A young adult AM test

[ChiefOperator]

The problem with AM quality is not the AM signal, rather it's the horrendous tuners available...

People keep saying that, and yet no one can explain why FM sounds great regardless of the equipment.

One reason is that the frequency response of an AM tuner is so narrow.

 

[TheBigA]

One reason is that the frequency response of an AM tuner is so narrow.

So what difference does it make if AM sounds great before the audio gets to the device? The user only cares about his end of the product. If that sucks, then the product sucks.

 

[TomZ]

One reason is that the frequency response of an AM tuner is so narrow.

Careful there BigA. In 1934 any audio was great and fidelity was only accomplished by a new group of folks called <insert specific> engineers.

Oh, broadcast range (distance for those of you who went to public school) was the goal.

So what difference does it make if AM sounds great before the audio gets to the device? The user only cares about his end of the product. If that sucks, then the product sucks.

 

[TomZ]

Well, range and being outside of the brackets is another matter of discussion. :-\

 

[wgliradio]

The problem with AM quality is not the AM signal, rather it's the horrendous tuners available...

People keep saying that, and yet no one can explain why FM sounds great regardless of the equipment.

Oh wow, that's a loaded statement. I can show you many common aftermarket FM receivers for cars with horrendous FM sections that sound clippy, make poor choices when it comes to blending and don't do the de-emphasis curve correctly. We won't even start on the off the shelf portables/table radios. Most of those today are driven to where the IPod dock is and the FM can't overcome the built in CPU noise. It's not just AM tuners that suffer any longer. The "radio" is now secondary in the design of audio devices and the entertainment center of automobiles in all but the most basic models. It's aux device connectivity, Bluetooth, GPS etc.

 

[TheBigA]

The "radio" is now secondary in the design of audio devices and the entertainment center of automobiles in all but the most basic models. It's aux device connectivity, Bluetooth, GPS etc.

Where "radio" is secondary, AM radio, for the most part, doesn't even exist. That's what this conversation is about.

 

[wgliradio]

Where "radio" is secondary, AM radio, for the most part, doesn't even exist. That's what this conversation is about.

That's been quite obvious for 20+ years (as soon as you started to see 3 banks of FM presets vs 1 for AM appear in stereos). But to answer your statement, FM does not sound great regardless of equipment, which was the crux of my reply to your comment. In the 70's and 80's, the specs on an FM tuner (car or home) were a big deal and flaunted. Nowadays, nobody cares about either band as long as the head unit has Ipod or Aux in options and it shows in the quality of the tuners, how the blend circuits fall apart under trivial conditions, how the narrow (or auto adjusting) filters add all sorts of distortion and how the front end gets easily swamped by even Class A's.

So while AM receivers are horrible for the most part (and they are), FM receivers are gaining ground on their brethren. None of this helps radio's cause and neither have any of the efforts to improve analog receiver design (NRSC, FMX, AMAX, Motorola Symphony Chipset etc)

 

[Radio Boogie]

I run Linux, so I guess that makes me C-QuAM!

 

[TheBigA]

So while AM receivers are horrible for the most part (and they are), FM receivers are gaining ground on their brethren. None of this helps radio's cause and neither have any of the efforts to improve analog receiver design (NRSC, FMX, AMAX, Motorola Symphony Chipset etc)

What do you suggest?

 

[JustPastBuffalo]

There's a parallel thread on the Buffalo board about "Music On AM." Today, the weather in Buffalo is cloudy with light rain, (ironically, there's very little snow on the ground, unusual for this time of year in The Nickel). It's an ideal ground wave day, so I pressed AM while driving and "checked out the signals" near and far, including the flame throwing AM 740 from Toronto which plays Standards. It sounded thick and beefy. The kilowatt AM in Niagara Falls was slamming the audio on "12:30" by the Mamas & Papas. I pictured smoke coming out of the Optimod. Oldies on Hamilton's CKOC sounded pretty good, comparatively speaking. Tight and bright. I caught two stations playing Country, an AM on 790 in Wellsville, NY (about 75 miles SE of Buffalo) and WCJW in Warasaw, NY (about 30 miles E of Buffalo).

Radio geeks like you and me will defend AM to the limit, but Dave Eduardo's daughter's observations reflect the greater consensus. Sports is the only format on AM that my adult sons will listen to, and sparingly at that. Each having an iPod or iPad, there are options that did not exist 10, 20, certainly 30 years ago. We all know about limitations of receivers and electrical noise. Most of us understand the tech talk. In our careers, some of us have been lucky enough to work at an AM or two that had solid, clean audio. Kudos to the dedicated engineers who can make AM stations sing quite sweetly.

But it's 2012 and the consumer is speaking with every purchase. With the possible exception of Sports and News-Talk in major markets, for listeners under 50, AM just doesn't make the cut. Even those formats are migrating to FM. The clock's ticking. Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for AM. (Apologies to Ernest.)

 

[kenglish]

Maybe we broadcasters should have been complaining about this stuff many, many years ago.
Back when somebody might have listened.

 

[Bud50]

Try listening to AM on a modulation monitor. You'll be amazed how outstanding wideband AM sounds. Very close to FM, even better in some cases.

The problem with AM quality is not the AM signal, rather it's the horrendous tuners available...

I heartily agree...some of my receivers are of "vintage" quality, re: 70's and older. My huge old Sony portable (before the term "boombox' was coined) sounds better than most portables out there, AM and FM; I have an old Marantz AM/FM receiver that I enjoy quite a bit, as well. My old 50's Hammarlund HQ-100A is nice on AM, with its matching Hammarlund speaker (a big brute!). As for listening to AM on my Realistic DX-440, eh...definitely ho-hum. I can't wait to get my Hallicrafters SX-100 repaired to try it out!

I wish AM stereo had've worked out; there's a station here who had been broadcasting in AM stereo, but most likely isn't any more. I never got to hear them in AM stereo, since the receivers were too costly at the time for my budget.

I also have some airchecks of a station I listened to as a kid (KAAY) that have been moved into digital format; even with the DX fading and some atmospheric noise, it is still an enjoyable trip down memory lane to listen to its high-quality signal. Felix McDonald, Eddie Graham and Dave Montgomery all did a wonderful job of making that 50,000-watt blowtorch keep a beautiful audio output.

As a Ham radio operator, I enjoy still using the mode; there is a resurgence of operators using AM and even some folks with the means who are rescuing 1-kw and 5-kw transmitters otherwise destined for the trash heap, and are rebuilding, resurrecting and retuning them for 160 meters (1.8 to 2.0 Mhz) and 75-80 meters (3.5-4.0 Mhz). With a good audio chain ahead of them, they sound BETTER than when they were on the air in commercial usage.

But, there again, it IS the receiver with the proper filtering and bandwidth that makes the difference. You can't squeeze a 10 kc signal through a 4 kc filter and make it sound good at all. I know those figures aren't right, but you get the picture; the signals and filter widths vary from broadcaster to broadcaster (splattery signals), receiver to receiver (some are 6 kc's in width), so results will vary.

Go for some vintage equipment, tune in The Avenue at night and see what results come about; some may, or may not, be surprised....

Bud, KC4HGH