Charles,
Actually, from a listener standpoint it's better to offset
co-channels by 15-20 or so Hertz. That pretty much removes the
problems from deep fading by co-channel signals. It's surprising how
much a co-channel signal can interfere with even a local signal
during critical hours. We have a local classical AM station that
actually sounds pretty good on my G.E. Super Radio. At night we
would get about a 5 Hz beat between them and some other station. My
wife would complain about the funny sound, so being involved on a
consulting basis with the classical station, I moved them about 10 Hz
the other side of zero from the interfering co-channel. My wife, who
is a classical music fan (so am I) asked how I got rid of the
problem? While the 15 Hz or so beat does tend to intermodulate
program, it's far less noticeable than the rapid fading was.
Burt, K6OQK
At 11:45 AM 10/13/2011, [email protected] wrote
I believe the argument that was advanced for better reception through
GPS-locking had to do with improving nighttime skywave reception. So
the argument went, locking the carriers of co-frequency stations
would prevent fast fading (beating). Instead, you would get only
long fades due to atmospheric changes. I'm not sure how much of an
advantage that would be, in practice, but it shouldn't mess up local
coverage (which is all the FCC cares about).
Best regards,
Charles
Burt I. Weiner Associates
Broadcast Technical Services
Glendale, California U.S.A.
[email protected]
www.biwa.cc
K6OQK
_______________________________________________
time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.
