Hey all,


I have hooked up my boom box to my "line in" in my computer, and then
use a song file recorder/editor to record the music as wav directly to
the hard disc.

The songs sound very close to the way they do when played from a cd,
and I don't have the heart yet to tell a couple friends that the cds I
made for them were burnt with songs recorded this way from the radio,
not downloaded or ripped from cd.

However, I would like to know if radio-source songs can be re-processed
with equalizers, to remove or hide that slightly "distant" sound that
radio-recorded songs have, and maybe make it sound more like it came
directly from a cd...?

So far, after a long night of loudness, and playing with midranges, the
best sound yet seems to be merely increasing the gain to just below the
level of buzzing. But that slightly "distant" sound is still there.

I was thinking maybe the distance effect is just the stereo signal the
song came through, and perhaps mixing the radio wav file down to mono
(with a few other boosts) will make the song sound more like it came
straight off a cd?

thanks in advance for your answer and any other options you may know
of.

eqd

"equalizing songz," wrote in message
oups.com...
Hey all,


I have hooked up my boom box to my "line in" in my computer, and then
use a song file recorder/editor to record the music as wav directly to
the hard disc.

The songs sound very close to the way they do when played from a cd,
and I don't have the heart yet to tell a couple friends that the cds I
made for them were burnt with songs recorded this way from the radio,
not downloaded or ripped from cd.

However, I would like to know if radio-source songs can be
re-processed
with equalizers, to remove or hide that slightly "distant" sound that
radio-recorded songs have, and maybe make it sound more like it came
directly from a cd...?

So far, after a long night of loudness, and playing with midranges,
the
best sound yet seems to be merely increasing the gain to just below
the
level of buzzing. But that slightly "distant" sound is still there.

I was thinking maybe the distance effect is just the stereo signal the
song came through, and perhaps mixing the radio wav file down to mono
(with a few other boosts) will make the song sound more like it came
straight off a cd?

thanks in advance for your answer and any other options you may know
of.

Once it has gone through the processing most radio stations
inflict on the signal, it is pretty unlikely that you can really
reverse it.

"equalizing songz," wrote in message
oups.com...
I have hooked up my boom box to my "line in" in my computer, and then
use a song file recorder/editor to record the music as wav directly to
the hard disc.

The songs sound very close to the way they do when played from a cd,
and I don't have the heart yet to tell a couple friends that the cds I
made for them were burnt with songs recorded this way from the radio,
not downloaded or ripped from cd.

No need to worry, they would have found out for themselves the first time
they played them, assuming they are not stone deaf.

MrT.

"equalizing songz," wrote in message
oups.com...
Hey all,


I have hooked up my boom box to my "line in" in my computer, and then
use a song file recorder/editor to record the music as wav directly to
the hard disc.

The songs sound very close to the way they do when played from a cd,
and I don't have the heart yet to tell a couple friends that the cds I
made for them were burnt with songs recorded this way from the radio,
not downloaded or ripped from cd.

However, I would like to know if radio-source songs can be re-processed
with equalizers, to remove or hide that slightly "distant" sound that
radio-recorded songs have, and maybe make it sound more like it came
directly from a cd...?

So far, after a long night of loudness, and playing with midranges, the
best sound yet seems to be merely increasing the gain to just below the
level of buzzing. But that slightly "distant" sound is still there.

I was thinking maybe the distance effect is just the stereo signal the
song came through, and perhaps mixing the radio wav file down to mono
(with a few other boosts) will make the song sound more like it came
straight off a cd?

thanks in advance for your answer and any other options you may know
of.

I'm not sure what the "distant" sound is that you're referring to. But as a
former commercial radio engineer, I can tell you that radio stations do
horrible things to the audio, most of them quite irreversible.

Station managers and program directors strive to create a "sound" for their
station, and many of those people have no clue about audio, so you end up
with some really bizarre effects. Most of them want it "louder" than the
other stations on the dial. They accomplish this primarily by removing as
much dynamic range as possible from the original recordings. They start with
some kind of automatic level control, usually followed by a three or
four-band compressor, followed by a one or two band limiter, usually
followed by a clipper. In addition to that, they sometimes add reverb and
"stereo enhancers" (either of which might be responsible for the "distant"
sound you describe). They often fiddle with equalization as well, usually
attempting to add more bass -- a futile exercise if they're driving the
compressor and limiter very hard. The typical result is muddy sludge.

The sad part is, if they would turn off everything but the ALC and use the
limiter sparingly, if anyone could find them among all the other noise, they
could have the cleanest, punchiest sound on the dial. It would be nearly
indistinguishable from the source material in most cases.

"equalizing songz," wrote in message
oups.com...
Hey all,


I have hooked up my boom box to my "line in" in my computer, and then
use a song file recorder/editor to record the music as wav directly to
the hard disc.

The songs sound very close to the way they do when played from a cd,
and I don't have the heart yet to tell a couple friends that the cds I
made for them were burnt with songs recorded this way from the radio,
not downloaded or ripped from cd.

However, I would like to know if radio-source songs can be re-processed
with equalizers, to remove or hide that slightly "distant" sound that
radio-recorded songs have, and maybe make it sound more like it came
directly from a cd...?

So far, after a long night of loudness, and playing with midranges, the
best sound yet seems to be merely increasing the gain to just below the
level of buzzing. But that slightly "distant" sound is still there.

I was thinking maybe the distance effect is just the stereo signal the
song came through, and perhaps mixing the radio wav file down to mono
(with a few other boosts) will make the song sound more like it came
straight off a cd?

thanks in advance for your answer and any other options you may know
of.

eqd


a dynamic range expander such as the dbx 1BX (or its multiband cousin the
3BX) or some effect setting in your DAW that emulates these will make
"radio" audio sound more like the original source material, however, like
the other poster said once the audio goes through the process chain you can
not fully resurrect it.

the dbx units are long out of production but appear on e-bay regularly.

several other makers produce boxes with a similar effects as part of thier
menu options.

some types of single ended noise reduction units may be of assistance. some
of these have an adjustable noise gate that mutes the audio below a preset
threshold. this gives you silence instead of static. it works particularly
well with TV audio.


your boom box may not have a good 19 KHz filter. the strong pilot tone may
be making its way on to your recording. as FM radio's audio will contain no
useful audio above 15 KHz try cutting all frequencies above 15 K.

if you are recording from the headphone out jack you may be getting
amplifier noise along with your signal. a stand alone tuner or system with
REC out jacks would be preferable.

"equalizing songz," wrote in message
oups.com...
Hey all,


I have hooked up my boom box to my "line in" in my computer, and then
------------------------------8----------------cut---------------------

I read the thread and much talk, and advice, but no much
practical help for you so far. You need some software
to carry out that advice, yes ?

If you had plenty moolah, then you would get ........
Soundforge, Adobe Audition, or something, but
then if you had plenty of the moolah, then you wouldn't
be trying to make CD from the radio ?

A pity that Adobe Systems Incorporated acquired the
technology assets of Syntrillium Software in May 2003,
since they made a fine shareware wav editor, called
Cooledit, which has many of those filters and expanders
that others have talked about in this thread.

However................ see the website .................
http://makeashorterlink.com/?T2E45283C

these folks still have the old shareware
pre-Adobe shareware trial release.

.......... Zed

Zed wrote:
"equalizing songz," wrote in message
oups.com...
Hey all,


I have hooked up my boom box to my "line in" in my computer, and then
------------------------------8----------------cut---------------------

I read the thread and much talk, and advice, but no much
practical help for you so far. You need some software
to carry out that advice, yes ?

If you had plenty moolah, then you would get ........
Soundforge, Adobe Audition, or something, but
then if you had plenty of the moolah, then you wouldn't
be trying to make CD from the radio ?

A pity that Adobe Systems Incorporated acquired the
technology assets of Syntrillium Software in May 2003,
since they made a fine shareware wav editor, called
Cooledit, which has many of those filters and expanders
that others have talked about in this thread.

However................ see the website .................
http://makeashorterlink.com/?T2E45283C

these folks still have the old shareware
pre-Adobe shareware trial release.

......... Zed

CoolEdit - shareware? Maybe there was a shareware version, or a trial
version.

As I recall, my brother spent about 400.00 for CE2K, with various plugins,
etc.

Mark Z.

"Mark D. Zacharias" wrote in message
om...
Zed wrote:
"equalizing songz," wrote in message
oups.com...
Hey all,


I have hooked up my boom box to my "line in" in my computer, and then
------------------------------8----------------cut---------------------

I read the thread and much talk, and advice, but no much
practical help for you so far.

not much else you CAN do in a newsgroup but offer advice, recomendation
and/or information.


You need some software
to carry out that advice, yes ?

If you had plenty moolah, then you would get ........
Soundforge, Adobe Audition, or something, but
then if you had plenty of the moolah, then you wouldn't
be trying to make CD from the radio ?

some folx are avid radio listeners. they like to record their favorite
show/DJ/whatever



A pity that Adobe Systems Incorporated acquired the
technology assets of Syntrillium Software in May 2003,
since they made a fine shareware wav editor, called
Cooledit, which has many of those filters and expanders
that others have talked about in this thread.

However................ see the website .................
http://makeashorterlink.com/?T2E45283C

these folks still have the old shareware
pre-Adobe shareware trial release.

......... Zed

CoolEdit - shareware? Maybe there was a shareware version, or a trial
version.

As I recall, my brother spent about 400.00 for CE2K, with various plugins,
etc.

Mark Z.


the trial/demo version was quite limited in function and IRRC it would not
save at all.

i seem to remember that the non-pro version sold for much less then CEP. was
that CE2000 ? seems like a half a decade ago

"equalizing songz," wrote in message
oups.com...
Hey all,


I have hooked up my boom box to my "line in" in my computer, and then
use a song file recorder/editor to record the music as wav directly to
the hard disc.

The songs sound very close to the way they do when played from a cd,
and I don't have the heart yet to tell a couple friends that the cds I
made for them were burnt with songs recorded this way from the radio,
not downloaded or ripped from cd.

It is my understanding that what you are doing (making CDs for friends from
radio content) is not covered under the "fair use" allowed by copyright law,
and is therefore illegal.

Stuart

I was merely running a headphone jack from the headphone-input to the
computer's "line-in" jack, and the radio never had to be above "4" in
volume (it maxs at 30) to get this clean maxed out signal.

But after this reformat, my original settings no longer work, and I
don't know if there were other settings that needed to be changed. But
for right now, when i record, there is a very obvious buzz from the
amp. help!

radio shack makes a stereo isolator (aimed at car stereo problems) with the
appropriate adaptors it probably will take care of you buzz or hum issues.
likewise any pair of good transformers, correctly wired or pair of passive
DI boxes (as used by musicians)

the di boxes usually have a 4:1 step-down ratio might be the best thing to
help match the levels.

make sure toy radio outputs are still functioning correctly by inserting
headphones and listening.

make sure your patch cable has not shorted.

always check the easy problems first!

Karl Uppiano wrote:
"equalizing songz," wrote in message
oups.com...

Hey all,


I have hooked up my boom box to my "line in" in my computer, and then
use a song file recorder/editor to record the music as wav directly to
the hard disc.

The songs sound very close to the way they do when played from a cd,
and I don't have the heart yet to tell a couple friends that the cds I
made for them were burnt with songs recorded this way from the radio,
not downloaded or ripped from cd.

However, I would like to know if radio-source songs can be re-processed
with equalizers, to remove or hide that slightly "distant" sound that
radio-recorded songs have, and maybe make it sound more like it came
directly from a cd...?

So far, after a long night of loudness, and playing with midranges, the
best sound yet seems to be merely increasing the gain to just below the
level of buzzing. But that slightly "distant" sound is still there.

I was thinking maybe the distance effect is just the stereo signal the
song came through, and perhaps mixing the radio wav file down to mono
(with a few other boosts) will make the song sound more like it came
straight off a cd?

thanks in advance for your answer and any other options you may know
of.


I'm not sure what the "distant" sound is that you're referring to. But as a
former commercial radio engineer, I can tell you that radio stations do
horrible things to the audio, most of them quite irreversible.

Station managers and program directors strive to create a "sound" for their
station, and many of those people have no clue about audio, so you end up
with some really bizarre effects. Most of them want it "louder" than the
other stations on the dial. They accomplish this primarily by removing as
much dynamic range as possible from the original recordings. They start with
some kind of automatic level control, usually followed by a three or
four-band compressor, followed by a one or two band limiter, usually
followed by a clipper. In addition to that, they sometimes add reverb and
"stereo enhancers" (either of which might be responsible for the "distant"
sound you describe). They often fiddle with equalization as well, usually
attempting to add more bass -- a futile exercise if they're driving the
compressor and limiter very hard. The typical result is muddy sludge.

The sad part is, if they would turn off everything but the ALC and use the
limiter sparingly, if anyone could find them among all the other noise, they
could have the cleanest, punchiest sound on the dial. It would be nearly
indistinguishable from the source material in most cases.


I would assume the "distant" sound being described is caused by the
250-600HZ range being compressed/notched down to sound more "hi-fi" on
systems that aren't all that hi-fi. Lots of dash/box resonances and
other dirt occur in that range. The range obviously has to be there, but
sparingly.

I hear KISS FM Chicago puts reverb in their chain. Dear lord.

And to top it off, you will have the inescapable loss of audio data as
it is being modulated into FM stereo. FM employs some filtering which
limits your highs a little, as well as some cheating to create the
"stereo" effect (it's not actually stereo but a mono and difference
channel) since FM cannot support the entire audible range in stereo, you
get some lower fidelity. The modulation/demodulation processes at the
transmitter and receiver pretty much finish off any chance. ):

Sorry to rain on the parade, but radio's a nasty thing to music.

In article , Chuck Ritola wrote:
Karl Uppiano wrote:
"equalizing songz," wrote in message
oups.com...

Hey all,


I have hooked up my boom box to my "line in" in my computer, and then
use a song file recorder/editor to record the music as wav directly to
the hard disc.

The songs sound very close to the way they do when played from a cd,
and I don't have the heart yet to tell a couple friends that the cds I
made for them were burnt with songs recorded this way from the radio,
not downloaded or ripped from cd.

However, I would like to know if radio-source songs can be re-processed
with equalizers, to remove or hide that slightly "distant" sound that
radio-recorded songs have, and maybe make it sound more like it came
directly from a cd...?

So far, after a long night of loudness, and playing with midranges, the
best sound yet seems to be merely increasing the gain to just below the
level of buzzing. But that slightly "distant" sound is still there.

I was thinking maybe the distance effect is just the stereo signal the
song came through, and perhaps mixing the radio wav file down to mono
(with a few other boosts) will make the song sound more like it came
straight off a cd?

thanks in advance for your answer and any other options you may know
of.


I'm not sure what the "distant" sound is that you're referring to. But as a
former commercial radio engineer, I can tell you that radio stations do
horrible things to the audio, most of them quite irreversible.

Station managers and program directors strive to create a "sound" for their
station, and many of those people have no clue about audio, so you end up
with some really bizarre effects. Most of them want it "louder" than the
other stations on the dial. They accomplish this primarily by removing as
much dynamic range as possible from the original recordings. They start with
some kind of automatic level control, usually followed by a three or
four-band compressor, followed by a one or two band limiter, usually
followed by a clipper. In addition to that, they sometimes add reverb and
"stereo enhancers" (either of which might be responsible for the "distant"
sound you describe). They often fiddle with equalization as well, usually
attempting to add more bass -- a futile exercise if they're driving the
compressor and limiter very hard. The typical result is muddy sludge.

The sad part is, if they would turn off everything but the ALC and use the
limiter sparingly, if anyone could find them among all the other noise, they
could have the cleanest, punchiest sound on the dial. It would be nearly
indistinguishable from the source material in most cases.


I would assume the "distant" sound being described is caused by the
250-600HZ range being compressed/notched down to sound more "hi-fi" on
systems that aren't all that hi-fi. Lots of dash/box resonances and
other dirt occur in that range. The range obviously has to be there, but
sparingly.

Not sure, but radio stations have been using 3 band compressors, so the balance of the orginal
is going to be off. I have used peak unlimiters to increase peak levels, or dynamic range.
Phase Linear used to make them as well as DBX, and I used one that I
built. I would use it to listen to radio stations. I don't know about new releases. There is
so much compression on CD's and plus the FM. An equalizer can be used
to cut back the lows and adjust so it sounds a little better.


greg


I hear KISS FM Chicago puts reverb in their chain. Dear lord.

And to top it off, you will have the inescapable loss of audio data as
it is being modulated into FM stereo. FM employs some filtering which
limits your highs a little, as well as some cheating to create the
"stereo" effect (it's not actually stereo but a mono and difference
channel) since FM cannot support the entire audible range in stereo, you
get some lower fidelity. The modulation/demodulation processes at the
transmitter and receiver pretty much finish off any chance. ):

Sorry to rain on the parade, but radio's a nasty thing to music.

And to top it off, you will have the inescapable loss of audio data as it
is being modulated into FM stereo. FM employs some filtering which limits
your highs a little, as well as some cheating to create the "stereo"
effect (it's not actually stereo but a mono and difference channel) since
FM cannot support the entire audible range in stereo, you get some lower
fidelity. The modulation/demodulation processes at the transmitter and
receiver pretty much finish off any chance. ):

I have to differ with you here. FM stereo is true stereo just as vinyl is
true stereo or CD audio is true stereo. Each technology uses some form of
encoding to transport two channels from one place to another using a single
channel.

FM and vinyl both use sum and difference encoding, which is as lossless as
the channel itself. CD audio digitally encodes stereo on a single
datastream. In the case of FM, the sum and difference can be generated
either by direct modulation of a main carrier (L + R) and a subcarrier (L -
R), or by using the mathematically equivalent alternate sampling of the left
and right channels at 38 KHz. 16 KHz anti-aliasing and reconstruction
filters are necessary with either approach. In 40+ years of FM stereo
broadcasting, these filters have rarely been the subject of much serious
concern - certainly not compared to the reverb, AGC, compression, limiting
and intentional clipping inflicted by managers, program directors, and even
some misguided engineers.

FCC standards require commercial FM stations to provide 15 KHz minimum audio
bandwidth, so the stereo standard was established as a 38 KHz sample rate
with a 19 KHz pilot, which was considered quite adequate to meet the same
standard in stereo. If the engineers at the FCC in the early 60's had set
the standard at 44.1 KHz sample rate with a 22.05 KHz pilot, FM stereo
bandwidth would be exactly the same as CD audio.

"Karl Uppiano" wrote in message
news:JF6of.16097$Ea6.6088@trnddc08...
FCC standards require commercial FM stations to provide 15 KHz minimum
audio
bandwidth, so the stereo standard was established as a 38 KHz sample rate
with a 19 KHz pilot, which was considered quite adequate to meet the same
standard in stereo. If the engineers at the FCC in the early 60's had set
the standard at 44.1 KHz sample rate with a 22.05 KHz pilot, FM stereo
bandwidth would be exactly the same as CD audio.


Indeed !
But what is the "bandwidth" of the average human ear !!

........... Zed

Zed wrote:
But what is the "bandwidth" of the average human ear !!

Ask an audiologist. I presume this is well-established.

"Joe Kesselman" wrote in message
...
Zed wrote:
But what is the "bandwidth" of the average human ear !!

Ask an audiologist. I presume this is well-established.

10 to 20 kHz depending on age (higher if you're younger).

"mc" wrote in message
...

"Joe Kesselman" wrote in message
...
Zed wrote:
But what is the "bandwidth" of the average human ear !!

Ask an audiologist. I presume this is well-established.

10 to 20 kHz depending on age (higher if you're younger).

When I was younger, I could hear out to about 18 kHz. It doesn't mean that
an audio source that was "limited" to 15 KHz would sound as if it was
obviously deficient, however.

"Joe Kesselman" wrote in message
...
Zed wrote:
But what is the "bandwidth" of the average human ear !!

Ask an audiologist. I presume this is well-established.

In the 50's and early 60's the range of human hearing was commonly quoted as
30 Hz to 15 KHz (or 30 cps to 15,000 cps to use the terminology of the day).
Some time in the late 60's to early 70's the range of 20 Hz to 20 KHz became
more common, maybe because it's easier to remember. Not that the
characteristics of the human ear changed, mind you. It's a rubber ruler no
matter how you look at it. I could probably hear 10 Hz it if was loud
enough, and I could probably hear 20 KHz if it was loud enough. It has more
to do with where they decide to draw the line, and of course, marketing.

"Chuck Ritola" wrote in message news:SxZnf.6065
since FM cannot support the entire audible range in stereo, you
get some lower fidelity. The modulation/demodulation processes at the
transmitter and receiver pretty much finish off any chance. ):

Sorry to rain on the parade, but radio's a nasty thing to music.

and if it weren't for radio, you wouldn't hear any new music
or even know that it existed, no ?

Maybe you might hear the odd new tune at a club,
but you woulkdn't necessarily know what or who it was.

a.m. radio is even worse for fidelity, but many ( most )
listeners are tuning into that for music. so in your
estimation then, a.m. radio is an abomination is it ?

use radio for what it is, it has it's strengths and
waeknesses, like everything else. I can't carry
100s of diamond hand-cut vinyl discs, and a
personal DJ in the back of the car, or on the
train or the bus.

listen.

make a note of artist / song.

buy a CD or vinyl disc later.

if you must, record the radio,
and process away to your
heart's content !

just be aware that to get the best
quality legally you MUST BUY.

if you are prepared to put up with
less than the "best", and many are,
then carry on regardless.

;-)

............. Lloyd George

You make some points, but:

a.m. radio is even worse for fidelity, but many ( most )
listeners are tuning into that for music. so in your
estimation then, a.m. radio is an abomination is it ?

Just out of curiosity, what part of the world are you in? There's virtually
no music on AM in the USA. Is there still a good bit in Britain?

Actually, rather high-fidelity AM is possible, though rare. At the
transmitter end, you need to demodulate the transmitted signal and include
it in the audio feedback loop, so you're controlling what actually goes out
on the air rather than just what goes to the modulator. At the receiver
end, you need wide bandwidth, much wider than we normally have. An AM radio
can be aligned for high fidelity by first doing a conventional alignment,
and then tuning alternate IF transformers somewhat high and low. The signal
gets weaker but has a lot more treble.

Fifty years ago, hi-fi AM enthusiasts used TRF rather than superheterodyne
tuners (and could only get strong local signals, but they sounded very
good). If there were music on the local AM stations, I'd experiment with
that myself.

One big reason hi-fi AM hasn't caught on is that AM is noise-prone. FM can
exclude noise; AM can't.

BTW, what ever became of AM stereo?

mc wrote:

snip

BTW, what ever became of AM stereo?

It is still another proof that one cannot polish a turd.

--
================================================== ======================
Michael Kesti | "And like, one and one don't make
| two, one and one make one."
mrkesti at comcast dot net | - The Who, Bargain

"mc" wrote in message
...

BTW, what ever became of AM stereo?

Last heard of in South Africa & Zimbabwe AFAIK
the left and right channels had seperate carriers,
and you needed either a fancy, double tuner
radio reciever ( for your living room setup )
or you could just tune in two transistor radios
( one for each channel ).

.......... Lloyd

"Michael R. Kesti" wrote in message
...
mc wrote:

snip

BTW, what ever became of AM stereo?

It is still another proof that one cannot polish a turd.

I disagree with that statement. When I was a broadcast engineer, one of the
stations I worked for was AM. The entire transmitting system was capable of
15KHz audio. It sounded just like monophonic FM on the modulation monitor.
Unfortunately, radios that can adequately demodulate hi-fi AM are more
expensive, so there seems to be little market demand for them. Hi-fi stereo
AM is technically feasible, but its time is probably past. Most AM
broadcasters in the US have gone to all-talk formats, where hi-fi and stereo
are relatively unimportant.

Karl Uppiano wrote:

"Michael R. Kesti" wrote in message
...
mc wrote:

snip

BTW, what ever became of AM stereo?

It is still another proof that one cannot polish a turd.

I disagree with that statement. When I was a broadcast engineer, one of the
stations I worked for was AM. The entire transmitting system was capable of
15KHz audio. It sounded just like monophonic FM on the modulation monitor.

Was this station in the USA? What is/was its call sign?

snip

--
================================================== ======================
Michael Kesti | "And like, one and one don't make
| two, one and one make one."
mrkesti at comcast dot net | - The Who, Bargain

"Michael R. Kesti" wrote in message
...
Karl Uppiano wrote:

"Michael R. Kesti" wrote in message
...
mc wrote:

snip

BTW, what ever became of AM stereo?

It is still another proof that one cannot polish a turd.

I disagree with that statement. When I was a broadcast engineer, one of
the
stations I worked for was AM. The entire transmitting system was capable
of
15KHz audio. It sounded just like monophonic FM on the modulation monitor.

Was this station in the USA? What is/was its call sign?

The station was KCID AM in Caldwell, ID. 1490KHz/1KW. I worked there from
1978 to 1986. I don't think it's there anymore. When I took it over, the
studio-transmitter link was 5KHz telephone lines. One of my first projects
was to install a microwave STL which gave us 15KHz bandwidth end-to-end.
Then I spent considerable effort bringing the entire audio chain up to FM
specs. My goal was to pass an FM audio proof of performance on an AM
station, and the management at the time supported this goal. We met this
goal for all of the parameters that were applicable to AM. Noise and
distortion were the most difficult parameters to keep in spec.

Karl Uppiano wrote:

The station was KCID AM in Caldwell, ID. 1490KHz/1KW. I worked there from
1978 to 1986. I don't think it's there anymore.

Google indicates otherwise, unless the pages it finds are out of date.

When I took it over, the
studio-transmitter link was 5KHz telephone lines. One of my first projects
was to install a microwave STL which gave us 15KHz bandwidth end-to-end.
Then I spent considerable effort bringing the entire audio chain up to FM
specs. My goal was to pass an FM audio proof of performance on an AM
station, and the management at the time supported this goal. We met this
goal for all of the parameters that were applicable to AM. Noise and
distortion were the most difficult parameters to keep in spec.

AM stations in the standard broadcast band are limited to 10 Khz modulation
bandwidth and therefore to 5 Khz audio bandwidth. It would seem, then, that
your station was in violation of bandwidth limitations.

--
================================================== ======================
Michael Kesti | "And like, one and one don't make
| two, one and one make one."
mrkesti at comcast dot net | - The Who, Bargain

In article , wrote:
Karl Uppiano wrote:

The station was KCID AM in Caldwell, ID. 1490KHz/1KW. I worked there from
1978 to 1986. I don't think it's there anymore.

Google indicates otherwise, unless the pages it finds are out of date.

When I took it over, the
studio-transmitter link was 5KHz telephone lines. One of my first projects
was to install a microwave STL which gave us 15KHz bandwidth end-to-end.
Then I spent considerable effort bringing the entire audio chain up to FM
specs. My goal was to pass an FM audio proof of performance on an AM
station, and the management at the time supported this goal. We met this
goal for all of the parameters that were applicable to AM. Noise and
distortion were the most difficult parameters to keep in spec.

AM stations in the standard broadcast band are limited to 10 Khz modulation
bandwidth and therefore to 5 Khz audio bandwidth. It would seem, then, that
your station was in violation of bandwidth limitations.


I think there was some kinf of limit, at least thats the way
I herd it when I was taking getting all the Commercial FCC licenses
and playing with Ham radio. However, I also know there were stations that
went way passed that 5 kHz limit, at least some years later. I have
one AM section on a HH Scott, made in Japan receiver, that some
AM stations sound extremely good.

greg

"Michael R. Kesti" wrote in message
...
Karl Uppiano wrote:

The station was KCID AM in Caldwell, ID. 1490KHz/1KW. I worked there from
1978 to 1986. I don't think it's there anymore.

Google indicates otherwise, unless the pages it finds are out of date.

I just said I didn't know. If KCID is still in Caldwell and operating,
that's great. I haven't been back there for nearly 15 years, and I didn't
bother to Google it.

When I took it over, the
studio-transmitter link was 5KHz telephone lines. One of my first projects
was to install a microwave STL which gave us 15KHz bandwidth end-to-end.
Then I spent considerable effort bringing the entire audio chain up to FM
specs. My goal was to pass an FM audio proof of performance on an AM
station, and the management at the time supported this goal. We met this
goal for all of the parameters that were applicable to AM. Noise and
distortion were the most difficult parameters to keep in spec.

AM stations in the standard broadcast band are limited to 10 Khz
modulation
bandwidth and therefore to 5 Khz audio bandwidth. It would seem, then,
that
your station was in violation of bandwidth limitations.

Not at the time. The NRSC *10-KHz AUDIO* bandwidth limitation and
pre-emphasis was introduced in the early '90s. Prior to that, AM stations
were required to transmit a minimum 5 KHz audio bandwidth, and an
unspecified maximum audio bandwidth. We were required to check for spurious
emissions at 20KHz removed from our assigned frequency, which pretty much
says we could modulate all the way out to 20 KHz (if we could do it cleanly)
prior to the early '90s.

In the US, AM stations are allocated every 10KHz, which means that sidebands
from adjacent stations modulating above 5KHz will overlap, causing "monkey
chatter". That is why nearby stations are allocated on alternate channels
(20KHz apart), in which case they will only overlap if they exceed 10 KHz.
Even then, the interference is minimal, since non-pre-emphasized high
frequency energy is very low. Even in large markets, there are enough second
adjacencies that 40 KHz carrier spacing is often possible. Sideband
interference is much more noticeable at night, but even then, you are likely
to hear the 10KHz tones from the adjacent channel carriers and on-channel
interference than actual sideband overlap.

The NRSC standard added high-frequency pre-emphasis (similar to FM) in an
attempt to overcome the narrowband performance of consumer grade AM
receivers, and simultaneously placed an upper limit of 10KHz on all AM
stations in an attempt to keep the pre-emphasis from causing too much
adjacent channel monkey-chatter. So today, it is no longer possible to
achieve FM quality sound on AM. It is probably a reasonable compromise,
given the poor quality of AM receivers, and the fact that most AM
programming is all talk. But it is technically feasible, and we proved it on
a daily basis for several years in the early 1980s.

--
================================================== ======================
Michael Kesti | "And like, one and one don't make
| two, one and one make one."
mrkesti at comcast dot net | - The Who, Bargain