Chicago-- WSCR and WBBM give AM IBOC a rest

[paul vincent zecchino]

There they go again. "Leonard Kahn is not a professional rational individual"?
If that smells like a pig-ignorant ad hominem attack to you, it's because it is.

Mr. Kahn's Cam-D is on the air. It works well. But CAM-D neither jams competitors, ruins analog reception, nor profits 'iNiquity', stock symbol: "GimmeMoney".

Radio is still obligated to serve the public. For pecuniary reasons, the definition of public is 'iNiquity', and the tiresome claque of gouty KronyKasters who hide behind it.

"The reason we pushed for HD"? Who is 'we'? Surely, that big, ahem, 'push', was in the best interest of the American people, right? Motives for the big 'HD putsch' were purely altruistic, humanitarian, and selfless. That's heart warming. I'm weepy.*

HD shill-parrots post purely to mislead others, on behalf of themselves and their slavemaster check-cutters.

Radio is dead? More accurately, BigKorpseKasters are in trouble. Radio is doing well. Radio will be dead, however, should BigKorpsekasters get their way. Which, of course, they won't.

Why not? Because, despite keeping the public in the dark about HD, until enough HD jammers were in place to launch a total jamming blitz, the rat got out of the bag. The public caught on to this scheme.

Forget 'new generation HD tuners'. People who purchased the first klunks have no intention of buying 'new improooved stooge-radios'.

Just because a cartel of half-clever 90s wankers presumes us to be morons, doesn't mean we are. But, speaking on behalf of the American people, it's nice to know they still want to loot us.


Good rule of thumb re correctly interpreting HD shill-parrots: Believe the opposite of what they say. It's not foolproof, but it will bring you closer to the truth than they wish.
Dr. Paul Vincent Zecchino
Manasota Key, Florida
31 March, 2007

* - 'That's heart warming. I'm weepy'., Det. Jeff Rabin,
"The Usual Suspects", c. 1995, McQuarrie, Singer, Ottman

 

[davideduardo]

There they go again. "Leonard Kahn is not a professional rational individual"?
If that smells like a pig-ignorant ad hominem attack to you, it's because it is.

No, it is a statement of fact. Kahn killed music AM by engaging in legal action that delayed AM Stereo five years, in which time AM as a music medium died... and FM achieved the majority listening status. Kahn made his point, but he pretty nearly killed AM to do it. That is not rational or sensible in any way.

Mr. Kahn's Cam-D is on the air. It works well.

It is on one crummy near-daytimer with no ratings in what is probably America's worst radio market. Wunnerful. HD is on about 1500 stations and is the approved digital system of the FCC.

Radio is dead? More accurately, BigKorpseKasters are in trouble. Radio is doing well. Radio will be dead, however, should BigKorpsekasters get their way. Which, of course, they won't.

AM is nearing death, with less than 20% of all listening, and less than 10% under age 45. The stations that are succeeding are those of the group owners... in fact, half of the rest lose money.

 

[grantchester]

One of my favorite engineers once told me there is nothing wrong with the AM band that half the stations going dark wouldn't solve.... Things started going downhill in '82, when the 'clears lost protection. IBOC just makes the interference problems worse. But still, there are people willing to put hundreds of thousands into buying licenses, moving them into big cities, building new facilities, then losing their A**. There always seems to be someone else willing to buy the license, and repeat the process.
Despite that, I still think any medium capable of reaching hundreds of thousands of potential listeners FOR FREE can be viable, given the right combination of programming and promotion. I have an idea, but I don't know anyone willing to risk a big pile of green to take a chance on it. Heck, I wouldn't take a chance on me, if I had the money!
Young people would flock to the band, if there was something compelling enough to draw them. Religious, foreign language, and political jabber apparently aren't it. (No offense meant to those working to bring those things to the airwaves. Just saying.)
g

 

[MarkW]

"Fully compatible" in this industry means that heritage radios can still hear analog. Since there is not much, if any, listening close to a local station on first or second adjacent AM channels, that point is moot... and the radios are 100% compatible and even have fallback features on both bands.

We pust for HD because AM is nearly dead and needs to do something. An AM only system was tried before, and it did not work. We nead an AM / FM system, as AM can not drive interest or sales. You are ignoring the fact that, today, AM gets less htan 20% of radio listening. Nobody cares unless they are over 50.

Mr. Eduardo, I usually agree with what you write, but I disagree with most of what you have written here. I am not in the radio biz, just an enthusiast, but here are my thoughts....

As far as previous the AM-only system failing, you touched on one of the primary reasons yourself -- it took way too long for a universal standard to be set in place.

Because of this, very few station owners wanted to invest in AM-stereo equipment. There were competing technologies in the marketplace, and no one knew which technology would ultimately become the FCC standard. There were fears of newly-purchased equipment becoming obsolete.

As far as I'm concerned, adopting a technology that seriously degrades analog AM audio quality and reception is NOT the way to go. I live in Metro Detroit, and when the first few AM's began firing up IBOC, I noticed an immediate degradation in dynamic range. I noticed this on my home theater receiver, my mini-system, and even my clock radio! That's before even taking into account the sideband interference!

The sideband "hash" is very difficult to eliminate -- especially on receivers with non-digital tuners. Every morning when WWJ here in Detroit turns on IBOC, I have to fine tune my clock radio and even then I cannot get rid of it entirely.

Now, let's look at the experiences of those who actually have HD-radios and have tried pulling in AM stations....

Nearly all accounts I've read have stated 2 basic things:
1) Unless the analog signal absolutely booms into your location, you can forget about picking up the AM HD broadcast indoors
2) In the car, there are frequent drop-outs in spots and the overall broadcast radius is probably 1/4 to 1/3 that of the analog station.

On the analog side, I have read reports of decreases in coverage when the IBOC exciter is on. Several people have reported difficulty picking up WJR in Lansing, MI.

People like Mr. Eduardo may not think that's a big deal, but stations such as WJR and WLW make a BIG deal about their coverage range to clients.

Oh, and his comment about out-of-market IBOC stations not affecting reception of home market stations is inaccurate. How quickly he forgets that some stations are short-spaced. Case in point: WRDT in Monroe, Michigan severely interferes with Windsor, Ontario's CKWW.

From my location, CKWW's signal is actually stronger than WRDT's, yet it is nearly impossible to eliminate the sideband interference from WRDT's IBOC hash.

Also, I've read reports of WWJ interfering with Jackson, Michigan's WKHM within WKHM's protected coverage area.

On the FM side, I would believe the short spacing issue is far worse.

At the end of the day, HD (as presently implemented) on AM will not do a thing to resurrect the AM band as a music medium, IMO, nor will it do a thing to attract a younger audience.

Any worthwhile music formats will remain on FM. The primary stations on FM will continue to have superior audio fidelity because the bandwidth allocated for HD is greater. Moreover, the advent of HD-2 and HD-3 stations on FM will provide plenty of room for niche music formats.

Many AM and some FM HD signals will have such pathetic coverage areas that in many cases they won't even be able to cover all of the highly populated areas of their own market.

The main benefit of HD, in my opinion, is the fact multiple streams can be run on 1 FM channel. The thing is, some broadcasters already do a half-assed job on their primary station. What makes anyone think they'll put much if any effort into something that has only a sliver of the audience? These side channels will primarily run "plug & play" formats with next to zero localization.

I think IBOC should be abandoned on AM -- it's a waste of time & money and makes for a worse listening experience for 99.9% of existing listeners.

 

[PhilJSmith67]

Calling HD Radio the "same system" on AM and FM is simply inaccurate. About the only thing in common is that they both employ OFDM. We might as well say that the European COFDM/DVB standard is the same as HD Radio, too.

People, Eduardo, everybody... Listen up. HD Radio on AM and FM are two different systems. Just because they come from the same company doesn't make them a "unified solution." And, even if we pretend they actually are the same solution, if that solution works well on FM but wreaks havoc on AM, then we obviously should use a viable alternative for AM, if (and only if) one truly exists.

 

[davideduardo]

Calling HD Radio the "same system" on AM and FM is simply inaccurate. About the only thing in common is that they both employ OFDM. We might as well say that the European COFDM/DVB standard is the same as HD Radio, too.

It IS the same system, called HD. It is not two systems, from two different providers. I am not talking about how it works (I have built AM and FM transmitters, so am hardly oblivious to the differences between the analog signals) but for marketing... and this is 80% marketing and 20% technology... they are the same "package".

People, Eduardo, everybody... Listen up. HD Radio on AM and FM are two different systems. Just because they come from the same company doesn't make them a "unified solution." And, even if we pretend they actually are the same solution, if that solution works well on FM but wreaks havoc on AM, then we obviously should use a viable alternative for AM, if (and only if) one truly exists.

They are a unified solution, with one licence to one company for the patented material. One marketing approach, aimed at bringing both AM and FM into the digital era. Nobody in the gneral public cares to know how they work.

 

[R.F. Burns]

Calling HD Radio the "same system" on AM and FM is simply inaccurate. About the only thing in common is that they both employ OFDM. We might as well say that the European COFDM/DVB standard is the same as HD Radio, too.

People, Eduardo, everybody... Listen up. HD Radio on AM and FM are two different systems. Just because they come from the same company doesn't make them a "unified solution." And, even if we pretend they actually are the same solution, if that solution works well on FM but wreaks havoc on AM, then we obviously should use a viable alternative for AM, if (and only if) one truly exists.

But one company developed a product for AM & FM and has won the "digital wars" and at least in my market and in the opinion of the commission, it doesn't wreak havoc on either AM or FM BCB's. The commission was convinced that IBOC as it exists today falls within the protection rules established by the FCC. I've been told over and over that the IBOC signal can be heard within the analog part of the signal. I have used every radio I own and even my walkman radio and the noise from the IBOC sideband doesn't extend into the the second adjacent channel. Later this week I will make some recordings from the walkman showing the effects of a standard analogue signal as heard in NY as compared with the IBOC sideband. I realize that those who can't stand the idea of a workable IBOC will come up with all sorts of comments about the demo, telling me how different my radios are then everyone elses or calling me a fraud. When I get the demo together I invite you to judge for yourself.

 

[MarkW]

Later this week I will make some recordings from the walkman showing the effects of a standard analogue signal as heard in NY as compared with the IBOC sideband. I realize that those who can't stand the idea of a workable IBOC will come up with all sorts of comments about the demo, telling me how different my radios are then everyone elses or calling me a fraud. When I get the demo together I invite you to judge for yourself.

Just because that's the case in your location doesn't mean that's true everywhere.

On AM, it most certainly can be heard on the 2nd adjacent channel. I provided an example earlier. In fact, in some cases it can even be heard on 3rd adjacent channels.

On FM, it can be heard on 2nd adjacent channels if you're very close to the transmitter of a station using IBOC digital broadcasting. While such close proximity often results in reception issues with analog brodadcasts, the zone of severe interference seems to be somewhat larger when IBOC is used.

 

[DougRoberts]

I have used every radio I own and even my walkman radio and the noise from the IBOC sideband doesn't extend into the the second adjacent channel.

RF there are only two possibilites:

1. Your brain has been badly burned from RF and you can't figure out how to tune an AM radio.
2. New York city stations have some secret technology which removes IBOC hash from the 2nd adjacent. Every AM IBOC in Dallas/Ft.Worth takes up 5 full channels.

 

[clouseau]

I have used every radio I own and even my walkman radio and the noise from the IBOC sideband doesn't extend into the the second adjacent channel.

RF there are only two possibilites:

1. Your brain has been badly burned from RF and you can't figure out how to tune an AM radio.
2. New York city stations have some secret technology which removes IBOC hash from the 2nd adjacent. Every AM IBOC in Dallas/Ft.Worth takes up 5 full channels.

Would you maybe entertain a third possibility that your radio is not very selective? If we accept your #2 then we also accept that all of those stations are out of spec. Since they've been built or Rebuilt in the last couple of years because they had HD installed, I'd put my money on your radio.

But I guess it COULD be that all those stations are operating illegally.

Clouseau

 

[rbrucecarter5]

Someone posted a similar comment on the Houston/Galveston board regarding KLIF 570 Dallas running IBOC. There is a 5kw station 80 miles away (KLVI-560 Beaumont) that has a listenable signal into Houston. The question was about degradation of 560 due to IBOC on 570 @ 50kw. Not a single person reported any problems. In fact, I was able to listen to the 5kw station while traveling towards Dallas this weekend with no change in its previous coverage. The fact is IBOC (if running properly) on AM will not affect another station within its DMA. I like DXing as much as anyone else but station owners do not sell out-of-market and the advertisers do not care about out-of-market listeners. When they are outside of the DMA, listening is so fragmented, the advertising dollar is basically wasted anyways

That was me - I went to Galveston a few weeks ago, and tried it myself. Yes - KLIF sidebands were putting static on KLVI. Sure, I could still hear KLVI, but I didn't appreciate the hash superimposed on it. I could hear the upper sideband of KLIF on 580 - and it was MUCH louder than their analog signal, which was pretty weak. Maybe I am more critical than most listeners, but I like my local (or semi-local in the case of KLVI) station without static superimposed on their audio.

I'm not worried - with each passing day it is more evident that consumers have rejected this defective system. In 20 years it will be no more relevant than AM stereo today.

 

[stevenNOLA]

Someone posted a similar comment on the Houston/Galveston board regarding KLIF 570 Dallas running IBOC.  There is a 5kw station 80 miles away (KLVI-560 Beaumont) that has a listenable signal into Houston.  The question was about degradation of 560 due to IBOC on 570 @ 50kw.  Not a single person reported any problems.  In fact, I was able to listen to the 5kw station while traveling towards Dallas this weekend with no change in its previous coverage.  The fact is IBOC (if running properly) on AM will not affect another station within its DMA.  I like DXing as much as anyone else but station owners do not sell out-of-market and the advertisers do not care about out-of-market listeners.  When they are outside of the DMA, listening is so fragmented, the advertising dollar is basically wasted anyways

That was me - I went to Galveston a few weeks ago, and tried it myself.  Yes - KLIF sidebands were putting static on KLVI.  Sure, I could still hear KLVI, but I didn't appreciate the hash superimposed on it.  I could hear the upper sideband of KLIF on 580 - and it was MUCH louder than their analog signal, which was pretty weak.  Maybe I am more critical than most listeners, but I like my local (or semi-local in the case of KLVI) station without static superimposed on their audio. 

I'm not worried - with each passing day it is more evident that consumers have rejected this defective system.  In 20 years it will be no more relevant than AM stereo today.

There is no reception problem with KLVI in the Houston area.  Not in the car nor in my house (far west side where KLVI would be even weaker than Galveston).

With respect to noise, I have a dimmer switch I can place near my AM radio.  It makes noise too.

By the way, KPRC 950 began nightime HD operation. It was on last night.

 

[MarkW]

Would you maybe entertain a third possibility that your radio is not very selective? If we accept your #2 then we also accept that all of those stations are out of spec. Since they've been built or Rebuilt in the last couple of years because they had HD installed, I'd put my money on your radio.

But I guess it COULD be that all those stations are operating illegally.

Uh, how about none of the above? You're obviously one of those people who will defend this technology no matter what.

I cannot speak for anyone else, but where I live, here's my situation:

560 WRDT
-IBOC hash is heard on 540 (although I can null it out on this frequency), 550, 570, and 580. Including 560 itself, that's 5 channels. Did I mention WRDT is only 500 watts, and I live almost 50 miles away from its tower site?

Although I cannot hear the hash from 560 WRDT when tuned to 580 CKWW on my car receiver in my own neighborhood, it's there in other portions of the area.

I do hear it on all of my home receivers, however, and it's next to impossible to null out. Really, all I can do is hope to minimize it by fiddling with the loop antenna enough.

760 WJR
-IBOC hash is heard on 740, 750, 770, and 780. Including 760 itself, that's 5 channels.

950 WWJ
-IBOC hash is heard on 930, 940, 960, and 970. Including 950 itself, that's 5 channels.

1130 WDFN
-IBOC hash is heard on 1110, 1120, 1140, and 1150. Including 1130 itself, that's 5 channels.

1200 WCHB
-IBOC hash is heard on 1180, 1190, 1210, and 1220. Including 1200 itself, that's 5 channels.

1270 WXYT
-IBOC hash is heard on 1250, 1260, 1280, and 1290. Including 1270 itself, that's 5 channels.

1340 WEXL
-IBOC hash is heard on 1320, 1330, 1350, and 1360. Including 1340 itself, that's 5 channels.

With the exception of WEXL, I live at least 25 - 30 miles away from each of these stations' tower sites.

So my receivers are the problem? Sorry, but I don't feel like replacing 4 different receivers. More or less the same sideband splatter happens on my GM vehicle's Bose Radio, my Yamaha home theater receiver, my GE clock radio, and my Philips mini-system. Yeah, all of those must be defective. It couldn't POSSIBLY be the fact the technology is fundamentally flawed :

FWIW, I've been told in the past that splatter onto 2nd adjacent AM channels is perfectly legal. It's only illegal if the splatter makes its way into 3rd adjacent or farther channels.

 

[SUPERCASTER]

David Eduardo said:

No, it is a statement of fact. Kahn killed music AM by engaging in legal action that delayed AM Stereo five years,

Im not here to defend Mr. Kahn, but your statement is irrational. Mr. Kahn invented, developed and marketed the first practical AM stereo system. Others had long said AM stereo was impossible or impractical. It seems that what Mr. Kahn did is exactly the opposite of "delayed AM Stereo five years".
As for Mr. Kahn's legal action, since subsequent systems largely depended on his initial developments, foresight and innovations, perhaps he had just cause for legal action, to attempt to defend his innovation.
I would say it was those that were late to the party, riding on others coat tails who were the ones "that delayed AM Stereo five years". They could have acknowledged Mr. Kahn's contributions to AM stereo, and negotiated a settlement, but chose not to do so. This intransigence on the part of those late to the party that resulted in the five year delay of AM stereo.
Your anger directed at Mr. Kahn is totally unwarranted and misguided, as are most of your claims.

 

[davideduardo]

Im not here to defend Mr. Kahn, but your statement is irrational. Mr. Kahn invented, developed and marketed the first practical AM stereo system. Others had long said AM stereo was impossible or impractical. It seems that what Mr. Kahn did is exactly the opposite of "delayed AM Stereo five years".

His very low-tech system did not win, and so he blocked implementation of AM stereo to another standard in the late 70's. At the time he sued, AM still had over half the national audience in the US. When the FCC finally endoresed the CQuam system, FM had nearly 70% of listening.

As for Mr. Kahn's legal action, since subsequent systems largely depended on his initial developments, foresight and innovations, perhaps he had just cause for legal action, to attempt to defend his innovation.

Not true. The Kahn system was based on independent sidebands. None of the other systems used anything like this system. Kahn sued because he wanted to have another chance for his system to win. In the end, everyone lost.

I would say it was those that were late to the party, riding on others coat tails who were the ones "that delayed AM Stereo five years". They could have acknowledged Mr. Kahn's contributions to AM stereo, and negotiated a settlement, but chose not to do so.

Mr Kahn developed a system nobody but Mr Kahn liked. There was no reason to pay off someone with an inferior system that contained no technology anyone else wanted.

This intransigence on the part of those late to the party that resulted in the five year delay of AM stereo.

There was no suggestion of settlement at any point, as giving Mr. Kahn some money, unless he dropped out, would have done nothing. The fact is, Kahn did not want to drop out. And AM died.

 

[calstymes]

MarkW suggested:

Just because that's the case in your location doesn't mean that's true everywhere.

I have been saying this for many months now but his experience in the #1 broadcasting market makes him an expert in determining that the rest of us have no clue about what we're saying.

And DougRoberts pondered:

there are only two possibilites:

1. Your brain has been badly burned from RF and you can't figure out how to tune an AM radio.

Extremely doubtful, but maybe there is a burn from amateur radio transmitters?

2. New York city stations have some secret technology which removes IBOC hash from the 2nd adjacent.

Yes!!! That must be it! I am astonished I have not been able to realize this for myself, but then again, I am not bright because I do not work in the #1 broadcasting market. But it is no real wonder. I would never be able to keep wraps on the secret technology.

 

[rbrucecarter5]

There is no reception problem with KLVI in the Houston area. Not in the car nor in my house (far west side where KLVI would be even weaker than Galveston).

With respect to noise, I have a dimmer switch I can place near my AM radio. It makes noise too.

By the way, KPRC 950 began nightime HD operation. It was on last night.

Of course not - there is no problem. That is if you don't mind a hissing sound in the background on KLVI. I suppose I'll have to record a sample next time I am down there for sceptics who won't accept "I hear it with my own ears". But somehow I doubt even an audio sample will convince IBOC advocates who prefer to ignore the problems rather than solve them.

I long since purged light dimmers and other sources of noise out of my house. Given the temperature of the dimmer - minutes after I had turned off the breaker - I'm not convinced the things are safe, and I am glad I got rid of them.

My condolences to KPRC. Their audio, I'm sure, sounds like phone quality to 99.99% of their listeners.

 

[Tom Wells]

Im not here to defend Mr. Kahn, but your statement is irrational. Mr. Kahn invented, developed and marketed the first practical AM stereo system. Others had long said AM stereo was impossible or impractical. It seems that what Mr. Kahn did is exactly the opposite of "delayed AM Stereo five years".

His very low-tech system did not win, and so he blocked implementation of AM stereo to another standard in the late 70's. At the time he sued, AM still had over half the national audience in the US. When the FCC finally endoresed the CQuam system, FM had nearly 70% of listening.

As for Mr. Kahn's legal action, since subsequent systems largely depended on his initial developments, foresight and innovations, perhaps he had just cause for legal action, to attempt to defend his innovation.

Not true. The Kahn system was based on independent sidebands. None of the other systems used anything like this system. Kahn sued because he wanted to have another chance for his system to win. In the end, everyone lost.

I would say it was those that were late to the party, riding on others coat tails who were the ones "that delayed AM Stereo five years". They could have acknowledged Mr. Kahn's contributions to AM stereo, and negotiated a settlement, but chose not to do so.

Mr Kahn developed a system nobody but Mr Kahn liked. There was no reason to pay off someone with an inferior system that contained no technology anyone else wanted.

This intransigence on the part of those late to the party that resulted in the five year delay of AM stereo.

There was no suggestion of settlement at any point, as giving Mr. Kahn some money, unless he dropped out, would have done nothing. The fact is, Kahn did not want to drop out. And AM died.

Wow. I love it when those who cannot criticize those who can.
Mr. Kahn's concept of using independent sidebands is obviously the correct way to do AM stereo.
You may call it low tech, but the words compatible, robust and accomodating come to mind for me.
It is not necessary to do everything the hardest posssible way just to impress people.


All the other concepts worked, but no others were as transparent in result or as elegant in design.
None of the others permitted the two-radio stereo method, for example.
It is commendable that Mr. Kahn put up his own money to fight for the truly best standard.

It is equally sad that giant corporations persecuted the inventor of the best system, having failed to be the first to develop
the independent sideband system.
They were stuck having to come up with some other mode to do AM stereo, none as elegant as the Kahn ISB.

Anyone can take something simple and make it seem hard. ( IBOC )
But when one can do something difficult, and make it seem easy, that's when it's art. ( Kahn Stereo ).

My own patents rely on a discovery regarding high electron mobility at very low voltages.
This method eliminates much of the "busyness" present in the prior art, providing elegant, simple high sensitivity.
I cited a NASA patent ( meaning my invention "steps on" ) their prior art, as superior, and it stood examination.
Will it be easy to displace the existing prior art, even with its disadvantages?
I think not. The companies producing the inferior tech own the market, and I am nobody.
How many companies are willing to swallow their pride and buy outside inventions?
Not many in the area of hardware technology.
Particularly if the invention negates or supersedes the tech investment in their designs.
Even more so if the new method appears, on face value, to be a simpler way to do things.

For a long time, we have been very impressed with our ability to make things very difficult yet still work.

The converse is that we publicly deride someone like Kahn, who can present an elegant solution, with dismissive
comments reeking of technological ignorance.

The industry loved to deride Lee De Forest, because he was unable to present the mathematic explanantion for gain in his triodes.
They were in fact, embarassed that such an incredible invention did not come from an eminent electrical engineer or physicist.
What did they do to him? Everything posssible to steal credit and smear his genius.
Just because he did not have the full explanation makes him no less a genius.
He put the grid in there first, not a corporation. That is why the industry always hated De Forest.

The present situation with Mr. Kahn is the same.
The established industry must squash those whose superior innovations threaten their feeble efforts.

 

[davideduardo]

Wow. I love it when those who cannot criticize those who can.

That is a leaky argument. I am not a development engineer, I am a broadcaster. In fact, in 1967 I built the equipment for the first FM stereo in Northern South America... the first one north of Lima and south of Mexico, in fact. All home-made, too. And, in 1978, I had order #1 1 for two of the five competing designs of AM stereo. Kahn was not even on my list, as we believed the reactance of a critical directional made the sideband method very suspect and potentially damaging to the monaural signal.

Mr. Kahn's concept of using independent sidebands is obviously the correct way to do AM stereo.
You may call it low tech, but the words compatible, robust and accomodating come to mind for me.
It is not necessary to do everything the hardest posssible way just to impress people.

It obviously was not the best method, or it would have been chosen.

All the other concepts worked, but no others were as transparent in result or as elegant in design.
None of the others permitted the two-radio stereo method, for example.

Who in their right mind would have done that... and looking forward, with synthesised tuning, there is no way to tune to the individual sidebands. And there is no way to practically do this at work or in the car.

It is commendable that Mr. Kahn put up his own money to fight for the truly best standard.

Every company used "their own money" and Kahn was no different.

It is equally sad that giant corporations persecuted the inventor of the best system, having failed to be the first to develop
the independent sideband system.
They were stuck having to come up with some other mode to do AM stereo, none as elegant as the Kahn ISB.

Nobody persecuted Kahn; they did not like his design. And it was Kahn who persecuted the other companies, as well as AM radio, by delaying the inevitable via legal actions.

My own patents rely on a discovery regarding high electron mobility at very low voltages.
This method eliminates much of the "busyness" present in the prior art, providing elegant, simple high sensitivity.
I cited a NASA patent ( meaning my invention "steps on" ) their prior art, as superior, and it stood examination.
Will it be easy to displace the existing prior art, even with its disadvantages?
I think not. The companies producing the inferior tech own the market, and I am nobody.

This is the Betamax / VHS argument. What you are ignoring is usage and marketing. The NBC / RCA color system is not necessarily the best, but it won due to marketing, manufacturing capability and capitalization of RCA. Same happened to Sony with Betamax.

How many companies are willing to swallow their pride and buy outside inventions?
Not many in the area of hardware technology.

This is known as the "Motorola Syndrome" based on the near failure of Motorola due to an insistence in developing everything in-house. It is a case study at B-school, where students of this generation are shown that you have to reap technology from any source even if not developed by you. Pay the fee, and take advantage of being able to leap up one level.

The converse is that we publicly deride someone like Kahn, who can present an elegant solution, with dismissive
comments reeking of technological ignorance.

Technological ignorance has nothing to do with it. In this case, there were 5 different systems. Kahn did not like losing on the first round, so he litigated. He did not further develop technology, and by the time the issue was settled, the window of opportunity had passed. Even if Kahn had prevailed in the second round, the introduction of AM stereo would have been too late, technology aside. By the early 80', most listening was already on FM, and FM owned the necessary images for a music station. So Kahn, in a sense, created a lose-lose situation; very poossibly, as an inventor and not a broadcaster, he did not see how fast listening was moving to FM so we can't blame him for not knowing or understanding the market forces... but the delay FOR WHATEVER REASON... killed AM as a music medium, marginalized the band, and destined it to be basically the "talk band."

The industry loved to deride Lee De Forest, because he was unable to present the mathematic explanantion for gain in his triodes.
They were in fact, embarassed that such an incredible invention did not come from an eminent electrical engineer or physicist.
What did they do to him? Everything posssible to steal credit and smear his genius.
Just because he did not have the full explanation makes him no less a genius.
He put the grid in there first, not a corporation. That is why the industry always hated De Forest.

There was not much of a "broadcast industry" at the time of De Forist... just a nascient electronics field. THis argument seems out of place, as we are talking about basically a regulatory decision and amarketplace decision, not the development of the underpinnings of electronics or vacuum tube design. Besides, the audion was developed in 1906 and intended to enhance telephony, not radio.

The present situation with Mr. Kahn is the same.
The established industry must squash those whose superior innovations threaten their feeble efforts.

The fact is that many of us who were involved in AM stereo did not like the Kahn design or system, and, as broadcasters, simply wanted the best system. We did not care who developed it... the issue is the delay caused by legal and FCC issues, not the design.

 

[davideduardo]

Repost by my error.... text edited out.