Petition for C-Quam AM Stereo Jan 1st 2016

This was attempted with the AMAX standard in the 90s. Unfortunatly, for whatever reason it didn't catch on with the manufacturers. 

I'd certainly like to see this revisited.

There's a big difference between petitioning and getting.

In the world we have things that are reasonable and make sense might not last long because entrenched interests want to keep things the way they were, but this idea to improve receivers and mandate AM stereo is realistic and would do wonders if the FCC is sincere about revitalizing AM.

Putting AM on FM translators is like turning them all into LPFM stations, one step up from being Part 15.

Making AM stations convert to HD IBOC digital is like sealing the stations in a mountain alongside nuclear waste.

But stereo, oh hey, give the audience some listening pleasure.

KDX Worldround Radio is prepared to adopt AM stereo if this goes through, because more equipment would go real well right over here against this wall.

Artisan Radio said: "There's a big difference between petitioning and getting."

Carl replies: There's a big difference between petitioning and doing nothing.

From what I've read in the article there will be mandatory C-Quam decoders in new Radio's that are capable of receiving FM Stereo. This means good news for us. We need to act now and go C-Quam. It Will get you listeners especially if Station8's antenna works as good for others as it did for him. Beta testing will begin soon and he is also looking at how to convert a Talking House AM Transmitter to C-Quam AM Stereo. If Wal Mart gets it I'll even try and do demo's outside Wal Mart or use a power inverter and broadcast in their parking lot while I tune the C-Quam Radio to my station and actually do a show from the van outside so all can hear the brilliant sound of AM Stereo. Its an opportunity for all of us part 15 operators to get permission to do this as soon as the C-Quam Radio's roll in. I can't wait. Finally I get to help those break free of Rap and Top 40 and The Legacy will have a ton of listeners.

Agreed Carl but this is being talked about as if it is a done deal. Enthusiasm is great but you have to be careful not to have it mistaken for fact.

There are down sides to stereo. All other things being equal, you will get less range. It's why I broadcast in mono (FM).

For low power FM I also only use mono because the small range has better quality which gets wrecked by the stereo pilot tone and sub-carrier generator frequency.

In a related topic, last night on the Allan Weiner Show on WBCQ shortwave they said there is a powerful FM station on the east coast that deliberately broadcasts in mono so they get better range.

AM stereo uses an entirely different method of achieving the stereo and I don't think it suffers from a range problem, but am not completely sure about it.

The link provided is just a marketing web page for meducci tuners.

Further down the page, there is a letter from Kintronics Laboratory to the FCC, asking for the FCC to mandate better receivers and CQUAM as part of the AM revitalization, but it is hardly a petition.

If this is the only source for the hope of CQUAM being mandated, I would not hold my breath.  If the FCC followed through on every request from a manufacturer or a special interest, they would go in a million directions at once.

Not that I disagree with the concept.  But, just like the FM initiative for more power, you are going to need a lot more than this to convince the FCC to follow through.

The FCC has NEVER responded to a petition without "Notice of Proposed Rule Making" and that's AFTER they the FCC has deemed it reasonable. Then the process takes several months to years. NOTHING will happen January 2016 with regard to this. Focus on something that makes sense.

Unlike FM Stereo, AM Stereo does not reduce usable range. C-QuAM does however suffer from platform motion on weaker skywave signals. Supposedly this issue was remedied in the 90s.

John WDCX said to us: "Focus on something that makes sense."

You mean, something like part 15 radio?

Looks good but all this should apply to home radio's too, not just car radios.

The part about doing something about the hydro(A/C power) and all the electrical noise from that besides better recievers is most important.

The demise of the AM band is the fault of the FCC not caring and enforcing their own rules about noise interference.

Mark

I think WDCX was saying that this won't happen at the beginning of the year and more processes have to happen before it does and it takes time.

I agree.

Mark

In the mean time till the Radio's hit store shelves even at your local Wal Mart I will concentrate on the FM initiative. I'll still be a part of the AM experiment and the AM initiative to help part 15ers get out further legally. Believe me AM is a hard sell. FM is so easy to get listeners. But its worth experimenting to see what could be done with it.

Mark Said:

The demise of the AM band is the fault of the FCC not caring and enforcing their own rules about noise interference.

MrBruce Says:

That is exactly what I said in post #52 in this topic: http://www.part15.us/forum/part15-forums/antennas/elevated-antennas-part-15-am-transmission?page=1

I said: There is more interference created by consumer electronics and fluorescent light bulbs that part 15 stations will never surpass, ever!

So the truth be, that legal devices cause more harmful interference than our part 15 transmitters would ever cause. Why doesn't the world track, find, shut down and fine those fluorescent light bulb companies for creating unwanted interference?

Incandescent light bulbs did not cause interference, so why the switch to these useless, TOXIC, noise producing fluorescent light bulbs?

Bruce.