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

[Robert Meuser]

Gary

You are ignoring Scott's point. No you don't replace a TX because it is 
old, you replace it because it is no longer cost effective. Please don't 
give me that sob story about no money. I've been there and done that 
before with some very poor stations. If the business is properly run it 
is doable and necessary.

R


Gary Glaenzer wrote:

>Scott;
>
>I'm not going to argue the points you make, because they are valid.
>
>However, my initial rsponse was to a blanket statement by someone else who
>seems to think that every station has the wherewithall to replace the
>transmitter just because 'it's old'.
>
>It may be 'old', but if it is performing what needs done, and you can budget
>for the maintenance but not the cost of a replacement, where's the problem
>with running it ?
>
>G
>
>
>
>
>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: "Bailey, Scott" <sbailey at nespower.com>
>To: "Broadcasters' Mailing List" <broadcast at radiolists.net>
>Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 11:49 AM
>Subject: RE: [BC] Why an older transmitter may be a good choice
>
>
>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.
> > >
>  
>