"Don Bowey" wrote in message
...
On 7/10/07 3:26 AM, in article ,
"Jimmie D" wrote:


"Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" wrote in message
...

"Dana" wrote in message
...

"Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" wrote in message
...
Do you understand that a DSB signal *is* AM?

So all the AM broadcasters are wasting money by
generating a carrier?

How did you jump to that conclusion.

Is "DSBSC" DSB?

I see Jimmie talked all around your question.

Actually Jimmie gave a plausable reason to your statement/question that AM
broadcasters are wasting money by generating a carrier.

I'll answer it AGAIN, though I'm still sure your only a troll.....

DSB says nothing about the carrier; DSBSC is still DSB.

You still have to have a carrier to modulate.

You can have DSBSC (Suppressed Carrier), DSBRC (Reduced Carrier), and DSB
with Full Carrier. You can look up the abbreviation for the latter if you
need it.

And you still need to modulate a carrier. So your statement/question that AM
broadcasters are wasting money by generating a carrier was illogical in the
context of this thread.

Broadcast medium wave radio, slang term "AM Radio," is DSB with full
Carrier.

So then you agree that the Broadcasters are not wasting money by generating
a carrier.



There have been attempts to remove the carrier but receivers could not be
manufatured at a reasonable price that would demodulate the signal with
the
fidelity of an AM BCB signal. Probably could be done today but what would
you l do with all those AM rx that suddenly dont work when the transition
is
made.