• 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

Saving AM Radio

Kelly A said:
All true, but when a majority long-forgotten format like BM comes into the discussion, it usually spirals into a Metamucil-fueled trip down memory lane that has nothing to do with the OP. Before it made that sudden swerve into the guard rail off the road into a swamp, I thought it would be prudent to call attention that BM wasn't a thing anymore and certainly not as a savior to AM stations.

But here's the thing.. Increasing bandwidth, trying to resurrect failed AM stereo, or even going full digital MA-3, isn't going to help inherent problems with Amplitude Modulation in the Medium Wave band. Noise from everything including modern consumer devices, EV speed controls, to public transportation, and Faraday Cage effects won't be solved by modulation tricks. Nor will audiences under 55 be returning in the future due to lack of compelling programming combined with competitive audio quality.
In other words, AM broadcasting has a finite future, just like it's listeners.
Click to expand...
Oh I wasn't suggesting that BM would be a savior to AM. It's... not a thing aside from a few rare, nonprofit examples (like KQV). Then again, I doubt many AM stations are making much money, even running talk, so why not program something unique and have fun with it (because it's not going to make money anyway).

You've got a fair point about increasing bandwidth - most modern AM radios don't even take advantage of the current amount of bandwidth allowed.
The family Civic (probably a 2017 or so) sounds absolutely abhorrent on AM - tons of filtering going on. It's unlistenable. Then again, the stereo doesn't sound great regardless of source material. More bandwidth there would mean absolutely nothing for that car - it would still sound terrible.
That said, my mom's Hyundai (2021) actually sounds very acceptable on the AM band. Music sounds very listenable. It definitely appears to have some interference suppression built in, too. Well-processed stations are a very enjoyable listen. It even pulls in skywave at night impressively well. So good sounding AM is possible, but a lot of that does have to do with the receiver.

The reality is that it's not just AM... broadcasting has a finite future, just like its listeners. AM is just getting to the end of the road first. After all, the folks who grew up with AM are getting to the end of their road. But in my lifetime (probably long before I'm a geezer), I'm betting FM will be in a very similar place to where AM is now.
 
K.M. Richards said:
Given the discussion (or is it an argument by now?) you are having with Kelly, I don't believe your "fix" could both comply with the standards as regulated and sound good enough to overcome all of the interference problems which remain a huge stumbling block to being attractive to listeners.

The only "fix" that could be reasonably guaranteed to work -- and even then, not universally -- would be a combination of the following three courses of action:
  1. Mandate that every electric utility company, private or municipal, audit their transmission systems and either repair or replace any infrastructure that causes interference to AM. It would not be difficult for the FCC to justify this as a matter of protecting a licensed service, but the utilities would scream bloody murder.
  2. Force the replacement of any kind of lighting that also causes interference. In the case of branded LED bulbs, have a mandated exchange program between the manufacturer and consumer. For all the rest, subsidize the replacement conditioned on the offending bulbs being surrendered for proper e-cycling.
  3. Similarly, deal with the "wall warts" on the basis of replacement if the product it came with was made (or distributed, or sold) by a company still in business, otherwise subsidize generic replacements and require e-cycling.
This is all going to cost, as contestants on Press Your Luck still scream, "BIG BUCKS!" So now it becomes a question of "how much is too much" in order to keep that band viable. We're talking $millions here ... at the very least.

If we do nothing concrete about this, AM is going to remain the place where small niche ethnic audiences, some religious and talk (including sports-oriented) formats, and musical genres which are so close to death that the listening public already believes they are, end up. And there are a finite number of viable options for AM stations, so there will still be attrition.

And I still believe that translators did not "save" AM, as the FCC had claimed when they approved the "tied license" ones. It just made it easier for AMs to migrate their audience to FM, and I still think that eventually the Commission will let those AMs go silent as well and license the translators as a regular class of service with the current 250-watt ERP and restrictions on subsequent moves, modifications, and sales of same. That will actually do more to reduce interference on AM, since there will be considerably fewer stations with signal overlap (including that caused by atmospheric propagation).
Click to expand...
I mean... 1 is already a rule, is it not? It seems to me that the issue here with all three of these is that the FCC just hasn't been enforcing the rules.

The reality is that if we go by the 200 feet part 15 FM rule (AM is a bit more complex) many of the power line issues, etc. that are interfering horribly cover a range far, far greater than 200 feet. There are whole blocks where a power line wipes out pretty much all reception across the entire band. No way that can just be a-okay. I'm sure someone will correct me here if I'm wrong, though.

The real issue in the interference department appears to be largely the result of lax enforcement by our good friends at the FCC.

And I 100% agree that the translator thing did not "save" AM at all. There are now 50,000 watt AM stations who are no longer giving their AM frequency aside from their legal ID and are instead giving the frequency of their FM translator plugging along at 250 watts or less. I also don't see how the severely limited coverage areas of many of these translators can support enough ad revenue to keep the stations on the air. Even with the interference issue, the vast majority of AMs have a far greater coverage area than their translators in my experience.
 
Your experience is only in Pittsburgh, yes?

That's a very challenging market for translators because of terrain. So is Cincinnati

There are plenty of markets that are flatter, more compact and which have tall towers near the center of the market where translators outperform their AM "parent" quite handily. I cited a few in my market of Rochester NY earlier in one of these threads. Columbus is another good one. So is Las Vegas.

As someone who's been actively involved in applying for and building these for quite a while now, I can tell you every market and, really, every signal is different, even the big 50s. WHAM here in Rochester can't possibly replicate its entire AM reach on a single translator, but its 96.1 signal on Pinnacle Hill right at the center of the market puts a 60 dBu over probably 70 percent of the population. The two translators for 20 kW WYSL 1040 do even better at replicating the AM daytime reach and of course outkick it even better at night. Same for the two translators of WHIC 1460, which gets killed on AM by a bad nighttime directional pattern. Its 92.9 translator does very well in the important eastern suburbs where the AM can't be heard after dark.

It's in smaller markets where translators really can outdo AMs. Take a drive sometime to Johnstown or Altoona or State College. Pretty much every AM in each of those markets has a good translator somewhere up on a hill that replicates real-world AM coverage and then some. The 25-mile rule gave some of those AMs great bonus coverage - my friend Matt Lightner turned dead AMs in Tyrone and Roaring Spring into new format options for Altoona.

One more thing: you can't build these cheap if you want maximum reach. A good antenna and good processing are vital to make the most of 250 or 99 watts.

Again, every situation is different. It's impossible to generalize about "all translators" unless you've really spent a lot of time listening critically.
 
fybush said:
Your experience is only in Pittsburgh, yes?

That's a very challenging market for translators because of terrain. So is Cincinnati

There are plenty of markets that are flatter, more compact and which have tall towers near the center of the market where translators outperform their AM "parent" quite handily. I cited a few in my market of Rochester NY earlier in one of these threads. Columbus is another good one. So is Las Vegas.

As someone who's been actively involved in applying for and building these for quite a while now, I can tell you every market and, really, every signal is different, even the big 50s. WHAM here in Rochester can't possibly replicate its entire AM reach on a single translator, but its 96.1 signal on Pinnacle Hill right at the center of the market puts a 60 dBu over probably 70 percent of the population. The two translators for 20 kW WYSL 1040 do even better at replicating the AM daytime reach and of course outkick it even better at night. Same for the two translators of WHIC 1460, which gets killed on AM by a bad nighttime directional pattern. Its 92.9 translator does very well in the important eastern suburbs where the AM can't be heard after dark.

It's in smaller markets where translators really can outdo AMs. Take a drive sometime to Johnstown or Altoona or State College. Pretty much every AM in each of those markets has a good translator somewhere up on a hill that replicates real-world AM coverage and then some. The 25-mile rule gave some of those AMs great bonus coverage - my friend Matt Lightner turned dead AMs in Tyrone and Roaring Spring into new format options for Altoona.

One more thing: you can't build these cheap if you want maximum reach. A good antenna and good processing are vital to make the most of 250 or 99 watts.

Again, every situation is different. It's impossible to generalize about "all translators" unless you've really spent a lot of time listening critically.
Click to expand...
My experience is largely in Pittsburgh, but I'd say really western PA in general. Any time I travel, I always have a couple of radios with me, scanning around on the dial, and I've taken quite a few trips over the years.

Point definitely taken about the hilly terrain in western PA - AM is going to fare much better under those conditions than FM would. In a market with more flat terrain, I could definitely see translators having much, much better coverage than they would in hilly western PA. I do believe western PA also has decent ground conductivity, which helps on the AM side and is irrelevant on the FM side (if I understand correctly). So in a market with poor ground conductivity and flat terrain... The FM is going to be a lot more competitive with the AM if not outperforming it. Nighttime, too, it doesn't take many watts on FM to beat the coverage of a parent AM because most of those AMs are broadcasting at flea power.

I've actually spent a decent amount of time out in the central portion of the state, and those translators do seem to have a good reach, as you say.

I appreciate you taking the time to write out such a concise explanation and for pointing out my western PA fallacy - sometimes we think the rest of the world is the same as our world, but that's rarely the case...
 
Your ground conductivity in western PA is actually pretty awful by comparison with most of the country. KDKA has one of the worst 50 kW I-A daytime signals out there. You don't have to go very far to see the comparison - I can sit in Fort Wayne in a car with a decent radio and comfortably listen to WLW, WJR and the Chicago clears, all of them 120-150 miles away.

Try KDKA in, say, Erie and you'll see the difference.

Get deeper into the Midwest and it's even more dramatic. You can go 60 miles out from Sioux Falls and the little kilowatt there on 1230 is still loud and local. Go 10 miles out from Beaver Falls or Johnstown and their 1230s are lost in the mud.

It's not hard for a well-engineered translator on a clean frequency to get out 10 miles with a very solid signal that an average listener won't complain about, which is why these things work well in places like Johnstown or Beaver Falls.

(And then you get the really bad directional signals like 970 or the old 1410 in Pittsburgh, where you can sometimes be a mile away without being able to hear the AM clearly.)
 
fybush said:
Your ground conductivity in western PA is actually pretty awful by comparison with most of the country. KDKA has one of the worst 50 kW I-A daytime signals out there. You don't have to go very far to see the comparison - I can sit in Fort Wayne in a car with a decent radio and comfortably listen to WLW, WJR and the Chicago clears, all of them 120-150 miles away.

Try KDKA in, say, Erie and you'll see the difference.

Get deeper into the Midwest and it's even more dramatic. You can go 60 miles out from Sioux Falls and the little kilowatt there on 1230 is still loud and local. Go 10 miles out from Beaver Falls or Johnstown and their 1230s are lost in the mud.

It's not hard for a well-engineered translator on a clean frequency to get out 10 miles with a very solid signal that an average listener won't complain about, which is why these things work well in places like Johnstown or Beaver Falls.

(And then you get the really bad directional signals like 970 or the old 1410 in Pittsburgh, where you can sometimes be a mile away without being able to hear the AM clearly.)
Click to expand...
Huh, I didn't realize our ground conductivity was that bad here in western PA. You're right about KD's daytime signal - I always assumed that had to do with their new(er) tower, because their nighttime signal is an absolute mess as a result of that as I understand. It was apparently designed to help with interference with 1010WINS and 1030WBZ. Drive up 79 and by the time you get much north of Slippery Rock, it's unlistenable all of the way to Erie and is mostly a splattered, phase-cancelled mess at night.

I usually make a yearly road trip up north in the Corvair, taking Route 6 across the top of the state. KD's daytime signal up there is... not great. It does come in alright in Erie, certainly listenable, but not well.

In my experience, WBVP definitely gets out more than 10 miles... but not much more, and certainly nowhere near the 60 miles you're talking about with that station out west. That's impressive for a 1k AM at 1230 for sure (at least by western PA standards). That said, there are a lot of places where in my car, their AM is listenable and the FM is pretty much nonexistent. But the translator does indeed cover the community of license well with reception I doubt their listeners would complain about at all.

This discussion seems to highlight that a lot of solutions are not one-size-fits-all in regard to the topic of this thread, as different regions have different needs.

Thanks again for taking the time to share examples and your experience. I've certainly learned a lot from your last couple of posts!

Not to derail this thread, but since we're talking about translators, it does seem relevant. I'm now starting to hear complaints from people that their LED bulbs and whatnot are also killing their FM reception of stations that didn't come in rock solid before. I just had someone (retired Pittsburgh radio personality, so not some random Joe) telling me that they have to turn their lights off to hear WYEP (the station used to come in with with a relatively low noise floor and in stereo). I've had issues similar issues in the past trying to pull in WESA's Saturday evening jazz show. While FM is obviously less susceptible to interference than AM due to design, I'd imagine if the interference issue doesn't get addressed and continues to get out of control, the range of these low-powered translators could also be reduced significantly, much as has happened with AM.
 
Mediafrog+ said:
This sounds a lot like AM compatible SSB, which was used by some shortwave broadcasters in the 1990s. Transmit only one sideband and slightly reduce the carrier. Apparently sounded great on receivers with synchronous detection capabilities. Radio Netherlands did this on one of its North American beam frequencies from Bonaire for a few years. On a regular receiver spoken word sounded fine but music would occasionally be a bit rough. RN eventually dropped this transmission mode, not sure why…might have been more of a prof of concept experiment.
Click to expand...
I asked about that over here https://www.radiodiscussions.com/threads/energy-saving-mdcl.772069/#post-6732474

Shortwave station CHU currently uses this. Not sure if it would work with MDCL tho or how normal receivers would even act to such a signal.

It does seem like there is some concern of MDCL causing AGC pumping and with the terrible noise floor of the AM band that could lead to some bad results.

K.M. Richards said:
Mandate that every electric utility company, private or municipal, audit their transmission systems and either repair or replace any infrastructure that causes interference to AM. It would not be difficult for the FCC to justify this as a matter of protecting a licensed service, but the
Click to expand...
Frankly, From a safety and cost standpoint they should be doing this. Bad RF noise from powerline generally means arcing and possibly a early warning of failure. Maybe possible to mandate it beyond the FCC on the grounds of safety but likely wont happen.

I guess they see the monetary cost of power loss is less then dealing with it. With that said you can ignore it and be like PG&E I guess and figure litigation is cheaper.
 
Last edited:
Here is my plan to save AM. Allow profanity on AM. Not on FM translators just the AM. Digital AM could play "anything" too. I was listening to 96.1 here in Atlanta and they were blanking out about every tenth word on a couple of songs. No censorship might make a comedy format work too. Talk radio would never be the same.
 
secondchoice said:
Here is my plan to save AM. Allow profanity on AM. Not on FM translators just the AM. Digital AM could play "anything" too. I was listening to 96.1 here in Atlanta and they were blanking out about every tenth word on a couple of songs. No censorship might make a comedy format work too. Talk radio would never be the same.
Click to expand...
Thank you, Howard Stern! Or maybe Samuel L. Jackson could get into radio now. :ROFLMAO:

(Although I have a feeling that if Stern really wanted to return to Ancient Modulation, he would have done so 20 years ago.)
 
K.M. Richards said:
Given the discussion (or is it an argument by now?) you are having with Kelly, I don't believe your "fix" could both comply with the standards as regulated and sound good enough to overcome all of the interference problems which remain a huge stumbling block to being attractive to listeners.

The only "fix" that could be reasonably guaranteed to work -- and even then, not universally -- would be a combination of the following three courses of action:
  1. Mandate that every electric utility company, private or municipal, audit their transmission systems and either repair or replace any infrastructure that causes interference to AM. It would not be difficult for the FCC to justify this as a matter of protecting a licensed service, but the utilities would scream bloody murder.
  2. Force the replacement of any kind of lighting that also causes interference. In the case of branded LED bulbs, have a mandated exchange program between the manufacturer and consumer. For all the rest, subsidize the replacement conditioned on the offending bulbs being surrendered for proper e-cycling.
  3. Similarly, deal with the "wall warts" on the basis of replacement if the product it came with was made (or distributed, or sold) by a company still in business, otherwise subsidize generic replacements and require e-cycling.
This is all going to cost, as contestants on Press Your Luck still scream, "BIG BUCKS!" So now it becomes a question of "how much is too much" in order to keep that band viable. We're talking $millions here ... at the very least.
Click to expand...
You made some good points RE the power companies, especially your point #1. And there is some substance behind that idea -- as we all know, the Federal Government has long been interested in the saving of electric power, because wasted power (I.e., arcing on insulators and the like) is bad for the nation's carbon footprint. That is why I can't even buy halogen bulbs for my home lighting anymore, even if I want to. Energy usage. Halogen bulbs are worse for the nation's carbon footprint than LED lighting.

If arcing really wastes a lot of energy, and that indeed is bad for the nation's carbon footprint, there at least is a reason for the Feds (Congress) to enact a law similar to your point #1.

Will it happen? Never. Not for the sake of AM radio, obviously, but not for the power wastage reasons, either.
 
boombox4 said:
You made some good points RE the power companies, especially your point #1. And there is some substance behind that idea -- as we all know, the Federal Government has long been interested in the saving of electric power, because wasted power (I.e., arcing on insulators and the like) is bad for the nation's carbon footprint. That is why I can't even buy halogen bulbs for my home lighting anymore, even if I want to. Energy usage. Halogen bulbs are worse for the nation's carbon footprint than LED lighting.

If arcing really wastes a lot of energy, and that indeed is bad for the nation's carbon footprint, there at least is a reason for the Feds (Congress) to enact a law similar to your point #1.

Will it happen? Never. Not for the sake of AM radio, obviously, but not for the power wastage reasons, either.
Click to expand...
The power companies are regulated ( except in a few states) by some form of "public service commission". If the distribution plant (wires) are losing less than what it costs to update then nothing will happen. The PSC can pass a rate hike specifically for upgrades to the wiring which will be paid by the customers after public hearings. Cost Accountants will "testify" the payback will happen in a reasonable amount of time. Then folks will complain power is too high now no more money to the greedy power company. In most states the power company's profit are guaranteed enough to get reasonable return on investment so that have access to investments to fund the company.

In my area Georgia Power figured out that underground is cheaper in the long run verses tree trimming, reworking 60 + year old poles, wires and transformers, plus we have had more than our share of storm damage repairs in the last several years.
 
pclover said:
Frankly, From a safety and cost standpoint they should be doing this. Bad RF noise from powerline generally means arcing and possibly a early warning of failure. Maybe possible to mandate it beyond the FCC on the grounds of safety but likely wont happen.

I guess they see the monetary cost of power loss is less then dealing with it. With that said you can ignore it and be like PG&E I guess and figure litigation is cheaper.
Click to expand...
Yup - that's what the old chief engineer of the stations I work for said. Power line RF noise usually means arcing which is not exactly a good thing. That's something that really should be fixed, but oh well...
 
pclover said:
I've read dirty insulators can cause it too which makes sense.
Click to expand...
Nobody seems to talk about it much, but actually cleaning the power lines should be (and maybe is to an extent in some places) a part of regular maintenance for precisely this reason.

If dirty lines and insulators can cause noise, they can cause sparks, which cause fires, which has been known to cause great devastation and destruction to numerous communities, especially over here in the West, so the simple act of cleaning them periodically should be a no brainer!

But is it?

c
 
cc333 said:
Nobody seems to talk about it much, but actually cleaning the power lines should be (and maybe is to an extent in some places) a part of regular maintenance for precisely this reason.

If dirty lines and insulators can cause noise, they can cause sparks, which cause fires, which has been known to cause great devastation and destruction to numerous communities, especially over here in the West, so the simple act of cleaning them periodically should be a no brainer!

But is it?

c
Click to expand...

Don't know about how much scheduled cleaning is done, but a web search on:

washing power line insulators

goes to a number of links including videos of the process.

I am thinking that we had one transmitter site where we had, maybe a 69kV line and every few months, they (the power company) would shut down the feeder and hose down the insulators. Salt spray would coat the insulators and the insulators would arc over if there was too much salt residue on the insulators.
 
Last edited:


Back
Top Bottom