Re: AM stereo
- From: Richard Evans <R.P.Evans.NoSpam@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 17:39:36 GMT
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 16:59:21 GMT, "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab.is@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I found this article http://www.vintagebroadcasting.org.uk/amst.htm
I wonder how this system would have compared with DAB in terms of sound quality.
There's no point in using AM when you can use FM, because FM has something like a 20 dB SNR advantage over AM.
I appreciate that. But if you listen to the whole clip, the idea at the time was to provide stereo on stations that had to be on AM because the FM band in licensing terms at the time was full. I'm not suggesting a move to AM. I was just wondering how this system would have compared with DAB which to some extent fulfils the same function.
I would have thought it would be quite listen able, if you were able to get a good interference free signal.
I assume that it would carry the audio band up to about 3Khz. Like normal AM, but in stereo. And normal AM can sound OK if you get a good signal, it looses a fair bit of the treble, but at least it doesn't have the artefacts of DAB.
In the end, if I could get a good signal, I think I would personally find it more listen able than 128K DAB.
(obviously now somebody is going to tell me that DAB sounds better than MW, but that is just an opinion. My opinion is that AM sounds better than DAB if the signal is good)
- Re: AM stereo
- From: hwh
- Re: AM stereo
- Prev by Date: Re: DAB Broadcasting Equipment
- Next by Date: Re: DAB Broadcasting Equipment
- Previous by thread: Re: AM stereo
- Next by thread: Re: AM stereo