Please don't take offense, I'm not sure, but that is not my interpretation on how RF technology works. Especially based on real world testing I have done. Let me know what you think.
Trying to find the best solution for my needs, I used two handheld UHF radios with programmable bandwidth (FM and NFM). The test and results are...
1.) When both radios are utilizing the same bandwidth, the volume is unchanged.
2.) When they are both narrow, they can talk further compared to when they are both wide band, while using the same power.
3.) When they are both narrow, there is less noise interference as distance increases or if interfering signals are nearby.
4.) When one was wide and the other was narrow,
- the wide signal was loud on the narrow receiver and had audio distortion when the radios were in close proximity.
- the narrow signal received by the wide band receiver was quiet due to increase noise (and lack of bandwidth) and eventually undetectable on the wide band receiver as distance increased, due to high noise to signal ratio. The narrow receiver could still hear the wide band signal because it was not lost in the noise.
So, benefits of narrow band comms are less noise, further distance per watt, more "channel" spacing.
The benefit of wide band is the ability to move more data, faster.
I think the Midland radio tech is excellent for what it is, but the drawbacks to mixing the two bandwidth types results in pretty poor comms for all parties involved. :-( It's not that the radio is poor... people just need to purchase the technology that will support their primary use and accept performance shortcomings in secondary areas.