The implementation of IBOC on the AM band at night is the latest of assults on the AM band. The inference started in about 1980 when low powered AM stations were allowed to broadcast on formerly clear channels such as 740, 890, 1000, 1040, 1160 and many others. These low powered stations initially started out with as a daytime operation in order to protect the legacy station. Later, many of these stations petitioned the FCC and were granted permission to operate at night. Eventually, some of these stations were allowed to increase their power to "better serve their community." Now the entire band is fouled up. Whether attempting to listen to WHO in Buffalo, CHWO in Columbus, KSL in Kansas, WLS in Champaign and countless other examples, the listener hears interference under those formerly clear stations. Now IBOC comes onto the scene and adds to the chaos. It's ironic that some of the loudest voices against IBOC (the latest form of interference) are from those that contributed to the degradation of the AM band long before IBOC.
-
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
The destruction of the AM band started long before IBOC
- Thread starter Len14043
- Start date
Yes, ironic. Almost as ironic as your selection of 1040 as one of the channels representing "degradation" of the AM band prior to IBOC.
This is the same tired old argument that tries to shift the subject from IBOC-AM adjacent-channel interference, to the right of stations like WYSL to exist.
Your statement that stations like us "petitioned the FCC" is utterly untrue. We applied for an available facility and were granted a CP for that facility. The implication is that later-licensed stations snatched something to which they really weren't entitled. Our application, and our operation pursuant to operating authority, are in complete compliance with the rules. Like other stations operating on clear channels at night, we have a highly restricted pattern to protect the dominant station, WHO. Skywave contribution of interference to WHO's service area is nonexistent.
This tiresome suggestion that IBOC interference should be ignored/permitted because of later-licensed facilities' contribution to skywave noise is a fallacy.
This is the same tired old argument that tries to shift the subject from IBOC-AM adjacent-channel interference, to the right of stations like WYSL to exist.
Your statement that stations like us "petitioned the FCC" is utterly untrue. We applied for an available facility and were granted a CP for that facility. The implication is that later-licensed stations snatched something to which they really weren't entitled. Our application, and our operation pursuant to operating authority, are in complete compliance with the rules. Like other stations operating on clear channels at night, we have a highly restricted pattern to protect the dominant station, WHO. Skywave contribution of interference to WHO's service area is nonexistent.
This tiresome suggestion that IBOC interference should be ignored/permitted because of later-licensed facilities' contribution to skywave noise is a fallacy.
R
Radioman100
Guest
Savage said:
I don't think it's a fallacy Savage, but it is ironic. Let's apply your own logic. The FCC said it was OK for WYSL to exist, so you built it. Fine, I can live with that, but since WHO is a class A clear channel, WYSL's existence denies people that might otherwise be able to listen to WHO's skywave the opportunity to do so. If those WHO fans live in Rochester, they have absolutely no prayer of hearing WHO over the air.
The FCC has now, for better or worse, blessed AM IBOC. Stations that broadcast with it are simply doing what you did with WYSL. Does it interfere with other stations? Apparently. Did the FCC bless it anyway? Yes. Then it must be fine, because those stations are operating in accordance with the rules.
I'm not saying it's fair, I'm not saying I agree with it, but it is what it is.
When I was younger, I operated a fairly successful mobile DJ business. I did quite a bit of driving late at night, back from shows 50-150 miles away from my home. On these drives home, I enjoyed listening to AM skywave because the big AMs from my hometown had patterns that went south after dark and most of my rural, small town business was north of town.
I usually tried to DX Art Bell or Jim Bohannon because after 4 hours of thumping pop and hip-hop, the last thing I wanted to hear was music. Typically, I'd catch them for a while on one clear channel, then interference from some shoehorned AM operation would creep in and make the signal unlistenable for a while. For Art Bell, I actually programmed different presets where I could usually catch Art and found myself switching between them often.
AM directionality is an inexact science. Sure, we can bend and shape a pattern any way we want, but mother nature interferes with our plans sometimes. Actually, she interferes with them nightly.
WHO is one of the stations I used to try to catch Art on, and I'm sure WYSL was one of the stations interfering with its skywave signal.
Did you have the right to do that?
SAVAGE WROTE: Yes, ironic. Almost as ironic as your selection of 1040 as one of the channels representing "degradation" of the AM band prior to IBOC.
Other frequencies were also noted.
SAVAGE WROTE: This is the same tired old argument that tries to shift the subject from IBOC-AM adjacent-channel interference, to the right of stations like WYSL to exist.
The FCC made some poor decisions in the past. WYSL has a right to exist, and AM stations are allowed to use IBOC at night. IMHO, both of those decisions were not in the interest of the AM band for dxers.
SAVAGE WROTE: The implication is that later-licensed stations snatched something to which they really weren't entitled. Our application, and our operation pursuant to operating authority, are in complete compliance with the rules.
As a social conservative that listens to Rush, Hannity and Savage (no pun intended), I commend you for building a profitable business under the existing rules. If the FCC had not changed the rules back then, being a successful business person, I'm sure you would have built a successful operation under a different set of rules. I have no problem with stations like WYSL that played by the rules, my problem is with the rules.
SAVAGE WROTE: Like other stations operating on clear channels at night, we have a highly restricted pattern to protect the dominant station, WHO. Skywave contribution of interference to WHO's service area is nonexistent.
Would you consider a dxer in Batavia in WHO's service area? Many posters here would consider WBZ's IBOC as trampling on their right to hear WHO in Upstate NY, but have no problem with interference from WYSL. I am just trying to be intellectually honest. WBZ digital and WYSL analog are both impediments to the WHO listeners in Upstate NY.
SAVAGE WROTE: This tiresome suggestion that IBOC interference should be ignored/permitted because of later-licensed facilities' contribution to skywave noise is a fallacy.
My point is this, there are many sources of interference. There are winners and losers when existing rules are changed. The earlier changes were beneficial to you, but the latest changes were not. Interference is in the ear of the beholder.
[/quote]
Other frequencies were also noted.
SAVAGE WROTE: This is the same tired old argument that tries to shift the subject from IBOC-AM adjacent-channel interference, to the right of stations like WYSL to exist.
The FCC made some poor decisions in the past. WYSL has a right to exist, and AM stations are allowed to use IBOC at night. IMHO, both of those decisions were not in the interest of the AM band for dxers.
SAVAGE WROTE: The implication is that later-licensed stations snatched something to which they really weren't entitled. Our application, and our operation pursuant to operating authority, are in complete compliance with the rules.
As a social conservative that listens to Rush, Hannity and Savage (no pun intended), I commend you for building a profitable business under the existing rules. If the FCC had not changed the rules back then, being a successful business person, I'm sure you would have built a successful operation under a different set of rules. I have no problem with stations like WYSL that played by the rules, my problem is with the rules.
SAVAGE WROTE: Like other stations operating on clear channels at night, we have a highly restricted pattern to protect the dominant station, WHO. Skywave contribution of interference to WHO's service area is nonexistent.
Would you consider a dxer in Batavia in WHO's service area? Many posters here would consider WBZ's IBOC as trampling on their right to hear WHO in Upstate NY, but have no problem with interference from WYSL. I am just trying to be intellectually honest. WBZ digital and WYSL analog are both impediments to the WHO listeners in Upstate NY.
SAVAGE WROTE: This tiresome suggestion that IBOC interference should be ignored/permitted because of later-licensed facilities' contribution to skywave noise is a fallacy.
My point is this, there are many sources of interference. There are winners and losers when existing rules are changed. The earlier changes were beneficial to you, but the latest changes were not. Interference is in the ear of the beholder.
[/quote]
Here's the starkly simple reason why the "IBOC adjacent channel interference is okay, since the Commission allowed all those 'interference-generator' later-licensed stations" argument is completely specious.
If all of the "interference-generating" secondary stations contributing to the much-derided "degradation" of the AM band lined up in the FCC lobby tomorrow to surrender their licenses, and the current pop-count of AMs dropped from about 4700 to, say 2000 operating stations - the net effect on the success or failure of HD-AM would be...ZERO.
Martin Stabbert would still have turned off IBOC at night to keep WABC, WJR and WSB from killing each other. WBZ would still be clobbering its sister KDKA. The high-powered 1130s in the midwest would still be obliterated by KMOX. And it would still be WBAL vs. WTAM, WFAN vs. WSM, and on and on.
Don't take my word for it. Check this week's Radio World. Clear Channel and CBS are making selective decisions about which AMs they're leaving on with HD-AM at night because of mutual interference issues.
Blaming the IBOC nighttime mess on the presence of "secondary stations" is unsupportable.
Let's deal with some of the other assertions you guys advance. "Stations operating IBOC at night are in accordance with the rules?" There's a dirty little secret about that, whether or not you choose to believe it. Two prominent consulting engineers have informed me, off the record, that most of their client stations using IBOC-AM routinely fail to comply with the NRSC mask. If/when they do, the digital coverage is unsatisfactory. Look at Cris Alexander's screen shot in a recent RW and check the sidebands relative to the carrier. The only way that could have been accomplished would have been to reduce analog modulation to about 5%-10% long enough to take the picture. It's just another way IBOC stacks the deck. Cook the books, take the screen-scan, declare victory and go home. The FCC is clueless, of course.
Read Barry McLarnon's piece in the 12-5 RW. You can't reference noise levels below carrier level by selecting ONE digital carrier out of 25 in the passband of the affected station. There are 25 OFDM carriers there, and EACH one makes noise! The current -28 dBc suppression standard is like looking at traffic on the New York Thruway zooming at average speeds of 80 mph, aiming your radar gun at the geezer driving his 1958 Rambler American at 52 mph, and declaring: there's complete compliance with speed limits!
As far as WYSL's causing any harmful skywave to WHO, or compromising some DXer's ability to hear it in Batavia, I would say that's highly unlikely. Our nighttime limit towards WHO is 1.56 mv/m, and that monitor point (thanks, Kintronic!) typically runs about 0.40 mv/m. Compare that with the deafening skywave IBOC arriving from WBZ, and WYSL's contribution is nonexistent. C'mon, Radioman - you're "sure WYSL was interfering" with WHO?? Really? Got an aircheck of that? (I'm just kidding here, my friend, but maybe "you're spending too much time listening to Art Bell!")
BTW: WYSL carries Jim Bohannon overnight. So feel free to enjoy your favorite show on WYSL's egregiously interfering signal.
As far as Rochester listeners who have been deprived of nighttime service from Des Moines, WYSL moved from daytime-only on 1030 to unlimited hours on 1040 back in December 1997. We have never received a single communication in ten years from anyone upset about losing reception from WHO locally. Not one.
And finally, Radioman: "did we have a right to do that?" Do what? This is a "have you stopped beating your wife question." We have a right to be on at night. We comply with the rules, and our directional operation is absolutely within parameters. Unlike IBOC stations, we observe the NRSC mask. And if your premise is that WYSL is creating any measurable skywave interference to WHO (or CHUM, or WCHR) that's just wrong.
If all of the "interference-generating" secondary stations contributing to the much-derided "degradation" of the AM band lined up in the FCC lobby tomorrow to surrender their licenses, and the current pop-count of AMs dropped from about 4700 to, say 2000 operating stations - the net effect on the success or failure of HD-AM would be...ZERO.
Martin Stabbert would still have turned off IBOC at night to keep WABC, WJR and WSB from killing each other. WBZ would still be clobbering its sister KDKA. The high-powered 1130s in the midwest would still be obliterated by KMOX. And it would still be WBAL vs. WTAM, WFAN vs. WSM, and on and on.
Don't take my word for it. Check this week's Radio World. Clear Channel and CBS are making selective decisions about which AMs they're leaving on with HD-AM at night because of mutual interference issues.
Blaming the IBOC nighttime mess on the presence of "secondary stations" is unsupportable.
Let's deal with some of the other assertions you guys advance. "Stations operating IBOC at night are in accordance with the rules?" There's a dirty little secret about that, whether or not you choose to believe it. Two prominent consulting engineers have informed me, off the record, that most of their client stations using IBOC-AM routinely fail to comply with the NRSC mask. If/when they do, the digital coverage is unsatisfactory. Look at Cris Alexander's screen shot in a recent RW and check the sidebands relative to the carrier. The only way that could have been accomplished would have been to reduce analog modulation to about 5%-10% long enough to take the picture. It's just another way IBOC stacks the deck. Cook the books, take the screen-scan, declare victory and go home. The FCC is clueless, of course.
Read Barry McLarnon's piece in the 12-5 RW. You can't reference noise levels below carrier level by selecting ONE digital carrier out of 25 in the passband of the affected station. There are 25 OFDM carriers there, and EACH one makes noise! The current -28 dBc suppression standard is like looking at traffic on the New York Thruway zooming at average speeds of 80 mph, aiming your radar gun at the geezer driving his 1958 Rambler American at 52 mph, and declaring: there's complete compliance with speed limits!
As far as WYSL's causing any harmful skywave to WHO, or compromising some DXer's ability to hear it in Batavia, I would say that's highly unlikely. Our nighttime limit towards WHO is 1.56 mv/m, and that monitor point (thanks, Kintronic!) typically runs about 0.40 mv/m. Compare that with the deafening skywave IBOC arriving from WBZ, and WYSL's contribution is nonexistent. C'mon, Radioman - you're "sure WYSL was interfering" with WHO?? Really? Got an aircheck of that? (I'm just kidding here, my friend, but maybe "you're spending too much time listening to Art Bell!")
BTW: WYSL carries Jim Bohannon overnight. So feel free to enjoy your favorite show on WYSL's egregiously interfering signal.
As far as Rochester listeners who have been deprived of nighttime service from Des Moines, WYSL moved from daytime-only on 1030 to unlimited hours on 1040 back in December 1997. We have never received a single communication in ten years from anyone upset about losing reception from WHO locally. Not one.
And finally, Radioman: "did we have a right to do that?" Do what? This is a "have you stopped beating your wife question." We have a right to be on at night. We comply with the rules, and our directional operation is absolutely within parameters. Unlike IBOC stations, we observe the NRSC mask. And if your premise is that WYSL is creating any measurable skywave interference to WHO (or CHUM, or WCHR) that's just wrong.
Savage said:
All these arguments do little to answer the questions about the survival of AM... and are, in fact, the floppings of fish out of water, awaiting inevitable death.
AM listeners age a year every 18 months, and even in the best markets, the percentage of under -45's listening to AM is below 10%. In medium and smaller markets, the AM total share is in the single digits, and below 35 is 3 or 4 percent.
Mr Savage: what are you going to do when all your listeners are over 65 and of interest to no advertisers?
Are we gonna have an audience "of interest to no advertisers??"
No way, Jose'!
WYSL's gonna have an audience of interest to YES ADVERTISERS, thank you!!
Tomorrow morning, the big truck is going to back up to the WYSL loading dock to offload our new HD-AM transmitter, Deathstar, importers, exporters, phase rotators, and monitoring and test equipment! Yep, we're goin' IBOC, mi amigo! We're all going to huddle near the window to watch for the delivery truck's approach, trembling hand poised over the company checkbook so WE CAN WRITE THAT IBIQUITY ROYALTY CHECK! I'm so excited, I CAN'T WAIT!!
And: POOF! All of our problems, past, present and future, will be ALL FIXED! Instant saleable demos! Cool digital sound! GREAT COVERAGE - BETTER THAN ANALOG!! (I've read all about it, here and in the trades.)
Why, once our AM goes HD, I just know that Circuit City and Best Buy will struggle keeping up with the demand for those too-cool-for-school standalone IBOC radios - they'll probably be backordered! I've already gotten calls from people who can't wait to experience the thundering digital bass from the Radiosophy box.
Thanks, thanks, thanks for saving us all from the "floppings of fish." And to think that before I read your post: I actually thought death WAS inevitable!!
No way, Jose'!
WYSL's gonna have an audience of interest to YES ADVERTISERS, thank you!!
Tomorrow morning, the big truck is going to back up to the WYSL loading dock to offload our new HD-AM transmitter, Deathstar, importers, exporters, phase rotators, and monitoring and test equipment! Yep, we're goin' IBOC, mi amigo! We're all going to huddle near the window to watch for the delivery truck's approach, trembling hand poised over the company checkbook so WE CAN WRITE THAT IBIQUITY ROYALTY CHECK! I'm so excited, I CAN'T WAIT!!
And: POOF! All of our problems, past, present and future, will be ALL FIXED! Instant saleable demos! Cool digital sound! GREAT COVERAGE - BETTER THAN ANALOG!! (I've read all about it, here and in the trades.)
Why, once our AM goes HD, I just know that Circuit City and Best Buy will struggle keeping up with the demand for those too-cool-for-school standalone IBOC radios - they'll probably be backordered! I've already gotten calls from people who can't wait to experience the thundering digital bass from the Radiosophy box.
Thanks, thanks, thanks for saving us all from the "floppings of fish." And to think that before I read your post: I actually thought death WAS inevitable!!
R
Radioman100
Guest
Savage said:
It's much simpler than that Bob.
Compliance with the NRSC mask is irrelevent. The rules are the rules. HD on AM is perfectly legal. The stations that broadcast it are complying with the rules, just as you are with WYSL.
Don't get me wrong Bob. I see little value in HD on AM. I certainly wouldn't shed a tear if all the HD AMs went away overnight. What I am saying is this isn't the first time the FCC has agreed to let interference occur on a massive scale. Perhaps WYSL is fully compliant. It's just one station out of hundreds that have contributed to the noise at night on AM. The same rules that made WYSL's current nighttime signal possible, made similar moves possible for hundreds of other stations. The combined effect has been interference on a massive scale.
I just see a double standard here. You're all for more interference as long as it benefits you. If it works against you personally, but can provide improved audio for others you're against it.
Subject line:
The IBOC HD Radio cartel is just completing the destruction and extending it to the FM band.
The IBOC HD Radio cartel is just completing the destruction and extending it to the FM band.
Quote without comment:
"Compliance with the NRSC mask is irrelevant."
And I forgot to respond to your statement, "AM directionality is an inexact science."
Really? Keeping loop currents within 5% and phase angles 3 degrees, and common point below 105% of licensed values isn't precise enough for you?
I'm sure your characterization of AM directional operation as "an inexact science" would come as startling news to the fine folks at Kintronic Labs, LBA Technologies, Nott Ltd. and countless consulting engineering firms who have designed and built (as has WYSL) highly stable, dependable and complex multi-pattern arrays since commercial AM DAs debuted over 70 years ago. These systems have to operate infallably over a wide range of operating conditions and weather. The workmanship and innovation routinely built into the 4, 5, 6 or 9-tower array of today represent beautiful engineering to behold.
When properly maintained and monitored, AM directional systems do their jobs admirably. If you're suggesting that many operators aren't maintaining their systems and that's contributing to the interference problems, then I would agree with you that should stop.
In these days of corporate engineering staffs stretched past reasonable limits, and given the cavalier attitude shown towards "the AM" within most clusters, it wouldn't surprise me if the directional systems get scant attention. But since WYSL is being impugned as an "interference generator" I can assure everyone that our DA gets the engineering eyeball every day. Our studios, offices and Tx are co-located, so we live with the directional system and work beside it, and it's fully compliant.
"Compliance with the NRSC mask is irrelevant."
And I forgot to respond to your statement, "AM directionality is an inexact science."
Really? Keeping loop currents within 5% and phase angles 3 degrees, and common point below 105% of licensed values isn't precise enough for you?
I'm sure your characterization of AM directional operation as "an inexact science" would come as startling news to the fine folks at Kintronic Labs, LBA Technologies, Nott Ltd. and countless consulting engineering firms who have designed and built (as has WYSL) highly stable, dependable and complex multi-pattern arrays since commercial AM DAs debuted over 70 years ago. These systems have to operate infallably over a wide range of operating conditions and weather. The workmanship and innovation routinely built into the 4, 5, 6 or 9-tower array of today represent beautiful engineering to behold.
When properly maintained and monitored, AM directional systems do their jobs admirably. If you're suggesting that many operators aren't maintaining their systems and that's contributing to the interference problems, then I would agree with you that should stop.
In these days of corporate engineering staffs stretched past reasonable limits, and given the cavalier attitude shown towards "the AM" within most clusters, it wouldn't surprise me if the directional systems get scant attention. But since WYSL is being impugned as an "interference generator" I can assure everyone that our DA gets the engineering eyeball every day. Our studios, offices and Tx are co-located, so we live with the directional system and work beside it, and it's fully compliant.
R
rbrucecarter5
Guest
DavidEduardo said:
I've heard you say this over and over - but one obvious fallacy: WHY then are there so many people clamoring to put yet more stations on the AM band? Nobody is broadcasting as a hobby - it is too expensive. Somebody is - or at least expects to be - making money by putting all of these new stations on the dial. Who is listening? It must be somebody, or these stations wouldn't make a go of it. Only a handful of stations go silent each year, and most of those allocations are quickly snatched up by new broadcasters.
AM may be flopping around like a fish out of water, but the fish appears to have lungs as well as gills - and is surviving nicely.
L
LinoNYC
Guest
rbrucecarter5 said:
I suspect that most of those who are "clamoring" for AM allocations are doing-so with ethnic, religion or simple whoring in-mind.
Case in point: WNYH-740 a daytimer in Long Island with a weak but listenable signal here in Manhattan. Several years ago it was purchased by an Asian doctor who put several million dollars into it, not for serving even the Asian community but to simply rent it out to whom ever's check doesn't bounce.
There are a number of such stations here in market #1 -some of them such as WMCA and WWDJ were once major players.
I feel awful in saying this, AM is slowly dying.
You can choose to pretend otherwise and maybe, where you live, things are different -for now.
When people attack David Edwardo or others who are simply quoting stats (that I have seen independantly) they are dealing from sentiment not the technical/demographic realities of today.
Lino
LinoNYC said:
The world's oldest profession continues to make money.... Still the facts are pretty clear that AM is a mere shadow of what it once was, and getting worse by the day. There are some bright spots out there where success has come as a result of a lot of hard work and creativity. I’m not sure why that should surprise anyone.
Unfortunately, this HD band-aid is unlikely to stop the over-all hemorrhaging.
rbrucecarter5 said:
As Lino said, a new AM grant is usually destined to be a religious or borkered or ethnic affair... for the cost of construction, a good steady return, without need for ratings or promotion. Similarly, failed AM dogs in larger markets end up as similar propositions. Bought cheap, run cheap, and cash in advance for the time brokers and program purchasers. This, of course, contributes to the no ratings destiny of AM
D
dbdigital
Guest
Chuck said:
Actually, the world's oldest profession, according to archeologists, was bread-making.
But I think AM could have a renewed life as a mostly local service (with the exception of retaining the clear channels) with programming that is unique to the community. It's been suggested here that the AM band be split up into analog and digital sections. Perhaps reserving a portion of the band as a strictly local service (replacing the current class system) with a required number of hours devoted to community programming similar to that proposed for LPFM might work. Brokered programming would be restricted.
To be sure, we need some fresh thinking and petitions for rulemaking regarding the AM band (including quality standards) before it completely disappears into radio history.
db
dbdigital said:
Localism that is not entertaining is not listened to.
And the biggest issue is that folks under about 40 or 45 do not listen to AM because it sounds bad. One of the issues is that nobody bought CQAM AM stereos because it was still AM... and that was 20 years ago.
Many radios sound bad, but that is the choice of the owner.
It need not direct the source into lowering their standards.
Why not an ad campaign denigrating cheap radios in a humorous fashion?
In the same way, I maintain my weight at the same as it was in 1979, not succumbing to the
popular and easy spread of middle age. So I should lower my standards?
Hell, no. 'Splain why I oughta accept water or chalk in my milk, e coli in my beef, or iBOC has in my AM radio.
These are all adulterants, antithetical to the product.
It need not direct the source into lowering their standards.
Why not an ad campaign denigrating cheap radios in a humorous fashion?
In the same way, I maintain my weight at the same as it was in 1979, not succumbing to the
popular and easy spread of middle age. So I should lower my standards?
Hell, no. 'Splain why I oughta accept water or chalk in my milk, e coli in my beef, or iBOC has in my AM radio.
These are all adulterants, antithetical to the product.
C
CW
Guest
DavidEduardo said:
Even most CQUAM radios were not right in their IF b/w filtering and did not meet AMAX standards...If the AM Stereo mess has NOT been subject to Reaganomics and "Let the marketplace decide" AND if KAHN had stuffed his attitude and licensed receivers out the a$$ instead of trying to sell his own design and not allow anyone else to sell them, who knows?? AM Stereo may have had a chance but it was never promoted and you had to HUNT to find an AM stereo receiver...HMmm sounds a lot of IBOC AM now...the SONY model I looked at while in Best Buy over the weekend did not impress me....full scale on several stations (FM) I know running HD and it would not decode ANY of them....thye had no antenna on the AM side....doubt it would help in their metal bldg
CW-
I agree with most of what you said except:
I feel you may have been influenced by revisionist propagandists.
The KAHN AM stereo system, from the originator of AM stereo, did not require the purchase of new radios in order to receive KAHN independent sideband full carrier AM stereo. The only requirement was 2 AM radios (that most listeners already had access) each tuned to upper or lower sideband. It was best when both radios were high quality and identical, but this was not required. There was really no licensing or purchase required to receive KAHN AM stereo. Only the KAHN AM system had this capability.
I agree with most of what you said except:
I feel you may have been influenced by revisionist propagandists.
The KAHN AM stereo system, from the originator of AM stereo, did not require the purchase of new radios in order to receive KAHN independent sideband full carrier AM stereo. The only requirement was 2 AM radios (that most listeners already had access) each tuned to upper or lower sideband. It was best when both radios were high quality and identical, but this was not required. There was really no licensing or purchase required to receive KAHN AM stereo. Only the KAHN AM system had this capability.
- Status