Page 1 of 1
why are the tests always far better than the real thing?
Posted: Sun 20 Apr, 2008 14.47
by Steve in Pudsey
Nick Harvey wrote:Steve in Pudsey wrote:Having said that I came across tests for 106.1 Rock Radio in Manchester, which sounds promising.
Hehe!
Perhaps we should start a separate thread for "why are the tests always far better than the real thing?".
I can think of examples which support and contradict this argument. The most extreme example of one which wasn't better was the live test I ended up fronting for an RSL, which to avoid paying PRS/PPL/MCPS for an extra two days consisted of royalty free library music
Re: why are the tests always far better than the real thing?
Posted: Tue 22 Apr, 2008 13.24
by Spencer For Hire
I suppose the reason why the test tx's are often better than the post-launch station is (in the case of commercial radio) the lack of adverts, lack of annoying presenters, lack of ghastly premium rate text auctions and the like, lack of crappy promotions and so on. However the tests aren't allowed to make money, and a format identical to a test transmission in the vast majority of cases wouldn't be financially viable.
Having said that, remember Classic FM's test transmissons - wall to wall birdsong! [Edit - just seen this has already been mentioned in the Birdsong thread.]