Re: AM Audio & You...'Clip This'

["Bill O'Neill" <billo@erols.com>]

<snip>...The objective was to allow AM stations to repeatedly
> hit 100% modulation on negative peaks (125% on positive peaks) without
> generating sidebands that would screw up reception of adjacent-channel
> stations, except maybe for stations on the first adjacent channels. The
> other objective was not to reduce the bandwidth excessively so that the
> programming would still sound acceptable. Since most AM radios nowadays
> don't even have 5-kHz audio bandwidth, rolling off the sidebands
beginning
> about 8.5 kHz from the carrier should not produce a noticeable reduction
in
> treble to most listeners.

Dan, (&c.) any way to assess how the area AMers are doing with respect to
sound (highs, lows, presence, average mod. levels?)  Are they doing the
best that can be done, considering the hardware out there on the market?   
I asked a similar Q a while back and there was a concensus that although
alot of good *techs* out there, very few do good *audio* at the shack or
studio side.   IMHO:  BZ has sounded better - it seems more tinny, less
presence, since going digital.  RKO sounds good to me, maybe a bit too
bassy (although even Carr sounds like he has pipes) <end of compliment>, 
EEI - better than in past, more in line with her 680 sister although
slightly less density, it seems ( the days of the HDH Dap are gone
forever).  

While I'm at it, AM question deux: What impact would max-ng out processing
density (mod monitor levels painted-on at 125 & 100 respectively) have on
effective coverage?  Wouldn't the s:n rat. change on fringes of the pattern
and other stuff like that depending upon avg. audio levels?  
Bill O'Neill

------------------------------