A while back, I asked you and others to go to my website (socalradiowaves.com) and take part in a listening poll, comparing the sound quality of some recordings made while KNX was still simulcasting its news format on its AM (1070) and FM (97.1) signals.
I did this for a few reasons, primarily the knowledge that radios are often the primary reason AM stations sound so bad, due to manufacturers taking the easy way out and using designs that limit frequency response rather than incorporating more modern methods of limiting interference inherent to the band, such as digital noise blanking.
The comparison is interesting, as KNX-FM never broadcast in stereo — I am assuming the studio was never wired that way, though KNX (AM) was once a stereo facility — and the processing on the FM always seemed a bit underwhelming, as if the engineers actually cared more about the AM signal than the FM. Many times, even on a cheap radio, I thought the AM sounded slightly more pleasant than the FM.
I recorded the audio using the same tuner, a Carver TX-11b, released in 1989, during the height of popularity of analog AM stereo. The design was such that AM is technically capable of higher fidelity reception than FM, due to “multiplex” FM stereo’s design limiting the high end of the audio spectrum to 15 kHz, and AM allowed to extend to 20 kHz. This tuner has an AM reception specification all the way to 20 kHz! In reality, AM stations rarely extended that far up, and an “AM improvement” specification by the National Radio Systems Committee (NRSC), enforced by the FCC beginning in 1989, brought the AM bandwidth down to a maximum of 10 kHz to reduce interference.
But the AM band can still sound phenomenal on tuners like this, and the FM section is likewise spectacular. So I posted the recordings and kept track of votes for which sounded better, which do you think is AM vs FM, and asked for comments. My main purpose was not to say that AM would necessarily sound better than FM, but could compete if done right.
The poll is drastically unscientific. If you know statistics, there is a major bias right off the bat called “voluntary response bias,” in which people with strong positive or negative feelings are more likely to take part, missing the opinions of those more moderate. There are other biases in play as well, in addition to the fact that I only had a total of 52 people take part.
But I do think the results are still interesting. Rounding off, so the total may go above 100%, fully 37% thought the AM sample sounded better, with 21% having no preference. Less than half — 42% — thought the FM sample sounded better.
Similarly, 37% thought that the AM sample was actually recorded off the FM tuner, and 8% could not tell which was which. The majority this time — 56% — did correctly determine that the FM sample was indeed recorded off the FM tuner. But this does demonstrate that AM can indeed compete in the area of sound quality.
To answer a question that came up on RadioDiscussions.com, the pre-emphasis” was correctly set; one comment questioned that, as choosing the wrong setting can cause AM signals to sound “brighter” than normal. Pre-emphasis is used to try to boost higher audio frequencies on cheaper radios, though its success in doing so is questionable.
What would prevent you from listening to AM radio stations? Sound quality (17%) and reception issues (23%) — both of which could be taken care of through good tuner designs — trailed the elephant in the room: fully 29% said it is the programming keeping them away. That is huge, and demonstrates that AM’s decline is often a self-inflicted wound.
What formats would you like? Music dominated the responses: top-40, oldies, country, “varieties of music beyond rock, oldies and country,” alternative, metal, progressive rock, classic rock, modern rock, jazz … many of these choices pointed out that younger people would give AM a chance if they found their musical home. Other formats mentioned include balanced political talk, non-political talk, and sports, with an emphasis on local teams.
I liken it to the days when AM radio dominated, and FM stations were searching for something, anything, that would find listeners. That experimentation led to an eventual dominance of the FM band, until the band got so successful that many stations became afraid to take chances at the risk of losing what they had.
To be frank, I am not expecting AM to ever become dominant again. And I realize my opinion is the polar opposite of most. But most AM stations in town are at the very bottom of the ratings, earning in some cases ratings as low as 0.1 … or lower. In some cities, and it will happen here eventually, owners are turning off the transmitter and turning in the license because they can’t make money. Would it really hurt for a station — barely surviving and with low ratings — to at least take a chance on a format that isn’t done anywhere else? Or to do it better due to having more freedom and nothing to lose? It doesn’t have to be expensive — early FMs were run on shoestrings.
And to further make my point, the last time our local frequencies of 570, 690, 710, 1150, 1190, 1230, 1480, and 1580 had decent ratings, they played music. Just sayin’. Same with 930 and 1110, though they are now religious and supported by listener donations. I still have dreams of bringing back KHJ (930 AM) as a top-40 station, though …
Richard Wagoner is a San Pedro freelance columnist covering radio in Southern California. Email rwagoner@socalradiowaves.com.