Eddie writes:

>Radio has generally declined in audio quality.  I noticed last year
>that Connecticut Public Radio had started to sound really nasty; I even
>contacted them and talked to one of the engineers, who told me that they
>weren't doing anything different and the transmitter most local to me
>seemed in fine order...  In my case, moving the receiver across the
>room and getting a new FM antenna helped, but even before I consciously
>noticed how bad the audio fidelity was, I'd pretty much dealt radio out
>of my routine.  It's been a long time since I tuned into any of the live
>concerts I used to enjoy.

The technical quality of FM broadcasting seems to have been in decline
since the advent of stereo broadcasting in the mid sixties.  Most
inexpensive CD players now effectively exceed the quality of FM broadcasts
due to technical limitations imposed on the broadcasters by their own
station practices and fundamental limitations of the stereo broadcasting
technology first introduced 40 years ago.  The main culprit seems to be an
active electronic device which increases perceived loudness by dynamically
reducing very high frequency sounds as the program content gets louder.
Station management rational for use of this signal processing device seeks
to "extend" the effective range of a station by increasing the average
loudness of the audio signal without exceeding the federal standard of
overall loudness.  Additionally, such devices make automation of station
operation practical by reducing the need for constant manual adjustment.
The audible result is that a recording played on a $100 boom box player
frequently sounds more natural than the same CD reproduced on the radio
from the local FM station.  Fortunately, digital broadcasting techniques,
now being introduced, reduce many of these technical limitations.
Unfortunately, programing decisions focused on talk radio and "unserious
music" make the need for high fidelity FM broadcasting seem rather
unnecessary.

Bernard Gregoire
Hingham, MA