[mikethedruid]

I have been following the discussions here with some interest, and am a bit puzzled. Here we are talking about AMPLITUDE MODULATION, not FREQUENCY MODULATION, if I am not mistaken. Nor are we talking about digital AM, but simple AM. Now, were we discussing frequency modulation, I could certainly understand why an increased bandwidth would be important to improve fidelity; but with amplitude modulation, I do not see how a wider bandwidth is necessary to provide this. With amplitude modulation, all that needs to vary is the intensity, the strength, of the electro-magnetic waves reaching the radio's antenna. Even with a very narrow bandwidth, a signal which varies in intensity with the audio frequency it carries, should reproduce that audio frequency once detected at the receiver. All that a wider bandwidth really does is allow a station to "splash" all over adjacent stations, and make reception of them difficult or impossible. This was actually proved some years ago by experiments done by WLW (700AM, Cincinnati) and WOR (710AM, New York), both 50,000 watt, clear channel stations.They cut back their bandwidth to 10KC max so that neither stepped on the other. Listeners reported no discernible difference in audio quality between their normal and restricted bandwidth broadcasts, but did report that they could now receive both stations where under their normal bandwidth they could only receive one of them clearly.
https://www.radioworld.com/tech-and-gear...idth-on-am