And I've got enough music in the house to keep me pacified till I drop dead.
Cd's, records 33/45, tapes RTR/Cass, music from the 1920's up to the 2000's.
FM/AM is mainly an extra source that I choose to use for news, maybe an FM station for background noise in the house.
And a handy little FM Stereo transmitter hooked up to the desktop/MP3 library for music that I stole from the internet since the Napster days.
Cd's, records 33/45, tapes RTR/Cass, music from the 1920's up to the 2000's.
FM/AM is mainly an extra source that I choose to use for news, maybe an FM station for background noise in the house.
And a handy little FM Stereo transmitter hooked up to the desktop/MP3 library for music that I stole from the internet since the Napster days.
Correct. But selling "more" and achieving a significant audience share are two very different things. Perhaps you have not been exposed to how radio works as a business from the service side. It's all about audience numbers. Simplistically, the more listeners you have the more you can charge per unit ad time. The more you charge per unit ad time, the more income you make, and the more viable the station becomes. It's a bit more involved, but that's it simplified.
Never said that. Please read my posts more carefully.
FM broadcasting, stereo or otherwise, did not have a significant audience share until popular music moved to FM, which did not happen until the 1970s, and FM did not generally eclipse AM stations in audience share and become fully successful until the 1980s, with a very few notable exceptions.
If you're going to complain about my statements not being accurate, then I guess you must have assigned some degree of importance to accuracy. Unless it's just a one-way assignment...like it's ok for you to be sloppy but you can rip apart anyone else who you think is inaccurate. Do I have that right, or is it something else?
We can stop any time you're ready.
Sorry, my mistake.
I've always based my way of thinking on being sensible about things.
Stereo, when it arrived on the scene, was a major enhancement to sonic pleasure.
And people loved it.
But when Quad came out, I saw it as a gimmick, and a method to gain more money from consumers - not to mention the added hassles of adding more components to an already fine stereo setup.
The adapters, extra speakers, etc...... AND the confusion to the average person about what and which format to use (SQ, Direct, CD, Matrix, etc etc.... that funky extra knob on components blew a lot of people's minds.
And being in sales at the time, I had the chance to audition some of the best Quad equipment.
To my well-trained ears, it didn't live up to its hype or added costs.
Surround sound was better off used in theaters anyway.
So when customers came in, I steered them to good old Two Channel equipment, stating that "two speakers are all you'd need for satisfying sound".
Quad was "a good try", but that's it.
I'm glad it never lasted.
Even today, those HT receivers don't do music well, other than producing goofy soundstages with no real focus.
Everyone seems to gravitate back to two channels when doing serious music listening.
I get it......‘if its free (or stolen) it’s for me!’ 😀
I don’t mind paying for a service that has value to me.....and by value I mean brings enjoyment.
To each his own.
It's 50KW on an island. Long ago I heard 880-NYC on the coast in downeast Maine, a 9 hour drive away; but only parked on a southwest facing shore far from power lines. South Carolina is a very good haul, even if not through the New England mountains.
The FCC docs say WCBS has one tower, so would be omni, except it gets massive reach over salt-water more to the south than the north.
WCBS - AM Station Profile - FCC Public Inspection Files
EDIT- the last construction permit claims 35kW day 26kW night.
CDBS Print
Last edited:
When a BBC engineer in about '72, my next door neighbour got an invite to a demo of quad sound in London, and he, not wanting to go, gave me the ticket.
I went, and surprised, it was being run by a BBC programme staff member whom I knew. We, a group of about 20, compared the systems; SQ, QS, CD4 and maybe others.
I was not very impressed and stated that I would stick with my stereo. This was all published in "Audio" magazine, I still have a copy.
There is the danger wiseoldtech that we recede and recline into music that we knew and grew up with, and hence are not exposed to any really good new creativity.
I remember well just how exciting it was from about '70 and onwards, the buzz of really incisive statements in songs, and the sense of revolutionary thoughts, each provoking another from another group.
But I feel we are in a malaise of manufactured mundaneity, reactionary capitalist forces precluding any hereticism, this started with 'groupthink' sellers like Stock, Aitken and Waterman; Macdonalds and candy floss.
The people running the major labels are not inclined to allow artistic freedom to the writers, for financial reasons.
I went, and surprised, it was being run by a BBC programme staff member whom I knew. We, a group of about 20, compared the systems; SQ, QS, CD4 and maybe others.
I was not very impressed and stated that I would stick with my stereo. This was all published in "Audio" magazine, I still have a copy.
There is the danger wiseoldtech that we recede and recline into music that we knew and grew up with, and hence are not exposed to any really good new creativity.
I remember well just how exciting it was from about '70 and onwards, the buzz of really incisive statements in songs, and the sense of revolutionary thoughts, each provoking another from another group.
But I feel we are in a malaise of manufactured mundaneity, reactionary capitalist forces precluding any hereticism, this started with 'groupthink' sellers like Stock, Aitken and Waterman; Macdonalds and candy floss.
The people running the major labels are not inclined to allow artistic freedom to the writers, for financial reasons.
North American broadcasters usually work hard to optimize their coverage and don't make any money from the sale of radios. Thanks to 'free the market to decide' Reagan, unlike AM, FM, NTSC, etc. licensing the HD protocol in North American instead obligates stations to a revenue sharing agreement with the technology IP holder. Most adopt HD because a competitor did it or to provide another option for listeners of their AM stations. This is particularly the case in large urban centres blanketed with AM interference.
Regarding sound quality, blame CBS: Audimax and Volumax. Once programmers heard their station louder than the competition the genie was out of the bottle. Ironically highly dense processing with left-right spatial enhancements makes the signal more prone to multi-path. Yes, the industry really is that dumb.
The gradual, generation by generation "dumbing down" process makes it easy for the stations to slip in audio quality over time.
The harsh compression, volume enhancements, sound simply wonderful to (new) people with cheap systems and trained to hear from earbuds.
Of course, the cry of "it's technology" is the feeble argument for all this.
But try to convince old codgers like me that have known what good FM/radio reception was like, and someone is likely to crack back saying my old ears are the culprit.
Funny, but my test equipment says differently. 😎
The harsh compression, volume enhancements, sound simply wonderful to (new) people with cheap systems and trained to hear from earbuds.
Of course, the cry of "it's technology" is the feeble argument for all this.
But try to convince old codgers like me that have known what good FM/radio reception was like, and someone is likely to crack back saying my old ears are the culprit.
Funny, but my test equipment says differently. 😎
Please allow me to shed some actual inside-the-industry light on this.
The reason that FM audio has gotten worse is that audio processing has increased over the years. The reason processing has increased is that there is (and has been) a loudness war among stations. That war is simple: those in charge of maintaining or increasing station listenership (ratings), and are responsible for content, eventually have difficulty meeting the demand for higher performance numbers. They inevitably point fingers at things outside of their immediate control, and how "loud" their station is on the dial relative to others causes problems in perceived prominence. It's very definitely an ego-related thing. The desire to be the "big dog". And loudness is the most obvious parameter. It's a real problem to not produce the numbers AND not be as loud as another station.
So, fingers get pointed at processing. Processing becomes more aggressive, dynamic range is reduced, bass is cranked up, distortion, either deliberate or as a by-product of aggressive processing, rises. It's long been proven that people will not pick a station on the dial because it's loud, they pick it because of its content, usually in spite of audio quality of all kinds. The proof is right in front of the programmer asking for a louder signal: the ratings book. There is zero correlation, outside of the rare incidental, that loudness or audio quality is a factor in ratings. I've been in countless meetings arguing this point, but gave up decades ago because, in the end, if you're directed to turn it up, you turn it up.
But, what would you do? Concede to being not as loud as the other guy down the dial? No, you wouldn't. And they don't.
The war has gone on for 7 decades, and has only escalated as technology advanced. The tools have become very sophisticated and complex, and yes, some better. But in the end loudness and high quality ( as defined by less distortion, cleaner sound, more dynamics, etc.) are opposite vectors. You MUST give one up to advance the other, no matter what marketing says.
Loud wins, at the expense of clean.
It's not "dumbing down" at all, it's an emotional, furious war fought by programmers trying to keep their jobs.
No, it does not. The above always sounds worse on any system. And, if presented with two versions, one highly processed, one not, but both adjusted for equal apparent loudness, less processed always wins. The problem is you can't adjust for equal apparent loudness. And louder wins.
However, since much contemporary music is already highly processed, the young listener is to some extent conditioned to accept that as normal. But it won't matter what system they listen to, the normal will still be whatever they have heard the most.
Earbuds are actually pretty revealing of processing artifacts.
In a comparison of two signals, louder is always preferred.
You certainly knew this in your days of demoing stereo systems. If you want to sell a particular one, play it just a bit louder. Old, old trick.
No idea what that cry means, but "technology" has never been anything more than a tool. It either produces a desired result, or it doesn't. The desire of the one in charge of the tool may well differ from that of our own.
Your ears are just fine.
Funny, but one thing you can't really measure with test equipment is the damage caused by processing, past the obvious DR reduction. You can't measure distortion of a complex waveform. So, your ears win, hands down. Until you have sustained significant hearing loss, you're going to remain a pretty darn good judge of FM audio quality. Especially with years of experience.
(That's meant to be a compliment.)
Even with 55dB of HF loss (at threshold!) I can clearly hear the differences in the local FM stations.
In defiance of the opinions here, the clearest least stomped on signals are the hands-off stations. Nobody home. They upload a playlist to an internet server and get back a digital stream of commercials and tracks and jingle-IDs to put in their transmitter. I don't know if the service pre-processes or if they have the evil boxes in the rack.
Disappointing is the one station with "hip" live DJs and often actual CDs, even LPs. It's kinda mushy in a way I have not really studied. Thinking, it may be that their 1960 modulator still "works" and they can't afford to replace it until it dies.
There is another live-show FM 'community' station but it is too eclectic, and weak, for me. The few times I dialed across it, it was unexceptional, except clearly lower modulation than commercial stations. And the strangest programs.
Not a surprise at all. A great many differences in processing are easily heard mid-band.
Well, that's not usually how it's done, it's all in-house, but the entire thing can be played from a single PC. I don't know any station doing it that way, though certainly possible, even likely that it happens. But the basic radio software is cheap-cheap. A good many stations may be programmed remotely, but the actual play-out would be local.
Have to have a local processor for accurate peak modulation control. Remember, the difference between 100% mod and 101% mod is less than .1dB.
I'd probably guess more like 1980s. Everything from the 1960s was unstable and expensive to maintain. The mushy sound wouldn't be the modulator (modulated oscillator), those things are perfectly flat for 0-100kHz, by necessity and design, even going back to the 1960s. There are so many other possibilities to mush up audio up stream.
Actual modulation peaks are probably no lower than any other, but they probably can't afford $10K or equiv in audio processing. The cheap broadcast processors cannot maintain the same level of average modulation as the big ones without sounding really rough. But all must control peaks at 100%. Average mod translates directly to loudness. Some very loud stations have a peak to average ratio of just a few dB, but peaks still can't go past 100%.
It could also be a choice to be more dynamic. Since peaks are fixed, dynamics are obtained by lowering the average.
Anyone that truly has an interest in FM listening needs to actually just give it a try and see what's available in their area. The problem here is that, with the poor level of decent broadcasters, sometimes finding the equipment needed to find a good station..better tuner, more expensive antenna..becomes discouraging. And that's completely understandable. If one lives within 50 or so miles of any decent size metro area, your chances of finding stations that feature a better quality signal are greater. Some of this depends on the station's programming and it's priorities. But if you don't search, you'll never know. I'm feeling lucky with two PBS based stations...one that's 24/7 classical and the other features a mix of rock, blues, vintage, folk, and a little "proper" country, with some emphasis on bands that are from the region. Both are publicly supported. Audio quality for both is excellent, with lower compression than others that I can receive...my tuner has a deviation meter and it's pretty clear who has things cranked up. The other occasional gems are college stations...they often don't have the money to purchase complicated audio processing gear. But the programming can be very erratic. The bottom line for me is that I spend more time listening to to FM than my CD collection. And yes, I support both stations.
I also spend more time on FM than CDs, and this afternoon listened to Johnny Walker.
What was apparent was variation in vocal quality of tracks, and the better quality of JW, (R2) speech, so I wonder if there is something wrong with his equipment which is mic. doesn't suffer.
What was apparent was variation in vocal quality of tracks, and the better quality of JW, (R2) speech, so I wonder if there is something wrong with his equipment which is mic. doesn't suffer.