[BC] HD AM radio versus AM Stereo

[DANA PUOPOLO]

The irony is that the system initially selected by the FCC (Magnavox) wasn't
so bad! If the (stupid) broadcasters had just said "OK" and implimented it, AM
music radio would likely be in much better shape then it is today.

Once again we shot off our own feet!

-D



------ Original Message ------
Received: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 02:06:01 PM PST
From: Robert Meuser <Robertm at broadcast.net>
To: Broadcast Radio Mailing List <broadcast at radiolists.net>
Subject: Re: [BC] HD AM radio versus AM Stereo

WFIFeng at aol.com wrote:

>Exactly. I think Kahn's system was by far the superior system, but the $ did

>the talking, not the engineers. The big $ manufacturer had more $ to throw 
>around than Kahn did, so that's why the technically inferior system won.
Sound 
>familiar? (IBUZ vs DRE/DRM)
>  
>
I beg to differ. You must have never worked with the 'system'. First it 
was not a system as there was no matching receiver, second you could not 
have his generator create the correct wave and be loud at the same time. 
If you got loud, you ran the risk of generating too much spectrum and 
corrupting the ISB signal. Motorola was not the best system either. The 
problem with both was the then necessary need to be fully compatible 
with existing receivers. The FCC later gave up on that requirement. The 
best system would have been Harris in full quadrature mode (they also 
had $$ as did the Magnavox people). A lot of engineers were initially 
fooled by Kahn a number leared to know better.

_______________________________________________
This is the BROADCAST mailing list
To send to the list, email: broadcast at radiolists.net
For sub changes, archives and info on this other lists:
http://www.radiolists.net/