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

[Robert Meuser]

I would think if the manager really wanted to look good he would spend 
more time with his accountant.

R


Gary Glaenzer wrote:

>a lot more than you would realize
>
>and the present management (management, not owner) isn't about to spend the
>bucks for a new transmitter
>
>even if it does make economic sense in the long run, they will continue to
>run the old one, preferring to live with higher operating expenses rather
>than justify a large capital expenditure to the owner
>
>econimically sensible ?  nope
>
>but it makes the manager look good in that he doesn't have to justify
>spending a lot of money on a new unit
>
>
>
>
>
>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: "Bailey, Scott" <sbailey at nespower.com>
>To: "Broadcasters' Mailing List" <broadcast at radiolists.net>
>Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 12:32 PM
>Subject: RE: [BC] Why an older transmitter may be a good choice
>
>
>Gary,
>   How many stations are in a position like that? I could see if I was
>the "new" owner of a station with an old transmitter, and having to keep
>it going until I reach a position in the budget to buy a new one, but
>business wise, with technology making it more affordable to operate a
>solid state box, it only makes sense to invest in newer gear, even if
>one can afford to maintain the old box.
>   We all want to save money? Right? So a good business owner of a
>station, even if he/she or they can afford to maintain an older tube
>transmitter, it would be in their best interest to get the new one, save
>money, and maybe perhaps even more money in the budget for other
>expenses, needs, or salaries.
>
>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 12:05 PM
>To: Broadcasters' Mailing List
>Subject: Re: [BC] Why an older transmitter may be a good choice
>
>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.
> > >
>
>  
>