and the newer transmission schemes used more of that available bandwidth. I'm sorry but there is a direct correlation between bandwidth and information that can not be changed. Compression methods are not some kind of black magic that can stuff more information in the same number of bits. Compression methods can cause a digitized description of analog information to be more efficient and some methods are better than others but that is it. An example would be a picture of a checker board could be described with fewer bits because there is not that much information but change that to a wide view of scenery where every bit is more random and it can't be compressed to any extent. Compression can not cause a better "digital description" using the same bandwidth to occur as analog representation of the same. To be abundantly clear here my point is that DRM can not sound better than analog in the same bandwidth. There is more then one way to encode the analog world into digital and back and some methods are more efficient then others but there is no magic digital encoding system comprised of one or a combination of encoding methods that will magically stuff more information into the same bandwidth. The DRM controversy has gone on for a long time where the claim that DRM sounds better then analog in the same bandwidth. This is a bunch of BS. Not only does this violate the laws of physics it further makes less sense from the standpoint of conversion of analog to digital at the transmit end and then digital back to analog at the receive end. Technically changing from analog to digital and back introduces conversion errors so DRM in the same bandwidth has to sound worse than analog. The only way DRM can sound better is to use more bandwidth than analog. You are completely ingoring compression and modulation methods. Yeah, it is not germane to what I wrote. Yes, converting analog to digital then back to analog will degrade the analog signal. A straight wire is always better. However AM, radio is not a straight wire. This is all a given. With AM radio, an analog signal is compressed, band width limited, converted to electromagnetic waves, mixed with any other waves on the same frequency between transmitter and receiver, converted to an electrical signal, passed through an IF that further bandwidth limits the signal, and then run through a detector that usually adds at least 1% distortion. Now you are bring other issues into the picture. I want to ignore these issues also. So there are are two basic concepts for anyone reading the news group. DRM and IBOC claims are a bunch of BS. Analog or any digital system will sound better the more bandwidth you use. I can compress audio to a 64 kbps data rate for an iPod. This sounds better than _any_ AM broadcast I have ever heard. Better signal to noise, lower distortion, better audio bandwidth and stereo. I've also heard FM band IBOC, and I will say that it did sound better than the analog channel. However this may have been due to significant amounts of signal processing at one end of the chain or the other. Music from an Ipod is not short wave analog or DRM. The point of my post is to dispel the notion that DRM can sound better in the same bandwidth space as an analog signal and the basic theory behind the reasoning, it can not regardless of the compression algorithms and modulation scheme. The encoding method for iPod and DRM and both forms of AAC. My point is that it is possible for DRM to be an improvement. Point not taken. Sure it is possible for DRM to sound better than analog for similar reasons analog can sound better than DRM. The underlying concept is a higher information rate translates to a higher quality picture or sound in real time. Just so my point in posting originally is not lost DRM started out and still tries to claim it is an improvement over analog. This claim of being "better" was to use the same spectral space. This is an incorrect notion, period. It does not matter what the modulation mode, compression or combination of compression algorithms are used, bandwidth determines the amount of information can be transmitted over time. If DRM is to sound "better" then a current analog signal it must occupy more bandwidth than the analog signal so more information can be transmitted over time. If the analog information you want to transmit is low detail and quality to start out with a compression scheme can give the "appearance" that more information is being transmitted over time but it is not. With compression it is possible to transmit low quality at a higher rate or say two low quality streams at the same rate but this is not the same thing as a higher data rate being transmitted. Digitization and compression can give you more options trading off quality and quantity but it can not magically stuff a higher data rate of information in the same bandwidth. This is basic information transmission theory. Look it up. (And no, I have no desire for IBOC on the AM broadcast band. I think there are too many associated issues, the primary one being the consumption of 30 kHz bandwidth. IBOC on FM may work and be viable in the long run. I'm not either. At the least they should split the existing band between IBOC and better would be another band. I am in favor of DRM.) I'm not. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
Know your listener/market
|
Know your listener/market
Let me twist that tuning knob around on the radio I bought from Bian.
www.us963.com Jacksonnnnnnnn,,,,, Country Western Music. Where God isn't dead. cuhulin |
IBOC Article and bandwidth
My phone number is 601 073 9733.You can't phone me because I keep my
phone Unplugged all the time excpt when I want to use it.Go ahead,try to phone me.Wimmins,email me and tell me to plug my phone in. cuhulin |
Know your listener/market
Mark Zenier wrote:
In article , D Peter Maus wrote: Mark Zenier wrote: 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? Actually, the latest versions of TiVo and it's clones now are starting to display popup advertisements when the user attempts to fastforward through the commercials. And Tivo, as a company is now (or soon to be) roadkill. First, the cable set top box manufacturers are duplicating their boxes' functions. And anybody but the brain dead will think twice or three times to buying a box that requires a subscription, a phone line, and will snitch on you about every time you did a rewind to get another look at a good cleavage shot. The primary reasons I never got a TiVo. And now this. They really needed to figure out who their customers are. Truth is: Most people don't care about the cost, the privacy invasion, or even the use of the phone. They care about features, and convenience. Which goes a long way to explaining why TiVo boxes are being replaced with Cable boxes with TiVo features. Many of which are actually TiVo boxes in cable clothing. |
Know your listener/market
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message ... Mark Zenier wrote: In article , D Peter Maus wrote: ¿ And anybody but the brain dead will think twice or three times to buying a box that requires a subscription, a phone line, and will snitch on you about every time you did a rewind to get another look at a good cleavage shot. The primary reasons I never got a TiVo. Once you have on, and I have had them since the first year... something like 7 or 8 years ago... and could not lieve without one. I hve three different ones in the house. And now this. They really needed to figure out who their customers are. Truth is: Most people don't care about the cost, the privacy invasion, or even the use of the phone. They care about features, and convenience. Which goes a long way to explaining why TiVo boxes are being replaced with Cable boxes with TiVo features. Many of which are actually TiVo boxes in cable clothing. I have a cable "equivalent" at my weekned place. It is hateful in every aspect (Time Warner) from the awful software to the remote control to the highly inaccurate listings of upcoming progframs. I am swiutching to Direct TV and a TIVO sometime this year when I can be there on a weekday to meet the installer. A friend who moved to an apartment where he could not get Direct TV had to use cable for a year. He said one of the main reasons for mving was the awful cable implementation of its TiVo rip-off. |
Know your listener/market
There are lots of DVRs out there, including freeware software that
runs on Linux boxes. (BTW, TiVo and Dish Network boxes are Linux boxes -- TiVo at one point was pretty open about how to get to the innards of their system.) You don't have to be married to the cable/TiVo DVRs. ....and so it will also be with radio, if anyone cares enough at this point. I personally don't think they'll care any more -- specific program listening will come through podcasts, and word of new media will spread via web pages, usenet and other BBS-like systems. When you can drop 100 hours onto a Flash card and put it in your portable MP3 player... no one cares or needs radio for entertainment any more. -- Eric F. Richards, "It's the Din of iBiquity." -- Frank Dresser |
Know your listener/market
Up yours,,,,,Blah blah blah,I knows me listener stuff. www.us963.com
Jacksonnnnnnn,,, where GOD isn't dead and 103.FM. Bite me! cuhulin |
Know your listener/market
I know the good stuff,and I dont need a stinking shotewave to get it
either.We are Mississippi Coon Asses around here. cuhulin |
Know your listener/market
Richards,what your problem is (and I mean this kindly,in all due
respect) you need a good woman. cuhulin |
Know your listener/market
|
IBOC Article
I know Telamon reads my stuff.Operation Petticoat flick movie is on tb
now. cuhulin |
IBOC Article
They dont dream in Ventura Beach,California.Hey,Telamon,I have your kill
files in my cuhulin webtv email thingy. cuhulin |
Know your listener/market
"Eric F. Richards" wrote in message ... "Michael Lawson" wrote: Then why do people still listen? News, current-events/magazine programs, talk radio. Once upon a time you could add serendipidy to that list, but not any more -- radio today is as predictable as a clock -- nothing new in the programming. Maybe for the big commercial broadcasters, but some small ones are still around. Older people of past generations may listen because they don't want to mess with MP3s or podcasting -- especially in a car. Which is actually not a bad idea; fewer distractions means more attention paid to driving. Convenience combined with apathy. If you like, or at least can tolerate bland, mediocre programming, then domestic radio is for you. I suppose we're lucky in Cincy; we still have a 24 hour public radio Classical station. We've also got school (high school and trade school) programmed stations that have some nice programming, too. We've also got WAIF, one of the non-commercial community radio stations around. Oh, we've got the big guys, like Clear Channel, Infinity and others, but we're not limited to them. There's always stuff to listen to if you look hard. World Band/Shortwave is still interesting enough, but they too are listening to marketing geniuses and going dark 'cause "nobody listens to shortwave." And no one listened to punk after the 70's, too. Then suddenly the Grunge movement sprang fully blown on the world, proving that yes, people did listen to punk after all. I'd not consider shortwave dead yet just because the heyday of WW2 and the Cold War is long gone. --Mike L. |
Know your listener/market
Many people did not hear punk until after 1980, since the 1970's were
cram-full of disco and even many college stations did not play punk until the 1980s. I don't consider much of the new grunge to be eligible for a "punk" label. And even that is still avoided by most stations in favor of every other type of music. If punk had gotten the airplay that (c)rap music does now, I'd sure have been happy. Please stand by while we switch to digital hybrid IBOC mode....SCRTCHSHSHSHSHSHSHSHSHSHSHSHSHSHSHSHSHSHSH SHSHSHSHSHSHSHSHSHSHSHSHSHSHSHSHSHSHSHSHSHSHSHSHSH SHSHSHSHSHSHSHSHSHSHSHSHSHSHSHSHSHS |
Know your listener/market
"Eric F. Richards" wrote in message ... "Michael Lawson" wrote: Maybe for the big commercial broadcasters, but some small ones are still around. Fewer and fewer each year. There are 13,500 radio stations in the US and some 3,500 owners. Most are small. But you and I are discussing facts. Eduardo doesn't deal in facts, he deals in numbers produced by "market research," which bear little resemblance to facts. I deal in the Census, proprietary data and talking with listeners. Market research is simply speaking, one by one, with real listeners. Your contentions are simply stuff you blow out of your butt. His customers, however, can't tell the difference (and neither can he). They make decisions based on numbers, not facts. The numbers are are fact. Even a poll is "fact" as the user knows the margin of error and accepts the consequences. Advertisers support over 11 thousand US stations. they demand a quantification of thier investment, based on the cost per listener reached. Otherwise, there is no way to quantify the effectiveness of the investment. |
Know your listener/market
Eric F. Richards wrote:
"David Eduardo" wrote: Fewer and fewer each year. There are 13,500 radio stations in the US and some 3,500 owners. Most are small. 1) Your statement doesn't address the trend towards fewer and fewer stations each year. How many owners were there 10 years ago? 20 years ago? There are stations going dark every year, because even with multiple ownership, they still can't produce numbers to justify their expense. Personally, I think that if the bean counters got out of the way, there would be a somewhat different landscape, but that's not where Radio is today. Decisions are made based on a stock price and profitability. Long gone are the days when a station that scored a 15% percent margin was considered a super performer. When I left CBS, Chicago, one station in the group was recording a 72% profit margin. That was unheard of when I started. 20% was off the charts then. Common ownership, and some union decertification has made higher numbers possible. Salaries aren't what they were, except for the anchor names, expenses are squeezed until the staff runs blue. With profits like these, common ownership, and the ability to get banks involved (where they wouldn't touch Radio before) mom and pop shops are being swallowed up by investor groups, media companies, and corporations looking to diversify. The Florians owned WNIB/WNIZ in Zion. They were a pair of successful commercial classical music stations in Chicago metro. And they routinely waxed WFMT in the book. They were determined to stick it out. No debt, the stations were low stress, very profitable, and had strong followings. Bonneville offered them 12 figures for the pair. They said 'no.' Bonneville came back at them. And kept coming back each time they declined the offer. Eventually, they relented. And took not much less than a half a billion dollars for the pair of stations. With that kind of lucre, you're not going to find many single station owners willing to hold out for long. Especially since many stand alone stations are nowhere near as profitable as the Florian's. Single owners are down. They do still exist, though. But usually in smaller markets, and nearly always with signals not desireable by heavier investors. The number of stations, however, is still quite high. And some will be going dark because there are just too many of them for them all to be profitable. And in the US radio is and always has been about the money. 13,500 is a LOT of signals. 2) 3500 is much less than half of 13,500, implying that the majority of owners own more than one station. "Most" are small? NO. Small stations are not defined by their ownership, but by the installation, their coverage, their staff and the total investment in the property. Most stations are small stations. You don't find $50 million stations in Watseka, Illinois. And even here in Chicago, there are only a few "large" stations. Many of them coming in from the collar counties. Even WROK/ZOK in Rockford are considered 'smaller' stations. Most of them are small. And with a handful of groups accounting for more than half the stations on the air, what's left are smaller groups of stations by smaller companies. The industry may be influenced by CCU and CBS, but it's not owned by them. The largest company owns less than 11% of the properties. The next, a fraction of that. Everything else is smaller by definition. Now, you're right, that things are dramatically different than they were 15 years ago. And that diversity of ownership, and the fierce competition for ratings in a single format are largely over. Formats are structured more strategically, to protect producing properties, or garner saleable numbers collectively, instead of going head to head and pouring hundreds of kilobucks into bludgeoning a single competitor into a stupor. Today, it's done much more scientifically. And I think the results are less exciting, often less interesting. That's why I don't listen near as much as I once did. But then, I'm not being served by the media, either. I don't fall into any of the desireable demo- and psychographic grid spaces. So, what I think is largely of no interest to Radio. It's cold. But unless I can show Radio how to make more money than they're making by doing something different than they're making now doing what they're doing...it is what it is. I deal in the Census, proprietary data and talking with listeners. Market research is simply speaking, one by one, with real listeners. Your contentions are simply stuff you blow out of your butt. Tell it to the WSJ. WSJ is in the business of serving investors. Not in the business of encouraging creativity, or manufacturing innovative products. They serve investors. And investors are interested only by dividends. WSJ serves that interest, nothing else. Wall Street getting involved in Media took the focus OFF of the things that are important to you and me (such that they are, anyway...those things had been in decline for two decades anyway), and put them squarely on the minutiae of maximizing profits. Which reduced Radio and Radio content to a commodity. Wonder Bread with a ground plane. Content retooled and revised until it's devoid of surprises, but that sells. And that's what investors want: Products that sell, and sell with INEXPENSIVE production. So, profits can skyrocket. And the numbers create a demand for other investors. It can, and has been, argued that investors insure the future of radio stations. And as businesses, this is true. But it doesn't do anything for content. And content can be contrived to sell, at low cost, virtually in perpetuity. Unless there is a public revolt, it will continue to be so. Because, beleive me, if there were a demand for something done differently, CCU and the other media companies would be lining up to get it done. But there is no such demand. Only bitching from guys like you and me...and those of us here dissatisfied by the current state of Radio. If you want to change things, then create a movement. Make some noise. But you have to show them how to make more money by doing something differently than they're making by doing what they're doing. Complaining in a USENET newsgroup is not likely to make a big difference. Because there's no easy money in it. Don't try to tell a statistician about the infallibility of statistics. You have improper assumptions about your listener market, your station reach, and how to measure the power of that reach. You don't even consider much of your listener base to even exist. You, sir, are full of ****. That's really unnecessary, Eric. And beneath you. What's difficult to get through to people who haven't gotten to spend time behind the curtain is that the assumptions are not made by Radio, but by the people paying the freight: Advertisers, mostly, and, at least today, the investors. Radio is the facilitator, not the driver. Advertisers are the drivers. And most advertisters of any size, are driven by advertising agencies who created the models you find so offensive. Agencies, seeking to insure that they got the most bang for their buck, how to get the most qualified impressions for each dollar spent with zero waste. Not how to get the most impressions....or how to spend the least dollars, but now NOT to spend a single dollar on a wasted impression. For that you look at what's under the bell curve. The mean plus one standard deviation, if that. And you do that for each of the parameters under consideration, including geographic coverage by signal strength. Then you take the intersection of all these subsets and that's the target. The EASIEST, most cost efficient way of producing numbers. Strictly commodity thinking. Does this orphan real listeners? Yes. Are there numbers of them? Yes. Do they matter? No, because expressed as a percentage of the defined target, they're statically insignificant, AND they are more likely to be wasted impressions. It's cold. But this is how the agencies actually spend money. And advertisers call the shots. Radio would rather say, "look we've got a signal from Mackinaw to Bloomington, with a population of 9 million. $5000 a spot." Advertisers aren't going to buy $5000 spots beaming out over 100 miles of water, or in towns were the signal strength is lower than the spark noise of the neighbor's lawn mower. Not because there are NO listeners there. But because those listeners arent' under the bell curve. There are too few of them to be measured and targeted efficiently. Now, those listeners MAY be otherwise targetable. But for them, there are other media. Like the local stations in Bloomington. But when negotiating with Chicago stations, that topic doesn't come up. And stations in Chicago aren't interested in hearing that they can't get $5000 a spot. So the advertisers work up these models. The ratings companies deliver the figures, the ratings interpretation companies package the numbers and the sale profiles and the agencies work up a cost per point, or a cost per thousand figure. That's the figure they buy the stations for. With all the non questionable or statistically insignificant listeners excluded from the buy. Those listeners are picked up on other buys....local buys....but not from the single station with the big fringe. And again, it's not radio stations that create these models. It's advertisers. Do radio stations adopt them? Sure they do. There's money in it. But they don't create them. They get them from resources serving the people with the money. Radio works these models based on the assumptions as defined by advertisers for their own sales pitch, but the don't sell what the advertisers don't want to buy. And the cold truth is that they orphan listeners every day, because those listeners are of no interest to the advertisers. The advertisers who tell the radio stations what they're interested in. Put that directly: Reach is not defined by the Radio Stations. Reach is defined by the Advertisers, by what they're interested in. Advertisers TELL Radio what Advertisers want to buy, and how the Radio station's reach works for them. It does NOT come from Radio stations. So, while I don't really have any use for consultancies in Radio, what David does is show the Radio Station how to maximize it's profitability. So the station may serve it's investors/stockholders. What assumptions are made come from Advertisers. Not radio stations. And certainly not consultants. What's highly misunderstood is that Radio stations somehow create programming to serve the public. This is only showbiz. The purpose, especially after Telecom 96, is to create programming that will hold an audience between advertisements. It's the advertisers' needs that the offending assumptions are made to meet. Not the listeners. Radio has two audiences....one is the listeners, the other is the advertisers. The purpose of the radio station is to sell the listeners to the advertisers and present the advertisers to the listeners. To that end, only the advertisers needs matter. And the advertisers call the shots. It's not the Radio stations that determine who are the important listeners. It's the Advertisers. So to serve the listeners the Advertisers find important, Radio looks only at those listeners. Instead of all listeners. I"m not defending it. But it is what it is. Anything else is showbiz. And King Kong is never really more than 3'6". |
Know your listener/market
"Eric F. Richards" wrote in message ... "David Eduardo" wrote: Fewer and fewer each year. There are 13,500 radio stations in the US and some 3,500 owners. Most are small. 1) Your statement doesn't address the trend towards fewer and fewer stations each year. How many owners were there 10 years ago? 20 years ago? 2) 3500 is much less than half of 13,500, implying that the majority of owners own more than one station. "Most" are small? NO. I don't have the data, but I'd take a guess and say that the top 5 owners of radio stations probably account for over half of the 13,500. --Mike L. |
Know your listener/market
"Eric F. Richards" wrote in message ... "David Eduardo" wrote: Fewer and fewer each year. There are 13,500 radio stations in the US and some 3,500 owners. Most are small. 1) Your statement doesn't address the trend towards fewer and fewer stations each year. How many owners were there 10 years ago? 20 years ago? Actually, there are more stations every year. There were 10,197 in 1995 and 10,731 at the end of 2005 per M Street Directory. There have only been a dozen or so stations going permanently off the air in any average year, and many of these are rural daytimers that got an FM and no longer want the AM or stations that lost licenses in a legal issue or stations that lost a land lease and can not get permits for a new site or AMs that have been bought and deleted to allow another station to improve coverage. Since the number of stations has increased, even with consolidation, there are nearly as many owners now as in the past. It is just that there are more stations. If you went back to pre-Docket 80-90, there were over 1200 less stations in the late 80's than in 1995. 2) 3500 is much less than half of 13,500, implying that the majority of owners own more than one station. "Most" are small? NO. A lot have always been small, even with multiple owners. The owner of an AM/FM in 1965 in Independence, Iowa is still a small owner, then or now. A good example of a small owner from 1960: Les Biederman's Paul Bunyan Network out of WTCM in Traverse City, MI. Class IV AMs (250 watts) in Traverse City, another Class IV in Petosky, another in Alpena and one, I think, in Cadillac. This is hardly "big" as these are tiny markets and tiny stations. There are and always have been thousands of AM and FM combos that count as multiple ownership, and many hundreds of tiny groups with two, three, four stations in a rural section of a state. This goes back to the 40's in fact. I deal in the Census, proprietary data and talking with listeners. Market research is simply speaking, one by one, with real listeners. Your contentions are simply stuff you blow out of your butt. Tell it to the WSJ. I have no idea what you are talking about here. The WSJ is about investments, not about the local market operation of radio stations. Don't try to tell a statistician about the infallibility of statistics. You have improper assumptions about your listener market, your station reach, and how to measure the power of that reach. You don't even consider much of your listener base to even exist. You, sir, are full of ****. We know we have listeners outside our markets. We know we can not monetize it. So we ignore that listener base, as it can neither be served due to distance and existence of local stations nor can any revenue be generated from it. The numbers are are fact. Even a poll is "fact" as the user knows the margin of error and accepts the consequences. No, the numbers are not are not fact! The numbers are a massaged sample of polling data gathered in ways to support sales of your services, nothing more. Who says they are "massaged?" You? Radio stations which operate commercially try to get themost accurate data on thier listeners and competiton possible. They do not massage it. Advertisers support over 11 thousand US stations. they demand a quantification of thier investment, based on the cost per listener reached. Otherwise, there is no way to quantify the effectiveness of the investment. What they get is a skewed model pretending to represent all listeners. They *could* get more accurate figures, but they don't want to pay for them, so they hire someone like you, and you take advantage of them. The syndicated ratings data is good enough to use for the sale of advertising. For anything else, stations do internal research that is proprietary. It is all that is necessary... and the costs have to be limited to the dimensions of the total radio ad dollars available and which would not expand if more or bigger research were done. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:35 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com