[BC] AM Stereo

[Broadcast List USER]

EXCEPT that we really didn't need to restrict the frequency response  
to 4 kHz.

Much of Europe used to run 20 kHz, because they ran 9 kHz channels,  
and didn't allow interference within the third adjacent!

We were OK until, what was it?  The 70s?  When we allowed all of those  
fill in stations.

I used to listen to WABC, WNBC and WCBS near DC DURING THE DAY!  Of  
course, some of the problem today is noise, from "Part 15 devices,"  
which generally don't meet the Part 15 rules.

We screwed up FM with Docket 80-90, and now we are doing it with TV.

Oh, well.

--chip

OH, and I have a great idea.  Let's bring in a lot of 100 and 1000  
Watt stations on third adjacent channels, and soon, let's make them a  
primary service, like we did with LPTVs.

We are such allocation idiots.

--chip

On Nov 23, 2010, at 9:39 PM, broadcast-request at radiolists.net wrote:

> Message: 25
> From: "Kyle Magrill" <kyle at circuitwerkes.com>
> [...]
>  In the end, it was the frequency
> response of AM that killed it, not the choice of
> which stereo system was selected. Kahn or Motorola,
> Two channels of 4kHz audio is just 2x as bad as one.
>
> And for the record, I never thought that the NRSC
> did AM any favors by forcing the spectrum to 10kHz.
> I demonstrated that, despite the mediocre bandwidth
> of my Delco radio, audio in the range of 10-15kHz was
> still present in the output.  When we switched in the
> 10kHz brick wall, the loss of quality was subtle but noticable.