[BC] Wow, I wonder if you feel the same way about AM?

[Jeff Glass]

In a message dated 2/2/2010 8:00:42 AM Central Standard Time, broadcast-request at radiolists.net writes:

>The AMs on London sound like FM.  They have great bandwidth, transmit 
>very high frequency audio, and sound very clean.

>We don't have that here at all.

>Our bandwidth is very limited, and with the EQ, compression and 
>limiting, not to mention the clipping, our AM audio sounds like crap.

>It isn't as if we couldn't, but we sure don't provide decent audio on 
>AM.

>OK, we are limited by first and second adjacent stations.

>In England, they do have 9 kHz spacing, but they keep the first, 
>second and third adjacent clear from locals.

>--chip

Chip:

Most of our AM quality problems here are because of the receivers. This fact is what gave Jeff Littlejohn the idea about limiting transmit audio to 5 kHz.

The other significant factors have to do with the audio processing and the all too common loudness wars. It would matter very little if we had decent receivers when the processing is often dictated by egomaniacs. Realistically, I don't think the general public cares one way or the other about audio quality. That fact is largely the reason that the processing feud between Engineering and Programming has been going on for so long. Neither side has COMPELLING evidence against the other.

Fortunately, processing feuds don't go on in public radio. If they do, it's certainly not the norm. It is not the norm where I work.

I don't know what the solution is. Maybe we need some rules passed by the FCC that mandates that the processing not materially change the sonic qualities of the programming. Or, maybe ASCAP/BMI needs to step in and demand that their performances not be marred by the transmission process. IOW, PROGRAM sounds just like AIR.

You and I know this will never happen for hundreds of reasons. If London radio sounds as you describe, I would bet a lot of $$$ that the processing is dictated by Engineering, and not by the Programming department. That's what we need here in this country. As long as we keep convincing ourselves that better audio will save radio, we need to change our attitude about on-air quality, and not bother with Digital until the consumers demand it, which they, quite likely, will not.

Wouldn't it be a hell of a lot cheaper to have a nationwide drive for transparent audio processing with an on-air campaign about "the new 21st century sound of radio"? If the public responds, then design an even higher quality radio system using Digital. Neither will happen..Instead, we would rather roll out an expensive technology rather than improving on what we have. That way if there is a dismal failure, we can blame the new technology instead of ourselves.

Sad to say that we will continue to lose audience in either case, because of Broadcasting's apparent refusal to listen to the consumer, or to even ask the consumers what they want.

I have asked membership of this forum several times to produce some audience research that describes what the consumer wants. That request goes unanswered. I can only conclude that their IS NO market research. That's a problem.

Jeff Glass
Dell 2650 Win2000 AOL 7.0