• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Kiss audio Stinks

What is up with their sound? It sounds like is is on mono! It’s horrible! And I thought 98.9 the Vibes sound was bad, but it sounds better then WKSE!
 
With a burnt-to-a-crisp name like Kiss, I think it's a safe bet to assume that you are simply hearing the aural effects of a station that is stuck in the 1990s and, as a result, is trying to sound "loud".

This happens more often than it should in 2022, and it drives TSL into the ground, particularly with younger female audiences whose hearing is second to none.
 
Kiss is one of the strongest, consistent brands in Buffalo radio. Much of the audio that's questioned here is a result of the over-processed, hyper-compressed and EQ'd music that gets released by the record companies before it runs through a radio station's audio chain.
 
With a burnt-to-a-crisp name like Kiss...
Why is a brand that is successful required by you to have a "new" name just because they have used the existing one for "too long".

Under that theory, Chevrolet, CocaCola, American Airlines, Windex, Kellog's and all the other establish brands are "burnt-to-a-crisp" and ought to change.
 
Why is a brand that is successful required by you to have a "new" name just because they have used the existing one for "too long".

Under that theory, Chevrolet, CocaCola, American Airlines, Windex, Kellog's and all the other establish brands are "burnt-to-a-crisp" and ought to change.
That is true. I was thinking of it more from an originality standpoint, so I probably could've phrased that a tad better. To put it into perspective, while countless different entities have spun the "Kiss" branding over the years (perhaps with varying degrees of success), there will only ever be one Coca-Cola, or one Kleenex. Perhaps, though, to the average listener, this isn't of concern or even thought.
 
there will only ever be one Coca-Cola, or one Kleenex.
I've been a bit lazy. I will just call every type of soda as cola, but I do know there is only one Coca Cola. ;)
 
That is true. I was thinking of it more from an originality standpoint, so I probably could've phrased that a tad better. To put it into perspective, while countless different entities have spun the "Kiss" branding over the years (perhaps with varying degrees of success), there will only ever be one Coca-Cola, or one Kleenex. Perhaps, though, to the average listener, this isn't of concern or even thought.
More than that, the average listener in Buffalo has no concern for the Kiss in LA or wherever else that station name is used. For that listener, it is simply a station they can get on their radio or stream on their cellphone.
 
Why is a brand that is successful required by you to have a "new" name just because they have used the existing one for "too long".

Under that theory, Chevrolet, CocaCola, American Airlines, Windex, Kellog's and all the other establish brands are "burnt-to-a-crisp" and ought to change.
I suppose there's some merit to that. However. Chevrolet changes it's models and changes it's "image". CocaCola retains it's primary product line while introducing new stuff... and changes it's image on a regular basis. American Airlines is hardly the same as it was even five years ago. Windex... I dunno know that much about. Kellogg's alters it's packaging, product, image, etc. They do that to make every effort not to stagnate (ie get burnt to a crisp, lol)... and, sometimes to conduct damage control for waning acceptance. And, of course, they change due to new entrants into their respective markets. If this KISS station is the same as it was, say, five years ago, I'd suspect they are not doing the best that they can.
 
I meant it sounds bad not the music choice but the way it sounds sucks. It’s been like that for over a week now. It isn’t pleasing to listen to at all! Again the music is fine but when it sound s like the mono is on and the stereo is off it doesn’t sound very good
 
I meant it sounds bad not the music choice but the way it sounds sucks. It’s been like that for over a week now. It isn’t pleasing to listen to at all! Again the music is fine but when it sound s like the mono is on and the stereo is off it doesn’t sound very good
maybe a call to the chief engineer Al Marranca will answer some questions. could be just an interim problem.
 
I have been complaining about the signal and sound for weeks now, see my other post. The analog is missing the highs and I can hear a very high pitched tone almost like an overdriven stereo pilot tone. i live south of Buffalo and the signal is weak like they are running at much lower power. The HD sounds good when it kicks in, but the HD drops when the analog drops off. If I had to guess, I would say their main transmitter has died and they are having trouble getting parts. Stations are pushing streaming so hard that it is almost seems like the transmitter takes a back seat.
 
The audio sounds clean in mono and stereo on three different receivers, one of those in the car. But yes, the point stands regarding the RF. The Kiss signal is weak and picket-fences along 20-A (west to east) in the Hamburg, OP, East Aurora corridor. Could be it's operating on back-up transmitter on Grand Island or on low power from the aux antenna site on Delaware Avenue.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom