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?


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.

There's no advantage to DSB-SC that SSB-SC doesn't have and several that
SSB-SC alone has. Getting rid of one of the redundant sets of sidebands
halves the required bandwidth, for one. Also, if the two sideband sets
of DSB-SC experience differing phase alteration due to propagation
effects (not too uncommon), the signal can become unintelligible; that
effect is minimized with SSB-SC.

If all broadcasters used SSB-SC and precision frequency control (easy
and inexpensive these days) then SSB-SC receivers are pretty easy. But
that doesn't solve the problem of all those AM receivers...

Things seem to be moving in the direction of digital modulation and even
more complex receivers; whether that's a Good Thing or not, I'm not sure.

Isaac