[BC] AM Stereo

[Broadcast List USER]

Stereo actually means "more than one."

AM Stereo could have extended the length of time that music was played  
on AM, at the expense of FM.  People don't recall how rough the launch  
of FM was, and how many early FM stations failed.  With stereo on AM,  
and no rush to add more AMs (interference generators), FM may well  
have failed.  AM can sound very good, in a much lower bandwidth, if  
done correctly.  Last I was in London, AM sounded amazingly good.

The Washington ComPost owned WTOP (1500 kHz) and an FM, which I  
believe was WTOP-FM on 96.3 MHz, a full Class B, the way things turned  
out.

The Grahms didn't believe FM was going to fly, so they sold what  
became WHUR to Howard University for $1.

If all the AM stations had gone with ISB AM Stereo, once AM moved on  
to mostly talk, we could have chosen to go upper or lower sideband  
ONLY, and really cut back on interference.  We could do that today,  
but we won't.  However, imagine how much interference could be avoided  
if every station went lower sideband and reduced the carrier 10 dB.   
Imagine the lower power bills too.

Envelope detectors would continue to work, and even cheap radios would  
see the improvement as they could be offset tuned, unless they are  
digital.  Even as digital radios, those legacy radios would see an  
improvement, just not as much.

--chip

On Nov 23, 2010, at 6:38 PM, broadcast-request at radiolists.net wrote:

> Message: 13
> From: Lotus Engineering <loteng at lvradio.com>
>
> Just my never to be humble opinion, but AM stereo (of which I was a  
> supporter) maybe like HD radio was a solution in search of a  
> problem.  Most people I talked to back then could care less about  
> stereo on AM.  To a lot of them "stereo" meant High quality, not  
> even two channel!
>
> Bill
>
> Bill Croghan CPBE WB?KSW
> Chief Engineer,
> KOMP/KXPT/KENO/KBAD/KWWN/KWID
> Lotus Broadcasting, Las Vegas, NV