[BC] AM Stereo

[Scott Bailey]

I'm with you on this one Chip, AM Stereo was too late for a cure to the 
declining, dying band.

Now as far as more stations going on the air in the 60's-mid 80's, well the 
only "GOOD" thing
is that many people like me got to own a little AM station if that would have 
not happen. I 

know you disagree, but that's the truth. Many small towns would have not got an 
AM station 

if the FCC did not allow more AM's to go on during this time period. You have to 
look at the 

other side of the fence on this topic.

As far as I'm concerned, Jim Wood of Inovonics is the BEST!  Go ahead, knock his 
little
Inovonics Model 235 down, but I'm using it with a BE AM-1A and it sounds 
wonderful! I have 

an aircheck of WMRO playing music during regular programming. I recorded it home 
with a 

good Sony Portable Radio, plugged into my Behringer Mixer.

I don't modulate over 92-93% on the negative peaks. I want quality, 
not quantity!  Like I mention, we have a station
in the next county over from us, using a Natuel J-1000 Transmitter, an Omnia 3am 
audio
processor. They drive the thing so hard that they sound nasty. In addition, 
their tower is a
series feed, small in width, tower. It is annoying to listen to them. One of the 
jocks figured
out how to turn the thing up, because he is on a ego trip, trying to get 
listeners in Nashville,
which is too far away for them. He's got the station sounding so bad, it is 
irritating to listen to!

Oh by the way, I keep the positive modulation not to go over 120%. As I said, in 
these little
towns, you can not sell advertising outside your 5 mv/m anyway.

That's the way this "idiot" sees it!
 Scott Bailey
WMRO-AM, Gallatin, TN 

----- Original Message ----
> From: Broadcast List USER <Broadcast at fetrow.org>
> 
> Then again, could AM Stereo save AM?  Not a chance.  At best, it could  
> have pushed back the decline a few years at best.
> 
> Could better fidelity have helped?  You bet.  It could, even today.
> 
> The FCC should have never allowed the additional stations, and should  
> have allowed the unprofitable to fail.  That culling of the herd  
> should allow the remaining stations more power, and better frequency  
> response.

> And to pile on, I believe Barry was spot on when he wrote that we have  
> done ourselves a real disservice when we pushed negative modulation  
> beyond 90-92% negative modulation.  We were really idiots, and  
> frankly, we remains so, Magnivox aside.
> 
> --chip