LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  March 2009

ARSCLIST March 2009

Subject:

Re: AM radio sound quality

From:

Mark Durnberger <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Mark Durnberger <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sat, 21 Mar 2009 10:09:36 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (76 lines)

Hi Tom.  The answer to your two questions depends on what is meant by "what 
happened"?

1.  If you're thinking about the fact that there's no apparent 'high end' in 
AM audio, that's about 99.99% due to the restrictions designed into today's 
radios.  Receiver 'bandwidth' has been deliberately narrowed, in an attempt 
to filter out the electrical noise and adjacent-station interference 
inherent in the AM radio band.

About 25 years ago the broadcast industry developed a pragmatic approach to 
the problem.  We recognized that, due to band crowding and the awesome rise 
of electrical interference, it was no longer possible to transmit "wideband" 
audio as had been done a generation earlier.  Any station that generated 
'flat, wide-band audio sounded "dull" on the new generation of AM radios 
because of their narrow filtering.

So the National Radio Systems Committee (NRSC) got behind a new AM 
"pre-emphasis" transmission standard, that reduced the very top frequencies, 
but provided an artifical 'boost' in the audio that would add more 
'presence'.  (Energy climbs toward 11 khz and then drops sharply.)  The idea 
was to encourage the receiver industry to build a radio that would track 
this new curve.  Failing that, the boosting of the apparent high-end audio 
would still sound better on the narrow radios that would a station without 
the boost.  Broadcast trade groups (NAB) pushed a new receiver standard 
("AMAX") but by then the manufacturers were no longer interested in what 
they considered a dying market.  Had the radio-makers responded, AM radio 
would sound very good, even in today's noise environment.

Today just about every AM station follows this pre-emphasis curve and, while 
it is a pragmatic solution, the subjective impression one gets from such 
audio...when heard on a decent AM receiver...is quite good.

2.  If you're talking about the lack of dynamics in audio and the overall 
"squashed" sound of many stations, broadcasters discovered that the harder 
and 'louder' they could make the signal, the better they could beat down the 
aforementioned noise problems.  New digital audio processors allow stations 
to really smash the audio to the point where it no longer sounds natural.

Ironically, due to the imperatives of AM digital and the investments in new 
antenna systems as stations do power upgrades, the actual audio from the 
towers is considerably better than it was a dacade or two ago.  But the 
rising noise and interference levels and the Physics behind AM broadcasting 
make it a far-from-perfect transmission medium.

And every time we screw in a new CFL bulb in a living room lamp, we add to 
the problem!

Good health to all!

Mark Durenberger


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tom Fine" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2009 9:27 AM
Subject: [ARSCLIST] AM radio sound quality


>I recently had in the studio some old AM radio aircheck tapes, circa late 
>60's and early 70's, covering several AM stations in metro NYC area. These 
>were half-track 7.5IPS tapes made on an old Ampex belt-drive consumer deck 
>from the early 60's, probably an "A" type model. I was told the tuner was a 
>Scott tube AM tuner from the 50's. These tapes sound GOOD, not full 
>fidelity but certainly more frequency range and much better clarity on 
>voices and musical instruments than modern AM I receive in my vehicles (I 
>don't have an AM tuner at home, perhaps there are still decent-fidelity 
>tuners made but I can't get any AM stations worth listening to witha a 
>clear signal in my neck of the woods). I also know from 
>point-of-origination and network-line sourced radio transcriptions that, 
>back in the day, there was the potential for very good sound quality headed 
>out to AM transmitters. So here's my question -- what happened to modern AM 
>sound? Is it the broadcast itself or modern AM radios?
>
> -- Tom Fine 

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager