Moderator Note
This thread is veering out of GQ territory. Let’s try to keep it on track, please.
I think there are still some GQ issues that can be discussed. If the thread continues to veer off course though I’ll have to close it.
Just a friendly mod node. No other actions taken.
You rather arbitrarily decided it was a tech-only issue, while establishing a politically dismissive attitude, then got bent out of shape when it was pointed out the article was 1% tech, 99% something-else-likely-political-maneuvering.
As long as you get the part of the answer you seek, blowing off more complete answers that actually address the larger question raised is bad form.
Even more fun is doing it with a rusty piece of steel, instead of galena…
A note about stereo AM. Back in the Reagan years, some AM station owners wanted to add stereo to the band in order to compete with FM. The FCC (remember, Reagan era) took a “let the market decide” approach. There were two main types and a couple others.
But the market didn’t decide. Radio makers didn’t want to support more than one type. Most radio stations didn’t want to commit $ adding it without radios that could receive it. Only a few stations did go stereo but in competing systems, of course.
It wasn’t until 1993 that the FCC finally picked C-QUAM as the AM stereo standard. By then it was too late. The boat had sailed. AM was dying.
As to the article. My issue is not with the tech but the logic. Save AM by going digital, adding FM repeaters? That could help the stations, but not saving “AM” as in “AM” which the board member touts as being readily available to so many people. Lots of weird start with one idea, jump to something incompatible stuff going on.
While it could be the article being convoluted, I wouldn’t put it past the board member playing bait-and-switch.
It all has that odor of “Oh, the poor AM station owners, losing money because mumble mumble we should do something to preserve their investment mumble.”
In 84’ or 85’ I won an AM Stereo portable radio in a Mall contest. This was in West Texas and I think they were using the area as a test bed. They had taken three or more AM Stations in the local area and done the conversion to Stereo, they apparently had to use multiple stations to cover the same broadcast area. The radio itself was a testament to the idea’s folly, FM sounded much better than AM Stereo, even though the AM was an improvement.
I do not know if AM is going away or not. Who else is going to broadcast the Farm Report in Western Kansas? I do think that market forces should be allowed to sort this out rather than a Politician with a possible agenda.
Capt
Well, if it came down to “the market” vs. some “pol with an agenda,” as any number of AM radio commenters would likely put it… I’d agree.
I suspect this has more to do with somehow “rescuing” or “protecting” the investment of the communications conglomerates than anything like “letting the market decide.” By and large, the market has decided… that AM is way below other broadcast options. This means billions in investments and potential billi-billions in spectrum rights are eroding, and the next move will be to change legislation and/or operating regulations to allow Clear Channel to keep making money or get out of the game with a windfall profit.
Instead of, you know, doing what most obsolete businesses do: liquidate and move on, without billion-dollar government welfare programs propping up their assets.
So I got curious and found out that the AM stereo station, I won the radio to listen to, is still there and broadcasting (In Stereo)
After some thought ans searching the intertubes, I don’t think AM radio is in trouble at all. According to this link(Bottom half of page) there are 38 AM stations in the Houston market with 34 of those less than 100mi away about half of the total stations listed.
http://radio-locator.com/cgi-bin/locate?select=city&city=houston
I am thinking there is nothing really wrong here at all.
Capt
[moderating]
Amateur Barbarian, you have ignored engineer_comp_geek’s instructions in three separate posts since he issued his mod note. When answering a question in GQ, you don’t get to redefine the question and attempt to start a pissing match. Either stay on the topic or stay out of the thread.
[/moderating]
This is worth expanding.
It is not just that the lower freqency range has more noise on it, due to the electronics (eg switch mode power supplies) operating at or near or the same frequency.
AM has very poor noise immunity.
When you receive two AM radio stations on the same frequency, you hear both !
Compare to FM :
When you receive two FM radio stations on the same frequency, at very close to the same intensity, you hear one or the other, with it flipping it between the two.
The FM system won’t even combine two radio stations together, let alone let non-radio station noise “In”.
The noise immunity problem is why the radio stations have to reduce power at night… so that people can listen to their local radio station … (Not the sum of all AM radio stations on the same frequency on the same continent.)
The question of digital comes up… when there is digital transmission in the AM band (it wouldn’t be AM when its digital, its just using the frequency labelled as for “AM” !), people listening to regular/old AM radio may hear the digital transmission combined in as static, due to the lack of noise immunity of AM !
Hence, digital radio is most likely some other frequency than the AM band…
It doesn’t matter, its not AM just because its in the AM band…
AM means sound transmitted in the envelope of a simple amplitude modulation.
Mum (“Mom” ? ) has AM radio on at the moment - mostly talk.
FTR, farmers were among the earliest adopters of home computers, in part to have commodity prices as instantly as Compuserve and a 300 Baud modem could handle it. I assume they have better tools today.
TRS-80 VIDEOTEX for a CoCo based terminal.
http://www.radioshackcatalogs.com/catalogs_extra/1983_trs80_agricultural_software_small/ for 70-some pages of ag software for the TRS-80 Models I, II, and III.
As for AM stereo - I did a quick search and was rather surprised to find an extensive list of US stations broadcasting in it, and yes, they still make receivers.
It should also be said that it’s not all sports and talk - music is still out there and easily found, much of it ethnic; and there’s also Radio Disney (in my area, Boston) on AM.
AM radio has survived long past its expiration date. In fact it was originally talk radio in the early 80s that saved it from near certain extinction back then and gave it a new lease on life. But that was nearly 30 years ago now. Almost all big talk radio hosts have moved to FM and podcasts.
I really don’t see any point in propping it up artificially just for nostalgia’s sake. It’s as obsolete as 8-tracks, vinyl records and SD analog TV (these all still exist, but are tiny niche products compared to the mainstream and will only get smaller). The free market is perfectly capable of fairly dictating its fate…
Does this nanotube radio offer any insight?
I don’t think so. The webpage refers to “Using carrier waves in the commercially relevant 40-400 MHz range”. “AM” (or, more precisely, mediumwave) radio operates in the 1 megahertz range.