"HD Radio Goes the Way of the Laserdisc Player"

[RadeoEngineer]

It really all depends on how nice the Smith chart looks after a little tweaking on the matching unit. I don't know of anyone that gets a perfect horseshoe, but you don't have to be perfect for AM Stereo to sound pretty darn good.

 

[Savage]

Yes to all the informed comments about C-QUAM implementation. After all, recall that AM Stereo was conceived and developed by broadcast engineers of the 1970s, not farmed out to computer nerds as a matter of political expediency like IBOC was. They understood AM propagation, transmitters and antenna systems. AM Stereo was a system from radio people, for radio people, and was a sincere effort to better AM's fortunes as opposed to just a cynical attempt by big broadcasters to loot smaller rivals.

It's true: C-QUAM works with real-world systems - as opposed to IBOC which requires an unrealistic theoretical ideal. C-QUAM costs a fraction of what IBOC installs do. And even when it's working in less-than-ideal conditions, it provides a dramatic improvement over mono. None of these statements are true of HD-AM.

 

[arnoldevns]

Can we do anything to get AM stations to bring back AM stereo? Seems like this would be an improvement.

At this point, no. AM stereo was a great idea for AM music radio stations that were losing audience to FM stations in the late 70s and early 80s. Had it been implimented properly in the 80s it's very possible we would have seen a much slower ratings slide for AM than we did. As it was, it was done in a piecemeal way that never allowed it to take off properly. It wasn't until the late 80s that C-Quam became the actual standard. By then, there was little reason for radio manufacturers to put the technology in many receivers since most of the music had left the AM dial.

The problem is now a lot worse since the AM band is nearly dead.

 

[stacker]

The problem is now a lot worse since the AM band is nearly dead.

The "am problem" is the end result of a self-fulling prophesy created by the bean-counter mentality of group owners. Given time, we'll see a "lower power FM problem." (see my previous post)

AM stereo didn't go because some owners thought it reduced coverage. But that was because modulation peaks had to be controlled carefully on some systems. Not a problem now with digital processing. AM stereo also had trouble gaining traction due to the spurious litigation thrown up by Kahn. The Kahn system was great, by the way. C-Quam was later improved, and it was great also.

 

[arnoldevns]

AM stereo failed due to the 5 way fight for a standard that was created after the FCC recinded their adoption of Magnavox as the standard. Manufacturers didn't want to make radios with 5 stereo systems in them and were afraid of picking the wrong one system to go with. By the time it got to Motorola vs. kahn, it was a moot point since most music had fled AM.

 

[TheBigA]

The "am problem" is the end result of a self-fulling prophesy created by the bean-counter mentality of group owners.

I don't know about that. The only AM stations doing anything worthwhile in the larger markets are the stations owned by groups like CBS and Entercom. The rest of the dial is cluttered with a lot of crap. It'd be nice to have more small owners do some good quality programming that is competitive ratings-wise. But they all seem to be going after the quick and cheap bucks.

 

[SirRoxalot]

The "am problem" is the end result of a self-fulling prophesy created by the bean-counter mentality of group owners.

I don't know about that. The only AM stations doing anything worthwhile in the larger markets are the stations owned by groups like CBS and Entercom. The rest of the dial is cluttered with a lot of crap. It'd be nice to have more small owners do some good quality programming that is competitive ratings-wise. But they all seem to be going after the quick and cheap bucks.

Gee, could it be that CBS, Clear Channel, and Entercom bought up all the big signal AMs at inflated prices, stripped the news departments bare, and grabbed the best of the syndicated talkers to further reduce costs? The small owners are left with the scrap AMs that have reception problems and no legacy audience. Pretty hard to take on the big boys with that, and if you can, they'll drop spot rates enough to put you out of business. They can make up the difference on the other stations in the cluster. The small operators don't have that luxury.

 

[TheBigA]

Gee, could it be that CBS, Clear Channel, and Entercom bought up all the big signal AMs at inflated prices, stripped the news departments bare, and grabbed the best of the syndicated talkers to further reduce costs?

No. In fact the news departments at the CBS stations are just fine. That's why they're all doing great in the ratings, and are among the only AMs still attracting sellable audiences.

But aren't you the guy who says the public will seek out great programming from live & local staffs? So if that's true, then small owners should rush out and hire all the out of work former radio people they can find and put them on the air. The easy way to run a station is buy a huge signal, legacy audience, cut costs, and run the most popular syndication. Anyone could do that. It takes a real broadcaster to attract an audience with a smaller signal. So where are all the real broadcasters?

 

[diymedia]

Gee, could it be that CBS, Clear Channel, and Entercom bought up all the big signal AMs at inflated prices, stripped the news departments bare, and grabbed the best of the syndicated talkers to further reduce costs?

No. In fact the news departments at the CBS stations are just fine. That's why they're all doing great in the ratings, and are among the only AMs still attracting sellable audiences.

Tell that to the folks at WMAQ...oh, wait....

 

[SirRoxalot]

Name me a SINGLE legacy news-talker that has as strong a staff now as it had in 2001.

Small-time owners can't afford to hire the talent that's on the beach because those guys can't afford to work for minimum wage. Even that would be an increase in payroll for a lot of those small-time operators who have their stations either on the bird, or automated 24/7. They don't have deep enough pockets to pay people to establish an alternative to the big coporate stations in the market, and marketing dollars to get the word out are non-existent. A few of the operators who have targeted ethnic programming have actually done well in their target communities, but there's a dearth of ethnic talent these days in most of those formats.

 

[TheBigA]

Name me a SINGLE legacy news-talker that has as strong a staff now as it had in 2001.

You really have trouble dealing with change, don't you? Ten years and you expect everything to stay exactly the same. Are you exactly as strong as you were in 2001?

How do you assess the strength of a station and its staff? I look at ratings. I think if you look at the ratings in the major markets, where the big companies are, you'll see a lot of legacy AM stations still attracting big numbers, even though the majority of their competitors are on FM. Their staffs and listeners could qualify for Social Security benefits, but a lot of them are still there.

Small-time owners can't afford to hire the talent that's on the beach because those guys can't afford to work for minimum wage.

Excuses excuses excuses. Everyone wants to get paid big bucks. No one wants to take a chance and put their talent where their mouthes are. Work for a share of the profits. If you're as good as you once were, do what you did for a 25% share of the profits. Any owner would take that deal. Some would split 50/50. But talent wants a big salary with benefits. Who's the greedy one now?

 

[SirRoxalot]

You want to use 12+ ratings to determine a station's strength? Puh-lease. How about using the number of reporters on staff? Or anchors? Or minutes of local news stories? Radio news is a shadow of its former self.

So, you think that most small owners will go for profit sharing? Really? Does that mean that talent also sells, rakes the leaves, mows the tower field, and cleans the toilets to get their 25%? And does the outside promotion required to launch the show also come out of that 25%? Let me know if you can sell anybody on that concept.

 

[TheBigA]

You want to use 12+ ratings to determine a station's strength? Puh-lease. How about using the number of reporters on staff? Or anchors?

All inside baseball. Very important to people who work in radio, completely unimportant to listeners.

Minutes of local news = minutes I have to wait until I hear my favorite song. That's why news moved to its own station.

At the same time, back in the golden age of radio, there were very few all news radio stations. Now, practically every city has one, and in some you have several competing for ratings. And their staffs may be smaller than they once were, but they don't need as many people to report the news. Unless you want to preserve the job of the kid who used to tear the news copy off the AP machine and deliver it to the WGA writer. I'll never forget one newsroom I was in that still had such a kid, even though the wire machines had long been replaced by BASYS.

So, you think that most small owners will go for profit sharing? Really?

Make them an offer. Anything is better than what they have now, and they know it. They would rather split profits than give someone a salary and benefits. Because for the first year, the show won't make a dime, and he'll get an airshift for free. If the talent is actually any good, he might start making money. True story: One of the first businesses I started was pitching a service to my employer simply because he didn't want to take the risk. So I took the risk, did it for free, and then sold the service back to him for a profit.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Wow. So actual reporting and dissemination of news is "inside baseball", and news/talk stations are playing music. Really? What's next, "citizen journalists"? Gossip? Rumor?

And all of you who can afford to work for free, please raise your hands. Anyone? Buehler?

 

[TheBigA]

Wow. So actual reporting and dissemination of news is "inside baseball",

No. Counting the number of employees at a station, and connecting that number to quality. Lots of radio stations around the country doing reporting and disseminating news. Go to Boston, New York, Philadelphia, San Francisco. CBS just bought a radio station in DC and will become the third all news station there, hiring lots of reporters and journalists. There's a big world outside of Buffalo.

And all of you who can afford to work for free, please raise your hands. Anyone? Buehler?

How much do radio guys on the beach get paid? I know a lot of them, and the answer is nothing. Working for nothing beats doing nothing. And if there's the potential for making money attached, it definitely makes sense. But it's a risk, and most people in radio want someone else to take the risk. Not them. Then they complain all the time about the person taking the risk.

 

[SirRoxalot]

First of all, your grasp of "unemployment benefits" is non-existent. If you work, you lose benefits. It's that simple. If you can't find a job that pays more than unemployment, you end up even deeper in the hole. In fact, lose 1/4th of your benefits for every day worked if you find something part-time. If you start your own business, you pretty much give up unemployment and training benefits. So, the only guys with much of a chance to follow your "option" are those receiving severance. Not a lot of that going around, and many people still have non-competes in states that allow indentured servitude.

The number of people and quality of reporting are absolutely related. That's WHY CBS is "hiring lots of reporters and journalists".

About all any of this has to do with HD radio is the fact that a few companies have wasted MILLIONS of dollars on a failed technology. That money could have been put to much better use maintaining quality programming. Instead, talent was cut to pay for HD radio. Smart move there. Dilute your product, and reduce your quality. Who thinks this stuff up?

 

[TheBigA]

First of all, your grasp of "unemployment benefits" is non-existent. If you work, you lose benefits.

Once again, there are some on the beach who are in better shape than living hand to mouth. These are people who made 6 figures at one time, and if they didn't drink it all away or lose it in a divorce, they're not destitute. The reality is if they stay in the same market, they probably won't get hired again. So are they going to live on the public dole forever, or are they going to change their lives. The way I understand unemployment (and I've thankfully never been unemployed), those benefits will end at some point anyway. So they might as well start thinking about a way to get back to productive employment soon.

The number of people and quality of reporting are absolutely related. That's WHY CBS is "hiring lots of reporters and journalists".

No. This is where your lack of knowledge about DC is a disadvantage. The reason CBS is hiring reporters is because they have none right now. They are starting basically from zero. They have a DC news bureau for the network, but no local reporters. They also don't own a TV there, which also means they have no local reporters to draw on. This will be a very expensive project for them, as it will be for Radio One in Houston. So much for your theory about big radio not investing in content.

Instead, talent was cut to pay for HD radio.

I have no reason to believe any talent was cut to pay for HD radio. The cost of HD radio is a drop in the bucket. I think they cut talent to improve the sound of their stations. I think HD radio is done, and has been for five years. Everyone knows it except the folks at iBiquity and the FCC Media Bureau, who still can't understand why radio companies don't spend more on it.

 

[Carmine5]

Get the corporate suits to stop bashing AM and realize those properties' potential to make some money. I mean, come on, already. Half the population of radio stations out there is completely underutilized and represents nothing but expense. That's bad business. SOMETHING can be done with those signals to make money.

It just takes a little time and attention, and rethinking things. To not do so is myopic and stupid.

I know many 30+ adults who listen to Dave Ramsey, Dr. Laura, news and sports on AM. I believe younger audiences are more band agnostic then we give them credit for. If the station has the content they want--AM or FM--they will listen, especially if its free and easily accessible. And you don't get much freer or easier to get than radio.