• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

The state of AM Radio

Not only WABC, but CKLW! They used the "CBS Twins" as part of their chain (Audimax and Volumax) and really had a nice "punch". What else they did may have been and still be a closely guarded secret ("black boxes"?), but I've only ever worked at ONE AM that came close to that sound (80s)--we had the Twins, and an AM Optimod--you could NOT distort that chain, even when challenged by the engineers. I tried too! They said to run board levels hot. Only succeeded once, and by accident! : Bass notes from Chubby Checker's "The Twist" (on LP) caused it to buzz and cut out for about 3 seconds. Got a tape of that somewhere. They asked me to play the 45 or a cart in the future too. :)
 
Last edited:
dougw9wi said:
The limitation on AM frequency response is first regulatory, a result of how close together on the dial you put stations. And second, it's a result of receiver makers responding to interference conditions that arise from allocation policy.
Click to expand...

So then the process of "fixing" AM is not purely regulatory. It's depending on electronics manufacturers to invest in building better quality receivers, and the public to be willing to pay for them. Basically the same expectation iBiquity had for its invention. You see how that worked out.

To be honest I can't speak to the quality of the receiver used to make the tapes of AM vs. FM radio I have. I can say it was an audiophile AM/FM component receiver, not a $10 plastic radio recorded off the speaker. In addition to obvious differences in audio, you can also hear interference from a nearby fluorescent light...not an uncommon issue in the 60s.

Bottom line here is that the FCC is NOT talking about re-regulation of AM, or doing any of the things necessary to improve sound quality. They're talking about giving up and walking away.
 
Last edited:
dougw9wi said:
Agreed with stevensonair. Many of these AM operators have already *had* a FM. They traded off the FM for some $$$ -- now they want the nighttime signal they gave up back.

IMHO there are nowhere near enough FM translator channels available to give one to every AM. Maybe we should give first priority to any AM station that never had a FM?
Click to expand...

I agree with you both.

Keep in mind translators are secondary to commercial stations so a lot of the applications may be filled but how many of them will actually come on the air? In my home market (Sacramento) we are bombarded by stations (or HD noise) on EVERY FM frequency. Even IF another translator came on the air, how well would it do with that noise floor?
 
I am the voice of terrestrial radio.... Internet radio will not succeed.... You will continue listening to sports, right-wing talk, and mayonnaise FMmmm.... If you disobey, we will punish you - with more right-wing talk, sports, and mayonnaise FMmmm.... We are corporate; ergo, we are never wrong.... Listen and obey.... Listen and obey....
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom