Holy cow are you serious? If that isn't admittance of the death of AM radio I don't know what is.
-
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 state of AM Radio
- Thread starter JaneChristo
- Start date
Holy cow are you serious? If that isn't admittance of the death of AM radio I don't know what is.
I'm certain we'll see the trend continue of big AM Newstalk stations to simulcast on an FM counterpart.
I'm sure we can collectively name at least two dozens markets doing this. On my coast, KFBK in Sacramento and KCBS in San Francisco come to mind.
But what about the "Franken FM's"?
Unfortunately my tuner (like many others) won't tune 87.7.
Sounds great in HD? It sounds very artificial and laden with artifacts, I couldn't stand more than a minute of it. It's grating on the ears. And this is when it would actually come in in IBOC which was not often, it was usually dropping out as HD loves to do.
But if you want to save am radio enforce part 15 rules again, widen it to 15 kHz and ban AM HD which is only a nuiscence, no one listens to it and it greatly contributes to the noise prevalent on AM radio. in other words make it sound good again. I can remember listening to AM radio when I was a kid on a console radio, it sounded great and can again. AM radio done right sounds just as good if not better than FM.
Last edited:
Scientifically impossible.
(Scientifically impossible)
Due to all the interference-laden devices.
btw I tuned to WJIB for a bit and a jingle called it "Stereo 740". OK how many people have AM-Stereo... (I recall at one time someone from WESX, Norm Durkee maybe, spoke at one of my Salem State classes and said his car did have AM stereo. Hey, the wave of the future!
...I was at Salem State from 1980-84
Due to all the interference-laden devices.
btw I tuned to WJIB for a bit and a jingle called it "Stereo 740". OK how many people have AM-Stereo... (I recall at one time someone from WESX, Norm Durkee maybe, spoke at one of my Salem State classes and said his car did have AM stereo. Hey, the wave of the future!
...I was at Salem State from 1980-84
No. Read Armstrong's own studies on the subject. Amplitude modulation can NOT "sound better" than frequency modulation.
Sure does! I have it on all afternoon (in HD) in the office. Not sure why you can't get a lock on WBZ....but Milbury might be beyond the primary contours. Stays locked for me all the time.
Perception.
Mr. Armstrong liked classical music, and FM provided a quiet background and virtually no distortion from the lowest lows to near the top of human hearing. The triangle is usually not considered a serious instrument but the VERY SERIOUS German composer Brahms cleverly orchestrated a triangle into his Fourth Symphony. On AM, it's inaudible because instead of being solo, it's integrated into the orchestral scoring. Beethoven used a piccolo in his Fifth Symphony and it too is hard to hear on AM.
Not perception. Science. Although some people think black & white "looks better than" color. But let's be serious.
As much as I will TRY to resist responding to your slightly off-topic "bait" as I've seen you "cast" on other boards here, I will simply say this:
One's perception (ie, "some AM stations 'sound' better than some FMs") is merely someone's opinion, and all of the "science" in the world won't change that. This is why we have marketing, research, and 300 title music libraries. People like what they like, dislike what they dislike, and science will not change that.
Everything above is true except for the very last sentence. The bandwidth-expansion equation for FM shows that the received (baseband) signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of FM is better than that of AM. However, were ALL your other VERY good suggestions followed, the frequency response of AM could asymptotically approach that of FM. The dynamic range of AM might be less than FM's due to the SNR, though. (FM can sound "dead quiet" during very soft music passages.)
Yet, as you may know, most of the freq. resp. limitation is actually in the AM receiver, not the transmitter. Only a high-end AM rcvr today might be able to have the extended audio response.
The FCC won't do this
They will even cause more harm then good,
They have to rethink this, by 2015 Low-Power TV going to go dark and moving TV Stations down the Band
They will even cause more harm then good,
They have to rethink this, by 2015 Low-Power TV going to go dark and moving TV Stations down the Band
Funny I am on the other end of it. I have an LPFM and two translators and have been trying to get an AM to go with one of the translators but here in SC I am not going to give 75 thousand to 100 thousand for an AM station, never.
I don't think it's off topic, and don't see it as "bait" to say that there's technically no way that AM radio can EVER have the (1) frequency response, (2) the dynamic range, and (3) the depth and clarity of sound that you can get on FM. All of these things can be scientifically measured. Obviously there's also the static and the drop-outs when driving under bridges that you don't get from FM, but I'll leave that off the table.
Getting back to the poster who says he remembers that AM in the 60s sounded better than FM, as far as I'm concerned, his memory isn't as good as he thinks it is. If you want to say you liked AM better than FM in the 60s, be my guest. That's your opinion and you're welcome to it. I'm not talking about likes or dislikes. But I have tapes recorded off WABC in the 60s, and I also have tapes of several NYC FM stations from that same time, taken from the exact same radio, and anyone can hear the very distinct differences between the two formats. You'd have to be deaf to say AM, even in the 60s, sounded better than FM. It didn't and we have recordings that prove it.
As each new technology comes along, the corporate dumbing down continues --- on all radio fronts ---.
Govt's don't have any qualms about the general populace being dumbed down, by --all-- media outlets.
But, there is no conspiracy... it's just strictly "business", after all.
The "business" of dumding down the population !
But, not to worry, this kind of media "control" is totally Normal behaviour with Coporatism !
Wow that sort of says it all.
Last edited:
And I have tapes of WABC in the 60's proving exactly what KB1OKL stated. AM does not *have* to sound bad, but it will take as much of an effort on the part of receiver manufacturers as it will broadcasters. I have worked at several AM stations which were able, with very little effort, to pass an FM audio proof.
Just to be a bit picky about it...
There is no purely technical reason why the frequency response of AM must be less than that of FM. The more bandwidth you're willing to take up, the more frequency response you can get. (analog TV provided a high-end frequency response out past 4,000KHz; matching FM's 15KHz is not difficult!) The limitation on AM frequency response is first regulatory, a result of how close together on the dial you put stations. And second, it's a result of receiver makers responding to interference conditions that arise from allocation policy.
Really there is nothing inherent in AM itself that limits the dynamic range or depth/clarity either. However, while the external limits on AM frequency response are man-made, the external limits on AM dynamic range etc. are natural -- the result of various noises. Even without violations of Part 15, and even without thunderstorms, wideband FM is quieter & thus capable of more dynamic range. Even narrowband FM is quieter when you have thunderstorms & Part 15 violations around.
So if you stay in the theoretical world, there is no reason AM quality must be worse than FM. Once you need to live in the actual world where you can't pick & choose your forces of nature, FM wins.
- Status