Time to reconsider AM stereo?

[Savage]

Actually, TheBigA, that's a really good post. Please accept my compliments.

One footnote: while I agree that group radio today seems to be faced with the "everything you do seems to flop" phenomenon, I would suggest they refer to the oft-repeated "insanity is defined as continuing to repeat the same mistakes but expecting a different outcome."

 

[pocket-radio]

Big A it's like this:

A small business starts with a vision, little resources and people who believe in something.
The people who believe work hard and continually innovate to make the small business better..
The small business grows and one day becomes a big business.

Then the big business now fat and happy has something big and will do everything it can to protect it.
So the big business, now bigger, stops taking risk's and stops innovating. They research everything to death,
because the big business doesn't want to make mistakes...

Blinded by arrogance, politics, and people who care more about their titles and office space, the big business stops doing everything it once did that made it successful.

Uh, sounds like radio to me..

 

[audioguy]

OK; now for something slightly different: How well does talk fare on HD AM vs. AM stereo?

Although some of us would like to see music formats return to AM (myself included), it is a fact that talk is the dominant format on AM today. So here's a question for those of you who have had experience with HD AM and CQUAM: how do the two systems compare on talk formats? I skimmed through a few of the 128-or-so pages of this discussion topic, and one of the interesting things I discovered was that there have been a number of posts suggesting that talk doesn't fare too well on HD AM. Some the comments I saw used words like: "tinny", "shrill", "over-compressed", and "artificial sounding". By contrast, one poster thought that HD AM sounded great on Radio Disney (music). (I wonder how many kids are listening to those mostly low power Disney stations in HD while the rest suffer with the muffled 5 kHz bandwidth-limited analog audio, but that's another discussion...)

What is your experience? Does HD AM sound better or worse than CQUAM on talk programming? I think that's an important thing to consider, since talk will probably be the most important format on AM for the foreseeable future.

 

[Tom Wells]

In HD, Talk sounds chorused, raspy, metallic and "zizzly". I think the artifacts hide easier in music than talk.
Humans accept a great deal of distortion in music reproduction, because we become accustomed to it.
The human voice we hear directly very often, and when something sounds "wrong" with a voice, it is quickly evident.

CQUAM was much better on voice.

 

[TheBigA]

I would suggest they refer to the oft-repeated "insanity is defined as continuing to repeat the same mistakes but expecting a different outcome."

Depends on the company.

Then the big business now fat and happy has something big and will do everything it can to protect it.
So the big business, now bigger, stops taking risk's and stops innovating. They research everything to death,
because the big business doesn't want to make mistakes...

Once again, it depends on the company. I don't see radio as a big monolyth. There are a lot of big companies taking risks, and a lot of small companies that are very afraid. Don't make generalizations. Truthfully, some of the most innovative things are happening at the interactive divisions of CBS and CC. Take a closer look. They're operating like a small company within a larger one.

 

[TheBigA]

I built it, and run the whole thing as a donation to my community. I take no payments and make no payments.

You will find that when the lawyers for ASCAP and BMI track you down that they're not as idealistic as you. Even though you feel you are doing community service, all they want is their money. And the law is on their side. So I'd be careful how loud I bragged about how you make no payments. The bill coming your way will not have much sympathy.

 

[Tom Wells]

I built it, and run the whole thing as a donation to my community. I take no payments and make no payments.

You will find that when the lawyers for ASCAP and BMI track you down that they're not as idealistic as you. Even though you feel you are doing community service, all they want is their money. And the law is on their side. So I'd be careful how loud I bragged about how you make no payments. The bill coming your way will not have much sympathy.

And by the same token, what would "major corporation X" have to say when I send a bill for the past several years of advertising for them?

People who wear branded T-shirts should be paid for wearing advertisments, right?

But not everything in this world operates in a commercial mode. Nor should it.

Every basketball team in the world should be paying money to the YMCA for the right to play "basketball", which was clearly invented by the YMCA.
Campbell's Soup owes a great deal to the estate of Andy Warhol?
One could make all sorts of claims about who owes whom for what.

 

[HowardMBurgers]

Your comparison isn't valid. Even product manufacturers copyright and license their logos and trademarks, then control where it goes. If you start using Microsoft's logo on T-shirts that you sell for profit (or even lack of profit), without Microsoft's permission, I'll guarantee you that the lawyers will be lined-up to issue a cease order, then will sue you in a civil court of which you will almost certainly lose badly.

If a woman who recently was sued and lost with a judgement against her in the neighborhood of several hundred thousand dollars for 'sharing' something like fourteen songs over the web, do you really believe that just because your motives are so pure that the music licensing organizations like ASCAP, and BMI wouldn't come after you too? Wow, good luck with that!

 

[Tom Wells]

Your comparison isn't valid. Even product manufacturers copyright and license their logos and trademarks, then control where it goes. If you start using Microsoft's logo on T-shirts that you sell for profit (or even lack of profit), without Microsoft's permission, I'll guarantee you that the lawyers will be lined-up to issue a cease order, then will sue you in a civil court of which you will almost certainly lose badly.

If a woman who recently was sued and lost with a judgement against her in the neighborhood of several hundred thousand dollars for 'sharing' something like fourteen songs over the web, do you really believe that just because your motives are so pure that the music licensing organizations like ASCAP, and BMI wouldn't come after you too? Wow, good luck with that!

They don't control where it goes. When a criminal on "COPS" or somesuch show is shown wearing a branded logo, you don't think corporations
are happy with that free advertising, are they?

People who wear branded logo clothes should be paid each time they wear them.
But they don't. They identify with a product, or even like it enough to wear the logo for FREE. It's still free advertising.
It's even bettter than that, people pay money to buy the commercial message or logo to wear on their person.

How is that any different from my running commercials for free?

So Howard, I should be sending bills to those corporations for ad time?
Or "advice notices", letting them know how much they're getting here for free?

What would you suggest, exactly as a model to "sell" advertising on a station dedicated to continuous train wrecks?
"Buy ad time from us, we're too broad to be acceptable to any normal average person's tastes. We only want to be appealing to hipsters of all ages."
When I no longer have to work for a living, (same as you) I may try such a thing, and will gladly pay royalties.
When my patents begin to make money, I'd glady put this as big a station as I can buy. Just to bother the perpetually dull and boring people
in this world who already have enough schmaltz on the radio to satisfy their tastes.

 

[Savage]

If there is an industry stupider than radio, it's the music industry. I can't think of an example of any industry which makes a practice out of suing its customers. And they wonder why they're on the ropes.

Finally, we have an appropriate application on this board for the term "Luddites." The music and record industry is still stubbornly stuck in the 1970s when they were selling multiple millions of LP and 45 rpm singles with astounding profit margins, and has resolutely obstructed new digital technologies at every step. They hate selling music "by the song." They're only interested in selling you $19 CDs with one or two hit singles on them. And library CDs of heritage artists from the Moody Blues to Hank Williams to Peggy Lee to Sinatra which paid for themselves a generation ago - at list prices.

How does it serve the interests of the music industry to sue its end consumers? They blow $50K on legal fees to hunt down some housewife who illegally shared fourteen songs, and she promptly files for bankruptcy, because of course she can't satisfy the judgment. It's discharged by the banko referee and the record companies are out the legal fees - and have earned the ill will of hundreds if not thousands who have watched the pointless spectacle. And it doesn't deter anyone. Trying to use legal muscle to stop the technological genie from getting out of the bottle is like King Canute who stood on the seashore commanding the waves to stop.

Remember how Disney, of all companies, actually tried to stop the sale of home video recorders in the 1970s? They were terrified that VCRs would end people going to theaters to watch Disney films and actually got a temporary injunction against Sony's Betamax in the 9th Circuit for a while. How idiotic does this appear from the perspective of today, when Disney earns billions annually from home video - including direct-to-video movies?

The record and music industry would be well advised to exploit technology instead of trying to stop it. And suing their end customers is just beyond myopic.

 

[pocket-radio]

I think when the labels starting suing it's customers, they were banking on the hype from the stupid drive-by news media. And it worked for awhile, now it's more like who cares. And who cares about the drive by news media.

You're right, they chase down some single women with kids, to sue them for 10 million bucks
for downloading 10 songs. They win their case, the poor people can't pay and end up going bankrupt.

The labels have to blame someone for stinking cd sales, so it might as well be the above mentioned women and her kids above... Who else can they blame?

 

[audioguy]

I don't agree with some of the policies of the recording industry, but stealing is still stealing... and it's wrong! Unfortunately, as in many other legal matters, the lawyers and the courts go way beyond what is a fair settlement. That is a big part of the reason we pay so much for health care.

There is one aspect of this that is relevant to radio, and that is the fact that the recording industry has priced themselves out of the market for many radio stations. That's one reason why there is little or no music on the air today. They play snips of music in between the talk segments. It's not because AM radio can't be used for music.

 

[TheBigA]

And by the same token, what would "major corporation X" have to say when I send a bill for the past several years of advertising for them?

They will say they didn't ask you to play their music, and in fact they don't want you to play their music unless you get a license and pay them. The music belongs to them, and you're stealing it. In order for you to send a bill, you need a willing buyer and willing seller. That didn't happen. You just took their music and put it on your radio station.

I'm not saying I agree with any of this, but that is the mindset of these folks.A lot of Part 15 broadcasters have received letters from BMI and ASCAP, and some stations have been forced to shut down. Go to the Part 15 message board. Search the web for "ellen lawsuit." Read what the major labels are doing to the Ellen DeGenerous TV show. They are suing her because she played music on her TV show, and didn't get it licensed from the labels.

Seriously: Check with a lawyer. You're breaking the law.

 

[Tom Wells]

And by the same token, what would "major corporation X" have to say when I send a bill for the past several years of advertising for them?

They will say they didn't ask you to play their music, and in fact they don't want you to play their music unless you get a license and pay them. The music belongs to them, and you're stealing it. In order for you to send a bill, you need a willing buyer and willing seller. That didn't happen. You just took their music and put it on your radio station.

I'm not saying I agree with any of this, but that is the mindset of these folks.A lot of Part 15 broadcasters have received letters from BMI and ASCAP, and some stations have been forced to shut down. Go to the Part 15 message board. Search the web for "ellen lawsuit." Read what the major labels are doing to the Ellen DeGenerous TV show. They are suing her because she played music on her TV show, and didn't get it licensed from the labels.

Seriously: Check with a lawyer. You're breaking the law.

I collected the music by buying it, over the years. What about used records? I still paid for them. This is no downloaded collection.
I seriously doubt the Brunswick, Balke, and Collender company is going spring forth from the grave, demanding royalties from a 1925 record.

But thats not what I was specifically referring to. I'm talking about actual commercials, spots, advertisiments for businesses.
Some are long defunct, some are still in business selling the same products.
The get real, valuable exposure for their current products today, in the here and now.
It would seem they are due a bill for ad time. If properly paid for, it would easily pay royalty obligations so I could send a check to the music companies,
but then, they STILL won't be paying any money to the estate of Hasil Adkins, TV Slim, Louie Prima, any of the little punk bands, independent bands that never went on big labels, or ME for MY original recordings. They'd send it all to big artists who have lawyers.
As long as this inequity remains, they are derelict and immoral.
What about VOXX records, whose label clearly states, " Any unauthorized playing, copying, hiring, lending, hiring or airplay of this record would be appreciated."
As long as the labels and artists are not concerned with making proper ayments to ALL the artists whose works air on my station, they are bereft of any
moral ground to even ASK for payments. Is the concern that someone is running tape recorder and won't be motivated to go out and purchase the recording?
That was the concern in 1974, when labels began to demand that stations cease playing complete album sides.
So today they'd be worried that someone would be taping an AM radio station, saving music to a private collection, and cutting into their business?
What about music simply NOT available for purchase? It's ridiculous to suggest that if a recording is so commercially unviable as to be ignored and unavailable,
that it cannot be played because there's no mechanism to pay somebody for the airing of the recording.
I have number of live recordings by long-gone bands, people I know here in Chicago. They're HAPPY to know their works are getting exposure,
and are more concerned that people get to enjoy their work, whether or not they get paid. They never got rich, or even made enough money when the bands were in existence to ever get past the cassette distribution method. ASCAP and BMI aren't looking out for them.

If radio/music royalty "laws" were applied to normal human sexual morals, only prostitution would be legal, and even sexual relations within marriage would be illegal because no one is getting PAID for it. This is beyond immoral.
By remaining steadfastly non-commercial I will remain true to the art of music radio.
Naturally I hope someone likes the music enough to go buy recordings that are available, that's why the whole issue of royalties is upside down.
Stations should be paid for promoting artists, creating demand that would otherwise not exist.

 

[HowardMBurgers]

Tom you can certainly take the chance of being hit with a lawsuit and lose everything. In the end I hope that doesn't occur, but if you were to get caught, the argument that because you originally purchased the music somehow gives you blanket permission to broadcast it to others, won't hold up in court. Going back to my Microsoft example; your thinking is equal from a legal perspective to saying 'hey, since I bought this copy of MS Office, I should be able to give it all to my friends'! And finally no, just because the original artist is long since dead, doesn't mean ASCAP or BMI pays any less attention. I for a fact know that every time Rudolf The Red Nose Reindeer gets played endlessly around Christmas, Gene Autry's family still receives their annual payment.

But enough of this music royalty debate.. How bout' that AM stereo! Oh wait...

 

[Tom Wells]

I had designs and plans to go stereo with an upper/lower sideband approach modulating at 100khz where it's eaiser to to desgn sharper RF filters, then mixing up to the desired output frequency, but I gave that up when AM stereo fizzled and iboc was approved.

Still no opinions on sending a bill to the advertisers?

 

[mmnassour]

Still no opinions on sending a bill to the advertisers?

Yep. It's the best possible way to get yourself hauled into court.

So far, IMHO, you've flown under their radar. Start stirring the political pot and draw attention to what you're doing and you'll regret it.

If radio/music royalty "laws" were applied to normal human sexual morals, only prostitution would be legal, and even sexual relations within marriage would be illegal because no one is getting PAID for it. This is beyond immoral.
By remaining steadfastly non-commercial I will remain true to the art of music radio.

Good GOD man, in what fairy tale world do you live? With no disrespect to you, the suits don't care about any of that crap.Do you understand WHAT your purchase when you purchase a CD or LP? Generally (and there are exceptions) it's only a license to listen in private, NOT to broadcast. You've admitted using their copyrighted material without permission or payment. That. Is. Illegal.

I'll bet your station is NOT incorporated. That means you will be sued individually. Get a big judgment against your person and you run the risk of losing everything at worst, or bankruptcy at best. So you tell us...is that risk worth playing a few songs and tweaking some corporate noses?

You make the call.

 

[TheBigA]

I collected the music by buying it, over the years. What about used records? I still paid for them. This is no downloaded collection.

That's not the point. Your purchase of that music only entitles you to play it in the privacy of your home. The minute you put it on the radio, your role in the equation changes

Don't believe me. Ask a lawyer. Don't wait til the collection agency shows up. If you're in Chicago, and more than two people can receive your station, you'll be getting a notice very soon.

Still no opinions on sending a bill to the advertisers?

.

Try it. Tell me what happens. If they allow interent access from prison.

 

[audioguy]

I am not a lawyer, but as I understand it, when you buy a CD or other recorded media, you are not actually purchasing the content. You are buying the plastic disc and a license to enjoy the recorded material in the privacy of your home. You do not have the right to play it in a public place, nor to broadcast it such that others can listen.

Many people use Part 15 transmitters to "broadcast" recordings around their home. Again, this is not legal advice, but if your transmission is not receivable beyond your own property, I would tend not to worry about getting in trouble with anyone. If you are using an "efficient" Part 15 AM transmitter that does cover a larger area with a receivable signal, I think you have exposed yourself to a potential risk of copyright infringement unless you pay for a license-- particularly if you advertise or promote your "station", and it is clear that you are "broadcasting" with the intent for others to listen in. I am sure that is true of some of the users of this board.

Everyone must make their own choices in this regard-- it is similar to the issue of compliance with FCC rules. If you comply, you don't have anything to worry about. If you don't, then you must either be willing to accept the risk of being caught or else have a big bank account.

Now, this is not the Community Radio board, but I will note in passing that CQUAM is practical for low power AM operation, whereas HD radio is not for at least two reasons: there is not enough power to make it work, and the licensing fees.

 

[TheRover]

I don't agree with some of the policies of the recording industry, but stealing is still stealing... and it's wrong! Unfortunately, as in many other legal matters, the lawyers and the courts go way beyond what is a fair settlement. That is a big part of the reason we pay so much for health care.

There is one aspect of this that is relevant to radio, and that is the fact that the recording industry has priced themselves out of the market for many radio stations. That's one reason why there is little or no music on the air today. They play snips of music in between the talk segments. It's not because AM radio can't be used for music.

I'm all for Radio paying Peformance royaltes... NO MORE FREE RIDE.... The "Hits" you promote "for free" aren't of any lasting value to me, in the first place..... NO MORE FREE RIDE..... and whatever damage that causes to the "Business" of radio.... SO BE IT !!!!

BECAUSE..... STEALING ...IS STEALING !!!