Time For An AM Radio Revival

[davideduardo]

But the guys who could do the math seldom could put together something that actually worked.

Warning: Way off topic

I'm reminded of the RCA 100 kw SW transmitter introduced in about 1962 or 1963. The RCA people designed and built several, but damned if they didn't work. The people at HCJB in Quito offered to take them from RCA, to which RCA said, "Fine. But if you make them work, we get the design modifications for free." The HCJB (Heralding Christ Jesus' Blessing) prayed over the rigs when they got to Pifo, the transmitter site where those same fellows had built their own hydroelectric plant. They then proceeded to modify them and put them in round-the-clock service a few months later. These guys were brilliant engineers, but they knew how to make transmitters run and keep them running.

There's a difference between the practical and the theoretical, and as I'm practical, David Eduardo has earned my respect. He sounds like my brother, literally, and several supervisors I've had over the years. This annoys me because I have an "Art" streak in me as well as a "Weird" streak, and this is in opposition to practicality.... This does not diminish my respect.

"Art" and "weird" are two qualities radio has little of today. That's most of the problem.

It must be that we can come to some agreement on how to best ensure the future of mW broadcast, making best use of its peculiar advantages, not damning them as an annoyance to our idea of of market-radio-business, and letting newer RF services serve the local market, permitting MW to be totally different day vs. night.

I am not sure that saving AM, what with a crowed band, lousy receivers, etc., is possible. Many nations have decided to clear all or most of the stations off the band.

I am actually glad to See Mr Savage get an FM signal. I'll bet he gets more younger listeners and definitely he will benefit at night. I'd hope he could pick up a debt-challenged bigger FM eventually. While I don't favor his attitude on AM, I do favor his work preserving local ownership. When the FM jukeboxes with an antenna go belly up, I hope a few find local people like Mr Savage who will change that unpleasant trend.

New radios should be able to select the STREAM of WYSL at 1040 on the AM dial, via local wifi vs skywave WHO dx mw, with only ONE push of a button on the radio.

I have several Logitech Squeezebox radios. They are web stream tuners, and are just fascinating. At a weekend home in a market with unlistenable radio, I now have Chérie Frenchy on much of the time, along with Mega 98.3 from Argentina, Stereo Joya from Mexico and a couple of other really good stations. It's been months since I listened to anything local, in fact. In LA, I have several local streams, ranging from news and NPR to the stations I am involved with and my same international favorites. I just love these "radios."

 

[davideduardo]

2) Undoubtedly, there are many lousy AM radios out there, but factory-installed car radios sold by the "big three"

That would be Volkswagen, Toyota and Nissan, correct?

generally offer wider AM audio bandwidth than the average "purchased-at-retail" set.

My experience with pretty high end car radios is that they are not much better than home sets sold today, and are actually not capable of sounding any different when the HD analog mask is put in or when it is out.

There are roughly 250 million registered vehicles on the road in the US. Let's make a conservative assumption that only 100 million of these cars and trucks have AM radios with usable audio bandwidth exceeding 5 kHz. (This includes Savage's new Jeep) That's still a big number when you consider how much radio listening takes place on the road -- so shouldn't we give more consideration to these radios than the "average" receiver?

First, less than a third of listening take place in cars. Second, if the tailoring of the audio for cars with better radios (I have a jeep, also, and don't find my radio even listenable on AM... all questions of Chrysler's survival prospects aside) causes the other radios to sound worse, I will go for the common denominator.

So does it make any sense to operate with AM IBOC and audibly degrade the audio on over 100 million well-performing analog receivers to provide a artifact-laden digital signal to less than 1 million HD receivers? Given these numbers, how could anyone rationally answer "yes"?

I don't see a future for AM or for HD, so I can't really separate the two. Since the HD operation using a 6 KHz bandwith for analog produces analog audio on every consumer radio I own that is indistinguishable from the full NRSC bandwith, I don't think it matters.

 

[rbrucecarter5]

I don't see a future for AM or for HD, so I can't really separate the two. Since the HD operation using a 6 KHz bandwith for analog produces analog audio on every consumer radio I own that is indistinguishable from the full NRSC bandwith, I don't think it matters.

Just go to the drug store and buy a cheap radio. You will find out I am right about every newly manufactured AM radio being inherently broadband. Take it apart and see the single cheap IF filter for yourself - don't take my word for it! I haven't see an old 3 IF coil AM radio design being manufactured in years - it is just too expensive to make, too many parts to squeeze onto a tiny circuit board, too hard to adjust at the factory, too power hungry, and too unreliable.

If you take one of these cheap radios and run the audio through a decent stereo system, the audio will be broadband and AM will sound great! If you don't get crosstalk from stations 40 kHz away, that is.

My daughter finally gave up her cherished old boom box with the simple single IC design. I put in a stagger tuned AM ceramic filter from an old wireless mouse, and put in a large ferrite bar - and the darn thing is as good as a GE superadio 3!!! Sensitive and selective. The problem's not the IC - they put a lot of radio onto it. The problem is the cheap parts they use with it. What an opportunity for a hardware hacker - get hold of one of these cheap radios for $5 at Big Lots or something - and if you know anything at all about electronics and have some spare parts, you can make a fantastic DX machine out of it!!!

 

[Len14043]

I helped my son build a crystal radio with a kit purchased from Radio Shack. We routed the output to a full range stereo system and the audio quality was fantastic. That was the best AM audio I have ever heard. Of course that was limited to the strongest signals in the area which took up the entire band.

 

[Play Freebird]

My experience with pretty high end car radios is that they are not much better than home sets sold today, and are actually not capable of sounding any different when the HD analog mask is put in or when it is out.

Since the HD operation using a 6 KHz bandwith for analog produces analog audio on every consumer radio I own that is indistinguishable from the full NRSC bandwith, I don't think it matters.

I would agree that the factory-installed radios in many "high-end" imported cars have narrow audio bandpass and most aftermarket units don't offer a significant improvement either. Some of the Mercedes radios are very disappointing. However, I've found that the garden-variety Visteon (Ford), Delco/Delphi (GM), and Chrysler radios offer a pretty good compromise between selectivity and audio bandpass -- and with receivers of this quality I definitely hear an improvement on my station with the filter set to full NRSC bandpass.

David, if you're sincerely concerned about overcrowded conditions on the AM band, I don't understand why you would support continued use of AM IBOC. First, iBiquity's claim that the hybrid signal "meets the mask" is false -- and if you want proof, check the digital sideband amplitudes of an AM HD station with a field strength meter. There's no question that it degrades nighttime skywave service of many Class A stations in the eastern US. Granted, the number of people listening to these stations has declined greatly in the past 40 years, but there's still enough of an audience in some rural counties to exceed Arbitron's threshold for consideration in the survey. (Even I was surprised to see WMVP and several other distant Class As listed in the latest SIP for the Olean, NY market. They're still serving the needs of an audience in northern PA, which would probably be larger if not for the interference.)

IBOC also harms the critical hours and night coverage of locally-owned stations like WYSL, which have no interest in wasting money on the broadcaster license and equipment. Let's just shut it off and renew our efforts to improve receiver performance. With today's DSP technology, demodulation of the AM analog signal (along with processing to reduce impulse noise, selective fading, etc) can be accomplished better than ever before. Consider what DSP has done to perfect analog FM stereo reception in tuners like the Sony XDR-F1HD.

 

[davideduardo]

David, if you're sincerely concerned about overcrowded conditions on the AM band, I don't understand why you would support continued use of AM IBOC. First, iBiquity's claim that the hybrid signal "meets the mask" is false -- and if you want proof, check the digital sideband amplitudes of an AM HD station with a field strength meter. There's no question that it degrades nighttime skywave service of many Class A stations in the eastern US.

I think there is a distinction between occupied bandwidth and the NRSC mask. The purpose of the NRSC mask (Europe has a de fact 9KHz mask) is to avoid the 10 kHz whistle of a hetrodyne of several adjacent signals. The digital bandwidth does not exceed the FCC standard... but being digital, it does not have to fit the NRSC audio bandwidth because it won't cause a heterodyne.

Granted, the number of people listening to these stations has declined greatly in the past 40 years, but there's still enough of an audience in some rural counties to exceed Arbitron's threshold for consideration in the survey. (Even I was surprised to see WMVP and several other distant Class As listed in the latest SIP for the Olean, NY market. They're still serving the needs of an audience in northern PA, which would probably be larger if not for the interference.)

I just took a smattering of views of the former 1-A's and with the exception of KGO in two Oregon markets... and that several years ago... none of them show in purely skywave situation... not even WSM. While many show in contiguous MSA's, they don't show far, far away.

I'm reminded of a case in Winter 1979 when a San Juan station made the "tipping point" for MRS for the New York book. Of course, the San Juan staiton, WZNT, was an FM and 1800 miles away. What happened is that sufficient NY residents with diaries had spent holiday time on the Island and written down the name of a station that in the local ratings got a 42 share.

Similarly, nearly all references to waaaay out of market signals comes from the random DXer or the person who was in another market, listened to local radio, and returned home and wrote that now-distant station in the diary. This is why we occasionally see daytime numbes for KCBS or KGO in SoCal markets like the IE. Or Vegas stations just below MRS in LA.

The real issue is that all radio is used much less at night... the levels are approaching about a quarter of those in 6 AM to 7 PM dayparts. AM usage is even less (my theory is that there are so few good night signals in most metros there is little choice). And then the fact that the average age of night AM iisters is deep inside the geezer demographics... meaning there is little revenue (most of what you hear is PI, barter, trade, bonus spots, etc.) and scant incentive to do anything but run ACC or infomercials.

IBOC also harms the critical hours and night coverage of locally-owned stations like WYSL, which have no interest in wasting money on the broadcaster license and equipment.

My oft-stated and unpopular opinion is that WYSL should never have been granted. Like the LPFM thing, the FCC believes serving America's communities consists of defying the laws of physics or putting on so many stations none can make money (Docket 80-90 shines in this aspect).

Let's just shut it off and renew our efforts to improve receiver performance.

That horse left the barn and impaled itself on a fencepost. We could turn off HD tomorrow, but there are 700 to 900 million radios in the US. Since there is little of interest on AM to 90% to 95% of the audience in most places, there is no reason for consumers to seek radios with good AM performance. In fact, more and more radios are part of multifunction devices, where the radio is not the buying decision making point... if the device even has AM.

And today, most radios come from places like WalMart and Bed Bath and Beyond. Those people haggle with manufacturers and every cent counts. A difference of a dime in manufacturing costs "to get good AM sound" will mean your radio is not bought by those merchandisers. And those stores know that "nobody listens to AM anymore" so there is no reason to think such a radio would be a big seller.

So many other countries have seen that AM either needs to be culled (Mexico, Canada), or allowed to slowly die (Ecuador, Chile) by not allowing new stations. Why didn't the FCC first try to accomodate AMs on FM before the LPFM absurdity?

 

[Carmine5]

I don't see a future for AM or for HD, so I can't really separate the two. Since the HD operation using a 6 KHz bandwith for analog produces analog audio on every consumer radio I own that is indistinguishable from the full NRSC bandwith, I don't think it matters.

Just go to the drug store and buy a cheap radio. You will find out I am right about every newly manufactured AM radio being inherently broadband. Take it apart and see the single cheap IF filter for yourself - don't take my word for it! I haven't see an old 3 IF coil AM radio design being manufactured in years - it is just too expensive to make, too many parts to squeeze onto a tiny circuit board, too hard to adjust at the factory, too power hungry, and too unreliable.

If you take one of these cheap radios and run the audio through a decent stereo system, the audio will be broadband and AM will sound great! If you don't get crosstalk from stations 40 kHz away, that is.

My daughter finally gave up her cherished old boom box with the simple single IC design. I put in a stagger tuned AM ceramic filter from an old wireless mouse, and put in a large ferrite bar - and the darn thing is as good as a GE superadio 3!!! Sensitive and selective. The problem's not the IC - they put a lot of radio onto it. The problem is the cheap parts they use with it. What an opportunity for a hardware hacker - get hold of one of these cheap radios for $5 at Big Lots or something - and if you know anything at all about electronics and have some spare parts, you can make a fantastic DX machine out of it!!!

In my arsenal of radio "stuff" there is a Chris Cuff C-QUAM TX. Chris built it for wide band transmitting, out to about 14 KHz. With a little bit of compression and using the right receiver the audio rivals FM. Of course, finding a quiet channel is key and for my area that is difficult. 1610 seems to work best for the southern Los Angeles/Orange County area.

But as Prof. Winzenburg points out and as confirmed by the Bridge Ratings survey, radio listeners are not nearly as concerned about audio quality as they are about what they're listening to. If it were otherwise, HD Radio might not be the resounding consumer failure that it is.

c5

 

[Play Freebird]

So many other countries have seen that AM either needs to be culled (Mexico, Canada), or allowed to slowly die (Ecuador, Chile) by not allowing new stations. Why didn't the FCC first try to accomodate AMs on FM before the LPFM absurdity?

That's a question many of us have asked. The FCC should have allowed AMs to begin simulcasting on FM translators 10 or 20 years ago. But remember, we have the best government money can buy, so until the NAB reversed its position on this issue we were stuck.

Unfortunately, the Commissioners (with their limited engineering background) were misled by iBiquity (and its predecessors) into believing IBOC would hold "great promise for the revitalization of AM service" -- an empty promise, as it turned out, which diverted attention away from realistic solutions. See the Joint Statement or Abernathy and Martin on page 26 of this 2002 First R & O:

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-286A1.pdf

 

[davideduardo]

But as Prof. Winzenburg points out and as confirmed by the Bridge Ratings survey, radio listeners are not nearly as concerned about audio quality as they are about what they're listening to. If it were otherwise, HD Radio might not be the resounding consumer failure that it is.

The problem with the professor and the Bridge survey is that neither takes into account the fact that most people under 50 or so have no habit of using AM. It is, to them, old, noisy, low quality, antiquated. So if there is questioning by Bridge about HD, it's in the context of FM, where the listening is. If we are discussing the kooky professor-espoused ideas, we just have a bunch of Quixotic ideas that are either just bad or way past their time.

AM is a 286 in an i7 world.

 

[HowardMBurgers]

Beyond polls, the reality is if you walked up to any average consumer, especially female, the typical response to asking why they don't listen to AM radio is:

1. Static
2. Nothing on but talk radio.
3. Poor quality.

Ask the question of someone other than a fellow radio hobbyist nerd or your spouse (because they're only telling you what you want to hear).

Several of the high-end radios with Ford's Sync, don't even have an AM tuner in them. I was looking at a new Mustang Shelby the other day and found that to be the case.

 

[Play Freebird]

I think there is a distinction between occupied bandwidth and the NRSC mask. The purpose of the NRSC mask (Europe has a de fact 9KHz mask) is to avoid the 10 kHz whistle of a hetrodyne of several adjacent signals. The digital bandwidth does not exceed the FCC standard... but being digital, it does not have to fit the NRSC audio bandwidth because it won't cause a heterodyne.

Let's clarify a few things here.

1) The 10 kHz whistle occurs when a receiver's IF passband exceeds a width of 20 kHz (+/- 10 Khz either side of the desired carrier) and at least one adjacent-channel station's carrier is received. This is strictly a function of receiver design and is not affected by the NRSC transmission mask. These heterodyne products can be attenuated with minimal effect on fidelity by inserting a sharp 10 kHz notch filter after the receiver's detector stage. Many of the old classic receivers were equipped with such a notch (using LC networks) and of course this is a piece of cake with DSP.

2) NRSC began discussing revisions to the emission mask in the '80s after it became known that second- and third- adjacent interference was an increasingly serious problem in some markets. Stations are now required to install a low-pass audio filter that cuts off just below 10 kHz to reduce "splatter" beyond this distance from the carrier. It reduces (but does not eliminate) first-adjacent interference and I agree that it's a reasonable compromise.

3) So, in order for two second-adjacent stations to comfortably co-exist in the same general area, the occupied bandwidth of each should be limited to 20 kHz. This was the reasoning of NRSC when the present analog mask was introduced.

4) Occupied bandwidth is defined by ITU as: "the width of a frequency band such that, below the lower and above the upper frequency limits, the mean powers emitted are each equal to 0.5% of the emitted power. This is also known as the 99% emission bandwidth."

5) Now, are we all in agreement that a power ratio of 0.5% is equivalent to -23 dB? And do we understand that the primary digital sidebands of AM IBOC fall approximately 10 to 15 kHz from the analog carrier, outside the ITU-defined channel of the host station?

6) But when I measure the amplitudes of the upper and lower primary digital sidebands of an AM IBOC station with a field strength meter, they're not attenuated 23 dB. I typically measure 16 to 17 dB with a Potomac FIM-21 or -41, and the peak values are much greater.

7) So does a hybrid IBOC signal truly comply with ITU standards for occupied bandwidth, or are the numbers being fudged?

 

[rbrucecarter5]

1) The 10 kHz whistle occurs when a receiver's IF passband exceeds a width of 20 kHz (+/- 10 Khz either side of the desired carrier) and at least one adjacent-channel station's carrier is received. This is strictly a function of receiver design and is not affected by the NRSC transmission mask. These heterodyne products can be attenuated with minimal effect on fidelity by inserting a sharp 10 kHz notch filter after the receiver's detector stage. Many of the old classic receivers were equipped with such a notch (using LC networks) and of course this is a piece of cake with DSP.

Ugh!!! No DSP for me to get rid of that notch. I can do it much better with op amps - I still have an incredibly deep notch on my board, ultra stable and hasn't had to be tweaked once since I built it years ago.

http://focus.ti.com/lit/an/slyt235/slyt235.pdf

(see figures 11 and 12)

Try THAT sort of response with a DSP and with low noise! It ain't gonna happen ----

Do the notch with op amps, and that whine is GONE with virtually no effect on the rest of the audio. There is no reason to chop the audio at 10 kHz. Sounds really good - but I find myself missing the heterodyne, I think I was using it to tune the station subconsciously. Now I have to rely on that signal meter instead.

 

[Carmine5]

But as Prof. Winzenburg points out and as confirmed by the Bridge Ratings survey, radio listeners are not nearly as concerned about audio quality as they are about what they're listening to. If it were otherwise, HD Radio might not be the resounding consumer failure that it is.

The problem with the professor and the Bridge survey is that neither takes into account the fact that most people under 50 or so have no habit of using AM. It is, to them, old, noisy, low quality, antiquated. So if there is questioning by Bridge about HD, it's in the context of FM, where the listening is. If we are discussing the kooky professor-espoused ideas, we just have a bunch of Quixotic ideas that are either just bad or way past their time.

AM is a 286 in an i7 world.

Translation: these sources don't happen to agree with your opinion.

c5

 

[Tom Wells]

1) The 10 kHz whistle occurs when a receiver's IF passband exceeds a width of 20 kHz (+/- 10 Khz either side of the desired carrier) and at least one adjacent-channel station's carrier is received. This is strictly a function of receiver design and is not affected by the NRSC transmission mask. These heterodyne products can be attenuated with minimal effect on fidelity by inserting a sharp 10 kHz notch filter after the receiver's detector stage. Many of the old classic receivers were equipped with such a notch (using LC networks) and of course this is a piece of cake with DSP.

Ugh!!! No DSP for me to get rid of that notch. I can do it much better with op amps - I still have an incredibly deep notch on my board, ultra stable and hasn't had to be tweaked once since I built it years ago.

http://focus.ti.com/lit/an/slyt235/slyt235.pdf

(see figures 11 and 12)

Try THAT sort of response with a DSP and with low noise! It ain't gonna happen ----

Do the notch with op amps, and that whine is GONE with virtually no effect on the rest of the audio. There is no reason to chop the audio at 10 kHz. Sounds really good - but I find myself missing the heterodyne, I think I was using it to tune the station subconsciously. Now I have to rely on that signal meter instead.

I found a design for a -42 db notch at 10khz, using passive components in the speaker circuit. Added it to all my AM radios.
One coil, two caps, and a low-R variable resistance to balance against the R (not impedance) of the speaker voice coil.
They haven't needed tweaking either, and it is amazing how much info can be heard that IS above 10khz., once that heterodyne is gone.
Works much better better than when manufacuturers put such filters in high-impedance circuits....because it's very hard to design a narrow notch, high Q filter in high impedancee circuits without many poles....

 

[davideduardo]

7) So does a hybrid IBOC signal truly comply with ITU standards for occupied bandwidth, or are the numbers being fudged?

About 90% of the countries in the world do not comply with ITU standards on bandwidth. Even the definition of 100% FM modulation differs in some places.

 

[davideduardo]

The problem with the professor and the Bridge survey is that neither takes into account the fact that most people under 50 or so have no habit of using AM. It is, to them, old, noisy, low quality, antiquated. So if there is questioning by Bridge about HD, it's in the context of FM, where the listening is. If we are discussing the kooky professor-espoused ideas, we just have a bunch of Quixotic ideas that are either just bad or way past their time.

Translation: these sources don't happen to agree with your opinion.

To the contrary, the Bridge study makes a lot of sense, and is confirmed by independent research. The issue is that AM is outside the frame of reference for most listeners under 50 or 55.

The stuff the prof wrote is just plain bizarre. And yes, I disagree with it. So do probably 99.9% of people who are in management positions in radio.

 

[davideduardo]

1) The 10 kHz whistle occurs when a receiver's IF passband exceeds a width of 20 kHz (+/- 10 Khz either side of the desired carrier) and at least one adjacent-channel station's carrier is received. This is strictly a function of receiver design and is not affected by the NRSC transmission mask. These heterodyne products can be attenuated with minimal effect on fidelity by inserting a sharp 10 kHz notch filter after the receiver's detector stage. Many of the old classic receivers were equipped with such a notch (using LC networks) and of course this is a piece of cake with DSP.

But the two issues ARE interrelated... I wasn't very clear in the way I stated it. The NRSC mask is a solution to the broadcast side of the equation. The totally failed assumption is that manufacturers, seing that there was nothing to gain by adding bandwidth, would keep it narrow and with a relatively vertical slope. Or, perhaps the mistaken assumption is that consumers would demand better or sharper tuning AM radios so they could get all those first and second adjacent stations.

I don't see many receivers with Collins mechanical filters... my last one was an R390 made in 1969. Good ceramic jobbies never made a big dent on the average consumer radio, either. And that notch filter, even as a feature of a DSP chip, is not something anyone thought spending money on would result in bigger profits. Quite the contrary, in fact.

This is, of course, a classic case of either engineers or burocrats deciding what consumers should like...

So, in order for two second-adjacent stations to comfortably co-exist in the same general area, the occupied bandwidth of each should be limited to 20 kHz. This was the reasoning of NRSC when the present analog mask was introduced.

Actually, recalling the general parts of 73.44, there is a db-per-10 kHz reduction out 10 to 10 kHz on either sideband and even 20 to 30 kHz and beyond. I suppose I can look at the rules later, but my recollection is that the NRSC curve is not the requirement, but the solution to meeting the FCC requirement.

But when I measure the amplitudes of the upper and lower primary digital sidebands of an AM IBOC station with a field strength meter, they're not attenuated 23 dB. I typically measure 16 to 17 dB with a Potomac FIM-21 or -41, and the peak values are much greater.

From something I read, there is some interpretation, with the 25 db down point being applied at +/- 15 kHz, not across the entire 10 kHz. What I think is the logic is that even the FCC knows, or bought into, the idea that nobody listens to a first adjacent inside anyone's idea of the primary contour of a local station; same goes for second adjacents.

Then again, we have in Mexico City a 100 kw on 690, 10 kw on 710 and 100 kw on 730. Back a ways, I owned stations on 570 and 590 in the same market, with the transmitter sites at opposite ends of a very long, thin city, and they never interfered even though we had no mask of any kind on either and purposely broadbanded them as much as we could. My point is that anywhere that there might be objectionable interference, we didn't care about to begin with.

 

[stacker]

My oft-stated and unpopular opinion is that WYSL should never have been granted.

While I respect your opinion, it is just that -- your opinion. No facility gets a grant unless it meets the allocation rules.

If the rules are wrong, petition for the rules to be corrected. I'll be the first to agree with you that some of the AM rules have unintended consequences and don't correspond with real world conditions. For instance, class D and B AM stations can operate up to 50 kW with no adjustment for critical hours operation (except for D's protecting A's). Stations that have maximized their facilities can and are wrecking co-channel havoc during critical hours. I have frequently observed undesirable co-channel sky wave interference (in "daytime" hours) inside the impacted station's 5 m/V contour.

We go to great lengths to protect Class A stations during critical hours. I think it's time to extend critical hours protection to class B and D stations. But that's just my wish for a better world.

The death of AM has been predicted many times in the past, and by those greater than any of us, but the mode continues to reinvent itself.

Have fun and Merry Christmas to all.

 

[TheBigA]

The death of AM has been predicted many times in the past, and by those greater than any of us, but the mode continues to reinvent itself.

The difference is there have never been as many alternatives as there are now. And all of the alternatives (other than FM) are digital with higher quality audio, no regulations, and no costs. The environment for radio has changed. Radio HAS to change with it. Operating as though the rest of the world hasn't changed is a perfect recipe to be put in a museum. AM is in trouble, and any time anyone comes up with a way to fix it, the possible solution gets attacked. So the status quo remains. The status quo is what's killing AM. Something HAS to change. The change won't be coming from the government, and it won't be coming from within the industry. The industry is ready to just walk away from AM, and leave it to hobbyists. In the meantime, the public has already decided, and we all know what their decision is. AM radio will not and cannot reinvent intself. The day for that passed a long time ago.

 

[Savage]

I'm curious, BigA - what are the "possible solutions" for AM you think have been attacked?

It seems to me that far from being attacked, the practical solutions which have been advanced for the band have been ignored instead. With the exception of HD Radio, that is.