What can be done to save jobs in FREE Radio?<P ID="signature">______________
If I could I would program!</P>
If I could I would program!</P>
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Will AM/FM still be viable in ten years?
- Thread starter unluckylistener
- Start date
> What can be done to save jobs in FREE Radio?
>
The discussions continually ensuing over Satellite radio's supposed takeover of listenership of the terrestrial medium is mostly unfounded.
Satellite radio companies, both XM and Sirius (which even they are affiliated), have not found the means to profit yet.
A 3.2 million or so increase for one famous morning show host leaving FM is an impressive standalone number, but in a nation of billions, that number pales.
Terrestrial radio will ALWAYS have the edge because it is FREE.
7-8 out of 10 will probably tell you that they like the idea of satellite radio. If you tell them, "more music, no commercials, huge variety, etc." they'll say "wow, that sounds like a great thing to have. Yeah, I'd like something like that."
What's important to understand here is that there's a difference between the idea and the actual implementation of that idea. When most people figure out that you have to subscribe, pay a monthly fee, get an installment, why bother?
Most people don't need to go to that kind of effort because they can just press a button on their factory-made car stereos and instantly hear FREE music. And since many can find satisfaction in hearing familiar hits and dealing with the necessity of targeting a specific audience, they can bear listening to radio for the 20 minutes they're in the car.
Radio people, especially ones on this board, over-analyze radio because it is our business. Radio personell live to critique and contribute to the operations of terrestrial radio. Naturally, since radio is meant for segmented listening, we're hearing that Staind song 7 times a day, where as an average listener may hear it once during the drive home and it's their favorite song. Go figure.
The slashing of jobs in FREE radio is a problem and I will always be an advocate for keeping local talent, doing mostly live broadcasting (no VT'ing) and above all not automating stations.
One of the few keys besides the no-cost factor that makes terrestrial radio still stand a step above XM and Sirius is the existence of local flavor.
Now, that flavor is vastly dissapearing and crap like Lex and Terry is infiltrating stations like KDGE. I frown at this.
Dallas radio should sound like Dallas. Houston radio should sound like Houston. You program to your own market, not to what some idiot in Denver thinks he can pull off for a city thousands of miles away in Texas. Boo!!! I say boo to that!
Unfortunately, I am not at the helm of any major radio corporations, so I like the other VT'ing dissinters really have nothing beyond our harsh words for the practice. If CC wants to cut costs by doing VT'ing, they can and will.
One of the drawbacks and turn offs to satellite radio for me when I have heard it in restaurants is the automated, cold feeling of the stations. I could do better playing my iPod or throwing a CD into the car stereo. The air talent is just as rushed as on terrestrial radio. I can turn on the Buzz and get Chris Rice, who is broadcasting from Houston and will occasionally throw a good joke or anecdote into his shift.
Or I can listen to some VT'd woman on "Alt. Nation--Sirius 21" rush through summaries of her favorite super bowl commercials and say nothing of note.
I'll take Chris Rice and The Buzz, please. One more round of FREE radio is in order.
>
The discussions continually ensuing over Satellite radio's supposed takeover of listenership of the terrestrial medium is mostly unfounded.
Satellite radio companies, both XM and Sirius (which even they are affiliated), have not found the means to profit yet.
A 3.2 million or so increase for one famous morning show host leaving FM is an impressive standalone number, but in a nation of billions, that number pales.
Terrestrial radio will ALWAYS have the edge because it is FREE.
7-8 out of 10 will probably tell you that they like the idea of satellite radio. If you tell them, "more music, no commercials, huge variety, etc." they'll say "wow, that sounds like a great thing to have. Yeah, I'd like something like that."
What's important to understand here is that there's a difference between the idea and the actual implementation of that idea. When most people figure out that you have to subscribe, pay a monthly fee, get an installment, why bother?
Most people don't need to go to that kind of effort because they can just press a button on their factory-made car stereos and instantly hear FREE music. And since many can find satisfaction in hearing familiar hits and dealing with the necessity of targeting a specific audience, they can bear listening to radio for the 20 minutes they're in the car.
Radio people, especially ones on this board, over-analyze radio because it is our business. Radio personell live to critique and contribute to the operations of terrestrial radio. Naturally, since radio is meant for segmented listening, we're hearing that Staind song 7 times a day, where as an average listener may hear it once during the drive home and it's their favorite song. Go figure.
The slashing of jobs in FREE radio is a problem and I will always be an advocate for keeping local talent, doing mostly live broadcasting (no VT'ing) and above all not automating stations.
One of the few keys besides the no-cost factor that makes terrestrial radio still stand a step above XM and Sirius is the existence of local flavor.
Now, that flavor is vastly dissapearing and crap like Lex and Terry is infiltrating stations like KDGE. I frown at this.
Dallas radio should sound like Dallas. Houston radio should sound like Houston. You program to your own market, not to what some idiot in Denver thinks he can pull off for a city thousands of miles away in Texas. Boo!!! I say boo to that!
Unfortunately, I am not at the helm of any major radio corporations, so I like the other VT'ing dissinters really have nothing beyond our harsh words for the practice. If CC wants to cut costs by doing VT'ing, they can and will.
One of the drawbacks and turn offs to satellite radio for me when I have heard it in restaurants is the automated, cold feeling of the stations. I could do better playing my iPod or throwing a CD into the car stereo. The air talent is just as rushed as on terrestrial radio. I can turn on the Buzz and get Chris Rice, who is broadcasting from Houston and will occasionally throw a good joke or anecdote into his shift.
Or I can listen to some VT'd woman on "Alt. Nation--Sirius 21" rush through summaries of her favorite super bowl commercials and say nothing of note.
I'll take Chris Rice and The Buzz, please. One more round of FREE radio is in order.
> What can be done to save jobs in FREE Radio?
>
FREE Radio has been under fire since the days of Lee de Forest. AM sounded bad and wasn't a viable product in the late 1920's. FM came about because AM was so bad, yet it took decades before FM became the powerhouse that it is today. The challenges that radio faces are no different than the challenges that TV has faced for 20 years. Cable TV has eroded local TV to the point that the over the air signal is effectively meaningless to most households.
Radio is different..... It is better suited to fight a battle, a battle that it has fought with TV for 50 years.
Can jobs be saved, that depends on whether or not consolidation is going to continue and whether or not major operators are ever going to get it right. For the moment, they have it wrong.... Radio is right now and it is right here. Once the CC of the world understand it it will return to it's former glory.
Radio is all about the people that bring it to life.
>
FREE Radio has been under fire since the days of Lee de Forest. AM sounded bad and wasn't a viable product in the late 1920's. FM came about because AM was so bad, yet it took decades before FM became the powerhouse that it is today. The challenges that radio faces are no different than the challenges that TV has faced for 20 years. Cable TV has eroded local TV to the point that the over the air signal is effectively meaningless to most households.
Radio is different..... It is better suited to fight a battle, a battle that it has fought with TV for 50 years.
Can jobs be saved, that depends on whether or not consolidation is going to continue and whether or not major operators are ever going to get it right. For the moment, they have it wrong.... Radio is right now and it is right here. Once the CC of the world understand it it will return to it's former glory.
Radio is all about the people that bring it to life.
M
Mediafrog
Guest
> AM sounded bad and wasn't a viable product in the
> late 1920's.
Oh really? AM Radio was hugely popular from the 20's up to the mid 70's. And when television started drawing away audience from radio in the 50's, AM programmers responded by cutting network delivered fare and adding more music, local personalities, and upbeat entertainment.
> FM came about because AM was so bad
Bad compared to what? 78 RPM records? Back in the day people were satisfied with AM quality, because there was really nothing better to compare it to. Me and everyone I knew grew up with Top 40 radio, and I don't recall any widespread complaints about the sound. While AM radio might lack the high frequency detail and clarity of FM, it can still have a full, rich, and pleasing quality WHEN DONE RIGHT--so often not the case today.
> yet it took decades before FM became the powerhouse that it is today.
Almost 40 years. Prior to the early 70's FM was the domain of audiophiles and technical geeks. The change came when FM programming diversified (thanks to nonduplication rules), stations improved their signal with increased power and taller antenna towers, and receiver manufacturers began producing quality portable and auto units.
> late 1920's.
Oh really? AM Radio was hugely popular from the 20's up to the mid 70's. And when television started drawing away audience from radio in the 50's, AM programmers responded by cutting network delivered fare and adding more music, local personalities, and upbeat entertainment.
> FM came about because AM was so bad
Bad compared to what? 78 RPM records? Back in the day people were satisfied with AM quality, because there was really nothing better to compare it to. Me and everyone I knew grew up with Top 40 radio, and I don't recall any widespread complaints about the sound. While AM radio might lack the high frequency detail and clarity of FM, it can still have a full, rich, and pleasing quality WHEN DONE RIGHT--so often not the case today.
> yet it took decades before FM became the powerhouse that it is today.
Almost 40 years. Prior to the early 70's FM was the domain of audiophiles and technical geeks. The change came when FM programming diversified (thanks to nonduplication rules), stations improved their signal with increased power and taller antenna towers, and receiver manufacturers began producing quality portable and auto units.
> > AM sounded bad and wasn't a viable product in the
> > late 1920's.
>
> Oh really? AM Radio was hugely popular from the 20's up to
> the mid 70's. And when television started drawing away
> audience from radio in the 50's, AM programmers responded by
> cutting network delivered fare and adding more music, local
> personalities, and upbeat entertainment.
You're forgetting that until Armstrong came along AM radio was nothing, it was the infantcy of radio in the the 20's, a place that universities supported, until the mid 30's "The Golden Age of Radio".
The FCC wasn't even formed until 1934
>
> > FM came about because AM was so bad
>
> Bad compared to what? 78 RPM records? Back in the day
> people were satisfied with AM quality, because there was
> really nothing better to compare it to. Me and everyone I
> knew grew up with Top 40 radio, and I don't recall any
> widespread complaints about the sound. While AM radio might
> lack the high frequency detail and clarity of FM, it can
> still have a full, rich, and pleasing quality WHEN DONE
> RIGHT--so often not the case today.
This is a well know fact, again it was because of Armstrong, at the urging of Sarnoff that we have FM today. Sarnoff wanted to get rid of the AM reception problems associated with power lines and electrical equipment. The principal issue was interference and noise. FM was born out of a need to improve the AM technology. The solution was to start over, to got left right instead of up down.
>
> > yet it took decades before FM became the powerhouse that
> it is today.
>
> Almost 40 years. Prior to the early 70's FM was the domain
> of audiophiles and technical geeks. The change came when FM
> programming diversified (thanks to nonduplication rules),
> stations improved their signal with increased power and
> taller antenna towers, and receiver manufacturers began
> producing quality portable and auto units.
>
The change occurred because of a new generation of people. Young kids born during the 70's. The prior generation accepted the poor quality of AM because they grew up with it. There is no real diversity today in the FM band. I don't know what you mean by nonduplication rules. FM stations, in single markets take two or more rim shot stations and simulcast programming. The same applies to non-coms like Houston Christian Broadcasting.
As for more power, and better receivers... I agree, but that applies to both AM and FM stations. The technology that supports both systems has improved dramatically, Still AM technology lags way behind.
Will HD radio save AM and FM broadcasters? People have accepted HD TV and HD TV sets are starting to add up to bigs sales.
IPODs are flying off the shelves. What does that mean? I see them everywhere, especially with folks working out at the gym. They used to watch TV or listen to the radio......
> > late 1920's.
>
> Oh really? AM Radio was hugely popular from the 20's up to
> the mid 70's. And when television started drawing away
> audience from radio in the 50's, AM programmers responded by
> cutting network delivered fare and adding more music, local
> personalities, and upbeat entertainment.
You're forgetting that until Armstrong came along AM radio was nothing, it was the infantcy of radio in the the 20's, a place that universities supported, until the mid 30's "The Golden Age of Radio".
The FCC wasn't even formed until 1934
>
> > FM came about because AM was so bad
>
> Bad compared to what? 78 RPM records? Back in the day
> people were satisfied with AM quality, because there was
> really nothing better to compare it to. Me and everyone I
> knew grew up with Top 40 radio, and I don't recall any
> widespread complaints about the sound. While AM radio might
> lack the high frequency detail and clarity of FM, it can
> still have a full, rich, and pleasing quality WHEN DONE
> RIGHT--so often not the case today.
This is a well know fact, again it was because of Armstrong, at the urging of Sarnoff that we have FM today. Sarnoff wanted to get rid of the AM reception problems associated with power lines and electrical equipment. The principal issue was interference and noise. FM was born out of a need to improve the AM technology. The solution was to start over, to got left right instead of up down.
>
> > yet it took decades before FM became the powerhouse that
> it is today.
>
> Almost 40 years. Prior to the early 70's FM was the domain
> of audiophiles and technical geeks. The change came when FM
> programming diversified (thanks to nonduplication rules),
> stations improved their signal with increased power and
> taller antenna towers, and receiver manufacturers began
> producing quality portable and auto units.
>
The change occurred because of a new generation of people. Young kids born during the 70's. The prior generation accepted the poor quality of AM because they grew up with it. There is no real diversity today in the FM band. I don't know what you mean by nonduplication rules. FM stations, in single markets take two or more rim shot stations and simulcast programming. The same applies to non-coms like Houston Christian Broadcasting.
As for more power, and better receivers... I agree, but that applies to both AM and FM stations. The technology that supports both systems has improved dramatically, Still AM technology lags way behind.
Will HD radio save AM and FM broadcasters? People have accepted HD TV and HD TV sets are starting to add up to bigs sales.
IPODs are flying off the shelves. What does that mean? I see them everywhere, especially with folks working out at the gym. They used to watch TV or listen to the radio......
> The discussions continually ensuing over Satellite radio's
> supposed takeover of listenership of the terrestrial medium
> is mostly unfounded.
> Satellite radio companies, both XM and Sirius (which even
> they are affiliated), have not found the means to profit
> yet.
> A 3.2 million or so increase for one famous morning show
> host leaving FM is an impressive standalone number, but in a
> nation of billions, that number pales.
Billions, eh? Texas must have gained about 200 million last year.
> Terrestrial radio will ALWAYS have the edge because it is
> FREE.
> 7-8 out of 10 will probably tell you that they like the idea
> of satellite radio. If you tell them, "more music, no
> commercials, huge variety, etc." they'll say "wow, that
> sounds like a great thing to have. Yeah, I'd like something
> like that."
> What's important to understand here is that there's a
> difference between the idea and the actual implementation of
> that idea. When most people figure out that you have to
> subscribe, pay a monthly fee, get an installment, why
> bother?
Do most people even think about radio? Get in the car, turn it on, much like you would flip on a light stumbling out of bed. It's not like TV where they're recuperating after a day at work. Someone made the comment on another board the the 20 year olds with iPods perfectly programmed will eventually have to grow up and get a life (and a job) and will have less time to play with every new gadget. Makes sense to me.
(Yes, I know, the majority of radio listening is out-of-car, but despite the fact that geeks like myself haven't turned on the TV in months, rather listening to various radio streams, I just don't see it for most people under 92)
> supposed takeover of listenership of the terrestrial medium
> is mostly unfounded.
> Satellite radio companies, both XM and Sirius (which even
> they are affiliated), have not found the means to profit
> yet.
> A 3.2 million or so increase for one famous morning show
> host leaving FM is an impressive standalone number, but in a
> nation of billions, that number pales.
Billions, eh? Texas must have gained about 200 million last year.
> Terrestrial radio will ALWAYS have the edge because it is
> FREE.
> 7-8 out of 10 will probably tell you that they like the idea
> of satellite radio. If you tell them, "more music, no
> commercials, huge variety, etc." they'll say "wow, that
> sounds like a great thing to have. Yeah, I'd like something
> like that."
> What's important to understand here is that there's a
> difference between the idea and the actual implementation of
> that idea. When most people figure out that you have to
> subscribe, pay a monthly fee, get an installment, why
> bother?
Do most people even think about radio? Get in the car, turn it on, much like you would flip on a light stumbling out of bed. It's not like TV where they're recuperating after a day at work. Someone made the comment on another board the the 20 year olds with iPods perfectly programmed will eventually have to grow up and get a life (and a job) and will have less time to play with every new gadget. Makes sense to me.
(Yes, I know, the majority of radio listening is out-of-car, but despite the fact that geeks like myself haven't turned on the TV in months, rather listening to various radio streams, I just don't see it for most people under 92)
R
radiodial
Guest
> One of the few keys besides the no-cost factor that makes
> terrestrial radio still stand a step above XM and Sirius is
> the existence of local flavor.
I wonder about that. About local flavor really being an advantage to radio. If that were true, wouldn't 93.7, the Arrow, be way up in the ratings? The Arrow has the Astros on all the time and are always talking about local activities. Yet their ratings are not too good.
JMHO
> terrestrial radio still stand a step above XM and Sirius is
> the existence of local flavor.
I wonder about that. About local flavor really being an advantage to radio. If that were true, wouldn't 93.7, the Arrow, be way up in the ratings? The Arrow has the Astros on all the time and are always talking about local activities. Yet their ratings are not too good.
JMHO
Re: AM sounded great
> > What can be done to save jobs in FREE Radio?
> >
> FREE Radio has been under fire since the days of Lee de
> Forest. AM sounded bad and wasn't a viable product in the
> late 1920's.
Funny, but in the 50's an 60's we thought AM sounded great. FM gradually started growing in the late 60's and 70's because the FCC mandated separate programming in 1967 and listeners found more variety and fewer commercials. The quality issue was incidental, in fact.
As to being viable, there were several hundred stations licensed in 1922 alone, the first year of real licensing. In fact, by August, they had gone from WAAA to WKAQ in the straight order assignments of calls.
The wide band AMs of the day sounded magnificent on the good radios they had then. AM is capable of the same fidelity as FM, you know?
> > What can be done to save jobs in FREE Radio?
> >
> FREE Radio has been under fire since the days of Lee de
> Forest. AM sounded bad and wasn't a viable product in the
> late 1920's.
Funny, but in the 50's an 60's we thought AM sounded great. FM gradually started growing in the late 60's and 70's because the FCC mandated separate programming in 1967 and listeners found more variety and fewer commercials. The quality issue was incidental, in fact.
As to being viable, there were several hundred stations licensed in 1922 alone, the first year of real licensing. In fact, by August, they had gone from WAAA to WKAQ in the straight order assignments of calls.
The wide band AMs of the day sounded magnificent on the good radios they had then. AM is capable of the same fidelity as FM, you know?
>
> You're forgetting that until Armstrong came along AM radio
> was nothing, it was the infantcy of radio in the the 20's, a
> place that universities supported, until the mid 30's "The
> Golden Age of Radio".
The 20's saw the birth of radio as we know it. The industry was highly developed, with plenty of good programs by the end of the decade, and nearly 800 stations on the air. Only a handful were run by universities, like WOI and WHA. The rest were mostly commercial and successful.
Armstron's invention was irrelevant until the late 60's when the FCC madated separate programming. In fact, in 1960, there were several hundred fewer FMs than there had been in 1950. FM almost diedd.
>
> The FCC wasn't even formed until 1934
Yes, thut there were other entities of the government, like the Federal Radio Commission. Stations were licensed by the hundreds in 1922, with a system for frequencies, sharing and call letters. Get some old radex magazines and you will see how vibrant radio was in that decade.
> >
> > > FM came about because AM was so bad
> >
>
> This is a well know fact, again it was because of Armstrong,
> at the urging of Sarnoff that we have FM today. Sarnoff
> wanted to get rid of the AM reception problems associated
> with power lines and electrical equipment.
Sarnoff tried to squelch FM, including getting the post-war FCC to change the bad from 49 mHz to today's band. Armstong committed suicide because of RCA's attempt to strangle and stop FM.
> The principal
> issue was interference and noise. FM was born out of a need
> to improve the AM technology. The solution was to start
> over, to got left right instead of up down.
In that era, noise and interference were not an issue. People listened to The Grand Ole Oprey in Washington state, something no FM can do. FM had enourmous defects due to coverage in the 40's and 50's when there were few stations and coverage was the big issue.
Again, m before cheap radios and the NRSC, AM souded as good as FM. Full fidelity from about 25 Hz to 15 kHz was definitely possible on both transmitters and receivers. I had several transmitters in the 60's that proofed within 3 db in this entire range, and good radios that could hear it.
Your understanding of radio history is really quite wrong.
> >
> The change occurred because of a new generation of people.
> Young kids born during the 70's. The prior generation
> accepted the poor quality of AM because they grew up with
> it.
The quality was not the issue, and it was the FCc mandate to force non-duplication that pushed FM into new formats. Since the new FM formats had no listeners, they had no commercials, and that attracted listeners, especially young ones. It had very little to do with fidelity and lots to do with new formats and lower spot loads.
Go get a book or two. Your knowledge of radio in the past is seriouly whacked.
> You're forgetting that until Armstrong came along AM radio
> was nothing, it was the infantcy of radio in the the 20's, a
> place that universities supported, until the mid 30's "The
> Golden Age of Radio".
The 20's saw the birth of radio as we know it. The industry was highly developed, with plenty of good programs by the end of the decade, and nearly 800 stations on the air. Only a handful were run by universities, like WOI and WHA. The rest were mostly commercial and successful.
Armstron's invention was irrelevant until the late 60's when the FCC madated separate programming. In fact, in 1960, there were several hundred fewer FMs than there had been in 1950. FM almost diedd.
>
> The FCC wasn't even formed until 1934
Yes, thut there were other entities of the government, like the Federal Radio Commission. Stations were licensed by the hundreds in 1922, with a system for frequencies, sharing and call letters. Get some old radex magazines and you will see how vibrant radio was in that decade.
> >
> > > FM came about because AM was so bad
> >
>
> This is a well know fact, again it was because of Armstrong,
> at the urging of Sarnoff that we have FM today. Sarnoff
> wanted to get rid of the AM reception problems associated
> with power lines and electrical equipment.
Sarnoff tried to squelch FM, including getting the post-war FCC to change the bad from 49 mHz to today's band. Armstong committed suicide because of RCA's attempt to strangle and stop FM.
> The principal
> issue was interference and noise. FM was born out of a need
> to improve the AM technology. The solution was to start
> over, to got left right instead of up down.
In that era, noise and interference were not an issue. People listened to The Grand Ole Oprey in Washington state, something no FM can do. FM had enourmous defects due to coverage in the 40's and 50's when there were few stations and coverage was the big issue.
Again, m before cheap radios and the NRSC, AM souded as good as FM. Full fidelity from about 25 Hz to 15 kHz was definitely possible on both transmitters and receivers. I had several transmitters in the 60's that proofed within 3 db in this entire range, and good radios that could hear it.
Your understanding of radio history is really quite wrong.
> >
> The change occurred because of a new generation of people.
> Young kids born during the 70's. The prior generation
> accepted the poor quality of AM because they grew up with
> it.
The quality was not the issue, and it was the FCc mandate to force non-duplication that pushed FM into new formats. Since the new FM formats had no listeners, they had no commercials, and that attracted listeners, especially young ones. It had very little to do with fidelity and lots to do with new formats and lower spot loads.
Go get a book or two. Your knowledge of radio in the past is seriouly whacked.
C
CW
Guest
Re: AM sounded great
> The wide band AMs of the day sounded magnificent on the good
> radios the had then. AM is capable of the same fidelity as
> FM, you know?
True...The problem with AM is not the transmitters...they can pass just as much as FM in audio frequency, etc. but current FCC rules limit them to 10kHz....the rcvrs is what sucks. The IF filter starts the roll off at 2-3 kHz...and at 5 kHz its very much attenuated. AM Stereo radios had wide filters and could pass up to 10-15 kHz...listening to 790 and 92.9 back in the Q Zoo days, I would prefer the AM...sounded better to me.
> The wide band AMs of the day sounded magnificent on the good
> radios the had then. AM is capable of the same fidelity as
> FM, you know?
True...The problem with AM is not the transmitters...they can pass just as much as FM in audio frequency, etc. but current FCC rules limit them to 10kHz....the rcvrs is what sucks. The IF filter starts the roll off at 2-3 kHz...and at 5 kHz its very much attenuated. AM Stereo radios had wide filters and could pass up to 10-15 kHz...listening to 790 and 92.9 back in the Q Zoo days, I would prefer the AM...sounded better to me.
> >
> > You're forgetting that until Armstrong came along AM radio
>
> > was nothing, it was the infantcy of radio in the the 20's,
> a
> > place that universities supported, until the mid 30's "The
>
> > Golden Age of Radio".
>
> The 20's saw the birth of radio as we know it. The industry
> was highly developed, with plenty of good programs by the
> end of the decade, and nearly 800 stations on the air. Only
> a handful were run by universities, like WOI and WHA. The
> rest were mostly commercial and successful.
>
> Armstron's invention was irrelevant until the late 60's when
> the FCC madated separate programming. In fact, in 1960,
> there were several hundred fewer FMs than there had been in
> 1950. FM almost diedd.
> >
> > The FCC wasn't even formed until 1934
>
> Yes, thut there were other entities of the government, like
> the Federal Radio Commission. Stations were licensed by the
> hundreds in 1922, with a system for frequencies, sharing and
> call letters. Get some old radex magazines and you will see
> how vibrant radio was in that decade.
>
> > >
> > > > FM came about because AM was so bad
> > >
> >
> > This is a well know fact, again it was because of
> Armstrong,
> > at the urging of Sarnoff that we have FM today. Sarnoff
> > wanted to get rid of the AM reception problems associated
> > with power lines and electrical equipment.
>
> Sarnoff tried to squelch FM, including getting the post-war
> FCC to change the bad from 49 mHz to today's band. Armstong
> committed suicide because of RCA's attempt to strangle and
> stop FM.
>
> > The principal
> > issue was interference and noise. FM was born out of a
> need
> > to improve the AM technology. The solution was to start
> > over, to got left right instead of up down.
>
> In that era, noise and interference were not an issue.
> People listened to The Grand Ole Oprey in Washington state,
> something no FM can do. FM had enourmous defects due to
> coverage in the 40's and 50's when there were few stations
> and coverage was the big issue.
>
> Again, m before cheap radios and the NRSC, AM souded as good
> as FM. Full fidelity from about 25 Hz to 15 kHz was
> definitely possible on both transmitters and receivers. I
> had several transmitters in the 60's that proofed within 3
> db in this entire range, and good radios that could hear it.
>
>
> Your understanding of radio history is really quite wrong.
> > >
> > The change occurred because of a new generation of people.
>
> > Young kids born during the 70's. The prior generation
> > accepted the poor quality of AM because they grew up with
> > it.
>
> The quality was not the issue, and it was the FCc mandate to
> force non-duplication that pushed FM into new formats. Since
> the new FM formats had no listeners, they had no
> commercials, and that attracted listeners, especially young
> ones. It had very little to do with fidelity and lots to do
> with new formats and lower spot loads.
>
> Go get a book or two. Your knowledge of radio in the past is
> seriouly whacked.
>
Your facts are wrong and not worth discussion.
> > You're forgetting that until Armstrong came along AM radio
>
> > was nothing, it was the infantcy of radio in the the 20's,
> a
> > place that universities supported, until the mid 30's "The
>
> > Golden Age of Radio".
>
> The 20's saw the birth of radio as we know it. The industry
> was highly developed, with plenty of good programs by the
> end of the decade, and nearly 800 stations on the air. Only
> a handful were run by universities, like WOI and WHA. The
> rest were mostly commercial and successful.
>
> Armstron's invention was irrelevant until the late 60's when
> the FCC madated separate programming. In fact, in 1960,
> there were several hundred fewer FMs than there had been in
> 1950. FM almost diedd.
> >
> > The FCC wasn't even formed until 1934
>
> Yes, thut there were other entities of the government, like
> the Federal Radio Commission. Stations were licensed by the
> hundreds in 1922, with a system for frequencies, sharing and
> call letters. Get some old radex magazines and you will see
> how vibrant radio was in that decade.
>
> > >
> > > > FM came about because AM was so bad
> > >
> >
> > This is a well know fact, again it was because of
> Armstrong,
> > at the urging of Sarnoff that we have FM today. Sarnoff
> > wanted to get rid of the AM reception problems associated
> > with power lines and electrical equipment.
>
> Sarnoff tried to squelch FM, including getting the post-war
> FCC to change the bad from 49 mHz to today's band. Armstong
> committed suicide because of RCA's attempt to strangle and
> stop FM.
>
> > The principal
> > issue was interference and noise. FM was born out of a
> need
> > to improve the AM technology. The solution was to start
> > over, to got left right instead of up down.
>
> In that era, noise and interference were not an issue.
> People listened to The Grand Ole Oprey in Washington state,
> something no FM can do. FM had enourmous defects due to
> coverage in the 40's and 50's when there were few stations
> and coverage was the big issue.
>
> Again, m before cheap radios and the NRSC, AM souded as good
> as FM. Full fidelity from about 25 Hz to 15 kHz was
> definitely possible on both transmitters and receivers. I
> had several transmitters in the 60's that proofed within 3
> db in this entire range, and good radios that could hear it.
>
>
> Your understanding of radio history is really quite wrong.
> > >
> > The change occurred because of a new generation of people.
>
> > Young kids born during the 70's. The prior generation
> > accepted the poor quality of AM because they grew up with
> > it.
>
> The quality was not the issue, and it was the FCc mandate to
> force non-duplication that pushed FM into new formats. Since
> the new FM formats had no listeners, they had no
> commercials, and that attracted listeners, especially young
> ones. It had very little to do with fidelity and lots to do
> with new formats and lower spot loads.
>
> Go get a book or two. Your knowledge of radio in the past is
> seriouly whacked.
>
Your facts are wrong and not worth discussion.
Re: The Pheasants are firing on the shotguns...
>
> Your facts are wrong and not worth discussion.
>
If you truly believe this, then you are one sick puppy.
In fact, your regulatory dateline, facts on AM fidelity and, particularly the relationship of Maj. Armstrong woith Sarnoff are about 180 degrees off the true course.
You don't evcen understand why FM gained ground starting in the late 60's after more than 20 years of failure. It was everything but the sound quality.
I sure would like to know where you picked up so much false information and downright lies.
>
> Your facts are wrong and not worth discussion.
>
If you truly believe this, then you are one sick puppy.
In fact, your regulatory dateline, facts on AM fidelity and, particularly the relationship of Maj. Armstrong woith Sarnoff are about 180 degrees off the true course.
You don't evcen understand why FM gained ground starting in the late 60's after more than 20 years of failure. It was everything but the sound quality.
I sure would like to know where you picked up so much false information and downright lies.
C
CW
Guest
Re: The Pheasants are firing on the shotguns...
> >
> > Your facts are wrong and not worth discussion.
> >
>
> If you truly believe this, then you are one sick puppy.
>
> In fact, your regulatory dateline, facts on AM fidelity and,
> particularly the relationship of Maj. Armstrong woith
> Sarnoff are about 180 degrees off the true course.
>
> You don't evcen understand why FM gained ground starting in
> the late 60's after more than 20 years of failure. It was
> everything but the sound quality.
>
> I sure would like to know where you picked up so much false
> information and downright lies.
Amen David! I started in radio when AM was still king....and then saw FM gaining ground...I remember listening to KRBE in the late 70s when it was one of the 1st FM Top40 stations but KILT-AM and 790 KULF/KKBQ were still doing well (KKBQ-AM went to #1 after it signed on with the Q Zoo after blowing out the older KULF not because of sound quality but CONTENT!)....I remember one FM that was co-owned with our AM was SOLD because the owners decided the AM was the station to keep...the FM was beautiful music and the new owners kept that format on it...they went bankrupt and the FM was sold to another company (has sold several times since)...it is now a CHR owned by one of the major groups.
This idiot who keeps arguing with you is obviously someone who never worked in radio like we have...and is either smoking or drinking something....
> >
> > Your facts are wrong and not worth discussion.
> >
>
> If you truly believe this, then you are one sick puppy.
>
> In fact, your regulatory dateline, facts on AM fidelity and,
> particularly the relationship of Maj. Armstrong woith
> Sarnoff are about 180 degrees off the true course.
>
> You don't evcen understand why FM gained ground starting in
> the late 60's after more than 20 years of failure. It was
> everything but the sound quality.
>
> I sure would like to know where you picked up so much false
> information and downright lies.
Amen David! I started in radio when AM was still king....and then saw FM gaining ground...I remember listening to KRBE in the late 70s when it was one of the 1st FM Top40 stations but KILT-AM and 790 KULF/KKBQ were still doing well (KKBQ-AM went to #1 after it signed on with the Q Zoo after blowing out the older KULF not because of sound quality but CONTENT!)....I remember one FM that was co-owned with our AM was SOLD because the owners decided the AM was the station to keep...the FM was beautiful music and the new owners kept that format on it...they went bankrupt and the FM was sold to another company (has sold several times since)...it is now a CHR owned by one of the major groups.
This idiot who keeps arguing with you is obviously someone who never worked in radio like we have...and is either smoking or drinking something....
Re: The Pheasants are firing on the shotguns...
> Amen David! I started in radio when AM was still king....and
> then saw FM gaining ground...I remember listening to KRBE in
> the late 70s when it was one of the 1st FM Top40 stations
> but KILT-AM and 790 KULF/KKBQ were still doing well (KKBQ-AM
> went to #1 after it signed on with the Q Zoo after blowing
> out the older KULF not because of sound quality but
> CONTENT!)....
I did the conversion of the 4th or 5th FM to a stand-alone CHR in Birmingham in '72, when the only others were WMYQW, WDRQ and KSLQ. We quickly hit WSGN, the old line AM CHR. We did it because we played Allmans and Lynard Skynard, not "Ben" and "The Morning After." We had half the spot load, and cooler jocks. Audio had little to do with it.
Previously, I had put on the air the first FM in Ecuador, in 1966 (40 years ago) and it got excellent ratings results in its first two years (#2 in Upper Socioeconomic Level) based on a 2 minute an hour commercial load. Audio quality was never promoted, even when we went stereo in 1968. Again, it was about content and presentation and station style.
> This idiot who keeps arguing with you is obviously someone
> who never worked in radio like we have...and is either
> smoking or drinking something....
I have a pretty extensive collection of old Broadcasting Magazines and Yearbooks, and the interesting thing is to see the development of FM. In 1950 there were a third more FMs on the air than in 1960. Stereo took 3 years to get to over 100 stereo stations. Separate programming did not evolve until the FCC mandated the discontinuation of simulcasting. And Sarnof / RCA tried very hard in the post-War years to squash FM.
> Amen David! I started in radio when AM was still king....and
> then saw FM gaining ground...I remember listening to KRBE in
> the late 70s when it was one of the 1st FM Top40 stations
> but KILT-AM and 790 KULF/KKBQ were still doing well (KKBQ-AM
> went to #1 after it signed on with the Q Zoo after blowing
> out the older KULF not because of sound quality but
> CONTENT!)....
I did the conversion of the 4th or 5th FM to a stand-alone CHR in Birmingham in '72, when the only others were WMYQW, WDRQ and KSLQ. We quickly hit WSGN, the old line AM CHR. We did it because we played Allmans and Lynard Skynard, not "Ben" and "The Morning After." We had half the spot load, and cooler jocks. Audio had little to do with it.
Previously, I had put on the air the first FM in Ecuador, in 1966 (40 years ago) and it got excellent ratings results in its first two years (#2 in Upper Socioeconomic Level) based on a 2 minute an hour commercial load. Audio quality was never promoted, even when we went stereo in 1968. Again, it was about content and presentation and station style.
> This idiot who keeps arguing with you is obviously someone
> who never worked in radio like we have...and is either
> smoking or drinking something....
I have a pretty extensive collection of old Broadcasting Magazines and Yearbooks, and the interesting thing is to see the development of FM. In 1950 there were a third more FMs on the air than in 1960. Stereo took 3 years to get to over 100 stereo stations. Separate programming did not evolve until the FCC mandated the discontinuation of simulcasting. And Sarnof / RCA tried very hard in the post-War years to squash FM.
> > The discussions continually ensuing over Satellite radio's
>
> > supposed takeover of listenership of the terrestrial
> medium
> > is mostly unfounded.
> > Satellite radio companies, both XM and Sirius (which even
> > they are affiliated), have not found the means to profit
> > yet.
> > A 3.2 million or so increase for one famous morning show
> > host leaving FM is an impressive standalone number, but in
> a
> > nation of billions, that number pales.
>
> Billions, eh? Texas must have gained about 200 million last
> year.
Oops...thanks for the correction...typos do happen sometimes
>
> > Terrestrial radio will ALWAYS have the edge because it is
> > FREE.
> > 7-8 out of 10 will probably tell you that they like the
> idea
> > of satellite radio. If you tell them, "more music, no
> > commercials, huge variety, etc." they'll say "wow, that
> > sounds like a great thing to have. Yeah, I'd like
> something
> > like that."
> > What's important to understand here is that there's a
> > difference between the idea and the actual implementation
> of
> > that idea. When most people figure out that you have to
> > subscribe, pay a monthly fee, get an installment, why
> > bother?
>
> Do most people even think about radio? Get in the car, turn
> it on, much like you would flip on a light stumbling out of
> bed. It's not like TV where they're recuperating after a day
> at work. Someone made the comment on another board the the
> 20 year olds with iPods perfectly programmed will eventually
> have to grow up and get a life (and a job) and will have
> less time to play with every new gadget. Makes sense to me.
>
> (Yes, I know, the majority of radio listening is out-of-car,
> but despite the fact that geeks like myself haven't turned
> on the TV in months, rather listening to various radio
> streams, I just don't see it for most people under 92)
>
Which was my point exactly...Terrestrial radio is FREE and requires no assembly...it's so easy that you can just stumble out of bed and push a button...that's why it still has the advantage over satellite radio
because people would rather not think about radio or even conceive of paying for it...normal people mostly listen to radio during drivetimes, but radio folk and radio enthusiasts are the ones that can listen to it almost anywhere...
<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by slaterradio on 02/14/06 07:11 AM.</FONT></P>
>
> > supposed takeover of listenership of the terrestrial
> medium
> > is mostly unfounded.
> > Satellite radio companies, both XM and Sirius (which even
> > they are affiliated), have not found the means to profit
> > yet.
> > A 3.2 million or so increase for one famous morning show
> > host leaving FM is an impressive standalone number, but in
> a
> > nation of billions, that number pales.
>
> Billions, eh? Texas must have gained about 200 million last
> year.
Oops...thanks for the correction...typos do happen sometimes
>
> > Terrestrial radio will ALWAYS have the edge because it is
> > FREE.
> > 7-8 out of 10 will probably tell you that they like the
> idea
> > of satellite radio. If you tell them, "more music, no
> > commercials, huge variety, etc." they'll say "wow, that
> > sounds like a great thing to have. Yeah, I'd like
> something
> > like that."
> > What's important to understand here is that there's a
> > difference between the idea and the actual implementation
> of
> > that idea. When most people figure out that you have to
> > subscribe, pay a monthly fee, get an installment, why
> > bother?
>
> Do most people even think about radio? Get in the car, turn
> it on, much like you would flip on a light stumbling out of
> bed. It's not like TV where they're recuperating after a day
> at work. Someone made the comment on another board the the
> 20 year olds with iPods perfectly programmed will eventually
> have to grow up and get a life (and a job) and will have
> less time to play with every new gadget. Makes sense to me.
>
> (Yes, I know, the majority of radio listening is out-of-car,
> but despite the fact that geeks like myself haven't turned
> on the TV in months, rather listening to various radio
> streams, I just don't see it for most people under 92)
>
Which was my point exactly...Terrestrial radio is FREE and requires no assembly...it's so easy that you can just stumble out of bed and push a button...that's why it still has the advantage over satellite radio
because people would rather not think about radio or even conceive of paying for it...normal people mostly listen to radio during drivetimes, but radio folk and radio enthusiasts are the ones that can listen to it almost anywhere...
<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by slaterradio on 02/14/06 07:11 AM.</FONT></P>
Re: AM sounded great
> As to being viable, there were several hundred stations
> licensed in 1922 alone, the first year of real licensing. In
> fact, by August, they had gone from WAAA to ***WKAQ*** in the
> straight order assignments of calls.
Thank You Señor Gleason ~_^<P ID="signature">______________
I listen to what I like.
Ratings be Damned.</P>
> As to being viable, there were several hundred stations
> licensed in 1922 alone, the first year of real licensing. In
> fact, by August, they had gone from WAAA to ***WKAQ*** in the
> straight order assignments of calls.
Thank You Señor Gleason ~_^<P ID="signature">______________
I listen to what I like.
Ratings be Damned.</P>
Pardon for butting in David, CW, et al....
This is very speculative, but
Had Sarnoff not tried to destroy FM, would there be 2 FM bands (and TV channel 1) today?
There in lies a science-fiction tale waiting to be born.
Yours in Radio Nerdiness, H.R.G.
<P ID="signature">______________
I listen to what I like.
Ratings be Damned.</P>
This is very speculative, but
Had Sarnoff not tried to destroy FM, would there be 2 FM bands (and TV channel 1) today?
There in lies a science-fiction tale waiting to be born.
Yours in Radio Nerdiness, H.R.G.
<P ID="signature">______________I listen to what I like.
Ratings be Damned.</P>
M
Mike_O
Guest
> Which was my point exactly...Terrestrial radio is FREE and
> requires no assembly...it's so easy that you can just
> stumble out of bed and push a button...that's why it still
> has the advantage over satellite radio
> because people would rather not think about radio or even
> conceive of paying for it...normal people mostly listen to
> radio during drivetimes, but radio folk and radio
> enthusiasts are the ones that can listen to it almost
> anywhere...
>
I haven't seen but two friends purchase XM/Sirrus, but they love it. What I find in the vast majority of friends and family is they do not listen to the radio in the car or at home. Most vehicles sold for the last five years at least have had CD players as standard equipment if you bought a radio. Nearly 100% of the time a CD is playing and there is a stash of CD's in their car, SUV, truck and have little to no use for local radio.
At home many have turned to Internet Radio to keep up on the latest in their taste of music and then purchase the CD's they like. The majority of PC's are capable of burning a compilation CD in no time and many people can burn a CD on thier PC faster than they can use Word or Excel. My father in his mid 70's dropped off some CD's he burned for me the other day, so all age groups are adept at making a CD on the PC for their pleasure.
At work listening should be an oxymoron. If you are truely working your mind is not on the radio. Those that are at work calling into radio stations do not have work to do or don't do their work. For the vast majority the radio that is on at work is for background noise and not really listened to, it is another way of staking out their territory in the world of cubicles with "their" radio station playing in the background. Even at work more people have turned to CD players and have a collection of CD's at work.
Maybe if local radio gives us a reason to llsten again people might turn the radio back on, but I won't bank on it today. What is there on the Houston radio dial AM or FM that has any compelling content? The closest station I can think of is KFNC 97.5, but until they become an All News station I do not see them becoming a force in the Houston market, even with the Internet availablity.
I see radio in Houston and the US becoming speciality programming, much as the AM band is today in Houston. Talk, News, Sports, Foreign Language stations will be the staple of both bands.
HD-FM is not going to make the difference. Todays over processed CD's do not sound nearly as good as a well maintained AM station that played Top 40 back in the 50's through today that used more than 5kHz of band space. Yet I don't hear anyone complaining about the sound quality of CD's. I have not heard a single person complain about the present sound quality of FM radio and have no interest in spending money on something they do not feel the need. I believe that HD-FM will have a long uphill battle to gain widespread acceptance. It may come down to the FCC mandating that all receivers manufactured are 100% capable of receiving HD Radio broadcasts, just as was done mandating that the FM band was incorporated into every radio made.
Will AM/FM still be viable in ten years? Yes. There is too much money at stake and the corporations will adapt to what the people want sooner or later, hopefully soon. I do think that the programming will be much different from today even. You will find niche stations the norm, as mentioned above. In Houston you will find stations that will go back to the old "full service" format for a section of the Houston DMA. If KRCM 1380 is approved for the move to Shenandoah, their best bet would be to superserve Montgomery County with LOCAL and LIVE News and Talk 24/7. KGBC 1540 in Galveston or KYST 920 in Texas City would do the same thing for Galveston County. I also believe more foreign language stations will pop up, other than Spanish which will make it's mark on Internet Radio, where I believe the future of radio lies.
Mike O
> requires no assembly...it's so easy that you can just
> stumble out of bed and push a button...that's why it still
> has the advantage over satellite radio
> because people would rather not think about radio or even
> conceive of paying for it...normal people mostly listen to
> radio during drivetimes, but radio folk and radio
> enthusiasts are the ones that can listen to it almost
> anywhere...
>
I haven't seen but two friends purchase XM/Sirrus, but they love it. What I find in the vast majority of friends and family is they do not listen to the radio in the car or at home. Most vehicles sold for the last five years at least have had CD players as standard equipment if you bought a radio. Nearly 100% of the time a CD is playing and there is a stash of CD's in their car, SUV, truck and have little to no use for local radio.
At home many have turned to Internet Radio to keep up on the latest in their taste of music and then purchase the CD's they like. The majority of PC's are capable of burning a compilation CD in no time and many people can burn a CD on thier PC faster than they can use Word or Excel. My father in his mid 70's dropped off some CD's he burned for me the other day, so all age groups are adept at making a CD on the PC for their pleasure.
At work listening should be an oxymoron. If you are truely working your mind is not on the radio. Those that are at work calling into radio stations do not have work to do or don't do their work. For the vast majority the radio that is on at work is for background noise and not really listened to, it is another way of staking out their territory in the world of cubicles with "their" radio station playing in the background. Even at work more people have turned to CD players and have a collection of CD's at work.
Maybe if local radio gives us a reason to llsten again people might turn the radio back on, but I won't bank on it today. What is there on the Houston radio dial AM or FM that has any compelling content? The closest station I can think of is KFNC 97.5, but until they become an All News station I do not see them becoming a force in the Houston market, even with the Internet availablity.
I see radio in Houston and the US becoming speciality programming, much as the AM band is today in Houston. Talk, News, Sports, Foreign Language stations will be the staple of both bands.
HD-FM is not going to make the difference. Todays over processed CD's do not sound nearly as good as a well maintained AM station that played Top 40 back in the 50's through today that used more than 5kHz of band space. Yet I don't hear anyone complaining about the sound quality of CD's. I have not heard a single person complain about the present sound quality of FM radio and have no interest in spending money on something they do not feel the need. I believe that HD-FM will have a long uphill battle to gain widespread acceptance. It may come down to the FCC mandating that all receivers manufactured are 100% capable of receiving HD Radio broadcasts, just as was done mandating that the FM band was incorporated into every radio made.
Will AM/FM still be viable in ten years? Yes. There is too much money at stake and the corporations will adapt to what the people want sooner or later, hopefully soon. I do think that the programming will be much different from today even. You will find niche stations the norm, as mentioned above. In Houston you will find stations that will go back to the old "full service" format for a section of the Houston DMA. If KRCM 1380 is approved for the move to Shenandoah, their best bet would be to superserve Montgomery County with LOCAL and LIVE News and Talk 24/7. KGBC 1540 in Galveston or KYST 920 in Texas City would do the same thing for Galveston County. I also believe more foreign language stations will pop up, other than Spanish which will make it's mark on Internet Radio, where I believe the future of radio lies.
Mike O
- Status