. THE GREATER GOOD
SEVERAL months from now, STEREO REVIEW will be featuring a story on radio-frequency interference (RFI) in audio systems, which shows promise of becoming even more of a problem for audiophiles than it is right now. In the meantime, this is a good time and place to bring up an aspect of the RFI situation that the article will only touch on-the le gal aspect.
In a remarkably short time, the emergence of strange voices saying odd things from the speakers of an audio system switched to the phono or tape input has progressed from be full-fledged nuisance. Not that such interference was unheard of up till a few years ago;
rather, listeners afflicted with it often didn't know what they were hearing, since it consist ed in many cases of unidentifiable noises. But now the citizens-band blitz of speech trans missions (tending to be heard, often quite distinctly, as speech when they get into an audio system) has clearly identified the culprit, and tempers are beginning to flare.
To the audiophile newly conscious of RFI, it is a specter of considerable menace: an in tolerable invasion of his privacy, a persistent violation of his guaranteed rights to pursue his own private, law-abiding activities within the sanctity of his own home. The fact that the CB'ers, doing their "rubber-ducky 10-4" number piggyback on your Mozart, are oblivious to their interference with other people's pleasure only adds insult to the injury and helps explain why many generally mild-mannered audiophiles are often on a very short fuse where this subject is concerned.
When the lot next door is suddenly convert ed into a boiler factory, a homeowner hardly expects the government to tell him to get ear plugs or move. Nor does the pollution-conscious citizen anticipate advice on how to choose a gas mask when he complains to city hall about harmful industrial emissions. Is it possible that the government will remain indifferent when the sanctity of an individual's audio system is invaded in as sudden, as imperious a fashion? In a word, yes. The rules say, in effect, that broadcasters and other r.f. sources operating within constraints imposed by the FCC have the right to continue unimpeded by concern for interference with your audio system. If you have a piece of equipment that is acting as an involuntary receptor of such broadcasts (no matter whether it is a multi-kilobuck stereo system, a cheap table record player, or a gold filling), it is a matter strictly between you and-if you can get him involved-the manufacturer of your equipment.
Presumably this rule was enacted in the interest of the greater good, and indeed the case for commercial and certain types of amateur radio broadcasts being invaluable public ser vices is as strong-or as weak-as ever. But many question whether a radio medium such as CB, used heavily for personal chitchat (and of thwarting traffic laws) is really worthy of such protection. However, as radio amateurs point out, CB is only one of many interference sources, even if it is now the most obvious and widespread. The goal, they say, should be to eliminate all interference effects, no matter from where. What about that? BY the time you read this, the Goldwater Vanick bill, languishing from inattention in the 1976 Congress, will almost certainly have expired. However, the consensus is that it will just as certainly be reintroduced in a similar form during 1977, and with a good deal more Congressional support. The G-V bill proposes several changes in the Federal Communications Act, the charter under which all forms of radio and radio-related communications operate in this country. One change would tighten up the restrictions on spurious radiation from any device capable of emitting r.f. energy (affecting only devices yet to be produced, of course). Another would man date "the use of protective components in au dio and visual electronic equipment which are capable of reducing interference to such equipment from radio-frequency energy." The intent of the bill is to empower the FCC to create standards under which equipment not complying with said standards cannot legally be sold or otherwise trafficked in. As a matter of fact, according to the strictest interpretation of the bill, non-complying equipment cannot even be used.
So far there's been little jubilation over the government's plan to, in effect, outlaw RFI.
Television manufacturers (TV sets tend to suffer from CB interference on several VHF channels) feel the proposed restrictions on the various sources of spurious radiation are not stringent enough. Other victims (and perpetrators) of interference have their own tales of woe. Bobbing around in this sea of controversy are the manufacturers of audio equipment-particularly of amplifiers, preamplifiers, and the like. For them, the only likely prospect is the bleak one of having to erect ever-stronger technical fortifications against a mounting deluge of radio energy, and perhaps having to do so in ways that are not sympathetic either technically (quality cost) or economically (dollar cost) to their general design philosophies.
A few conversations at random with audio-industry spokesmen have turned up the following difficulties they believe they face:
(1) Finding and hiring experts in interference and coordinating their work with that of the existing engineering staff to create feasible, afford able designs. (2) Redesigning circuits and hence rearranging assembly lines for the insertion of r.f. suppression devices, possibly even redesigning chassis to improve their shielding. (3) Determining in advance what is likely to happen when their equipment is connected to other manufacturers' equipment,
dealing somehow with the difficulties, and solving the problem of reliable interconnecting cables. (4) Above all, duplicating the test conditions specified by the FCC so that de signs can be tested (the problems of creating a uniform reference r.f. field of carefully con trolled strength are giving pause even to the FCC at the moment).
Add to these some concerns reflecting the special nature of the high-fidelity industry.
For example, can the cost of all the above be paid for by a product such as a preamplifier, which is not designed to sell at a remarkably high profit margin and which will probably not be sold in great quantities anyway? Some audio manufacturers oppose bandwidth limiting in their products on aesthetic/philosophical grounds; what will be their reaction when they are called upon to insert r.f. traps and filters? There is, in fact, some evidence that conventional r.f. filtering techniques have in the past been responsible for a degradation in the performance of devices such as phono preamplifiers.
The problems of the audio industry will, of course, become the problems of the audio consumer in time. Prices will go up whether you require heavy r.f. suppression in your lo cation or not since the manufacturer will not be permitted to manufacture any but r.f.-suppressive units. It is likely that some compromises in performance, measurable if not audible, will characterize at least the first equipment built to meet the proposed regulations.
Separate components and add-on accessories will present difficulties when interfaced, with who-knows-what result. Other advances in the state of the art will inevitably be held back as efforts are diverted to r.f. interference.
And, on top of all this, CB'ers broadcasting at illegal power levels with readily available linear amplifiers may still come crashing through your curtain of protection and into your living room. Indeed, many wonder whether the coming onslaught of radio energy can effectively be shielded against or filtered out by any practical, general "fix" (as opposed to specific cures for specific cases).
THE situation, in a nutshell, is this: The audio industry would of course like to eliminate RFI completely, but many of its members would like to work toward this goal in their own way, perhaps with specific rather than blanket cures. (The question of whether they can be trusted to do this, and with all deliberate speed, remains a question, of course.) They would also like-without much hope of getting their wish fulfilled-to see the existing laws on illegal CB transmissions and equipment more vigorously enforced. Also, they wonder whether the indiscriminate licensing of CB operators, with its potential for throwing the television and home-entertainment equipment of millions into chaos, can really be in the interest of the greater good. We wonder also.
The issue is a complex one. Probably it can not be argued on moral grounds, although it's undeniably tempting to try to do so. What will probably help most right now, while things are pending in the Congress, is the weight of public opinion. So if you have opinions on this issue or any of its aspects, you're urged to make contact with your legislators in Washington. Your calls and letters will be doubly appreciated because, unless I miss my guess, the good senators and congressmen are just as disturbed (and even more mystified) about all this as you and I.
Also see:
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR (Feb 1977)
Source: Stereo Review (USA magazine)