[BC] AM Stereo

[Barry Mishkind]

At 09:06 PM 11/23/2010, Kyle Magrill wrote:
>The argument that AM stereo sounds as good or better than FM is moot.   

        Of course, for a dozen years or more.

>Candidly, I don't buy it based on my observations, but even if it were true, 
>it came about 15 years too late to save AM. The die was cast when 
>FM had superior performance at a low cost starting in the 1970s.  

        If I might again suggest that we have to be
        careful that as professionals we outguess the
        audience:  The die was cast when FM taught
        a whole generation that commercials cause cancer.

        ... and more than a few will acknowledge the
        10 spots in a row does not help today - it is
        assumed the listeners will stay because they
        have nowhere else to go for Rush ... or Paco

        I would submit that, having listened to my fair
        share of scratchy signals - AM and FM - the
        "commercial free" hours on FM took as many
        listeners are anything. Just go ahead and run
        L+R on both channels.  Most listeners will not
        even notice.

>The technology of the day made it expensive to build a hi-fi AM system, but even the cheapest of FM radios could sound good, so AM's undoing was partly a combination of lack of available, low cost,  technology and starting much too late in the game. 

        Well, there was this strange little fellow who introduced me
        to his 1950 Ford sedan and its radio. He clipped a couple
        of caps and it was flat to 15 kHz. (This was before the
        pre-emphasis wars.)  You could not tell the difference
        between AM and FM.

        Later we built processors together.

> Perhaps if the FCC had been a little more farsighted and approved Kahn AM stereo in the ealry '60s, things  would be better for AM now, but who can know for sure?

        Quite.

        barry