Tom Leykis' online show outdrawing Limbaugh and Hannity in Los Angeles

[davideduardo]

I'm really amazed that people will go on and on about "radio professionals" caring about audio quality when AM radio still exists.

When AM was the only medium for music, stations spent enormous amounts of money to try to get the best sound possible out of the pre-NRSC bandwidth. Devices like the Audimax and Volumax came in the early 60's and were followed by the first multi-band processing setups in the early 70's... stations making their own processing gear using two or three LA-3A's and speaker crossover networks were common. The stations sounded good, too, without the 10 kHz mask, particularly if they had a nice broadbanded antenna system.

 

[Small Market Guy]

If you need to be in commercially zoned space that would be qualified for outside guests to come park their vehicle and be on your show, and you felt the need to have a studio that would visually demonstrate "quality and prestige" to the ad agency crowd, yes, the numbers on the cost of establishing a studio head north quickly. Particularly if you want to operate from a major market like Los Angeles or Chicago or NYC.

On the other hand, if you are a person with experience and reputation who chooses to do a podcast style delivery while living out in the mountains or some hometown that you are fond of, the cost of a studio producing quality sound can be quite affordable in this day and age.

Stop by my place here in the south end of Appalachia sometime and let's see if we can generate some audio that you could take home with you and put on your radio station with no embarrassment. I haven't gotten close to expenses that totals in the five-figures range.

Oh, the gear to sound good is only a portion of the expense. Like you mentioned, the office and other overhead is what kills you. Especially in L.A.

 

[Small Market Guy]

And we are still supposed to believe that you are "just a listener" who is not part of the industry. Right.

But apparently can't tell the difference between AM radio originating from a studio and AM radio through a cellcaster.

 

[Small Market Guy]

Some of the commercials I worked on were shot on a Canon EOS and sound recorded on a Zoom H1 or H4. I won't brag on the content, but the technical quality was indistinguishable from stuff shot in a multi-million dollar studio several decades ago.

Can't vouch for the sound part, but a crop sensor DSLR doesn't compare to full frame anything. You can get acceptable video from a Rebel, but you need a Red or at least a full frame DSLR to get truly professional looking results. Otherwise you might as well just use a Go Pro.

 

[Avid Listener]

And we are still supposed to believe that you are "just a listener" who is not part of the industry. Right.

I work as an actor in film, television, and commercials. I'm nowhere near being a "name", but I've done my share of commercials, industrial training films, and even some voice-overs. I've made no secret of the fact that I regard being an on-air "personality" in the radio as being part of show business, and I am also active in show business. My voice has been on the radio on commercials, but only because the ad agency hired me to do the work. I also used to be in a rock band, and learned a little about the music industry from that perspective, which is why I am so familiar with how the suits at the record labels and the radio companies routinely screw musicians.

So, while I am part of the entire "Entertainment Industry", I do not work in the radio section. Besides, the same catalog that I found the specs for those microphones is also one of the biggest musical instrument catalogs around.

 

[Avid Listener]

When AM was the only medium for music, stations spent enormous amounts of money to try to get the best sound possible out of the pre-NRSC bandwidth. Devices like the Audimax and Volumax came in the early 60's and were followed by the first multi-band processing setups in the early 70's... stations making their own processing gear using two or three LA-3A's and speaker crossover networks were common. The stations sounded good, too, without the 10 kHz mask, particularly if they had a nice broadbanded antenna system.

At its absolute best, the highest praise you could give to an AM radio station, heard on a typical consumer's radio on a tabletop or in a dashboard, was that it didn't suck all that much.

 

[Avid Listener]

Can't vouch for the sound part, but a crop sensor DSLR doesn't compare to full frame anything. You can get acceptable video from a Rebel, but you need a Red or at least a full frame DSLR to get truly professional looking results. Otherwise you might as well just use a Go Pro.

I say the lines and hit my marks. It's up to the techs and crew to handle the technical stuff. I've seen the finished products. They look as good to my eyes as any other content on the same station.

 

[Wimmmex]

...posted a few weeks back on The Tom Leykis Show's Faceboob page:


Rush Limbaugh (KEIB) 113,800 weekly cume
Sean Hannity (KEIB) 88,700 weekly cume
Tom Leykis (internet stream) 169,412 tune-ins (session starts)

You tell me. Is it working?

Does Leykis cite his source for these numbers?

Otherwise they are just coming out of thin air.

The Arbitron/Neilsen numbers are easy enough to find..but what demo, etc?

What is the source for his "internet stream" numbers?

Personally, I don't believe them.

 

[Small Market Guy]

Does Leykis cite his source for these numbers?

Otherwise they are just coming out of thin air.

The Arbitron/Neilsen numbers are easy enough to find..but what demo, etc?

What is the source for his "internet stream" numbers?

Personally, I don't believe them.

IF they are true, and that's a big if, the numbers probably come from his streaming provider. But as has already been pointed out, session starts are not cume. Also, those are worldwide numbers, not just SoCal. So to make those numbers legit, he'd have to compare his number of unique hits on the stream (if that's even possible) against the nationwide on air and streaming cume of the national hosts.

In other words, even if the number he quoted is right, it's still a dishonest comparison. It's pure ego stroking self promotion. Nothing more.

 

[TheBigA]

It's pure ego stroking self promotion. Nothing more.

An on-air talent who strokes his own ego and is king of self-promotion? Horrors. Where's integrity?

 

[Wimmmex]

IF they are true, and that's a big if, the numbers probably come from his streaming provider. But as has already been pointed out, session starts are not cume.

I hear people talk about their podcasts got downloaded eight-trillion times...and all I can think about is "downloaded" doesn't mean listened to.

Also doesn't indicate if someone listened for 30 seconds and left..

And, true ratings are from an independent source...not from someone's personal facebook page...based on what they were told by their internet provider.

...prove it...

King Daevid MacKenzie! One of the old Prodigy voices....still around!

.. Hannity (and Chump Channel, for that matter) just can't get past the fact that their all-Fascists-all-the-time talk format is literally dying even faster than their audience is...

I suppose all the people that listen are Fascists too!

Hannity and Clear Channel a few of the most sucessful talk people in the country! Sorry they didn't call King Daevid for advice. (They probably didn't know what an accomplished Talk authority you are with all your major market experience.)

 

[Small Market Guy]

An on-air talent who strokes his own ego and is king of self-promotion? Horrors. Where's integrity?

Never said it was anything unique, or even bad. But we should take it with a grain of salt.

 

[boombox4]

At its absolute best, the highest praise you could give to an AM radio station, heard on a typical consumer's radio on a tabletop or in a dashboard, was that it didn't suck all that much.

Yes and no. During its heyday, AM music radio sounded good. FM at that time (late 1960's until the early to mid 1970's, probably depending on market) sounded dull and sterile, although it delivered higher fidelity. The announcers sounded like they either were half asleep or in another room. It wasn't until FM stations began to play Top 40 music that they began to add processing to the programming to give it a fuller sound.

 

[FredLeonard]

Yes and no. During its heyday, AM music radio sounded good. FM at that time (late 1960's until the early to mid 1970's, probably depending on market) sounded dull and sterile, although it delivered higher fidelity. The announcers sounded like they either were half asleep or in another room. It wasn't until FM stations began to play Top 40 music that they began to add processing to the programming to give it a fuller sound.

During the day, most FM was AM simulcast. The sound was the same as went to the AM transmitter (processing and all) but higher fidelity. FM only stations were almost all classical or beautiful music and the announcing style was appropriate for those formats.

 

[Avid Listener]

During the day, most FM was AM simulcast. The sound was the same as went to the AM transmitter (processing and all) but higher fidelity. FM only stations were almost all classical or beautiful music and the announcing style was appropriate for those formats.

In the 80's, 90's, and 00's, before I moved to Atlanta, there was a local station that mostly simulcast their AM and FM content. They only split AM and FM to maximize local sports coverage. Whatever was being pumped out of their towers was coming from the exact same studio and control board. I'd sometimes switch between AM and FM when bored to compare the two signals. On FM, they sounded pretty good. Their slogan was "The New Sound of the Oldies", based on the premise that hearing oldies in stereo played off of CD's was a "new" sound. I was pleasantly surprised at how much better the old AM hits I used to listen to sounded on FM in stereo. But listening to them on AM, they still sucked. Same radio. Same location relative to the tower. Same everything except one was FM stereo, the other was AM mono.

 

[davideduardo]

In the 80's, 90's, and 00's, before I moved to Atlanta, there was a local station that mostly simulcast their AM and FM content. They only split AM and FM to maximize local sports coverage.

What you are describing is typical of AM/FM combos with a daytime AM. The FCC 1967 order that forced larger market combos to cease simulcasting did not apply in some special cases, and among them was the FM simulcasting of a daytime AM.

Whatever was being pumped out of their towers was coming from the exact same studio and control board.

But the audio processing chain was not the same, as the characteristics of the two bands required different processing. Smaller AMs with limited power often beat the crap out of the audio on AM to extend coverage, while not spending much at all on FM processing since, back then, FM was not a profit center.

But listening to them on AM, they still sucked. Same radio. Same location relative to the tower. Same everything except one was FM stereo, the other was AM mono.

No, not the "same everything". A station does not just attach the board to the transmittter. In the general era you seem to be speaking of, an AM would typically have some form of leveling (AGC), some eq, and then a compressor / clipper to get high modulation and prevent illegal over-modulation.

Depending on the adjustment of the audio chain, a station could sound clear and with good dynamic range, or very compressed and intense.

 

[davideduardo]

During the day, most FM was AM simulcast. The sound was the same as went to the AM transmitter (processing and all) but higher fidelity.

That is not quite true. While some stations may have taken the studio feed and split it for AM and FM after the AGC processing, the peak limiter / compressor for each transmitter will be entirely separate. AM is allowed higher positive peaks than the negative ones, requiring an AM specific limiter. FM has preemphasis, and is generally stereo, so a different limiter will be used. Further, if the station has any other gear in the audio chain, such as a graphic equalizer, the adjustments for the two bands will be entirely different (of course, devices like the Optimod, even back then, were multi-band units that functioned as both multi-band limiters and equalizers among other things, like also being the FM stereo generator...)

FM only stations were almost all classical or beautiful music and the announcing style was appropriate for those formats.

Prior to the 1967 restriction of simulcasts, the bulk of FMs in the US were simulcasting AM sisters. The independents were for the most part in larger markets, and they did everything from classical and beautiful music to jazz and ethnic programming. After January of 1967, we were rapidly treated to everything from progressive rock to oldies and CHR.

 

[davideduardo]

Yes and no. During its heyday, AM music radio sounded good. FM at that time (late 1960's until the early to mid 1970's, probably depending on market) sounded dull and sterile, although it delivered higher fidelity. The announcers sounded like they either were half asleep or in another room. It wasn't until FM stations began to play Top 40 music that they began to add processing to the programming to give it a fuller sound.

"The late 60's" was precisely when variety exploded on FM, with hundreds and hundreds of previously simulcast FMs commencing independent programming starting in January 1967. Immediately we had progressive rockers popping up all over the US.... and within a year or two we had everything from Drake-Chennault's "Hit Parade" format to the first FM oldies stations and even Spanish language stations. It took a few more years for Top 40's to proliferate on FM, but they were there in force by the very early 70's (and a few legal AM FM simulcasts put Top 40 on big FMs in places like Washington, DC, where WPGC fired up improved facilities in the same month as the moon landing.).

Your timeline is off by 7 or 8 years!

 

[FredLeonard]

The simulcasting rule applied only to stations in the (then) top 50 markets, and only limited simulcasting to 50 per cent.

Many stations did not have engineering and equipment as fancy as described above.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

The simulcasting rule applied only to stations in the (then) top 50 markets, and only limited simulcasting to 50 per cent.

Many stations did not have engineering and equipment as fancy as described above.

But owners who had both AM and FM in top 50 markets tended to be among the broadcasters who DID have 'fancy equipment' in that era, some of it experimental, some of it home made. Yeah, Tom-Buck Jones out in county seat small market radio was driving around town making sales calls listening on his car radio to the nearby big city radio stations asking himself: "How do they do that? My GATES salesman doesn't offer me anything that will do that!"