←back to thread

259 points zdw | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
pkolaczk ◴[] No.41835074[source]
I don’t buy this explanation. The FM modulation uses a much higher bandwidth than AM. The distance between channels on FM radio is 200 kHz compared to only 9 kHz on AM. That’s more than 20x more bandwidth for FM. On AM, no matter how deeply you modulate the carrier, the bandwidth will not exceed twice the bandwidth of the input signal. On FM, the deeper you modulate it, the wider the output spectrum will be, and it can easily exceed the bandwidth of the input signal.

In addition to that, the whole FM band is much higher frequency, while I guess quite a lot of noise, especially burst noise caused by eg thunderstorms is relatively low frequency. So it’s not picked up because it’s out of band.

Any noise that falls inside the channel does get picked up by the receiver regardless of modulation. However because the available bandwidth is so much higher than the real bandwidth of the useful signal, there is actually way more information redundancy in FM encoding, so this allows to remove random noise as it will likely cancel out.

If I encoded the same signal onto 20 separate AM channels and then averaged the output from all of them (or better - use median filter) that would cancel most of random noise just as well.

Also another thing with modulation might be that if there is any narrow-band non-white noise happening to fall inside the channel (eg a distant sender on colliding frequency), on AM it will be translated as-is to the audible band and you’ll hear it as a single tone. On FM demodulation it will be spread across the whole output signal spectrum, so it will be perceived quieter and nicer by human ear, even if its total energy is the same. That’s why AM does those funny sounds when tuning, but FM does not.

replies(6): >>41835320 #>>41835729 #>>41836033 #>>41836478 #>>41837049 #>>41844234 #
arghwhat ◴[] No.41835320[source]
The wider channels is the source of the available audio fidelity, but wider channels make you more exposed to noise, not less. A wider channel means listening to more noise sources, and having transmitter power stretched thinner for a much lower SNR.

In other words, the noise rejection of FM is what enabled the use of wider channels and therefore better audio quality. An analog answer before digital error correction.

In FM, the rejection is so strong that if you have two overlapping transmissions, you will only hear the stronger one assuming it is notably stronger. This in turn is why air traffic still use AM where you can hear both overlapping transmissions at once (possibly garbled if carrier wave was off), and react accordingly rather than being unaware that it happened.

Technology moved on from both plain AM and plain FM a long time ago, and modern “digital” modulation schemes have different approach to interference rejection.

replies(5): >>41835695 #>>41835752 #>>41835963 #>>41837187 #>>41838366 #
zb ◴[] No.41835963[source]
> This in turn is why air traffic still use AM where you can hear both overlapping transmissions at once (possibly garbled if carrier wave was off), and react accordingly rather than being unaware that it happened.

I’m not convinced this is the reason. The carrier wave is always off by a little. While you’re transmitting you hear nothing anyway. And when two parties are transmitting simultaneously, any third parties just hear very loud screeching. A 0.001% difference in carrier frequency would be more than enough to cause this effect in a VHF radio. Notably, this exact problem was a major contributing cause to the worst accident in aviation history. Using FM would have prevented it.

https://archive.ph/2013.02.01-162840/http://www.salon.com/20...

replies(2): >>41836423 #>>41837808 #
p_l ◴[] No.41836423[source]
AM is used for two reasons - simplicity of transceivers

AND the fact that two simultaneous transmissions result in buzz instead of locking onto stronger signal. We WANT to know that there's a collision in transmission so that we know we need to retransmit. What would be the expected effect if two FM transmission on same channel were sent?

Fixing the "glitch" would result in way more problems than it solves. Interestingly, aviation authorities do not blame collission behaviour of AM radio for Tenerife, but instead corrected crew management procedures and pushed greater radio phraseology standardisation.

replies(2): >>41838145 #>>41838795 #
arghwhat ◴[] No.41838795[source]
> AM is used for two reasons - simplicity of transceivers

That is not a factor anymore. Capable wideband transcievers like the ones in Baofengs and similar supporting multiple types of modulation cost cents.

replies(2): >>41838903 #>>41839454 #
1. p_l ◴[] No.41838903[source]
There's cost in simultaneous replacement for huge portion of the fleet.

Don't devolve into simplism, consider that you need to replace the radio for everyone sharing the same space, and that there might be way more planes sharing that space than you think.

replies(1): >>41847231 #
2. arghwhat ◴[] No.41847231[source]
The cost of replacing equipment in a fleet is large, but the modulation no longer has any impact on that cost if a replacement was to be made.

AM is not providing any benefit of simplicity, but not changing standards avoids the transaction cost of change.