Satellite radio has more subscribers and revenue than at anytime, and as many or more subscribers than Directv U.S. and offshore, and DISH combined, more revenue than any other radio company.
Bring back AM stereo CQUAM
- Thread starter ikki
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 72
- Views 15K
Satellite radio has more subscribers and revenue than at anytime, and as many or more subscribers than Directv U.S. and offshore, and DISH combined, more revenue than any other radio company.
Well in all Fairness Satellite Radio is the only Radio that requires a paid subscription too.
So naturally they would have more revenue.
But IMO they are more repetitive with their music than even FM radio.
That's why all 3 of my Sirius equipped cars are now deactivated.
I can pop on Pandora for $4.99 and gives me more variety and unlimited number of devices.
Or I can listen to a commercial and listen to Pandora for free.
And actually Sirius has 30 million subscribers.
Pandora have over 82 million as of 2014.
Samsung Galaxy S6 Active
You do understand that if a station is using Cquam, you can still receive it on a traditional AM radio as its an analog signal.
This thread is also discussing transmissions that cannot be received on a standard AM radio. Any transmission method change should support legacy AM receivers.
If you pay , you can get 90 minute blocks commercial free, and more skips.
Samsung Galaxy S6 Active
The audio was recorded from a radio tuned 1242 AM and made into a video. Doing so does not change the FACT that it was transmitted in C-QUAM on the medium wave bad and received in C-QUAM and converted back to AM stereo audio.
The audio was probably streamed Directly from the Station.
I doubt it was from a radio.
Samsung Galaxy S6 Active
Again I'm sure you have the perfect conditions ,close to the city, no CFLS in the house no powerlines.
That's not the normal.
Look I can get AM WVPO from Stroudsburg. And I'm 50 miles away.
It's Called Tunein.
Samsung Galaxy S6 Active
folks, regarding "samples"....try it live! Samples are nice, I post 'em now and then for non-believers of AM analog quality.
But, for "live" feed of AM stereo direct from a tuner not a control board, not a processor, but a real AM stereo receiver, you can go to our station site, www.i1430.com, or, you can get our app from Google Play and I-tunes ("WION") for the "real deal." If you're then in doubt, listen around the time our power down hits. You'll know we're real Cquam when the power change interrupts you for a brief moment. Tune-in also works, but I like our own apps. They simply re-package people already providing the service.
The movement toward Cquam turn-on seems to be gaining a little ground, and the beauty is, with NO licensing needed (unlike HD) and no special equipment needed to hear the station (sounds better, even in mono)...whether you like the idea or not, it's part of the FUN of being a broadcaster to make your transmissions the BEST they can be. That's why WE did it, and to help prove to people that AM can sound fantastic. I do have listeners who compliment our sound, whether they have AM stereo receivers or not....and, while the idiots way above us argue our future, we're ONE source of proof that some things, when done well, can be left alone. I do agree with Brian who posted either here, or another board...that IF a station wants to go all digital, FINE. Let them. Eventually receivers that do both all digital (no HD crud) or all analog (including cquam) are likely. The chance of AM being mandated digital, is SO LOW...it's not a worry. Why? Because the FCC cannot gain anything from it...they can't do anything with our bandwidth by re-packaging it. It's at it's BEST use now as a long-distance medium of communications and entertainment. And, it employs thousands of people around the nation. Plus, if a mandate came, the FCC will LOSE many licensees who turn them in due to cost of conversion.
Oh, and yes, we're all aware of nighttime AM's issues. That does NOT affect the fact that some broadcasters put out one helluva sound on AM for their immediate towns...which is what we're supposed to do, anyway. If it isn't heard miles out beyond at night, oh well. We still serve our towns the BEST we can!
So, in the meantime, ENJOY! We'd love to have some new ears....and, we'll beat ANY sample out there for quality. Yes, I'm proud. If you choose to take this as being arrogant, so be it...but it came from hard work and GREAT engineers...who now use us as a benchmark in the USA for AM quality.
But, for "live" feed of AM stereo direct from a tuner not a control board, not a processor, but a real AM stereo receiver, you can go to our station site, www.i1430.com, or, you can get our app from Google Play and I-tunes ("WION") for the "real deal." If you're then in doubt, listen around the time our power down hits. You'll know we're real Cquam when the power change interrupts you for a brief moment. Tune-in also works, but I like our own apps. They simply re-package people already providing the service.
The movement toward Cquam turn-on seems to be gaining a little ground, and the beauty is, with NO licensing needed (unlike HD) and no special equipment needed to hear the station (sounds better, even in mono)...whether you like the idea or not, it's part of the FUN of being a broadcaster to make your transmissions the BEST they can be. That's why WE did it, and to help prove to people that AM can sound fantastic. I do have listeners who compliment our sound, whether they have AM stereo receivers or not....and, while the idiots way above us argue our future, we're ONE source of proof that some things, when done well, can be left alone. I do agree with Brian who posted either here, or another board...that IF a station wants to go all digital, FINE. Let them. Eventually receivers that do both all digital (no HD crud) or all analog (including cquam) are likely. The chance of AM being mandated digital, is SO LOW...it's not a worry. Why? Because the FCC cannot gain anything from it...they can't do anything with our bandwidth by re-packaging it. It's at it's BEST use now as a long-distance medium of communications and entertainment. And, it employs thousands of people around the nation. Plus, if a mandate came, the FCC will LOSE many licensees who turn them in due to cost of conversion.
Oh, and yes, we're all aware of nighttime AM's issues. That does NOT affect the fact that some broadcasters put out one helluva sound on AM for their immediate towns...which is what we're supposed to do, anyway. If it isn't heard miles out beyond at night, oh well. We still serve our towns the BEST we can!
So, in the meantime, ENJOY! We'd love to have some new ears....and, we'll beat ANY sample out there for quality. Yes, I'm proud. If you choose to take this as being arrogant, so be it...but it came from hard work and GREAT engineers...who now use us as a benchmark in the USA for AM quality.
Was sent this from a friend at WTIC.
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2016/db0615/DA-16-676A1.pdf
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2016/db0615/DA-16-676A1.pdf
Nice to see and good to read. Are we too FAR into the interference to get rid of it? My opinion? In the immediate future: YES.
However, Over the longer haul, and with better oversight watching the CRAP that is sold under cheap brand names without adhering to some kind of standard (now) there may be hope, as we wear out and break our cheap Chinese JUNK, much of which is sold by the box stores Americans have fallen in love-with.
Heck, in our studios we got rid of CFL's, and went to LED's, but THEY even make noise, more on FM than AM in our case, and yet they carry the FCC's "part 15" info right on the package. I took a half hour to read the packages in Menards last week, trying to find a bulb that was RF "quieter" than what we have. Management and employees who asked me what I was doing were clueless. In a nut-shell, manufacturers, in my opinion are lying about interference being caused by simply quoting rules on their packages and LOOKING like they're compliant. Over time, the same force that is working to regulate the gallons you flush and the types of bulbs you buy COULD INDEED work to clean up the RF world. I'm 51 now. Will it happen before I retire? Maybe...if I retire LATE in life. Sadly, Americans want CHEAP, and that's exactly what our manufacturers have given us. We've sold out as a nation, and we're paying the price in being a throwaway society...and now, it's biting broadcasters (and listeners who don't know better) in the rear!
However, Over the longer haul, and with better oversight watching the CRAP that is sold under cheap brand names without adhering to some kind of standard (now) there may be hope, as we wear out and break our cheap Chinese JUNK, much of which is sold by the box stores Americans have fallen in love-with.
Heck, in our studios we got rid of CFL's, and went to LED's, but THEY even make noise, more on FM than AM in our case, and yet they carry the FCC's "part 15" info right on the package. I took a half hour to read the packages in Menards last week, trying to find a bulb that was RF "quieter" than what we have. Management and employees who asked me what I was doing were clueless. In a nut-shell, manufacturers, in my opinion are lying about interference being caused by simply quoting rules on their packages and LOOKING like they're compliant. Over time, the same force that is working to regulate the gallons you flush and the types of bulbs you buy COULD INDEED work to clean up the RF world. I'm 51 now. Will it happen before I retire? Maybe...if I retire LATE in life. Sadly, Americans want CHEAP, and that's exactly what our manufacturers have given us. We've sold out as a nation, and we're paying the price in being a throwaway society...and now, it's biting broadcasters (and listeners who don't know better) in the rear!
Light bulbs are an easy target but they probably aren't the most powerful of influences on the airspace.
It seems unlikely that the genie of switching power supplies is going to be re-bottled; both in the name of economy of manufacture and efficiency. I can see them claiming overheating (due to additional RF barrier material) and high cost already.
The noise floor study questionnaire looks a little like a scientific Hail Mary by a bunch of bureaucrats and not a promise of better oversight.
It seems unlikely that the genie of switching power supplies is going to be re-bottled; both in the name of economy of manufacture and efficiency. I can see them claiming overheating (due to additional RF barrier material) and high cost already.
The noise floor study questionnaire looks a little like a scientific Hail Mary by a bunch of bureaucrats and not a promise of better oversight.
