Time to reconsider AM stereo?

[Bill]

At WNMB in North Myrtle Beach, SC, we broadcast in AM Stereo. It has made a big difference for us in several ways including the fact that there are a lot of AM Stereo radios in cars on the road today. Many Ford Explorers and Expeditions (all Eddie Bauer editions) through 2005 have AM stereo. Every new Thunderbird came with AM Stereo. They are also in many Escapes (Limited) and other vehicles.
As to platform motion, the newer generation AM stereo exciters pretty much eliminate the problem. We use a Delta exciter made in 2006.
As to signal coverage, we get about 90% of our pattern that decodes to Stereo. Only the fringe areas remain mono. This is much better coverage than AM HD.
There are three things needed for the AM band to be viable. 1. The broadcasters themselves must do their part and put quality programming on the air. They must serve their communities and they must sound good, both programming wise and technically.   2. The FCC needs to adopt a standard for AM receivers. If you have a VW Beetle that cuts off AM freq. response at 2.5 hz, then no matter the radio station does, the listener thinks AM is bad. The radio station gets the blame for some manufacturer's two bit receiver. Adopting a standard, such as was tried with AMAX is no big deal. After all, The Federal government does everything else in the world. They might as well have a minimum standard for a receiver.  3. The radio stations must invest in the technology. Putting AM Stereo on the air is a lot less costly than HD AM. Then, the stations have to promote it.
Finally, will analog even have a chance in today's digital age? The answer is yes as long as we remember the listener cares most of all about the programming.  There are still some characteristics of AM which have a big advantage including more coverage for less power.
Oh yes.....in addition to the Stereo......stream your signal and marry it to your website.

[kenglish]

The only advantage I see for AM HD Radio over AM Stereo/NRSC is that HD Radio kills the annoying hum/buzz that makes analog impossible to listen to.

If the FCC could do some real enforcement of Part 15 rules, and stop the incessant buzzing and arcing of nearly every electrical and electronic device currently made (and NOT maintained properly), I'd be thrilled. But, listening to AM radio anywhere but out in the country (waaaaaaaay out in the country) is getting impossible.

And, yes....I do have an HD Radio tuner, an "NAB Supertuner", several portable radios (including some with Kiwa mods), and a Ten-Tec, plus an assortment of loops and other antennas. But, I doubt that many "city dwellers" go to nearly that extent to listen to AM Radio  .

[rbrucecarter5]

The only advantage I see for AM HD Radio over AM Stereo/NRSC is that HD Radio kills the annoying hum/buzz that makes analog impossible to listen to.

It is precisely that interference that keeps AM HD from locking - it is very sensitive to interference.  In my view - AM HD was doomed from the start by its own sensitivity to interference.

[w9wi]

The only advantage I see for AM HD Radio over AM Stereo/NRSC is that HD Radio kills the annoying hum/buzz that makes analog impossible to listen to.

At least in my experience, if there's enough hum/buzz to be annoying, HD won't work at all.

I do concur wholeheartedly with your comments about enforcement of Part 15.  But it's way too late to fix that now.

Besides the inclusion of DSP in consumer receivers, maybe the other big benefit of IBOC for AM stations has been the simulcasts of some such stations on the HD2/HD3 channels of co-owned FM stations.  In the unlikely event I want to listen to WLAC, it's a whole lot easier to receive on WNRQ-HD3 than on AM 1510.  (and even if it does come in in HD on AM 1510, the HD3 of the FM sounds better...)

[Savage]

Which raises the obvious point: what's the point of HD-AM in any case, if the best way to hear those stations is via an HD-FM sub simulcast? 

It's obvious that HD-AM is NOT going to make it.  Why not just turn them all off and simply rely on the FM subs?

[K6JHU]

I believe that along with the move to FM translators and getting an HD-1 FM signal (e.g. KCBS-AM), the future of AM may be on HD-2 and HD-3. In Los Angeles KNX, KABC, KFWB, KGIL (that I am aware of) are all on HD-2 and HD-3. They definitely sound better since it seems that the AM processing is off on the HD. KNX sounds particularly good.

[rbrucecarter5]

I believe that along with the move to FM translators and getting an HD-1 FM signal (e.g. KCBS-AM), the future of AM may be on HD-2 and HD-3. In Los Angeles KNX, KABC, KFWB, KGIL (that I am aware of) are all on HD-2 and HD-3. They definitely sound better since it seems that the AM processing is off on the HD. KNX sounds particularly good.

Again - I have to ask the question - what is the point of wideband stereo for talk and sports?  A bandwidth of 5 kHz is plenty for those formats.  Unless it is for musical beds and commercials, there is no point wasting spectrum for talk and / or sports.  Let 'em stay on AM, and reserve wide bandwidth stereo channels for music only.

[K6JHU]

At the risk of getting dumpted on....

I have read a whole lot of complaints about how AM bandwidth was narrowed so as to support AM-HD and how the old analog 12.5 KHz or 10 KHz was so much better sounding on AM. So I post that an AM signal sounds so much better on an FM-HD and what is the comment.... what is the point of wideband stereo for talk and sports?

Maybe one of the mistakes of the IBOC implementation was to only allow two HD subs. We could probably stick several 5KHz AM signals on HD subs if the receiver could decode it

[rbrucecarter5]

So I post that an AM signal sounds so much better on an FM-HD and what is the comment.... what is the point of wideband stereo for talk and sports?

Maybe one of the mistakes of the IBOC implementation was to only allow two HD subs. We could probably stick several 5KHz AM signals on HD subs if the receiver could decode it

Not trying to dump, but --- the stations you listed were a whole bunch of talk stuff.  UGH!  Who freakin' cares?  Once in a while for traffic, but don't clutter my FM dial with 'em, leave them were they are and put music on FM, even if it is HD-2 and 3.  I don't care for right wing, left wing, religious preaching, or anybody else's drivel.

[stacker]

I believe that along with the move to FM translators...

The FCC Order authorizing AM use of FM translators is very restrictive. The 60 dbu contour of the translator can't extend beyond 25 miles from the transmitter site or beyond the AM's 2 mV contour, whichever is less.  Plus, only presently licensed translators are eligible.  Assuming you can find an existing translator, that's a tough standard to meet.  Especially for stations with a directional signal.

It's not uncommon for an AM station to have a deep null over an unpopulated area in order to maximize signal over the population; however, that null comes into play when determining whether you can use a translator since it sucks in the 2mV contour.  Also, many AM's are located outside of the population center for real estate reasons, and that brings the 25 mile rule into play.

Some might say my post belongs on another discussion area.  But I believe the translator order was offered, in part, as a result of the noise being introduced into the AM band due to IBOC.  Frankly, the new translator rules just provide lip service to AM broadcasters.

I wonder if the stations that have been using translators under STA's will be required to adhere to the coverage/distance rules?