Time to reconsider AM stereo?

[RadeoEngineer]

[Mexico approved Kahn's system much earlier, it was on the air at XETRA 690 in the '60s.   

Mexico did not approve the system. They approved experimental transmission limited to that one station. As many who heard it recall, the separation was only slightly better than that of the "put your AM radio to the left of you and your FM to the right" experiments (or gimmicks) of the period.

Similarly, Mexico has approved on a temporary basis the use of HD by Mexican stations on the US border. Since Mexico is in the process of trying to move all AMs off the band, this would principally affect FM broadcasters in the long run.

Actually David, that's a bit of an over simplification.  In fact, you could take two analog tuned AM radios, tune one to the lower side band and the other to the upper and you would get some amount of stereo.  As you know, there were no true stereo AM receivers at the time so that was the only way to hear it.  I know this as I worked there in the mid 70's when we put the Kahn system back on the air after it had been on hiatus.  Gimmick?  Of course because very few people actually performed the two radio stereo test, but it did in fact work.

[DavidEduardo]

But my point is, Mr. Kahn keeps getting blamed for starting the "death" of AM. 

And justifiably so. Kahn, the sore looser, sued and delayed AM stereo for about 5 years. When he filed the suit, AM still had half the audience, and could have self-promoted effectively and given the receiver manufacturers hope for large profits. Five years later, AM was definitely on the wane, with rapidly decreasing shares of total listening. AM was changing to more talk based programming, and the ability to compete with FM could be filed under "lost opportunities."

To this day we raise his name in vain, and for what purpose?

Because we are still angry that the only last hope for AM was killed by one person, a person who may be a technical genius, but who has the business sense of my cat.

  How does this help us eliminate the adjacent channel AM interference being caused by IBOC? 

Who cares? Most of AMs audience is over 55, and the under-35 share in many markets is below 5%.

The man was clearly brilliant and the world wasn't ready for him. 

No, the world is seldom ready for a misanthropic individual who spoils the party for the rest because his favorite beer is not on tap.

[Tom Wells]

No, the world is seldom ready for a misanthropic individual who spoils the party for the rest because his favorite beer is not on tap.

This is not beer, but solving an engineering problem.   I cannot fault the man for resolutely supporting and defending a superior
method.  The refusal of larger entities to recognize the widsom of the elegant solution is damning.
I too, would rather have no change than a change to an inferior method.
It is not possible for an engineer to have integrity and NOT fully support their invention.
This makes him persistant, no misanthropic.
Business makes a mockery of engineering, and surely deserves their reward.

[Don Mussell]

"Because we are still angry that the only last hope for AM was killed by one person"

Who is this "We"?

AM radio is killing itself. Blaming Mr. Kahn for the single-handed killing of AM radio is nonsense. He has never had that kind of power over the industry. If he did, AM stations would all be running his AM stereo system, I would think.

Who is the sore loser now?

[SUPERCASTER]

David Eduardo.
Why all the personal attacks, anger and hostility?
Wasn't Leonard Kahn defending his patents?
What's wrong with that?
Argue ably the other AM stereo systems were minor variations based on principals expressed in his patents.
Attacking Mr. Kahn is like blaming an inventor for patent encroachment by large corporations.
Would you blame Farnsworth or Armstrong for delaying TV, or FM because they would not surrender their innovations to RCA?

Yes, you probably would.

Blaming Leonard Kahn for the decline of AM radio is absurd, he is one of AM radio's biggest and most enduring   proponents.

[Cal Stymes]

David Eduardo set the definitive tone:

Quote from Cal Stymes on December 26, 2009, 08:47:35 AM:

But my point is, Mr. Kahn keeps getting blamed for starting the "death" of AM.

And justifiably so. Kahn, the sore looser, sued and delayed AM stereo for about 5 years. When he filed the suit, AM still had half the audience, and could have self-promoted effectively and given the receiver manufacturers hope for large profits. Five years later, AM was definitely on the wane, with rapidly decreasing shares of total listening. AM was changing to more talk based programming, and the ability to compete with FM could be filed under "lost opportunities."

The only "lost opportunity" was that which the FCC caused when it did NOT decide on a single system.

To this day we raise his name in vain, and for what purpose?

Because we are still angry that the only last hope for AM was killed by one person, a person who may be a technical genius, but who has the business sense of my cat.

That is rubbish and you can't possibly believe that Mr. Kahn was THE one individual who "killed" AM radio in the U.S.  Please say it isn't so.  If you really do believe this then you are seriously out of touch.

We should also all be so lucky to have more business sense than your cat.

How does this help us eliminate the adjacent channel AM interference being caused by IBOC?

Who cares? Most of AMs audience is over 55, and the under-35 share in many markets is below 5%.

Who cares???  You call yourself a broadcaster and you don't care about junk engineering which causes MADI (mutually assured destructive interference)  Hey, this is your choice but honestly, I think you need to re-evaluate what this profession is all about and what your own priorities are.  I must say that this single comment astonishes me.

The man was clearly brilliant and the world wasn't ready for him.

No, the world is seldom ready for a misanthropic individual who spoils the party for the rest because his favorite beer is not on tap.

And often the world is not ready for the individual who claims to be proficient in a profession but who also doesn't care about the things that work against and to destroy it.

David, have you thought about retiring at all?  I hear the real estate prices in many retirement areas of the country are markedly depressed (people can't afford them because of the millions of HD Radios they're purchasing).  Retirement may help to cheer you up from your overly depressing view on things and your reliance on irrational concepts to explain away real-world occurrences.

[HowardMBurgers]

Whereas I agree completely that it's nonsense to blame the continuing slide of the AM broadcast band on IBOC, I feel equally that's it's just as misdirected to think that some social and business misfit like Leonard Kahn, caused the demise of AM or AM stereo in particular.  That being said there is indisputable evidence, having been there that Leonard's nuisance filings helped kill AM stereo for everyone at, one could argue I suppose, a time when it was needed to help save AM from the assault by FM the most.

The fact that every one of his motions were dismissed speaks volumes for their validity.  Leonard was the Don Quixote de la Mancha of the 1970's.     

[DavidEduardo]

Wasn't Leonard Kahn defending his patents?

No, he was playing "I'm taking my jacks and going home." Not one of his filings was upheald.

What's wrong with that?

Sour grapes. He set back the introduction of AM stereo for aobut 5 years, until it was really too late.

Blaming Leonard Kahn for the decline of AM radio is absurd, he is one of AM radio's biggest and most enduring   proponents.

I hope he is happy with its current state.

[DavidEduardo]

The only "lost opportunity" was that which the FCC caused when it did NOT decide on a single system.

By the time any system could be put on the air, it was too late... FCC or not. It was the legal maneuvers of Leonard Kahn that moved any possibility of AM stereo 5 years back. In 1978, AM was still a viable music medium. By 1982 or so, FM had the lion's share of music listening.

While in 1978 AMs themselves could have promoted their still viable music formats on their own airwaves, by the time AM stereo got on the air, a large number of AMs were no longer music stations and those that were had decreasing ratings. Most importantly, the AM stations that were still in music did not look like a force to be recknoned with to the equipment manufacturers and retailers... and there was little interest in that sector.


That is rubbish and you can't possibly believe that Mr. Kahn was THE one individual who "killed" AM radio in the U.S.  Please say it isn't so.  If you really do believe this then you are seriously out of touch.[/quote]

AM went moribund somewhere in the late 70's to early 80's. Save for the new king of AM, talk, there was little else that had any enduring power as a format on the band. Sure, some ethinc formats remained viable for another decade, but even most Spanish language and Black music formats have abandoned the band.

Were there a chance to have saved AM, it was when the band still had half of all lstening. That was when Mr. Kahn filed the first of his shots at the industry.

Who cares???  You call yourself a broadcaster and you don't care about junk engineering which causes MADI (mutually assured destructive interference)  Hey, this is your choice but honestly, I think you need to re-evaluate what this profession is all about and what your own priorities are.  I must say that this single comment astonishes me.

First, HD does not destroy listening to stations in their primary coverage areas save one or two reported cases and for which a solution truly should be mandated. But even leaving that discussion aside, AM is not salvagable.... the bulk of listeners are over 55, which is not a universally attractive sales demo. The main formats, all derivitives of talk (news talk, news, sports) are moving to FM to solve sound quality and demographic issues. Few AMs cover their whole market day and night, and aren't viable anyway...

David, have you thought about retiring at all?

Many times. But I keep being brought into new projects that are too much fun to say "no" to. Of course, none of those, by choice, would involve AM. And many don't involve RF at all... those who think that radio is about transmitters are going to be really sorry in the next few years.

 

  Retirement may help to cheer you up from your overly depressing view on things and your reliance on irrational concepts to explain away real-world occurrences.

Happy New Year to you, too.

[SUPERCASTER]

Eduardo thus sayeth:

"By the time any system could be put on the air, it was too late... FCC or not. It was the legal maneuvers of Leonard Kahn that moved any possibility of AM stereo 5 years back. In 1978, AM was still a viable music medium. By 1982 or so, FM had the lion's share of music listening."

The Kahn AM stereo system had already been on the air on AM stations by 1978. "5 years back" was 1973, as I recall Kahn's patents and AM stereo broadcasts began in the 1960's. Kahn's system was truly compatible (unlike HD radio) and did not require futher action by the FCC.

Eduardo sayeth also:

"those who think that radio is about transmitters are going to be really sorry in the next few years."

I agree! HD radio is a very DEAD END.