[AMRadio] AM Broadcast Quality


Jay Bromley jayw5jay at cox.net
Tue Dec 17 11:21:43 EST 2013


Hi John,
As an ex-broadcaster I am sure you heard the terminology of listener
fatigue?  If it wasn't important to have good audio, then why do folks tune
to stations that sound good on the dial?

Let me say it another way, if your station doesn't have a well balance, good
fidelity, hum free audio, and a station on the dial next to you does.  Who
out of the two gets the advertising dollars?  

Over process audio usually comes into this discussion on most broadcast
publications I have read over the years, but if good audio didn't matter,
why not have narrow audio for AM broadcasting.  Most of it is talk radio
these days anyway.  Why all the expense on audio processing, mics, etc that
has super flat response.  Many times equipment spec for 20-20KHz or more.
Why not use cheap carbon microphones, RF clipping, and go for the punch.
Most receivers used for AM broadcasting have much less sensitivity than most
ham gear and would benefit more for SSB like sound.  Even most car radios
have fairly narrow response.

There used to be an AM proof of performance, seems to now a thing of the
past for most stations, except for the big stations that have an engineering
budget.  However again why was the AM proof so important?

While this gets away some from the original discussion, the same reasons are
very much the same.  Most folks prefer good sounding-------clean ---------
audio with some dynamic range.

73 de jay/w5jay..

-----Original Message-----
From: amradio-bounces at mailman.qth.net
[mailto:amradio-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of John King
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2013 2:14 PM
To: W. Harris; amradio at mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [AMRadio] AM Broadcast Quality

I agree, Bill.  As a former broadcaster, I don't recall any of the young
sweet things calling in to say how  great the modulation was, how hearing
broadcast quality substituted for eyeball  communication after my on air
shift was over.

What broadcast quality did was generate more adjacent interference and
splatter. Listen to 3.885 at night and enjoy the retired broadcast
transmitters on 3.880 and 3.885 that make both frequencies sound like a
bunch of monkeys whose cages are too close together.

Back in the late 1950s and 1960s 40 meters was crowded with AM signals but
we could co-exist and QSO even with the low tech receivers of the day. Of
course, I suspect that the AM EGOS weren't as big and broad back then. But,
I still enjoy AM. 73, John, K5PGW




On Monday, December 16, 2013 1:04 PM, W. Harris <nbcblue at hotmail.com> wrote:
 
I keep hearing people talk about broadcast quality in regards to ham radio
AM transmissions. Why should anyone strive for such quality when the object
is to communicate using no more band width than necessary? 

Bill - K5MIL
                          
______________________________________________________________
Our Main Website: http://www.amfone.net
AMRadio mailing list
Archives: http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/amradio/
List Rules (must read!): http://w5ami.net/amradiofaq.html List Home:
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio
Post: AMRadio at mailman.qth.net
To unsubscribe, send an email to amradio-request at mailman.qth.net with the
word  unsubscribe in the message body.

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
______________________________________________________________
Our Main Website: http://www.amfone.net
AMRadio mailing list
Archives: http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/amradio/
List Rules (must read!): http://w5ami.net/amradiofaq.html List Home:
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio
Post: AMRadio at mailman.qth.net
To unsubscribe, send an email to amradio-request at mailman.qth.net with the
word unsubscribe in the message body.

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html



More information about the AMRadio mailing list

This page last updated 22 Nov 2017.