Random Radio

Radio, Print, and Online General Radio and Digital
1884

For some time now, Eagle FM Goulburn has been running this somewhat old fashioned sweeper at night:

“Eagle FM is up all night”
(presumably referring to being on air 24 hours a day).

Now of course EVERY commercial radio station is on air 24 hours a day, and has been since probably the 1970s? So nothing unique there.

I can’t remember the last time I heard a commercial station promo advertising them being on air 24 hours a day.

But I do think it’s kind of nostalgic / unique (and even cute) that Eagle FM is doing this.

3 Likes
1885

The latest Sydney music radio crossover has been released by Aircheck: https://www.radioinfo.com.au/news/nova-and-kiis-sydney-share-quarter-playlist-aircheck

Both KIIS & Nova shared more than a quarter of their playlist, whilst WS & Smooth, as well as Nova & 2Day, shared just under a quarter of their playlist. Of the SCA stations, 2MMM are more likely to play the same tracks that WS plays than 2Day would.

2 Likes
1886

I often drive through the licence area after sunset, that promo has been running untouched for years, I reckon at least 15 years.

Unsure what they’re getting at, I think it’s their lame attempt at a promo gone wrong.

2 Likes
1887

The old Kiss FM Lithgow used to run the following sweeper during overnight automation:

“At Kiss FM, we’ve lost our jocks!”

3 Likes
1888

ONE FM 96.1 Blue Mountains used to title their overnight shift as “Fred Automan”.

1 Like
1889

I think a restack of the fm band might be inevitable. A lot has changed since the first fm radio stations were put on air, am radio was king now not so much, analog tv gone, digital tuners (not dab) are now more the norm, etc . Why was, in Australia, the fm bandplan is restricted to odd numbers (with some exceptions) ? And do you think the rule could change if or when a reorg of the fm band is performed? It not like receivers have issues tuning in.

3 Likes
1890

Do you really think stations (particularly major ones) will really want to give up the prized frequencies they’ve held for decades and in many cases, since they started transmission?

Personally I think it’d make quite a lot of sense to restack the FM band though, perhaps with different sections of the FM band for different stations: Narrowcast, Suburban/Sub-Regional Community, Metro/Region-Wide Community, Public/National, Commercial in that order.

1891

That’s how it works in the US and Canada. And possibly other countries. And in those countries there are no exceptions with off frequency stations.

A restack is necessary. But keep the bandplan as is.

2 Likes
1892

No they might not want to, but that’s irrelevant. The regulator is (supposedly) in charge and should be ultimately working for the benefit of the listener (ie taxpayer).

Frequencies should where possible be within set ranges like they have for years in the UK. Eg. BBC Radio 2 is 88 - 91FM across the country.

I’ll be interested to see the outcome of the LAP reviews scheduled for early this year in Brisbane and Perth. I won’t hold my breath of course but surely any re-stack could accommodate stations like 96FM in Perth still being 96 point “something”. Similarly Hit 105 in Brisbane.

2 Likes
1893

Is there a technical reason in todays setup why that is optimal to have bandplan at odd? More out of my curiosity. The logic would be newsradio for example it could be on 98.2 on the central coast and say 98.0 for power fm in upper hunter. I98 would remain on 98.1. Lots of examples where it might help to some extent with limiting interference. Lake macq fm could be 97.4 fm which will help them too.

2 Likes
1894

True, but I think there are other suitable options that still fit the current spacings

E.g.
Power FM Muswellbrook could go to 97.9
Lake Macquarie FM to 89.5

1 Like
1895

I would have made it a condition of participating in the transition of stations from AM to FM in regional areas - if a radio network benefits from that, their stations have to be involved in any band restructure.

Add community/national/narrowcast radio to that and you’d be able to effectively replan most of the band.

The sale of new licenses would offset any reasonable amount of compensation for forced moves.

5 Likes
1896

It’s pretty much like that, becasue that’s the way it is around the rest of the world, some places in Europe use even frequencies, & NZ after their restack use entirely even freqencies?

Standard channel spacing is 800kHz apart or 0.8MHz.

Standard FM channels are 200kHz wide, your theory on frequency use (as example given) wouldn’t work though, as both channels would butt up to one another, (top channel frequency on one would butt against bottom frequncy of the upper channel, with no guard space). Transmissions would have to be tightly monitored, & enforced to the limit of 75kHz deviation, which very few stations currently adhere to. If you go over 75kHz deviation your channel gets wider than 200kHz & would overlap with each other causing interference, even at the distances you noted. Given this would be better than the current co-channel interference, still not ideal or desirable for the amount of works needed to be done to change the status quo.

DTV works with adjacent channels well, but that’s becasue unknown to most people, even though the allocated channel bandwidth is 7MHz, at maximum multiplex capacity, it doesn’t use the enitre 7MHz, there’s a guard band at the top & bottom of each channel, which is doubled in size, when added together from top & bottom adjacent channels, giving all carriers within the channel block a clear & interference free space to operate.

The FM band could be tightened up & use both odd & even ending frequencies, but idealy you’d still want 300kHz spacing to allow 100kHz in each top & bottom channel & a 100kHz space between them.

For example in Newcastle you could have 102.1, 102.4, 102.7, 103.0, 103.3, 103.6, 103.9, etc.

5 Likes
1897

Sorry not getting it - why is the standard channel spacing so much larger? Is that an Australian standard, International/EU standard or US standard?

1898

I think this is overseen by the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) which also designates uses for portions of the electromagnetic spectrum (e.g. VHF Band II for television).

1899

Yes international standard, though some parts of Europe pack them in tighter than that.

I think it’s to give plenty of guard band between stations, & alowance to put something in between in an adjacent market, still having 200kHz guard between stations?

With older transmitters & receivers they could drift on frequency, & packing stations in close together could be problomatic with interference between the two?

Modern solid state transmitters & receivers with PLL don’t drift, so it’s not really an issue any more.

Even with my suggestion of 300kHz spacing & using both odd & even frequecies, would still need tight regulation & monitoring on deviation, becasue it wouldn’t take much if both stations over deviated, for that 100kHz guard between them to disapear.

1900

When was the last time you saw someone using a pocket radio on public transport? Granted if the radio is in the persons pocket you cant see.

1901

I used one on the train from Newcastle to Sydney not all that long ago.
It was an FM / DAB Sangean unit like this one

https://www.jbhifi.com.au/sangean/sangean-dpr-35-dab-pocket-radio-black/334608/

Was curious to see what performance was like on the train.
It was not all that flash.

1902

I used my sangean radio today on public transport other than the lane cove tunnel it worked well. But even outside of public transport its been a while since I noticed someone listening to a radio in public (via ear phones).

1 Like
1903

I see it a bit at the footy where someone might have an actual radio to be listening in, but it’s rare.

3 Likes