.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Friday, January 27, 2006



"5 kHz audio equates to going back to the days when we used carbon microphones and mechanical oscillators."
Quoted from the article:
Now, I don't know who put wax in the ears of the proponents of 5 kHz bandwidth, and who talked them into the idea that the listener won't notice a difference; but I do notice a huge difference in the freshness of the highs on my AM stations when the highs are severely rolled back.
Besides, if listeners don't notice the audio quality at 5 kHz, why do they notice the difference in FM audio? Why do they notice that CDs sound better than FM? Could it be that high frequencies in the audio create interference patterns in the lower frequencies, making the audio more "hi-fi"?
Based upon the logic of several proponents I've heard, maybe those stations experiencing the interference should roll back their highs. But most of the rural stations, especially Class As, are still doing fine with NRSC at 10 kHz (upper and lower sidebands). And our listeners do notice. I've heard it straight from their mouths.
I am proud of a full-throated sound of my AM stations and intend to keep it that way as long as possible. And if technology supplants analog service, I welcome the day. But until everybody can make up their cotton-picking mind how it's going to be done, please don't trash a service that's already struggling with its identity.
Here is the link to the full article:

Comments: Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?