George Gobel demonstrates the difference color makes, on your black and white TV, and with stereo sound!

October 21, 1958

That is awesome! Thank you for posting it.

Thats amazing. I would really like to know how the stereo actually sounded.

It mattered what radio and TV you used and how good the signal of the local AM station carrying the broadcast was, if you had one (even as early as 1958, many radio stations carried only hourly news from the network they were affiliated with).

In many cases, the AM channel would outperform the TV sound. AM radio was not limited to 5 kHz audio response (a commom misconception) and some AM radios were built with low selectivity so they sounded brilliant, provided the signal was very good (well over any adjacent-channel interference). The limiting factor in the TV sound, however, was that many stations on the networks had at least one conventional telephone twisted pair along the way in the audio chain (a serious setback).

Thanks for that amazing article. and yeah, imo the tuning issue for many people seems to be the lack of receiver adjacent-freq. selectivity..but of course sensitivity and snr is still critical here.

I seem to remember being astonished at the MPX section in my 1st 500C Fisher in terms of hi-end detail extension and clarity...it was like harshness was a distant memory. I listened for hours on end. and my spkrs were much worse than they are now as a whole

. just a thought

if the actual program still exists in any form?

and of course in 1958 stereo Lps were just hitting the marketplace...

if the actual program still exists in any form?

Most likely as a kinescope in the NBC vaults, though probably only with either one channel of the soundtrack or a fold-down version of the two-channel sound.

-Kevin

It probably wasn't until the advent of AM stereo that many, ok most, had a decent studio and studio to transmitter link with decent bandwidth, around 8-10kHz. In the early days, where studios were linked to their transmitters with leased phone lines, the runs were likely through one office, or direct. This meant that the bandwidth was greater than 3100 or 5kHz.

Almost every AM tuner made today, other than say a communications receiver, has a set of IF filters that are way too narrow than what they have to be.

So, if the simulcast was done in the 50's with small market station that had a metallic pair from the TV station and from the radio studios to the transmitter it was probably better than a lot of people were used to.

Almost every AM tuner made today, other than say a communications receiver, has a set of IF filters that are way too narrow than what they have to be.


I have a web page http://pw2.netcom.com/~wa2ise/radios/feedback.html#solidstate describing how to modify solid state AM sections of tuners to get better audio bandwidth.

The limiting factor in the TV sound, however, was that many stations on the networks had at least one conventional telephone twisted pair along the way in the audio chain (a serious setback).

Guess living in the New York City area had its advantages (NYC being home to the TV networks where many programs were made). If they used a studio to transmitter link with an RF transmission, audio wouldn't suffer like it would over phone lines.

I had a Sansui TU-X1 tuner (1979 flagship model), AM section had no IF stages and had synchronous demod like color TV. AM sounded like FM! One of the best tuners ever made.

My Fisher 800-B receiver supports AM-FM stereo. The AM section was designed with that in mind and sounds glorious compared to most AM receivers. Now, if there were only something worth listening to on AM . . . .

Phil Nelson

The quality of phone lines used in broadcast depends on how much the broadcaster would want to pay, and in some cases simply what's available from the telco. Once upon a time before the time of big corporate radio, every station cared about the quality of their signal, AM or FM and it was a point of pride as to how your station sounded and how well you covered your service area. I hope they still care in larger markets, in smaller ones, if the station is independent, they still try, otherwise, its bubblegum and bailing wire. AM was the dominion of big top 40 stations, but as we all know, has become the dumping ground for all sports, all babble, and all BS.

Ideally, if the broadcaster wanted to ensure the best quality to the transmitter plant, they would order a leased line that would provide the necessary bandwidth, and in the case of some broadcasters, they simply don't have a line of sight or a studio attached to their transmitter site, so they have no choice. Ideally, a decent UHF or microwave studio to transmitter link can be used to provide more than enough bandwidth to an audio circuit so as to minimize loss of quality. Nowadays, most everything is digital for television links, and radio is going this way, as they upgrade.

I was told that in the distant past (read days of a step office), broadcasters would have what would essentially be whatever they could reliably feed through the circuit and if the line was too long to provide quality it was the chief engineer's problem. When the phone companies started to go to electronic switches, or if the path needed an analog microwave or coaxial run, the bandwidth was limited by the channel bank, so they had to establish how much bandwidth was needed.

I had an elderly "Uncle Sparky" used to complain about the audio processing and "p*ss poor quality of AM radio", saying that in his day, AM sounded great, and never did they "crank up the g.d. commercials" like they do now.

When I told him about compression, carrier pumping and the infamous Orban Optimod, he just shook his head and said 'they'd never had gotten away with that in my day".

I know it is rather silly but it would be fun to see a recreation of this at the ETF convention next year!! Wind up that steam powered Am radio folks!