Looking for honest answers on this

[Bob Nelson]

I listen to terr. receivers when I can but also use TuneIn, etc. when
there's interference or signal's too far away. My own station, WMWM, is a
bit weak at 130 watts so even close to Salem I may wind up listening on
"the phone" if WMWM can't come in on a portable radio or an mp3 player w FM
radio.

Last night when WUFC debuted the new talk/sports/etc format, I had 1510 on
the receiver in my living room and clock radio in bedroom but interference
led me to change to their webstream instead. (Wolfman Jack airchecks on,
incl. the long version of Ain't No Mt. High Enough by Diana Ross)

Musician friends of mine were on WMFO the other day and where I was, I had
to resort to using the web stream. As for my smart phone I have Virgin
Mobile and there is a "cap" at which I may get a slowdown but so far I
haven't hit it. Was able to hear some NHL playoffs with it while at work (I
have Sirius XM incl. the smartphone app and "internet listening")

At work in N Reading due to interference, I can't get WRKO on workroom
floor except via TuneIn on the smart phone, or on the HD2 signal of WEEI-FM
93.7. _That_ is OK for awhile but has "drops". So does TuneIn but that is a
bit more reliable overall. (The portable HD radio can help keep my data
usage down on the phone...)


On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 6:55 AM, Rob Landry <011010001@interpring.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, 9 Jun 2014, Kevin Vahey wrote:
>
>  How many of US ( radio geeks) still listen with terrestrial receivers?
>> When you can hear a station clearly online why bother listening to what
>> maybe a challenged signal,
>>
>
> Almost all of my listening is to an actual radio. The Internet isn't
> mobile, unless I use my phone, in which case it costs money and suffers
> from dropouts.
>
>
> Rob
>
>