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

[Paul B. Walker, Jr.]

Robert:

I understand you may think you know what is best in most situation, but you
are ABSOLUTELY wrong.

I'm doing what is BEST for my situation. It may not make sense to you and
doesn't need it. All that matters is that it works and makes sense for me.

Yes, I know spending that much on electricity isn't a good idea and I should
attempt an SBA loan, but I'm not going to. What makes sense for others
doesnt work for me.

The billing(revenue, aka moola aka dollars aka greenbacks aka coinage aka
stuff in my wallet) just isn't there to support a loan. yeah, you'll go and
say that if i got a solid state, the savings would pay for it,
possibly.....but I would STILl be paying for electricity AND a loan.

Right now, we OWN EVERTYHING here.. the building, property, transmitter and
equipment. When the billing goes up to a point I can afford it, I will get a
solid state unit.. trust me

If you're ever in the Atlanta, GA or Greenville/Columbia, SC area.. you are
MORE THEN WELCOME to come and pay me a visit in person.
-- 
Paul B. Walker, Jr.
www.walkerbroadcasting.com
walkerbroadcasting at gmail.com

P.S. I am the accountant here, along with several other things.... I
consulted with myself on the cost of the new transmitter.


On 2/20/07, Gary Glaenzer <gglaenzer at todaysbestradio.com> 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.
> > >
> > >
>
>