Time to reconsider AM stereo?

[RadeoEngineer]

[Mexico approved Kahn's system much earlier, it was on the air at XETRA 690 in the '60s.

Mexico did not approve the system. They approved experimental transmission limited to that one station. As many who heard it recall, the separation was only slightly better than that of the "put your AM radio to the left of you and your FM to the right" experiments (or gimmicks) of the period.

Similarly, Mexico has approved on a temporary basis the use of HD by Mexican stations on the US border. Since Mexico is in the process of trying to move all AMs off the band, this would principally affect FM broadcasters in the long run.

Actually David, that's a bit of an over simplification. In fact, you could take two analog tuned AM radios, tune one to the lower side band and the other to the upper and you would get some amount of stereo. As you know, there were no true stereo AM receivers at the time so that was the only way to hear it. I know this as I worked there in the mid 70's when we put the Kahn system back on the air after it had been on hiatus. Gimmick? Of course because very few people actually performed the two radio stereo test, but it did in fact work.

 

[davideduardo]

But my point is, Mr. Kahn keeps getting blamed for starting the "death" of AM.

And justifiably so. Kahn, the sore looser, sued and delayed AM stereo for about 5 years. When he filed the suit, AM still had half the audience, and could have self-promoted effectively and given the receiver manufacturers hope for large profits. Five years later, AM was definitely on the wane, with rapidly decreasing shares of total listening. AM was changing to more talk based programming, and the ability to compete with FM could be filed under "lost opportunities."

To this day we raise his name in vain, and for what purpose?

Because we are still angry that the only last hope for AM was killed by one person, a person who may be a technical genius, but who has the business sense of my cat.

How does this help us eliminate the adjacent channel AM interference being caused by IBOC?

Who cares? Most of AMs audience is over 55, and the under-35 share in many markets is below 5%.

The man was clearly brilliant and the world wasn't ready for him.

No, the world is seldom ready for a misanthropic individual who spoils the party for the rest because his favorite beer is not on tap.

 

[Tom Wells]

No, the world is seldom ready for a misanthropic individual who spoils the party for the rest because his favorite beer is not on tap.

This is not beer, but solving an engineering problem. I cannot fault the man for resolutely supporting and defending a superior
method. The refusal of larger entities to recognize the widsom of the elegant solution is damning.
I too, would rather have no change than a change to an inferior method.
It is not possible for an engineer to have integrity and NOT fully support their invention.
This makes him persistant, no misanthropic.
Business makes a mockery of engineering, and surely deserves their reward.

 

[SML]

"Because we are still angry that the only last hope for AM was killed by one person"

Who is this "We"?

AM radio is killing itself. Blaming Mr. Kahn for the single-handed killing of AM radio is nonsense. He has never had that kind of power over the industry. If he did, AM stations would all be running his AM stereo system, I would think.

Who is the sore loser now?

 

[SUPERCASTER]

David Eduardo.
Why all the personal attacks, anger and hostility?
Wasn't Leonard Kahn defending his patents?
What's wrong with that?
Argue ably the other AM stereo systems were minor variations based on principals expressed in his patents.
Attacking Mr. Kahn is like blaming an inventor for patent encroachment by large corporations.
Would you blame Farnsworth or Armstrong for delaying TV, or FM because they would not surrender their innovations to RCA?

Yes, you probably would.

Blaming Leonard Kahn for the decline of AM radio is absurd, he is one of AM radio's biggest and most enduring proponents.

 

[calstymes]

David Eduardo set the definitive tone:

Quote from Cal Stymes on December 26, 2009, 08:47:35 AM:

But my point is, Mr. Kahn keeps getting blamed for starting the "death" of AM.

And justifiably so. Kahn, the sore looser, sued and delayed AM stereo for about 5 years. When he filed the suit, AM still had half the audience, and could have self-promoted effectively and given the receiver manufacturers hope for large profits. Five years later, AM was definitely on the wane, with rapidly decreasing shares of total listening. AM was changing to more talk based programming, and the ability to compete with FM could be filed under "lost opportunities."

The only "lost opportunity" was that which the FCC caused when it did NOT decide on a single system.

To this day we raise his name in vain, and for what purpose?

Because we are still angry that the only last hope for AM was killed by one person, a person who may be a technical genius, but who has the business sense of my cat.

That is rubbish and you can't possibly believe that Mr. Kahn was THE one individual who "killed" AM radio in the U.S. Please say it isn't so. If you really do believe this then you are seriously out of touch.

We should also all be so lucky to have more business sense than your cat.

How does this help us eliminate the adjacent channel AM interference being caused by IBOC?

Who cares? Most of AMs audience is over 55, and the under-35 share in many markets is below 5%.

Who cares??? You call yourself a broadcaster and you don't care about junk engineering which causes MADI (mutually assured destructive interference)??? Hey, this is your choice but honestly, I think you need to re-evaluate what this profession is all about and what your own priorities are. I must say that this single comment astonishes me.

The man was clearly brilliant and the world wasn't ready for him.

No, the world is seldom ready for a misanthropic individual who spoils the party for the rest because his favorite beer is not on tap.

And often the world is not ready for the individual who claims to be proficient in a profession but who also doesn't care about the things that work against and to destroy it.

David, have you thought about retiring at all? I hear the real estate prices in many retirement areas of the country are markedly depressed (people can't afford them because of the millions of HD Radios they're purchasing). Retirement may help to cheer you up from your overly depressing view on things and your reliance on irrational concepts to explain away real-world occurrences.

 

[HowardMBurgers]

Whereas I agree completely that it's nonsense to blame the continuing slide of the AM broadcast band on IBOC, I feel equally that's it's just as misdirected to think that some social and business misfit like Leonard Kahn, caused the demise of AM or AM stereo in particular. That being said there is indisputable evidence, having been there that Leonard's nuisance filings helped kill AM stereo for everyone at, one could argue I suppose, a time when it was needed to help save AM from the assault by FM the most.

The fact that every one of his motions were dismissed speaks volumes for their validity. Leonard was the Don Quixote de la Mancha of the 1970's.

 

[davideduardo]

Wasn't Leonard Kahn defending his patents?

No, he was playing "I'm taking my jacks and going home." Not one of his filings was upheald.

What's wrong with that?

Sour grapes. He set back the introduction of AM stereo for aobut 5 years, until it was really too late.

Blaming Leonard Kahn for the decline of AM radio is absurd, he is one of AM radio's biggest and most enduring proponents.

I hope he is happy with its current state.

 

[davideduardo]

The only "lost opportunity" was that which the FCC caused when it did NOT decide on a single system.

By the time any system could be put on the air, it was too late... FCC or not. It was the legal maneuvers of Leonard Kahn that moved any possibility of AM stereo 5 years back. In 1978, AM was still a viable music medium. By 1982 or so, FM had the lion's share of music listening.

While in 1978 AMs themselves could have promoted their still viable music formats on their own airwaves, by the time AM stereo got on the air, a large number of AMs were no longer music stations and those that were had decreasing ratings. Most importantly, the AM stations that were still in music did not look like a force to be recknoned with to the equipment manufacturers and retailers... and there was little interest in that sector.


That is rubbish and you can't possibly believe that Mr. Kahn was THE one individual who "killed" AM radio in the U.S. Please say it isn't so. If you really do believe this then you are seriously out of touch.[/quote]

AM went moribund somewhere in the late 70's to early 80's. Save for the new king of AM, talk, there was little else that had any enduring power as a format on the band. Sure, some ethinc formats remained viable for another decade, but even most Spanish language and Black music formats have abandoned the band.

Were there a chance to have saved AM, it was when the band still had half of all lstening. That was when Mr. Kahn filed the first of his shots at the industry.

Who cares??? You call yourself a broadcaster and you don't care about junk engineering which causes MADI (mutually assured destructive interference)??? Hey, this is your choice but honestly, I think you need to re-evaluate what this profession is all about and what your own priorities are. I must say that this single comment astonishes me.

First, HD does not destroy listening to stations in their primary coverage areas save one or two reported cases and for which a solution truly should be mandated. But even leaving that discussion aside, AM is not salvagable.... the bulk of listeners are over 55, which is not a universally attractive sales demo. The main formats, all derivitives of talk (news talk, news, sports) are moving to FM to solve sound quality and demographic issues. Few AMs cover their whole market day and night, and aren't viable anyway...

David, have you thought about retiring at all?

Many times. But I keep being brought into new projects that are too much fun to say "no" to. Of course, none of those, by choice, would involve AM. And many don't involve RF at all... those who think that radio is about transmitters are going to be really sorry in the next few years.

Retirement may help to cheer you up from your overly depressing view on things and your reliance on irrational concepts to explain away real-world occurrences.

Happy New Year to you, too.

 

[SUPERCASTER]

Eduardo thus sayeth:

"By the time any system could be put on the air, it was too late... FCC or not. It was the legal maneuvers of Leonard Kahn that moved any possibility of AM stereo 5 years back. In 1978, AM was still a viable music medium. By 1982 or so, FM had the lion's share of music listening."

The Kahn AM stereo system had already been on the air on AM stations by 1978. "5 years back" was 1973, as I recall Kahn's patents and AM stereo broadcasts began in the 1960's. Kahn's system was truly compatible (unlike HD radio) and did not require futher action by the FCC.

Eduardo sayeth also:

"those who think that radio is about transmitters are going to be really sorry in the next few years."

I agree! HD radio is a very DEAD END.

 

[HowardMBurgers]

Not as dead as AM stereo!

 

[radiotower40]

The only "lost opportunity" was that which the FCC caused when it did NOT decide on a single system.

By the time any system could be put on the air, it was too late... FCC or not. It was the legal maneuvers of Leonard Kahn that moved any possibility of AM stereo 5 years back. In 1978, AM was still a viable music medium. By 1982 or so, FM had the lion's share of music listening.

While in 1978 AMs themselves could have promoted their still viable music formats on their own airwaves, by the time AM stereo got on the air, a large number of AMs were no longer music stations and those that were had decreasing ratings. Most importantly, the AM stations that were still in music did not look like a force to be recknoned with to the equipment manufacturers and retailers... and there was little interest in that sector.


That is rubbish and you can't possibly believe that Mr. Kahn was THE one individual who "killed" AM radio in the U.S. Please say it isn't so. If you really do believe this then you are seriously out of touch.

AM went moribund somewhere in the late 70's to early 80's. Save for the new king of AM, talk, there was little else that had any enduring power as a format on the band. Sure, some ethinc formats remained viable for another decade, but even most Spanish language and Black music formats have abandoned the band.

Were there a chance to have saved AM, it was when the band still had half of all lstening. That was when Mr. Kahn filed the first of his shots at the industry.

Who cares??? You call yourself a broadcaster and you don't care about junk engineering which causes MADI (mutually assured destructive interference)??? Hey, this is your choice but honestly, I think you need to re-evaluate what this profession is all about and what your own priorities are. I must say that this single comment astonishes me.

First, HD does not destroy listening to stations in their primary coverage areas save one or two reported cases and for which a solution truly should be mandated. But even leaving that discussion aside, AM is not salvagable.... the bulk of listeners are over 55, which is not a universally attractive sales demo. The main formats, all derivitives of talk (news talk, news, sports) are moving to FM to solve sound quality and demographic issues. Few AMs cover their whole market day and night, and aren't viable anyway...

David, have you thought about retiring at all?

Many times. But I keep being brought into new projects that are too much fun to say "no" to. Of course, none of those, by choice, would involve AM. And many don't involve RF at all... those who think that radio is about transmitters are going to be really sorry in the next few years.

Retirement may help to cheer you up from your overly depressing view on things and your reliance on irrational concepts to explain away real-world occurrences.

Happy New Year to you, too.
[/quote]Who Cares? It never ceases to amaze me how you continually spout this type of dribble on this board.
I read the HD board all the time, as well as other boards on R-I, most of the time I read some of the things you
write and shake my head in amazement and make no comment. I can see from reading the posts of
others, that responding to you is like talking to a wall.

It is absolutely disgraceful the way you talk down to people who listen to, work in and love radio!

For you to say that HD radio on AM does not destroy the listening of stations in their primary coverage area
is absolute nonsense, and you know it. There are several people here that have told you that in THE REAL
WORLD, it most certainly does! Yet you continually come here and tell people that it doesn't "save one or two
reported cases".

How many times do people have to tell you about how it IS hurting stations, and it is not just one or two,
for you to understand that? I should not have asked that question, because I know the answer according to
you. Nobody listens to AM, it's all geezers, AM is dead, every one over 55 should throw their radios out the
window, because they and their radios are worthless to advertisers.

Yes many advertisers don't want to touch older demo's, but, through hard work and passion, I have been selling
a format that is primarily over 50 and making money on it. I was doing even better before HD started stomping
on my coverage area....oh wait, that's not happening because you said it's not. It doesn't matter that I am living
it day in and day out.

There have been a couple times where I have challenged you on things you've said and asked very respectfully
for a response, yet never received one. I guess it was easier for you to just gloss over my real world question
and just respond elsewhere with a textbook answer that looks good in print, but, not in the field.

We all know that AM has problems, and has for quite some time, but most of us here want to do all we can right
now to keep it viable as long as we can. Why do you insist on constantly coming here and telling us it's over?

 

[OKCRadioGuy]

What should happen at this point is a mandate from the FCC that all new "HD" radios built will also include DRM for the MW broadcast band, at a minimum. Personally I'd like to see them be able to tune at least the channel 5 and 6 TV channels too. But back to the MW band... We need to get some radios out there that CAN get DRM on our current AM band. At some point people will be turning off underpreforming AMs. Current licensees of market AMs could then buy those dead sticks up and put a DRM simulcast on the air potentially by doing combining into their own analog stick. Maybe it wouldn't be perfect, but it would be effective, and much more effective than the IBOC crap of self-jamming. I could see the powerhouse AM in town buying up the looser 5kw down the street to properly improve their coverage and do digital right.

This leads me to a question: CAN IBOC for AM be ran in pure digital from a technical standpoint? If it can, we need to get the FCC to allow stations to do that ASAP. In some markets we may find that the free enterprise system will take care of the problem itself!

 

[OKCRadioGuy]

If IBOC cannot be ran all-digital, then we need to demand DRM reciever compatibility ASAP because we are painting ourselves into one HELL of a corner.

 

[Carmine5]

Well, the NXP SAF 3560, which is being used in most HD Radios, has all the digital radio standards on one chip, including DRM. It's just a matter of unlocking them in software. NXP calls it a "single-chip software solution."

http://www.kr.nxp.com/news/content/file_1456.html

c5

 

[davideduardo]

For you to say that HD radio on AM does not destroy the listening of stations in their primary coverage area
is absolute nonsense, and you know it. There are several people here that have told you that in THE REAL
WORLD, it most certainly does! Yet you continually come here and tell people that it doesn't "save one or two
reported cases".

Except for a few cases:
Mr. Savage's documented WBZ issues at night...
and KBRT and KFMB in SoCal, caused by intentional FCC violation of its own rules in the 60's...
and WABC and WJR in each one's fringe, non-metro coverage areas
... all I have seen is anecdotal and outside the primary listening areas of stations referenced.

How many times do people have to tell you about how it IS hurting stations, and it is not just one or two,
for you to understand that? I should not have asked that question, because I know the answer according to
you. Nobody listens to AM, it's all geezers, AM is dead, every one over 55 should throw their radios out the
window, because they and their radios are worthless to advertisers.

While I would not put it in that tone, that is exactly what is happening in all but the smaller rated markets.

Few AMs cover the metro, and in the top 100 markets there are only about 180 viable AMs vs. about 1200 viable FMs...
and there are essentially no major ad buys for 55+ in rated markets...
and the majority of AM listening is over 55, and getting older each year...
and many major AMs have moved their format to FM or simulcast there now. Think KIRO, KCBS, KTAR, KSL, WWL, WIBC for starters.
and AM formats moved to FM suddenly do well in under 55 demos. It's the band, not the programming.


[/quote]Yes many advertisers don't want to touch older demo's, but, through hard work and passion, I have been selling
a format that is primarily over 50 and making money on it. I was doing even better before HD started stomping
on my coverage area....oh wait, that's not happening because you said it's not. It doesn't matter that I am living
it day in and day out. [/quote]

Yes, there are AMs, generally smaller or in unrated markets still doing a good job. But as their audience matrures, there is no new listener group to replace them as the under-55's did not grow up on AM and have little use for it.

There have been a couple times where I have challenged you on things you've said and asked very respectfully
for a response, yet never received one. I guess it was easier for you to just gloss over my real world question
and just respond elsewhere with a textbook answer that looks good in print, but, not in the field.

I don't even recognize your (anonymous) posting name, and certainly don't recall not replying to you. If you feel slighted, I'm sorry... and if you have an unanswered question, please ask it again.

We all know that AM has problems, and has for quite some time, but most of us here want to do all we can right
now to keep it viable as long as we can. Why do you insist on constantly coming here and telling us it's over?

HD is not what is going to change anything at this point. You would do better to worry about all the FM only devices coming out, as well as WiMax and such...

 

[KeithE4]

HD is not what is going to change anything at this point. You would do better to worry about all the FM only devices coming out, as well as WiMax and such...

WiMAX is all but dead in the water in the US, although it's becoming successful elsewhere in the world. The cable companies who wanted to use this technology can't make a profit on it. Most municipal WiFi/WiMAX efforts have already failed, if they ever started up at all. Don't hold your breath waiting for universal wireless access on your laptop or netbook.

LTE (Long Term Evolution, a competing technology being adopted by Verizon and AT&T on part of the 700 MHz ex-UHF-TV band) is poised to take off. It's capable of being 10 times faster than WiMAX. But I doubt it will be cheap, at least at the start, and you'll only be able to use it on an LTE-equipped cellphone.

But either way, 4G technology will be a strong competitor to conventional broadcast radio in a very few years. It just won't be free.

 

[radiotower40]

David,

First you say you don't even recognize my (anonymous) posting name? You have responded to mine, as well
as many other (anonymous) poster's names all the time. David, I am not allowed to use my real
name here, because the owner of the stations I work for will not allow it. The only way I am able to post
on a radio board such as R-I, is to use an (anonymous) name. This may not be the case with everyone
that uses an (anonymous) name, some may just choose to do so for their own personal reasons, and that
is their choice, I still respect their posting's. If I could, I would use my real name, however I had to make
a choice, not post on boards at all, use my real name and lose my job, or use an (anonymous) and be
able to post my observations. Saying things like (anonymous) names as a way of discrediting what myself
and some other posters say is yet another subtle way of trying to invalidate other's facts and points of view.

In my last post I stated in that HD interference IS hurting my station, and you answered that outside of a
few select stations, that all you have seen is anecdotal. Once again telling me that what I experience with
this awful interference is not happening. You discounted  my interference issues instead chose to tell me
all about older demos and AM moving to FM, and other things you've stated many many times on this board
before. Why will you not admit that HD AM interference, and that issue alone is hurting stations RIGHT NOW!
The reason I keep stating that FACT is because it could be stopped IMMEDIATELY! Why as a person in radio,
would you not want to do something as simple as shutting off AM HD? The issue's that are facing radio are
many, but, once again this is one that need not be there. The interference that you referred to, especially
during CH is happening INSIDE primary coverage area's, not just outside of it.

I only addressed one of the stations I sell for in the last post, I also have an AM sports station which I sell
for, and our 25-54's are good, not an old demo, and that station is also being invaded by interference. We
are 5kw ND, during days and CH, and we start getting hit with hiss before CH. I get calls from listeners
asking what is wrong with OUR station, and why we don't fix it. I explain to them it is not OUR station
that is the problem, it is stations from hundreds of miles away that broadcast in HD. Guess what? They
don't care, they just want it fixed. So like I've stated before we are being hurt by no fault of our own.

This is the post that you didn't address, because you didn't know my (anonymous) posting name.........
   
www.http://boards.radio-info.com/smf/index.php?topic=158374.20

It is reply #26
 

 

[davideduardo]

First you say you don't even recognize my (anonymous) posting name?

My point, probably not as clearly made as needed, is that it is hard to remember the posting names, so I can't really remember who is associated with what thread. In other areas, there seem to be hundreds of persons with "oldies" and multiple digits at the end... I can't keep them straight, either.

You have responded to mine, as well as many other (anonymous) poster's names all the time.

That is possible and likely. I just said I did not remember the name...

...things like (anonymous) names as a way of discrediting what myself
and some other posters say is yet another subtle way of trying to invalidate other's facts and points of view.

I think the heat of this subject often makes all of us too sensitive. Again, I can't keep the many and often similar posting names straight as I can't establish a frame of reference. Mr Savage, yes, I know exactly who he is and what he stands for... because I can picture his station (from the web photos) and his market in my mind. I can even picture the station pet / mascot!

In my last post I stated in that HD interference IS hurting my station, and you answered that outside of a
few select stations, that all you have seen is anecdotal. Once again telling me that what I experience with
this awful interference is not happening.

And, until I know the specifics, I can not take your report seriously. There are all kinds of very scary and kookie DXers out there insulting, writing nast e-mails and even writing letters to one's supposed "boss" about HD (one of my staff members got several of these, complaining about me!)

...instead chose to tell me all about older demos and AM moving to FM, and other things you've stated many many times on this board before.

Facts about AM seem to be mightily ignored here.

Why will you not admit that HD AM interference, and that issue alone is hurting stations RIGHT NOW!

I don't see any but isolated cases. I do agree with Mr. Savage, though, that there should be an effective and swift mediation process for this, where it is proven to exist, at the FCC.

The reason I keep stating that FACT is because it could be stopped IMMEDIATELY! Why as a person in radio, would you not want to do something as simple as shutting off AM HD? The issue's that are facing radio are
many, but, once again this is one that need not be there. The interference that you referred to, especially
during CH is happening INSIDE primary coverage area's, not just outside of it.

Again, I have heard nothing that amounts to a wealth of cases... just one or two isolated ones. And I am surrounded by HD active markets where I live in both AZ and CA.

 

[davideduardo]

This is the post that you didn't address, because you didn't know my (anonymous) posting name.........

www.http://boards.radio-info.com/smf/index.php?topic=158374.20

It is reply #26

Yes, I see why I ignored it. Any response to a post that, in part, accuses the government of being bribed, is just going to be useless.