The inconsistent and implausible arguments of the few remaining HD proponents are revealing.
I'm not an AM HD proponent. I'm also not an AM proponent. I have not mentioned HD except as a sidebar in this entire thread. Why do you bring it up, suddenly? The issue is where AM is headed, with or without HD.
First, they endlessly chant the "AM is dead" mantra about the band, yet NEVER can point to a single example of how HD Radio is improving/has improved AM's lot.
HD is not improving AM. Nothing can do that.
Even if HD AM had a chance, the economy, the problems with the auto companies, etc., have made it impossible on AM and improbable on FM.
And the reason is obvious: because HD isn't helping.
Yes, an I.V. in a cadaver won´t help, either.
Most curious among the pro-HD arguments is the assertion that simulcasts of AMs on HD-2 or HD-3 subs is somehow a harbinger of success for HD-AM.
I've never heard it said that way. Some FMs, for lack of anything else, put an AM on an HD2 FM channel when the AM has deficient night coverage (a statement applying to about 95% of all US AMs). It' can't hurt, but right now it likely does not help, either.
That's ridiculous. If HD-AM was actually fixing the band's problems the simulcasts would be redundant and unnecessary. If anything, the sub-simulcasts make the point that HD-AM should be discarded, and sooner rather than later.
So by any avenue it's not likely HD in any form is about to help AM appreciably.
Look, market by market, at 5 year intervals, at the percentage of AQH persons under 55 using AM. In some markets, it is now well below 10%... and dropping constantly as the audience for AM ages.