[BC] AM Stereo

[Jerry Mathis]

I understand and I agree with what you say, but we were talking about sound quality, and not content.
 
FWIW, I don't listen to Rush, and while I have nothing against it, I don't listen to Coast to Coast either.
 
Perhaps age has affected my memory, but I DISTINCTLY remember that the advertised purpose of NRSC was not only to lessen interference between stations, but to bring back high fidelity AM broadcasting, with receivers again having close to 10 kHz bandwidth. Does anyone remember a campaign (albeit weakly pushed) called AMAX?
 
What's gotten my tighty-whiteys in a knot is that I'm now being told that the whole purpose of NRSC was to benefit car manufacturers who didn't want to deal with auto radio complaints. IOW, the AM BROADCAST INDUSTRY bore the costs of benefitting the car makers--and we got NOT ONE DAMN THING in return. Sorry for the profanity here, but I think it's warranted.

--
Jerry Mathis

On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 7:49 PM, Mark Earle <mearle at mearle.com> wrote:
>On 11/25/2010 5:02 PM, Jerry Mathis wrote:
>> So what I'm going to accept as de facto from henceforth: AM radio sound will ALWAYS be crappy, and nothing can or will be done about it.
>>
>> So I'm going to quit caring.
>>
>> --
>> Jerry Mathis
>Perhaps so - but consider the two empires made mostly on AM:
>Rush
>Coast to Coast

>There are others, but these two do well. Proving again, it's content,
>not delivery methodology.

>--
>mwe
>      ) )
>      ) )    You will be assimilated... oooh, coffee!!
>  ( |    |