"Steve" wrote in message
ps.com...

David Eduardo wrote:
"Steve" wrote in message
oups.com...

David Eduardo wrote:

If it's put into the hands of scum like you, it will die
immediately.
Jerk

I have built, managed and programmed AMs for the last 42 years. The
decline
is technology based, and can be corrected... with technology.

That's like "correcting" someone's crooked teeth by blowing their head
off.

You're a liar, a fool, a troll and a one of the few men I've ever known
who is accurate described by the term "bitch". Go ahead troll, troll
your little heart out.

Well, over $300,000,000 has already been spent on HD installs. There is
no
lie in stating that HD is happening, and there is a major commitment by
every large broadcaster except Salem to the technology. There is also
great
concern about preventing the loss of AM, and HD is being emplyed as the
ONLY
solution.

If you think this is exaggeration, trolling, a lie or whatever, you are
simply trying to cover the sky with you hand.

You mean you're trying to pull the wool over our eyes, don't you? You
are a liar and a shill. Like I said, thinking you can 'save' AM with HD
is like thinking you can "correct" a toothache by blowing the person's
head off. Any one who denies this is simply afraid to face stark
realities.

The problem with AM, in everybody's proprietary research, is that the sound
is such a barrier that nobody in the most recent two generations will listen
to it. Until the sound is "fixed" there is no way to prevent the decline,
ageing and eventual obsolescence of AM. Already, 75% of the band's listeners
are over the age that advertisers are interested in.

In LA, which is actually a heavier user of AM than many markets, less than
10% of the 12-24 listening is to AM. In 12-34, it is 6%, with 6 different
FMs each having more 12-34 listening than the entire AM band in that age
group.

You didn't know that, did you!

David Eduardo wrote:
"Steve" wrote in message
ps.com...

David Eduardo wrote:
"Steve" wrote in message
oups.com...

David Eduardo wrote:

If it's put into the hands of scum like you, it will die
immediately.
Jerk

I have built, managed and programmed AMs for the last 42 years. The
decline
is technology based, and can be corrected... with technology.

That's like "correcting" someone's crooked teeth by blowing their head
off.

You're a liar, a fool, a troll and a one of the few men I've ever known
who is accurate described by the term "bitch". Go ahead troll, troll
your little heart out.

Well, over $300,000,000 has already been spent on HD installs. There is
no
lie in stating that HD is happening, and there is a major commitment by
every large broadcaster except Salem to the technology. There is also
great
concern about preventing the loss of AM, and HD is being emplyed as the
ONLY
solution.

If you think this is exaggeration, trolling, a lie or whatever, you are
simply trying to cover the sky with you hand.

You mean you're trying to pull the wool over our eyes, don't you? You
are a liar and a shill. Like I said, thinking you can 'save' AM with HD
is like thinking you can "correct" a toothache by blowing the person's
head off. Any one who denies this is simply afraid to face stark
realities.

The problem with AM, in everybody's proprietary research, is that the sound
is such a barrier that nobody in the most recent two generations will listen
to it. Until the sound is "fixed" there is no way to prevent the decline,
ageing and eventual obsolescence of AM. Already, 75% of the band's listeners
are over the age that advertisers are interested in.

In LA, which is actually a heavier user of AM than many markets, less than
10% of the 12-24 listening is to AM. In 12-34, it is 6%, with 6 different
FMs each having more 12-34 listening than the entire AM band in that age
group.

You didn't know that, did you!


It's gradual decline would be far preferable to the fate you would hand
it. Jerk.

"Steve" wrote in message
oups.com...

David Eduardo wrote:

In LA, which is actually a heavier user of AM than many markets, less
than
10% of the 12-24 listening is to AM. In 12-34, it is 6%, with 6 different
FMs each having more 12-34 listening than the entire AM band in that age
group.

You didn't know that, did you!


It's gradual decline would be far preferable to the fate you would hand
it. Jerk.

Gradual? Having less audience for the whole band than any of 6 FM stations
is not slow death... it is death already in the younger demos, where the ad
money is. In a few years, the 35-44 will be gone entirely, and the 45-54
will shrink. At that point, there is no ad revenue. Not one national buy in
LA this year has been for 55+.

The sad thing is that we waited, as an industry, till now.

David Eduardo wrote:
"Steve" wrote in message
oups.com...

David Eduardo wrote:

In LA, which is actually a heavier user of AM than many markets, less
than
10% of the 12-24 listening is to AM. In 12-34, it is 6%, with 6 different
FMs each having more 12-34 listening than the entire AM band in that age
group.

You didn't know that, did you!


It's gradual decline would be far preferable to the fate you would hand
it. Jerk.

Gradual? Having less audience for the whole band than any of 6 FM stations
is not slow death... it is death already in the younger demos, where the ad
money is. In a few years, the 35-44 will be gone entirely, and the 45-54
will shrink. At that point, there is no ad revenue. Not one national buy in
LA this year has been for 55+.

The sad thing is that we waited, as an industry, till now.


It's rapid decline would be far preferable to the fate you would hand
it. Jerk.

David Eduardo wrote:

The problem with AM, in everybody's proprietary research, is that the sound
is such a barrier that nobody in the most recent two generations will listen
to it. Until the sound is "fixed" there is no way to prevent the decline,
ageing and eventual obsolescence of AM. Already, 75% of the band's listeners
are over the age that advertisers are interested in.


Yo yo yo... ever hear of C-QUAM??? It produces a hi fidelity analog
signal, IN ****ING STEREO, without subjecting the entire band to the
interference that IBOC does. And I've heard C-Quam STEREO signals from
hundreds of miles away via skywave at night. But, lo and behold, my
firends who have been ripped off by buying HD radios, can't seem to get
their digital carriers from across town...works welll... and the
buzzsaw on the main and adjacent channels, I just love it.

....and IBOC at night???? Please don't make me punch your retarded
****ing LED's out.

IBOC on AM is a JOKE... hahaha... J O K E joke.... turn the C-Quam back
on, send iNiquity their splatterbox back and go the **** away.

I just now produced something that sounded like stereo.

www.gulfcoastnews.com Halter Marine Launches Ferry Built for Martha's
Vineyard. www.vthaltermarine.com
cuhulin

wrote in message
oups.com...

David Eduardo wrote:

The problem with AM, in everybody's proprietary research, is that the
sound
is such a barrier that nobody in the most recent two generations will
listen
to it. Until the sound is "fixed" there is no way to prevent the decline,
ageing and eventual obsolescence of AM. Already, 75% of the band's
listeners
are over the age that advertisers are interested in.


Yo yo yo... ever hear of C-QUAM??? It produces a hi fidelity analog
signal, IN ****ING STEREO, without subjecting the entire band to the
interference that IBOC does.

It was tried and failed, because there were legal delays that caused it to
be introduced after FM had already taking th edominant position in music
radio. Nobody cared, starting with most radio stations.

The only way to bring a quality improvement to AM is by riding on the same
system that FM uses to go digital.

By the way, it is not about stereo. It is about being digital.

And I've heard C-Quam STEREO signals from
hundreds of miles away via skywave at night. But, lo and behold, my
firends who have been ripped off by buying HD radios, can't seem to get
their digital carriers from across town...works welll... and the
buzzsaw on the main and adjacent channels, I just love it.

The stations love it. It enhances the coverage of analog AMs where it
matters, in the local market.

CQuam is dead. It was dead in 1985. Move on.

David Eduardo wrote:
wrote in message

And I've heard C-Quam STEREO signals from
hundreds of miles away via skywave at night. But, lo and behold, my
firends who have been ripped off by buying HD radios, can't seem to get
their digital carriers from across town...works welll... and the
buzzsaw on the main and adjacent channels, I just love it.

The stations love it. It enhances the coverage of analog AMs where it
matters, in the local market.

CQuam is dead. It was dead in 1985. Move on.



CQuam is dead for reasons other than industrial delays in
implementation. Although, in my never to be humble opinion, it's a
better solution, you hit the nail he

it is not about stereo. It is about being digital.

FCC will not approve any new modulation technology that isn't digital.

This despite earlier mandates that X-band allocations must be C-Quam
equipped. Now, that mandate is dead in favor of the Powell FCC's digital
mandate.

And while it may be here, and it may be inevitable, now, the
implementation has been poorly orchestrated, and with IBOC rash trashing
the bands before receivers have been widely available, short sighted in
the extreme.

What's been done, sadly, is far more deleterious to AM usage than
doing nothing. Because it's not only DXers who are affected, here. It's
users in local coverage areas, who are now dealing with noises that they
never had to before, in areas which, like where I live, are protected as
local coverage but protected local stations are hit with IBOC
interference. And if noise is one of the primary objections to AM usage,
any system that introduces noise to the bands, even if that noise is
gone in the digital mode, will only add to the objections of users who
have marginal interst in AM anyway. Especially when the hardware to
enjoy the new mode is both widely unavailable, and costly. Even if it's
coming. The negative impression made by IBOC rash today, will plant
seeds of undesirability that will persist. And you'll not get a fair
trial when the new hardware is widely available.

What I'm seeing, is interest in HD-AM by users who are interested in
AM content, and who regularly use AM anyway. But little or no interest
in users who do not regularly use AM. Regardless of the audio
quality....if there is no interest in the programming, there will be
little interest in how good it may or may not sound.

The only potential uptick I see is in those auto systems where HD is
included as a standard feature. Sampling of HD, at that point, would be
a natural extension of radio sampling in general...playing with a new
radio in a new car is fairly commonplace. See what it sounds like, on
both bands...even if only to set the presets...there's still sampling
going on. In that context, HD may get a fair hearing, and perhaps some
encouraging acceptance. So, as with most radio techological innovations,
it's going to have to be in the cars in order to expose that captive
audience to a fair hearing of HD-AM for an interest to be generated.
(This, despite the fact that a majority of listening is not in cars.)
But for those listeners who would have to actively pursue an HD
experience without current regular AM usage...I'm not seeing it.

So far, you've been talking about how the stations love HD-AM. You
and I know that the success of any radio station is found in listener
centric product and behaviour. The point that radio stations love HD-AM
is unimportant. It's the listener's embrace that matters. And outside
of controlled demostrations, there is nothing to suggest that there is
more interest in HD-AM than in C-Quam. And the jury will be out for
some time to come.

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...

What I'm seeing, is interest in HD-AM by users who are interested in AM
content, and who regularly use AM anyway. But little or no interest in
users who do not regularly use AM. Regardless of the audio quality....if
there is no interest in the programming, there will be little interest in
how good it may or may not sound.

Viscious circle there... until there is an audio quality that under-45's can
tolerate, there will be no programming. And as the clock ticks, the band
dies.

The only potential uptick I see is in those auto systems where HD is
included as a standard feature. Sampling of HD, at that point, would be a
natural extension of radio sampling in general...playing with a new radio
in a new car is fairly commonplace. See what it sounds like, on both
bands...even if only to set the presets...there's still sampling going on.
In that context, HD may get a fair hearing, and perhaps some encouraging
acceptance.

That is exactly what will be the make-or-break as to AM. FM is healthy. It
will become healthier with HD 2 channels. It can potentially drage AM back
into the game. This is why none of the big operators has sold a viable AM in
years... all believe the value will be enhanced by HD. That is a
many-billion-dollar gamble.

So, as with most radio techological innovations, it's going to have to be
in the cars in order to expose that captive audience to a fair hearing of
HD-AM for an interest to be generated. (This, despite the fact that a
majority of listening is not in cars.) But for those listeners who would
have to actively pursue an HD experience without current regular AM
usage...I'm not seeing it.

Cars are where Americans are forced to get a new radio. Obviously, there is
a trickle down aspect, as not everyone buys new cars (ever) and not everyone
buys a new car every year or two. But this is the opportunity for AM. It is
not an overnighter, but the band is fading, not exploding.

So far, you've been talking about how the stations love HD-AM. You and
I know that the success of any radio station is found in listener centric
product and behaviour. The point that radio stations love HD-AM is
unimportant. It's the listener's embrace that matters. And outside of
controlled demostrations, there is nothing to suggest that there is more
interest in HD-AM than in C-Quam. And the jury will be out for some time
to come.

We are years away from being able to evaluate listener response, which will
be based on product demand. But the few reports that have started coming in
are favorable. On the FM side, we put a Tejano format on last week ont he
KLTN HD2 channel, and we have registered several hundred calls (the format
is on a marginal AM as well) asking about how to buy radios and all were
very excited. This, perhaps and even hopefully will rub off on AM.

David Eduardo wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
What I'm seeing, is interest in HD-AM by users who are interested in AM
content, and who regularly use AM anyway. But little or no interest in
users who do not regularly use AM. Regardless of the audio quality....if
there is no interest in the programming, there will be little interest in
how good it may or may not sound.

Viscious circle there... until there is an audio quality that under-45's can
tolerate, there will be no programming. And as the clock ticks, the band
dies.


Well, of course it's a vicious circle. Most everything in Radio is.
You remember how tough it is to get hired until you have experience, but
you can't get experience until you get hired. Vicious circles in Radio
aren't news. But the fact remains.

That said, it's content that drives listening. If the content is of
no interest to the target, HD isn't going to help. What's not
happening, is there's no change in content to accompany HD
implementation. WGN didn't change content when HD was installed. And I'm
sure that Ace will point out that WBBM's content is the same as before
HD was installed. So, HD is only really benefitting those who are
already using AM. And those younger demos you wish to attract with audio
quality, will be just as unintersted in the content after HD, as the
stations themselves are in those who listen outside of the city grade
contour.





The only potential uptick I see is in those auto systems where HD is
included as a standard feature. Sampling of HD, at that point, would be a
natural extension of radio sampling in general...playing with a new radio
in a new car is fairly commonplace. See what it sounds like, on both
bands...even if only to set the presets...there's still sampling going on.
In that context, HD may get a fair hearing, and perhaps some encouraging
acceptance.

That is exactly what will be the make-or-break as to AM. FM is healthy. It
will become healthier with HD 2 channels. It can potentially drage AM back
into the game. This is why none of the big operators has sold a viable AM in
years... all believe the value will be enhanced by HD. That is a
many-billion-dollar gamble.



That's exactly my point...it's a gamble. A crap shoot. Targeting the
superficiality and subjective perception of audio quality. While the
real attraction to listening is content.

You've noted growth at your AM's on the West Coast. Those are due to
content, not audio quality. And your growth has exceeded expectations.
Whether HD has been implemented or not, HD's 'improved' audio quality is
not a factor, since receiving hardware is both expensive and not widely
available. In fact, your share increase would exceed the number of HD
radios sold in those markets were explosive growth has taken place. IF
HD audio is not a factor, it's the content that's attracting listeners.
In under 45 demo's at that.

However, HD is putting that content off limits to potential
listeners, by trashing the bands in weak signal areas with other
station's HD rash. If noise and audio quality are, indeed, factors
keeping AM from stable growth, or at least stable levels of
listenership, increasing noise found in HD sidebands is not going to be
a viable solution.



So, as with most radio techological innovations, it's going to have to be
in the cars in order to expose that captive audience to a fair hearing of
HD-AM for an interest to be generated. (This, despite the fact that a
majority of listening is not in cars.) But for those listeners who would
have to actively pursue an HD experience without current regular AM
usage...I'm not seeing it.

Cars are where Americans are forced to get a new radio. Obviously, there is
a trickle down aspect, as not everyone buys new cars (ever) and not everyone
buys a new car every year or two. But this is the opportunity for AM. It is
not an overnighter, but the band is fading, not exploding.
So far, you've been talking about how the stations love HD-AM. You and
I know that the success of any radio station is found in listener centric
product and behaviour. The point that radio stations love HD-AM is
unimportant. It's the listener's embrace that matters. And outside of
controlled demostrations, there is nothing to suggest that there is more
interest in HD-AM than in C-Quam. And the jury will be out for some time
to come.

We are years away from being able to evaluate listener response, which will
be based on product demand. But the few reports that have started coming in
are favorable. On the FM side, we put a Tejano format on last week ont he
KLTN HD2 channel, and we have registered several hundred calls (the format
is on a marginal AM as well) asking about how to buy radios and all were
very excited. This, perhaps and even hopefully will rub off on AM.


Then, again, if audio quality is really an issue, that same Tejano
format on HD2, since HD radios must resolve both AM and FM HD, will
present an attraction of listeners away from the AM station, even if
listening is done in AM HD.

So, the net advantage to AM, here is zero where the same content is
available on FM, analog or digital.

As you said, that makes AM HD an enormous gamble. And an expensive
buy-in to the game.