AM - top 40

[MarioMania]

How would an Top 40 Station on AM do today, Or even Rock Mucis ..it prolly won't do well like on FM. I just wanna ask the people here that knows Radio Well

 

[jmtillery]

How would an Top 40 Station on AM do today, Or even Rock Mucis ..it prolly won't do well like on FM. I just wanna ask the people here that knows Radio Well

About the only place where AM Top 40 may work would be in a remote area that has no FM reception. Even then, the younger demo that would listen to Top 40 music won't listen to it on AM radio, so it would be a real challenge in any situation to make a go of AM music radio, especially Top 40. I do believe AM may stand a real chance of winning listeners back if the AM radio receiver manufacturers begins manufcaturing AM receivers with quality high fidelity components comparable to those found in FM receivers. Then it's a matter of AM station owners investing in better quality and technologically advanced broadcast equipment from the ground up. At that point the industry will need to take an agressive approach to re-branding "The New AM" broadcast medium and give it time for the market-place to accept and appreciate AM radio once again.

I realize this is a tall order, but it is my opinion that at a very minimal the above referenced steps is what it will take to make AM a desired radio medium once agin.

 

[Starbucks]

McKay Dymek use to make AM receivers in the late 70's almost identical to the sound of an average good FM receiver or quality. But the cost????Why pay 500.00 plus for a great sounding AM when the all you have too pay is 30.00 plus at the time for a great or almost as good FM sounding radio.
As long as AM is 10 KHZ compared to FM's 200 KHZ bandwidth...it's like the bigger speakers will always win.
It just cost too much to make AM to a compatible sound to FM. Plus atmosphere noises. Forget it It's over.

 

[jmtillery]

Why would it cost $500 for a comparable AM receiver in contrast to a $30 FM receiver? Using your example, does the AM receiver use much higher quality, hence more costly, componants than FM receivers?

 

[radio dx]

It would "a hard sell" for top-40 on the am band when the fm side is trying to survive the shrinking advertising dollars now-a-days. Too many folks have turned to their XM, I-Pods and other electronics devises why even bother with radio and with programing what it is now who cares.

 

[LKellerIII]

How would an Top 40 Station on AM do today, Or even Rock Mucis ..it prolly won't do well like on FM. I just wanna ask the people here that knows Radio Well

Nobody but a tiny group of old fogeys older than me (I'm 58) would be willing to listen to music in low fidelity monaural sound. If you think about the history, decent stereo sound systems became available in the early 60s, and they were expensive at first, so it took them awhile to catch on. My father stubbornly held on to his "hi-fi" (banks of vacuum tubes, a giant amplifier and one really BIG speaker) until the late 1960s. Even then, his hi-fi had better fidelity than AM radio, but people were used to AM in those days - that's all they knew.

FM reception was dicey at best in cars, and AM/FM tuners weren't standard issue in cars until the mid to late 70s. So it took the radio infrastructure a decade or more to catch up with the stereo technology. By the time it did, music was already starting to die on AM radio. It ain't comin' back.

Grumpy old fogey question: Is it now fashionable to say "prolly" instead of "probably," or do people really not know how to spell anymore?

 

[MarioMania]

I want a Wireless AM Trasmitter like I have a Wireless FM Trasmitter...

But all I see is kits that you build your self..I just want to get a cheap one that's on AM 1600 & goes 700 feet

 

[Starbucks]

Why would it cost $500 for a comparable AM receiver in contrast to a $30 FM receiver? Using your example, does the AM receiver use much higher quality, hence more costly, componants than FM receivers?

Because of the components...like filtering ,tweaking of the coils, circuitry, more intense work has to go to make AM receivers sound on par with FM. Like I mention....the compared bandwidth...10 vs. 200 khz to squeeze in for good fidelity sound.
Example...a file downloaded at 128K vs. 320k....what's going to sound fuller with more information on your MP3?

 

[travisl5678]

Are you trying to start a Part 15 Mario? If you can get an AM transmitter it would propably broadcast on 1610.

 

[BossRadioDJ]

Because of the components...like filtering ,tweaking of the coils, cicuitry, more intense work has to go to make AM receivers sound on par with FM. Like I mention....the compared bandwitdt...10 vs. 200 khz to squeeze in for good fidelity sound.
Example...a file downloaded at 128 K vs. 320 k....what's going to sound fuller with more information?

Working from my familiar position of ignorance here ... would eliminating every other AM frequency and allowing stations wider bandwidth mean significantly improved audio quality, especially if music was being broadcast?

(For example, if 800 and 820 were "skipped" and 810 was allowed the wider bandwidth, would the resulting audio quality -- 30 kHz as opposed to 10 kHz -- make any difference? Sure, it's not 200 kHz, but it's a manifold difference.)

Not sure if my question is clear, but...

 

[MarioMania]

I just want it for fun, Nothing Major, Not like broadcasting 24/7...

Just hook up to my Laptop, CD Player & Direc TV..

I'm just Going to have it on for like a few hours like 800 feet

 

[travisl5678]

If its just for yourself, you probably just want to get a normal Ipod FM transmiter

 

[MarioMania]

I have about 4 Wireless FM transmittier's

I was just asking about AM

 

[davideduardo]

Working from my familiar position of ignorance here ... would eliminating every other AM frequency and allowing stations wider bandwidth mean significantly improved audio quality, especially if music was being broadcast?

(For example, if 800 and 820 were "skipped" and 810 was allowed the wider bandwidth, would the resulting audio quality -- 30 kHz as opposed to 10 kHz -- make any difference? Sure, it's not 200 kHz, but it's a manifold difference.)

Not sure if my question is clear, but...

Very clear.

FM modulates by swinging the carrier arround a center frequency. In the US, 100% modulation is defined as swinging the frequency plus and minus 75 kHz, but that's an arbitrary definition... it could be +/- 50 kHz or +/- 100 kHz. The broader the swings, the louder, of course, so an overmodulated station would be more than the 75 kHz deviation.

AM modulates the size (amplitude) of the carrier on a fixed frequency. At 100% negative peak modulation, the carrier cuts off, creating distortion. The frequency response, at the NRSC 10 kHz audio rolloff, is just that: up to 10 kHz. AM can broadcast to the limits of human hearing if the rules allowed allowed it as they once did. While a thinning of the band would eliminate the need for the NRSC cutoff, few if any radio can reproduce well about 5 to 7 kHz and the other limitations of the band, such as static, man made noise, skywave interference, etc., make the band unlikely to encourage the huge investment that thinning the flock and moving stations to new frequencies would require.

 

[DaveBayArea]

There are a number of things that could be done, but realistically I don't think any of it will happen. If anyone actually paid attention to their signal & avoided cascaded compression algorithms, HD on AM might even sound OK. But even with all of the hype and money that Ibiquity put behind it, HD is pretty much a flop. Oh - and AM fidelity could also be improved by using single sideband transmission. You effectively get twice the frequency response and no digital artifacts. It's not so far-fetched for a manufacturer to build compatible radios if there ever was a demand. But all of this is a long way from reality. The other big problem with AM is the cost of maintaining a transmitter site at those frequencies.

Dave B.

 

[Starbucks]

I hear what your asking.....10-30 khz would be a slight improvement. FM signals do not use all there 200 khz. AM uses alll theirs. Part of the 200 khz is used as a guard against interference or drift from the next FM frequency. Or ...if it still is used for SCA...67 khz or 33 khz is taken from the 200 khz for close circuit radio...example...Radio For the Blind, Free Radio Europe etc (if it's leased).....even though it's FM....it only sounds like a good quality AMer.

 

[Starbucks]

You can make a CB radio transmissions sound as good as AM. I've heard them with a fuller sound and deep bass transmissions. Think how narrow the bandwidth is on CB. Now try to make police transmissions (FM) have the quality of terrestrial FM, with a 25 khz bandwidth...think how much that would cost. It can be done. (taxpayers)

There are a number of things that could be done, but realistically I don't think any of it will happen. If anyone actually paid attention to their signal & avoided cascaded compression algorithms, HD on AM might even sound OK. But even with all of the hype and money that Ibiquity put behind it, HD is pretty much a flop. Oh - and AM fidelity could also be improved by using single sideband transmission. You effectively get twice the frequency response and no digital artifacts. It's not so far-fetched for a manufacturer to build compatible radios if there ever was a demand. But all of this is a long way from reality. The other big problem with AM is the cost of maintaining a transmitter site at those frequencies.

Dave B.

 

[davideduardo]

You can make a CB radio transmissions sound as good as AM. I've heard them with a fuller sound and deep bass transmissions. Think how narrow the bandwidth is on CB. Now try to make police transmissions (FM) have the quality of terrestrial FM, with a 25 khz bandwidth...think how much that would cost. It can be done. (taxpayers)

Actually, the 75 kHz swing is 100% modulation because we say it is. Low level passages on a classical station that does not limit dynamic range would be within a 25 kHz bandwidth. 125% FM modulation is not distorted, as it would be on AM, unless the receiver's passband is too narrow.

 

[DavidKaye]

Because of the components...like filtering ,tweaking of the coils, circuitry, more intense work has to go to make AM receivers sound on par with FM. Like I mention....the compared bandwidth...10 vs. 200 khz to squeeze in for good fidelity sound.
Example...a file downloaded at 128K vs. 320k....what's going to sound fuller with more information on your MP3?

It's just a matter of wide bandwidth versus selectivity. Make a crystal set, hook the audio to an amplifier, and operate it near the KGO transmitter. You'll be astounded by the high fidelity. AM transmitters put out fidelity that's probably equal to FM fidelity. There's no selectivity when trying to receive it, though. Luckily, in most communities there are 30kHz between local stations (except in LA where the norm appears to be 20kHz).

 

[Starbucks]

As far as bass.....tubes wilol always sound better then tranasistors. One of the best fidelity units I ever heard was my dad had an old Webcor reel to reel from the 50's (early) and the bass response went right through you. You'll never find fidelity like that .