As high volume in both multiplexers and receivers is critical to being truly inexpensive and widely adopted (worth the investment), this doesn't seem to me to be a reasonable assertion. Since C-QAM was finally mandated by the FCC in 1993, it doesn't matter how it compares to the other standards.It is cheap(er) to implement for the station when compared to IBOC.
Don't the alternatives typically sound better?It sounds good?
FM stereo, Internet streaming, satellite radio, FLAC. The neat part is these technologies are already fully implemented and widely available.Describe the alternatives
But you know nowadays,if it requires any more effort than just clicking on it,it's, it's, just too hard.Okay, Judge Carlyle stepping in here. As owner/operator of an AM STATION, and one in STEREO, I am uniquely qualified for this one.
AM is doing FINE when not shoved aside by large corporate interests. It's alive and well in many towns, making many people a living. It's the topic of a huge plan at the FCC called "AM revitalization, docket number 13-249 which you should all be reading and digesting, and asking question-of if you want to go wild on a topic like this.....and AM ain't going nowhere.
Now, to the technical: YES, cquam is available. Many transmitters have it. There's a major player in the AM antenna design field who will be bringing to market wideband stereo receivers within a year or less if their plan goes well, and YES, it sounds better. You get an (averaged) 10khz bandwidth on any AM station properly widened to it's NRSC allowance for occupation of the band. Add stereo, and you're TWICE the analog product leftover when AM IBOC is running, and on IBOC stations, the compression of the remaining AM and many receivers' inability to bounce between analog and HYBRID DIGITAL (it is not "HD" as in television, by the way, it's HYBRID DIGITAL) causes issues. So yes, continue cheering for AM, and for Cquam, it's always an option, and probably on it's way back...slowly but surely. Most corporate AMs have pulled the plug on HD-AM.
PROGRAMMING drives all audio media. Make the content good, people follow: AM, FM, podcasting, streaming, whatever.
I get damn sick of the insults to AM from those who are not working in it. People still buy CD's, even albums, and every media that has come out to compete in a different format has heard the naysayers proclaim, "(AM) Radio is dying. It hasn't and it isn't, nor will it be auctioned-off by the FCC for their money making machine, because it's at it's "highest and best use" now!
Unplug your noisy switching adapters and CFL's that make interference in your home, buy a radio that's NOT from WalMart, (spend a little....you get what you pay for....)..... doesn't say COBY or another cheap-donkey make, and start tuning the band. There's some pretty cool stuff out there. We are indeed, "wildly popular" with people who have local owners and program directors who care.
Oh, and for GREAT sounding AM, even at night, try the WION live stream. Info is on the thread dedicated to our station on Satguys. We send you REAL AM STEREO 24/7 from a tuner on the desk in my office.
Over and out.
So that's what you recommend giving the granddaughter for her birthday? Very few of them do stereo.BTW, any good secondhand radio still in decent shape from a garage sale or thrift shop will outperform modern junk, and is much less cost than you quote. I stock 'em for clients, and have given 'em out for years.
My daily driver is 65% aluminum panels and the metal is so thin that it would surely pucker when trying to support even a simple fixed whip. Other cars have large non-metallic panels that would support neither a magnetic nor a fender mount without causing the bodywork (and/or coatings) to fatigue and crack. The "cage" is strong, but the skin is awfully thin.I think most people here would take issue with your thinking that the structure of a vehicle no longer "supports" an antenna, yet we safely ride in them and they go through rollover and crash testing.
You seem compelled to summarize and characterize what I've said in a somewhat dismissive way. It isn't as if you have offered lots of hard numbers, web links and widely recognized industry research data to back up your claims.You have a tendency to read things IN to people's writing and post generalities without supporting data or experience.