SatRad vs. Broadcast vs. DIY

[ljs0610@comcast.net]

I think "listenable" is a relative term, especially when discussing a station known as The Hound (which likely faded around the next corner).....I'll take satellite, thanks!


----- Original Message -----
From: Paul B. Walker, Jr. <walkerbroadcasting@gmail.com>
To: ljs0610@comcast.net
Cc: Bob DeMattia <bob.bosra@demattia.net>, B-R-I <boston-radio-interest@bostonradio.org>
Sent: Tue, 05 Jun 2012 03:25:04 -0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: SatRad vs. Broadcast vs. DIY

I had satelitte radio drop out when I went into a small valley and under some trees in Ridgway. Guess what was still listenable across most of the area around here when satelitte radio went out?

The 50KW ERP signal of 97.5 The Hound, WDDH where I work.

Paul


On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 11:20 PM,  <ljs0610@comcast.net> wrote:


You are right about that...sometimes tall buildings are an impediment, too.  But overall the reception and coverage is something local radio could never achieve by its very nature....



----- Original Message -----


From: Paul B. Walker, Jr. <walkerbroadcasting@gmail.com>
To: Bob DeMattia <bob.bosra@demattia.net>


Cc: ljs0610@comcast.net, B-R-I <boston-radio-interest@bostonradio.org>
Sent: Tue, 05 Jun 2012 03:15:00 -0000 (UTC)


Subject: Re: SatRad vs. Broadcast vs. DIY

Satelitte radio reception isn't always perfect, either.

Here in the Northern Allegheny Mountain region of North Central PA, I regularly drive around with a friend who has satelitte radio is his car. .I've had it drop out several times when we're in lower terrain or pass under/by some obstruction, bye bye goes the satelitte signal.

paul




On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 11:07 PM, Bob DeMattia <bob.bosra@demattia.net> wrote:



>


> Hmmm...really?  No sense of currency?  The day Davy Jones passes, the


> sixties channel brought in their morning jock (who is very live and very


> current each morning) to play Monkees tunes, reminisce about Davy Jones and


> the group, and let listeners weigh in.  If that isn't a sense of currency,


> I'm not sure what it.   That is only one recent example, but I could


> certainly enumerate additional.


>



That's one example, and I'm sure there are more, but local radio has


satellite radio beat on a day-to-day basis.  I still stand by my impression


that the XM music channels


sound sterile.  You mention the 60's channel, but try listening to some of


the less popular channels up the dial.




> As for "local weather", how do you address that when your audience is a


> national one?  But when there is something unusual going on somewhere in


> the country weatherwise, it gets a mention.


>




I don't have to address it; that's my point.  Bringing weather, local


sports scores, traffic,  and other local community stories is an advantage


that local radio has over satellite.


Satellite has advantages too - like reception in mountainous rural areas


away from major markets.




-Bob





>


> ----- Original Message -----


> From: Bob DeMattia <bob.bosra@demattia.net>


> To: B-R-I <boston-radio-interest@bostonradio.org>


> Sent: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 16:07:07 -0000 (UTC)


> Subject: SatRad vs. Broadcast vs. DIY


>


> Sirium XM came installed in my car with a free 1-yr subscription.


> About the only things I ever listen to are some of the produced-for-TV


> cable channels.


>


> I've tried to listen to the music channels, but it's like listening


> to an automated station most of the time.  The DJs, when they have


> them, sound voice-tracked.  There's no sense of currency.  Maybe the its


> lack of a local stories or local weather forecast; there's just something


> missing.


>


> So while I still have access to these stations, most of the time I find


> myself listening to broadcast.


>


> The one major exception is when driving through areas like central NH


> or rural PA, where it becomes annoying that the flea-power stations


> they have in the smaller markets only last for 20 to 30 minutes at a


> time.


>


> When I'm not in the mood for commercials, I have a 4Gb USB stick that




> plugs into a USB port on my dash.  Set the player to random and it


> plays from a collection of 250+ tracks, all of which I like.  No DJs,


> but no  bad songs either.  This is far superior than anything XM has


> to offer.


>


> Another problem with XM is the compression.  There just doesn't seem to


> be as much "umph" to the sound.   The compression on the non-music


> channels is even worse.


>


> -Bob


>


>


>


>


> On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 7:53 AM, Sid Schweiger **wrote:


>


> > "the formats on Sirius/XM that get ANY ratings at all are the ones that


> > duplicate the broadcast formats available to anyone on AM/FM."


> >


> > The only format on SiriusXM that gets any ratings at all, according to


> > Eastlan (the only company that includes satellite radio in its local


> > ratings, in the few markets in which it operates), is Howard 100, Howard


> > Stern's main channel.  No other satrad channels get enough mentions to


> meet


> > Eastlan's minimum reporting standards, and Arbitron stopped rating


> > satellite radio in 2008.


> >


> > There is NO satellite channel that duplicates an OTA broadcast station.


> >  Some of them come close in programming content, but none of them carry


> > commercials (and the five- to seven-minute stop sets that go along with


> it)


> > and all the other clutter that OTA music formats must deal with.  I can


> > understand why some people think that satrad is evocative of radio's


> past,


> > when you could actually hear music on a music-formatted station without


> > having to wade through all the other formatics, but the idea of paying


> for


> > radio hasn't taken hold yet, and probably never will on a mass scale.


> >


> > Sid Schweiger


> > IT Manager, Entercom New England


> > 20 Guest St / 3d Floor


> > Brighton MA  02135-2040


> >


> >


>