klopfens@bgsuvax.UUCP (Bruce Klopfenstein) (04/25/89)
While it is true that an AM stereo radio was possible which would receive any of the competing AM stereo systems, my understanding is that such receivers would have cost at least $200 (I can check the NTIA report--one of them--to se for sure). Since the general public (especially audiophiles) are not into AM radio anyway, how realistic would it be for them to spend that amount of money for an AM radio? The FCC's decision *not* to set a standard set up the classic chicken- and-egg scenario: radio stations were reluctant to install a system that might be made obsolete and receiver manufacturers were unwilling to market AM stereo receivers until there were some "critical mass" of AM stereo stations operating. I don't know how it can be argued that AM stereo wouldn't make a difference. We just don't know. Too few people ever 1) had access to AM stereo in their markets and 2) had a receiver that would pick up the appropriate signal. -- Dr. Bruce C. Klopfenstein | klopfens@andy.bgsu.edu Radio-TV-Film Department | klopfenstein@bgsuopie.bitnet Bowling Green $tate University | klopfens@bgsuvax.UUCP Bowling Green, OH 43403 | (419) 372-2138; 352-4818
dya@unccvax.UUCP (York David Anthony @ WKTD, Wilmington, NC) (04/25/89)
In article <4058@bgsuvax.UUCP>, klopfens@bgsuvax.UUCP (Bruce Klopfenstein) writes: > While it is true that an AM stereo radio was possible which would > receive any of the competing AM stereo systems, my understanding is > that such receivers would have cost at least $200 (I can check the > NTIA report--one of them--to se for sure). Since the general public > (especially audiophiles) are not into AM radio anyway, how realistic > would it be for them to spend that amount of money for an AM radio? This is pure hogwash (the price, that is). I have both the Sony SRF-A100 (the multimode table radio, AM-FM, $59.95) and the Sony XR33-A (the multimode car stereo, AM-FM-stereo cassette, about $140). Both are wideband. No one seems to have a problem turning out C-QUAM receivers by the zillions, and you can buy (from Leonard Kahn, no less) a retrofit board which converts the Motorola C-QUAM chip into multimode. It is important to note that the C-QUAM chip is the subject of ongoing litigation between Kahn and Motorola (patent infringment, among other things). The **incremental cost** for stereo is very low, since you have to provide the same front end that you do for mono. In point of fact, the C-QUAM decoder provides envelope detection for monaural which you had to have anyway. (Actually, synchronous detection is much better for the sum channel/monaural, another strike against C-QUAM). As for suitable wideband IF amplifiers (where the locus of the AM problem really resides) suitable monolithic ceramic filters cost pennies in quantity. I keep getting these rent-a-cars with wideband IF amps (Toyota, Lincoln, Cadillac) so the inclusion must not be terribly expensive. Let's move this out of rec.ham-radio, BTW..... York David Anthony WKTD Wilmington, NC
rfc@briar.philips.com (Robert Casey;6282;3.57;$0201) (04/26/89)
I'm probably the only listener in the NYC area [ :-) ] who owns a stereo AM radio. But there's nothing worth listening to (no music to speak of, I mean any music, trying not to make my musical tastes enter the picture). There's a all news station that is in stereo, but what's the point of that? Also, the interference (powerline crud from florescent lights, etc) makes FM more attractive. In Australia, they seem to have a more healthy AM industry, maybe because they did pick a standard (maybe a bad choice, but it *was* a choice) and they did it before thier AM started to die. There was powerline crud there, but not as bad isain USA.