[BC] Why an older transmitter may be a good choice

[Robert Meuser]

Thanks for the report, Scott. I am sure many who understand this 
business as a business can share similar experiences. One thing about 
those good old days. Memory probably clouds the fact of whether they 
were actually that good or not, but they sure were old.

R



Bailey, Scott wrote:

>Your going spent more money on keeping that old rig going, than to just
>turn around and by a new one.  The higher powered AM stations, I can
>understand, somewhat, but an AM at 1 KW, that's crazy!
>
>I know of 2 AM's in this area that are still running tube transmitters.
>I was talking to a GM at an AM/FM combo in this area and I couldn't
>believe the price he was paying for 4-400's, 807's, just to keep up a
>Collins 20V-2.
>
>My studio is with the transmitter/tower site. My AC bill this month was
>only 160.00. Gee, I my electric bill at home was higher than that! My
>little 1 KW Armstrong box burns way less electric than the central heat
>and air system.
>
>Scott
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: broadcast-bounces at radiolists.net
>[mailto:broadcast-bounces at radiolists.net] On Behalf Of Gary Glaenzer
>Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 11:40 AM
>To: Broadcasters' Mailing List
>Subject: [BC] Why an older transmitter may be a good choice
>
>one word:  finances
>
>I'm sure you canfigure out the rest for yourself
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Robert Meuser" <Robertm at broadcast.net>
>
> > That was not an opinion it is a fact. Please enlighten me other wise.
> >
> > R
> >
> >
> > Gary Glaenzer wrote:
> >
> > >"There is no good excuse for running  something that old"
> > >
> > >Oh, give us a break
> > >
> > >While some other party's justifications may not agree with your
>opinions
>on
> > >the subject, a blanket statement such as above is nonsense.
> > >
> > >
>
>  
>