Absolute UK Shutting down AM

[SomeRadioGuy]

I'm surprised it took "Absolute" this long to shut down the network of 1215kHz transmitters and it certainly makes sense for them, business wise.

How you listen to Absolute Radio could be changing

How you listen to Absolute Radio could be changing. From 23rd January, we will...

planetradio.co.uk

 

[Mediafrog+]

The BBC has already announced that it will be closing many, if not most of its remaining AM signals in the next few years, as well as the 198 kHz longwave transmitters.

Outside of Spain, AM radio is just about dead in Europe.

 

[crainbebo]

Another one bites the dust. RIP Absolute Radio. It was an incredible 'beacon' for so many DXers, both in the east and in the west. Too bad I've never heard them and probably won't before 1/23 because of continued CMEs, flares, and solar wind.

 

[Mediafrog+]

Another one bites the dust. RIP Absolute Radio. It was an incredible 'beacon' for so many DXers, both in the east and in the west. Too bad I've never heard them and probably won't before 1/23 because of continued CMEs, flares, and solar wind.

Absolute Radio’s main 1215 frequency is a synchronized network of ten transmitters, ranging up to 62.5kw. They also use five transmitters on 1197, two each on 1233 and 1242, and a single transmitter on 1260.

The 1215 synchros put a good signal into the UTwente SDR at night, with 1242 weaker but listenable. The others don’t make it or are barely audible.

 

[Marcos_C]

Absolute Radio has a very good mix of music that is rarely found on US radio stations. The station plays a lot of alternative rock, with hard rock, pop punk, indie pop, and other genres added to the playlist. The music that Absolute Radio plays ranges from the 1980s to the present. The presence of this wonderful radio station on the AM dial will certainly be missed.

 

[davideduardo]

Another one bites the dust. RIP Absolute Radio. It was an incredible 'beacon' for so many DXers, both in the east and in the west.

And its predecessor on the dial (prior to the European 1 kHz frequency shift upwards) was the BBC Daventry at 1214, a sure bellwether station for a northern European opening, as was Luxembourg on 1439.

 

[CTListener]

The BBC has already announced that it will be closing many, if not most of its remaining AM signals in the next few years, as well as the 198 kHz longwave transmitters.

Outside of Spain, AM radio is just about dead in Europe.

Why does it hang on in Spain? Is it still being listened to by under-55s?

 

[davideduardo]

Why does it hang on in Spain? Is it still being listened to by under-55s?

PRISA, the largest group owner in the world (everywhere from Spain and France to Argentina, Chile and Colombia) is progressively shutting down many of its AMs after buying stations on FM to move them to.

The difference in Spain is that most broadcasting is privately owned... historically the highest percentage anywhere in Europe (excluding Luxembourg, Andorra and Monaco). Private radio in Spain goes back to the later 20's and 30's; it was private radio groups that moved into commercial FM in the mid-60's, in fact.

But the investment and revenue from AM was large, so there was the same tendency in Spain that we saw in The Americas: as FM took over music programming, AM became the home of news and sports and talk shows. But that is gradually fading as talk moves to FM, too.

If we look closer to home, in Argentina nearly half of all listening is still to AM, and there are nearly a dozen non-directional fulltime 50 kw and 100 kw AM talk and sports stations in Buenos Aires. About 5 of them have nearly 90% of the AM listening, with the top two having nearly 65% of all AM shares. Of course, part of the interest in AM is the non-stop political turmoil there combined with perhaps the highest general education level in The Americas.

 

[Miss Tuned]

Absolute Radio has a very good mix of music that is rarely found on US radio stations. The station plays a lot of alternative rock, with hard rock, pop punk, indie pop, and other genres added to the playlist. The music that Absolute Radio plays ranges from the 1980s to the present. The presence of this wonderful radio station on the AM dial will certainly be missed.

According to Radio Today, just 2% of UK radio listening is now AM while it accounts for 35% of the energy used by broadcast transmitters.

The removal of a legacy rock music station from AM is low-hanging fruit, but this is likely to be the first in a rapidly falling set of dominoes when it comes to AM broadcasting in the UK - there are lots of little local transmitters running oldies music networks (mostly Smooth and Gold) to nobody and I can't see those lasting the rest of the year. The BBC have already made an announcement regarding their AM services, which just leaves the commercial sports station TalkSport.

 

[CentralFL]

A big exception regarding the BBC is Radio 5, which is only on AM as far as analog goes. Of course they are also on DAB and streaming.

 

[Mediafrog+]

A big exception regarding the BBC is Radio 5, which is only on AM as far as analog goes. Of course they are also on DAB and streaming.

The BBC has announced that Radio 5 will drop the AM transmissions in the next few years, but no specific date yet.

 

[Miss Tuned]

There is a very good blog post about the Absolute Radio AM closure from a former Absolute staffer here, setting out the reasons - and revealing that Absolute Radio intended to close its AM network several years ago but was persuaded not to with a steep discount from the transmission provider, and suggesting that alternative service providers may end up taking on the network:

https://www.adambowie.com/blog/2023/01/absolute-radio-and-the-end-of-am/

 

[louis_p]

https://www.adambowie.com/blog/2023/01/absolute-radio-and-the-end-of-am/

Thanks for posting this. Not to derail this thread, but I have a question about the energy expense of running an AM station that the article quoted:

Interesting fact from the DCMS' Ian O'Neill - AM radio accounts for around 2% of listening - but 35% of radio transmission's energy costs.

I have read comments on here that running an AM station is very expensive. Also, I recall that the CBC shut down their clear channel AM signal in New Brunswick based on the conclusion that it would be cheaper for them to operate a number of FM repeaters that would provide equivalent coverage.

However, I see comments on a Reddit board that AM is much cheaper to operate:

AM simply delivers the best bang-for-the-buck in terms of coverage area, especially at night. Remember FM, where 50,000 to 100,000 watts might cover one major city and its suburbs? With AM, you can use a tenth of the power. That really helps with the electric bill!

In my area, the signal from a 10,000 watt station at the low end of the AM band covers the equivalent area as a 50,000 watt FM station from the same transmitter site. Is the AM transmitter more power hungry?

Regarding Absolute, I could understand the decision to switch off AM due to the inferior sound quality of music on the band would be more of a concern for them than the electricity bill. However, in the case of CBC, talkSport, BBC Radio 5, and other spoken formats, this is less of an issue. Isn’t it more costly to run a network of FM transmitters than one single high-power AM transmitter? There’s the power consumption of each transmitter, but also the maintenance, repair, management overhead and other considerations.

 

[Mediafrog+]

In my area, the signal from a 10,000 watt station at the low end of the AM band covers the equivalent area as a 50,000 watt FM station from the same transmitter site. Is the AM transmitter more power hungry?

Keep in mind that FM power levels are expressed in Effective Radiated Power (ERP) which is a multiple of the actual transmitter power. This is due to gain from the antenna compressing the signal into the horizontal plane, so there is minimal wastage in the vertical directions.

AM power is usually expressed in actual transmitter output.

Regarding Absolute, I could understand the decision to switch off AM due to the inferior sound quality of music on the band would be more of a concern for them than the electricity bill. However, in the case of CBC, talkSport, BBC Radio 5, and other spoken formats, this is less of an issue.

Sound quality of AM isn’t the only consideration. AM still suffers from man-made electrical noise, plus there is the skywave issue at night.

Isn’t it more costly to run a network of FM transmitters than one single high-power AM transmitter? There’s the power consumption of each transmitter, but also the maintenance, repair, management overhead and other considerations.

AM facilities can be complicated, multi tower facilities using up a lot of land, where FM is a simpler arrangement where comparatively small antennas can be mounted on a shared tower (or building) along with other such transmitters.

It all pretty much boils down to the listening experience, and FM has the superior audio quality and reception characteristics. And power consumption differentials are often minor when compared to other operational expenses.

 

[davideduardo]

Thanks for posting this. Not to derail this thread, but I have a question about the energy expense of running an AM station that the article quoted:

I have read comments on here that running an AM station is very expensive. Also, I recall that the CBC shut down their clear channel AM signal in New Brunswick based on the conclusion that it would be cheaper for them to operate a number of FM repeaters that would provide equivalent coverage.

However, I see comments on a Reddit board that AM is much cheaper to operate:

In my area, the signal from a 10,000 watt station at the low end of the AM band covers the equivalent area as a 50,000 watt FM station from the same transmitter site. Is the AM transmitter more power hungry?

That Reddit post is full of false assumptions.

Most FMs use high gain antennas to broadcast. So to get 100 kw ERP, you can use a 20 kw transmitter and about 10 antenna bays (although larger markets don't always like so many bays and can afford a 40 kw transmitter).

FM transmitters are much more efficient than AM. Even with new technology, a 10 kw AM rig uses 40% to 50% more power than an FM of the same power.

So, an approximate evaluation shows that a 100 kw ERP FM uses a 20 kw transmitter that is about 90% or better efficient. A 50 kw AM uses a 50 kw transmitter that is about 65% to 70% efficient. The 100 kw FM uses about 22 to 23 kwh of energy, while the 50 kw AM uses around 70 kwh of energy

Or in your case, the local 10 kw AM uses about 16 kwh of energy, while the 50 kw ERP FM uses perhaps 7 to 8 kwh of energy, depending on the type of antenna used and its gain.

AM is horribly subject to noise today: computers, wallwarts, dimmers, many kinds of LED bulbs, etc. So the real 24/7 coverage of an AM station is more and more limited today.

Note: these are very approximate numbers. Different transmitters may be more or less efficient depending on age and design. And FM stations may use more or less power depending on how much they depend on multiple bays to achieve horizontal field gain.

 

[CTListener]

That Reddit post is full of false assumptions.

I've found that many Reddit posts contain nothing else.

 

[davideduardo]

I've found that many Reddit posts contain nothing else.

Generally, Reddit is one step beyond Wikipedia insofar as the frequency and degree of inaccuracy are concerned.

 

[ZantennaG1]

Thanks for posting this. Not to derail this thread, but I have a question about the energy expense of running an AM station that the article quoted:

I have read comments on here that running an AM station is very expensive. Also, I recall that the CBC shut down their clear channel AM signal in New Brunswick based on the conclusion that it would be cheaper for them to operate a number of FM repeaters that would provide equivalent coverage.

However, I see comments on a Reddit board that AM is much cheaper to operate:

In my area, the signal from a 10,000 watt station at the low end of the AM band covers the equivalent area as a 50,000 watt FM station from the same transmitter site. Is the AM transmitter more power hungry?

Regarding Absolute, I could understand the decision to switch off AM due to the inferior sound quality of music on the band would be more of a concern for them than the electricity bill. However, in the case of CBC, talkSport, BBC Radio 5, and other spoken formats, this is less of an issue. Isn’t it more costly to run a network of FM transmitters than one single high-power AM transmitter? There’s the power consumption of each transmitter, but also the maintenance, repair, management overhead and other considerations.

Keep in mind that FM power levels are expressed in Effective Radiated Power (ERP) which is a multiple of the actual transmitter power. This is due to gain from the antenna compressing the signal into the horizontal plane, so there is minimal wastage in the vertical directions.

AM power is usually expressed in actual transmitter output.

Sound quality of AM isn’t the only consideration. AM still suffers from man-made electrical noise, plus there is the skywave issue at night.

AM facilities can be complicated, multi tower facilities using up a lot of land, where FM is a simpler arrangement where comparatively small antennas can be mounted on a shared tower (or building) along with other such transmitters.

It all pretty much boils down to the listening experience, and FM has the superior audio quality and reception characteristics. And power consumption differentials are often minor when compared to other operational expenses.

That Reddit post is full of false assumptions.

Most FMs use high gain antennas to broadcast. So to get 100 kw ERP, you can use a 20 kw transmitter and about 10 antenna bays (although larger markets don't always like so many bays and can afford a 40 kw transmitter).

FM transmitters are much more efficient than AM. Even with new technology, a 10 kw AM rig uses 40% to 50% more power than an FM of the same power.

So, an approximate evaluation shows that a 100 kw ERP FM uses a 20 kw transmitter that is about 90% or better efficient. A 50 kw AM uses a 50 kw transmitter that is about 65% to 70% efficient. The 100 kw FM uses about 22 to 23 kwh of energy, while the 50 kw AM uses around 70 kwh of energy

Or in your case, the local 10 kw AM uses about 16 kwh of energy, while the 50 kw ERP FM uses perhaps 7 to 8 kwh of energy, depending on the type of antenna used and its gain.

AM is horribly subject to noise today: computers, wallwarts, dimmers, many kinds of LED bulbs, etc. So the real 24/7 coverage of an AM station is more and more limited today.

Note: these are very approximate numbers. Different transmitters may be more or less efficient depending on age and design. And FM stations may use more or less power depending on how much they depend on multiple bays to achieve horizontal field gain.

@louis_p The energy expenses are similar to, if not worse than FM for the majority of AM stations, so I concur with MediaFrog and David on that.

However, I agree that one can achieve very large distances using about 540-800 khz (assuming you have good ground conductivity, which the UK really does not). In the US, a station in the plains, like KXSP Omaha, or KFYR Bismark, or WNAX Yankton get the most coverage for their dollar. These 5kw stations (factoring in about 65% efficiency means they are really 7.7kw or higher) often achieve usable distances of 200-300 miles during the daytime. But overall noise level and turning everything into a concrete jungle is reducing that effective range. FM simply doesn't have that problem.

Even if you run several FM transmitters, trying to maintain one AM signal will likely outpace it, unless it is a low frequency signal.

One thing that is interesting to me is that AM offers 500-1000+ miles of nighttime coverage with no extra charge or equipment, and this "skywave" used to really rule the US, but we have internet for that now, and we don't even have to wait until nighttime. (I am one of the FEW who still actively listens to AM skywave at night)

FM does have better sound quality, but oftentimes I iust don't notice the difference. Your audience will be able to tell though, and they will find what you have to offer on another station that's easier on the ears. (For music, anyways). For talk stations, AM is nearly perfect for them, as voice does not need to be of the best quality to be recognizable, and coverage is a priority for them. But the internet will eventually supersede this as well.

I will say though, AM signals below 1100 khz, but especially below 800 khz are really good at road trips. Locally, I can tune to 560, 600, or 650, all below 8.5 kw, and I don't have to worry about reception for 150-300 miles (if I'm in a car).

 

[louis_p]

Wow! Thanks for those excellent explanations guys! I assumed that the devil was in the details, because major broadcasters wouldn’t turn in licenses and shutdown transmitters if those were assets that generated value.

I will say though, AM signals below 1100 khz, but especially below 800 khz are really good at road trips. Locally, I can tune to 560, 600, or 650, all below 8.5 kw, and I don't have to worry about reception for 150-300 miles (if I'm in a car).

I have the same experience with AM reception in my car. I can consistently receive stations hundreds of miles away once I’m outside of the downtown core. Man-made doesn’t affect my reception other than when I drive under power lines and that’s only for a half second.

I recall when I was traveling near the west coast of Vancouver Island at sunset, I could receive AM stations from places like Japan, Alaska, and Mexico as if they were local station. Almost, every frequency on the AM band had a strong signal on it. However, FM was a complete ghost town in that area.

 

[Kelly A]

@louis_p The energy expenses are similar to, if not worse than FM for the majority of AM stations, so I concur with MediaFrog and David on that.

However, I agree that one can achieve very large distances using about 540-800 khz (assuming you have good ground conductivity,

That's an assumption which isn't always the case. Many antenna ground systems have decayed over the years to the point where it's that much more ineffective to couple into marginal natural ground.

One thing that is interesting to me is that AM offers 500-1000+ miles of nighttime coverage with no extra charge or equipment, and this "skywave" used to really rule the US, but we have internet for that now, and we don't even have to wait until nighttime. (I am one of the FEW who still actively listens to AM skywave at night)

Given the increased/increasing levels of terrestrial noise, and the reduced number of AM listeners, it's becoming more likely that an AM signal is no longer, if ever noticed. Playing long distances using skywave does a station no good if nobody is listening for it.

FM does have better sound quality, but oftentimes I iust don't notice the difference.

When was the last time you had a hearing test?

I will say though, AM signals below 1100 khz, but especially below 800 khz are really good at road trips. Locally, I can tune to 560, 600, or 650, all below 8.5 kw, and I don't have to worry about reception for 150-300 miles (if I'm in a car).

And listen to: "Conservative" talk radio...