I'm an E also, being 56. I do not look like or live like an E however but I do remember the glory days of AM radio when you could throw a wire out your back window and hook up an old RCA console to it and then listen to some really good sounding AM. They weren't stereo but were hi fidelity.
-
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
Time to reconsider AM stereo?
- Thread starter audioguy
- Start date
So what audio specs would be considered "Hi Fidelity"? Response, distortion (THD, IMD)? For this discussion, say from an AM receiver receiving a good sounding AM station from the past.
I always thought the term Hi-Fi or High Fidelity was mainly a subjective marketing catch phrase from the 1950's... Some of the people here seem to use it as some form of benchmark.
In several definitions on-line the term Hi Fidelity, but for this discussion I turned to Synonym.com:
Definition of high-fidelity
1. (4) high fidelity, hi-fi
(the reproduction of sound with little or no distortion)
Overview of adj high-fidelity
The adj high-fidelity has 1 senses?
1. high-fidelity, hi-fi
(characterized by minimal distortion in sound reproduction; "a high-fidelity recording"; "a hi-fi system")
I always thought the term Hi-Fi or High Fidelity was mainly a subjective marketing catch phrase from the 1950's... Some of the people here seem to use it as some form of benchmark.
In several definitions on-line the term Hi Fidelity, but for this discussion I turned to Synonym.com:
Definition of high-fidelity
1. (4) high fidelity, hi-fi
(the reproduction of sound with little or no distortion)
Overview of adj high-fidelity
The adj high-fidelity has 1 senses?
1. high-fidelity, hi-fi
(characterized by minimal distortion in sound reproduction; "a high-fidelity recording"; "a hi-fi system")
Of course "hi-fi" or "high fidelity" are relative and subjective terms. I personally regard the term as referring to sound quality which is pleasing and a reasonably accurate reproduction of the original sound - "faithful," as it were.
To my ears well-processed AM stereo with full 10 kHz NRSC bandwidth and pre-emphasis/de-emphasis is, according to the above parameters, preferable to today's squashed and screechy FM mass appeal formats. It's curious that FM programmers have adopted the "loudness wars" mentality that partly led to AM's loss of audience to FM back in the 70s. You'd think they would have learned that maybe radio managers get all moist about having the loudest signal on the dial, but that listeners who have to live with the raucous sound for their TSL find it fatiguing. But: Nooooo.
I also find well-processed AM audio with full bandwidth, either mono or stereo, is far more natural and preferable to artifact-stuffed, tinny and shrill HD-AM. Nothing sounds more artificial. And the "cascading codec" additive codec effects from highly-processed commercials and satellite network fare on AM-HD are very objectionable. I think most listeners would vastly prefer analog AM - notwithstanding their inability to describe what's wrong with the digital sound - even if you could find someone who actually listens to AM in HD digital, a highly dubious prospect.
To my ears well-processed AM stereo with full 10 kHz NRSC bandwidth and pre-emphasis/de-emphasis is, according to the above parameters, preferable to today's squashed and screechy FM mass appeal formats. It's curious that FM programmers have adopted the "loudness wars" mentality that partly led to AM's loss of audience to FM back in the 70s. You'd think they would have learned that maybe radio managers get all moist about having the loudest signal on the dial, but that listeners who have to live with the raucous sound for their TSL find it fatiguing. But: Nooooo.
I also find well-processed AM audio with full bandwidth, either mono or stereo, is far more natural and preferable to artifact-stuffed, tinny and shrill HD-AM. Nothing sounds more artificial. And the "cascading codec" additive codec effects from highly-processed commercials and satellite network fare on AM-HD are very objectionable. I think most listeners would vastly prefer analog AM - notwithstanding their inability to describe what's wrong with the digital sound - even if you could find someone who actually listens to AM in HD digital, a highly dubious prospect.
M
Mike Walker
Guest
I think most HD radios (with AM) decode c-quam, so it's a no-brainer to go back to stereo, if you still have the equipment!
But what's ailing AM, imho, is programming that nobody under 50 (who isn't a southern white male, or rabid political conservative) can find a damn thing on AM worth listening to. Radio is programming driven. Somebody's got to freakin' innovate!
But what's ailing AM, imho, is programming that nobody under 50 (who isn't a southern white male, or rabid political conservative) can find a damn thing on AM worth listening to. Radio is programming driven. Somebody's got to freakin' innovate!
Mike Walker said:
I'm well under 50 and don't live in the south and happily listen to the offerings. Yes, the most popular programming is conservative talk, but most of it isn't "rabid" - it's merely opinion. Your blanket generalization of demos is not correct, by the way. Yes, it skews a bit older and probably always will - but plenty of moms and dads in their 30s listen as well.
This exaggeration of points of view that we don't agree with (i.e. "extreme right wing", "radical fascist", "communist", "racist") is not only inaccurate but it generates unnecessary anger toward the 'other' point of view that's unnecessary.
M
Mike Walker
Guest
You know BRNout, you're absolutely right. And I aploogize! I'm just so frustrated with the state of AM. I KNOW there are successful stations, some of them around my area. And I KNOW conservative talk is a viable format. But sometimes it seems as if people believe that conservative talk, gospel, and spanish are the ONLY viable formats. THAT is what drives me nuts, not that conservative talk is out there. There's progressive talk as well (a couple of successful stations in NC, in fact). But neither right NOT left-wing talk is goint to get younger listeners. We MUST think outside the box. I LOVE the "oldest band", and want it not just to survive, but to THRIEVE again!
I was actually thinking just the other day, that with the traditional golden-oldies formats flying off the FM dial supposedly because of the lack of interest by advertisers in the 50+ demographic, then why not go ahead and play oldies on AM? Forget AM stereo, because no average consumer cares about it, plus from a techncial perspective, C-Quam is a pain in the a$$ to keep running well anyway.
The age group that appreciates that particular format of music, grew up on it playing via an over-processed mono AM station with reverb. Why not do them a favor and rekindle all those memories via the distorted airwaves again?
I agree with Mike, how many grumpy political talk pundits can one tollerate? Granted you won't make a killing financially, but us old guys can fade into the sunset with the music we grew up with, along with the AM band that made it possible. It would truly be a cradle-to-the-grave scenario!
The age group that appreciates that particular format of music, grew up on it playing via an over-processed mono AM station with reverb. Why not do them a favor and rekindle all those memories via the distorted airwaves again?
I agree with Mike, how many grumpy political talk pundits can one tollerate? Granted you won't make a killing financially, but us old guys can fade into the sunset with the music we grew up with, along with the AM band that made it possible. It would truly be a cradle-to-the-grave scenario!
HowardMBurgers said:
Well, I'm an "E." And no I don't usually listen to AM radio. Although it usually does sound dreadful, that is not why I don't listen to it. It's because THERE IS NOTHING ON IT WORTH LISTENING TO. And yes, that is on opinion. Yours may vary, but I'll bet I'm not the only one who feels that way.
This is the first time I have read that it is difficult to keep CQUAM running. Why is it difficult? I would like to hear from those who have had operational experience. I am aware that the antenna system needs to present a satisfactory load to the transmitter over at least the full bandwidth of the channel, but that is also true for HD.
In my opinion, AM is not going away any time soon. It has many advantages, not the least of which is the huge number of receivers in the hands of the public.
Is stereo important? I think it is. Regardless of the type of programming, stereo is the norm. Who would buy a mono iPod, even if all they ever want to listen to is podcasts of talk programming? AM needs to have stereo capability in order to be competitive with other forms of audio entertainment.
Fundamentally, the most important thing is the programming... content is king! But that's an issue that the entire industry will have to address-- not just AM.
In my opinion, AM is not going away any time soon. It has many advantages, not the least of which is the huge number of receivers in the hands of the public.
Is stereo important? I think it is. Regardless of the type of programming, stereo is the norm. Who would buy a mono iPod, even if all they ever want to listen to is podcasts of talk programming? AM needs to have stereo capability in order to be competitive with other forms of audio entertainment.
Fundamentally, the most important thing is the programming... content is king! But that's an issue that the entire industry will have to address-- not just AM.
put music back on the AM band - isn't that why iBiquity said HD was needed for the AM band? If your antenna & network will work with HD, then it will work even better with CQuam.
Doesn't wear you out and TSL is higher - used to be able to listen all day at work when oldies were on (in AM stereo).
Doesn't wear you out and TSL is higher - used to be able to listen all day at work when oldies were on (in AM stereo).
audioguy said:
I ran a Kahn system on one station and a CQuam on another, both diplexed onto the same antenna. No problem in setup and neither required additional maintenance.
M
Mike Walker
Guest
I've listened back recently to some recordings of Kahn (wonderful solidity of stereo image, even during severe fading...but rolled-off highs and no separation at high frequencies), and Magnavox (the only station I'm aware of that ever used this system...WOWO...and it sounded fantastic in this recording made at night from between about 480 miles away). Full stereo sound on AM still amazes me.
If one was running an older design directional, running AM stereo was a headache, especially with Leonard's system. About the only way AM stereo wasn't a pain to operate, was on 24/7 non-D stations. Oh, and plan on giving up 125% positive peaks, because the decoder chips went into severe clipping and separation loss when demodulating asymmetrical modulation.
Technically speaking, most AM stereo stations back in the day couldn't actually approach the Commission's published requirements in an audio proof. And once the audio was processed with all the clipping and asymmetry, the audio really turned to crap.
The bottom line is; given todays tough economic environment if the consumer doesn't care about it and it won't make you more money in the form of ratings or revenue, then why go through the hassle? For a handfull of radio hobbyisis who still own a Sony AM stereo baby boombox? Talk about a solution in search of a problem.. Not too mention the lack of stereo source material on most AM station programming. (AKA political talk shows and Spanish language programming)
Technically speaking, most AM stereo stations back in the day couldn't actually approach the Commission's published requirements in an audio proof. And once the audio was processed with all the clipping and asymmetry, the audio really turned to crap.
The bottom line is; given todays tough economic environment if the consumer doesn't care about it and it won't make you more money in the form of ratings or revenue, then why go through the hassle? For a handfull of radio hobbyisis who still own a Sony AM stereo baby boombox? Talk about a solution in search of a problem.. Not too mention the lack of stereo source material on most AM station programming. (AKA political talk shows and Spanish language programming)
It's a chicken-and-egg argument. There's no audience on AM because there is no reason to develop compelling programming because there's no revenue to support it. It's like a gasoline engine - which won't run unless it's already turning and won't turn until it's been started. That was the conundrum solved by the electric self-starter. Same situation applies to AM Radio: somebody has to put some gas in the cylinders (programming) and use mechanical force (promotion) to start the machine spinning, lubricating it a little with some cash so it keeps running.
Howard, sorry, but your claim that no AM stereo stations could pass FCC proof isn't true. I worked at both a Kahn AM Stereo station (WWDJ 970 Hackensack) and a C-QUAM 50 kilowatter (WKBW Buffalo) playing music and both systems performed admirably. Both stations were directional; both had three-tower in-line arrays (KB is DA-1 and DJ was DA-2.) Certainly what you say about the effects of attempting dense modulation is true, but cranking back the excessive processing and asymmetry that was a byproduct of the AM loudness wars of the 1970s was actually a good thing. The better audio actually had the potential to win back AM listeners.
Here's another way to look at it. AM represents a pop-count of about 4800 licensed stations in the US. There is a huge upside potential to generate new revenue from forgotten and disused AM facilities. AM radio represents a far greater potential to make near-term money than dopey HD-FM subs - because EVERYBODY has an AM radio - many of which outperform the quality and coverage from HD-2 and HD-3s. So why doesn't the industry develop the assets they already have??
Howard, sorry, but your claim that no AM stereo stations could pass FCC proof isn't true. I worked at both a Kahn AM Stereo station (WWDJ 970 Hackensack) and a C-QUAM 50 kilowatter (WKBW Buffalo) playing music and both systems performed admirably. Both stations were directional; both had three-tower in-line arrays (KB is DA-1 and DJ was DA-2.) Certainly what you say about the effects of attempting dense modulation is true, but cranking back the excessive processing and asymmetry that was a byproduct of the AM loudness wars of the 1970s was actually a good thing. The better audio actually had the potential to win back AM listeners.
Here's another way to look at it. AM represents a pop-count of about 4800 licensed stations in the US. There is a huge upside potential to generate new revenue from forgotten and disused AM facilities. AM radio represents a far greater potential to make near-term money than dopey HD-FM subs - because EVERYBODY has an AM radio - many of which outperform the quality and coverage from HD-2 and HD-3s. So why doesn't the industry develop the assets they already have??
R
rbrucecarter5
Guest
audioguy said:
Stereo is not important for news / talk and sports - the things that predominate on AM. Both could benefit enormously, though, from a return to C-Quam because it forces receiver makers to employ product detection instead of envelope detection, vastly improving the audio quality. Combined with a good, wideband audio chain, AM can sound great, in mono or stereo. A happy accident of receiver cost reduction is that most new AM radios are wideband - sucks for HD, but is great for AM stations that take pride in their audio chain.
Our do nothing FCC needed to mandate an AM stereo system in the early 80's, stick by its decision, and force its inclusion into receivers like they did with closed captioning for the deaf. If they had done that, we would have quite a different AM band today - filled with music formats as well as talk and ethnic, and AM stations that sound good might actually have ratings. HD is the worst possible scenario - it doesn't work very well in the daytime and not at all at night, it increases the noise floor of the entire band, and the sound quality is nowhere near FM - closer to medium bandwidth streaming. In short, it never should have happened. The worst thing about HD is it effectively killed a stereo technology on AM that actually worked.
Savage said:
That would be true if there was no alternative. But there is, so the old way is thrown by the wayside. That's just how it goes.
The main beneficiary to improving the value of AM Radio is the federal government, and they've made it clear, in their last 40 years of terrible decisions, that they don't care. The radio industry is already investing in non-broadcast means to distribute content and serve advertisers, so the industry is mostly content to leave the burnt out hulk at the bottom of the ocean floor.They're thrilled to avoid useless regulation and government interference. And they prefer to invest in assets they own rather than license.Only real Congressional action can preserve and improve the AM band. Who'll join me in petitioning them?
The problem is, when it comes to politicans or the average consumer, AM radio isn't sexy nor modern.
Politicians would be all over this if A) The FCC could bring money into the Congressional coffers by forcing some new standard; or B) NAB or some large lobbying group proposed moving the band to all digital transmission (granted no politician knows what that means exactly, but they're heard it's the future because their TV and cell phone is digital).
In radio's future, what we need is a system similar to cable TV in an 'on-demand' delivery method. You take your portable radio, dial up your favorite songs or radio personality banter, and the songs or whatever programming you select starts streaming and playing in order for free. Commercials play every so many miuntes or songs like Internet pre-rolls. If you took the entire AM broadcast band and changed the spectrum to a big bit stream which each local station provided only content, then your content stands alone in ratings and listeners without having to worry about your dial position or delivery method. One contractor or co-op of many stations would be responsible for the transmission side.
Politicians would be all over this if A) The FCC could bring money into the Congressional coffers by forcing some new standard; or B) NAB or some large lobbying group proposed moving the band to all digital transmission (granted no politician knows what that means exactly, but they're heard it's the future because their TV and cell phone is digital).
In radio's future, what we need is a system similar to cable TV in an 'on-demand' delivery method. You take your portable radio, dial up your favorite songs or radio personality banter, and the songs or whatever programming you select starts streaming and playing in order for free. Commercials play every so many miuntes or songs like Internet pre-rolls. If you took the entire AM broadcast band and changed the spectrum to a big bit stream which each local station provided only content, then your content stands alone in ratings and listeners without having to worry about your dial position or delivery method. One contractor or co-op of many stations would be responsible for the transmission side.
HowardMBurgers said:
Already widely available. It's called podcasting and internet radio. Most already have hundreds of thousands of listening choices available on their computers and can add wireless capability by WiFi, iPhone, or soon WiMax. The wireless internet radios are selling briskly with more and more new models being introduced. Strongly trending upward, frequent listeners are projected to soon be over 100 million. Wireless phones are adding high quality digital streaming, podcasting and on-demand stations. Corporations, AM and FM broadcasters as well as individual entrepreneurs can all join the party at minimal expense. What could be better!
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/01/04/ces-2009-preview-internet-radio-in-the-car/
http://www.slacker.com/products/everywhere/
http://www.shoutcast.com/
http://www.wifiradioreview.com/
http://www.podomatic.com/
And thousands of other websites.
M
Mike Walker
Guest
Hey Supercaster, don't forget the 800 pound gorilla of aggregators for internet radio, Reciva http://www.reciva.com
Still the bandwidth just doesn't exist for internet radio to replace terrestrial. Not yet. As long as it's a one-connection-per-listener model, this will be difficult to ovecome. I refer you to the article on the obstacles of mobile internet radio in the current Radio World.
I used to be a huge C-Quam fanboy. I've seen REAL separation figures of 35-40db up to very high frequencies during a C-Quam installation (WNNC, Newton NC) back in the 80s. C-Quam leaves the tower in absolutely pristine condition. The problem is, then mother nature beats the crap out of it, so that a few miles out, especially during critical hours and at night, platform motion will make you seasick. Kahn leaves the tower at a lower fidelity level, with virtually no high frequency separation. But that same few miles out, it sounds stable...completely immune from "platform motion". This late in the game, I've almost decided that Kahn was the best system, unless one lives (virtually) UNDER THE TOWER!
Internet radio may well be the future. I love it, and my show is widely carried on the internet. But AM radios audience figures right now, TODAY, DWARF 'net radio.
Still the bandwidth just doesn't exist for internet radio to replace terrestrial. Not yet. As long as it's a one-connection-per-listener model, this will be difficult to ovecome. I refer you to the article on the obstacles of mobile internet radio in the current Radio World.
I used to be a huge C-Quam fanboy. I've seen REAL separation figures of 35-40db up to very high frequencies during a C-Quam installation (WNNC, Newton NC) back in the 80s. C-Quam leaves the tower in absolutely pristine condition. The problem is, then mother nature beats the crap out of it, so that a few miles out, especially during critical hours and at night, platform motion will make you seasick. Kahn leaves the tower at a lower fidelity level, with virtually no high frequency separation. But that same few miles out, it sounds stable...completely immune from "platform motion". This late in the game, I've almost decided that Kahn was the best system, unless one lives (virtually) UNDER THE TOWER!
Internet radio may well be the future. I love it, and my show is widely carried on the internet. But AM radios audience figures right now, TODAY, DWARF 'net radio.
- Status