RadioDiscussions.com

 
Login June 19, 2013, 02:12:25 AM *
Username Password Session Length
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email? Did you forget your password?
:  
   Home   Help Search Contact Us Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: AM Radio Discussion  (Read 2121 times)
Blaine
rimember

Offline Offline

Posts: 2


Re: AM Radio Discussion
« Reply #10 on: February 02, 2012, 11:21:05 AM »

Chuck,

Thanks for passing this article on to us!  I happen to think that in addition to an older age demographic still utilizing the AM band on their radios, there is also somewhat of a cult culture that has reverted back to AM that skew younger.  Don't get me wrong, I am not referring to a CHR-type age demo!  While they might be streaming online, listening through a mobile app, etc. they are still tuning in to the content delivered initially through an AM frequency.

While I am the first to admit, there are many Ipoders out there.....there still seems to be a niche audience on the AM dial.  Take morning drive as an example, for those that do not have an interest in re-hashing who got voted off the isalnd, how pitchy last night's American Idol performances were, or the latest celebrity scoop, AM still provides an alternative.

These are just my thoughts and I am in now way an expert on any of the technicalities here!  I just like the conversation!

Thanks again Chuck!

Blaine

www.inthemoney.net
Logged
DavidEduardo
Internet Termite
rimember

Offline Offline

Posts: 24937

"“Win without boasting. Lose without excuse"


Re: AM Radio Discussion
« Reply #11 on: February 02, 2012, 11:37:16 AM »


I would take it a bit further, though, and propose a massive frequency swap.

In the NARBA change in the early 40's, only a bit over 700 stations were affected. And the moves were, at most, 40 kHZ and many were 10 to 20 kHz.

To do what you propose means moving stations widely over the dial. The cost in rebuilding transmitter sites, often with new directionals, nearly always with total replacement of the transmitter and antenna tuning components would be enormously expensive.

Add in stations that would have to increase tower height that are on land that will not support guys for a taller structure or where zoning prohibits such change, and some stations will not survive.

Stations that need new directional designs might need a year to three years to get zoning, and have to spend hundreds of thousands on new land. Many would go silent.

Quote
Listenership would probably improve once the stations were stronger, and less prone to interference.  Although the frequency swap nationwide would be massive, individual listeners would probably only have to remember a handful of new frequencies at most, which could be heavily promoted before the swap.

This does not change 30 years of cheap AM radios, the fact that AM at its best can't sound as good to listeners who did not grow up on the band and the still very limited coverage of most stations, and it won't work.

75% of Americans never use AM. Those that do are predominantly over 55. Nobody wants to invest in a shuffling of AM that essentially provides the same stuff on new frequencies at enormous cost.
Logged

"If you can accept losing, you can't win."
- Vince Lombardi

www.americanradiohistory.com - Broadcasting Magazine and Yearbooks and RCA Broadcast News, Television Magazine, Radio Annual, Radio News, Sponsor, and many, many more.
johndavis
rimember

Offline Offline

Posts: 2580


Re: AM Radio Discussion
« Reply #12 on: February 02, 2012, 02:16:35 PM »

75% of Americans never use AM. Those that do are predominantly over 55. Nobody wants to invest in a shuffling of AM that essentially provides the same stuff on new frequencies at enormous cost.

Especially if you can build an online infrastructure (think streaming aggregators) at a fraction of the cost of "saving" AM. Sooner or later, being the best buggy whip manufacturer doesn't get you a whole lot of business.
Logged

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers. Retweets are not endorsements.
rbrucecarter5
rimember

Offline Offline

Posts: 3202


Re: AM Radio Discussion
« Reply #13 on: February 02, 2012, 03:11:02 PM »


This does not change 30 years of cheap AM radios, the fact that AM at its best can't sound as good to listeners who did not grow up on the band and the still very limited coverage of most stations, and it won't work.

How many times do I have to prove that all newer AM radios are wideband and sound great - not because of any initiative to increase fidelity - but because manufacturers only put one cheap ceramic filter in the IF.  I've measured +/-40 kHz bandwidth on some of the cheap junkers.  But on local music stations, they sound incredible!  If the station hasn't hobbled their bandwidth for the IBOC debacle, or there aren't hissy 10-15 kHz (or 5-10 kHz for radios hard to tune) IBOC trash on there ruining the sound.
Logged
borderblaster
rimember

Offline Offline

Posts: 862


Re: AM Radio Discussion
« Reply #14 on: February 02, 2012, 03:59:58 PM »

Even so, it would cost stations millions to re-zone and re-build for very little benefit. In many markets, the AM audience has dissapeared. I've been places where the only AM choices are second or third tier regular or sports talk, classic country, screaming evangelists and foreign language. There's just not a mass audience that's coming back. Some of these ideas do remind me of Ray Livesay's proposal in the late 970s to move the U.S. to 9kHz spacings and gie all the daytimes full time on several new graveyard channels.

I don't see the 76 mHz band taking off either. Give me that new iPhone but buy a new radio (or several)? Ya gotta be kidding.

 
Logged
Tom Wells
rimember

Offline Offline

Posts: 4569

Antique Radio Repair/Restoration- Send a PM


Re: AM Radio Discussion
« Reply #15 on: February 02, 2012, 05:30:27 PM »

Every time I hear the suggestion that paid service data modes are some sort of solution I laugh.

I will pay for something that works.  It's been almost 10 years that I've used Cingular/AT&T wireless for
data modes and it is a barely workable situation for me. 

Many times it's harder than fishing for dx on AM.  And I get to pay for a LOT of spam delivered while desired content
may or may not arrive, EVER.

I'll once again point out that the infrastructure for AM transmisssion was fully built out millions of years ago, and
only requires proper respect to work forever, for free.  Can anything humans build surpass this?

rbruce: Quite right.  Many cheapies are less selective than old TRF designs from the mid 1920's.
My Atwater Kent Model 35 doesn't have a problem with selectivity until I am trying to pick up a dx 30 khz off from
a local 50 kw.  Many of the moderrn cheapies have a weird bandpass that cuts audio at 5 khz when tuned to the
"proper" frequency, but when off-tuned 10, 20 or 30 khz provide over 15khz audio bandpass.
That's just plain weird.

How can the FCC not hang their head in shame for the poor job done of management?

Why are all other forms of pollution considered bad, but we willingly embrace and love RF pollution?

Logged

Valparaiso Technical Institute 1982, Analog engineer, AM pt 15, inventor with 2 issued patents, former SW pirate. Now offering antique radio repair/restoration and alignment.  Stop just wishing that old radio worked!
AM1620 podcasts ->      http://thomasjwells.podomatic.com/
DavidEduardo
Internet Termite
rimember

Offline Offline

Posts: 24937

"“Win without boasting. Lose without excuse"


Re: AM Radio Discussion
« Reply #16 on: February 02, 2012, 05:52:13 PM »


How many times do I have to prove that all newer AM radios are wideband and sound great - not because of any initiative to increase fidelity - but because manufacturers only put one cheap ceramic filter in the IF. 

But nobody buys a "radio" today. Radios come as part of something else... a car, a phone, a phone charging base, etc. There are, depending on whose estimate you prefer, somewhere around 700 million radios or radio containing devices in the US. To try to get them replaced for better audio on a band that in some markets has less than 10% of listening... and most of that in geezer demos... is just not going to happen.

I went to a Radio Shack last week for a hard to find battery. I looked around, and except for one of those crank model emergency radios, there was not a single radio in the place, save for FM in some phones and mp3 devices or bases.

The beeping I'm hearing is the hearse backing up for AM radio.
Logged

"If you can accept losing, you can't win."
- Vince Lombardi

www.americanradiohistory.com - Broadcasting Magazine and Yearbooks and RCA Broadcast News, Television Magazine, Radio Annual, Radio News, Sponsor, and many, many more.
Kent
rimember

Offline Offline

Posts: 4237


Re: AM Radio Discussion
« Reply #17 on: February 02, 2012, 07:11:05 PM »

Every time I hear the suggestion that paid service data modes are some sort of solution I laugh.

I will pay for something that works.  It's been almost 10 years that I've used Cingular/AT&T wireless for
data modes and it is a barely workable situation for me. 

Many times it's harder than fishing for dx on AM.  And I get to pay for a LOT of spam delivered while desired content
may or may not arrive, EVER.

Interesting.  I live out in the country and have a 25 mile drive to work everyday.  I have no trouble streaming music to my iPhone on my commute.  I can usually travel 200 miles from home in any direction and have, at most, one drop.  Granted, it wasn't always like that as it's only been within the last year to 18 months that the entire drive to work from home has been given 3G.  It's also about as wide as the highway I travel.  If I turn off of it to get gas, it drops down to edge.  I suspect I also don't run into the capacity issues AT&T has had in some areas since smartphone usage isn't nearly as common in this area as it is in big cities. 

I think the point, though, is that networks will continue to be upgraded and, before long, everyone will be paying for data plans anyway.  Those changes will probably happen before many AM's could upgrade their signals if there were to be a massive realignment.
Logged
stan
retired
rimember

Offline Offline

Posts: 1943


Re: AM Radio Discussion
« Reply #18 on: February 03, 2012, 04:00:24 AM »

AM radio listening is generational. Having grown up during the 1960s when music on AM radio was our only choice, we didn't find it odd. Now, our kids grew up with FM radio, never listened to AM, and when forced to listen to music on AM asked what was wrong with the radio - too much static, no stereo, no dynamic range- the complaints we never had 50 years ago.

Of course, I don't think our kids listen to the radio these days. "Radio sucks" or "they don't play the music I can get on the Internet or mp3 device" are the common comments I hear now. It makes you wonder if years from now whether someone will be having the same conversation regarding the death of FM.
Logged

Get an iPhone and load it with the music you like.  You'll be a lot happier.
stan
retired
rimember

Offline Offline

Posts: 1943


Re: AM Radio Discussion
« Reply #19 on: February 03, 2012, 04:00:42 AM »

Duplicate post  Angry
« Last Edit: February 03, 2012, 04:02:52 AM by stan » Logged

Get an iPhone and load it with the music you like.  You'll be a lot happier.
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP

Postings on Radiodiscussions.com are the opinions of the people who post them. Views expressed do not necessarily represent the views of Radiodiscussions.com or its owner or operator. In fact many of the views expressed here are just plain wrong. But they are opinions and this site allows us all to discuss those opinions. Any reliance on information posted is done so at the user's own risk. For a detailed look at the rules, regulations and uses of Radiodiscussions.com please see our TERMS OF SERVICE.

Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.328 seconds with 19 queries.