Frank Dresser wrote:

There's a cycle to the "better audio will save radio" arguement. FM
would replace AM in the fifties.


If all the AM stations could get on FM, AM would die in the UK.


It didn't. FM stereo would save FM
in the sixties.


The vast majority of people in the UK listen via FM, the only ones that
listen to AM stations are, as I said above, those that listen to AM
stations that can't get on FM.


It didn't. AM stereo would save AM in the eighties.
AM stereo is almost gone, now.


Who needs AM stereo when you've got high quality FM?


I don't know if this is a
generational amnesia thing,


Nah, I'd say you're just summarising things incorrectly.


or it's simply means nobody promotes this
stuff after the patents run out.


Err, nah.


Speaking of "change," I think that's the primary motivation for the
hype.

Ibiquity's website is amusing. Their view of the future is quite
clear. Soon, although the exact dates are undisclosed, we will all be
listening to perfect "High Defination" radio. It will be
everywhere!! No doubt I'll be listening to IBOC radio as I drive my
turbine car or as I fly my jet pack or while I'm relaxing on my next
Pan Am flight to the moon.


You've got a jet pack and you're flying to the moon? I'm impressed. But
why do you want a turbine car when you could use an electric car?


Oh, well, at least the B.S. marketing type$ (aka "Liars") will have
something to shill for.


Life ain't fair. Howcum the shills get all the job security?


cum?


--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

DAB sounds worse than FM, Freeview, digital satellite, cable and
broadband internet radio

"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
news:47Mrc.55$yw5.22@newsfe5-win...
Frank Dresser wrote:

There's a cycle to the "better audio will save radio" arguement. FM
would replace AM in the fifties.


If all the AM stations could get on FM, AM would die in the UK.


Cool. Then you'd have a better chance of hearing foreign stations.




It didn't. FM stereo would save FM
in the sixties.


The vast majority of people in the UK listen via FM, the only ones that
listen to AM stations are, as I said above, those that listen to AM
stations that can't get on FM.

Oh. Life is full o' surprises.




It didn't. AM stereo would save AM in the eighties.
AM stereo is almost gone, now.


Who needs AM stereo when you've got high quality FM?

The real needs of human beings are few. Little more than water, food and
shelter. By that standard, high quality FM is quite a luxury.




I don't know if this is a
generational amnesia thing,


Nah, I'd say you're just summarising things incorrectly.

Summarizing things incorrectly? Sorry, but it's something I need to do.



or it's simply means nobody promotes this
stuff after the patents run out.


Err, nah.

Are you suggesting I've erred, but you take it back with the "nah"?


Speaking of "change," I think that's the primary motivation for the
hype.

Ibiquity's website is amusing. Their view of the future is quite
clear. Soon, although the exact dates are undisclosed, we will all be
listening to perfect "High Defination" radio. It will be
everywhere!! No doubt I'll be listening to IBOC radio as I drive my
turbine car or as I fly my jet pack or while I'm relaxing on my next
Pan Am flight to the moon.


You've got a jet pack and you're flying to the moon? I'm impressed. But
why do you want a turbine car when you could use an electric car?


Duh. It uses the same fuel as my Pan Am jet.



Oh, well, at least the B.S. marketing type$ (aka "Liars") will have
something to shill for.


Life ain't fair. Howcum the shills get all the job security?


cum?


Nuna yer beeswax.


Frank Dresser

Frank Dresser wrote:

"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
news:47Mrc.55$yw5.22@newsfe5-win...

The vast majority of people in the UK listen via FM, the only ones that
listen to AM stations are, as I said above, those that listen to AM
stations that can't get on FM.

Oh. Life is full o' surprises.

Remember that we have 5.5kHz audio bandwidth AM (if that) for domestic
transmissions -- not the wide bandwidth/stereo services you're used to in
North America.

--
Now Playing: 005. Eamon - [I Don`t Want You Back #05] **** It (I Don`t Want
You Back) [192kbps m4a]

"nsj" wrote in message
...
Frank Dresser wrote:

Remember that we have 5.5kHz audio bandwidth AM (if that) for domestic
transmissions -- not the wide bandwidth/stereo services you're used to in
North America.


Currently, the FCC limits AM stations to a bandwidth of 20 kHz, or an audio
bandwidth of 10 kHz. Thirty years ago, there wasn't an explicit limit,
stations were required to limit their bandwidth to limit interference.
Given the normal channel spacing of at least 30 kHz in each market back
then, an AM station could go a full 30 kHz if they wanted to. I'm sure at
least a couple of the 50 kW stations here were doing just that, as I could
hear it when DXing stations 20 or 30 kHz away. These stations weren't
overmodulating, they were putting out an excellent signal.

I'm not so sure many stations even go to the maximum allowed bandwidth now.
They do seem to be pre-emphisizing the trebles, though. It sounds shrill on
a wide bandwidth radio, but it seems to be a good comprimise on a normal
radio with a typical IF roll off.

Many US AM MW stations are talkers now. Political talk, Sport talk or just
plain babble. Bandwidth isn't much of an issue. Big US cities will have
several ethnic stations which play music. In Chicago, there's a gospel
music station and a polka station which sound OK. But none of the current
stations sound as good as the stations did back in the musicradio days.

Actually, with the exception of a classical station here, FM radio falls
short of it's fidelity potential, as well. Most of it sounds over processed
and over compressed. It's OK for backround noise. CDs or records sound
better.

I suppose the broadcasters know what they're doing. I'm sure they could get
poor real fast if they took my advice on audio processing.

Frank Dresser

Frank Dresser

"Frank Dresser" schreef in bericht
...
snip
Many US AM MW stations are talkers now. Political talk, Sport talk or
just
plain babble. Bandwidth isn't much of an issue. Big US cities will have
several ethnic stations which play music. In Chicago, there's a gospel
music station and a polka station which sound OK. But none of the current
stations sound as good as the stations did back in the musicradio days.

yes, the processor guys have it their way now.

Actually, with the exception of a classical station here, FM radio falls
short of it's fidelity potential, as well. Most of it sounds over
processed
and over compressed. It's OK for backround noise. CDs or records sound
better.

yes, the processor guys have it their way now.

I suppose the broadcasters know what they're doing. I'm sure they could
get
poor real fast if they took my advice on audio processing.

Apart from limiters: none? And no. They would make the same amout of money,
if they all stopped "improving" their audio.

gr, hwh

"hwh" wrote in message
...


yes, the processor guys have it their way now.

I suppose the broadcasters know what they're doing. I'm sure they could
get
poor real fast if they took my advice on audio processing.

Apart from limiters: none? And no. They would make the same amout of
money,
if they all stopped "improving" their audio.

gr, hwh



Well, they process the sound anyway. They must think people like it. It
wasn't processed as much years ago, and I think it sounded better, but I
don't represent the typical listener.

Wonder why the lightly processed stations went by the wayside, years ago?

Frank Dresser

"Frank Dresser" schreef in bericht
...
Well, they process the sound anyway. They must think people like it. It
wasn't processed as much years ago, and I think it sounded better, but I
don't represent the typical listener.

Wonder why the lightly processed stations went by the wayside, years ago?

These days a station must be "the loudest". If only one station uses a
processor, nobody can stay behind.
Sad, but that's the way it is. And stations keep changing format, as they
allways have done.

gr, hwh

"Frank Dresser" wrote:
| Well, they process the sound anyway. They must think people like it. It
| wasn't processed as much years ago, and I think it sounded better, but I
| don't represent the typical listener.
|
| Wonder why the lightly processed stations went by the wayside, years ago?
|
| Frank Dresser

You'd have to have iron eardrums to listen for very
long to any major - market FM. Overprocessed,
louder than hell, and just plain fatiguing to listen to.

What the heck happened to dynamic range and
headroom?

BTW, there are still a few lightly - processed
stations on FM. Cities 97 (KTCZ - 97.1) is
one such station. I can listen for hours - too bad
the music doesn't really suit me.

I do have to agree with you, though, inasmuch
as FM stations tend to sound like crap. I think
the final death - blow to good sound on FM was
the use of MP3 music, served up from a hard drive.

I still think we have a problem with program content,
and I'm not talking about Limey radio here, but specifically
about AM radio. I can listen to Art Bell and Rush Limbaugh
anywhere in the US. I'm surprised there aren't any nationally-
available alternatives.

73,

Steve Lawrence
KAØPMD
Burnsville, Minnesota

(NOTE: My email address has only one "dot."
You'll have to edit out the one between the "7"
and the "3" in my email address if you wish to
reply via email)


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.688 / Virus Database: 449 - Release Date: 5/18/04

"Frank Dresser" wrote:
| Currently, the FCC limits AM stations to a bandwidth of 20 kHz, or an
audio
| bandwidth of 10 kHz. Thirty years ago, there wasn't an explicit limit,
| stations were required to limit their bandwidth to limit interference.

I thought that the NRSC standard is 7.5 KHz?

At any rate, a practical bandwidth of 10 KHz would be
a nice improvement.

73,

Steve Lawrence
KAØPMD
Burnsville, Minnesota

(NOTE: My email address has only one "dot."
You'll have to edit out the one between the "7"
and the "3" in my email address if you wish to
reply via email)


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.688 / Virus Database: 449 - Release Date: 5/18/04

"Stephen M.H. Lawrence" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Frank Dresser" wrote:
| Currently, the FCC limits AM stations to a bandwidth of 20 kHz, or an
audio
| bandwidth of 10 kHz. Thirty years ago, there wasn't an explicit limit,
| stations were required to limit their bandwidth to limit interference.

I thought that the NRSC standard is 7.5 KHz?

I've got an old Popular Electronics magazine article around here somewhere
which claims the the 20 kHz max AM bandwidth. The author seemed
knowledgeable, but I also have a couple of textbooks which claim a 10 kHz
max AM bandwidth. I don't trust the textbooks, so I searched the FCC
website.

I came up with:

3. Sound Broadcasting

Sound broadcasting, double-sideband..

BINFn/INF=2M, M may vary between 4000 and 10000
depending on the quality desired

This defination was among a group above the FCC's formulas:

BINFn/INF = Necessary bandwidth in hertz

So, if I'm reading this correctly, the necessary bandwidth for standard AM
will be twice the audio bandwidth, which must be between a minimum audio
bandwidth of 4000 Hz and a maximum audio bandwidth of 10,000Hz.

This is from:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/get-cfr.cgi?TITLE=47&PART=2&SECTION=202&YEAR=2001&TYPE =TEXT



At any rate, a practical bandwidth of 10 KHz would be
a nice improvement.


Yeah, I think few broadcasters get near the maximum. But, considering the
average AM radio, why bother?



Frank Dresser