‘NO PROBLEM with good ‘ole-fashioned AM!

[hipporadio]

KB says so as a dedicated listener – and Bob Savage says-so as a dedicated transmitter-owning broadcaster [and aficionado]. I agree! I have been listening to FOURTEEN wideband and/or “decent-sounding” AM tuners in various form-factors spanning 1989 to present, and I am impressed [and depressed at the same time due to the elusive marketplace] – I just DON’T understand... I DO recognize that there are TOO MANY “crappy” AM receivers out there that may poison the rank ‘n file radio listener. I wish more of these folks could find an AM tuner beyond what they set beside their bedside in the form of a $20 Sony clock radio they scored at Wally-World.

Here’s my roster: [from 1970] – Radio Shack’s STA 65B home stereo receiver [analog, very-low distortion, and well beyond 5k]; [from 1972] – the Allied/Fisher 395 home stereo receiver about 7.5k]; the 1977 McIntosh MR-76 with selectable bandwidth [10k/4k] – AWESOME-sounding; Sony’s SRF-A1 multi-mode AM stereo “WalkMan”; the DXer's-dream I-COM R-71a – a general coverage shortwave receiver built for Amplitude Modulation with an accessory Collins broad-skirt 16kHz I.F. filter [8kHz audio bandwidth]; GE’s gen-one “SuperRadio” [the BEST portable I’ve ever held in my hands]; Carver’s second stab at “hi-fi” AM—the TX 11-b home-stereo component AM tuner on misguided steroids [20/10kHz – ultra-hi-bandwidth/low-distortion/lack of RF sensitivity] ... And closing-out the decade – the Denon 680 10kHz NRSC-standard benchmark C-QUAM AM stereo. Today, I enjoy the Sangean DT-200V “walkman”; their WR-2 table radio; my trusty C Crane receiver, and the “retro” Tivoli Model One... ALL have a fine-sounding AM section. The potable iPal I tote is the same [but needs a Terk loop nearby]. By-far THE BEST path to quality AM radio is the "homemade" Meduci AMX-2000... Jeff Deck has crammed literal “AM nirvana” into a Radio Shack project box while having fun (or revenge) at his bench—It ain’t pretty, but it delivers FM QUALITY [at a minimum] from qualifying stations – absolutely AWESOME! There is NO EXCUSE for the “AM dilemma” when one listens-to and considers this fine effort!

So WHY do we need digital... Don’t get me wrong – I like DirecTV in ones ‘n zeros, my 2000-plus CDs thru the A-D converter, and my DVD collection on the big-screen, BUT – the historic AM scheme clearly doesn’t allow for an acceptable “hybrid” of both... Do ONE OR THE OTHER – NOT BOTH! On the AM receivers I have noted, it is striking that analog quality has been givin’-over to the sacrificial pit... This IS NOT the “leap-of-faith” that healthy AM stations need to be making [the less-healthy CAN’T afford Bobby Stumble’s science-fair project]... Analog AM SOUNDS GREAT... ‘Consider it a national resource, and for God’s-sake—PRESERVE IT!

 

[kenglish]

Except that many people live in apartments or condos (MDU's) with crappy wiring, lots of CRT-type TV sets, computers with Switch-Mode power supplies, and lots of digital junk, that prevent us from hearing much on AM except buzzes and whistles.

Add a few shopping malls with neon signs "installed by the lowest bidder, maintained by nobody at all", and you have more noise than you can handle.

If I had the money to buy "40 acres", I'd have made a good Ham operator. :

 

[hipporadio]

I’m a political Libertarian, kenglish - BUT I recall the very-basic “Part 15” FCC RF rules... They go beyond just the “wannabe radio star” firing-up a basement transmitter to cover the neighborhood... These established rules clearly-cover superfluous RF emissions from apartment wiring, home-security motion detectors, and even aquarium heaters – so WHY isn’t our illustrative FCC failing to enforce FOUR-DECADE-OLD rules... This is the “real” detriment of AM radio – followed closely by compromised receiver “design”... BOTH invite government intervention and action!

Rmember, I said I am Libertarian, BUT, there is a time ‘n place for an effective regulatory body [this is that time]... They should be concerned with way-more than the circumference of Janet’s nipples!

 

[dxer720]

I wholeheartedly agree with you hipporadio.

I also think highly of my Sangean DT-200V. It's been my companion for 17 years. Darn good FM too.

I have a Boston (Acoustics) Solo AM/FM radio next to my bed. The FM is superb with nothing but the included wire antenna. The selectivity is great. I can listen to 95.9 & 96.3 from the Chicago area (about 60 miles away) with no interference from the 6KW 96.1 a mile from here. The sensitivity is good too. Can't wait to connect it to a dipole. On AM it really shines. The fidelity is wonderful. Nice highs & not too much bass. Selectivity is beautiful. I live three blocks from a 1KW daytimer on 1550 & 1540 & 1560 are clear of any splatter. I must try the radio with an AM loop.

I took it to my mother's house & the Solo sounded & received better the her Bose Wave Radio/CD. You can't beat it at a fifth the price of the Bose. I know the Solo doesn't have a CD player, but a $400 difference for a CD player.

Connected to a good amplifier & speakers, I've got great sound from the earphone jack of a $25 (at the time) 70s portable radio. Which leads me to believe that some of these sets were better "sounding" AM receivers than their speakers were able to deliver.

 

[TheBigA]

I'm sure you can find a lot of people who will agree that AM sounds great, has always sounded great, and doesn't need any new technologies. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

But the fact is that for a whole lot of people, the AM band doesn't exist, and hasn't existed for about 30 years. Music started to leave in 1978. Now stations are moving news & talk to FM. What will happen when there's nothing left on AM except religious formats, brokered infomercials, and foreign language programming? THat's the current trend.

Even with the affordability of AM licenses, I'm not seeing a whole lot that gives me hope. I'm expecting CBS to sell of 2/3rd of it's AM stations in this new housecleaning. Who will buy them? Local entrepeneurs looking to serve their communities? Or rich people with an agenda looking for a platform? I'm watching a bunch of 5K AMs in New Jersey getting bought up by a religious broadcaster. These are stations that were once local powerhouses. Now, no one wants to own them, no one wants to program them. They've become the equivalent of the crack house in a bad neighborhood.

One of the goals of HD was to perhaps change perceptions about AM. There are lots of people who aren't DXers who have hard & fast negative opinions about AM. The thought was maybe if you told them this new technology will bring FM quality to AM, they'll listen. That may have been an attractive idea to some. On the other hand, you have people who simply won't listen to matter what the quality is.

The fact is that with the exception of a hundred or so AM stations in this country, the band is in trouble. While some say that consolidation and corporate ownership has driven listeners away from FM, it's far worse on the AM side, and there is less consolidation and corporate ownership there. In a year, there will probably be even less. The AM band COULD be a place where we see a rebirth in creative radio, since the licenses are so affordable. But based on what I've been seeing in the last year, I have no reason to expect this to happen. Why would anyone with lots of money want to put it in an AM station when there are so many better investments they could make?

 

[KB1OKL]

I'm sure you can find a lot of people who will agree that AM sounds great, has always sounded great, and doesn't need any new technologies. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

It is broke in many cases, most AM stations now are transmitting with such narrow bandwidths they sound like they have pillows are over the speakers and IBOC makes this worse on an analog radio because they HAVE to broadcast with this narrow bandwidth.

But the fact is that for a whole lot of people, the AM band doesn't exist, and hasn't existed for about 30 years. Music started to leave in 1978. Now stations are moving news & talk to FM. What will happen when there's nothing left on AM except religious formats, brokered infomercials, and foreign language programming? THat's the current trend.

Maybe where you live here in MA we have some good AM stations but the problem is that very few AM owners try to make their stations sound good anymore which is why music is hardly available on AM anymore. FM is in trouble also, all of radio is in trouble, if radio doesn't get rid of this ridiclulous solution that doesn't work and just diverts radio people away from the real problem and start to try to fix the real problem which is lousy duplicated ad nauseum programming both are going to be sunk very soon.

Even with the affordability of AM licenses, I'm not seeing a whole lot that gives me hope. I'm expecting CBS to sell of 2/3rd of it's AM stations in this new housecleaning. Who will buy them? Local entrepeneurs looking to serve their communities? Or rich people with an agenda looking for a platform? I'm watching a bunch of 5K AMs in New Jersey getting bought up by a religious broadcaster. These are stations that were once local powerhouses. Now, no one wants to own them, no one wants to program them. They've become the equivalent of the crack house in a bad neighborhood.

IBOC certainly isn't going to help that if it's true

One of the goals of HD was to perhaps change perceptions about AM. There are lots of people who aren't DXers who have hard & fast negative opinions about AM. The thought was maybe if you told them this new technology will bring FM quality to AM, they'll listen.

It certainly has changed the few who know that it exists's perception to that of a medium that will die very soon if IBOC isn't taken off the air. Anyone who says AM IBOC sounds like FM is full of it, GOOD engineered AM stations sound much better than IBOC AM stations could ever sound, they even have REAL high sounds rather than the saccharine artificial highs AM IBOC has. AM IBOC to AM radio is what flourescent lighting is to incandescent lighting

That may have been an attractive idea to some. On the other hand, you have people who simply won't listen to matter what the quality is.

If it were true it would have may have been an attractive idea to some but it's BS anyway, IBOC AM sounds like narrowband AM radio with artificial highs tacked on, (which is what it is). This idea has been shoved down people's throats now for a few years anyway, FM quality, CD quality etc. etc. etc. and no one's biting, doesn't help that the people who are supposed to be selling the underacheivers know it's not selling, that no one wants them and steer you away from IBOC receivers

The fact is that with the exception of a hundred or so AM stations in this country, the band is in trouble. While some say that consolidation and corporate ownership has driven listeners away from FM, it's far worse on the AM side, and there is less consolidation and corporate ownership there. In a year, there will probably be even less. The AM band COULD be a place where we see a rebirth in creative radio, since the licenses are so affordable. But based on what I've been seeing in the last year, I have no reason to expect this to happen. Why would anyone with lots of money want to put it in an AM station when there are so many better investments they could make?

Like what, an IBOC FM which everyone listens to in analog anyway? Waste of money.

 

[TheBigA]

IBOC AM sounds like narrowband AM radio with artificial highs tacked on, (which is what it is). This idea has been shoved down people's throats now for a few years anyway, FM quality, CD quality etc. etc. etc. and no one's biting, doesn't help that the people who are supposed to be selling the underacheivers know it's not selling, that no one wants them and steer you away from IBOC receivers

Lack of quality sales help isn't restricted to IBOC. I was at my local Sears today talking with the commission salesman about HDTV and it was obvious he didn't have a clue about the difference between plasma and LCD. I went to the Best Buy looking for flash memory, and the salesman had no clue what I was talking about.

As I've said many times, using the sales figures of HD radio as a justification for anything is a waste of time when you don't put it in context of other radio sales. I can tell you that internet radio sales are much lower than HD Radio, and AM/FM sales aren't that great either. As for being "shoved down people's throats," I have felt no such pressure. There is no requirement on anyone's part to buy an HD radio, nor is there any requirement for any station to broadcast using it. No force whatsoever. Perhaps that's the problem.

Why would anyone with lots of money want to put it in an AM station when there are so many better investments they could make?

Like what, an IBOC FM which everyone listens to in analog anyway? Waste of money.

You really have a one-track mind. I have enough money to buy an AM station in a Top 20 market. I could pay cash for it right now. Instead I put my money in a high technology stock. I've doubled my money. Why would I ever waste my money in broadcasting? I'm sure every other prudent investor, including those with years of broadcasting experience, feel the same way. And it has absolutely nothing to do with IBOC.

 

[rbrucecarter5]

One of the goals of HD was to perhaps change perceptions about AM. There are lots of people who aren't DXers who have hard & fast negative opinions about AM. The thought was maybe if you told them this new technology will bring FM quality to AM, they'll listen. That may have been an attractive idea to some. On the other hand, you have people who simply won't listen to matter what the quality is.

OK, here is what HD has brought to the table with AM:

- on seek and scan radios, looking for a station, here is the sequence you find: hash - HASH - station - HASH - hash - hash - HASH - station - HASH - hash - etc. In other words, 8 instances of hash to two stations. NOT very appealing.

- on the cheapies - high frequency hash permeating the station, every time the program goes silent for a moment. The younger the listener, the better the high frequency hearing for the hash.

- on cheapies with really bad analog tuning, much more hash because it is hard to tune them

- on good radios, not the table radio trash, muffled bandwidth limited audio.

- on talk and sports stations - MONO program material with the only stereo being during musical beds and commercials.

- the requirement for even less interference in the listening area than with analog, or you won't hear HD at all. Or lose lock with each electronic device turned on.

Does any of that sound like a way to attract new listeners? I would think that wideband mono (taking advantage of the cheapies wide bandwidth), compelling programming, a concerted effort to get the FCC to apply rules lessening interference, and re-allocations and consolidations on frequencies to eliminate nighttime clutter would go a lot farther in attracting and keeping new listeners than HD does.

 

[Kelly]

Wow, here we go again from talking about the demise of the AM band, to the same old mantra about how bad IBOC hash is..blah blah.. :

TheBigA makes some good points about the original topic of discussion, but I disagree on how inexpensive an AM station is to run. Chances are the land many AM transmission sites are on has exceeded the value of the station.

Hippo, I don't know how old you are, but based on your time-line and obvious fondness of listening to AM radio, I'm willing to bet you're in the 40-50 year old age bracket, as am I. Clearly many of you on this board are in denial about the gradual demise of the AM band and continue to hold out hope that the younger generation will suddenly discard their IPods, and start listening to AM. If only there was good programming! Yeah right...

As was mentioned here, the AM band is not the same place as it was in 1972. With the increase in noise caused by industrial and consumer products, more tunnels and bridges on the highway systems that block the signal, poor reception in modern buildings and homes, combined with inferior audio quality as compared to modern portable devices, the AM band is dying along with our generation that embraced it.

So you guys can be bitter by pointing a finger of blame at the FCC, radio manufacturers, consumer electronic companies, broadcasters, the NRSC, Marconi, or guys like me. The fact remains that if you don't make the AM band technically competitive with the wants of the modern consumer, we will all be taking the AM band to the grave along with our memories.

 

[TheBigA]

Does any of that sound like a way to attract new listeners? I would think that wideband mono (taking advantage of the cheapies wide bandwidth), compelling programming, a concerted effort to get the FCC to apply rules lessening interference, and re-allocations and consolidations on frequencies to eliminate nighttime clutter would go a lot farther in attracting and keeping new listeners than HD does.

The FCC is not going to do any of those things. The main agenda for the FCC for the past 25 years has been to INCREASE clutter and add more stations to an already crowded band. In that case, HD radio fits well with their agenda. If the FCC was interested in re-allocation, they would have done it the way the Europeans did. But that hasn't been their MO, and I have no confidence that quality of sound will ever be an interest of theirs. So it was left (as it always has) to outside industry to create a technology, and get it approved. Which they did.

I've been reading how some engineers could have predicted the problems HD created. The point is that those problems were not demonstrated at the time of approval. They have since been reported, and obviously some broadcasters affected by the problem will take matters into their own hands, which once again is necessary because of a useless FCC that is more interested in ownership rules, indecency laws, and cramming more stations into an already crowded band.

As for the "hash," it doesn't seem to bother the general public. Perhaps, as some have indicated, it has been mitigated by broadcasters shutting it off at night.

Like most things in our world, this was a case of marketing over technology. The marketing won over broadcasters and the FCC. The concept of adding more stations fit with the agenda of the FCC, and they didn't have to do anything except rubber stamp it, which was good because that's all they're interested in doing. The claims of CD quality sound fit the goals of broadcasters, and seemed to address the problems some have had with AM for the past 30 years.

So where we are now is "what next." There are problems with the system, so can they be fixed? If not, then it's on to the next idea. My point was AM radio has been suffering from a perception problem for a very long time, long predating HD. Fewer and fewer stations have content that listeners are interesting in. The audience is getting older and older. So something has to be done, and the FCC isn't going to take the lead in this area.

 

[TheBigA]

I disagree on how inexpensive an AM station is to run. Chances are the land many AM transmission sites are on has exceeded the value of the station.

You're right, and I'm sorry if I gave that impression. Radio stations are VERY expensive to run. I've often said buying the station is the cheapest part. Operating it is where the real money comes in. It's the part many activists ignore until they have to run one themselves.

The fact remains that if you don't make the AM band technically competitive with the wants of the modern consumer, we will all be taking the AM band to the grave along with our memories.

The frustration is that all of the people you list have a hand in the process, and even if you DO make it "technically competitive," the result may still be the same. The perception problem is tough to overcome. Many of these stations are licensed to cities and areas that are suffering from economic collapse and population flight. There's a declining audience base to begin with, coupled with all the increased competition. If HD radio is eliminated, all those other problems will remain. And I don't see anyone jumping up with a plan to address them.

 

[KB1OKL]

One of the goals of HD was to perhaps change perceptions about AM. There are lots of people who aren't DXers who have hard & fast negative opinions about AM. The thought was maybe if you told them this new technology will bring FM quality to AM, they'll listen. That may have been an attractive idea to some. On the other hand, you have people who simply won't listen to matter what the quality is.

OK, here is what HD has brought to the table with AM:

- on seek and scan radios, looking for a station, here is the sequence you find: hash - HASH - station - HASH - hash - hash - HASH - station - HASH - hash - etc. In other words, 8 instances of hash to two stations. NOT very appealing.

- on the cheapies - high frequency hash permeating the station, every time the program goes silent for a moment. The younger the listener, the better the high frequency hearing for the hash.

- on cheapies with really bad analog tuning, much more hash because it is hard to tune them

- on good radios, not the table radio trash, muffled bandwidth limited audio.

- on talk and sports stations - MONO program material with the only stereo being during musical beds and commercials.

- the requirement for even less interference in the listening area than with analog, or you won't hear HD at all. Or lose lock with each electronic device turned on.

Does any of that sound like a way to attract new listeners? I would think that wideband mono (taking advantage of the cheapies wide bandwidth), compelling programming, a concerted effort to get the FCC to apply rules lessening interference, and re-allocations and consolidations on frequencies to eliminate nighttime clutter would go a lot farther in attracting and keeping new listeners than HD does.

Hash, hash, hash, hash, haha! HD was a wonderful invention isn't it?
I don't think anyone here is saying the AM band is going to die except for maybe the IBOC pushers. IBOC obviously is already dead, no pulse, CPR is not working, the body's cold, just just the code hasn't been called off yet. (lots of funny money invested in this sham). No the AM band will stay around and as far as people not complaining about hash, what do you think they do when they encounter this god-awful noise on the AM band? They switch it to FM (because you and I both know no one knows nor cares about IBOC) thinking all the time, man, the AM band is sounding worse than I remember. Yup IBOC is certainly the savior of AM :
I just got my Meduci receiver which is wideband and yes it does sound great even in mono. I did an A & B comparison with my marantz 2385 and it absolutely kills the Marantz, the Marantz sounds like it's got pillows over the speakers and this was just tuned up by a pro. rbrcuce, you have the right idea and I'm sure this is the way AM will go once IBOC is given it's long overdue and well deserved burial.

 

[TheBigA]

No the AM band will stay around and as far as people not complaining about hash, what do you think they do when they encounter this god-awful noise on the AM band? They switch it to FM

I haven't seen any major change in AM ratings as a result of IBOC. The people who were going to switch to FM already did it a long time ago. And if you can't get Rush or 24/7 news on an FM station in your market, then switching to FM is not an option.

 

[KB1OKL]

No the AM band will stay around and as far as people not complaining about hash, what do you think they do when they encounter this god-awful noise on the AM band? They switch it to FM

I haven't seen any major change in AM ratings as a result of IBOC. The people who were going to switch to FM already did it a long time ago. And if you can't get Rush or 24/7 news on an FM station in your market, then switching to FM is not an option.

How can you pinpoint IBOC as a reason for people switching to FM if no one knows it exists, just think it's more noise on the AM band which is what it is except that it's generated from the IBOC stations themselves which is a strange twist really if you think about it.

 

[TheBigA]

How can you pinpoint IBOC as a reason for people switching to FM

I didn't say that. You did.

The majority of people switched from AM to FM during the 80s. That was before IBOC. The decline hasn't increased suddenly in the last two years.

 

[Kelly]

Anyone who make the claim that IBOC/HD is causing the flight of listeners to AM, let alone radio, is either in total denial, or doesn't work in the business. That being said, I would be curious to know if Savage has seen any loss of revenue or ratings with his AM station because of the interference.

I suspect the majority of those affected are 45+ year old DX'ers. That niche' equals a drop in a swimming pool.

I always find it interesting how some, including KB, seem to label posters as "pro-IBOC", or "IBOC pushers" if you we parrot their mantra. TheBigA makes a good point that if IBOC isn't working, than either do something else, or fix the problem. Personally I would like to see analog Amplitude Modulation phased out like DTV, and just digital modulation like DRM be eventually used. Pretty soon the slate will be clean anyway, as listeners are ignoring the AM band at an increasing rate.

I can't help but laugh at the comments about how good some AM station sounds. Let's see, assuming the station is running within the NRSC compliance window, audio frequency response at the receiver is maybe 100HZ-4kHz downhill with a tail wind. And if the station is running 125% positive modulation, then the IMD at frequencies of 1kHz and up will be in the neighborhood of 40%. Now let's compare my IPod... At 128KB sample rate: frequency response, (flat EQ curve), response is 30HZ-18kHz. IMD measured, .020%. I made these measurements on my Audio Precision ATS-2. To me, this is like saying that one prefers the sound of a wire recording over a CD!

 

[KB1OKL]

I don't think you guys read these posts thoroughly. I said that IF listeners were vacating the AM band as a result of IBOC it couldn't be measured because no one has heard of it outside of people like us.
I listen to AM stations with my ears not measuring equipment, my ears which are pretty darn good tell me if a station sounds good or bad.
An old MC-30 puts out 30 WRMS with 0.5% distortion, I defy anyone here to come up with a better sounding, more musical amp.

 

[KB1OKL]

I don't think you guys read these posts thoroughly. I said that IF listeners were vacating the AM band as a result of IBOC it couldn't be measured because no one has heard of it outside of people like us.
I listen to AM stations with my ears not measuring equipment, my ears which are pretty darn good tell me if a station sounds good or bad.
An old MC-30 puts out 30 WRMS with 0.5% distortion, I defy anyone here to come up with a better sounding, more musical amp.

Survey question:

Have your radio listening habits changed since the implementation of AM-HD?

Respondent:

Huh, say what? AM-HD?? What on God's green earth is that? I thought HD was something to do with TV, something the government is forcing my grandmother to fork over 30 bucks for which she couldn't care less about. Well I guess I can't answer that question.

 

[KB1OKL]

I can't help but laugh at the comments about how good some AM station sounds. Let's see, assuming the station is running within the NRSC compliance window, audio frequency response at the receiver is maybe 100HZ-4kHz downhill with a tail wind. And if the station is running 125% positive modulation, then the IMD at frequencies of 1kHz and up will be in the neighborhood of 40%. Now let's compare my IPod... At 128KB sample rate: frequency response, (flat EQ curve), response is 30HZ-18kHz. IMD measured, .020%. I made these measurements on my Audio Precision ATS-2. To me, this is like saying that one prefers the sound of a wire recording over a CD!

I think there are a few AM broadcasters here who transmit with the top of their frequency response closer to 10K, and as far as MP3 players go (and anything digital) analog presents the whole wave form, not a composite facsimile.
I'm a bass player, the low E on a 4 string bass is approx 40 Hz, I heard plenty of low E's last night on the Meduci, not overtones either, fundamental tones.
I guess a lot of AMers are not using the NRSC compliance window as a guide, except for the ones who want to sound like Walkie Talkies and the IBOC'ers who evidently have to use it or something close to it, which is why they synthesize artificial highs, which is kind of like putting saccharine on your oatmeal in the morning..

 

[TheBigA]

Survey question:

Have your radio listening habits changed since the implementation of AM-HD?

Obviously that's not the question to ask. But you and others continually claim the hash is driving people away. I have no reason to believe that's true. My point is they were already gone a long time ago.