2009 should be the year for FMXtra

[mgpt6]

With the economy being what it is, 2009 should be the year small and medium market FM stations to loook at FMXtra. IBOC is too expensive in these times . At 12-15k FMXtra is a good system for many stations to do digital.
Peter G., before he went to upstate NY, Aaron Read ,tried to get the board of WZBC 90.3FM to look at FMXtra,but the "chicken and the egg" scenario got it disapproved by the board.

 

[RadeoEngineer]

With the economy being what it is, 2009 should be the year small and medium market FM stations to loook at FMXtra. IBOC is too expensive in these times . At 12-15k FMXtra is a good system for many stations to do digital.
Peter G., before he went to upstate NY, Aaron Read ,tried to get the board of WZBC 90.3FM to look at FMXtra,but the "chicken and the egg" scenario got it disapproved by the board.

I doubt it. It's a clever system, but even at 10-12k there's still the problem of what to do with it, and that's also a very big number for many broadcasters. Without a business model where you can actually sell subscriptions to a service there is no call for the system. Remember that receivers are table top style and cost between $150-$200. What compelling content would cause an individual to plunk down that kind of coin for an immobile receiver? Say you had 1000 people willing to sign up and pay $5 a month for your content in their home (the receivers are addressable and can be turned off for non-payment). You'd have to invest approximately $175k for the equipment and receivers for a monthly return of $5k. Then you have to have someone administrate the content, the billing and collections, and deal with cancellations, equipment return, new customers, etc. Now if you could figure out how to grow the customer base to say 10k, you might be able to turn a small coin on it, but again, what is the compelling content and who is going to run this side business?

Don't get me wrong, I like the system, but like anything else it has to be mobile (cars, boom boxes, ipod style receivers) and it has to offer something you can't already find elsewhere.

 

[SUPERCASTER]

With the economy being what it is, 2009 should be the year small and medium market FM stations to loook at FMXtra. IBOC is too expensive in these times . At 12-15k FMXtra is a good system for many stations to do digital.
Peter G., before he went to upstate NY, Aaron Read ,tried to get the board of WZBC 90.3FM to look at FMXtra,but the "chicken and the egg" scenario got it disapproved by the board.

I doubt it. It's a clever system, but even at 10-12k there's still the problem of what to do with it, and that's also a very big number for many broadcasters. Without a business model where you can actually sell subscriptions to a service there is no call for the system. Remember that receivers are table top style and cost between $150-$200. What compelling content would cause an individual to plunk down that kind of coin for an immobile receiver? Say you had 1000 people willing to sign up and pay $5 a month for your content in their home (the receivers are addressable and can be turned off for non-payment). You'd have to invest approximately $175k for the equipment and receivers for a monthly return of $5k. Then you have to have someone administrate the content, the billing and collections, and deal with cancellations, equipment return, new customers, etc. Now if you could figure out how to grow the customer base to say 10k, you might be able to turn a small coin on it, but again, what is the compelling content and who is going to run this side business?

Don't get me wrong, I like the system, but like anything else it has to be mobile (cars, boom boxes, ipod style receivers) and it has to offer something you can't already find elsewhere.www.extremetech.com

Is your post about FMextra or HD Radio?
More the latter then the former, I suspect.

FMeXtra does not necessarily require subscribers, and can more easily be mobile then HD Radio (cars, boom boxes, ipod style receivers). The detection and decoding is much simpler and much less power consuming then HD Radio, making battery operation much more practical. In fact the aac codec and low power consumption digital signal processor required for audio playback is already in many portable and battery operated devices including the iPods, MP3 players, cell phones, newer car cd players/radios, etc. you mention. FMeXtra reception only requires the usual FM antenna and a slightly modified circuit employing a standard FM stereo reciever chip. There are no high gain multiple carrier adjacent channel wide bandwidth detection problems as with HD Radio.

I'm suggesting FMeXtra as a simpler, longer range, lower power consumption, less expensive, more spectrum efficient, overall better replacement for HD Radio, not as an additional subscription service.

 

[Chuck]

I'm suggesting FMeXtra as a simpler, longer range, lower power consumption, less expensive, more spectrum efficient, overall better replacement for HD Radio, not as an additional subscription service.

I agree. It also works well on all FM stations, regardless of power level. I've even used it on a 74 watt LPFM station, and the results were remarkable. That kind of technology tends to "level the playing field." between large and small broadcasters. HD on the other hand only favors high power broadcasters, which is a factor that I'm sure influenced the decision to adopt (or at least, the push) IBOC. HD, at least, preserves the status quo. In fact, it frequently seems to give the HD broadcaster a distinct advantage by increasing the noise floor, thus making weaker stations harder to receive on normal analog radios.

Radio Engineer makes a good point though. Even though FMeXtra is a better and simpler solution, the basic question remains "Do we really need new secondary and tertiary channels?" Public Broadcasters and some Religious Broadcasters seem to think so. What I've seen so far from most commercial broadcasters is it is just another distraction that dilutes their primary audience who is currently served by their analog signal. At least right now, there aren't enough radios out there to make much difference. That could certainly change, but it is a long-term goal. By the time it actually happens, there will be so many other programming diversion that the topic may be moot. See Skip Pizzi's article "3G or Not 3G? That is the Question," in the November 19 issue of Radio World. He makes some very valid observations.

Of course, none of us can really foresee the future...

 

[RadeoEngineer]

With the economy being what it is, 2009 should be the year small and medium market FM stations to loook at FMXtra. IBOC is too expensive in these times . At 12-15k FMXtra is a good system for many stations to do digital.
Peter G., before he went to upstate NY, Aaron Read ,tried to get the board of WZBC 90.3FM to look at FMXtra,but the "chicken and the egg" scenario got it disapproved by the board.

I doubt it. It's a clever system, but even at 10-12k there's still the problem of what to do with it, and that's also a very big number for many broadcasters. Without a business model where you can actually sell subscriptions to a service there is no call for the system. Remember that receivers are table top style and cost between $150-$200. What compelling content would cause an individual to plunk down that kind of coin for an immobile receiver? Say you had 1000 people willing to sign up and pay $5 a month for your content in their home (the receivers are addressable and can be turned off for non-payment). You'd have to invest approximately $175k for the equipment and receivers for a monthly return of $5k. Then you have to have someone administrate the content, the billing and collections, and deal with cancellations, equipment return, new customers, etc. Now if you could figure out how to grow the customer base to say 10k, you might be able to turn a small coin on it, but again, what is the compelling content and who is going to run this side business?

Don't get me wrong, I like the system, but like anything else it has to be mobile (cars, boom boxes, ipod style receivers) and it has to offer something you can't already find elsewhere.www.extremetech.com

Is your post about FMextra or HD Radio?
More the latter then the former, I suspect.

FMeXtra does not necessarily require subscribers, and can more easily be mobile then HD Radio (cars, boom boxes, ipod style receivers). The detection and decoding is much simpler and much less power consuming then HD Radio, making battery operation much more practical. In fact the aac codec and low power consumption digital signal processor required for audio playback is already in many portable and battery operated devices including the iPods, MP3 players, cell phones, newer car cd players/radios, etc. you mention. FMeXtra reception only requires the usual FM antenna and a slightly modified circuit employing a standard FM stereo reciever chip. There are no high gain multiple carrier adjacent channel wide bandwidth detection problems as with HD Radio.

I'm suggesting FMeXtra as a simpler, longer range, lower power consumption, less expensive, more spectrum efficient, overall better replacement for HD Radio, not as an additional subscription service.

No my post is about FMxTra. I think it's a great system, but there are still no portable receivers for it, even though there could easily be, unlike IBUZ. The question becomes what do you do with it? One use I see is putting one's AM on one of the carriers, that would be a good use, but you've still got the problem of getting receivers into people's hands, hopefully at less than $150, really more like $20. I brought up subscription services as a possible revenue center. I've done this with foreign language broadcasters on analog SCA and they made a little money doing it. The point is without compelling content of some sort to make people want a receiver, it's just a very good technology with little potential for income generation.

Now, how about having an AM on an SCA that's carrying a ballgame that someone goes to and can actually listen to the commentary in real time without the noise of the AM (if they can receive it in the stadium)? That could sell some portables if they existed. Why not make that a subscriber upgrade for $1 a game? Let's see, 10% of average attendees at 80 home baseball games a year (say 2500 receivers) equals $200,000 just for that one service. Maybe it catches on and you get 30%. Now there's some money. I'm not the business guy, I just screw the wires together, but to think that FMxTra will suddenly boom without a business plan including compelling content to make it a revenue center is a bit enthusiastic. No?

 

[clouseau]

No my post is about FMxTra. I think it's a great system, but there are still no portable receivers for it, even though there could easily be, unlike IBUZ. The question becomes what do you do with it? One use I see is putting one's AM on one of the carriers, that would be a good use, but you've still got the problem of getting receivers into people's hands, hopefully at less than $150, really more like $20. I brought up subscription services as a possible revenue center. I've done this with foreign language broadcasters on analog SCA and they made a little money doing it. The point is without compelling content of some sort to make people want a receiver, it's just a very good technology with little potential for income generation.

Now, how about having an AM on an SCA that's carrying a ballgame that someone goes to and can actually listen to the commentary in real time without the noise of the AM (if they can receive it in the stadium)? That could sell some portables if they existed. Why not make that a subscriber upgrade for $1 a game? Let's see, 10% of average attendees at 80 home baseball games a year (say 2500 receivers) equals $200,000 just for that one service. Maybe it catches on and you get 30%. Now there's some money. I'm not the business guy, I just screw the wires together, but to think that FMxTra will suddenly boom without a business plan including compelling content to make it a revenue center is a bit enthusiastic. No?

I really like the FMeXtra system. However there is STILL a radio problem. Unlike HD radios which are available in cars and at home in tabletops or tuners, there is still only one FMeXtra radio AFAIK, The ARUBA. Nice radio. But tabletop only. and $200 - ONLY from broadcast distributers. HD radios are not uncommon at $50. Some even less.

I would characterize DRE's response to using their system INSTEAD of HD as tepid at best. I've had a couple of exchanges with DRE and a lengthy one with Lyle Henry, the FMeXtra evangelist. I won't speak for these folks, but it's MY perception that they see themselves as more of an SCA alternative than a "Mass marketed" system, at least in the USA. Ditto the FCC seems to look at it that way. You can use a translator to rebroadcast an HD2 or HD3, but NOT an FMeXtra stream. Reason? "FMeXtra is not intended for reception by the general public." Again let me restate, this is just what I hear. Personally, I see it in another very different light.

A while back, DRE had a drawing of how they envisioned FMX working in the broadcast world on a single station. They showed FM mono, Which would be your basic "Talk Station". Really good MONO FM fidelity for talk. That leaves space for 2-64KPS music channels. Result? 3 really good fidelity stations per FM stick. I like that idea.

I believe you can run down to 16kps on the FMX stuff (Obviously mono). That could give you 8 channels of talk on the FMX instead. Or analog stereo and 64 KPS. It's all kinda cool. But they just don't seem to be interested in getting it started anywhere as far as an HD competitor.

I could be wrong, but I don't think so.

Clouseau

 

[Chuck]

It's all kinda cool. But they just don't seem to be interested in getting it started anywhere as far as an HD competitor.

I could be wrong, but I don't think so.

Clouseau

I wonder if there is some way we could "kick start" the FME folks into being a little more aggressive. If the tables turned, and the FCC decided that FME was for public consumption, then it would be a venue that would allow FM Translators to originate programming targeted at a specific audience or location. That in itself could be huge.

They are leaving money on the table.

 

[clouseau]

I wonder if there is some way we could "kick start" the FME folks into being a little more aggressive. If the tables turned, and the FCC decided that FME was for public consumption, then it would be a venue that would allow FM Translators to originate programming targeted at a specific audience or location. That in itself could be huge.

They are leaving money on the table.

I couldn't agree with you more, Chuck. When I mentioned the difficulty in buying a FMX radio as it was only availble through broadcast suppliers, I got the"Why would anyone in the general public want to buy one?" type of response. I could see small markets being "FMeXtra" markets easily if the barriers were removed. But I'm not running their business. And the fact that they "STAY" in business must mean they're doing something right. Still, I could even see a community group buying the equipment and renting an SCA for a song somewhere. Oh Well.

Clouseau

 

[Play Freebird]

I wonder if there is some way we could "kick start" the FME folks into being a little more aggressive. If the tables turned, and the FCC decided that FME was for public consumption, then it would be a venue that would allow FM Translators to originate programming targeted at a specific audience or location. That in itself could be huge.

This "not intended for reception by the general public" hangup has me questioning the FCC's infinite wisdom once again.

Aside from the particular subcarrier frequencies used, how is FM audio "SCA" much different than a SAP channel carried by a television station? Yet SAP capability has been included in MTS TV receivers for years and is clearly intended to be used by the public. What really matters here is the intent of the broadcaster, not the modulation scheme or means of transmission.

Is this a case where the FCC is stuck 40 years in the past, still hesitant to allow ordinary citizens to own SCA receivers, lest they be tempted to play MUZAK® in their homes without authorization?

 

[clouseau]

This "not intended for reception by the general public" hangup has me questioning the FCC's infinite wisdom once again.

Aside from the particular subcarrier frequencies used, how is FM audio "SCA" much different than a SAP channel carried by a television station? Yet SAP capability has been included in MTS TV receivers for years and is clearly intended to be used by the public. What really matters here is the intent of the broadcaster, not the modulation scheme or means of transmission.

Is this a case where the FCC is stuck 40 years in the past, still hesitant to allow ordinary citizens to own SCA receivers, lest they be tempted to play MUZAK® in their homes without authorization?

Well frankly, the idea that HD2 & HD3 can get translated on an analog translator strikes me as a little weird. However I can assme the Commision it trying to promote the HD project. As "I" read the rules, it should not be allowed. But "FCC rules" seems like a concept more and more in flux. And honestly, no one could have envisioned FMX when the SCA rules were devised.

Also, if you allow an STA for AM on a translator and then feed the translator with an FMeXtra subcarrier of that AM station, aren't we really talking semantics? The layout is identical. ESPECIALLY if the FM broadcaster sells FMX radios to the public. FMX is a lot closer to FM and HD than AM.

I suspect there may be another force at work here. That is, I question if there is a clear definition of the legality of FMX radios being used by the general public in the US. The use of tunable SCA radios is NOT permitted (Despite their availability). And there really isn't any clarification that I have seen that changes that premise just because the SCA is digital. IIRC SCA is pretty much deregulated. That would allow for the modulation scheme, but not to allow a tunable receiver. Is it possible that neither DRE or the FCC want to push the issue and be forced to make or accept a precise ruling? Since FMX radios "ARE" addressable, this could be construed to be a moot point. However if held to the letter of the rules, would the FCC require each FMX broadcaster to only individually authorize every radio so the broadcaster actually has a "Subscriber" list and prevent "General reception". While "Subscribing" could be free, it would be an administrative pain in the #$%^! for the station. And the listeners. I wonder if DRE is staying away from general public adaptation and radio sales so their "Digital" SCA is treated like analog SCA?

Just thinking out loud.

Clouseau

 

[Carmine5]

I'm suggesting FMeXtra as a simpler, longer range, lower power consumption, less expensive, more spectrum efficient, overall better replacement for HD Radio, not as an additional subscription service.

Even though FMeXtra is a better and simpler solution, the basic question remains "Do we really need new secondary and tertiary channels?" Public Broadcasters and some Religious Broadcasters seem to think so. What I've seen so far from most commercial broadcasters is it is just another distraction that dilutes their primary audience who is currently served by their analog signal.

I think there is merit to the question of audience dilution in the context of one station being responsible for programming its side channels.

But what if those side channels were sold to another broadcast company?

In light of the recent agreement between Ion Media and Urban Television, that question is discussed in the latest Broadcast Law Blog.

Although the agreement itself involves DTV there are similar possibilities for digital radio as the blog points out:

"The idea of allowing a broadcaster to sell a digital channel to a different company...for both Digital Television and Digital HD Radio channels [or FMeXtra] when the original station is multicasting, as a way to increase diversity of ownership."

http://www.broadcastlawblog.com/arc...ue-concept-for-increaing-media-ownership.html

As The Diversity and Competition Supporters point out in their comments to the FCC (http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6520036364), should the EXB proposal not be approved, this could be an acceptable alternative.

C5

 

[Chuck]

Well frankly, the idea that HD2 & HD3 can get translated on an analog translator strikes me as a little weird. However I can assme the Commision it trying to promote the HD project. As "I" read the rules, it should not be allowed. But "FCC rules" seems like a concept more and more in flux. And honestly, no one could have envisioned FMX when the SCA rules were devised.

Also, if you allow an STA for AM on a translator and then feed the translator with an FMeXtra subcarrier of that AM station, aren't we really talking semantics? The layout is identical. ESPECIALLY if the FM broadcaster sells FMX radios to the public. FMX is a lot closer to FM and HD than AM.

I suspect there may be another force at work here. That is, I question if there is a clear definition of the legality of FMX radios being used by the general public in the US. The use of tunable SCA radios is NOT permitted (Despite their availability). And there really isn't any clarification that I have seen that changes that premise just because the SCA is digital. IIRC SCA is pretty much deregulated. That would allow for the modulation scheme, but not to allow a tunable receiver. Is it possible that neither DRE or the FCC want to push the issue and be forced to make or accept a precise ruling? Since FMX radios "ARE" addressable, this could be construed to be a moot point. However if held to the letter of the rules, would the FCC require each FMX broadcaster to only individually authorize every radio so the broadcaster actually has a "Subscriber" list and prevent "General reception". While "Subscribing" could be free, it would be an administrative pain in the #$%^! for the station. And the listeners. I wonder if DRE is staying away from general public adaptation and radio sales so their "Digital" SCA is treated like analog SCA?

Just thinking out loud.

Clouseau

I seem to read the translator rules as you do. That makes the idea of rebroadcasting a secondary HD channel on a translator rate very high on my "WTF?" list of questions. In any case, it is an interesting end run around the rules. If I were the FMeXtra folks, I'd be working hard to get it accepted as a "broadcast" format that is intended for public consumption. They could keep busy for quite a while converting translators into originating stations. People would buy it. I know I would.

When the SCA rules were originally set in concrete, nobody had thought of either HD or FMeXtra. It is time to fix those rules to reflect the technology that is currently available. Does anyone run background music on SCA channels any more?

Defining FMeXtra as a "Broadcast Service" should be easy to do simply by building the radios so they do not decode analog SCA signals, or signals that do not use the same codec as FME. Sounds easy? I think it is. This is more a problem of semantics, than technology.

 

[clouseau]

I seem to read the translator rules as you do. That makes the idea of rebroadcasting a secondary HD channel on a translator rate very high on my "WTF?" list of questions.

Wellput. I have no problem with it, just don't see how it fits in the rules.

In any case, it is an interesting end run around the rules. If I were the FMeXtra folks, I'd be working hard to get it accepted as a "broadcast" format that is intended for public consumption. They could keep busy for quite a while converting translators into originating stations. People would buy it. I know I would.

Me, too.Therein lies the rub. There is a large majority of folks in broadcasting that absolutly do NOT think class d stations (Translators) should be able to locally originate. The NAB went balistic over RM 11331 which was to allow fm translators to originate programming. Even Prometheus and the like wouldn't stand for it. Frankly that position pretty well soured me on the organized low power movement. It was pretty clear to me that "Getting service" wasn't anywhere as important to a lot of folks than "I get to broadcast". Mostly were comments like "It's not fair that translators could originate. Others have waited in line forever." Way too much short sitedness IMHO. My answer is let Class "D" run like LPTV. Translate/ originate/ affiliate/ whatever.

Of course that's just my opinion. What do I know.

Clouseau

When the SCA rules were originally set in concrete, nobody had thought of either HD or FMeXtra. It is time to fix those rules to reflect the technology that is currently available. Does anyone run background music on SCA channels any more?

Defining FMeXtra as a "Broadcast Service" should be easy to do simply by building the radios so they do not decode analog SCA signals, or signals that do not use the same codec as FME. Sounds easy? I think it is. This is more a problem of semantics, than technology.



[/quote]

 

[mgpt6]

FMXtra SCA could use a 20% injection level with stereo stations and 30% injection with mono stations without any subcarriers or 19k pilot tone. FMxtra saves a lot of electicity over IBOC. If the FCC approves IBOCs 10db power increase (which I hope they dont), it will mean a large increase in electical costs and new linear transmitter for the IBOC signal.

If there was no BOC,how much interfernece would FMXtra cause if the SCA subcarrier baseband extended beyond 99KHz into the 103-189 KHz baseband compared to IBOC at -23db of anlog power ?

 

[Chuck]

Me, too.Therein lies the rub. There is a large majority of folks in broadcasting that absolutly do NOT think class d stations (Translators) should be able to locally originate. The NAB went balistic over RM 11331 which was to allow fm translators to originate programming. Even Prometheus and the like wouldn't stand for it. Frankly that position pretty well soured me on the organized low power movement. It was pretty clear to me that "Getting service" wasn't anywhere as important to a lot of folks than "I get to broadcast". Mostly were comments like "It's not fair that translators could originate. Others have waited in line forever." Way too much short sitedness IMHO. My answer is let Class "D" run like LPTV. Translate/ originate/ affiliate/ whatever.

Of course that's just my opinion. What do I know.

You probably know about as much as I know. The original intent of LPFM was to allow local groups to broadcast locally originated programming that is otherwise not available in their market. That is a laudable cause. If there is a legal way to convert translators to provide some local origination, I don't see a problem. It accomplishes the goal of providing local broadcasting. It certainly beats being just a satillator.

Unfortunately, the LPFM movement has been hijacked by groups of religious broadcasters and organizations like Prometheus who have a different political agenda. Worse yet, the FCC has been drinking their Kool-Aid.

 

[clouseau]

If there was no BOC,how much interfernece would FMXtra cause if the SCA subcarrier baseband extended beyond 99KHz into the 103-189 KHz baseband compared to IBOC at -23db of anlog power ?

I'd have to find an answer to that, precisely, as that's really beyond my technical expertise, however it pretty much defeats the purpose of FMX. If you start re-engineering actual transmitters and then the associated antennas to increase bandwidth, you might as well run HD radio. FMX's priamary advantages are compatability, low installation cost and operates on the existing frequency only. If you expand to adjacents like HD, you pretty well eliminate any reason not to do HD, IMHO.

Clouseau

 

[Play Freebird]

FMXtra SCA could use a 20% injection level with stereo stations and 30% injection with mono stations without any subcarriers or 19k pilot tone. FMxtra saves a lot of electicity over IBOC. If the FCC approves IBOCs 10db power increase (which I hope they dont), it will mean a large increase in electical costs and new linear transmitter for the IBOC signal.

If there was no BOC,how much interfernece would FMXtra cause if the SCA subcarrier baseband extended beyond 99KHz into the 103-189 KHz baseband compared to IBOC at -23db of anlog power ?

A good question -- and one that occurred to me when Lyle Henry stopped by here last year to demonstrate the FM eXtra system.

One of the stations we tested it on was equipped to run HD, so I brought my spectrum analyzer to compare the occupied bandwidth of an NRSC-5 compliant hybrid digital IBOC signal (digital power at -20 dB) vs. FM eXtra riding on an FM stereo composite baseband at about 20% injection, but with IBOC turned off. As Lyle set the subcarrier injection to a 20% "average" level, the peak modulation indicator on the FM exciter was flirting with 150%, yet the occupied bandwidth as seen on the analyzer was notably less than with the IBOC "saddlebags" turned on.

This makes perfect sense if you understand the relationship of FM sidebands to the carrier, as described mathematically with Bessel functions. Assuming FM eXtra is centered at 76 kHz and injected at 20 percent, the subcarrier alone would account for 15 kHz of deviation of the FM signal, so the subcarrier's modulation index = 15/76 or roughly 0.2.

But at such a low index, the first pair of sidebands generated by the subcarrier (offset from the center of the channel by +/- 76 kHz) would only account for around 10 percent amplitude relative to the carrier, and the second set (at +/- 152 kHz, falling in the first-adjacent channel) would remain below one percent. For reference, here's a table of Bessel functions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_modulation#Bessel_functions

If FM eXtra injection were increased to 50 percent, the modulation index would rise to around 0.5, but even with this significant increase in modulation, relative amplitude of the second sideband pair would only come up to 3 percent, and the third pair would still remain less than 1 percent. I'd expect this should have much less impact on adjacent-channel stations than the proposed 10 dB IBOC power increase, but some existing FM receivers might have trouble handling peak deviation above 100 kHz.

As for transmitter and antenna bandwidth limitations, most modern exciters and solid-state power amps can easily handle 150 kHz deviation, and I wouldn't expect significant problems with the majority of antennas currently installed.

 

[hipporadio]

SORRY... Wrong thread... Nearly forgot how to work this thing :-[ but I do wish FMXtra would "come out from beneath its covers".

 

[jras20]

About how far will FMExtra go? farther than HD?

 

[Chuck]

About how far will FMExtra go? farther than HD?

In my experiments when Lyle Henry visited last summer, it went about as far as our analog signal. In fact, it seemed to decode OK in areas where the analog signal could best be described as "marginal." The FMeXtra signal sounded a lot better than the analog, especially in those otherwise marginal areas. Just the fact that it stayed locked in stereo was significant. An analog car radio blended to mono way before we had any reception problems with FME. This was with a 74 watt LPFM station. I have no reason to think it would work any worse on a full power station.