Time to reconsider AM stereo?

[KB1OKL]

I'm an E also, being 56. I do not look like or live like an E however but I do remember the glory days of AM radio when you could throw a wire out your back window and hook up an old RCA console to it and then listen to some really good sounding AM. They weren't stereo but were hi fidelity.

[HowardMBurgers]

So what audio specs would be considered "Hi Fidelity"?  Response, distortion (THD, IMD)?  For this discussion, say from an AM receiver receiving a good sounding AM station from the past.

I always thought the term Hi-Fi or High Fidelity was mainly a subjective marketing catch phrase from the 1950's...  Some of the people here seem to use it as some form of benchmark.

In several definitions on-line the term Hi Fidelity, but for this discussion I turned to Synonym.com:

Definition of high-fidelity

1. (4) high fidelity, hi-fi
(the reproduction of sound with little or no distortion)

Overview of adj high-fidelity

The adj high-fidelity has 1 senses?

1. high-fidelity, hi-fi
(characterized by minimal distortion in sound reproduction; "a high-fidelity recording"; "a hi-fi system")

[Savage]

Of course "hi-fi" or "high fidelity" are relative and subjective terms.  I personally regard the term as referring to sound quality which is pleasing and a reasonably accurate reproduction of the original sound - "faithful," as it were.

To my ears well-processed AM stereo with full 10 kHz NRSC bandwidth and pre-emphasis/de-emphasis is, according to the above parameters, preferable to today's squashed and screechy FM mass appeal formats.  It's curious that FM programmers have adopted the "loudness wars" mentality that partly led to AM's loss of audience to FM back in the 70s.  You'd think they would have learned that maybe radio managers get all moist about having the loudest signal on the dial, but that listeners who have to live with the raucous sound for their TSL find it fatiguing.  But: Nooooo.

I also find well-processed AM audio with full bandwidth, either mono or stereo, is far more natural and preferable to artifact-stuffed, tinny and shrill HD-AM.  Nothing sounds more artificial.  And the "cascading codec" additive codec effects from highly-processed commercials and satellite network fare on AM-HD are very objectionable.  I think most listeners would vastly prefer analog AM - notwithstanding their inability to describe what's wrong with the digital sound - even if you could find someone who actually listens to AM in HD digital, a highly dubious prospect.

[Mike Walker]

I think most HD radios (with AM) decode c-quam, so it's a no-brainer to go back to stereo, if you still have the equipment!

But what's ailing AM, imho, is programming that nobody under 50 (who isn't a southern white male, or rabid political conservative) can find a damn thing on AM worth listening to. Radio is programming driven. Somebody's got to freakin' innovate!

[BRNout]

I think most HD radios (with AM) decode c-quam, so it's a no-brainer to go back to stereo, if you still have the equipment!

But what's ailing AM, imho, is programming that nobody under 50 (who isn't a southern white male, or rabid political conservative) can find a damn thing on AM worth listening to. Radio is programming driven. Somebody's got to freakin' innovate!

I'm well under 50 and don't live in the south and happily listen to the offerings.  Yes, the most popular programming is conservative talk, but most of it isn't "rabid" - it's merely opinion.  Your blanket generalization of demos is not correct, by the way.  Yes, it skews a bit older and probably always will - but plenty of moms and dads in their 30s listen as well. 

This exaggeration of points of view that we don't agree with (i.e. "extreme right wing", "radical fascist", "communist", "racist") is not only inaccurate but it generates unnecessary anger toward the 'other' point of view that's unnecessary.   

[Mike Walker]

You know BRNout, you're absolutely right. And I aploogize! I'm just so frustrated with the state of AM. I KNOW there are successful stations, some of them around my area. And I KNOW conservative talk is a viable format. But sometimes it seems as if people believe that conservative talk, gospel, and spanish are the ONLY viable formats. THAT is what drives me nuts, not that conservative talk is out there. There's progressive talk as well (a couple of successful stations in NC, in fact). But neither right NOT left-wing talk is goint to get younger listeners. We MUST think outside the box. I LOVE the "oldest band", and want it not just to survive, but to THRIEVE again!

[HowardMBurgers]

I was actually thinking just the other day, that with the traditional golden-oldies formats flying off the FM dial supposedly because of the lack of interest by advertisers in the 50+ demographic, then why not go ahead and play oldies on AM?  Forget AM stereo, because no average consumer cares about it, plus from a techncial perspective, C-Quam is a pain in the a$$ to keep running well anyway.

The age group that appreciates that particular format of music, grew up on it playing via an over-processed mono AM station with reverb. Why not do them a favor and rekindle all those memories via the distorted airwaves again? 

I agree with Mike, how many grumpy political talk pundits can one tollerate?  Granted you won't make a killing financially, but us old guys can fade into the sunset with the music we grew up with, along with the AM band that made it possible.  It would truly be a cradle-to-the-grave scenario!

[Chuck]

I agree with Mike, how many grumpy political talk pundits can one tollerate?  Granted you won't make a killing financially, but us old guys can fade into the sunset with the music we grew up with, along with the AM band that made it possible.  It would truly be a cradle-to-the-grave scenario!

Well, I'm an "E."  And no I don't usually listen to AM radio.  Although it usually does sound dreadful, that is not why I don't listen to it.  It's because THERE IS NOTHING ON IT WORTH LISTENING TO.  And yes, that is on opinion.  Yours may vary, but I'll bet I'm not the only one who feels that way.

[BRNout]

You know BRNout, you're absolutely right. And I aploogize! I'm just so frustrated with the state of AM. I KNOW there are successful stations, some of them around my area. And I KNOW conservative talk is a viable format. But sometimes it seems as if people believe that conservative talk, gospel, and spanish are the ONLY viable formats. THAT is what drives me nuts, not that conservative talk is out there. There's progressive talk as well (a couple of successful stations in NC, in fact). But neither right NOT left-wing talk is goint to get younger listeners. We MUST think outside the box. I LOVE the "oldest band", and want it not just to survive, but to THRIEVE again!

Thanks Mike - you always seemed like a reasonable guy and I actually do see your point here.  There do need to be more choices out there in standard radio and it is far too homogenized for my taste as well.  Too much "bandwagon" thinking I suppose. 

[audioguy]

This is the first time I have read that it is difficult to keep CQUAM running. Why is it difficult? I would like to hear from those who have had operational experience. I am aware that the antenna system needs to present a satisfactory load to the transmitter over at least the full bandwidth of the channel, but that is also true for HD.

In my opinion, AM is not going away any time soon. It has many advantages, not the least of which is the huge number of receivers in the hands of the public.

Is stereo important? I think it is. Regardless of the type of programming, stereo is the norm. Who would buy a mono iPod, even if all they ever want to listen to is podcasts of talk programming? AM needs to have stereo capability in order to be competitive with other forms of audio entertainment.

Fundamentally, the most important thing is the programming... content is king! But that's an issue that the entire industry will have to address-- not just AM.