The debate may be a moot point

[rbrucecarter5]

I don't know - I always found the sound of AM stereo much more pleasing than FM stereo. Given the fact I was on the road a lot, FM stereo range limitations were annoying, it is nice to still be getting the station 200, even 300 miles out in stereo - long after the last FM has faded over the horizon. AM stereo radios, with wideband ceramic filters, sounded almost indistinguishable from FM. Most audio content of music is under 10 kHz anyway.

One thing is immediately obvious to me listening to AM IBOC - the sound is irritating. I get listener fatigue in minutes due to the phase distortion / group delay / whatever it is. It is bad enough on talk - on music the sound is awful. It is streaming audio quality over a medium bandwidth connection. NO WAY I want to listen to the audio "growling" at me for any length of time. I might as well be listening to shortwave, because I get that feeling that any minute the station will fade out and back in on me. AM stereo, even on a limited bandwidth radio equalized for voice (which there weren't many of), sounds infinitely better.

 

[radiopilot]

I don't know - I always found the sound of AM stereo much more pleasing than FM stereo. Given the fact I was on the road a lot, FM stereo range limitations were annoying, it is nice to still be getting the station 200, even 300 miles out in stereo - long after the last FM has faded over the horizon. AM stereo radios, with wideband ceramic filters, sounded almost indistinguishable from FM. Most audio content of music is under 10 kHz anyway.

One thing is immediately obvious to me listening to AM IBOC - the sound is irritating. I get listener fatigue in minutes due to the phase distortion / group delay / whatever it is. It is bad enough on talk - on music the sound is awful. It is streaming audio quality over a medium bandwidth connection. NO WAY I want to listen to the audio "growling" at me for any length of time. I might as well be listening to shortwave, because I get that feeling that any minute the station will fade out and back in on me. AM stereo, even on a limited bandwidth radio equalized for voice (which there weren't many of), sounds infinitely better.

I prefer music on AM over FM, for some reason it has a pleasing mello sound, FM sounds too tinny for me although it's good overall, when I hear a well engineered AM station playing music on a good reciever it far outweighs anything FM can offer.. the only real problem of course is static and propagation issues.

I heard AM IBOC on the Sangean HDT-1 and it sounds terrible (2 cans and a string), really I had to walk away and it was just talk radio, when the music liners and commercials came in it was almost unbearable to listen, almost as if you were listening to music on a telephone.

HD radio = 15 years too late!

Radiopilot

 

[SUPERCASTER]

R.F. Burns wrote: "...With digital broadcasters saw Leonard Kahn coming this time and they will not allow him to do to digital radio what he did to AM stereo..."

If you are speaking with any knowledge, maybe as a witness, perhaps Leonard Kahn should obtain your testimony in his attempt to prove in court that there has been and is a conspiracy against his company's products.
R.F. Burns wrote: "...Sticking with the current analog system is a receipe for disaster..."

I agree with you. That does not mean that HD radio is the answer. I contend that it is a diversion of money and other resources from the real threat - Internet delivery of radio.

CBS's announced aquisition of Last.fm is an indicator that CBS is now finally on the right track - as long as the company does not screw up Last.fm. Established players have a tendency to allow internal corporate pressures to bend disruptive technology to its detriment to suit the immediate needs of the existing business.

Let's see how many, if any, other broadcasters follow or even understand CBS's latest move.

HD radio is dead. Didn't you get the memo?

http://www.ibiquity.com/press_room/news_releases/2007/ibiquityadmitshdradioisaflop.htm

It seems R.F. Burns has been defaming Leonard Kahn for a very long time, based solely on Burn's personal bias, and fancy, yet he frequently accuses others of defamation, when he has been defaming Mr. Kahn and his products for years. Perhaps he should take stock of himself before making unfounded accusations against others that happen to not agree with his point of view.

 

[radiopilot]

R.F. Burns wrote: "...With digital broadcasters saw Leonard Kahn coming this time and they will not allow him to do to digital radio what he did to AM stereo..."

If you are speaking with any knowledge, maybe as a witness, perhaps Leonard Kahn should obtain your testimony in his attempt to prove in court that there has been and is a conspiracy against his company's products.
R.F. Burns wrote: "...Sticking with the current analog system is a receipe for disaster..."

I agree with you. That does not mean that HD radio is the answer. I contend that it is a diversion of money and other resources from the real threat - Internet delivery of radio.

CBS's announced aquisition of Last.fm is an indicator that CBS is now finally on the right track - as long as the company does not screw up Last.fm. Established players have a tendency to allow internal corporate pressures to bend disruptive technology to its detriment to suit the immediate needs of the existing business.

Let's see how many, if any, other broadcasters follow or even understand CBS's latest move.

HD radio is dead. Didn't you get the memo?

http://www.ibiquity.com/press_room/news_releases/2007/ibiquityadmitshdradioisaflop.htm

It seems R.F. Burns has been defaming Leonard Kahn for a very long time, based solely on Burn's personal bias, and fancy, yet he frequently accuses others of defamation, when he has been defaming Mr. Kahn and his products for years. Perhaps he should take stock of himself before making unfounded accusations against others that happen to not agree with his point of view.

Perhaps Kahn's attorney should be reviewing these boards...

Radiopilot

 

[R.F. Burns]

R.F. Burns wrote: "...With digital broadcasters saw Leonard Kahn coming this time and they will not allow him to do to digital radio what he did to AM stereo..."

If you are speaking with any knowledge, maybe as a witness, perhaps Leonard Kahn should obtain your testimony in his attempt to prove in court that there has been and is a conspiracy against his company's products.
R.F. Burns wrote: "...Sticking with the current analog system is a receipe for disaster..."

I agree with you. That does not mean that HD radio is the answer. I contend that it is a diversion of money and other resources from the real threat - Internet delivery of radio.

CBS's announced aquisition of Last.fm is an indicator that CBS is now finally on the right track - as long as the company does not screw up Last.fm. Established players have a tendency to allow internal corporate pressures to bend disruptive technology to its detriment to suit the immediate needs of the existing business.

Let's see how many, if any, other broadcasters follow or even understand CBS's latest move.

HD radio is dead. Didn't you get the memo?

http://www.ibiquity.com/press_room/news_releases/2007/ibiquityadmitshdradioisaflop.htm

It seems R.F. Burns has been defaming Leonard Kahn for a very long time, based solely on Burn's personal bias, and fancy, yet he frequently accuses others of defamation, when he has been defaming Mr. Kahn and his products for years. Perhaps he should take stock of himself before making unfounded accusations against others that happen to not agree with his point of view.

Defamation? You have to be kidding me. I am making observations and am not defaming Leonard Kahn. This is an opinion board and nothing more. I stand by my comments as observations and opinions. Nothing I have said has or would have any effect on Mr. Kahns business. When you start trying to squelch opposing opinions you also run into limiting freedon of speech. Is that the kind of world you want to live in? I will state again, I have no bias either way. I am only presenting my observations which some in here do not like. I will not be bullied into changing my opinions to suit those with obvious agendas.

 

[Tom Wells]

I don't know - I always found the sound of AM stereo much more pleasing than FM stereo. Given the fact I was on the road a lot, FM stereo range limitations were annoying, it is nice to still be getting the station 200, even 300 miles out in stereo - long after the last FM has faded over the horizon. AM stereo radios, with wideband ceramic filters, sounded almost indistinguishable from FM. Most audio content of music is under 10 kHz anyway.

One thing is immediately obvious to me listening to AM IBOC - the sound is irritating. I get listener fatigue in minutes due to the phase distortion / group delay / whatever it is. It is bad enough on talk - on music the sound is awful. It is streaming audio quality over a medium bandwidth connection. NO WAY I want to listen to the audio "growling" at me for any length of time. I might as well be listening to shortwave, because I get that feeling that any minute the station will fade out and back in on me. AM stereo, even on a limited bandwidth radio equalized for voice (which there weren't many of), sounds infinitely better.

I prefer music on AM over FM, for some reason it has a pleasing mello sound, FM sounds too tinny for me although it's good overall, when I hear a well engineered AM station playing music on a good reciever it far outweighs anything FM can offer.. the only real problem of course is static and propagation issues.

I heard AM IBOC on the Sangean HDT-1 and it sounds terrible (2 cans and a string), really I had to walk away and it was just talk radio, when the music liners and commercials came in it was almost unbearable to listen, almost as if you were listening to music on a telephone.

HD radio = 15 years too late!

Radiopilot

Amen.