How long will it be before AM radio fades away?

[Gatekeeper007]

One point about LPFM is that it is non comercial where AM is commercial which trust me gives it a better chance to survive in many ways. If LPFM had an option to go commercial when yes I would say your take on things would be correct, but then again if LPFM could go commercial then most would not be on life support but simply making a living.

 

[TheBigA]

but then again if LPFM could go commercial then most would not be on life support but simply making a living.

To go commercial, you need an audience, and none of these stations show up in the ratings.

 

[pstox]

It took me a while but I finally found the bookmark for an older blog post. The guy that wrote this was an engineer for AM radio, and even he suggested that a date be set for it's end, kind of like the transition to DTV. He maps out a plan for the end and even a potential use for the spectrum that will be made available.

http://rfblog.lbagroup.com/the-health-and-future-of-am-broadcasting/"]The Health and Future of AM Broadcasting?[/url]

 

[KeithE4]

It took me a while but I finally found the bookmark for an older blog post. The guy that wrote this was an engineer for AM radio, and even he suggested that a date be set for it's end, kind of like the transition to DTV. He maps out a plan for the end and even a potential use for the spectrum that will be made available.

http://rfblog.lbagroup.com/the-health-and-future-of-am-broadcasting/"]The Health and Future of AM Broadcasting?[/url]

The link was bad. Here is the page.

 

[Carmine5]

It took me a while but I finally found the bookmark for an older blog post. The guy that wrote this was an engineer for AM radio, and even he suggested that a date be set for it's end, kind of like the transition to DTV. He maps out a plan for the end and even a potential use for the spectrum that will be made available.

http://rfblog.lbagroup.com/the-health-and-future-of-am-broadcasting/"]The Health and Future of AM Broadcasting?[/url]

Interesting that the article should be featured by LBA which built its business on AM.

But in many markets, AM still pulls strong numbers with news/talk--for now. So a pertinent question would be, where is the next generation of talkers coming from? It's been said that Rush Limbaugh has done more to revitalize AM then anyone else. Great! It shows that the band can be revitalized with the right talent. But where is the next Limbaugh? And by that question I don't mean another angry, middle-aged white guy. We have enough.

I'm talking about talent the next generation trusts and can relate to. Sadly, radio seems to think they've captured young adults with Ryan Seacrest. But he's been out of fashion with them for years. The industry needs to give Ryan his golden watch and start scouting trends and grooming new broadcasters.

I believe young adults can be reached with AM. Even now, I know many who enjoy listening to Dave Ramsey for his money advice and will listen to him on AM. But I think it's past the time for radio to get off its flabby, complacent rear end and begin looking for fresh talent--especially so if more stations go talk as they've threatened to do should the PRA deal become reality.

 

[dismuke]

And oh how do I wish one of the multiple foreign language stations in the Chicago were part of a Radio Dismuke network.

No, I'm not 95 years old. Why does this format appeal so much to me? I'm not alone in wishing it were on RADIO, instead of just being a choice for streaming. Instead I have multiple choices of "lite", sports-yap, and a lot of the AM dial sounds
like I must be living in eastern Europe.......

.....
Streaming audio on a computer is a good thing, but it's not radio and never will be.

Tom -

Thank you for your very nice comments. Of course you are not 95 years old. I hear from listeners in their teens and 20s and, of course, other age ranges as well. Only very rarely do I hear from someone in their 90s who can remember the music during its heyday.

For those who were born long after the music stopped being played, it isn't "old music" is it NEW music - new to them. Today's fan base for such music listens to it with a fresh perspective - a perspective somewhat different than the original generation that listened to it and very different from the generation or two that came immediately afterward and dismissed it as "old fashioned" or "no longer cool."

As for the Internet verses AM or FM - sure, it would be cool for the music to have a 24 hour home on terrestrial radio. Rich Conaty has had a successful program for over 30 years playing the music on New York City stations - he's currently at WFUV-FM and you can listen to it online. But his program is only 4 hours a week. To my knowledge there is no station that plays such music as its primary format.

I am just very pleased that the Internet exists. I discovered this music when I was a kid via a weekly program on the local public radio station in Dallas - and not long afterwards, despite the show getting decent ratings and bringing in pledges, the station decided to eliminate their niche programs for a more consistent sound throughout every day of the week. Once that show was off the air, the music I loved was simply NOT available. I was a kid and didn't have much money to buy many 78 rpms of my own. My only source of the music was what few 78s I did have as well as cassette tape recordings I had made of the program when it was on the air which I played over and over again.

It is very difficult for a musical genre to find an appreciative audience if nobody knows it exists and to access it requires one to make an upfront investment in records.

Thanks to the Internet, the music I play and all sorts of other forgotten and/or under appreciated genres have a way of finding an audience.

And while it would be cool to have an AM/FM station, I don't know that I would even want that as my primary outlet. AM/FM signals are only local or, at best, regional. I regularly hear from listeners in Europe, Asia, Australia and New Zealand. You can't do that on AM/FM unless you are streaming as well.

The only thing I really wish I had that AM/FM could offer is the tune ins that one can pick up from someone spinning the dial surfing for content. A catchy song being played at just the right moment could "hook" someone in and allow them to discover the music - music they previously did not even know existed. That's the primary purpose of the station - to enable the music to find the audience I think it deserves. The biggest downside of the Internet is one pretty much has to intentionally tune in - it is much harder to simply stumble across it.

Best of luck to you Dismuke, and when "my ship comes in", I will be contacting you to become
an outlet for Radio Dismuke on the air.

Gee - thanks. That would be cool.

In the meanwhile, if there is anybody out there who wants to take a chance and bring such a format to the air - I would be willing to program it free of charge. But, realistically, I am not expecting to have a lot of knocks on my door.

 

[dismuke]

Your concept isn't new, it's currently barely breathing on life support in dwindling numbers known as LPFM. LPFM was established, among other things, to allow local communities their own local media voice. Many have gone silent, while those which remain, are generally funded by various nationwide religious broadcasters as translators of sorts, licensed with a local church acting as a 'strawman'.

AM radio is not only poor quality for various technical reasons, but in order to provide relevant coverage to a community, the most expensive to construct and operate. The point being; if LPFM isn't making it, AM wouldn't stand a chance.

I don't think that LPFM is an applicable comparison. First off, they are only supposed to go to non profits. Second, their coverage area is only a very few miles. That makes them pretty much worthless except for very small towns - towns which are probably not able to support a non profit. Go to an urban area and there are all sorts of "communities" which are not necessarily geographically compact.

As an example of what I was talking about - consider the Vietnamese immigrants in the Fort Worth/Dallas area. There is a pretty decent sized Vietnamese community in one of Fort Worth's suburbs. There is also a pretty decent sized community in one of the suburbs to the east of Dallas. They are both part of the same metropolitan area but those two communities are roughly 50 miles apart from each other. And there are several other smaller Vietnamese pockets in the miles between them as well as other Vietnamese individuals who do not necessarily live in neighborhoods with large numbers of other Vietnamese. According to Wikipedai, the two counties that Fort Worth and Dallas are in have approximately 40,000 Vietnamese between them.

Are you telling me that a community of 40,000 people cannot support an AM radio station? There are cities that size that actually support multiple stations.

Dallas County also has a very sizeable but geographically scattered population of immigrants from India.

My guess is that a Vietnamese station could be viable in this area if it was actually able to reach across the entire area. The problem currently is the fact that there still are more profitable uses for such a signal and thus acquiring one is probably out of reach for someone who wishes to make a go of serving the local Vietnamese market. But if AM becomes less viable for more mainstream formats and listeners, then it opens up a door for formats that are currently too marginal.

As for poor technical quality - that is relevant ONLY if a choice exists between an AM signal or an FM signal. Presumably FM will continue to be more healthy than AM with FM signals being more expensive and difficult to acquire. A piece of furniture for sale at Wal-mart is of much lower quality than a similar item for sale at a high end furniture store. But the two don't really compete much with each other simply because the higher quality stuff is probably out of the financial reach of most of the Wal-mart buyers.

Vietnamese and other niche audiences might prefer to listen to the same content on FM rather than AM - but if they find the content compelling and it is only available on AM, then they will tune. Plus, most people aren't as attuned to such quality issues as are the people on boards such as this. Look at how popular mp3 has become - and it is often played back through ipods and cheap headsets or speakers. The quality is indisputably lower than a CD or even an LP with a good quality playback system. But the fact is that the average user is NOT an audiophile and there are other considerations that end up trumping quality issues - in this case, portability and downloadability.

Now, the story might indeed be different in markets where there are FM stations that are struggling and in danger of going dark. In that case, those newer, currently marginal uses might choose FM over AM. But here in Fort Worth/Dallas, there is zero room on the dial for additional stations - your only chance of getting one is to buy an existing signal at market prices or try to move a station elsewhere closer as a rim shot that will not be capable of covering the entire market. I can see existing AM formats either moving to FM down the road or throwing in the towel. But I have a hard time believing that a metropolitan area with a population of 6.5 million somehow lacks enough niche communities to keep the market's existing AM frequencies in use.

 

[KeithE4]

As an example of what I was talking about - consider the Vietnamese immigrants in the Fort Worth/Dallas area. There is a pretty decent sized Vietnamese community in one of Fort Worth's suburbs. There is also a pretty decent sized community in one of the suburbs to the east of Dallas. They are both part of the same metropolitan area but those two communities are roughly 50 miles apart from each other. And there are several other smaller Vietnamese pockets in the miles between them as well as other Vietnamese individuals who do not necessarily live in neighborhoods with large numbers of other Vietnamese. According to Wikipedai, the two counties that Fort Worth and Dallas are in have approximately 40,000 Vietnamese between them.

Are you telling me that a community of 40,000 people cannot support an AM radio station? There are cities that size that actually support multiple stations.

Dallas County also has a very sizeable but geographically scattered population of immigrants from India.

My guess is that a Vietnamese station could be viable in this area if it was actually able to reach across the entire area. The problem currently is the fact that there still are more profitable uses for such a signal and thus acquiring one is probably out of reach for someone who wishes to make a go of serving the local Vietnamese market. But if AM becomes less viable for more mainstream formats and listeners, then it opens up a door for formats that are currently too marginal.

Since you're talking about communities that are 50 miles apart, it would either require one full-market AM (which would have to run at least 10 kW fulltime, if not 50 kW), or two lower-powered stations - one in each town - doing a simulcast. With a potential audience of 40,000 (probably much less in reality), the former is a non-starter and even two 1000-watt graveyard stations might not be financially successful with that small an audience.

If the Indian community is concentrated in one area, one medium-powered station would work.

...But the fact is that the average user is NOT an audiophile and there are other considerations that end up trumping quality issues - in this case, portability and downloadability.

As I have said in several other threads, an AM antenna in a modern portable device is physically impossible. The MP3 players, iPhones/Droids, and the like are too thin to hold a workable AM loopstick.

But I have a hard time believing that a metropolitan area with a population of 6.5 million somehow lacks enough niche communities to keep the market's existing AM frequencies in use.

A viable AM station has to be noise-free throughout the entire market, which in the case of the largest (geographically as well as population) markets, means at least a 50-75 mile radius of absolutely clear reception, day and night. Only a 50 kW station (WBAP and KRLD), or maybe a 5 to 10 kW-er at the low end of the dial like KLIF, can do this.

I don't think AM will be killed as a broadcast service, because few services other than broadcasters and hams have a practical use for anything below 2 MHz (actually, 88 MHz in reality) anymore, with only a few exceptions on shortwave such as aircraft/marine backup systems and the military. It has to be analog (AM or SSB) since complex digital modulation techniques have been proven unworkable at these frequencies (read: IBOC). But in order to make the band even close to viable again, some things have to be done:

1. Go back to the original (1923) AM band plan, where the low end of the dial was for high-powered stations only, while the upper end was for low-powered ones. Since this is 2010, not 1923, some modifications would be necessary. I would suggest that it be split up three ways:

1a. 540 to 1220 kHz for 10-50 kW blowtorches. Not all frequencies would be available of course, due to the agreements with Canada and Mexico. If you can't run at least 10 kW, you can't be here full time (But see item #3 below). Protection would be out to 500 miles days and 1000 miles nights. Yes, there would be some interference between, for example, WABC and KKOB on 770 in the midwest. That wouldn't affect the prime coverage areas in either NYC or Albuquerque. With this scheme, there could be up to 4 stations per frequency in the lower 48, depending on the frequency and locations. With a few exceptions, these frequencies would be available only in major markets.

1b. 1230 to 1490 for graveyard stations. That means 1 kW max, with a minimum power of 10 watts.

1c. 1500-1700 for mid-powered stations that would want skywave coverage for some reason (non-comms that wouldn't have to worry about advertisers' complaints about out-of-market listeners, for example). Say 10 kW days and 5 kW nights.

2. Get rid of directional antennas, other than those needed to prevent interference with co-channel Canadian and Mexican stations, or to keep the signal out of the oceans.

3. Low-powered daytimers (1 kW max) would be allowed on 540-1220, but only in certain cases. They would receive no protection outside of a 50 mile radius.

4. Require the station's audio to go to 10 kHz. Still not as good as FM, but better than it is now.

5. Get rid of IBOC on the AM band. It doesn't work. Period. Shut it down.

Any station that doesn't fit into this band plan would have to move to FM or go off the air. The AM band can only hold probably 2000 stations max. And, yes, I do believe that some of the larger AMs can be viable, but more of them cannot be. And the "graveyard band" that I suggest would be perfect for niche broadcasters, LPAMs, small towns, and the like. Shoehorning 50 kW upgrades with 9-12 towers into these frequencies is ridiculous (see: Detroit).

 

[TVradioguru]

I don't think that LPFM is an applicable comparison. First off, they are only supposed to go to non profits. Second, their coverage area is only a very few miles. That makes them pretty much worthless except for very small towns - towns which are probably not able to support a non profit. Go to an urban area and there are all sorts of "communities" which are not necessarily geographically compact.

Have you ever had to write checks paying the freight on an AM station? Recently? If an LPFM can't survive doing community radio with targeted donations, how do you propose one could sell advertising to the locals for something that would cost 50X of a LPFM? With all due respect, your analogy doesn't hold water in reality. Tell you what..go out and buy a 5,000 watt AM station with a directional antenna setup and try to operate it one year with unique, locally derived programming and get back to us with the results. In fact, I'd like to review your books before you go through chapter seven.

As for poor technical quality - that is relevant ONLY if a choice exists between an AM signal or an FM signal. Presumably FM will continue to be more healthy than AM with FM signals being more expensive and difficult to acquire. A piece of furniture for sale at Wal-mart is of much lower quality than a similar item for sale at a high end furniture store. But the two don't really compete much with each other simply because the higher quality stuff is probably out of the financial reach of most of the Wal-mart buyers.

One doesn't have to be an audiophile. Anyone with a set of ears can tell the difference between FM and AM to know immediately that AM sounds inferior. I've seen hundreds of focus groups over the years who right out of the gate, site the main dislike was poor audio quality and noise of AM. Inferior products whether furniture or media choices are obvious to anyone. Sure there are some who tolerate the inferior product to get instant gratification, but given the choice at no additional cost, one will always choose the higher quality product, whether that's an IPod, CD or FM radio.

 

[TheBigA]

The AM band can only hold probably 2000 stations max. And, yes, I do believe that some of the larger AMs can be viable, but more of them cannot be.

I agree with most of your 5 points to making AM viable. And I also am pretty sure that the FCC does not.

I also agree that there's little other use for the AM band besides broadcasting. But the FCC is distracted by what it sees as bigger issues. Hardly anyone there has any history or attachment to AM, so what happens is mostly inconsequential to them.

Doing the right thing for AM Radio would require the FCC to make decisions that would mainly favor big radio corporations, as they are the ones who own most of the viable frequencies. While they're not helping the smaller, non-corporate companies by maintaining the status quo, they would basically force them out of business. In order to be fair, they would have to place further restrictions on AM ownership than exist on FM. That isn't the way to encourage investment. So the FCC puts the ignore filter on, and hopes the problem goes away. That's what we've seen for the latest 10 years. I have no reason to expect any change in the next ten years regardless of who occupies the White House.

 

[Tom Wells]

I'm really tired of hearing that focus groups say AM sounds bad without revealing the fact that
they were probably using miserable receivers to throw the results off.

No matter how good the audio is at the station, or how good it is in reception area, if one chooses to listen on
a radio with intentionally hobbled performance, the deck is stacked and the results flawed.

With FM, the resulting audio demodulated is far less a matter of the design of the particular receiver.

Why not throw a few blankets over the speakers being used for the FM sound reproduction to make things
truly comparable?

Otherwise stop trotting out this tired old lie. That's what it is. A big lie.

 

[TheBigA]

The problem for most such people has always been that the very high cost of buying the frequency pretty much limited one's formatting options if one had any hope of earning enough money to pay the cost of acquisition. But to the degree the medium loses popularity, the value of the licenses will continue to fall placing the stations within reach of people who previously could not afford them and more niche oriented uses that were not previously economical.

I've heard that said a lot in terms of both AM and FM. We're at a point right now where you can buy an AM station for less money than a house. And there are hundreds of AMs on the market. So the price of purchase isn't the issue. AM unfortunately is the most expensive system to operate, interms of basic cost.

A few weeks ago, Clear Channel donated a number of their AM stations to minority groups. I expect more AM donations in the next few years. The recipients will get licenses for free, but that's not the end of the story.

I have often said here that I was once part of a group that got a non-commercial FM license for free, but quickly went a half million in debt because of the operating costs. This was even after government grants paid for brand new equipment. Most people underestimate the cost of running a licensed radio station. Technical and legal costs alone are staggering. The physical plant, the electrical bills, the insurance, yes the insurance is huge, and then all those pesky filings that need to be done almost continually. Then add personnel. Then the heat goes out in February. It's a lot of money. And we had an FM station. AM costs are far higher. I have never slept as well as when I left that station that was supposed to be free.

 

[dismuke]

I don't think that LPFM is an applicable comparison. First off, they are only supposed to go to non profits. Second, their coverage area is only a very few miles. That makes them pretty much worthless except for very small towns - towns which are probably not able to support a non profit. Go to an urban area and there are all sorts of "communities" which are not necessarily geographically compact.

Have you ever had to write checks paying the freight on an AM station? Recently? If an LPFM can't survive doing community radio with targeted donations, how do you propose one could sell advertising to the locals for something that would cost 50X of a LPFM? With all due respect, your analogy doesn't hold water in reality. Tell you what..go out and buy a 5,000 watt AM station with a directional antenna setup and try to operate it one year with unique, locally derived programming and get back to us with the results. In fact, I'd like to review your books before you go through chapter seven.

Gee whiz. Why the hostile tone? What have I ever done to you?

No, I have not written checks to pay the freight on an AM station.

Number two - where on earth did I say that the programing had to be unique and locally derived? Perhaps it is a good idea to read more carefully before going off on someone. There is no reason what I suggested has to be local programing. The example I gave of potentially broadcasting to a Vietnamese immigrant audience does not, in any way, preclude the possibility of most or all of the programing coming from a satellite feed to a network of similar stations in cities with very large Vietnamese populations.

Number three - exactly how is it, then, that 5,000 watt AM stations have managed to survive over the years in small towns?

Salina Kansas has a population of 45,000 - just a tad bit larger than the 40,000 Fort Worth/Dallas area Vietnamese population I gave in my example. Salina Kansas manages to support three AM stations, KFRM, KSAL and KINA. KFRM and KSAL are both 5,000 watt stations. KINA is a 500 watt station - and if you look at that station's coverage map, similar coverage, even at only 500 watts, would be more than ample to cover the geographical area I mentioned in my example.

How is it that a 45,000 population can support three AM stations - all three of which are talkers, by the way? What percentage of that 45,000 population is even interested in talk radio? Whatever that percentage is, it is split three ways. And yet, somehow, three stations serving that audience is viable - while a station with a monopoly on Vietnamese language programing in a market with 40,000 Vietnamese speaking people is not viable? That simply does not follow or make sense. But, of course, if your objective is to pick a fight, making sense is not necessarily the determining factor, is it?

Furthermore, Great Bend, Kansas, with a population of 15,000, manages to support 5,000 watt AM talker, KVGB, which even produces a certain amount of local programing. So a small town of 15,000 can support a 5,000 watt station - but an ethnic community of 40,000 cannot?

Beloit, Kansas, with a population of 4,000 manages to support the 2,300 watt KVSV AM - and with a daytime coverage area more than adequate to serve the Fort Worth/Dallas Vietnamese example I gave.

Pratt, Kansas, population 6,500, supports 5,000 watt oldies station KMMM-AM. How is it that a 5,000 watt station can serve a small town of 6,500 but not an urban community of 40,000?

I could go on with many more examples - but I have more than made my point. Perhaps I ought to contact the individuals at the above mentioned stations who "write checks paying the freight" and invite them to join us here to educate you. Obviously they know something that you don't.

As for poor technical quality - that is relevant ONLY if a choice exists between an AM signal or an FM signal. Presumably FM will continue to be more healthy than AM with FM signals being more expensive and difficult to acquire. A piece of furniture for sale at Wal-mart is of much lower quality than a similar item for sale at a high end furniture store. But the two don't really compete much with each other simply because the higher quality stuff is probably out of the financial reach of most of the Wal-mart buyers.

One doesn't have to be an audiophile. Anyone with a set of ears can tell the difference between FM and AM to know immediately that AM sounds inferior. I've seen hundreds of focus groups over the years who right out of the gate, site the main dislike was poor audio quality and noise of AM. Inferior products whether furniture or media choices are obvious to anyone. Sure there are some who tolerate the inferior product to get instant gratification, but given the choice at no additional cost, one will always choose the higher quality product, whether that's an IPod, CD or FM radio.

A total straw man argument. I never suggested that people could not tell the difference between FM and AM quality. And if one bothers to take the time to actually read the portion of my posting that you quoted, it is very clear I was not talking about a context where there is an equal choice between an AM and FM frequency.

Obviously, if given a choice, people would prefer an FM signal to an AM signal, especially for any sort of musical programing. But as long as the FM dial remains comparatively healthy, that choice will not exist for the more marginal programing formats which will be relegated to either AM or the Internet. Fans of Air America style programing, Desi Top 40 Hits, Spanish Language Sports Talk, All Allah All Day, Quack Nutritional Products Radio, The Gay Pride Super Station, Celebrity Gossip Talk Radio, etc. type formats would no doubt prefer to hear such programing on the FM dial. But if more popular formats are still doing well on FM, then those audiences will probably be grateful that it exists on AM despite the lower quality verses it not being available at all or having to access an Internet connection.

If you are a fan of niche programing, you pretty much take it for granted that you are not going to find it on the best frequencies or in highly desirable time slots. I would prefer to hear the music I enjoy on FM - using the data plan on my smart phone to access Internet stations when I drive is a hassle and cell signals tend to drop out. But what I prefer is irrelevant - nobody on FM, or even AM for that matter, is going to provide such programing. So my choice is to use the Internet or don't listen to such programing.

There are all sorts of niches out there that are simply NOT being served by terrestrial radio because it is obviously more profitable to serve a wider audience. And even if an affluent person wished to run a niche station as a labor or love or a hobby and just break even it is rarely viable because the cost of acquiring the signal is going to be based on the revenue it will potentially generate if properly programed to serve the widest possible audience. What is happening with AM radio is its existing audiences are either dying off or seeing their stations transition to FM. As that trend continues, the value of AM properties is going to decline accordingly - which means the cost of acquiring a signal is going to decline. And that will open doors to formats and programming ideas that previously were not viable.

The biggest threat to AM is not the success of FM. To the degree FM does well, it will be comparatively expensive and difficult to find or acquire a frequency in a healthy urban market - and that will force the more marginal programing to the AM dial or the Internet. The Internet, is, of course, ideal for niche programing. For example, it is viable to program 1920s and 1930s music on the Internet - it makes no sense to try it on AM and certainly not FM. But, on the other hand, at present, it would be extremely expensive to stream Vietnamese language programing to several thousand Fort Worth/Dallas area listeners - not to mention being inconvenient to many listeners. So long as there exists potentially viable local audiences that are too large for Internet streaming but not large enough to justify a slot on the FM dial, there will be a demand for AM signals.

On the other hand, to the degree that demand for the available FM signals in a given market is weak, the more marginal types of programing will have a better shot at acquiring an FM signal and, in that particular market, AM might very well die out. But so long as terrestrial radio has certain advantages over Internet radio, my guess is that in healthy, growing and vibrant population centers such as Fort Worth/Dallas, there will be be no shortage of demand for FM signals - which means that more marginal programing will continue to spill over on AM.

At any rate, nothing I wrote is so controversial or offensive that it justifies your going off on me like that. I don't know what the source of your hostility is or if you were having a bad day or merely have inadvertently poor manners - but whatever it is, please get over it.

 

[dismuke]

I've heard that said a lot in terms of both AM and FM. We're at a point right now where you can buy an AM station for less money than a house. And there are hundreds of AMs on the market. So the price of purchase isn't the issue.

But isn't this something that is largely dependent upon which market and region of the country one is in?

There have always been parts of the country where there are more empty spots on the radio dial than there is a demand for stations to fill them. Obviously in some parts of the country, there needs to be an adjustment to make the number of active stations more appropriate to the demand - and, sure, there are reasons why AM frequencies might be at a disadvantage.

On the other hand, here in Fort Worth/Dallas, there simply aren't any available spots on the dial. For example, those mini FM transmitters people use to broadcast their ipods to their FM radios are pretty much worthless here for someone like me who commutes 35 miles each way to work. The single frequency that I can use on the device at my house ends up becoming unusable about 10 miles into my commute forcing me to find a different frequency. After a couple of such devices, I gave up on the things.

I just flat don't see any of the AM frequencies here in Fort Worth/Dallas going dark anytime soon. There always seems to be a demand for more Spanish language programing in this area. And, as I mentioned in my previous posting, there are also large concentrations of other ethnic groups that are still new enough to this country that their native language and traditions are still part of their daily lives and culture. And, here in Texas, there is no end to people who wish to promote a religious message of some sort.

But I don't doubt that things might be very different in other markets.

AM unfortunately is the most expensive system to operate, interms of basic cost.

If you have the time, I would be interested in briefly knowing why that is the case and just how much more expensive it is.

I will say this much on the subject: sometimes higher costs are simply a part of the territory when you are at the low end of the food chain. For example, lower income automobile owners typically have higher car repair expenses because, unlike more affluent people, they are unable to afford to buy a newer vehicle that is not likely to need much in the way of repairs. And people who live in poor neighborhoods and live paycheck to paycheck end up paying more for things such as laundry detergent because they buy the smallest sized box possible at inner city stores which tend to have higher prices. People who are more affluent often get the same detergent at a much lower per unit cost by buying a super economy sized box at a Costco or Sam's Club out in the suburbs.

Most people underestimate the cost of running a licensed radio station. Technical and legal costs alone are staggering. The physical plant, the electrical bills, the insurance, yes the insurance is huge, and then all those pesky filings that need to be done almost continually. Then add personnel. Then the heat goes out in February. It's a lot of money.

I don't doubt any of that for a moment. On the other hand - isn't what you describe true for someone going into much any sort of business?

On a related note - in my RSS reader I have subscribed to David Oxenford's Broadcast Law Blog, primarily because he does provide coverage of issues that Internet station operators such as myself need to know about. But much of what he writes about pertains to terrestrial radio. And when I read of the utterly insane hoops that stations owners have to jump through - the EEOC stuff, the public file nonsense, the need to have a staff present at the studio during business hours even if the station is automated and who knows what other hassles - and the fines that are levied for those who stray, I regard it as a blessing that I have never had the money to have been tempted to fulfill a childhood dream of actually owning my own terrestrial station. To have that sort of nonsense to deal with on top of the already difficult challenge of running a business - well, let's just say that I am very glad to be on the Internet instead.

 

[dismuke]

I'm really tired of hearing that focus groups say AM sounds bad without revealing the fact that
they were probably using miserable receivers to throw the results off.

No matter how good the audio is at the station, or how good it is in reception area, if one chooses to listen on
a radio with intentionally hobbled performance, the deck is stacked and the results flawed.

With FM, the resulting audio demodulated is far less a matter of the design of the particular receiver.

Why not throw a few blankets over the speakers being used for the FM sound reproduction to make things
truly comparable?

Otherwise stop trotting out this tired old lie. That's what it is. A big lie.

And there is another factor when it comes to audio quality - after enough listening, our ears tend to adjust to a lower quality of audio and tune it out.

A very good example of this is early acoustic recordings. One of the most significant milestones in the development of recorded sound was the advent of electrical recording in 1925 - recordings made by using microphones rather than acoustical recording horns.

Compared with electrical recordings, acoustic recordings sound horrible. A few instruments such as the banjo or marimba sound ok - but pretty much everything else sounds like it is being played into a bucket.

But, of course, if you are fond of artists or musical genres that were recorded prior to 1925, you have no choice but to listen to acoustic recordings if you wish to access the material.

I know a lot of vintage record collectors whose collecting interests start at 1925 simply because they cannot deal with acoustic recordings. And, very often, recordings from that earlier period are considered to be less collectible for that reason.

But my experience is that acoustic recordings are jarring only if you are not used to them or you are mixing them in with a stack of electrically made recordings to play. After you listen to a few acoustic recordings, your ears adjust and your brain tunes it out - and then it becomes possible to not only appreciate but also to enjoy recordings from the acoustic era.

The same is also true when listening to even electrically recorded 78 rpms that have condition issues. Sometimes the only copy you can find of a recording you really want to own is not in the best of condition. If you are new to 78 rpms, surface noise and other imperfections can be a potential distraction or turn off. But once you get used to it, you don't notice it. It becomes "white noise" in the same way that I tune out and am usually not aware of the noise my air conditioner makes when it runs.

Back in the '80s, I was a huge fan of a weekend overnight program on KOA Denver called The National Recovery Act. It was a call in program that made use of that station's 50,000 watt signal which could be picked up in 38 plus states. The theme of that program was people's memories. Night owls from all over would call in and share memories - some of them dating back to the very early 1900s. I recall listening to one lady describe seeing her first airplane just a few years after the Wright Brothers first flight. And, for me the treat was that the host would play 78 rpms - the really cool kind from the late '20s and early '30s that I simply could not hear on Dallas area stations and did not have nearly enough of in my then small collection. That program was WONDERFUL - and I basically stayed up all Saturday night to hear it.

The problem is, of course, I picked the program up by drift. Even on the best of nights, the signal was noisy with bleed over from other stations audible in the background. Sometimes it would disappear altogether for many minutes at a time. And if there were storms in the area, it was tough to listen.

Yes, I could have listened to programming that I was either indifferent to or disgusted by on crystal clear signals provided by local stations. But that would have been of zero value to me. The programing I wanted to hear was available to me only on a noisy drift from a faraway station. Up to a certain point, I just tuned that noise out. Would I have put up with that hassle if the same programing could be found on an interference free local signal? Of course not. But it was not available locally - so I had to put up with the interference. To have pointed out to me that a local FM signal had better sound quality would have been besides the point.

Sometimes we don't have the option to be picky when it comes to hearing and getting the things we want. If you wish to enjoy early ragtime or listen to an artist such as Caruso - you don't have the luxury to turn your nose up at the primitive recording technology of the time. It just comes with the territory. And in the pre Internet 1980s, if someone like me wanted to hear 78 rpms that he had never heard before - well, if it meant having to listen past the interference to a far away station, that was part of the territory and the price one had to pay.

 

[Tom Wells]

Long before I discovered Radio Dismuke while on a work trip to Japan, I used to listen to the Big Broadcast on WQEW 1560
and enjoyed every minute despite any fading. Back in the early 70's I enjoyed The Bob Williams Big Band Broadcast on WHO 1040 Des Moines, WITHOUT fading, and songs I airchecked from that are running TODAY on my pt 15 AM, 30 years later.

It's true that the advent of electrical recording made everything different.
That said, you mention Enrico Caruso, and my Caruso 78s still bring chills when I listen to them despite the acoustic recordings.

I've always wondered why they never figured out how to make an entire ROOM funnel down as a horn into the cutting stylus,
thereby capturing ALL the bass notes that "got missed" beause they couldn't load into the system.
Acoustic recording could have been almost as good as electrical, if they'd tried it.

 

[dismuke]

It's true that the advent of electrical recording made everything different.
That said, you mention Enrico Caruso, and my Caruso 78s still bring chills when I listen to them despite the acoustic recordings.

Years ago I ran across a collector who used to make presentations of vintage records for school children. He was very fond of acoustic recordings. His way of describing why was to point out that, when you play a Caruso recording on an old wind up phonograph, the loud and impressive sound you hear is produced by nothing but little indentations in the record's grooves that were created 90 to 100 years ago by the sheer wind power of Caruso's lungs and vocal chords. In that respect, he considered acoustic recordings to be a more "natural" representation. Electrical recordings may be a more realistic representation but it was achieved by what he considered to be "artificial" processing.

I don't personally buy into that "natural" verses "artificial" bit. Electric recording is not, somehow, less "natural" - it simply uses intermediary steps to create the indentations in the grooves and in a far more effective manner with better results. But I think his wider point about the direct, physical connection between a performer and a listener who are 100 years apart from each other was an interesting perspective. And if you stop and think about it, it is pretty remarkable and amazing that we are able to listen in on what people long since gone were doing in a room 110 years ago.

Nevertheless, I include very few acoustic recordings in Radio Dismuke - and at one time refused to include them at all. I consider them way too geeky for newbie listeners who are discovering vintage popular music for the first time. I have, since, added just a very few to give people a representative sample - and most of those have very hot jazz solos or an overall sound quality that I don't think would be too inaccessible to a listener new to the station and music it presents. Some of the acoustics I present are from Columbia's late '20s bargain labels. Before Columbia converted to electrical recording, the company made a major upgrade to their acoustic recording facilities. So rather than scrap that equipment, when the flagship Columbia label went electric, the bargain priced Harmony, Diva and Velvet Tone labels were created and continued to make acoustic recordings all the way up to 1930. It allowed Columbia to make use of the existing, upgraded acoustical equipment and, on those records, Columbia did not have to pay a royalty to Western Electric for the electrical recording patents. Those bargain labels included a lot of really great hot jazz recordings, sometimes featuring significant artists such as Fletcher Henderson and even some Louis Armstrong solos. Those records annoy the heck out of me because the performance did not HAVE to be degraded - if they had just gone down the hall to a different studio, we could today enjoy a beautiful, crisp electrical performance.

Quality is a relative term. It assumes the question - quality, by what standard?. Obviously when you and I talk about the great quality of electrical recording of the late '20s and early '30s, it is from a context and a standard that is quite different than the one that a music fan today holds. To tie this back in with AM radio, vintage oriented formats such as a big band station or a 1950s doo wop station are perfectly suited for and actually sound great on AM. And AM is certainly fine for talk programing as well - listeners don't tune in to a Limbaugh or a Hannity in order to appreciate the finer, subtle nuances of their vocal tonality. The problem with AM for talk format stations is not the lack of audio quality but rather the reduced visibility of that band for audiences under a certain age which makes it less likely that they will stumble across the station and tune in while surfing the dial. And, of course, it can be difficult to pick up AM signals within certain structures - and that is not insignificant.

I've always wondered why they never figured out how to make an entire ROOM funnel down as a horn into the cutting stylus,
thereby capturing ALL the bass notes that "got missed" beause they couldn't load into the system.
Acoustic recording could have been almost as good as electrical, if they'd tried it.

It is interesting to speculate how far acoustic recording could have been developed had it not been for the advent microphones and the electrical recording process. Obviously, when those came along, all efforts to improve the acoustic process came to a complete stop.

The very best and most advanced acoustic recording is that which is found on the old Edision Diamond Discs - those quarter inch thick records that weighed a full pound and,which, for the longest time, did not have a paper label. They used the same hill and dale style grooves that the early cylinders did and have to be played back on either an Edison machine or properly adjusted modern equipment - playing them with the steel needles of a conventional windup will destroy the record. The sound quality of those Diamond Discs is impressive and far more realistic than the more popular Victor or Columbia records of the day.

Edison was a technology geek and his main focus was on the technical quality of his product - verses Victor and Columbia which were far more focused on providing audiences with whatever popular content they wanted to hear. Edison's geekiness ultimately undermined its business success. For years every record issued by the company had to be personally auditioned and approved by Thomas Edison himself - and this was a guy who was so deaf that he could hear records only by biting into the cabinet of the phonograph and whose musical tastes were stuck in the 19th century and who hated the ragtime and jazz music that was popular with young people.

But when it came to technological and audio quality, until electrical recording came along, nobody else even came close to Edison. Here is an example that some collector has uploaded to YouTube of a Diamond Disc being played back on an Edision machine:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuvZ6rLiGMQ

Pretty remarkable sound quality for an acoustic recording, don't you agree? And, of course, it would sound even better if you were in the same room and not listening to a YouTube clip.

And that brings me back to my point about quality not being the only issue. The audio on that Diamond Disc might not be up to today's standards - but that does not mean that it is impossible for modern listeners to appreciate and enjoy its performance. All things being equal, then yes, quality will always win out. But all things are not always equal. All of us make trade offs in quality all the time - we do so anytime we shop for a house, a car, clothing and when we dine out. Nobody criticizes McDonalds because its hamburger is not of the same quality as the meat served at a high end steakhouse. And if the content you really wish to hear cannot be found anyplace other than the AM dial, the limitations of that band will probably not stop you from tuning into it. And as long as there are more people who wish to be on the air in a given market than there are available slots on the FM dial, then my guess is there will continue to be demand for AM frequencies in that market. Obviously, if the health of terrestrial radio as a whole declines significantly than AM stations are far more vulnerable.

 

[Lee Rust]

Digital radio systems do let you hear a lot more audio information than the old analog systems could, especially night-time AM skywave, but hearing the radio is not the same thing as listening to it.

I learned a lot about jazz music from Harry Abraham's 'Best Of All Possible Worlds', broadcast overnight on WHAM during the early to mid 1970's. One night in January 1977, while I was living in Richmond, VA, I recorded the first three hours of Harry's show, perhaps because I couldn't stay up late and wanted to listen at some other time. The next day I put the tape away without giving it another thought, and "some other time" turned out to be three decades later.

When I finally did play back the tape just a few years ago, I found that about one-third of the three-hour recording was completely unlistenable, at least by modern standards. There were many minutes of random static with only faint hints of music in the background. At other times the jazz was almost completely obscured by the pulsing crunch of WWVA's Country & Western backbeat or the splattering sibilants of the WOWO disc jockeys. Harry's voice would suddenly fade just as he was revealing the name of an interesting tune, only to reappear a few frustrating seconds later, engaged in a completely new topic. Of course, the program often sounded just as loud and clear as it would if I were listening from suburban Rochester, .

Living here and now in the digital age, my modern-day self found this recording to be an interesting audio artifact. Why didn't I remember all that noise and disruption? The things we put up with back in the day! Why and how did we do it?

Of course, we did it because we didn't have any choice. I wasn't going to hear jazz on any other station at that time and place during the 1970's, so I had to put up with crosstalk and fading. Now we have lots of choices for hearing clear and clean digital music of any genre at any time and almost any place, either through digital media or over analog FM.

So, why do I remember the music from Harry's show so vividly? Why do I recall his languid background music and casual presentation so clearly? Why didn't I remember the gaps and interference? Sure, I was much younger then and had a newfound enthusiasm for jazz music, but there's more to it than that. I believe it was a matter of how closely I was listening. I wasn't just hearing some music on the radio. I was fully engaged in the experience, filling in the gaps with my imagination, filtering out the Country rhythms and ignoring the monkey chatter. Really "getting into it", in the vernacular of the day.

I don't remember worrying about whether or not the audio quality on 'The Best Of All Possible Worlds' was hi-fi or stereo or low-noise. I just wanted to discover new music and learn about the players and the songs and the albums. The FM radio, phonograph or tape deck could bring me high-quality stereo audio, and that was nice, but AM was sufficient to bring me Harry's choices of the latest and greatest in jazz and the information about it that he gave and I wanted.

Communication is not just about frequency response. Ask any fan of those old acoustic disc recordings. Ask any fan of Glenn Beck, Diane Rehm, Bill Nojay, Bob Smith, Marian McPartland or the Rochester Redwings. All you have to do is listen through the minor limitations of the medium and the essence of the message is all there.

Naturally, if there is a competing digital broadcast medium with equivalent or superior programming, reception, reliability, economy and portability, and listeners are equipped to receive it, then they will probably choose to do so. So far, in most locales, this is not the case, so analog AM and FM radio will endure as long as their programming serves an audience sufficient to support the enterprise.

As for me, I would listen to any medium that transmitted 'The Best Of All Possible Worlds' if I could only find the necessary receiver, network or antenna. Alas, Harry Abraham has been gone from the airwaves for thirty-two years and from this world for just over one, so I'll have to content myself with those three lonely January hours from the winter of 1977.

 

[gr8oldies]

The future of AM may well be "utility" type stations with travel and road conditions. There are already a couple of these directed at tourists.

 

[TheBigA]

But isn't this something that is largely dependent upon which market and region of the country one is in?

Have you spoken with any radio brokers about AM prices lately? I think you'll find a pretty affordable AM in any region of the country.

If you have the time, I would be interested in briefly knowing why that is the case and just how much more expensive it is.

Have you ever compared antenna sites of AM vs. FM stations? Go to www.fybush.com

One look at the difference and you'll understand where the money goes.