There's background noise in my signal.

[hipporadio]

I’m getting so-very tired of the FCC re-writing the rules without REALLY re-writing them—leaving the historic priorities in print so the likes of CCU can disregard them and guys like clouseau can mimic-then-mock them!

Look, let's try to get back to a level of civility here. I can understand that a few people may be angry about the loss of skywave...

OK...Truce? At the risk of inviting the end of a pointing index finger and a “See, I told ‘ya so” from the “HD”-enthusiasts who so consistently-label their critics, “angry and bitter”... YES! ...I’ll admit to a level of frustration after years of conscientiously-acquired QUALITY AM radios suddenly become as technically passé as the skywave listening described by many. Granted, this isn’t about my Mother being insulted or my livelihood being threatened; so a dismissal that “it’s only radio” isn’t off-base – FOR ME. But the recent “mess heaped upon mess” on the AM band at night must certainly give understandable cause to the likes of Mr. Savage and company. My past broadcast experience and my current technically-competent observations place me in a position of being able to fully-relate.

The man working six days a week, originating more live and local programming on AM radio, and taking food off CCU’s plate shares far-more in common with my-own ideology than that of the narrow self-interest of those propelling IBOC into an industry famous for its “haves against have-nots”, and onto a casual public with a declining affection for terrestrial radio and little interest in “HD Radio”. Given your position, shouldn’t an devote of quality AM reception be celebrated? I suppose one might think of us as “obsure” or “insignificant”—NO MORE SO than the paltry number of “HD Radio” owners! So the AM band in Charleston is a “mell-of-a-hess” after dark – as it is in Rochester(s), New York; Indiana; Minnesota; even Texas... And winter’s on the way – when darkness intrudes into the commuting/working hours of day – and conditions become more-favorable for skywave propagation... And the affected transcend from “DX” to “local”.

As Tom Wells has opined often: “My radios were not broken until iBiquity broke them for me.” My only augmentation to his sterling analogy would be to modify the spelling of the corporate entity that invented and strong-armed the hammer MY radios are broken ALSO, yet their circuitry remains within their original performance specifications. I’d rather retain a humorous level of eloquent integrity and call an ace—an ace [“defective and destructive”]; a spade—a spade [“the buzz-saw started in self-interest and shameless gratification”]; and challenge others to recognize that old cliché: “IF the shoe fits...”—then that corporate radio/technology conjugation [iNiquity—complete with their shills and apologists] will maintain its order as I make my contribution here. If you wish to conclude: “I don’t care” – then couldn't that be MY resolve also... Turnabout is fair play, and but sometimes a minor inconvenience within the arena of ideas.

 

[clouseau]

I’m getting so-very tired of the FCC re-writing the rules without REALLY re-writing them—leaving the historic priorities in print so the likes of CCU can disregard them and guys like clouseau can mimic-then-mock them!

Look, let's try to get back to a level of civility here. I can understand that a few people may be angry about the loss of skywave...

OK...Truce? At the risk of inviting the end of a pointing index finger and a “See, I told ‘ya so” from the “HD”-enthusiasts who so consistently-label their critics, “angry and bitter”... YES! ...I’ll admit to a level of frustration after years of conscientiously-acquired QUALITY AM radios suddenly become as technically passé as the skywave listening described by many. Granted, this isn’t about my Mother being insulted or my livelihood being threatened; so a dismissal that “it’s only radio” isn’t off-base – FOR ME. But the recent “mess heaped upon mess” on the AM band at night must certainly give understandable cause to the likes of Mr. Savage and company. My past broadcast experience and my current technically-competent observations place me in a position of being able to fully-relate.

Let me say this about what you just wrote. I GET IT. I UNDERSTAND where you are coming from and even more so, I get your FRUSTRATION. Anyone in radio now, who was in radio in "The Good Old Days", gets where you are coming from. But in the late 90's, many of us in radio found that our "Truths" that we believed as far as radio was concerned, were no long viable. (OWWW, that sounds so cold. But it is part of the landscape). We, like radio in the 50's, had to adapt... AGAIN. I feel your pain. And maybe I'm a little sad that I didn't say "I feel OUR pain". But the radio landscape today is not MY pain. It's the grass I, and my staff, play the game on. Do I like it. NO. Can I change it? Outside of what we do on the air, NO. And If we don't make a profit for more than a couple of months with our programming it won't matter because we'll be off the air. And then even FEWER people will care about what we have to say. (Is that possible?)

I post this just as backround. Not as a rebuttal...

The man working six days a week, originating more live and local programming on AM radio, and taking food off CCU’s plate shares far-more in common with my-own ideology than that of the narrow self-interest of those propelling IBOC into an industry famous for its “haves against have-nots”, and onto a casual public with a declining affection for terrestrial radio and little interest in “HD Radio”.

Honestly, I would suspect so. I love you as a fan. Regrettably, you're NOT a typical P-1. I love you as a listener. I just can't make decisions based on your likes and dislikes. Nor can I make decisions based on MY likes or dislikes. (Although sometimes I do). I can't sell your ratings to my clients, but I AM glad for your support.

I don't trumpet what we try to do on air as I'm just "Clouseau". As you may have guessed, that's NOT my real name.

Given your position, shouldn’t an devote of quality AM reception be celebrated? I suppose one might think of us as “obsure” or “insignificant”—NO MORE SO than the paltry number of “HD Radio” owners!

I DO understand your feeling here. I appreciate your passion. I or AM radio is not rejecting you. It is my opinion AM radio is trying to deliver what is now ACCEPTABLE fidelity to the mainstream listener (Which regrettably is a lot younger than yours truly.) I LOVE the sound of AM tube transmitters. I actually like the "AMPLIFUZZ" sound. So does my significant (of 27 years) other. But young folks will not tolerate the familiar "Sound of AM". They want the "Highs". Sadly, conventional AM does not deliver this.

Seriously... no BS. Do you think NO ONE has tried hip hop on AM? Younger listeners will not tolerate the sound. It's a No-Go Item. Why is there no music on AM? If AM finds a niche, FM takes it. One and DONE in the book Dept.

So the AM band in Charleston is a “mell-of-a-hess” after dark – as it is in Rochester(s), New York; Indiana; Minnesota; even Texas... And winter’s on the way – when darkness intrudes into the commuting/working hours of day – and conditions become more-favorable for skywave propagation... And the affected transcend from “DX” to “local”.

Unlike your puny state (Ok I got serious Texas points for that one) I can't speak for ALL of Texas. Here is S. TX. there is almost NO EFFECT from HD. I suspect this is NOT typical. But, you're telling me that things are a mess after dark in places. I'll give you that, if you'll give me that they become a mess for DXers. I have made it a point to listen to the AM band 10-15 times as much as I did before Sept 14th. Especially at night. Is there more interference than before? Yes. Is it interfering with stuff the average listener listens to???

My answer would be a definitive "NO". But No BS. Let me ask the Mrs.... (No BS Honest Answer)

Her answer... "You know the only time I listen to AM is when you ask me to check something on the radio for you. Or when you have it on in your car and I take it to the store." (sorry, I have a red Miata. She loves to "Borrow it")

As Tom Wells has opined often: “My radios were not broken until iBiquity broke them for me.” My only augmentation to his sterling analogy would be to modify the spelling of the corporate entity that invented and strong-armed the hammer MY radios are broken ALSO, yet their circuitry remains within their original performance specifications. I’d rather retain a humorous level of eloquent integrity and call an ace—an ace [“defective and destructive”]; a spade—a spade [“the buzz-saw started in self-interest and shameless gratification”]; and challenge others to recognize that old cliché: “IF the shoe fits...”—then that corporate radio/technology conjugation [iNiquity—complete with their shills and apologists] will maintain its order as I make my contribution here. If you wish to conclude: “I don’t care” – then couldn't that be MY resolve also... Turnabout is fair play, and but sometimes a minor inconvenience within the arena of ideas.

Eloquently put. And here's how to get me to change my view. Show me that a majority of people under 30 think AM fidelity (Even in stereo) is good enough for listening to music. When that happens, I'm ALL about C-Quam (Which I really like).

Many on "your" side would point to WHAT in Philly and show how HD DIDN'T save them. I woud contend that AM fidelity KILLED them. And now we have more Sinatra and the like on a major market AM graveyard. A station that should be worth lots.

Hippo, I do wish we could go back. Landecker, Lujack, CK, MusicRadio and KB 15 were the best. But as Hy Lit said so well many years ago... We turn the page...

Clouseau

 

[Chuck]

Unlike your puny state (Ok I got serious Texas points for that one) I can't speak for ALL of Texas. Here is S. TX. there is almost NO EFFECT from HD. I suspect this is NOT typical. But, you're telling me that things are a mess after dark in places. I'll give you that, if you'll give me that they become a mess for DXers. I have made it a point to listen to the AM band 10-15 times as much as I did before Sept 14th. Especially at night. Is there more interference than before? Yes. Is it interfering with stuff the average listener listens to???

My answer would be a definitive "NO". But No BS. Let me ask the Mrs.... (No BS Honest Answer)

Her answer... "You know the only time I listen to AM is when you ask me to check something on the radio for you. Or when you have it on in your car and I take it to the store." (sorry, I have a red Miata. She loves to "Borrow it")

I'm glad HD isn't giving you any problems down in South Texas. Maybe it never will, but I wouldn’t discount the possibility. Last night I attended a local SBE Meeting in Dallas. On my drive back to East Texas, I decided to switch off the XM and see for myself what was happening to AM on Interstate 20, just north of Tyler. It was not a pretty sight (er, sound). It sounded like an audio sewer. Was it all IBOC hash? No, HD was probably only 1/3 of the problem making it unlistenable along with the beat notes, heterodynes and other weird sounds that are reminiscent of CB Channel 19. I could only get four or five stations clearly. Was I within their protected contours? Of course not, but it used to be easy to hear radio from all over the USA around here at night. Not anymore. IBOC is not the only culprit, but it isn't helping he situation. The IBOC sidebands were frequently louder than the primary analog signal. I see that as a problem.

What does it mean? To me, it means that XM looks better and better at night. I doubt that in the future I will regularly tune in any AM station at night. It's a lost band. Do you think I’m alone in that assessment? I doubt it.

It appears tome that if the trend continues, there will be a handful of large stations that will dominate AM at night, assuming anyone bothers to tune them in. The rest of you guys, including you Clouseau, may eventually need to shut down the shop at dusk. I won't speculate what that does to your bottom line, but look on the bright side, you'll be able to spend more "quality time" with your family.

 

[SUPERCASTER]

Chuck said:

IBOC is not the only culprit, but it isn't helping he situation. The IBOC sidebands were frequently louder than the primary analog signal. I see that as a problem.

What does it mean? To me, it means that XM looks better and better at night. I doubt that in the future I will regularly tune in any AM station at night. It's a lost band. Do you think I’m alone in that assessment? I doubt it.

You are not alone, Chuck. HD radio does far more harm then good.
HD on AM is a noisy mess, and on FM it is unwanted, undesirable, and unnecessary.
Exploiting adjacent channels for fun and profit, and lack of compelling programming is driving more and more listeners to new media.

 

[clouseau]

I'm glad HD isn't giving you any problems down in South Texas. Maybe it never will, but I wouldn’t discount the possibility. Last night I attended a local SBE Meeting in Dallas. On my drive back to East Texas, I decided to switch off the XM and see for myself what was happening to AM on Interstate 20, just north of Tyler. It was not a pretty sight (er, sound). It sounded like an audio sewer. Was it all IBOC hash? No, HD was probably only 1/3 of the problem making it unlistenable along with the beat notes, heterodynes and other weird sounds that are reminiscent of CB Channel 19. I could only get four or five stations clearly. Was I within their protected contours? Of course not, but it used to be easy to hear radio from all over the USA around here at night. Not anymore. IBOC is not the only culprit, but it isn't helping he situation. The IBOC sidebands were frequently louder than the primary analog signal. I see that as a problem.

I agree with most of what you assert here. AM radio at night HAS become an audio sewer. Frankly, it's a bell that was rung a long time ago. And you just can't UNring it. Look arount our fine state. IN our infininte wisdom we have added night operations on stations on
660
700
710
720
760
770
810
840
880
ETC Etc.. I think we can all see what has happened. The AM we grew up with is long gone. And most of it was long gone before Sept 14th. We chose local over skywave decades ago. The above are the LICENSED stations. There's a few "D"s with no nighttime authorizations in there too.

What does it mean? To me, it means that XM looks better and better at night. I doubt that in the future I will regularly tune in any AM station at night. It's a lost band. Do you think I’m alone in that assessment? I doubt it.

More and more it will be like TV. That is, "Appointment" listening. Local stations will HAVE to serve their local communities. To an extent, that's why I think Satellite radio was actually GOOD for the local radio business. Radio can NOT beat satellite as a jukebox. But we can hand them their lunch when it comes to entertainment.

It appears tome that if the trend continues, there will be a handful of large stations that will dominate AM at night, assuming anyone bothers to tune them in. The rest of you guys, including you Clouseau, may eventually need to shut down the shop at dusk. I won't speculate what that does to your bottom line, but look on the bright side, you'll be able to spend more "quality time" with your family.

I believe "The Trend" has pretty much run it's course. Of course I'm sure we'll continue to add all those passive radiator sodium vapor light towers and Led traffic lights and the like. As for your other point, I'll speculate on what nighttime signeoff does to the bottom line. We're done. But I don't believe that will be necessary or happen. We still reach our local audience at night. And all indications are that will continue.

Clouseau

 

[Chuck]

. But I don't believe that will be necessary or happen. We still reach our local audience at night. And all indications are that will continue.

Clouseau

I genuinely hope that is true.

I'm afraid that a lot of stations will have a rude awakening when they find out just how "local" they really are. Since my station is extremely local, I can relate. At least I started out with no illusions of the potential coverage area. For some who have been used to more, it may mean a big change from "business as usual."

 

[Savage]

I have a question for Clouseau, and I don't mean this as a wisecrack. I really want to know.

You argue passionately for a new age for AM, presumably with the transition through IBOC to all-digital, and may the devil take the hindmost. Yet the group where you work has an AM graveyarder with apparently no plans to go IBOC. What do you envision for stations such as your own? Do you propose to just turn your AM off? Or are you going to wait for that all-digital day sometime in the future and just flip the switch?

How would you expect all-digital to work on frequencies such as 1240 where there is no NIF? Do you think that without the analog component the digital signal will be robust enough to withstand all the skywave?

Assuming the scenario I'm suggesting is indeed what you advocate (not trying to put words in your mouth) and it comes to pass, how do you envision getting the public to not only go along, but to embrace a new digital AM band simultaneously with the much-discussed explosion of new media choices?

Clouseau, you have a lot of passion, you're smart, and obviously you're looking down the road at what the future holds for you and for all of us. I'm curious to know what your big picture looks like.

 

[Len14043]

I have a question for Clouseau, and I don't mean this as a wisecrack. I really want to know.

How would you expect all-digital to work on frequencies such as 1240 where there is no NIF? Do you think that without the analog component the digital signal will be robust enough to withstand all the skywave?

While I'm not a fan of the current IBOC system for AM, I think some type of all-digital system could be beneficial to stations such as yours. Most of the 50KW stations run IBOC and are good laboratories for testing the efficacy of a digital signal because of their co and adjacient channel protection. Specifically, WLWs 500 watt digital signal is actually quite robust in that it can be received to about 50-70 miles in a noisy urban environment, and up to 200 miles under ideal conditions. I assume the power would be increased in the all-digital mode. It would be great if all-digital testing was performed on graveyard and regional stations at night to see how the signal holds up in situations with massive co-channel interference. At night, WLW's digital signal is good to about 50 miles from the tower based on limited testing of my own. That should tell us something about how the digital performs with co-channel interference, i.e. WOR interfereing with the digital sidebands of WLW. In the case of WYSL, 500 watts of all-digital power should be able to overcome the co-channel interference from WHO and cover the entire Rochester area with a robust signal. This is purely speculation however and testing would be needed. I base my speculation on the fact that the digital signal still decodes while the sidebands sound like they are somewhat interfered with.

 

[clouseau]

I have a question for Clouseau, and I don't mean this as a wisecrack. I really want to know.

You argue passionately for a new age for AM, presumably with the transition through IBOC to all-digital, and may the devil take the hindmost. Yet the group where you work has an AM graveyarder with apparently no plans to go IBOC. What do you envision for stations such as your own? Do you propose to just turn your AM off? Or are you going to wait for that all-digital day sometime in the future and just flip the switch?

Very good question. First the facts. You are correct, I do not see us going IBOC in the near future. Then again, we were the last station in our market to go C-quam (Aside from the Kahn guys that just gave up).

Frankly, I don't EVER see the end of Analog AM. I guess "EVER" is a really long time, but we clearly will still have B&W TVs right up to the digital cutoff date. I don't think we would have ever seen the end of NTSC without a set deadline. Would any of us consider shutting down our analog TV in 18 months without a federal mandate (Which I'll bet gets pushed back a bunch more still).

As digital radios slowly become more common, and I think there are signs that they are becoming more common (QVC,FORD) it may make sense in the long run to "Drop the analog". Realize we're talking 5-10 years or more before that would ever make ANY sense. But it does open up the options for AMs.

How would you expect all-digital to work on frequencies such as 1240 where there is no NIF? Do you think that without the analog component the digital signal will be robust enough to withstand all the skywave?

I could sit here and say "Yes" or "No". That would just be spouting off. Fact is I don't know and I haven't seen any research or tests. It would seem that it very well might work. Then again it might not. I think the "Total DIgital" decision will be made on an individual station level. Like C-Quam or rolloff. I expect them to be manuracturing radios including AM analog on the day of my death.

Assuming the scenario I'm suggesting is indeed what you advocate (not trying to put words in your mouth) and it comes to pass, how do you envision getting the public to not only go along, but to embrace a new digital AM band simultaneously with the much-discussed explosion of new media choices?

Hey, this is radio. If we wanted to do something easy we could sell knives on TV. We already go to clients and sell them "Air", right.

Seriously, imagine every radio costing what it does now and having a digital decoder in it. If AM could actually match any other medium in terms of sound perception besides shortwave, then consider how much more competative it would be.

Clouseau, you have a lot of passion, you're smart, and obviously you're looking down the road at what the future holds for you and for all of us. I'm curious to know what your big picture looks like.

Bob, I have never claimed to have all the answers. Frankly, I respect what you folks do almost more than what we do. But IMHO, in it's current form, AM radio's audience is just going to "Die Off" in the next few decades if we don't find a way to make it's sound palatable for younger folks. I just don't see anyone anywhere making AM work for teens. Does ANYONE have an example? Just like Savage, no wisecrack. I'd really like to see one.

AM is getting a free ride on the back of HD FM right now. (Such as that is) As FM HD propagates, AM HD reciever tech goes with it. AM is dog gone lucky for that, IMHO. Otherwise, AM follows shortwave in relatively short order. All of us AM folks can only be more creative and more uniquie for so long. If we tripled our billing in three months, we'd have an identical competitor on FM in Six. And we'd be changing formats in a year. It only works now because we're all almost under the radar.

Clouseau

 

[Savage]

This is NOT a shot. But I keep hearing from AM-IBOC boosters the same argument over and over, which, boiled down to its essentials, is: AM-IBOC works well enough. And it will become 'the standard' because it HAS to. The AM audience is shrinking and dying.

Well, the realities are: No, it doesn't. No, it won't. And if #3 is true, "sound quality" is a minor factor, if it's a factor at all.

There is no way AM-IBOC will be embraced by either the public or by the majority of broadcasters; it's too fragile and compromise-ridden. Even if it worked well - which it decidedly does NOT in real-world conditions - it doesn't offer a big enough benefit to be appreciated by consumers. And my third point is the really pivotal one, and one which keeps being scoffed at by AM-IBOCers: if you really want people to start listening to AM again, give them programming that they actually want to hear. You want people in your store? Try putting things on the shelves that means something to them. Like local news, live personalities, stuff that listeners want and can't get from satellite or an iPod. This is a tough answer. But any thinking radio person knows it's the truth. You can't fix an audience problem with the latest LED-studded box in a rack at the transmitter.

Two years ago somebody was asking some rabid IBOC promoter in RW (might have been Cris Alexander) about the adjacent-channel problem and how it would severely impact local broadcasters, and his incredible response was that "it was time to push past these objections and embrace radio's digital future." I spoke out at the time and it's as true now as it was then: you can't make IBOC work by brute force of will. This is the kind of dogma and self-delusion that has created the disastrous IBOC-nighttime experiment that's already eroding what's left of AM's after-dark audience (I came in this morning to find a listener complaint on voicemail: is your transmitter on? Are you guys signing off at night now? All I get is hiss.)

Cris, or whoever it was, isn't "embracing radio's digital future." He's embracing a cactus. If you make AM unlistenable for the 99% of people listening on analog, you're going to lose that audience, and they will be difficult if not impossible to lure back, digitally or analogly. Think lobbyists and buying the FCC will get it done? Think again. If IBOC gets mandated, two-thirds of AM broadcasters will just say, screw it, and turn in their licenses. I know this is the kind of doomsday scenario IBOC Kool-Aid drinkers can't wait to glug down, except: the public will ALSO say, screw it. I can't get the basketball game or the local news on my hometown station without buying a new freakin' AM radio? I'll do without AM radio and get the news off the internet. And the school streams the game on the web....

Get out there with the folks and figure them out. AM radio will be part of their lives as long as we adapt what we offer, to their needs and expectations. The moment we start trying to force something on them...they're gone. They don't need us anywhere as much as we need them.

Postscript: for all the wailing on this board and elsewhere about how "nobody's listening because of that awful AM sound," I don't believe I have ever heard a listener or advertiser tell me, "I'd spend more money/time with your station if it just sounded like FM." And skywave reception is a BENEFIT, not an impediment. Let's use AM's strengths instead of trying to force a technology that nobody who is being really honest, truly expects will fly.

 

[R.F. Burns]

This is NOT a shot. But I keep hearing from AM-IBOC boosters the same argument over and over, which, boiled down to its essentials, is: AM-IBOC works well enough. And it will become 'the standard' because it HAS to. The AM audience is shrinking and dying.

Well, the realities are: No, it doesn't. No, it won't. And if #3 is true, "sound quality" is a minor factor, if it's a factor at all.

There is no way AM-IBOC will be embraced by either the public or by the majority of broadcasters; it's too fragile and compromise-ridden. Even if it worked well - which it decidedly does NOT in real-world conditions - it doesn't offer a big enough benefit to be appreciated by consumers. And my third point is the really pivotal one, and one which keeps being scoffed at by AM-IBOCers: if you really want people to start listening to AM again, give them programming that they actually want to hear. You want people in your store? Try putting things on the shelves that means something to them. Like local news, live personalities, stuff that listeners want and can't get from satellite or an iPod. This is a tough answer. But any thinking radio person knows it's the truth. You can't fix an audience problem with the latest LED-studded box in a rack at the transmitter.

Two years ago somebody was asking some rabid IBOC promoter in RW (might have been Cris Alexander) about the adjacent-channel problem and how it would severely impact local broadcasters, and his incredible response was that "it was time to push past these objections and embrace radio's digital future." I spoke out at the time and it's as true now as it was then: you can't make IBOC work by brute force of will. This is the kind of dogma and self-delusion that has created the disastrous IBOC-nighttime experiment that's already eroding what's left of AM's after-dark audience (I came in this morning to find a listener complaint on voicemail: is your transmitter on? Are you guys signing off at night now? All I get is hiss.)

Cris, or whoever it was, isn't "embracing radio's digital future." He's embracing a cactus. If you make AM unlistenable for the 99% of people listening on analog, you're going to lose that audience, and they will be difficult if not impossible to lure back, digitally or analogly. Think lobbyists and buying the FCC will get it done? Think again. If IBOC gets mandated, two-thirds of AM broadcasters will just say, screw it, and turn in their licenses. I know this is the kind of doomsday scenario IBOC Kool-Aid drinkers can't wait to glug down, except: the public will ALSO say, screw it. I can't get the basketball game or the local news on my hometown station without buying a new freakin' AM radio? I'll do without AM radio and get the news off the internet. And the school streams the game on the web....

Get out there with the folks and figure them out. AM radio will be part of their lives as long as we adapt what we offer, to their needs and expectations. The moment we start trying to force something on them...they're gone. They don't need us anywhere as much as we need them.

Postscript: for all the wailing on this board and elsewhere about how "nobody's listening because of that awful AM sound," I don't believe I have ever heard a listener or advertiser tell me, "I'd spend more money/time with your station if it just sounded like FM." And skywave reception is a BENEFIT, not an impediment. Let's use AM's strengths instead of trying to force a technology that nobody who is being really honest, truly expects will fly.

Let me make this comment and I'd appreciate your reply. The reason that AM is in trouble isn't specifically that there are no listeners. The issue is that there are few if any young (under 30) listeners. People under 30 didn't grow up listening to AM radio and they see AM radio as inferior to stereo FM radio. When you buy a radio today you might have 10 presets for FM stations while there are only 5 for AM. Why do you suppose that is? Also, larger stations depend on agency buys to support themselves and AM facilities with their older audiences don't earn the kind of money that a competing FM property does. In NYC where WABC has been top ten 12+ for years they are nowhere near the top ten when it comes to money earned. Now, I will say that running conservative talk radio is also a sure way to alienate a younger audience, but if you want to run music, how can AM with its limited fidelity, mono audio and susceptibility to noise compete with other forms of entertainment and information?. Small operations which rely on local businesses to keep themselves going don't face the same issues which the larger broadcaster faces. If there were always older listeners to replace those who pass on this argument would be moot. The problem is there are no new listeners to replace the old and so slowly the bands prospects are dying off. By the way, about 10 years ago, 1480 in NYC became a 24/7 heavy metal station. Nobody listened. I mean they didn't even make the NY ratings. So much for provinding alternative programing to grab that younger audience. Today 1480 is owned by Multi-cultural broadcasting and broadcast in Korean. That story is being written over and over again all over the country. Something must be done to attract a younger audience or you can kiss AM radio goodbye.

 

[MarkW]

AM I-BOC interference is so bad in my location here in Metro Detroit that it is almost impossible for me to hear WDFN at night in my location -- and I live deep in the heart of their major nighttime lobe. The predicted nighttime signal strength in my location I bet is at least 5 mV/m.

At home, I now need to position my AM loop antenna "just right" to even be able to hear the station through all the hideous sideband hash. In the car, there is so much noise that the station has become a tough listen.

If I drive 6 or 7 miles northward, the station is now completely unlistenable most nights. Before nighttime IBOC authorization, the station usually only had minor interference issues across the same region.

Previously, I could have the antenna oriented in a variety of directions and hear the station with little trouble. Annoying co-channel interference from WBBR in New York would happen once in a great while (usually during mid-summer), and adjacent channel inteference from KMOX and WRVA was generally very minor. These two stations are the offenders, although I should note that WDFN runs its I-BOC at night, too. The funny thing is -- both WDFN and WRVA are owned by Clear Channel!

 

[hipporadio]

This “But NO YOUNG people are listening to AM radio” mantra appears to have become the LATEST poster-boy in the pro-AM HD rhetoric – and conspicuously “seminar” in nature—like so many arguments that preceded it...

First, ANYONE daring to critique AM IBOC was “a selfish old DXer”...

When that one failed the integrity test, the infamous “angry and bitter” label humorously-surfaced...

Then it became the arrogant: “IBOC’s the law and that’s the way it is”...

Soon followed by that condescending pronouncement: “Well – regular listeners can’t hear the interference”...

And my favorite: “HD Radio is going to save AM.” Cue the emoticon please—

Now, “regular” teenagers aren’t even safe from becoming useful pro-AM IBOC fodder! Are the “HD” enthusiasts now-given to spend their leisure hours browsing the HD-fan sites on the net for this month’s paltry debate points that allegedly bolster the AM IBOC argument? Your use of the youth quotient is your most humorous attempt at justification yet; and it pales integrity for two valid reasons – past AND present...

[1] Youth avoidance of the AM band is nothing new! The trend began in the early 1980s—25-years ago! It just happens to orbit with an interesting coincidence—the decision by radio itself to migrate youthful hit-music stations OFF AM and over to FM. And what remained? ...Oldies [nice, but hardly a format up the alley of an 18-year-old]; Buck Owens and Porter Wagoner [most teens called them “Hillbillies” then]; 70s “sap” [for their older sisters - YUCK!]; The Rat Pack [for their parents and grandparents - how un-cool]; and fledgling pre-Rush Talk Radio [for their high-school Civics teacher]. And can you believe there were actually markets where some genius pitted his old AM Top-40 against his new FM Top-40 from within THE SAME BUILDING ??? That would be Cincinnati, Louisville, and I’m sure many others during that era.

[2] That was “then”, but more-stunning levels of innovation followed; and all the industry could muster on AM were “old-folks-formats”, political talk, and Hell-Fire 'n Brimstone. Aside from a few Radio Disney outlets for the very-young, ESPN affiliates for the sports-minded, and an occasional low-wattage little-promoted music experiment – AM radio offered VERY-LITTLE to any yute who didn’t aspire to become a Congressional Page or join a Jerry Falwell crusade.

So today, we’re pulling hair out by the roots wondering where the AM kiddies and their 40-year-old parents went to - while we currently offer them Rush; Rush repeated on weekends; Religion; Rush Wannabe; Radio Infomercials; Rush-Hater; and occasionally—Rome.

And since when would the typical MTV-loving teenager change his definition of “hip” because of a rack-mounted LED-studded PC with a perpetual license fee living in some transmitter shack on the bottomland. Or when might they give-up their bigger iPod and iTunes account, cell-phone, closet full of Abercrombie, and Sony game console with its never-ending appetite for software cartridges – and divert $250 into the purchase of a Sangean “HD” table radio or even $100 for an “HD” Boom-box wannabe as pathetically “un-cool” as the Radi-Osophy? ...”HEY dude – look at my new Sony!” ...”Well HEY back at ‘ya dude – see my new RadioSloppy!”

Pick on those kids, you HD fans, but I would rather consider the less-AM-likely listening habits of those between thirty and fifty years of age... Now there’s a whole-new thread in waiting!

It boils right down [AGAIN] to the long-standing and cogent contention that PROGRAMMING is the problem—NOT some silly modulation scheme!

 

[Chuck]

OK, we all think that young people don’t listen to AM. I’m not sure that is totally true, but I won’t argue with Arbitron. At least it is a fair generalization.

Has anybody thought of the idea that young people eventually get older? There is a continuing group of young people who will replace the "old folks who are dying out." They might even discover AM. You will frequently find that with age and maturity political viewpoints, musical tastes and general interests change. It happened to me, and I suspect it has happened in some way to every reader of this board.

Is it just possible that the kid who is listening to rap and hip-hop on his ipod while he is in high school or college will eventually start listening to news, sports and business programming when he gets older? I think so, and it is likely that he will find them on AM. That is, as long as it is still possible to pick up AM radio.... Could broadcasting be shooting itself in the foot?

 

[Savage]

Thank you. Thank YOU, THANK YOU!!! And the kewpie doll tonight goes to...CHUCK!!

"Has anybody thought of the idea that young people eventually get older?"

Ahh, the stark beauty of a simply, frankly stated truth.

Chuck is a savant, an oracle wise far beyond his young years. Yes, IBOCers: trying to figure out THE REASON why "people don't listen to AM any more" is like trying to identify THE REASON for all the auto accidents that occurred last year in Arizona.

Probably, nobody new is flocking to AM for a wide variety of reasons, not the least of which is: the people who grew up listening to the band are aging. (There's a profound and ominous lesson here for FM, whose audience grew up on big-hair rock and Janet Jackson in the 80s. Has anyone noticed FM music listeners are being replaced by the mp3/cellphone generation?)

Now, I address Mr. RF's invitation to reply.

What to do about "limited fidelity, mono audio and susceptibility to noise?" Hmm. Let's see, now. I guess I'd start with: better fidelity, stereo, and noise-limiting circuitry at the receiver.

I made these specific recommendations on this board before so bear with me, other posters, if this sounds familiar: (a) 12.5 kHz bandpass for AM. It will generate far fewer adjacent-channel problems than IBOC. (b) Revise the NRSC pre-emphasis curve and formally adopt AMax. (c) Mandate C-QUAM AM stereo. (d) Develop an receiver impulse-type noise-limiting circuit with a processor that replaces noise spikes with replicated audio from adjacent waveforms, not unlike the pop/click filters of the 1970s. This new circuit would be far less expensive and troublesome than IBOC. (e) Mandate receiver standards, much as was done for FM and TV in the 1960s. (f) Mount a well-conceived industry push for "The New AM Radio" - high fidelity, stereo, long-distance listening, more choice. (g) Reinstate old rule prohibiting AM-FM simulcasts in markets over 25,000. (h) CLOSED CIRCUIT FOR BIG RADIO GROUPS: Fire all your low-talent, no-vision, lazy, stoopid corporate programming suits and find some radio cowboys & cowgirls with at least a teaspoonful of talent and imagination. Now, these will be hard to find. As RF has observed, "they're getting older." But a good place to start would be to plunk Chuck and Hipporadio at your teak-and-Corian-topped conference table and have them invite in a few of their friends to kick the AM-programming issue around. I guarantee you'll get more ideas out of them in four hours than you got out of your Dilberts last year.

Hey, RF, while we're at it, do I understand your argument about the AM-sales angle to mean: small-market stations should be penalized by the IBOC steamroller because.....WE'RE SUCCESSFUL generating revenue when the big guys can't??

Astonishing.

 

[hipporadio]

Has anybody thought of the idea that young people eventually get older? There is a continuing group of young people who will replace the "old folks who are dying out." They might even discover AM.

The late Robert Hyland of KMOX St. Louis DID! He was in EVERY possible paradigm—the “Paper Chase’s” Professor Kingsley of radio. EVERYONE, including his secretary of 20-years, in the KMOX suite addressed him as “Mister Hyland”. In his presence, one felt like they were before “the almighty” – feebly-awaiting the inevitable. In the halls of 1120 and 103.3 he was alluded to as simply: “HIM”. He arrived at work at 4AM and was frequently-spotted in the CBS parking garage leaving at 10PM. To have labeled “HIM” as “conservative” would have demanded a turbo-charger for Rush Limbaugh... He ran the “Mighty-MOX” with a Platinum hand—he was a “classy” man despite his notorious professional demeanor.

A typical “audience” in his office lasted a mere FIVE MINUTES – mine spanned about an hour... That might have taken years off my life as it gave me ample-opportunity to set my own foolish trap and ask the tabooed question even his PD of 12-years dared-not utter... “Mr. Hyland, don’t you think your audience is getting too old... How are you going to attract younger persons to replace them?” He was characteristically-polite but stern: “Son [I was 36 then] ...At some point EVERY well-raised boy becomes a man, and realizes that his steady diet of Rock and Roll starch will no-longer grow the muscle needed to be successful. KMOX will be here to welcome him when he’s ready.”

Interestingly, at that time KMOX had suffered no embarrassment by their 35-54 male ratings. All I can report to you today as I prepare this post is that, despite a multi-station/multi-band competitive attack and loss of their rights to the baseball Cardinals – KMOX predominantly-maintains its position on EVERY male-targeted buy in that market. Little did I know at that time, that Mister Hyland was describing my youngest brother—after completing college [finally] and “living it up” in Cincinnati’s youth haven of Hyde Park – on a steady diet of WEBN and WOXY.

A few years ago, I noticed the radio in his company car tuned to 550 WKRC... Subsequent visits and a review of his pre-sets revealed his preference for area AM radio: 550, 610, 700, 1290, 1360 [then local sports], and 1450 [then ESPN]. Never did his key turn to reveal 92.5 [classic rock], 97.3 [active rock], 97.7 [alternative], 102.7 [AOR], or 104.7 [AOR]... I was amazed, so I inquired and he answered: “It’s boring, repetitive stupidity that gives me nothing to succeed in life... I play my CDs.”

He recently purchased a new Jeep—complete with Sirius and a year of included service... He’s hooked, and back to enjoying MUSIC along with his news, sports, and information. He confidently tells big-brother that “It’s over for radio!” I don’t draw a paycheck from it any longer; so he has no reason to antagonize me, but his transition is telling. I asked him why he no-longer enjoys his former stations for local programming. He pointed to poor reception on all but 700 and noted that “there is nearly-nothing local on most-other stations.” Most interesting was a comment regarding 700 WLW: “In the last year, it sounds really-bad – satellite sounds much better.” For a decade, he’s been well-beyond reticent about WLW’s sound quality, so what has this station changed to dissuade one who is getting older—NOT YOUNGER? ...WLW now broadcasts in AM IBOC!

 

[wnmb]

(a) 12.5 kHz bandpass for AM. It will generate far fewer adjacent-channel problems than IBOC. (b) Revise the NRSC pre-emphasis curve and formally adopt AMax. (c) Mandate C-QUAM AM stereo. (d) Develop an receiver impulse-type noise-limiting circuit with a processor that replaces noise spikes with replicated audio from adjacent waveforms, not unlike the pop/click filters of the 1970s. This new circuit would be far less expensive and troublesome than IBOC. (e) Mandate receiver standards, much as was done for FM and TV in the 1960s. (f) Mount a well-conceived industry push for "The New AM Radio" - high fidelity, stereo, long-distance listening, more choice. (g) Reinstate old rule prohibiting AM-FM simulcasts in markets over 25,000.

Savage, You are right on target. First, people think FM sounds better than AM (technically) because it generally does.......but why is that true? Could it be that we have a government (FCC) that has left us with an uneven playing field? Several things need to happen if AM is going to survive. First, The FCC needs to mandate that all AM receivers be made to pass the bandwidth which complies with AM Stereo. Can the government do this? Sure it can. Second, my fellow AM Broadcasters need to reinvest in their radio stations....and not with IBOC. The problems are too many including the noise problems, degradation of analog, and limited coverage. Instead, everyone should invest in AM Stereo and the very clean audio chain and "clean" antenna system it requires. Now, some of you will laugh at this and say it is a failed technology. That is not the case. So far, both the FCC and the broadcasters have failed in this, but the technology is good. Now, I don't claim my radio station is anything more than what it is......but if you have a good receiver.....we sound better than FM stations in our market. I have Ford Thunderbirds which have AM stereo radios as standard. I can punch back and forth between WNMB and any FM in my market and not be afraid of the comparison.
Now, what about programming? It's true. If your programming stinks, you will not have an audience. In our own case, with whatever resources we have, we endeavor to sound good. We have a great library of music and we've invested in some top quality jingles and we have some fairly good talent. We do local news, weather and community programming with lots of community involvement. Do any young people listen? Yes they do. We give them a reason to listen by broadcasting North Myrtle Beach High School Football every Friday night. Our mayor, our public safety director, local business leaders and citizens are all involved in our radio station. We sponsor festivals and special events. We increase our exposure by having an active website, streaming audio at 48 kbs, and we simulcast the station on local cable tv audio thanks to the good graces of our city and the cable tv company. Now, having said all this, the point is that AM radio can compete and prosper. Heck, if I can do it most anyone can because there many broadcasters out there a lot smarter than me. In any case, the stations absolutely must do their part. AND FCC, I don't want a government handout......just give us a level playing field.

 

[Chuck]

Chuck is a savant, an oracle wise far beyond his young years.

Yep, the whole thing is astonishing. So is my age. I'm not exactly a Spring Chicken. That's not all bad. With some level of maturity, perhaps it is easier to see things that a "30 something" might overlook.

Tonight's words of wisdom: "When in doubt, check the obvious stuff first."

 

[R.F. Burns]

"Has anybody thought of the idea that young people eventually get older?"

Ahh, the stark beauty of a simply, frankly stated truth."



This would be a valid argument if today's youth had a history of listening to AM radio. That is why talk radio is even moving to FM radio. It isn't as though a person reaches their mid 40's and says to themselves, gee, I wonder what this AM thing is? The numbers are shrinking every year. Where is this influx of new aging listeners coming from?



Probably, nobody new is flocking to AM for a wide variety of reasons, not the least of which is: the people who grew up listening to the band are aging. (There's a profound and ominous lesson here for FM, whose audience grew up on big-hair rock and Janet Jackson in the 80s. Has anyone noticed FM music listeners are being replaced by the mp3/cellphone generation?)

"Now, I address Mr. RF's invitation to reply.

What to do about "limited fidelity, mono audio and susceptibility to noise?" Hmm. Let's see, now. I guess I'd start with: better fidelity, stereo, and noise-limiting circuitry at the receiver.

I made these specific recommendations on this board before so bear with me, other posters, if this sounds familiar: (a) 12.5 kHz bandpass for AM. It will generate far fewer adjacent-channel problems than IBOC. (b) Revise the NRSC pre-emphasis curve and formally adopt AMax. (c) Mandate C-QUAM AM stereo. (d) Develop an receiver impulse-type noise-limiting circuit with a processor that replaces noise spikes with replicated audio from adjacent waveforms, not unlike the pop/click filters of the 1970s. This new circuit would be far less expensive and troublesome than IBOC. (e) Mandate receiver standards, much as was done for FM and TV in the 1960s. (f) Mount a well-conceived industry push for "The New AM Radio" - high fidelity, stereo, long-distance listening, more choice. (g) Reinstate old rule prohibiting AM-FM simulcasts in markets over 25,000."

In NYC outside of an occasssional WNYC simulcast AM's and FM's do not duplicate programing and in every case the AM's underperform when compared with a comprable FM facility.



"(h) CLOSED CIRCUIT FOR BIG RADIO GROUPS: Fire all your low-talent, no-vision, lazy, stoopid corporate programming suits and find some radio cowboys & cowgirls with at least a teaspoonful of talent and imagination. Now, these will be hard to find. As RF has observed, "they're getting older." But a good place to start would be to plunk Chuck and Hipporadio at your teak-and-Corian-topped conference table and have them invite in a few of their friends to kick the AM-programming issue around. I guarantee you'll get more ideas out of them in four hours than you got out of your Dilberts last year."



This would be great, except that these companies are responsive to their stock holders and wall street won't go for bigger payrolls.

"Hey, RF, while we're at it, do I understand your argument about the AM-sales angle to mean: small-market stations should be penalized by the IBOC steamroller because.....WE'RE SUCCESSFUL generating revenue when the big guys can't??"



You drew this conclusion, I didn't. I only explained why major market stations are seeing trouble ahead. Your small market facility probably doesn't depend on agency buys, nor do you have stock holders to satisfy and I sincerely doubt your payroll comes close to that of a major market facility. This isn't an insult, it's purely a response to your statement. As I've said but those with agendas have chosen to overlook, I am not a IBOC proponent. I am a user of IBOC radios and I see this technology as a work in progress. For some reason one comment of mine which has been overlooked was when I suggested that we go back to pre-deregulation days when there was a 7-7 & 5 rule and when we didn't have daytimers running a few hundred watts post and when we had real clear channels. I used to be able to hear 1040 WHO & KXEL 1540, every night (I'm in a null of WPTR so they never interfered with KXEL's signal). If we did that then AM stereo and wide band AM would be possible but with every regional channnel sounding like a local and with the clears souding like regionals of the past, theer's much to much noise on AM today, in my opinion.

 

[RememberWHEN]

Bill : Unquestionably, the playing field is not level. Remember the big fuss with VHF/UHF TV back in the '60's and how the UHF guys said that the tuner had to be the same for both - no click-click-click for VHF and 'continuous tuning' on the UHF side as that put them at a disadvantage? They made a good point. The FCC mandated that the tuning be the same for both bands. The FCC also made a ruling at some point that portable radios (AM at the time) also had to also receive FM! The FM boys made enough noise about that to 'level' that playing field! Problem is now we're all playing catch-up. The AM broadcasters should have long ago demanded parity as far as 'perceived frequency response' ('course many of them also owned stations with that 'new' thing called FM that had not yet caught on). Maybe they didn't want to kill that off before it got started.

Concerning AM Stereo:"Wideband" AM Stereo (when the system - and rest assured, it is a system - you need everything designed and working correctly from the console thru the antenna (especially that) can sound incredibly good - very open, not fatiguing (like FM) and quite 'dimensional' Your station reflects this. Anyone who has heard a station like this and done A-B with the FMs acknowledges the truth in this. The playing field is much more equal. Music sounds very much 'alive' and the big bug-a-boo about music formats not being competitive on AM goes away ('course you've got to have a receiver that completes the 'system'!!)

Speaking of 'wideband', has anyone read the latest paper issued by the NRSC on recommended bandwidth?? I could not access this (as I am not a member). I shutter to think what additional part of the audio spectrum they want to remove. Maybe its time to replace the studio mics with carbons!!