RFB caused me to think of a very interesting difference between one internet streaming radio station and another.
RFB caused me to think of a very interesting difference between one internet streaming radio station and another.
In whatever blog he posted on, I cannot remember for sure, RFB said he would be streaming the AM Stereo from his C-QUAM system.
In other words, the output of a radio receiver, tuned to a C-QUAM broadcast, would be streaming on the internet.
That is a whole different thing from streaming directly from a computer.
By his method, you would actually be tuned into an AM radio located in Casper, Wyoming.
Even being a mere mono station, I think it would be super cool if my internet stream came from a radio tuned to my AM signal, rather than from a direct computer connection.
At the moment when the sign off was broadcast, the listener would hear the carrier being cut, and the AM background noise arise. Just like life. Just like the true spirit of this radio thing.
Let’s give this some thought.
rlkocher says
Oh BARF!!
One of the beautiful things about streaming on the internet today, is how we can get around the low fidelity, static-proneness, and usually the lack of strereo of AM, while still listening to an AM radio station.
Feed a stream with an AM radio? That’s like buying a top-of-the-line stereo system for your living room, so you can listen to Thomas Edison’s wax cylinders! I would never do it. And I would never listen to such a stream. There are too many other great sounding options.
RFB says
No Idea
“Feed a stream with an AM radio? That’s like buying a top-of-the-line stereo system for your living room, so you can listen to Thomas Edison’s wax cylinders! I would never do it. And I would never listen to such a stream. There are too many other great sounding options.”
You absolutely have no idea what AM stereo sounds like do you.
Have you ever heard a wide band 10khz AM C-QUAM signal before on a REAL wide band 10Khz IF receiver?
And if you actually did, you wouldn’t have said any of what you stated in your response.
What you mistake is that Sony ST-JX220A receiver as being just some narrow 4.5Khz IF bandwidth single speaker AM radio.
Perhaps a unit you never heard of, or even heard.
Well you will be the first to be specially invited to tune in when it’s announced that it is online, then I also invite you back here after you tune in and hear it for any second thoughts.
Unless you refuse to tune in and actually hear an AM C-QUAM stereo signal over a 128kps 44.1khz stereo mp3 stream that of itself surpasses FM.
Adding: But you know what, even if someone fed a regular mono AM receiver’s line outputs into a stream encoder for the web, that IS letting the world tune in to a radio which is tuned to an actual over the air station via an RF link.
And maybe a Part 15 station that also has a web stream should feed their station’s received signal over the web instead of directly from the computer.
Quite significant IMO.
Radio has a distinctive sound to it, doesn’t matter if it’s AM, AM C-QUAM, FM, FM stereo or SW or LW. Listening to audio via the process of modulating a carrier signal sending that modulation across some distance to a receiver feeding the demodulated signal in audio form out a pair of line level jacks or an amplifier. Kin to the difference between listening to a digital reproduction versus an analog reproduction.
And analog has and still can kick some serious butt.
Kin to the still king vacuum tube vs a semiconductor.
RFB
radio8z says
AM Audio and Streaming
To me the modern world of AM radio is an audio mess and the audio performance is junk but this is not inherent in AM technology rather it is caused by applying equalization curves and heavy compression and IBOC noise.
My AM transmitter is flat to within 2 dB for audio from 20 Hz to 16 kHz and when received with an old tube type receiver with wide IF and audio bandwidth the audio is certainly “hi-fi”.
It is no doubt a matter of personal preference but I would much rather listen to my signal than streamed audio (even stereo) which is constrained by the sampling rate. I know great audio can be streamed but it rarely is in my experience. It works OK for voice but I can hear artifacts with streamed music.
But, as with many things in life, interests and personal preferences would determine if one wants to listen to streamed signals as Carl suggested. Maybe I am “stuck in the ’50s again” but I like the sound of good AM audio.
Neil
Carl Blare says
Perception is 9-tenths
Neil, you triggered a memory from some time back about an opinion I thought of holding regarding the quality of a fine AM mono radio.
I wasn’t listening to AM at the time I had the thought, in fact I was listening to “All Things Dismembered” on NPR and wondered why I wasn’t pleased with the perfect crisp sibilant voices that sounded like they were “in the room.” This is odd. I was annoyed because it sounded “too good”. It did not sound like radio, it sounded like I had an equalized 15kHz pair of telco lines.
I want that “radio sound”, and you only get it with AM and shortwave.
It has the sense of distance, coming from miles away, coming through the atmosphere with all it’s traffic.
Of course I am talking about speech. Music is something different.
With FM stereo, and now thanks to RFB with AM stereo, music sounds so real that you might accidentally trip over the drum set.
RFB says
Now Online
“I want that “radio sound”, and you only get it with AM and shortwave.”
The permanent AM Stereo receiver is now feeding the received AM C-QUAM stereo signal out on the web!
Listen Links.
RFB
RFB says
Wide Floodgate
“the audio performance is junk but this is not inherent in AM technology rather it is caused by applying equalization curves and heavy compression and IBOC noise.”
Yep, would have been better had the receiver manufacturers would simply have made better AM radios. So now the broadcaster has to literally shove tin can sound with -80dB notch curve sillyness at 4.5khz trying to “make it sound better”.
BAAAAHAHAHAHA!! If that is their idea of better sounding AM them big boys got A LOT to learn.
RFB
rlkocher says
Barf Revisted
Yes I’ve heard good AM stereo and I would have no problem with a steam being fed by a top of the line receiver. (like the C-Quam)
My comment was meant to discourage feeding an internet stream with a TYPICAL am radio like most “Joe Blow Publics” own, just because it sounds more like typical AM radio. There’s a station in my area that does this….and I repeat…..BARF!!!
And yes, sometimes streaming even with a high quality audio feed will not sound great to the end user, usually because of a low streaming byte rate. All internet broadcasters need to strive for the best possible quality both in the audio source and in the streaming itself. It sounds wonderful when it’s done right. But in MOST CASES, doing it right does not include an AM radio for the source. There are exceptions, and a good C-Quam system is one of them. If you can create a good quality stream with AM as your source, Go for it! Sure I’ll listen to it. I know it can be done.
RFB says
The Plan
” If you can create a good quality stream with AM as your source, Go for it! Sure I’ll listen to it. I know it can be done.”
That’s the plan. The receiver that will be used full time to feed the stream encoder is a Sony ST-JX220A, one of Sony’s top of the line AM stereo receivers of the time.
It’s only drawback is that stock, it cannot tune the expanded AM band. By “tricking” the micro into adding another 200Khz to it’s tuning programing, a flip of a switch is all it takes for 770 on the display to actually tune to 1670.
The receiver has 10Khz bandwidth filters that are incredibly sharp at their cutoff, producing a very high frequency response curve in the audio. This also increases the stereo separation.
I will be doing more tests over the next few days using the Sony SRF-42 receiver. That unit stock has the expanded AM band and it also has the AMAX specification. But to me, the ST-JX220A has a richer and wider stereo field reproduction than the SRF-42.
RFB