Lee Reynolds of the USA has been in contact following the display of his DRM modified TenTec RX320 at the SWL show near Philadelphia in March 2003. He posted to the IBOC forum to see what experience and views folk had about IBOC... a long list of responses followed and are provided here in verbatim... the format is a bit messy, but its worth the read! # # # >>Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:30:18 -0500 >>From: Lee Reynolds >>To: am@nrcdxas.org >>Subject: IBOC - do only hardware decoders exist? >> >>I've been up-band dabbling my toes in the DRM waters. >> >>Coming back down here, thinking about the domestic scene and IBOC, I can't help >>but wonder if anyone has heard of a software-based decoder for it? Or do the >>chipset manufacturers have a lock on the market? >> >> Lee >>From: mwdxer@webtv.net (Patrick Martin) >>Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 08:41:18 -0800 (PST) >>To: am@nrcdxas.org >>Subject: Re: [NRC-am] IBOC - do only hardware decoders exist? >> >>Lee; >> >>I have not heard DRM. Is it as bad as IBOC for noise, or can you DX >>through it easily enough? >> >>73s, >> >>Patrick Martin >>Seaside OR >>KAVT Reception Manager >>From: "Charles Hutton" >>To: >>Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 09:04:29 -0800 >>Subject: RE: [NRC-am] IBOC - do only hardware decoders exist? >> >>Far as I know there's no software IBOC decoder available. It's not like DRM >>where you can turn any radio into a DRM by using a soundcard and software. I >>suppose it's because DRM is an open consortium that is internationally >>standardized, while IBOC is a proprietary creature about which we do not >>know all the details. >> >> >>Chuck >>From: Lee Reynolds [mailto:lreynolds@spamcop.net] >>Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 8:30 AM >>To: am@nrcdxas.org >>Subject: [NRC-am] IBOC - do only hardware decoders exist? >> >> >>I've been up-band dabbling my toes in the DRM waters. >> >>Coming back down here, thinking about the domestic scene and IBOC, I can't >>help >>but wonder if anyone has heard of a software-based decoder for it? Or do the >>chipset manufacturers have a lock on the market? >> >> Lee >>From: "John Reed" >>To: >>Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:15:39 -0600 >>Subject: Re: [NRC-am] IBOC - do only hardware decoders exist? >> >> >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: "Charles Hutton" >>To: >>Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 11:04 AM >>Subject: RE: [NRC-am] IBOC - do only hardware decoders exist? >> >>I read up on a few of the details of the transmission system. They are >>using convolutional forward error correction codes to scramble the bits. >>This system encodes the data with an algorithm that allows the receiver to >>decode the data as long as the parameters that were used to encode the data >>and the algorithm are known. There was no mention of specific coding >>parameters in what I found, so I think this will only be available on the >>chips that will be licensed. Apparently this is where the money will be >>made. If you want to listen, you will have to pay. >> >>John Reed >>From: "Frederick R. Vobbe" >>Subject: Re: [NRC-am] IBOC - do only hardware decoders exist? >> >>Did you get the software package from DRM? How easy was it to install and >>set up. I've been thinking of dropping down the Visa card and getting the >>package as I would be interested in hearing some of the test transmission. >>From: "David Gleason" >>Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 09:05:56 -0800 >>Subject: RE: [NRC-am] IBOC -coverage >> >> >>Recently it was posted that IBOC would only cover a small portion of the >>analog coverage area of both AM and FM stations. I consulted this with >>several people and have the following observations: >> >>AM will have usable IBOC signals to the 1 to 2 mv/m contour. Daytime. >>There is no night standard yet. >> >>FM will cover digitally to about the 44 dbu contour. Since the 60 dbu is >>considered the in-home and in car minimum by most, with the 54 dbu the >>minimum for reliable analog reception on all kinds of radios, the >>digital and analog will be the same or, in some cases, the digital will >>out cover the analog (given the expectations on how receivers will be >>designed). >> >>Once night standards for AM are decided on, we can tell what the analog >>vs. digital coverage will be. >> >>For the moment, in most metros, 5 mv/m is a bare minimum for usable >>reception due to noise and interference... Many stations find 10 to 15 >>mv/m to define the area where they are likely to get "diary returns" or >>listeners who report listening to the Arbitron ratings. So the digital >>coverage may again be superior, given the high noise levels in most >>metros and even, in many cases, smaller towns. >> >>It's important too look at where ad revenue and listenership come form >>in evaluating AM, both day and night. Radio is bought by market, not by >>individual station coverage. Very, very few metro stations get higher >>rates because they get out of the home market. Ad buyers look at the >>cost and delivery goals for each market, and buy the local stations in >>each market one by one. >> >>As I previously mentioned, there are only a couple of hundred of the 13 >>thousand stations in the US that get ratings of any dimension outside >>their home market. In most cases, these are stations like LA ones that >>show in Riverside or in Ventura (which are separate markets) or Mobile >>stations that show in Pensacola or Miami stations that show in W. Palm >>Beach. Even in these cases of proximity, the added market reach does not >>convert to dollars... It's all the local market. >> >>Except for a few Truckin' Bozo type shows and the like, there is no >>money in night skip or skywave AM listening. First, since the advent of >>TV, radio gets very low usage at night. For example, while some markets >>have fully a quarter of all persons listening to radio at 6 AM, less >>than 3% listen at 9PM, and it is like 1% at 11 PM. Overnights is so >>insignificant as to be below a single percent of the total potential >>listener base with radios on prior to 5 AM. >> >>For that reason, IBOC on AM at night makes sense. It will probably cover >>as much or more than the useful local night coverage of analog AM in >>most cases in metros. It will have better quality. It will allow AM >>stations to be "digital" which is a huge buzzword in this day of MP3s >>and CDs. Very few stations, with the possible exception of ones like >>KSL, WLW, WCCO, etc., will even wonder what it will do to distant >>listeners. >>From: "Helms Harry" >>Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 09:42:28 -0800 >>MIME-Version: 1.0 >>Subject: Re: [NRC-am] IBOC -coverage >> >>Dave Gleason wrote: >> >> > For that reason, IBOC on AM at night makes sense. It will probably cover >> > as much or more than the useful local night coverage of analog AM in >> > most cases in metros. It will have better quality. It will allow AM >> > stations to be "digital" which is a huge buzzword in this day of MP3s >> > and CDs. Very few stations, with the possible exception of ones like >> > KSL, WLW, WCCO, etc., will even wonder what it will do to distant >> > listeners. >> >>You've made a convincing argument that 99% of all terrestrial broadcasters >>don't care about out-of-market listeners, and I agree with you. But it's >>also why streaming media via 3G/4G systems---using the same towers now used >>strictly for cell phone service---to forthcoming combo PDAs/cell phones will >>make a lot more sense, and profit, in the future than terrestrial >>broadcasting from a single location in the AM and FM bands. >> >>If you're a terrestrial broadcaster, you're looking at your future >>competition every time you see a cell phone tower. (Don't forget the >>satellite radio threat. . . ) >> >>And I'll say it one more time: people listen necause of content, not because >>it's "digital" or some other buzzword du jour. I don't listen to Howard >>Stern because he's on FM locally, or to Phil Hendrie because he's on AM >>locally. I listen because of their program content. >> >>Harry Helms AK6C/7 >>Las VEgas, CA DM26 >>From: "Charles Hutton" >>Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 09:46:38 -0800 >>Subject: RE: [NRC-am] IBOC -coverage >> >>Dave: >> >>Whoever wrote "small portion" was wrong. >> >>But..... Digital WILL have a noticeably smaller coverage area. iBiquity and >>the NAB (NRSC) already have released the data that shows a smaller digital >>coverage area. It's in Appendix D of their report. The somewhat reduced >>coverage area is (seemingly) well known in the broadcast engineering world. >> >>Now perhaps the stations don't care, as they have decided to ignore the >>farther-away listeners, ignore listeners that listen to weaker out of market >>signals while offering poorer analog audio to try to keep the close-in >>listeners via digital. That's what the fight is all about. >> >> >>Chuck >>From: "Powell E. Way III" >>Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:56:37 -0500 >>Subject: RE: [NRC-am] IBOC -coverage >> >>On 18 Mar 2003 at 9:05, David Gleason wrote: >> >> > >> > Recently it was posted that IBOC would only cover a small portion of >> > the analog coverage area of both AM and FM stations. I consulted this >> > with several people and have the following observations: >> > >> > AM will have usable IBOC signals to the 1 to 2 mv/m contour. Daytime. >> > There is no night standard yet. >> >>There's not going to be a real one. It will be approved, interference >>be damned. >> >> >> > FM will cover digitally to about the 44 dbu contour. Since the 60 dbu >> > is considered the in-home and in car minimum by most, with the 54 dbu >> > the minimum for reliable analog reception on all kinds of radios, the >> > digital and analog will be the same or, in some cases, the digital >> > will out cover the analog (given the expectations on how receivers >> > will be designed). >> >>not really because remember the digital power is FAR less than the >>analog. >> >> > Once night standards for AM are decided on, we can tell what the >> > analog vs. digital coverage will be. >> >>I'll bet about 1/4 the analog coverage. >> >> > For the moment, in most metros, 5 mv/m is a bare minimum for usable >> > reception due to noise and interference... Many stations find 10 to 15 >> > mv/m to define the area where they are likely to get "diary returns" >> > or listeners who report listening to the Arbitron ratings. So the >> > digital coverage may again be superior, given the high noise levels in >> > most metros and even, in many cases, smaller towns. >> >>It will not be, because, the digital power is going to be far less, >>and so far the software Ibiquity has is not so robust. I don't have >>faith in the quality of receivers, since none of the manufacturers >>have remembered how to even make a reasonable attempt at a receiver. >> >> >> > For that reason, IBOC on AM at night makes sense. It will probably >> > cover as much or more than the useful local night coverage of analog >> > AM in most cases in metros. It will have better quality. It will allow >> > AM stations to be "digital" which is a huge buzzword in this day of >> > MP3s and CDs. Very few stations, with the possible exception of ones >> > like KSL, WLW, WCCO, etc., will even wonder what it will do to distant >> > listeners. >> >>Where I live my useful night MW listening will go to almost ZERO. >> >>As for FM, there's not ONE station here really worth listening to, >>mainly due to processing. The prevailing idea is this crappy idea of >>horribly overprocessing **INDEED WILL** follow itself over to the >>digital part. >> >>Powell >>Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:37:17 -0500 >>From: Scott Fybush >>Subject: RE: [NRC-am] IBOC -coverage >> >>At 09:05 AM 3/18/2003 -0800, you wrote: >> >>>Recently it was posted that IBOC would only cover a small portion of the >>>analog coverage area of both AM and FM stations. I consulted this with >>>several people and have the following observations: >>> >>>AM will have usable IBOC signals to the 1 to 2 mv/m contour. Daytime. >>>There is no night standard yet. >> >>But this is only half the story...actually, far less than half. As David well knows, the >>contour that matters for AM at night is not the 0.5, not the 1, not the 5 - but the nighttime >>interference-free contour (NIF), which is a function of everything else that's on the channel. >> >>For a good, old allocation the NIF can be as low as 1 or 2 mv/m (in other words, you can >>hear the station out to its 1 or 2 mv contour without experiencing interference from other >>stations on the channel) - but for hemmed-in facilities like the regional-channel AMs down >>the road from me, it's often more like 15 or 25 or even 45 (in other words, you start experiencing >>interference by the time you hit the 45 mv/m contour, which of course is pretty darned close in >>to the transmitter site!) >> >>And did I say "on the channel"? We still have NO real-world tests to tell us what happens when >>WBZ-1030, WJHR-1040, WEVD-1050 and KYW-1060 are all blatting forth in glorious IBOC >>and I'm sitting in central NJ trying to hear just one of them - hence, we have NO way to say >>what the "NIF" will really look like for IBOC. >> >>>Except for a few Truckin' Bozo type shows and the like, there is no >>>money in night skip or skywave AM listening. First, since the advent of >>>TV, radio gets very low usage at night. For example, while some markets >>>have fully a quarter of all persons listening to radio at 6 AM, less >>>than 3% listen at 9PM, and it is like 1% at 11 PM. Overnights is so >>>insignificant as to be below a single percent of the total potential >>>listener base with radios on prior to 5 AM. >>> >>>For that reason, IBOC on AM at night makes sense. It will probably cover >>>as much or more than the useful local night coverage of analog AM in >>>most cases in metros. It will have better quality. It will allow AM >>>stations to be "digital" which is a huge buzzword in this day of MP3s >>>and CDs. Very few stations, with the possible exception of ones like >>>KSL, WLW, WCCO, etc., will even wonder what it will do to distant >>>listeners. >> >>And the KSLs, WLWs, WCCOs, etc. at least can be assured that they'll retain full coverage (or >>close >>to it) in their home markets. But if I'm running the 1130 in Minneapolis or the 1160 in Cincinnati or >>the >>570 in Salt Lake (all signals that are already impaired in reaching their full markets after dark), >>there's >>a very valid question to ask about how much MORE local coverage will suffer when everyone >>turns on >>IBOC, and I don't think it's been fully answered yet (nor do I expect any actual answers when I >>head >>out to Vegas in a few weeks...) >>From: "David Gleason" >>Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:47:00 -0800 >>Subject: RE: [NRC-am] IBOC -coverage >> >>It's smaller based on the belief that a 2 mv/m analog signal is useful. >>When in the real world, where 15 mv/m is minimum to override noise in >>LA, the digital signal may actually outperform the analog. >>From: "David Gleason" >>Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:55:25 -0800 >>Subject: RE: [NRC-am] IBOC -coverage >> >>Harry, >> >>Since I program 5 satellite channels I know how long it will be before >>any of these technologies affects "regular" radio. XM and Sirius target >>the traditional 5% of listeners who don't use radio... This figure has >>been a static one for the last several decades, and is even uniform >>internationally. >> >>As to cell phones, etc., there are bandwidth, cost, ease of use and >>battery life all in play. None of these things is an imminent threat. >>And when the technologies emerge as viable, it will be content that >>moves them. Content will most likely come from existing broadcasters who >>migrate. >> >>Any digital system is subject to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, >>the RIAA, ASCAP, BMI and others. This is a huge impediment to startups. >>It even makes things like XM very hard to program due to DMCA >>regulations about rotations, etc. >> >>There is a confusion that today's broadcasters are locked to AM and FM. >>We are actually content providers, and will use any delivery system that >>is viable. Those who jumped into streaming as a "null fill" and way to >>get into big buildings were thwarted by corporate bandwidth chokes and >>the RIAA and friends. >> >>It's still far off... Maybe 5 years just to start emerging. >>From: "Powell E. Way III" >>Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:17:28 -0500 >>Subject: RE: [NRC-am] IBOC -coverage >> >>On 18 Mar 2003 at 13:47, David Gleason wrote: >> >> > It's smaller based on the belief that a 2 mv/m analog signal is >> > useful. When in the real world, where 15 mv/m is minimum to override >> > noise in LA, the digital signal may actually outperform the analog. >> >>If the noise overrides *THE SIGNAL*, it doesn't matter squat what you >>are using, and you have to remember that Lucent's code for IBOC is >>FAR less stable and robust than DRM, but if it overrides the >>signal....FFFT ! ! ! >> >>Can you imagine an all digital signal in the Texas Panhandle when a >>rip roaring thunderstorm with TONS of lightning, producing a tornado >>approaches. Some of these storms can obliterate the FM signal close >>in. No reception of the radio station is it. You can somewhat >>understand the analog in this case. >> >>I have a video where, the lightning energy was so intense, you could >>hear the static on the audio channel of the Hi-8 tape! YOW !! >> >>Powell >>Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:44:22 -0500 >>From: "Frederick R. Vobbe" >>Subject: RE: [NRC-am] IBOC -coverage >> >> >> >Now perhaps the stations don't care, as they have decided to ignore the >> >farther-away listeners, ignore listeners that listen to weaker out of >> market >> >signals while offering poorer analog audio to try to keep the close-in >> >listeners via digital. That's what the fight is all about. >> >> Was it not Tom Ray of WOR who quoted that the usable range was 40-50 >>miles. Yet you can hear WOR analog darn near to Pittsburgh, and farther >>during the late afternoon and early morning. In fact, they come in fairly >>well here at 06:00 in December, which when they were running IBOC impacts >>WLW and WGN. >> >> Again, I look at IBOC like the bad neighbor down the street with the >>collection of junk cars on cinder blocks. Although his argument is that it >>only junks up his yard, down the street the property values are impacted. >> >> I'm sorry, but I'm one of those rare AM listeners that listens to a >>station for content, and not CD-Like FM quality (if that's what you call 36 >>kbps data streams). When IBOC starts ruining those last few stations I >>listen to, it will be time to look at alternative media sources. >> >>Fred >>Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:51:35 -0500 >>From: "Frederick R. Vobbe" >>Subject: RE: [NRC-am] IBOC -coverage >> >> >> >And the KSLs, WLWs, WCCOs, etc. at least can be assured that they'll retain >> >full coverage (or close >> >to it) in their home markets. But if I'm running the 1130 in Minneapolis or >> >the 1160 in Cincinnati or the >> >570 in Salt Lake (all signals that are already impaired in reaching their >> >full markets after dark), there's >> >a very valid question to ask about how much MORE local coverage will suffer >> >when everyone turns on >> >IBOC, and I don't think it's been fully answered yet (nor do I expect any >> >actual answers when I head out to Vegas in a few weeks...) >> >> What scares me, Scott, is that you know that when some stations start >>getting interference, or can't reach with the IBOC, there is going to be a >>ton of people screaming and asking for waivers and STAs. Having >>Joe-Class-D crying that he now needs 5 kw on 1240 to make coverage, or even >>having a station raise analog power to overcome interference has me concerned. >> >> As with the all the Local Channels going 1 kw at night, or the Florida >>stations getting more power to overcome Cuba, the result can be one big >>snowball effect that ends up with the AM band sounding like Channel 19 on >>the CB. >> >>Fred >>From: "Charles Hutton" >>Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:32:04 -0800 >>Message-ID: <007001c2edb7$59283300$0400000a@qwest.net> >>Subject: RE: [NRC-am] IBOC -coverage >> >>I don't think so. >> >>(1) In the report I referenced, they ignored actual field strength in saying >>where analog was usable and where digital was usable. In fact, neither lines >>up with the 2 mv/m contour. >> >>(2) These tests were conducted in metro Washington DC where I am sure they >>have plenty of noise. It doesn't seem fair to toss them out as meaningless. >>Perhaps they are "spun", but that's a different story. >> >> >>Chuck >>Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:10:34 -0700 >>From: Barry Mishkind >>Subject: WLW package >> >>At 04:13 PM 3/18/03 +0000, am-digest-help@nrcdxas.org wrote >>>Subject: WLW on NPR Morning Edition >>> >>>All: >>> >>> >From NPR's website: >>> >>>"Host Bob Edwards speaks with Mike Martini and Mark Magistrelli, who just >>>finished producing a second CD on the origins of WLW, a radio station and >>>network based in Cincinnati. For 20 years, from 1921-1941, WLW was a >> >> This is a fantastic effort on the part of Martini >> and Magistrelli, supported by Dr. Jim King, >> whose commitment to historical documentation >> is essentially: "do it right." >> >> I got one of the first copies of this package and >> there is so much to enjoy. Not only is the audio >> wonderful to hear, but there is a reproduction of >> a tour brochure from WLW's site, as well as quite >> a nice written history. >> >> We wrote about this in the February issue of >> Radio Guide Magazine ... and the response has been >> quite good. >> >> If you want to look at the package, go to >>https://pledge.wvxu.com/Pledge.asp?BRSR=MSIE&VER=6&REF=http://www.wvxu.org/html/body_members.html >> >> and under "Premiums", select the next to last one, and >> click on "View the Selected Premium" the picture >> was taken at the original control console at WLW. >> >> barry >>From: Doug Smith >>Subject: Re: [NRC-am] WLW package >> >>Barry Mishkind wrote: >>>At 04:13 PM 3/18/03 +0000, am-digest-help@nrcdxas.org wrote >>> >>>>Subject: WLW on NPR Morning Edition >>>> >>>>All: >>>> >>>> >From NPR's website: >>>> >>>>"Host Bob Edwards speaks with Mike Martini and Mark Magistrelli, who just >>>>finished producing a second CD on the origins of WLW, a radio station and >>>>network based in Cincinnati. For 20 years, from 1921-1941, WLW was a >>> >>> This is a fantastic effort on the part of Martini >>> and Magistrelli, supported by Dr. Jim King, >>> whose commitment to historical documentation >>> is essentially: "do it right." >>> I got one of the first copies of this package and >>> there is so much to enjoy. Not only is the audio >>> wonderful to hear, but there is a reproduction of >>> a tour brochure from WLW's site, as well as quite >>> a nice written history. >> >>Interesting. >> >>I have a *different* WLW tour brochure. Someone was selling them at the Dayton Hamvention >>last year. It's a reprint of something originally printed in "ca 1935" - all black-and-white, and titled >>"A Trip Through WLW". >>-- >>Doug Smith W9WI >>Pleasant View (Nashville), TN EM66 >>http://www.w9wi.com >> >> >> >>Message-ID: <20030318175525.79848.qmail@web41004.mail.yahoo.com> >>Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 09:55:25 -0800 (PST) >>From: James Niven >>To: am@nrcdxas.org >>MIME-Version: 1.0 >>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >>Subject: KENS 1160 >> >>I found this on www.radiodailynews.com. >> >>"KENS-AM 1160 talk show host Tom Clay wishes it was a >>bad April Fool's joke. It's not. On April 1, the >>station's news talk format is expected to be replaced >>by kid-friendly Radio Disney programming." >> >>I am hoping to record the change-over on programming. >>Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:32:03 -0600 >>From: Wally Wawro >>Subject: Re: [NRC-am] Devils hockey on WQEW-1560 >> >>Here in Dallas, an occasional Texas Christian University basketball game >>appear on Radio Disney KMKI-620 if it conflicts with Dallas Mavericks games >>on KESN-103.3. The rimshot ESPN FM outlet is rights holder for both teams. >> >>Wally Wawro >>WFAA-TV >>Dallas, TX >>NRC 2003 Big D! >> >> >>On 3/17/03 7:10 PM, "k1cr@juno.com" wrote: >> >> > WDDZ-550-Pawtucket,RI does Prov. Bruins hockey. Last year they carried >> > NY Yankees. I >> > don't know if that's the case this season. >> > Joe , K1CR >> > Providence, RI >> > >> > >> > On Mon, 17 Mar 2003 19:16:58 -0500 "Mike Brooker" >> > writes: >> >> On WQEW-1560 there's a New Jersey Devils vs. Philadelphia Flyers >> >> hockey >> >> game. Presumably due to a conflict on the Devils flagship WABC-770, >> >> though >> >> I can't think of what other team's game would cause the conflict >> >> (not >> >> grapefruit League baseball -- the Yankees moved from WABC to WCBS >> >> last year) >> >> A few weeks back, I heard a Seton Hall basketball game on WQEW. >> >> >> >> Do any of the other Disney affiliates broadcast sports? >> >> >> >> >> >> 73 >> >> >> >> Mike Brooker >> >> Toronto, ON >> >> >> >> >> >> P.s.. Just checked WABC. No other sports play by play, only the >> >> usual >> >> right-wing hot air, whipping up support for the Son Of Gulf War. >> >> They must >> >> have decided to pre-empt the hockey for war-mongering talk. >>Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:42:26 -0600 >>From: Wally Wawro >>Subject: Business Opportunity! >> >> >From the "radiodailynews.com" website. Sounds like this might be right up >>Patrick Martin's alley (or up the street at least!). >> >>http://www.networkingtheinternet.com/business-opportunity-korc.htm >> >>Wally Wawro >>WFAA-TV >>Dallas, TX >>NRC 2003 Big D >>From: >>Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:29:57 -0600 >>Message-ID: >>Subject: Re: [NRC-am] Business Opportunity! >> >>Hmmmmmm! That's about 60 miles from Corvallis, where I grew up. It's right >>in the middle of the most beautiful ocean scenery in all of North America. >>But I'd have to sell ads and gather news while the automation played in the >>afternoon . my wife would leave me . I wouldn't have time to pontificate on >>the NRC list . nor do my genealogy . nor all those other good things I've >>begun to enjoy in my idletry. >> >>But talk about "Tim-Tay-Shun!" >> >>John Callarman, Krum TX >>NRC, Big D, 2003 >>Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 18:15:01 -0500 >>From: "Frederick R. Vobbe" >>Subject: Re: [NRC-am] Business Opportunity! >> >> >> Notice the RCA console? Looks like a BC6B. I just sold the one I had. >>BTW, I'm thinking of bringing down a fully functional (retrofitted) Yard-1 >>to Dallas. If we get the old-timers like Callerman, & Chatterton on the >>air, they may need something that feels more like radio than the Mackie >>1202VLZ-Pro. >> >>At 12:42 PM 3/18/2003 -0600, you wrote: >> >From the "radiodailynews.com" website. Sounds like this might be right up >> >Patrick Martin's alley (or up the street at least!). >> > >> >http://www.networkingtheinternet.com/business-opportunity-korc.htm >> > >> >Wally Wawro >> >WFAA-TV >> >Dallas, TX >> >NRC 2003 Big D >>From: "Lino Morales" >>Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:45:08 -0500 >>Subject: A curious question about WSAI >> >>Hello group, I was just wondering why Clear Channel decided to change WSAI's >>format to oldies? Was there oldies station on FM not strong enough to reach >>the entire listening area in the Cincinnati market. Also, what happened to >>there previous format? Did that move to FM? Take care and God bless. >>Lino L. Morales >>From: "Paul Smith, W4KNX" >>Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:51:42 -0500 >>Subject: A curious question about WSAI >> >>More than likely, the demo for the "older" rock oldies has become the same >>age as the older demo for "standards". In fact many songs played on >>standards formatted stations are from the rock era...and were staples on the >>big top 40 stations of the era. >> >>In otherwords the demo for standards is going away fast and the next demo is >>replacing them.... >> >>Paul Smith >>W4KNX >>Sarasota, FL >>From: "Powell E. Way III" >>To: >>Subject: Re: [NRC-am] A curious question about WSAI >> >>On 18 Mar 2003 at 13:45, Lino Morales wrote: >> >> > Hello group, I was just wondering why Clear Channel decided to change >> > WSAI's format to oldies? Was there oldies station on FM not strong >> > enough to reach the entire listening area in the Cincinnati market. >> > Also, what happened to there previous format? Did that move to FM? >> > Take care and God bless. Lino L. Morales >> >>A couple of folks left the old format (standards). The oldies >>station ( WGRR) had abandoned the segment that WSAI ( 50's early >>60's) now does. The old format went to the skywave in the sky. >> >>Powell >>From: >>To: >>Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:21:26 -0600 >>Subject: Re: [NRC-am] A curious question about WSAI >> >>Big band, ballads, Tin Pan Alley music, the staples of the "adult standard" >>format, comprised the music I listened to when I was between 6 and 21 years >>old. I am now 67 years old. Advertising agencies are not interested in >>listeners older than 55 because we are set in our ways and can't be moved by >>advertising. (Don't ask my why there are so many "pills for the elderly" ads >>on TV.) >> >>Read the night listenership percentages Dave Gleason reported. One wonders >>how many stations, between midnight and 5 a.m., have no listeners at all. >> >>Qal R. Mann, Krumudgeon >>John Callarman, Krum TX >>Reply-To: >>From: "David Gleason" >>To: , "'Lino Morales'" >>Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:44:45 -0800 >>Message-ID: <005201c2ed97$9b5f16a0$91011a44@THINKPAD> >>MIME-Version: 1.0 >>Content-Type: text/plain; >> charset="US-ASCII" >>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >>Subject: RE: [NRC-am] A curious question about WSAI >> >>The FM oldies is late 60's and early 70's. WSAI is 50's and 60's. That >>demo is too old to put a full FM signal against. >>Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:20:59 -0500 >>From: Greg Myers >>Subject: Re: [NRC-am] IBOC 1670 >> >> >Just let me know if the IBOC station is taking out 1680 down there... >>that's what I want to know.... >> >> I have yet to hear any IBOC on any frequency, though I don't actively >>DX any of the freq.'s that they have been operating on ......yet. >>Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:29:32 -0500 >>From: "Frederick R. Vobbe" >>Subject: Re: [NRC-am] WLW on NPR Morning Edition >> >> >> >"Host Bob Edwards speaks with Mike Martini and Mark Magistrelli, who just >> >finished producing a second CD on the origins of WLW, a radio station and >> >network based in Cincinnati. For 20 years, from 1921-1941, WLW was a >> >> Did anyone get a good quality copy of this?