hipporadio said:
,David... Your posts have proven you to be the ultimate industry “apologist” and thus, have been somewhat entertaining – but your contention that AM signals are “irrelevant” beyond 10 mv/m; and that “eccentric” Leonard Kahn killed “music AM radio” is outrageous and your furthest venture into fantasy yet!
1. I have done, as have many others, significant research on listening locations vs. signal strength in a variety of market sizes. What we find, strictly using at home and at work listening which is identified by ZIP code, is that in urban areas nearly all of the reported listening is within the 10 mv/m contour. In particularly noisy or dense metros, like New York and LA, the bar is even higher... around 15 mv/m.
The term I use is "usable" which I intend to mean "a listener will actually tune to a station regularly because the signal is clean and free of interference." If listeners outside the 10 mv/m do not use stations in these metro areas, yet they do within that contour, the only variable is the signal. We also find that there are similar restraints on FM station use... 80% in te 70 dbu and 15% within the 64 to 69 dbu contours. Outside the 64, there is very little at home and at work listening, and that is 70% of all radio listening.
2. AM stereo. The fact is, and much was said at NAB and other conventions in the late 70's about this, that the delay in having an approved FM Stereo system killed AM music as an ongoing opportunity. In 1978, about half of all listening, and lots of music listening, was on AM. By 1983, for example, AM had lost nearly half its shares. The single reason for the delay of AM stereo was Kahn's legal gyrations.
I was not a fan of ISB AM-stereo, and was on-record in the mid-80s as an owner/operator of stations [two on AM] supporting the Harris system.
As was I. I had, in fact, signed order #1 for the Harris system for my WQII. By the time any system was approved, it was too late.
Earth calling David Eduardo... AM radio’s “second rate” status was the result of a consumer electronics industry that woefully-ignored the quality of AM receiver sections – and a radio industry living-up to its obsession to pursue instant gratification at the total expense of future gratification. And what became “first place for solutions” – and more-importantly – WHY? To believe your age and background would give one cause to question your position on this topic at that time.
In the 70's when FM was "taking over" receivers were fairly decent. AM was killed by FM, not by receivers.
Where was David in 1975? ...There was certainly no shortage of AM radio [“legal” and “not-so...”] in MEXICO!
In 1975 I had #2 rated WQII, an AM AC in the USA where I was GM, Chief Operator and ran programming. I wanted very badly to be in stereo.
By 1979, I realized that AM would be dying as a music medium and moved our FM from Beautiful Music (where it was the market's FM revenue leader) to a contemporary format... before that move, FM had a 14 share in the market, and a year later, FM had a 55 share of the market. As FMs covered the major format options, AM was left behind.
Back to your favorite “eclectic”, Leonard Kahn... He appears to have been guilty of the unpardonable sin of wishing [based on his “vision”] to advance a popular broadcast medium whose operators were too busy raking in the spoils of their contemporary endeavors to appreciate.
I can't fault his motives. But his method, which delayed and essentially killed the opportunity to make AM useful for music, killed AM as a music medium. Were it not for Rush and Randy, AM in rated markets would be all but dead.
I listen extensively to the third generation HD radio in my car, and it sounds superior to analog, whether it be AM or FM. And the AM, if properly processed, sounds excellent.
...And don’t let me forget to grab that rag at the supermarket check-out [the one that quotes the 500lb woman blaming a heart-attack on her new Body-by-Jake] for my authoritative lesson in why the public “does what is does” :