RE: Re: WATD

["Paul Hopfgarten" <paul@03038.com>]

One point about the WEEI's (590) and WMEX's (1510) of the world
First, far fewer people (as a %) had FM receivers, even at home, in the 60's
and before, so I'd believe not knowing how 'crappy' the signal was, people
tolerated a little "Snap Crackle and Pop" with their AM listening. They
didn't know anything else.

Also, I believe many more listeners (as a % of ADI) were in 'tighter' to the
'core city' than they are today. I live in Derry NH, and MOST of the
residents grew up within 20-25 miles of Boston, so when they were growing up
they were actually CLOSER to 590 and 1510, so more acceptable to listen to.

(1510 at night is clearly unlistenable here in Derry to all but the most
intense audiophile, and I'm guessing that was true 40 years ago....hence
they all listened to 'KRB or 'FEA around here back then)


Paul Hopfgarten
East Derry NH 03041

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-boston-radio-interest@bostonradio.org
> [mailto:owner-boston-radio-interest@bostonradio.org]On Behalf Of Bill
> O'Neill
> Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:29 PM
> To: tklaundry@juno.com; steveord@bit-net.com
> Cc: boston-radio-interest@bostonradio.org
> Subject: RE: Re: WATD
>
>
> Dave Faneuf writes:
> >This is just one example of my belief that if you put out a
> >good product you will attract listeners no matter what your
> >COL or power.
>
> I consider that the kitchen counter test.  If listeners to their crappy
> old kitchen radio can pull a signal in, and it's listenable in content
> as well as signal quality, I doubt many could care less as to output
> power of the xmtr.  I agree that the old WEEI 590 Boston is a great
> example of that (from the Greater Boston perspective.)  I think that
> when radio was actually a relevant part of people's local lives, and a
> primary source for information, it was the technique-over-size factor.
> Stations today, as niche players, get by with a well-oiled automation
> system and <zipper sfx> size.
>
> Bill O'Neill
>
>