Talk:C-QUAM

Bitterness & Bad Grammar
Sounds like a bitter station owner wrote the last section. Maybe someone should re-write it so it doesn't sound like an outright attack on IBOC HD?  A ir ♠C ombat Talk!  07:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment This is tricky for me, because I believe a lot of that paragraph to be true, but some of those statements are weak in terms of verification. For instance, some engineers swear all stereo content reduces coverage, while others contend it does not, & a 3rd group says that F.M. stereo is reduced (because it is broadcast on the lower-power 38kHz subcarrier versus the main mono channel), but not A.M. stereo because the stereo signal is 90º out of phase from the mono signal. I agree that at the very least, the claims need to be substantiated.Stereorock (talk) 00:12, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Further, the last paragraph is simply difficult to read:

"There has been a move to bring back C-QUAM in the last few years..." As this article ages, readers may want to know which few years this is in reference to.

"Where AM stereo receivers use a dual IF bandwidth setup, for an extended audio frequency response over mono receivers." Is this a fragment sentence that was supposed to have been tacked onto the previous sentence with a comma in stead of a period?

"Providing for a full rich stereo sound, that is simply not possible with digital audio encodes, the down side is the amount of unwanted noise that comes with analog reception." Seems like a runon sentence. I'll attempt to fix it, but if someone who's an audio engineer or otherwise more familiar with the tech notices the fix makes the two resulting sentences inaccurate, please make a correction. --Wikchard (talk) 15:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Why C-QUAM and not C-QAM?
Normally Quadrature Amplitude Modulation is abbreviated to QAM not QUAM.

To add another TLA: WTF? :-)

Chris Fletcher (talk) 11:48, 13 October 2019 (UTC)