Yes. Assuming signal strengths for both are comparable. Say, within 20 dB of each other.
> (possibly garbled if carrier wave was off)
Nah. If both stations have sufficient energy fall into receiver's bandwidth window (IF filter for analog receiver), no garbling. If one of stations has carrier sufficiently off to fall entirely outside IF, only other will be audible.
You are probably thinking about SSB, where two stations with carrier offset indeed produce weird sounding interference.
In audio, the amount of information you need to transmit is naturally limited by the audio bandwidth (for FM truncated at about 15 kHz), so the useful signal bandwidth is fixed. Hence, if you transmit the same audio band over a broader channel of frequencies, you can tolerate more noise; or, for the same density of noise in the channel, you can get better SNR at the output. This is exactly what FM does. It uses the information multiplied in the most of that 200 kHz channel and projects it on 0-15 kHz band.
While you are right that a wider channel captures more noise in total, noise does not add up the same way as useful signal, because it’s random. Doubling the channel width only increases the amplitude of noise by sqrt(2).
There is no “magic noise rejection” coming from different ways of modulating the signal if all other things are the same. You can’t remove noise; you can’t magically increase SNR. If anything, FM makes the noise more pleasant to listen to and perceivably quieter by spreading non random, irregular noise over the whole band so it sounds more like white noise.
But it also allows to use wider channels, and increase the fidelity of the signal, including increasing SNR. But that’s thanks to using significantly wider channels than audio.
Also, it’s not like FM can use wider channels because of better SNR. FM can use wider channels because of how this modulation works - the spectrum of FM signal can be arbitrarily wide, depending on the depth of modulation. AM cannot do that. It only shifts the audio band up (and mirrors on both sides of the carrier). It can’t “spread it”.
Btw: this is a very similar phenomenon as when you average multiple shots of the same thing in photography, eg when photographing at night. By adding more frames (or using very long exposures) you obviously capture more total noise, but the amount of useful signal grows much faster because signal is correlated in time, but noise is not.
Even if one does assume a Shannon-perfect coding scheme, as the noise ratio gets greater the benefits of spreading a signal across a higher bandwidth fades. Furthermore, most coding schemes hit their maximum inefficiency as the signal to noise ratio decreases and messages start to be too garbled to be well decoded.
I’d additionally note that folks get near the Shannon noise limit _through_ ‘magic noise rejection’ (aka turbo and ldpc codes). It’s therefore not obvious that FM isn’t gaining clarity due to a noise rejection mechanic. The ‘capture effect’ is well described as an interference reducing mechanism.
Empirically, radio manufacturers who do produce sophisticated long range radio usually advertise a longer range when spreading available power across a narrower rather than wider bandwidth.
I was only replying to an obviously incorrect statement that by using more bandwidth you decrease SNR. If it were the case, Shannon theorem would not work.
It doesn’t matter how close to the limit your encoding is, whether it is 20% or 99% the relationship between the bandwidth, noise floor and how much data you can send stays the same - by increasing bandwidth you can usually send considerably more information even if your encoding is poor. Which in translates to either a wider useful bandwidth or lower noise floor or any combination of both.
A trivial thought experiment to illustrate this: For any analog encoding, if I double the transmission bandwidth by encoding the same signal over 2 channels instead of one, I can average the output signal coming out the receivers and get better SNR than using one channel and one receiver. That works regardless of AM, FM or whatever fancy encoding you could use.
That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works. Averaging a high SNR channel with a low SNR channel is likely to produce something less good than the high SNR channel. Could you get an improvement over the high SNR channel? Yes, and the limit of the improvement is related to the SNR of each and averaging the signals won't get you anywhere near that.
What you seem to be missing is the fact we’re talking here about transferring the same fixed bandwidth signal over a wider channel, not transferring a wider bandwidth signal over a wider channel.
// edit: just noticed someone else gave another nice application of this phenomenon: GPS
I think this is a lot simpler because each of your pixels is assumed to have a single, correct DC value. This doesn't hold for a time varying signal like AM/FM.
An image is quantized into pixels. A camera pixel is a receiver for a specific wavelength, subjected primarily to internal wideband thermal noise during the read-out process. Each final output pixel is averaged both in time (exposure and stacking) and space (debayer and noise reduction), with the final single being singular amplitudes per location.
An AM audio signal is a single wideband receiver subjected to wideband noise. Or, if viewed differently, a series of quantized frequency receivers each subject to a matching noise frequency. The sampling is in the frequency domain, but the final signal captured is is the amplitude variance over time for each frequency, responsible for a single audio frequency.
But yes, your underlying point stands: A theoretical AM receiver that demodulated repeated signals independently and correctly averaged their outputs might gain better wideband noise rejection. Better, but not good, and at a cost of complexity approaching that of better modulations.
Signal0: infinite SNR. Signal1: anything less.
I just don't see how the output of averaging these would improve over Signal0. I don't think it can.
Shannon-Hartley describes that the theoretical information capacity of a signal given a bandwidth and an SNR. Doubling bandwidth halves your SNR (received noise increases, received signal does not), in turn reducing the bits gained per unit of bandwidth. At very high SNR, doubling bandwidth almost doubles capacity, but as SNR goes down, the benefit of additional bandwidth levels off until bandwidth no longer has any effect.
However, this provides the number achievable by a perfect modulation scheme using all available bandwidth and signal strength. AM and FM are both incredibly inefficient, and more importantly have very different reactions to noise - something Shannon-Hartley does not concern itself with.
With truly random noise, FM and AM noise both scale based on noise amplitude as you say. In AM, all noise overlapping with the band is played back verbatim, whereas in FM only the noise causing frequency variations in the carrier wave have any effect on the signal, and end up with a non-linear response to noise.
However, we do not deal with purely white noise, and FM has far superior handling of non-random noise. In order to have any effect, it need to either induce frequency shifts to the carrier wave, or have enough power to cause the interference to be captured instead. There's also the far higher power efficiency, as FM puts all its power into the signal, whereas traditional AM puts most of it into a useless carrier and wastes half the remaining power on the redundant sideband (yes, SSB is a thing). These were certainly also factors in FMs demise.
A simpler means to remove bandwidth from the equation would be to compare with a narrow-band FM transmission, or by multiplying the input waveform for an AM transmitter by some factor to fill the bandwidth. I believe FM should still handily beat it at least above its threshold. I don't see anyone giving exact numbers of this though, so I guess it could be a fun SDR project for someone wanting to prove either point. :)
(Neither AM nor FM is of anything but historic value at this point - their only redeeming quality is discrete circuit simplicity if you need to MacGyver one out of shoelace and bubblegum, but that's it.)
I had not thought about this before, and I have no intuition as to what the answer is, but does the redundant sideband have any effect, positive or negative, on noise rejection?
The first step to improving AM (while making the receiver more complex) was removing the carrier wave, which is responsible for most of the transmitted energy (Double-sideband reduced carrier modulation, or DSB-SC). Then, to improve efficiency further without increasing receiver complexity too much, the second sideband is removed (Single-sideband suppressed carrier, SSB-SC - commonly just SSB).
The only benefit of traditional AM is transmitter and receiver simplicity. If you start increasing the complexity, there is no longer any point to using it.
I've spent a lot of time on the development of broadcast-quality FM exciters (as I've posted on HN in the past) but I'm not go to debate the disadvantages/advantages of FM versus AM in depth as most points have already been covered in other posts, I'll just add this:
The quality of AM can be remarkably good if it's engineered with care. The math and engineering tell us that, and excellent results can be and are achieved in practice (as a longtime FM-er I say that about AM as it's just fact)!
The reason why AM has a bad reputation is it's history and background: AM broadcast and other shortwave (3-30MHz) bands are much more prone to impulse and atmospheric noise than VHF and up. Also, the historical nature of RF amp design and detection never put its primary focus on the linearity of RF/IF amps, etc. (good linearity is easily achievable these days).
My primarily reason for responding to this part of your post is to point out that when receiving AM signals one can take excellent advantage of using a wider bandwidth than the actual spectrum occupied by the modulation products.
Unfortunately, most of us don't know or have forgotten about the Lamb Noise Silencer circuit which uses a wider bandwidth signal to gate out impulse noise.
Here, two IF amplifiers [or one especially modified] are employed. The main IF uses the required (narrow) channel bandwidth and the second IF uses a wider bandwidth. Shannon et al tell us the wider signal can arrive at the detector before the narrow BW signal and thus can be used gate out noise in the latter stages and or detector.
In operation a properly designed Lamb Noise Silencer is remarkably effective in reducing AM static etc.
Whilst never used as a broadcast service, I'd posit that if AM with say 20Hz-20kHz audio were put into the existing FM spectrum (88-108MHz) with its lower AM noise background together with receivers that used the Lamb circuit then AM would essentially be indistinguishable in quality from the existing FM service. In fact, it could be even better with audio reaching 20kHz [extra 5kHz] and this could be achieved with a much better utilization of the spectrum (with AM's inherently lower channel bandwidth)—many more stations could be added to the band.
Of course, that would have been impractical back 80 or so years ago when the FM band was conceived for reasons that in the days of tubes the required local oscillator stability would have been very difficult to achieve (but a non issue these days).
Sometimes, we overlook the fact that our predecessors have already been there, thought about and have done these things.
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...
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.
Digital trunked public safety systems solved this problem decades ago. If you key up when the frequency is in use you get a distinct rejected tone. I'd think prevention is far preferable to sorting it out once everyone's finished walking on each other.
Where new additional technologies are possible, they have been applied (digital packet networks, like with CPLDC - Controller-Pilot Data Link Communications).
Replacing A3E modulated VHF radio requires you replace it for literally everyone, because there are way more users at airport than you think.
In the public safety context it's not uncommon to phase in new systems (like digital trunked systems) incrementally. You accomplish that by simulcasting the dispatch audio over both systems, and monitoring incoming audio from both systems.
A common pattern for how this plays out would be something like this: all the fire departments and ems agencies in a given jurisdiction are dispatched using two-tone (eg, motorola) paging over a VHF frequency. New digital radios are introduced, and all the fire/ems personnel keep their existing pagers, and (some|most|all) are given the new digital radios. People without the new radios can still talk to dispatch using VHF. And of course systems can be configured to mirror audio around so that if one person is transmitting on VHF they can be heard on the digital system (usually on a channel in the 800mhz or 900mhz band). It's basically a fancy version of a repeater.
Dispatches are then given out over the same old VHF channel AND the new digital channel. In theory you can eventually replace all the old pagers and radios and quit with the simulcast deal, but IME, sometimes things stay in "parallel" mode more or less indefinitely for whatever reason[1]. That said, to your original point, you typically do want to get at least radios standardized as much as possible, even if you maintain the split for (paging|operational communications).
To illustrate, two jurisdictions I'm familiar with: Orange County NC, and Brunswick County, NC. Both followed the path I talked about above: all VHF dispatch for fire/ems, then adopted the NC VIPER digital trunking system, but continue to page on VHF and simulcast the dispatch information over both channels. I'm not sure exactly when Orange County adopted VIPER but it's been quite some time and they're still doing both. FSM only knows if/when they'll ever completely abandon the old VHF system.
[1]: and that reason is often as simple as "money". Plenty of volunteer fire departments in rural areas are skating by with barely enough money to keep their apparatus road-worthy. Replacing every hand-held and mobile radio they own in one fell swoop is often out of reach.
[Source: was a firefighter and 911 dispatcher in a previous life]
You're writing about experience in a closed system - as far as I know all such dispatch systems for public safety etc are closed system where everyone who is ever going to be on the net is part of the system, and it might at most be a case of "we don't have money to replace every member's radio".
In comparison, aviation radio is an open system - not only you do not know who is going to communicate, the communication is also peer to peer, unlike many digital trunked systems which often depend at least on some level of cellular support system.
The only "access control" on the airband VHF and HF comms is of legal variety, with explicit carve out that the person actually flying the aircraft is way less bound by legalities in case of emergencies, and everyone has to be able to talk with everyone, especially on one of the standard common channels.
Examples from personal experience involved various combinations of small airfield ATZ, MiG-29, gliders, old ursus tractor (agricultural kind), busted up Opel Kadett, airliners, ultralights, small transport planes, private helicopters, and dunno who was responsible party but helicopter working as diplomatic flight.
All on one small airfield. And every one of those had to communicate independent of each other with everyone else on that list.
The only time we do "rebroadcast" is when we end up having to do a manual relay due to distance, which is also one of the rare cases where comms might switch over to a more modern system, because someone could ask ATC over VHF to pass something over CPDLC to airliner or using HF, and vice versa.
The poor A3E modulation on VHF airband is the lingua franca, the lowest common denominator, which allows random aircraft from anywhere in the world talk to another random aircraft, as well as ground.
That is not a factor anymore. Capable wideband transcievers like the ones in Baofengs and similar supporting multiple types of modulation cost cents.
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.
AM is not providing any benefit of simplicity, but not changing standards avoids the transaction cost of change.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenerife_airport_disaster#Comm... tells a more accurate story: the root cause was that the captain assumed they were cleared for take-off without actually hearing their own callsign and the word "cleared".
Since then, the word "take-off" is avoided in any other type of communication (eg. you might hear "report ready for departure" but never "report ready for take-off"), and every pilot knows never to assume that a clearance has been given unless they hear those exact words together with their callsign.
In case of gaussian noise, double the bandwidth means 1.41x more noise. For signal, double the bandwidth double the signal.
Not all noise is gaussian. And the fact that the noise is random while the signal is not, is useful when you can average and drop your noise floor. But you need multiple measurements to do that.
From a signal:noise perspective, what matters is the ratio of bandwidth available in the transmission channel to the bandwidth of the content you are trying to send. Consider GPS, for instance, where the use of a 2 MHz channel to send 50 bps data provides an SNR advantage that would otherwise be achievable only through witchcraft.
FM has strong noise immunity advantages -- notably AM rejection and the capture effect -- but they don't provide additional sound quality by themselves. That's where the bandwidth helps. An FM channel that is only as wide as an AM channel would sound pretty awful.
Comparing such low-modulation factor FM with traditional AM would be an interesting experiment.
It certainly wouldn't sound good, but I'm not sure it would sound worse than traditional AM at the same SNR. The NFM use-cases I'm familiar with tend to cap audio bandwidth, so they're not fair comparisons.
But hey, no static at all... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HV3zWSawJiw
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.