• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Agree to disagree

R

RadioDoc

Guest
Hello fellow Radio-Info-ites.

First, let me start with an apology.

I am a passionate guy. I've been in this business for well over 20 years. It is, second to my family, a large part of who I am.

I am a fan of great radio. Great radio, to me, means many things. It's the local station running "tradio". It's the major market station with the great talent. It is looking at a plant and seeing great engineering at work. It is the innovation we see every day. To take technology that is 90 years old, and do something very new with it is exciting.

I also have the bad habit of enjoying debates.

The rest of you have had to put up with arguing between Rich Wood, SuperSound, and I. I've been pretty hard on them, probably more than I should have been. I think the three of us have more in common than we think.

I still do not agree with everything they say, and I'm sure that they don't agree with everything I say. In my quest for what I believe to be truth, I did something I regret. I forgot to show respect.

Respect for having something as basic as an opinion. I may not agree with it, and I may not believe that is has a basis in fact. But it's their opinion, and they are entitled to it.

It seems like the three of us like to push each others buttons.

Anyway, to them and to you, I apologize. I could find a better way to debate with you without showing disrespect.

Now, a simple request. When you mention something, please state it as opinion, unless you have the facts to back it up. In a case where the facts support two different conclusions, one or both may have good points. Please call me out on it when I do it as well. Ask me to back it up, or state that it's opinion.

In the case of IBOC, some have the opinion that it's flawed. OK, great. Let's conduct some real world tests to prove that! I would love to see some definitive proof from a third party. I have scans and results that are reproduceable showing that it works. Scans taken months apart looking at various bandwidths. IBOC on and off. If anyone has scans showing significant spectral pollution, I'd love to see it...not because I don't think they exist, I'd just like to see if it's a problem with the implementation or a real problem.

Anyway, I'm going to try to decompress, and actually try to discuss HD Radio here. I won't get much involved in the discussions about programming, though I very much think that it needs to be addressed.

I will, however, answer any questions I can about HD radio and it's implementation. A lot of you haven't seen HD implemented, or know anyone who has done it. K9EZ and I are good resources for answering any questions you may have. We're not "cheerleaders". We are engineers who have implemented a technology. If it went away tomorrow, we'd still be employed working with analog boxes. We have no personal stake in the rise or fall of HD radio. We both, however, think that HD radio from an engineering side is an exciting new technology with a lot of potential. As Ham Radio operators and Engineers, that kind of stuff is "cool"!

And of course, the disclaimer: The opinions stated here are 100% my own, and not that of my employer. My posting/moderation on this board is a labor of love for the business I enjoy so much.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
 
I appreciate the opportunity to explore the new HD radio technology with my fellow broadcasters and engineers, and agree to support the new "tone" for this board reccomended by RadioDoc. I think we can all get along, with a better spirit of cooperation rather then confrontation. We are all sure to benefit, and enjoy this board more in the long run, with a "new attitude" (as the old disco song said). I am more then willing to give it a try, as RadioDoc suggests.
Best wishes and better broadcasting to all- SuperSound

> Hello fellow Radio-Info-ites.
>
> First, let me start with an apology.
>
> I am a passionate guy. I've been in this business for well
> over 20 years. It is, second to my family, a large part of
> who I am.
>
> I am a fan of great radio. Great radio, to me, means many
> things. It's the local station running "tradio". It's the
> major market station with the great talent. It is looking
> at a plant and seeing great engineering at work. It is the
> innovation we see every day. To take technology that is 90
> years old, and do something very new with it is exciting.
>
> I also have the bad habit of enjoying debates.
>
> The rest of you have had to put up with arguing between Rich
> Wood, SuperSound, and I. I've been pretty hard on them,
> probably more than I should have been. I think the three of
> us have more in common than we think.
>
> I still do not agree with everything they say, and I'm sure
> that they don't agree with everything I say. In my quest
> for what I believe to be truth, I did something I regret. I
> forgot to show respect.
>
> Respect for having something as basic as an opinion. I may
> not agree with it, and I may not believe that is has a basis
> in fact. But it's their opinion, and they are entitled to
> it.
>
> It seems like the three of us like to push each others
> buttons.
>
> Anyway, to them and to you, I apologize. I could find a
> better way to debate with you without showing disrespect.
>
> Now, a simple request. When you mention something, please
> state it as opinion, unless you have the facts to back it
> up. In a case where the facts support two different
> conclusions, one or both may have good points. Please call
> me out on it when I do it as well. Ask me to back it up, or
> state that it's opinion.
>
> In the case of IBOC, some have the opinion that it's flawed.
> OK, great. Let's conduct some real world tests to prove
> that! I would love to see some definitive proof from a
> third party. I have scans and results that are
> reproduceable showing that it works. Scans taken months
> apart looking at various bandwidths. IBOC on and off. If
> anyone has scans showing significant spectral pollution, I'd
> love to see it...not because I don't think they exist, I'd
> just like to see if it's a problem with the implementation
> or a real problem.
>
> Anyway, I'm going to try to decompress, and actually try to
> discuss HD Radio here. I won't get much involved in the
> discussions about programming, though I very much think that
> it needs to be addressed.
>
> I will, however, answer any questions I can about HD radio
> and it's implementation. A lot of you haven't seen HD
> implemented, or know anyone who has done it. K9EZ and I are
> good resources for answering any questions you may have.
> We're not "cheerleaders". We are engineers who have
> implemented a technology. If it went away tomorrow, we'd
> still be employed working with analog boxes. We have no
> personal stake in the rise or fall of HD radio. We both,
> however, think that HD radio from an engineering side is an
> exciting new technology with a lot of potential. As Ham
> Radio operators and Engineers, that kind of stuff is "cool"!
>
>
> And of course, the disclaimer: The opinions stated here are
> 100% my own, and not that of my employer. My
> posting/moderation on this board is a labor of love for the
> business I enjoy so much.
>
 
> Now, a simple request. When you mention something, please
> state it as opinion, unless you have the facts to back it up.

Tell that to iBiquity's marketing department, which continues to spread blatant inaccuracies about HD Radio, such as calling it "High-Definition Radio" with "CD-Quality Sound".

> In the case of IBOC, some have the opinion that it's flawed.
> OK, great. Let's conduct some real world tests to prove
> that!

That was done a long time ago. Even the FCC admits that IBOC is flawed -- that's why they won't allow it to be used at night on AM. The question isn't whether or not IBOC is flawed, because without a doubt it has many flaws! The real question is whether or not consumers will accept it despite its flaws.

There is no point in even asking whether radio stations will accept IBOC, because the big broadcasters have already shown that they are firmly behind iBiquity, regardless of how poorly IBOC may perform in the real world. At this point, the IBOC system itself is not in question; the only thing that matters is whether it sinks or sails in the consumer marketplace.

> I will, however, answer any questions I can about HD radio
> and <STRIKE>it's</STRIKE> its implementation.

Here's one: do you have any proof that implementation of IBOC has helped these station(s) to gain any listeners or ad revenue? Over the years, many stations have killed things like Quad FM, Dolby FM, RDS, and AM Stereo because regardless of how good these technologies may have worked or sounded on the air, they couldn't prove that it was helping improve their bottom line -- and combined with fears (mostly unfounded) that these systems were somehow hurting their signal coverage, the quick answer was to shut it off.... and the same exact thing has already happened to IBOC. There are more than a few dozen stations which installed IBOC, tried it for a few weeks or months, and then shut it off for good. I believe the record so far is 860 WWDB in Philadelphia, which had IBOC on the air for a total of three days!
<P ID="signature">______________
It's a common mistake to not use punctuation in its proper form.
<a target="_blank" href=http://www.cgl.uwaterloo.ca/~csk/its.html>Be kind to your friend, the apostrophe.</a></P>
 
> > Now, a simple request. When you mention something, please
>
> > state it as opinion, unless you have the facts to back it
> up.
>
> Tell that to iBiquity's marketing department, which
> continues to spread blatant inaccuracies about HD Radio,
> such as calling it "High-Definition Radio" with "CD-Quality
> Sound".

Take that up with iBiquity, since they made the claims, not me.

>
> > In the case of IBOC, some have the opinion that it's
> flawed.
> > OK, great. Let's conduct some real world tests to prove
> > that!
>
> That was done a long time ago. Even the FCC admits that
> IBOC is flawed -- that's why they won't allow it to be used
> at night on AM. The question isn't whether or not IBOC is
> flawed, because without a doubt it has many flaws! The real
> question is whether or not consumers will accept it despite
> its flaws.
>
> There is no point in even asking whether radio stations will
> accept IBOC, because the big broadcasters have already shown
> that they are firmly behind iBiquity, regardless of how
> poorly IBOC may perform in the real world. At this point,
> the IBOC system itself is not in question; the only thing
> that matters is whether it sinks or sails in the consumer
> marketplace.

We've already discussed this being the case for AM. Most of us are in agreement with that. I was referring to FM.

>
> > I will, however, answer any questions I can about HD radio
>
> > and it's its implementation.
>
> Here's one: do you have any proof that implementation of
> IBOC has helped these station(s) to gain any listeners or ad
> revenue? Over the years, many stations have killed things
> like Quad FM, Dolby FM, RDS, and AM Stereo because
> regardless of how good these technologies may have worked or
> sounded on the air, they couldn't prove that it was helping
> improve their bottom line -- and combined with fears (mostly
> unfounded) that these systems were somehow hurting their
> signal coverage, the quick answer was to shut it off.... and
> the same exact thing has already happened to IBOC. There
> are more than a few dozen stations which installed IBOC,
> tried it for a few weeks or months, and then shut it off for
> good. I believe the record so far is 860 WWDB in
> Philadelphia, which had IBOC on the air for a total of three
> days!
>

No I certainly don't have any proof. The technology is much too new to determine that, IMHO. And again, I'm not arguing about the problems with AM IBOC. I've acknowledged them, and agree with most of your point.

Were you trying to flame-bait, or do you really wish to have a discussion?<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
 
> Were you trying to flame-bait, or do you really wish to have
> a discussion?

My questions are all legitimate, regardless if you consider them "flame-bait" or not. Once the initial marketing "push" is over, radio stations and consumers will both only support IBOC if they can get something useful out of it. Right now, everything seems to be depending on the FM "HD2" channels... if consumers are attracted to that, then there might be just enough momentum for AM IBOC to survive as an extra fringe benefit. But if consumers give a collective yawn to -- and/or collective ignorance of -- the "HD2" channels, then there isn't much hope for IBOC to survive on either band, unless the FCC is foolish enough to mandate an eventual conversion to full-digital radio and "sunset" of analog radio, like they're still trying to do with TV.

And actually, if I was an HD Radio/IBOC/IBUZ cheerleader, right now I'd be highly concerned with the Boston Acoustics radio, because if it's as much of a "lemon" as the reviews so far indicate, then that will really not bode well for the consumer marketplace acceptance of IBOC, if people are paying $299 for a radio that can't even pick up IBOC signals in digital mode unless you're within walking distance of the transmitter.
<P ID="signature">______________
It's a common mistake to not use punctuation in its proper form.
<a target="_blank" href=http://www.cgl.uwaterloo.ca/~csk/its.html>Be kind to your friend, the apostrophe.</a></P>
 
I for one am glad to hear about you accepting the open invitation for good discussion!

Best wishes as well!


> I appreciate the opportunity to explore the new HD radio
> technology with my fellow broadcasters and engineers, and
> agree to support the new "tone" for this board reccomended
> by RadioDoc. I think we can all get along, with a better
> spirit of cooperation rather then confrontation. We are all
> sure to benefit, and enjoy this board more in the long run,
> with a "new attitude" (as the old disco song said). I am
> more then willing to give it a try, as RadioDoc suggests.
> Best wishes and better broadcasting to all- SuperSound
>
> > Hello fellow Radio-Info-ites.
> >
> > First, let me start with an apology.
> >
> > I am a passionate guy. I've been in this business for
> well
> > over 20 years. It is, second to my family, a large part
> of
> > who I am.
> >
> > I am a fan of great radio. Great radio, to me, means many
>
> > things. It's the local station running "tradio". It's
> the
> > major market station with the great talent. It is looking
>
> > at a plant and seeing great engineering at work. It is
> the
> > innovation we see every day. To take technology that is
> 90
> > years old, and do something very new with it is exciting.
> >
> > I also have the bad habit of enjoying debates.
> >
> > The rest of you have had to put up with arguing between
> Rich
> > Wood, SuperSound, and I. I've been pretty hard on them,
> > probably more than I should have been. I think the three
> of
> > us have more in common than we think.
> >
> > I still do not agree with everything they say, and I'm
> sure
> > that they don't agree with everything I say. In my quest
> > for what I believe to be truth, I did something I regret.
> I
> > forgot to show respect.
> >
> > Respect for having something as basic as an opinion. I
> may
> > not agree with it, and I may not believe that is has a
> basis
> > in fact. But it's their opinion, and they are entitled to
>
> > it.
> >
> > It seems like the three of us like to push each others
> > buttons.
> >
> > Anyway, to them and to you, I apologize. I could find a
> > better way to debate with you without showing disrespect.
> >
> > Now, a simple request. When you mention something, please
>
> > state it as opinion, unless you have the facts to back it
> > up. In a case where the facts support two different
> > conclusions, one or both may have good points. Please
> call
> > me out on it when I do it as well. Ask me to back it up,
> or
> > state that it's opinion.
> >
> > In the case of IBOC, some have the opinion that it's
> flawed.
> > OK, great. Let's conduct some real world tests to prove
> > that! I would love to see some definitive proof from a
> > third party. I have scans and results that are
> > reproduceable showing that it works. Scans taken months
> > apart looking at various bandwidths. IBOC on and off. If
>
> > anyone has scans showing significant spectral pollution,
> I'd
> > love to see it...not because I don't think they exist, I'd
>
> > just like to see if it's a problem with the implementation
>
> > or a real problem.
> >
> > Anyway, I'm going to try to decompress, and actually try
> to
> > discuss HD Radio here. I won't get much involved in the
> > discussions about programming, though I very much think
> that
> > it needs to be addressed.
> >
> > I will, however, answer any questions I can about HD radio
>
> > and it's implementation. A lot of you haven't seen HD
> > implemented, or know anyone who has done it. K9EZ and I
> are
> > good resources for answering any questions you may have.
> > We're not "cheerleaders". We are engineers who have
> > implemented a technology. If it went away tomorrow, we'd
> > still be employed working with analog boxes. We have no
> > personal stake in the rise or fall of HD radio. We both,
> > however, think that HD radio from an engineering side is
> an
> > exciting new technology with a lot of potential. As Ham
> > Radio operators and Engineers, that kind of stuff is
> "cool"!
> >
> >
> > And of course, the disclaimer: The opinions stated here
> are
> > 100% my own, and not that of my employer. My
> > posting/moderation on this board is a labor of love for
> the
> > business I enjoy so much.
> >
>
 
> > Were you trying to flame-bait, or do you really wish to
> have
> > a discussion?
>
> My questions are all legitimate, regardless if you consider
> them "flame-bait" or not. Once the initial marketing "push"
> is over, radio stations and consumers will both only support
> IBOC if they can get something useful out of it. Right now,
> everything seems to be depending on the FM "HD2" channels...
> if consumers are attracted to that, then there might be just
> enough momentum for AM IBOC to survive as an extra fringe
> benefit. But if consumers give a collective yawn to --
> and/or collective ignorance of -- the "HD2" channels, then
> there isn't much hope for IBOC to survive on either band,
> unless the FCC is foolish enough to mandate an eventual
> conversion to full-digital radio and "sunset" of analog
> radio, like they're still trying to do with TV.
>
> And actually, if I was an HD Radio/IBOC/IBUZ cheerleader,
> right now I'd be highly concerned with the Boston Acoustics
> radio, because if it's as much of a "lemon" as the reviews
> so far indicate, then that will really not bode well for the
> consumer marketplace acceptance of IBOC, if people are
> paying $299 for a radio that can't even pick up IBOC signals
> in digital mode unless you're within walking distance of the
> transmitter.
>

The reason I ask if you're flame-baiting is that I sense a lot of hostility. I assure you that if there is, it's entirely misplaced. I'm not questioning the legitimacy of what you are asking.

I still don't know what you're trying to get across here. You don't seem to have any questions, only opinions on where you see the technology going.

As for the Boston Acoustics radio, you're right. It has some problems. I hope that they get them fixed. The Kenwood car tuner is an example of a decent HD and Analog receiver.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
 
> I still don't know what you're trying to get across here.
> You don't seem to have any questions, only opinions on where
> you see the technology going.

The primary question was if you've been able to demonstrate that the stations at which you installed IBOC are actually getting anything out of it. Stations are putting a lot of time and money into implementing and promoting IBOC, but so far there is no proof that they're getting anything out of it. Or maybe I should say, no proof that they're getting anything beneficial out of it, because IBOC installations have caused quite a few complaints, such as interference (on both AM and FM), reduced signal coverage (both bands), reduced audio fidelity and lack of C-Quam Stereo (on AM), and constant background hiss (also AM)... and that definitely isn't beneficial.
<P ID="signature">______________
It's a common mistake to not use punctuation in its proper form.
<a target="_blank" href=http://www.cgl.uwaterloo.ca/~csk/its.html>Be kind to your friend, the apostrophe.</a></P>
 
> > I still don't know what you're trying to get across here.
>
> > You don't seem to have any questions, only opinions on
> where
> > you see the technology going.
>
> The primary question was if you've been able to demonstrate
> that the stations at which you installed IBOC are actually
> getting anything out of it. Stations are putting a lot of
> time and money into implementing and promoting IBOC, but so
> far there is no proof that they're getting anything out of
> it. Or maybe I should say, no proof that they're getting
> anything beneficial out of it, because IBOC installations
> have caused quite a few complaints, such as interference (on
> both AM and FM), reduced signal coverage (both bands),
> reduced audio fidelity and lack of C-Quam Stereo (on AM),
> and constant background hiss (also AM)... and that
> definitely isn't beneficial.
>


Now I understand.

We have not been able to demonstrate that our stations have gotten anything out of IBOC yet, for two reasons:

1. We've only had them on the air for 6 months.

2. We are looking at this as a long-term investment. We know there is no way we can see any results on something so new, so we haven't tried. The way we look at it is that it may be years before there is any demonstrable effects. On the other hand, the only way to hit a home run is to take a swing. I'm sure radio station owners in the 50's said "So, have you seen any returns on your FM stations yet?" To this day, many old operators regret giving away their FM licenses because it didn't provide an immediate return on their investment. Heck, WGN gave away their FM to a non-profit!

As for your other points, in terms of our FM's...we have not gotten any complaints, nor has our coverage been reduced at all by IBOC. As has been pointed out before, the fact is that your analog carrier does not get reduced, therefore your coverage does not shrink. Interference-wise, the law is that as long as the interference is outside of the protected contours, it's allowed. Right or wrong, it is what it is for the time being. Here in the midwest, that's not an issue. I personally have not heard any interference here, nor have I seen any in any spectrum analysis. I have driven between Milwaukee and Chicago, both cities well built out with HD and lots of stations adjacent to each other, and have not personally heard anything out of the ordinary. We have had (and all of the other guys in these parts that I talk to) no complaints of interference. Now it may be more of an issue in the East, but I can't comment on that, since I haven't heard it personally. Again, I'm not saying that interference dosn't exist ANYWHERE, but it certainly doesn't here.

Again, this is all pertaining to FM HD.

Have you personally experienced a coverage problem? How did you determine that there was one? I'm not doubting what you heard, but if you want to discuss the science, K9EZ and I would be more than happy to do that.

<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
 
> The way we look at it is that it
> may be years before there is any demonstrable effects. On
> the other hand, the only way to hit a home run is to take a
> swing. I'm sure radio station owners in the 50's said "So,
> have you seen any returns on your FM stations yet?"

I think of IBOC today as the old 45 MHz FM band. Digital terrestrial radio definitely has a future, but this is most likely not the final form it will end up in. So you could likely get burned by investing in IBOC, just like the stations that invested in a low-band FM signal, only to have it become obsolete, even though the concept of FM radio itself was ultimately a great success.

> Have you personally experienced a coverage problem? How did
> you determine that there was one? I'm not doubting what you
> heard, but if you want to discuss the science, K9EZ and I
> would be more than happy to do that.

Not on the behalf of a station transmitting IBOC, but rather on the behalf of the stations which are the victims of IBOC interference. And as FM IBOC becomes more popular, here in the crowded Northeast the interference is becoming mutual: for example, the IBOC sidebands of NYC's 95.5 WPLJ wipe out reception of Philly's 95.7 WBEN-FM in certain areas where it formerly had a clear signal, and the IBOC sidebands of Philly's 95.7 WBEN-FM wipe out reception of NYC's 95.5 WPLJ in certain areas where it formerly had a clear signal.

And on the AM side, IBOC has some funky issues with directional arrays, which have yet to be fully investigated. Many listeners have noticed that even at a spot where a directional AM IBOC signal's analog audio is nulled to such an extent that it is unintelligibly distorted, the IBOC hash on the adjacent channels still comes blazing through loud and sizzly. iBiquity engineers have even noted that AM IBOC tends to "fill out the nulls" in a station's directional pattern -- which could wreak total havoc with the FCC's tightly-knitted layout of directional AM signals across the band and across the country, if AM IBOC ever reaches widespread implementation. (Same thing, mind you, with Leonard Kahn's claims that CAM-D will make a directional station's analog audio loud and clear in its nulls.)
<P ID="signature">______________
It's a common mistake to not use punctuation in its proper form.
<a target="_blank" href=http://www.cgl.uwaterloo.ca/~csk/its.html>Be kind to your friend, the apostrophe.</a></P>
 
> > The way we look at it is that it
> > may be years before there is any demonstrable effects. On
>
> > the other hand, the only way to hit a home run is to take
> a
> > swing. I'm sure radio station owners in the 50's said
> "So,
> > have you seen any returns on your FM stations yet?"
>
> I think of IBOC today as the old 45 MHz FM band. Digital
> terrestrial radio definitely has a future, but this is most
> likely not the final form it will end up in. So you could
> likely get burned by investing in IBOC, just like the
> stations that invested in a low-band FM signal, only to have
> it become obsolete, even though the concept of FM radio
> itself was ultimately a great success.

Very good point. We are certainly taking a risk by being early adopters, but I personally think that the alternative wasn't much better either. Without stations transmitting IBOC, the receiver manufacturers won't make the radios. Somebody had to go first. But you're right...it still could be pulled in the 11th hour, though I think that's unlikely. SuperSound has posted links to FMeXtra, which is an alternate technology that is gaining some momentum - http://www.dreinc.com/products/technical.html. Each system has trade-offs, and I'm sure there will continue to be debates on which technology is superior. IMHO right now, IBOC seems to be the right choice in terms of flexibility and raw features.

>
> > Have you personally experienced a coverage problem? How
> did
> > you determine that there was one? I'm not doubting what
> you
> > heard, but if you want to discuss the science, K9EZ and I
> > would be more than happy to do that.
>
> Not on the behalf of a station transmitting IBOC, but rather
> on the behalf of the stations which are the victims of IBOC
> interference. And as FM IBOC becomes more popular, here in
> the crowded Northeast the interference is becoming mutual:
> for example, the IBOC sidebands of NYC's 95.5 WPLJ wipe out
> reception of Philly's 95.7 WBEN-FM in certain areas where it
> formerly had a clear signal, and the IBOC sidebands of
> Philly's 95.7 WBEN-FM wipe out reception of NYC's 95.5 WPLJ
> in certain areas where it formerly had a clear signal.

Someone else just talked about that as well. I am not familiar with those problems, since I haven't experienced them here. I guess it makes sense, with many stations being short-spaced in that area. I don't think that the entire system should be scrapped based on that, however. IBOC has too much potential in my eyes.

> And on the AM side, IBOC has some funky issues with
> directional arrays, which have yet to be fully investigated.
> Many listeners have noticed that even at a spot where a
> directional AM IBOC signal's analog audio is nulled to such
> an extent that it is unintelligibly distorted, the IBOC hash
> on the adjacent channels still comes blazing through loud
> and sizzly. iBiquity engineers have even noted that AM IBOC
> tends to "fill out the nulls" in a station's directional
> pattern -- which could wreak total havoc with the FCC's
> tightly-knitted layout of directional AM signals across the
> band and across the country, if AM IBOC ever reaches
> widespread implementation. (Same thing, mind you, with
> Leonard Kahn's claims that CAM-D will make a directional
> station's analog audio loud and clear in its nulls.)
>

I completely agree with you there. IBOC, especially on DA's, will be difficult to implement Heck, I have a hard enough time implementing ANALOG on my DA some days!! Honestly, I think that the whole AM system needs to be revisited, and it looks more and more like that is going to happen. You just can't defeat the laws of physics!<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
 
> > Have you personally experienced a coverage problem? How
> did
> > you determine that there was one? I'm not doubting what
> you
> > heard, but if you want to discuss the science, K9EZ and I
> > would be more than happy to do that.
>
> Not on the behalf of a station transmitting IBOC, but rather
> on the behalf of the stations which are the victims of IBOC
> interference. And as FM IBOC becomes more popular, here in
> the crowded Northeast the interference is becoming mutual:
> for example, the IBOC sidebands of NYC's 95.5 WPLJ wipe out
> reception of Philly's 95.7 WBEN-FM in certain areas where it
> formerly had a clear signal, and the IBOC sidebands of
> Philly's 95.7 WBEN-FM wipe out reception of NYC's 95.5 WPLJ
> in certain areas where it formerly had a clear signal.

That is a good point for interference to out of market stations. However in a lot of cases the FM signal has improved over the older non IBOC signal.
Some stations have actually replaced aging (and most likely under performing) antenna systems for newer snazzier performing antenna systems. Others , who are doing the seperate amplification and seperate antenna deal, are getting backup antenna systems they never had before. And in other cases, older, aging, soft tube transmitters are being replaced with new snazzy solid state FM units.
 
> > The way we look at it is that it
> > may be years before there is any demonstrable effects. On
>
> > the other hand, the only way to hit a home run is to take
> a
> > swing. I'm sure radio station owners in the 50's said
> "So,
> > have you seen any returns on your FM stations yet?"
>
> I think of IBOC today as the old 45 MHz FM band. Digital
> terrestrial radio definitely has a future, but this is most
> likely not the final form it will end up in. So you could
> likely get burned by investing in IBOC, just like the
> stations that invested in a low-band FM signal, only to have
> it become obsolete, even though the concept of FM radio
> itself was ultimately a great success.


The upaide to companies installing HD transmitters is that in most cases, the HD transmitter can be run as analog as well. Also most of the RF systems are getting a major overhaul. New digital STLs are being installed, remote access to transmitters for quicker maintenance. If HD were to go away tomorrow, the new transmitters could be retrofitted with just about anything. Just the HD "exciter" would go away. The upgrades to the transmission system alone is worth what is all going. Besides, it is like and engieering Christmas jsut about every week as new equipment gets to get upwrapped!!! :-D

>
> > Have you personally experienced a coverage problem? How
> did
> > you determine that there was one? I'm not doubting what
> you
> > heard, but if you want to discuss the science, K9EZ and I
> > would be more than happy to do that.
>
> Not on the behalf of a station transmitting IBOC, but rather
> on the behalf of the stations which are the victims of IBOC
> interference. And as FM IBOC becomes more popular, here in
> the crowded Northeast the interference is becoming mutual:
> for example, the IBOC sidebands of NYC's 95.5 WPLJ wipe out
> reception of Philly's 95.7 WBEN-FM in certain areas where it
> formerly had a clear signal, and the IBOC sidebands of
> Philly's 95.7 WBEN-FM wipe out reception of NYC's 95.5 WPLJ
> in certain areas where it formerly had a clear signal.
>

We keep hearing from the East Coasters about HD interfference. Haveing not been there in a while I would love ot hear what is going on out there. That being said I am in the Milaukee market which is 90 miles away from Chicago. Stations are short spaceed here as well, and I have not witnessed interference from HD. AS a matter of fact the opposite. I have stated my experience of a local station and an adjacent Chicago station. I was getting the Chicago station in stereo without any troubles from the local HD station (one of Docs stations!).


> And on the AM side, IBOC has some funky issues with
> directional arrays, which have yet to be fully investigated.
> Many listeners have noticed that even at a spot where a
> directional AM IBOC signal's analog audio is nulled to such
> an extent that it is unintelligibly distorted, the IBOC hash
> on the adjacent channels still comes blazing through loud
> and sizzly. iBiquity engineers have even noted that AM IBOC
> tends to "fill out the nulls" in a station's directional
> pattern -- which could wreak total havoc with the FCC's
> tightly-knitted layout of directional AM signals across the
> band and across the country, if AM IBOC ever reaches
> widespread implementation. (Same thing, mind you, with
> Leonard Kahn's claims that CAM-D will make a directional
> station's analog audio loud and clear in its nulls.)
>

Filling in the nulls could be an OK thing for the local stations without hurting the distant station. Stay with me on this.....

Most of the nulls in AM stations (and trust me I know about nulls, one of my stations is 6 towers days, NINE towers nights, so I KNOW about deep nulls!) were designed in the 60s or earlier. I have found with my stations that the nulls do more than protect the other stations. As a matter of fact the nulls prevent some of the local community from receving the statoin at a decent level. A little light null fills would truly not hurt anyone. And from what i have been TOLD, the null fill is very light, and not a big deal.

If Leonard is claimign that CAM D totally fills in the nulls now that may be an issue.
 
> Tell that to iBiquity's marketing department, which
> continues to spread blatant inaccuracies about HD Radio,
> such as calling it "High-Definition Radio" with "CD-Quality
> Sound".

Actually, they've given up on that. Now they call it "CD-like." It's the HD Dominion that's spreading the deceptive information on the "official" web site. Virtually all the receiver manufacturers have abandoned the CD Quality claim.

Rich
 
> The rest of you have had to put up with arguing between Rich
> Wood, SuperSound, and I. I've been pretty hard on them,
> probably more than I should have been. I think the three of
> us have more in common than we think.

We do. We all love this industry and get very testy when we feel something threatens it. I believe AM digital does just that.

> I still do not agree with everything they say, and I'm sure
> that they don't agree with everything I say. In my quest
> for what I believe to be truth, I did something I regret. I
> forgot to show respect.

I didn't see it as a lack of respect. Only the TXengineer personal attack qualified as that. I'd like to think that we'd be equally passionate if we were talking in person.

> It seems like the three of us like to push each others
> buttons.

> Anyway, to them and to you, I apologize. I could find a
> better way to debate with you without showing disrespect.

We're in radio. Lots of buttons to push. Since you haven't offended me, I don't require an apology. I haven't intended to offend anyone. If I have I'll offer an apology, as well. I tend to write satirically - maybe a little sarcasm. It's just built in. Nothing I write should be taken as a personal attack on anyone.

When I see what I believe is deception I tend to go for the jugular. Jabba the HD and the HD Dominion are being deceptive, in my opinion. To me, that's a serious threat to the industry and counterproductive to any rollout of FM digital. I'm angry and disappointed that they feel deception is needed.

> In the case of IBOC, some have the opinion that it's flawed.
> OK, great. Let's conduct some real world tests to prove
> that!

The best real world proof would be to authorize AM 24/7 and see what happens. I think that's the best and fairest way to give every AM an opportunity to make whatever facility changes might be necessary. Strangely, the most obvious audio improvement is in the AM version. Listen to WBZ-HD. It's lightly processed and sounds much better than the analog. It's not FM quality but a significant improvement over 5KHz mashed and smashed Analog. Entertainment quality, I think, is an accurate description.

There was an audio file posted on another forum comparing a couple of stations with and without digital. I'll see if I can locate it and post it here. I believe it's accurate because it's what I hear on my own receivers.

> Anyway, I'm going to try to decompress, and actually try to
> discuss HD Radio here. I won't get much involved in the
> discussions about programming, though I very much think that
> it needs to be addressed.

It does. In my opinion, as a programmer, I don't believe what's being offered on secondaries will be compelling enough to inspire sales of receivers. Only NPR and a couple of stations with compelling, main channel quality programming are taking secondaries seriously.

We've lost sight of the fact that radio is showbiz.

Rich
 
Hey Rich

> I didn't see it as a lack of respect. Only the TXengineer
> personal attack qualified as that. I'd like to think that
> we'd be equally passionate if we were talking in person.

Hey Rich,

I apologize for the comments that you took as being a personal attack. When I posted it, I didn't and never intended it to be personal per-se. I simply meant it as , if it was ok for you to rename something, I could rename something, you. But I never meant for it to be personal, and I am mature enough to admit if I was mistaken, which I was. So I sincerely apologize for any hurt feelings or personal attackness. I honestly hope this can be put in the past and we can all continue the discussions on HD radio.

TX
 
> > Tell that to iBiquity's marketing department, which
> > continues to spread blatant inaccuracies about HD Radio,
> > such as calling it "High-Definition Radio" with
> "CD-Quality
> > Sound".
>
> Actually, they've given up on that. Now they call it
> "CD-like." It's the HD Dominion that's spreading the
> deceptive information on the "official" web site. Virtually
> all the receiver manufacturers have abandoned the CD Quality
> claim.
>
> Rich
>


That is kind of funny. Kind of like DirecTV with their "Digital Quality" picture and sound...<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
 
Re: Hey Rich

> I apologize for the comments that you took as being a
> personal attack. When I posted it, I didn't and never
> intended it to be personal per-se. I simply meant it as , if
> it was ok for you to rename something, I could rename
> something, you. But I never meant for it to be personal, and
> I am mature enough to admit if I was mistaken, which I was.
> So I sincerely apologize for any hurt feelings or personal
> attackness. I honestly hope this can be put in the past and
> we can all continue the discussions on HD radio.

Not to worry. I've been online since the Internet was hard to use. I'm completely flameproof, so no feelings were hurt. I just think it's best to leave renaming to inanimate things. Without body language it's hard to know the exact intent.

When it comes to public figures, on-air personalities and technology everything's fair game.

Rich
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom