You folks with that care about AM stereo are the .00000001% of the population that even remember it, let alone promote it's resurgence. That and I'm not sure how it relates to HD/IBOC anyway.. You would have a better chance of being bitten by a shark in your driveway, than AM stereo ever coming back. I was there and installed several CQUAM and ISB systems. I also removed them for just as many reasons. The specifications were not close to FM stereo, period. Did it sound a little better than mono? Sure, but it depended on the installation, antenna/phasing systems, transmitter interface, and audio processing. Did it sound as good as FM stereo? Nope. Did the majority of consumers care whether a station broadcasted in AM stereo? Nope, they had already moved on to FM for music. Anyone who claims it sounds equal from a real station, not some Part 15 transmitter purchased on EBay, should seriously have their hearing checked. Can we please get back to discussing something relevant to the 21st Century now?
-
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
Hearing is subjective, Kelly. No 2 people hear things the same way. Some of us thought AM stereo sounded better, others thought it didn't. It's all subjective. Back in the 80's American FM stations sounded vastly superior to Canadian stations in my opinion. AM stereo on Canadian stations sounded better than FM stereo on Canadian stations Seattle FMs sounded MUCH better than Vancouver FMs.
Hearing also changes as we get older. We lose our ability to hear higher frequencies. I heard AM stereo as a teen and yes it sounded different from FM. I thought it was wider. So did my classmates. I think we can agree to disagree there. I don't like arguing with you, Kelly, because I actually respect you for your knowledge and insight. But when it comes to something as subjective as how something sounds...every one is going to hear the same things differently. My hearing was just checked and I hear frequencies people my age (43) should not be able to hear anymore.
I know AM stereo is not coming back, and I never said it was. It did ok here in Canada. I knew quite a few people who had tuners. Those that had it liked it, and we actually had something worth listening to.
Hearing also changes as we get older. We lose our ability to hear higher frequencies. I heard AM stereo as a teen and yes it sounded different from FM. I thought it was wider. So did my classmates. I think we can agree to disagree there. I don't like arguing with you, Kelly, because I actually respect you for your knowledge and insight. But when it comes to something as subjective as how something sounds...every one is going to hear the same things differently. My hearing was just checked and I hear frequencies people my age (43) should not be able to hear anymore.
I know AM stereo is not coming back, and I never said it was. It did ok here in Canada. I knew quite a few people who had tuners. Those that had it liked it, and we actually had something worth listening to.
I meant to mention this before but it slipped my mind. Leonard Kahn is not going to be making an appearance here or anywhere else, due to his passing awhile ago. It wasn't really what I would call an untimely passing, in that his invention of Symetrapeak in the 1950s, predated his AM stereo system by some years.
Last edited:
R
rbrucecarter5
Guest
I meant an appearance by his zealots. If there is one factor that killed AM stereo other than it being too late to the game, it is Leonard Kahn.
R
rbrucecarter5
Guest
The thread is about the comparison of C-Quam to HD-AM. I think the audio clips prove the superiority of C-Quam to HD-AM. And old technologies come back all the time - witness the resurgence of mechanical watches with HANDS instead of numbers. Or the re-branding and modification of quadraphonic to surround sound. I was merely suggesting that if I was an engineer at iBiquity facing the potential end of my career because AM-HD is a debacle, I might be looking for a way to cover my a$$. C-Quam renamed and re-branded as AM-HD 2 might just be the way! It won't happen, because those people have more arrogant pride than a Roman emperor. They can never admit HD is a failure, at least not in public, because they are waiting for the stock to rise so they can cash out quick and disappear. But that will never happen, and they will lose their money - and their careers are OVER.
As I believe Big A and others have pointed out on NUMEROUS occasions, AM listening has grown increasingly older, with younger listeners seemingly disinterested, let alone even knowing about it. Branding some form of modulation, isn't going to resonate with youth. Convenience and getting-what-I-want-when-I-want-it thinking is in play with today's youth. The point I was attempting to make, is a tiny select group of old-timers (which I am a member) with various forms of selective memory who are into radio have an opinion about HD/IBOC vs. AM stereo. In my view, there are SO many other interesting and relevant topics regarding current times in media to discuss other than some failed modulation scheme, whether that failed scheme is AM stereo that was attempted over 30 years ago, or HD/IBOC for MW broadcasting.
Given the repetitive mantra of the select AM stereo lovers in these parts, maybe RD should add a separate AM stereo room, so those who want to keep reliving the wondrous, forgotten, high fidelity, Amplitude Modulated days of their youth have their very own room?
As much as an improvement AM stereo was over mono, it didn't do anything to bring listeners back to the band. I can't think of a single station that went to a "younger" format just because they added stereo. Stations that were playing oldies, full service AC's or stations that were playing standards suddenly didn't become top 40 or AOR rock stations. I think in the case of Canada, it probably played a small part in keeping the band relevant for 10 more years, but it was mostly CRTC regulations that played a part in that. I liked it, but I don't believe it's coming back in my lifetime.
If you feel that strongly about the subject, then why are you in this thread at all?
I don't disagree with the facts on hand. AM demos are 'one foot in the grave' and older. AM sounds worse now than it ever has before, mostly for reasons beyond broadcasters' control. But my perspective on the issue is that the reason for one is not the reason for the other.
If you reduce the fidelity of the broadcast to the point where only speech programming is understandable and enjoyable, then don't be surprised when you only get old fogies who only listen to political talk and religious programming flooding the airwaves. AM stereo in whatever form was never going to be enough to stem the time of programming losses to FM, but had it stuck around it might have seen a resurgence as long ago as the 90s as deregulation forced all the diversity off FM through consolidation. I'm no radio expert, but AM seems to be where people are more willing to take chances, but the lack of fidelity and the huge dollop of interference means few are willing to punch that AM button any more to see what's around. Once it's in the mindset of the average listener now that AM is home to dollar-a-holler and political talk in muffled telephone quality audio, why would they ever come back?
The worst part of all is now more than ever we need a free source of alternative information and entertainment to staid, boring, bland and corporate crap FM. And we have the band, but neither fidelity nor a positive perception of the spectrum as a whole. So experiments like "Martini Radio" in Philly inevitably fail because the deck is stacked against them. AM HD was supposed to eliminate one of those issues, but it failed to do so. AM stereo also failed to do so, but I think it was more because of the idiots at the FCC not sticking to their guns early on and broadcasters being too quick turn off viable, working technology to save a few pennies.
More and more people are turning away from radio completely, but it seems to solution is to keep burying heads in sand and hoping the big online boogeyman goes away, instead of trying to maximize the broadcast tools we have at our disposal. Think about it this way: people are willing to pay good money to get online and get away from your favorite radio station. That's how little people love free broadcast radio today. Pandora alone has more active streamers than just about all the traditional broadcasters' online platforms combined. And that's despite iHeart's #2 position in online streaming.
Meanwhile, everyone seems content to let AM fester and wither away, with just a few still making money through low power FM translators. Translators that can't cover an entire metro area, and are fighting against a time of translators fed by HD feeds and LPFM stations.
R
rbrucecarter5
Guest
But you forget - all digital HD-AM will save the band, make it relevant again, attract listeners in droves, penetrate buildings, make AM stations profitable and cool. It will solve all of AM's problems. Ibiquity and people interested in the technology have told us - don't you believe them?
The are two separate points here.
AM stereo could have helped if the original late '77 or early '88 introduction dates had been observed. At that time, AM still had 50% of all listening and self-promotion of AM stereo could have stemmed the flow of listeners to FM. But the legal hassles and an indecisive FCC set stereo back by 5 years, which made its introduction too little and too late.
The 90's deregulation actually saved many stations and contributed to format diversity. Marginal formats which could not make money as stand alone operations could make money when part of a cluster where they reinforced the numbers of higher rated stations and broadened the scope of each operator's market "spectrum".
Stations with nothing to lose tend to take more chances. But the biggest issue with AM is the fact that nearly all metro area AMs have seen their market outgrow their signal. At this point, in the top 100 markets only about 170 AMs cover at least 80% of the market day and night. That's less than 2 really viable stations per market. The rest, simply, can't compete and must find some niche format that fits the signal and which does not depend on ratings.
That is a personal opinion. And when stations have tried to be "unique" without at the same time being "listenable" it does not work. "Alternative" with any noun added tends to mean "limited appeal". Alternative medicine, alternative route...
If you speak specifically of the Martini radio in Philly, the main failing there was the use of an inner-city signal for what could only be a suburban senior targeted format. In general, innovation that brings in people outside the age groups advertisers care about is not going to be successful, whether on AM or FM.
HD on AM was only developed to offer a solution for both bands due to the feeling that the FCC would only allow that kind of solution. Only around 200 AMs ever signed HD on, so less than 5% of all stations even considered it worth the gamble... most of those were stations where the cost was a minor budget item. AM Stereo was widely adopted by stations, but got minimal receiver production as the manufacturers looked at the declining AM listening and decided that there was not much of a market.
[/QUOTE]More and more people are turning away from radio completely, but it seems to solution is to keep burying heads in sand and hoping the big online boogeyman goes away, instead of trying to maximize the broadcast tools we have at our disposal..[/QUOTE]
That's not the situation at most broadcast groups. They are looking at online to replace OTA broadcasting as the preferred platform and are doing a multitude of things to be competitive content deliverers on the new platforms.
People pay to go online to get email, texting, websites, real time gaming, streaming video and music: They pay for the package. They are not getting away from OTA radio as much as adopting new technology that is more versatile and allows one device to give them everything.
Pandora is predominantly a pull model, with custom designed individual streams. Radio is a push model, with one stream for many. Pandora has nearly no commercials, while traditional broadcasters have many... Pandora makes no money while traditional broadcasters do. The job for traditional radio is to find how to make curated advertiser supported content as competitive as possible with "free music" streams.
I would bet you that far more than "just a few" are making money. Most of those niche stations that are brokered, do religion or ethnic formats or broker time make money. And the sports and news and talk stations are nearly all profitable. That's thousands of profitable stations, not just "a few".
A. Because some technical points are being made inaccurately. Having worked in this business my entire working life, I can't help myself but correct a discrepancy when I hear or read it. I do understand there are radio enthusiasts who post their opinions about radio programming or listening, but when some choose to post things under the guise of an expert or as somehow scientific when clearly they're not, that's when I attempt to set the record straight so others who follow the threads that may not know better, aren't given incorrect information.
B. Thread Hijacking. As you've probably seen, some of the same experts mentioned in 'A', regularly hijack a thread relevant to a discussion about HD radio, or consumption of media, inserting some twisted AM stereo-theory as being a solution or comparison to..whatever. Or even more common; when a discussion about FM-HD Radio, turning into a discussion about the evils of AM HD as compared with AM stereo. Ultimately this turns an otherwise interesting or topical discussion into another re-hash of what killed AM stereo; Leonard Kahn, FM, or the FCC. Spoiler alert, the answer is: All of the above. ;>)
I wasn't being cynical when I suggested that perhaps this would be a good time for the RD Moderator's to create a sub-room under AM stereo. That way maybe less thread hijacking of more modern media discussions would occur if there would be a room where the few AM stereo enthusiast's could re-hash or continue debating what if scenarios.
I've said my piece on the topic, but like other professionals do here, reserve the right to correct when someone makes an expert statement, when I know better.
Last edited:
Leonard's actions are the main reason why AM stereo was delayed.
But, you forget....doing nothing will return AM to it's former glory, music formats will soon be returning, and suddenly people below 65 will discover AM in droves and all will be right with the world. The anti-HD zealots have told us this over and over - they have warned us that anything that any change to digital on AM will lead to it's destruction.
Don't you believe them? ;-)
Last edited:
Leonard Kahn may go down in history as the "Edith Keeler" of AM stereo, if not AM radio itself.
R
rbrucecarter5
Guest
I think you mistake a brutal analysis of the shortcomings of AM HD technology with a dislike for improving the quality of AM in an attempt to save the band. Given the current state of formats on AM, it has doomed itself to irrelevance due to poor programming decisions alone. They can program whatever they want - but given the nature of the formats, better sound makes no difference. Sports, talk, and the like have no need of good fidelity sound or stereo. The worst aspect of this is that stations that program essentially narrowband speech demand FM translators to expand their formats to an already crowded FM band, when AM's limited bandwidth is the perfect fit with their limited fidelity programming. Were they music formats, their insistence on an FM translator might make some sense.
This is probably too obvious already but since there are only about 5 or 6 of us here I don't think creating a separate AM stereo room would work.
AM stations of all kinds want to be on FM because that is where the listeners are. The ones under 50 or so don't habitually visit the AM dial, so they are at a disadvantage. It is not about fidelity... it is about the availability of listeners.
The old neighborhood is getting run down, so they want to move to a better one.
R
rbrucecarter5
Guest
The problem, though, isn't the neighborhood, its the programming. You take a hood rat out of the hood, and place him in the rich neighborhood, he is still a hood rat. Rush in stereo is still Rush. If the ratings are slowly declining, perhaps they are witnessing a slow decline not of the bad, but of the format. People are getting tired of what is on AM, so they migrate to FM. Not necessarily because of technical issues, but because of programming issues. I tune AM, I hear foreign - I am GONE. I tune AM, I hear sports or talk, I am GONE. I'm the demo that supposedly still listens to AM - but - no. It is the programming driving me away, not the interference. Putting that same stuff on FM - I won't listen to FM either. Foreign - no. Sports - no. Talk - no. I won't listen no matter how good the technical quality. I'll be on HD sub-channels, satellite, or streaming to get what I want even if they are more hassle. People will break out of these ridiculous format boxes - forcefully - and listen to the music and programming of their choice. Not the corporation's choice. Hence the slow decline of radio in general. Band-aids like AM translators are temporary at best. Compelling programming is where the money and effort ought to go.
I agree with Bruce on programming being a pretty big issue, even though I have slightly different tastes in some areas. I'm willing to listen to some sports play by play, and a little baseball sports talk, but I tune out when football comes on, unless it's a live broadcast from a major game I'm interested in hearing like maybe the one coming up next weekend. (I doubt I'll get a chance to listen though due to other commitments.) Also I'm okay with hearing some Spanish, because I can understand parts of it, and I also use a Spanish broadcast of Bible reading on KECR early in the morning to try to learn more of it.
But, I really don't like tuning across almost half the frequencies on the dial at night and hearing George Noory, or tuning across the FM band and hearing the same type of music. (In some cases I'll hear the same song a little later on another station!)
I doubt anything like this would ever happen, but one thing I'm almost thinking - would be do a complete reorganization of the AM (and to a lesser extent FM) band, and on FM expand down into TV 5 and 6's space and move those elsewhere, no more cutting out UHF channels. Move all smaller non-nationally-programmed AM stations whose to-the-deep-fringe daytime service (like the 5 or 25 uV/m contour) in its farthest lobes, that can be replicated on FM with decent (60-70 dBu) signals, to FM.
Change the channel spacing to every 20 kHz, allow broadcasting out to like 13 kHz audio, and require future radios (except the cheapest ones like the SRF-59 and cheaper) to have at least a 2-position bandwidth selector. I think at 13 kHz you'd get pretty decent fidelity, although it wouldn't quite match FM, but unless you're younger you might not hear it. And in the narrowband mode, 7 kHz could still yield understandable speech, and if designed properly, have no splatter from a first-adjacent even when you're right by their transmitter.
Also, take the nationally syndicated networks, and instead of having them on different frequencies here and there, give some of them (as many as there are channels available) each their own frequency that they operate synchronous networks of high-powered stations on. Each station should be set such that there's at least a 500-800 mile radius or so to the 10 mV/m signal, and should be overlapped so that there's no noise due to a weak signal anywhere in the 48 states. (In some places, putting a smaller station, like 250 kW into a 1/2-wave antenna, could be okay to fill in a small coverage gap.)
Also, even more important, crack down on interfering devices! If a particular signal level can be heard with a certain quality on a certain radio outdoors in the middle of the outback / wilderness when you're several hundred miles from any other electrically-powered device or grid, then that same level signal, using the same radio and antenna, should have the same quality inside any building in a built-up metro area, even when the radio is surrounded by CFL lights, Plasma TVs, (legal) pot grow lights, etc, even if those devices don't have their shielding cases on. (The radiation should be suppressed in the design of the circuitry, not the design of the case.)
But, I really don't like tuning across almost half the frequencies on the dial at night and hearing George Noory, or tuning across the FM band and hearing the same type of music. (In some cases I'll hear the same song a little later on another station!)
I doubt anything like this would ever happen, but one thing I'm almost thinking - would be do a complete reorganization of the AM (and to a lesser extent FM) band, and on FM expand down into TV 5 and 6's space and move those elsewhere, no more cutting out UHF channels. Move all smaller non-nationally-programmed AM stations whose to-the-deep-fringe daytime service (like the 5 or 25 uV/m contour) in its farthest lobes, that can be replicated on FM with decent (60-70 dBu) signals, to FM.
Change the channel spacing to every 20 kHz, allow broadcasting out to like 13 kHz audio, and require future radios (except the cheapest ones like the SRF-59 and cheaper) to have at least a 2-position bandwidth selector. I think at 13 kHz you'd get pretty decent fidelity, although it wouldn't quite match FM, but unless you're younger you might not hear it. And in the narrowband mode, 7 kHz could still yield understandable speech, and if designed properly, have no splatter from a first-adjacent even when you're right by their transmitter.
Also, take the nationally syndicated networks, and instead of having them on different frequencies here and there, give some of them (as many as there are channels available) each their own frequency that they operate synchronous networks of high-powered stations on. Each station should be set such that there's at least a 500-800 mile radius or so to the 10 mV/m signal, and should be overlapped so that there's no noise due to a weak signal anywhere in the 48 states. (In some places, putting a smaller station, like 250 kW into a 1/2-wave antenna, could be okay to fill in a small coverage gap.)
Also, even more important, crack down on interfering devices! If a particular signal level can be heard with a certain quality on a certain radio outdoors in the middle of the outback / wilderness when you're several hundred miles from any other electrically-powered device or grid, then that same level signal, using the same radio and antenna, should have the same quality inside any building in a built-up metro area, even when the radio is surrounded by CFL lights, Plasma TVs, (legal) pot grow lights, etc, even if those devices don't have their shielding cases on. (The radiation should be suppressed in the design of the circuitry, not the design of the case.)
- Status