Time For An AM Radio Revival

[davideduardo]

I did not need a research department, grant, or other niceties of academia, but the education from Valpo Tech was instrumental.

A very good teacher I had in junior high explained to me that, beyond teaching things, school at its best teaches how to learn, how to analyize and how to find things out using logic.

As I have know and worked with people with a grade school education at best. While you could find bright, capable people among them, the lack of a formal education meant that they were impaired by not having learned and practiced the steps of problem solving and are thus more linear in their thinking, and less able to assemble random facts and act on them.

When I remember falling to sleep in high school math and trig, I am reminded of the truth that teacher told me... I did learn and practice logic, even if i didn't know a sine from a cosine. Oddly, when challenged by having to maintain my own stations, I rapidly learned practical math right up to calculus and was able to design diplexers, phasers, FM antennas and such... because I had the basic tools from those boring classes.

It makes paying some of my daughter's tuition seem more valuable, too.

 

[Savage]

The tired old argument about how "receivers are so narrowband it makes no difference if we limit AM bandpass to 6 khz - or 5 kHz - or 4.5 kHz" (in the case of some Crawford AMs) has been thoroughly disproven by field experience. First of all, the "narrowband receiver argument" isn't valid and hasn't been for some time. AM receivers have been simplified to where they almost resemble infinite-impedance detectors these days. If anything, AM radios are wider than ever.

And stations such as WGN and WJR who have turned off IBOC have gotten immediate, and favorable, comment on the improvement in sound and general coverage. We also experimented with this at WYSL, where we narrowed the Omnia to its 6 kHz setting for about 3 months. There was no improvement in coverage or penetration in high noise areas like under power lines (one of the oft-repeated cobbled excuses for narrowing bandwidth) and when we reverted to full 10 kHz NRSC bandpass, we received a number of calls and e-mails asking if we had increased power. "It sounds much better" was the general sentiment. Listeners often compliment us on how much better we sound than the three local AM-HD stations. I noticed a vast improvement on my Jeep radio, which supposedly is down 10 dB at 3 kHz. In an A-B comparison the 4 kHz enhancement was apparent to anyone, even those not professionally trained.

In short: there is a reason why AM transmitters are designed by the manufacturers to have wide frequency response. It SOUNDS BETTER. The voluntary reduction to police-scanner sound is done for a single purpose: because otherwise HD digital wouldn't work AT ALL. It barely works even if you choke off the analog bandpass to 78 rpm sound. Anyone who argues otherwise is simply not being honest.

BTW, this is rapidly becoming an academic discussion anyway. AM stations are turning off IBOC at an accelerating rate. Consult the most recent RBR. There is no interest, the system is expensive, a maintenance hog and the interference is horrible. (Notwithstanding nonsensical and untrue rationalizations posted here and elsewhere.)

I said it before and I'll say it again: it's ironic how HD-boosters heap derision on AM radio. AM will be around and serving an affluent and appreciative audience long after HD exciters have become dented and dusty hamfest curiosities.

 

[Tom Wells]

If I find one at a hamfest, I'll be practicing psychic voodoo upon it, to rid us of this curse sooner.

 

[Savage]

I'd buy one - and take video footage of me, backing the engineering pickup truck over it. I'd post it on YouTube.

 

[Tom Wells]

Don't use the truck. Take it out 10 miles east of De Pew, where the Amtrak "Lake Shore Limited" is up to full speed, and let
a REAL irresisitable force blast it to smithereens. That would be some video. I imagine something like a golf tee to set it on,
maybe 10 inches off center of the tracks, about 18 inches high.....

 

[rtc]

Related...Citadel Files Chapter 11

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,580695,00.html?test=latestnews

 

[rtc]

More...

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091220/D9CN8O180.html

 

[TheBigA]

A huge factual error in the AP story:

Citadel also has been hurt over the past couple of years by declines in advertising revenue in nearly all major markets as many listeners abandoned the format for prerecorded music and the commercial-free satellite radio offerings of Sirius XM.

Everyone knows that's not true. Listeners haven't abandoned radio, and SiriusXM has not seen any gain in listeners, and themselves avoided bankruptcy earlier this year by turning over a lot of their debt to Liberty.

 

[davideduardo]

The tired old argument about how "receivers are so narrowband it makes no difference if we limit AM bandpass to 6 khz - or 5 kHz - or 4.5 kHz" (in the case of some Crawford AMs) has been thoroughly disproven by field experience.

I see. Bob Orban and his NRSC workgroup are wrong, and you, based on personal observation, are right.

First of all, the "narrowband receiver argument" isn't valid and hasn't been for some time. AM receivers have been simplified to where they almost resemble infinite-impedance detectors these days. If anything, AM radios are wider than ever.

It's not about wide RF bandwidth... which is, in itself, a horrible danger in today's crowded AM dial enviornment. It's about the ability to reproduce AM audio. And the Orban-chaired group tested a wide variety of purchased-at-retail radios and showed that they were all very close to being off 10 db at 3.9 KHz.

And stations such as WGN and WJR who have turned off IBOC have gotten immediate, and favorable, comment on the improvement in sound and general coverage.

Hmm.WJR just had the lowest 12+ shares in the last decade, and is #20 or below in 25-54. WGN is also similarly challenged in 25-54, ranking about the same as WJR. I'm sure the geezers are delighted with WJR, but the station is down to 8th 12+ and even beaten by an FM sports operation.

We also experimented with this at WYSL, where we narrowed the Omnia to its 6 kHz setting for about 3 months. There was no improvement in coverage or penetration in high noise areas like under power lines (one of the oft-repeated cobbled excuses for narrowing bandwidth)

I follow radio technology closely and I have never heard that so-called excuse or reason...

Anyone who argues otherwise is simply not being honest.

Bob Orban's committee concluded that a bandwidth of somewhere between 6 and 7 KHz was optimum, based on listening tests. The conclusion was that anything wider was damaging to listenability.

I said it before and I'll say it again: it's ironic how HD-boosters heap derision on AM radio. AM will be around and serving an affluent and appreciative audience long after HD exciters have become dented and dusty hamfest curiosities.

I said, when the recession began, that any chance for HD on AM was dead. The combinaton of the inexorably decreasing sales demos of all significant AMs and the decreasing revenue pool for all radio means that few receivers will be sold and by the time of a recovery, lots more major AMs will have moved to FM or started FM simulcasts.

FM HD is finding niche opportunities that are profitable... AM is going to continue to dwindle into irrelevance.

 

[Carmine5]

Oh, the guy who defends AM from his low rated Rochester also-ran station? That's like going to SAAB for advice on the auto industry.

I go away for a couple of days and come back to find crap like this statement. It goes beyond rude and shows a complete lack of respect for the individual; his opinions and business.

This is how otherwise good discussions get sabotaged. In the future I will have no problem complaining to the moderator until this kind of boorishness stops.

 

[davideduardo]

I go away for a couple of days and come back to find crap like this statement. It goes beyond rude and shows a complete lack of respect for the individual; his opinions and business.

I'm sorry if a passionate discussion offends you. The fact is, a considerable amount of the credibility of a position comes from the credibility of the person taking the position.

In this case we have some absurd opinions coming from Mr. Savage about the future viability of AM (with or without HD) despite the overwhelming evidence of the encroaching disappearance of all the under-55 listeners, the move of the significant stations with significant formats to FM, the poor quality of today's AM radios and the introduction of many receivers with no AM in them at all.

At some point, we have to use the "emperor has no clothes" position to stop such varnishing of the truth... or the total dismissal of it.

This is how otherwise good discussions get sabotaged. In the future I will have no problem complaining to the moderator until this kind of boorishness stops.

The fact remains that Mr Savage must, in some major part, be judged on the evidence... and a station that is 15th rated in a rather medium market (and, per a reliable source, 24th in billing) is not the best recommendation in this argument.

 

[Carmine5]

I go away for a couple of days and come back to find crap like this statement. It goes beyond rude and shows a complete lack of respect for the individual; his opinions and business.

I'm sorry if a passionate discussion offends you. The fact is, a considerable amount of the credibility of a position comes from the credibility of the person taking the position.

In this case we have some absurd opinions coming from Mr. Savage about the future viability of AM (with or without HD) despite the overwhelming evidence of the encroaching disappearance of all the under-55 listeners, the move of the significant stations with significant formats to FM, the poor quality of today's AM radios and the introduction of many receivers with no AM in them at all.

At some point, we have to use the "emperor has no clothes" position to stop such varnishing of the truth... or the total dismissal of it.

This is how otherwise good discussions get sabotaged. In the future I will have no problem complaining to the moderator until this kind of boorishness stops.

The fact remains that Mr Savage must, in some major part, be judged on the evidence... and a station that is 15th rated in a rather medium market (and, per a reliable source, 24th in billing) is not the best recommendation in this argument.

You can spin this however you like, Eduardo, but I said it right. This isn't a spirited discussion but mean-spirited. My recommendation is for you to try a little civility and humility going forward.

If you need a role model here, I suggest Scott Fybush, an expert who consistently lays out the facts without slinging mud.

c5

 

[davideduardo]

You can spin this however you like, Eduardo, but I said it right. This isn't a spirited discussion but mean-spirited. My recommendation is for you to try a little civility and humility going forward.

I'd simply suggest that you re-read my post and the one before it that provoked your first criticisms. There may be harsh facts, but there is nothing mean-spirited about showing the truth about the easily projectable future of AM radio.

If you need a role model here, I suggest Scott Fybush, an expert who consistently lays out the facts without slinging mud.

Who said I was looking for a role model?** It appears that you find people you disagree with to be mean or lacking in civility and humility, while you heap praise on those you agree with. Perhaps "Carmine" is a nom de blog for Glenn Beck?

(With no offense intended towards Señor Fybush, one of the best informed and interesting persons in our business).


** I'm not.

 

[Tom Wells]

I can find absolute truths sometimes in the words and opinions of all who post here.

That said, the arguments against AM's viability and declining outlook seem to me nothing more than a condemnation of modern AM receiver design, and the failure of the FCC to protect and manage this slice of RF spectrum.


I will not tolerate, and will not use, those receivers which make AM awful. That which is not adequate, does not deserve use.
I'm not too happy with Mr Hilmer's pulse-width modulation scheme for AM, because it is NOT "transparent".
But it's still not enough to kill AM. Limited bandwidth, abandonment of clear channel designation, and abandonment of stations' individual
"flavor", the homegnization from bird-fed formats, combined with iboc noise, the multiple onslaught of non-compliant "part 15" devices, is
surely enough to poison AMs future, but nothing will ever eliminate the "Capability" of AM in MW to be a very useful and profitable
service. If our drinking water were filled wth dioxin or perchlorate, we'd look to the EPA to make things right. Why do we tolerate the pollution iin this particular natural (and scarce) resource in the RF spectrum?

It would seem the FCC has moved on to other matters, and should delegate authority of management of this resource to a body that will have the authority to make some real changes in this issue.

 

[BRNout]

Who said I was looking for a role model?** It appears that you find people you disagree with to be mean or lacking in civility and humility, while you heap praise on those you agree with. Perhaps "Carmine" is a nom de blog for Glenn Beck?

Why the shot at Glenn Beck? He has nothing to do with this conversation.

David, I've read your various posts here and on other boards over the years - and while I may not always agree with you - I also have tremendous respect for your professional experience and background. We've had some pretty good back and forth disagreements too, but they've generally been very professional and respectful. Your slams here of Bob Savage and now Glenn Beck (?) on this thread are beneath you. Perhaps you've allowed this discussion to get a little bit too personal?

 

[Play Freebird]

It's not about wide RF bandwidth... which is, in itself, a horrible danger in today's crowded AM dial enviornment. It's about the ability to reproduce AM audio. And the Orban-chaired group tested a wide variety of purchased-at-retail radios and showed that they were all very close to being off 10 db at 3.9 KHz.

Bob Orban's committee concluded that a bandwidth of somewhere between 6 and 7 KHz was optimum, based on listening tests. The conclusion was that anything wider was damaging to listenability.

1) Don't forget, most FM receivers are off about 6 dB at 3.9 kHz (and 17 dB at 15 kHz) if tested using a signal generator with flat response. This is intentional and FM broadcasters are allowed (but not legally required) to compensate with pre-emphasis ahead of the transmitter. AM broadcasters are also encouraged to use pre-emphasis (per the standard NRSC curve) and are free to insert additional HF equalization as necessary to provide the best overall compromise for receiver performance, provided that a sharp low-pass filter cuts at 9.5 kHz to protect second-adjacent stations.

2) Undoubtedly, there are many lousy AM radios out there, but factory-installed car radios sold by the "big three" generally offer wider AM audio bandwidth than the average "purchased-at-retail" set.

3) There are roughly 250 million registered vehicles on the road in the US. Let's make a conservative assumption that only 100 million of these cars and trucks have AM radios with usable audio bandwidth exceeding 5 kHz. (This includes Savage's new Jeep) That's still a big number when you consider how much radio listening takes place on the road -- so shouldn't we give more consideration to these radios than the "average" receiver?

4) On the other hand, by best guess, there are fewer than 1 million IBOC receivers with AM capability. Therefore, the number of decent car radios exceeds the number of IBOC radios by a ratio of at least 100 to 1.

So does it make any sense to operate with AM IBOC and audibly degrade the audio on over 100 million well-performing analog receivers to provide a artifact-laden digital signal to less than 1 million HD receivers? Given these numbers, how could anyone rationally answer "yes"?

 

[Tom Wells]

I have respect for those whose names and opinions have earned my respect.

I cannot even begin to repeat even one opinion or statement I've heard from Mr Glenn Beck, but I know I HAVE registered him
in my mind as a person who appears to operating with integrity, because I HAVE heard him on the radio, and heard the sort of
intellect and real person who seems to live in same world as I do. Seems to see black and white, a skrillion colors and gradients,
and thinks we all ought to be empowered to analyze and realize the fruits of our analysis, learning, and beliefs.

This in diametric opposition to the "sucessfull formula" since the abandonment of the FD.
Mr Beck has registered, in my mind, even as I STILL cannot recall specifics, as someone on the air who
lives and breathes the spirit of the Fairness Doctrine. I have a lot of respect for him.

Mr Eduardo, I see here, and often disagree with him on points of format or business, but I recognize someone like myself,
who was bored ( and maybe lost) to tears with formulae, but surely understood innately the function and waveform that damned expression represented, even if annoyed at not being able to immediatley being able to access mentally one of 37 forms of differential equation transfomations steps necessary to continue solving the test question. But the guys who could do the math seldom could put together something that actually worked. There's a difference between the practical and the theoretical, and as I'm practical, David Eduardo has earned my respect. He sounds like my brother, literally, and several supervisors I've had over the years. This annoys me because I have an
"Art" streak in me as well as a "Weird" streak, and this is in opposition to practicality.... This does not diminish my respect.


It must be that we can come to some agreement on how to best ensure the future of mW broadcast, making best use of its peculiar advantages, not damning them as an annoyance to our idea of of market-radio-buisiness, and letting newer RF services serve the local
market, permitting MW to be totally different day vs. night. New radios should be able to select the STREAM of WYSL at 1040 on the AM dial, via local wifi vs skyave WHO dx mw, with only ONE push of a button on the radio.

 

[HowardMBurgers]

Thanks for asking, Howard - and for being a gentleman. It's a very good thing when we can have a spirited discussion here, disagree genially, hang onto our convictions but also our respect for one another.

WYSL has had its best year ever...in a market which is generally down 20%, we're up 9% over 2008 to the end of November. 09 would have been better still but for revenue loss at night due to WBZ's interference. Naturally advertisers want to get value for their money, and if nobody can hear the station...

We are every enthusiastic about 2010, since we bought an FM translator which we are in the process of upgrading and moving to a new TL. It should be on the air in January. This should largely fix the coverage problem caused by IBOC in Rochester.

My best wishes to you and your family for the Holidays.

Wow that's great Bob. From one small/medium broadcaster to another, it's great to hear that someone is up in this economy. I suspect most of your sales are local with relationships developed over time. You've done so well probably because you haven't relied on national revenue.

I applaud your efforts in supplementing with an FM translator. It will be interesting to see what increases will happen with a signal on FM as well.

I've got two markets that are pretty much flat, keeping expenses to a minimum, while one station is struggling because the community is. Over 30% of the local businesses have shuttered in that community this past year. Fortunately my Class C cash-cow keeps that particular station afloat.

Happy Holidays to you and your family as well!

 

[BRNout]

We are every enthusiastic about 2010, since we bought an FM translator which we are in the process of upgrading and moving to a new TL. It should be on the air in January. This should largely fix the coverage problem caused by IBOC in Rochester.

Bob, I heard that your purchase of the translator was approved and your move to 92.1 at a more centralized location is virtually assured. My congratulations to you for being able to capitalize on the opportunity and to be one of the few broadcasters out there who seems to be doing well.

 

[Savage]

Thank you, BRNout, Tom, Howard and Freebird. We've all got our problems - and radio no less than others.
Let's all hope, heading into 2010, that it's still apparently true that - as the old joke goes - "God looks out for drunks, fools and The United States of America." I believe we could add radio to that list.

As Tiny Tim said: "God Bless us, every one."