| COMMENTS (13) | | Eye in the Sky - 11/06/2009 | | 11) Don't be a deadbeat; pay your bills and don't steal engineering. |
| | Art Major - 11/02/2009 | | Johnny, I think you are dreaming. People don't want to listen to music unless it's at least the quality you get from FM stereo.
The only way you are going to get that is to switch from AM to digital only.
So, to solve the AM problem you need to increase the number of VHF FM channels that are available and move local broaders up to VHF where they belong.
Medium wave should be treated like shortwave and every station that stays on medium wave is protected nationwide and their programming must be of interest to a nationwide audience. Not a local one. Otherwise they can give up their channel for someone else.
Standard AM, must bit into the 10 kHz channel and no iboc. Don't even think of iboc. Anyone who says the word iboc get's shot on sight.
|
| | Johnny Philips - 10/30/2009 | | Great comments. Run AM back out to 10.2KHz frequency response curve. The FCC should have mandated minimum receiver standards for AM radios instead of IBOC. The FCC should mandate DSP noise blankers, adjustable bandwidth (auto and/or manual), C-Quam stereo (or even an option for Kahn for that matter - with automatic switching), "AMAX" standards as it were for any AM radio to meet these standards that have FM stereo. Oh, and most important, after these items are done - in 2 years or less, put some innovative programming on your AM, like music programmed by some college kids. Remember FM radio in 1972? - make your AM station like that today, using those programming formulas in the 70's that made FM so well known. AM still has it in it, and I wouldn't mind the FCC revisiting "SuperPower" stations for a dozen clear channels in the USA with 750KW - 1MW from a national security standpoint, WLW, WJR, KOA, WLS, KHJ, WWL, WBZ, etc should all have 'super power status' - in analog stereo, NOT IBOC. Let's make it easy for the FCC - if your AM call sign is only 3 letters long, you get as much power as you want. And don't forget, put some innovative music programming on your AM! AM was the king, and can still be a handsome prince again! |
| | Art Major - 10/22/2009 | | The magic question is what kind of programming is suitable to a narrow bandwidth and is programming that people will pay for by doing business with your advertisers?
Programming that is not too expensive to create.
I can't think of any.
Why is talk radio appearing on FM?
Why did 98.5 just become the "Sports Hub" in Boston?
AM radio is apparently so bad that the talk shows have to move over to FM in order to get listeners.
Talk does sound a lot better on FM.
I say that unless the medium wave band is converted to digital and can produce audio quality similar to that of FM, it's going to be history because there is simply no need for it.
Aside from hobbyists and those who like AM because they either work in the industry or have been listening to it for so long, AM has no value over FM or digital. Digital satellite radio solves the distance problem. You can listen to the same station from Maine to Florida.
So, where is AM's strongpoint? What does AM do better?
People want good audio quality and reliability. Medium wave is not conducive to good audio quality with the current number of stations due to a lack of bandwidth and propagation is by means of groundwave during the day and skywave at night. The band changes markedly which cuts into reliability. Stations you hear at night are not audible during the day. Other stations have to reduce power or go off the air at night.
What does AM excel at? |
| | Art Major - 10/22/2009 | |
It all depends on what level of quality you are willing to accept. Everyone is different. AM does sound clear, usually, but it's not what people are used to hearing from whatever device they listen to music on. Stereo or not, it doesn't matter.
Another problem with AM is that they have tried to cram too many stations into the band.
If you are a radio hobbyest, you may enjoy listening to the distant AM stations. You may also enjoy the sound of AM. For those who aren't hobbiests, they can listen to distant stations via streaming audio, and listen to very good stereo quality sound.
So, what should be done with the medium wave broad band?
1. Bring back the clears and protect them for the whole lower 48 states. That will mean a lot fewer stations. Medium wave is capable of long range so use it for long range. 1 Clear per state plus an addition regional clear should leave enough room for Canada and Mexico.
2. Stations that only want local coverage should be moved off of medium wave to a band that is conducive to local broading. Basically anything about above 60 or so mHz. Preferably higher.
3. Choose the mode carefully. I suggest some form of digital in order to have better audio quality. No backwards compatibility with existing receivers because that would waste bandwidth. Complete switchover.
4. Don't waste your time broading music unless you can do it in stereo and have it sound similar to what you hear on the FM broad band.
|
|
|