Does Frequency Matter for FM stations ratings? (Some Research)

OK I have no life, and like any engineer, I decided to play with some numbers. I did some research tonight to see if the frequency you are using makes any
difference, to see if there is any one common frequency that stands out
as being a sucsessful frequency versus another.

First the answer. No. OK No surprise there.
However I decided to share the results of my little study.
This is purely based on the 12+ ratings in the top 25 markets in the US.

First, there are only three frequencies that are #1 in more than one market.
Each is only duplicated once. 98.5, 98.7, 106.7

There is one frequency that is #2 in three markets, 99.5

There are six frequencies that are #3, again each is only duplicated once.
92.3, 93.3, 95.5, 96.3, 102.1, 105.1

There is only one frequency that is #4 in more than one market.
97.1 appears twice.

Now for #5, there are seven total frequencies that are duplicated, none more than twice however. 94.7, 95.5, 97.9, 98.7, 99.5, 104.7, 107.9


Now what might be interesting to someone is that the following frequencies are not in the top 5 ranked in the top 25 radio markets. (Again based on the data from tonight, 12+) (Omitted are frequencies commonly classified as class A FMs)

92.9, 95.1, 96.1, 96.7, 96.9
97.7, 99.9, 100.5, 103.7, 107.3


Now you know...

I know this wasn't a Scientific Survey...

I always understood the middle of the dial, and possibly the top of the dial were preferred dial positions.

>And yes I am very well aware of the irony of my posts... <

Would life be worth living without irony?




> OK I have no life, and like any engineer, I decided to play
> with some numbers. I did some research tonight to see if the
> frequency you are using makes any
> difference, to see if there is any one common frequency that
> stands out
> as being a sucsessful frequency versus another.
>
> First the answer. No. OK No surprise there.
> However I decided to share the results of my little study.
> This is purely based on the 12+ ratings in the top 25
> markets in the US.
>
> First, there are only three frequencies that are #1 in more
> than one market.
> Each is only duplicated once. 98.5, 98.7, 106.7
>
> There is one frequency that is #2 in three markets, 99.5
>
> There are six frequencies that are #3, again each is only
> duplicated once.
> 92.3, 93.3, 95.5, 96.3, 102.1, 105.1
>
> There is only one frequency that is #4 in more than one
> market.
> 97.1 appears twice.
>
> Now for #5, there are seven total frequencies that are
> duplicated, none more than twice however. 94.7, 95.5, 97.9,
> 98.7, 99.5, 104.7, 107.9
>
>
> Now what might be interesting to someone is that the
> following frequencies are not in the top 5 ranked in the top
> 25 radio markets. (Again based on the data from tonight,
> 12+) (Omitted are frequencies commonly classified as class A
> FMs)
>
> 92.9, 95.1, 96.1, 96.7, 96.9
> 97.7, 99.9, 100.5, 103.7, 107.3
>
>
> Now you know...
>

Not any more

Of course, in the days of AM radio, there was a technical advantage to being at the lower end of the band. However, there was a disadvantage to being away from the dominant blow-torch stations (at either the high-end of the low-end). It was all about location, location, location in the days of dials and slide-rule tuners. When FM first began independent programming and most AM-FM radios had non-independent slide-rule tuners, there was an advantage to being in a place on the FM band corresponding to the dial location of a top AM station.
But with digital tuners and lots of pre-sets, location doesn't matter that much any more. Now it's promotion, promotion and promotion.

> Now what might be interesting to someone is that the
> following frequencies are not in the top 5 ranked in the top
> 25 radio markets. (Again based on the data from tonight,
> 12+) (Omitted are frequencies commonly classified as class A
> FMs)
>
> 92.9, 95.1, 96.1, 96.7, 96.9
> 97.7, 99.9, 100.5, 103.7, 107.3

I don't know about any of the other markets but of those frequencies in #3

92.9, 97.7, 100.5 & 103.7 aren't allocated there. (103.7 is a class B allocated to Wauatosa, WI)

95.1 is a class B allocated north of Chicago in Kenosha, WI
96.1 is a class A allocated north-west of Chicago in Lake Geneva, WI
96.7 is a class A allocation in Loves Park (Rockford), IL (north-west) and Joliet, IL
96.9 is a class B allocated north in Zion, IL but it's 1st adjacent to 97.1 which is allocated to Chicago.

-A<P ID="signature">______________

</P>

>
> Now what might be interesting to someone is that the
> following frequencies are not in the top 5 ranked in the top
> 25 radio markets. (Again based on the data from tonight,
> 12+) (Omitted are frequencies commonly classified as class A
> FMs)
>
> 92.9, 95.1, 96.1, 96.7, 96.9
> 97.7, 99.9, 100.5, 103.7, 107.3

99.9 is top 5 in market 14.

I do think some particular frequencies roll off the tongue better when you say them, compared to others. For eaxmple... "AM700" versus "AM 1370"... or, "Ninety-six-nine" (96-9) versus "one-o-seven-seven" (107-7). The fewer syllables you have to spit out, the better (and easier). Of course, a lot of that has to do with what you're used to hearing or saying (and you can easily change that 1-0-7-7 to a 108) but in my own mind, that's something I've thought about over the years when the frequency issue popped into my head.

Class A stations used to be restricted to certain frequencies, so therefore those frequencies get less ratings because they have less power than the Class B's and C's on their frequencies.<P ID="signature">______________
17-year-old radio geek
Location: Princeton Junction, NJ
AIM: KewlDude471
WWPH 107.9 FM: http://wwph1079fm.no-ip.org</P>

> OK I have no life, and like any engineer,

I have read all the posts below...we all need to do something productive with our lives. Watching Nick at Night is more productive than figuring out this frequency stuff.

Do any of us have families???