AM BROADCASTERS - CALL TO ACTION

[dumber than a box of hair]

I came across these two web articles today. I should warn in advance that they're pretty technical in nature, but in boiling them down the conclusion is that the kind of interference AM-HD causes will most likely render the AM band useless at night.

The first is an article from Jeff Littlejohn of Clear Channel Engineering, written in 2002 (before the lid was clamped shut on negative comments about HD from the HD Cartel...er, Alliance), reporting actual measurements regarding interference between two stations on first-adjacent channels, one running AM-HD and one not running it: http://topazdesigns.com/iboc/Clearchannelrprt.pdf

The second is from Barry McLarnon, a Canadian broadcast engineer, predicting what will happen if Canadian stations start lighting up AM-HD: http://topazdesigns.com/iboc/Interference-Calc.html

Second link corrected. Sorry about that.

 

[SUPERCASTER]

I came across these two web articles today. I should warn in advance that they're pretty technical in nature, but in boiling them down the conclusion is that the kind of interference AM-HD causes will most likely render the AM band useless at night.

The first is an article from Jeff Littlejohn of Clear Channel Engineering, written in 2002 (before the lid was clamped shut on negative comments about HD from the HD Cartel...er, Alliance), reporting actual measurements regarding interference between two stations on first-adjacent channels, one running AM-HD and one not running it: http://topazdesigns.com/iboc/Clearchannelrprt.pdf

The second is from Barry McLarnon, a Canadian broadcast engineer, predicting what will happen if Canadian stations start lighting up AM-HD: http://topazdesigns.com/iboc/Interference-Calc.html

Second link corrected. Sorry about that.

This should help those puzzled by how HD radio can be so jamming and destructive.
From the Clear Channel-Littlejohn report (link to the complete report is in the quote above).

Concerns
The current AM allocation rules require Co-Channel stations to provide 20:1
protections to each other and first adjacent channel stations to provide 2:1 protection to
each other. While this works fine in an all-analog environment, it does not seem to be
sufficient in the presence of IBOC. The energy above 10 KHz from the proposed Hybrid
IBOC signal significantly exceeds the energy present in the current analog AM signal.
For this reason, the amount of energy provided to a first adjacent station is significantly
more detrimental than our current allocation rules allow for.

 

[clouseau]

The current AM allocation rules require Co-Channel stations to provide 20:1
protections to each other and first adjacent channel stations to provide 2:1 protection to
each other. While this works fine in an all-analog environment, it does not seem to be
sufficient in the presence of IBOC. The energy above 10 KHz from the proposed Hybrid
IBOC signal significantly exceeds the energy present in the current analog AM signal.
For this reason, the amount of energy provided to a first adjacent station is significantly
more detrimental than our current allocation rules allow for.

What's really funny is that our resident expert whiner has now discovered a five year old report that everyone has known about for ages and is regurgitating it today - as if it was news. Of course Jeff Littlejohn has now worked within Clear Channel to roll out the existing system for a subsequent 5 years. Did he forget how to write? Do you think ANYBODY could get Randy Michaels to shut up?

Needless to say the "Conspiracy Crowd" thinks "THEY" "GOT TO" him.

Again, if you actually READ the WHOLE PIECE, you'll see that the vast majority of the testing (And therefore the problems) occur OUTSIDE of the protected contour of WARK. WIll nightitme HD cause issues. Very possibly. I DON'T KNOW. I DIDN'T TEST IT. Those who DID test it say it won't be a problem. Soup and Co says it will. Truth is THEY DON'T KNOW EITHER. And while they like to point out that the "Stupid Management" who doesn't know about engineering picked the system, most of that "Stupid Management" has a lot more knowledge than Soup about some form of technical issues. And ALL OF MANAGEMENT has a lot to lose if it DOES wreck the band. Not some Whiner who can't get out of area AM stations. Some of us will be out of work if AM dies. Check the Sig, Soup. It DEFINITELY matters more to me than you.

So let's keep our pants on. Frankly, many people are going to look pretty stupid soon when HD at night lights up.

All that's left to see is who it is.

I know I'll be listening.

On another thought, do you think the same people that "got to" Littlejohn are the ones that set off the explosives in the World Trade Center?

Break out the tin foil hats.

Clouseau

 

[dbdigital]

The fact that not all broadcast engineers are enthusiastic about HD Radio, for me, raises a red flag about the technology. After all if it really is an "all gain, no pain" solution to terrestrial radio's remaining competitive and relevant, why wouldn't every broadcast engineer be a strong supporter for it? But many engineers, especially those who work in AM, have misgivings about HD-R. Personally, I think it will cause severe interference issues.

But I'm prepared to be wrong and even pleasently surprised by HD Radio, particularly for AM. After all, even if every HD-AM station fired up IBOC at night, it still won't be a Chernobyl. Nobody will be releasing radioactive material into the air and endangering the lives of U.S. citizens (or Canada or Mexico).

The FCC may get a firestorm of complaints (from neighboring countries, stations and listeners) but let's just wait and see what happens.

db

 

[SUPERCASTER]

Did anyone else notice that clouseau's posts contain very little information, facts or links, but are mostly fictional personal inflammatory remarks, criticisms, insults, and attacks?
What have your fantasies to do with HD Radio, clouseau?

If you have something of substance to add to the debate, why not post that instead of the continuous fictional tirade of personal invectives.

As for his continuing references to "tin foil hats" they are only likely to be worn by HD radio proponents trying to get reliable digital reception.

 

[LinoNYC]

Did anyone else notice that clouseau's posts contain very little information, facts or links, but are mostly fictional personal inflammatory remarks, criticisms, insults, and attacks?
What have your fantasies to do with HD Radio, clouseau?

If you have something of substance to add to the debate, why not post that instead of the continuous fictional tirade of personal invectives.

You have consistantly responded with caustic, condecending remarks and when called on it, you claim 'personal attacks".

When it comes to "fictional tirades" I'll just remind you of the thread you started with " HD AMs Continue to loose listeners-New Philly ratings".

David Edwardo's patient responses dispatched you handily, but you ought to be ashamed.

Lino

 

[SUPERCASTER]

Did anyone else notice that clouseau's posts contain very little information, facts or links, but are mostly fictional personal inflammatory remarks, criticisms, insults, and attacks?
What have your fantasies to do with HD Radio, clouseau?

If you have something of substance to add to the debate, why not post that instead of the continuous fictional tirade of personal invectives.

You have consistantly responded with caustic, condecending remarks and when called on it, you claim 'personal attacks".

When it comes to "fictional tirades" I'll just remind you of the thread you started with " HD AMs Continue to loose listeners-New Philly ratings".

David Edwardo's patient responses dispatched you handily, but you ought to be ashamed.

Lino

All false.
Remarks about the subject of HD radio and groups supporting HD radio, no matter how caustic and condescending they may seem to you, are a far cry from uninformed, imaginary, false, contrived and inflammatory name calling specifically targeting an individual's character or competence. These "personal attacks" are on an individual and have nothing whatever to do with HD radio, but rather rage and blind hatred toward a person you know absolutely nothing about, who happens to disagree with some your opinions, or remarks. They are just vicious hate speech, plain and simple, with no HD radio about it.

David Eduardo offered his opinions about past Arbitron summer diary surveys. They may have no relevance to the new PPM survey methods which are very different, and some say under-represent the young listeners that Eduardo claims are over-represented in past diary summer surveys.

 

[davideduardo]

David Eduardo offered his opinions about past Arbitron summer diary surveys. They may have no relevance to the new PPM survey methods which are very different, and some say under-represent the young listeners that Eduardo claims are over-represented in past diary summer surveys.

The fact that there were tiny cume erosion patterns on 80% of the 1 share and over Philly stations in July has to do, per Arbitron at the Consultant Fly In yesterday, with summer listening where 8% to 10% of the households are on vacation. There was no significant cume erosion in the HD stations, and the music FMs were off more... but all ithin margin of error.

There is no over or under representation of anyone in either type of Arbitron survey. All listener groups are "inserted" in the totals with complete proportionality; summer listening has different patterns and slightly lower overall listening, mostly caused by vacations.

Your ratings "conclusion" is simply wrong.

 

[calstymes]

dbdigital did write on my computer screen:

The fact that not all broadcast engineers are enthusiastic about HD Radio, for me, raises a red flag about the technology. After all if it really is an "all gain, no pain" solution to terrestrial radio's remaining competitive and relevant, why wouldn't every broadcast engineer be a strong supporter for it? But many engineers, especially those who work in AM, have misgivings about HD-R. Personally, I think it will cause severe interference issues.

This is why I've been begging for the return of Tom Ray to tell us that AM HD is a super duper technology and that we should all run out now and get it. Or in his absence, I would be willing to listen to anyone in a technical area within the AM broadcast business to say the same thing. For all the bitching and moaning that goes on here on both sides of the isle, we have NO direction at all from the engineers in the AM trenches. All we have is speculation by idiots like me.

And I know these engineers are reading. Why won't they speak?

As clouseau said:

Frankly, many people are going to look pretty stupid soon when HD at night lights up.

All that's left to see is who it is.

I can't wait!

 

[clouseau]

Did anyone else notice that clouseau's posts contain very little information, facts or links, but are mostly fictional personal inflammatory remarks, criticisms, insults, and attacks?
What have your fantasies to do with HD Radio, clouseau?

If you have something of substance to add to the debate, why not post that instead of the continuous fictional tirade of personal invectives.

As for his continuing references to "tin foil hats" they are only likely to be worn by HD radio proponents trying to get reliable digital reception.

I am not attacking YOU. I am showing how many of the positions you espouse here are unfounded, exagerrated, inflammatory and just plain wrong.

Now I'm not going to sit here and tell you that the Littlejohn report linked here is Pro HD radio. But it isn't totally Anti-HD radio either. And if you read it in the context of "Contour protection" when it was written it makes a little more sense. The Context of AM service has changed fairly dramatically in the last few years. The idea os skywave service seems to have been completely discarded. Also the unofficial "Noise Floor" has been allowed to increase dramatically. From LED traffic lights, Computers, crummy dimmers and the like. I live 24 KM from my 1 KW ND graveyard AM and nights are really becoming interesting already. The fact is, with Am radio, the listening area is shrinking. And it will continue to shrink.

There ARE significant qualifiers which you conveniently left out of the Littlejohn article you are quoting.

Most of our measurements were conducted outside of the protected contour of
WARK...

And it would appear that a determination was made that the contour was the "boundary". Don't shoot me. I didn't make the determination... I'm only saying what it appears happened.
Other Quotes from the beloved report...

...testing should include a real world study of how AM sky wave listening
will be impacted by the addition of Hybrid AM IBOC....Clear Channel
is working with Ibiquity to install IBOC on WLW in Cincinnati. WLW produces a 50%
sky wave that covers most of the Eastern United States and as a result the station should
be illustrative of the impact that this additional energy will have on the existing service.

Say, didn't I read about those tests in Radio World with WLW and WOR? Didn't Tom Rey talk about them here? The selective quoting of what this report asks for isn't exactly being portryed honestly in the quotes we've seen here, is it?

However, if the results found in our abbreviated field test can be
extrapolated to all situations, we feel the impact of adding IBOC to existing AM band
will be profoundly deleterious.

This is the problem with quoting 5 year old stuff with a new technology. Many seem to think that Littlejohn has been corrupted. Did it ever occur to anyone that he may have actually SEEN some of this subsequent testing? I'll be he at least gets a copy of Radio world.

The selective quoting of outdated writing is not really intelectually honest. And in fairness neither is the "Jamming", the "Buzzing Off" or the like.

Frankly, anyone who describes Digital signals heard on analog as "Buzzing" strikes me as a person who hasn't heard it.

Clouseau

 

[dbdigital]

dbdigital did write on my computer screen:

The fact that not all broadcast engineers are enthusiastic about HD Radio, for me, raises a red flag about the technology. After all if it really is an "all gain, no pain" solution to terrestrial radio's remaining competitive and relevant, why wouldn't every broadcast engineer be a strong supporter for it? But many engineers, especially those who work in AM, have misgivings about HD-R. Personally, I think it will cause severe interference issues.

This is why I've been begging for the return of Tom Ray to tell us that AM HD is a super duper technology and that we should all run out now and get it. Or in his absence, I would be willing to listen to anyone in a technical area within the AM broadcast business to say the same thing. For all the bitching and moaning that goes on here on both sides of the isle, we have NO direction at all from the engineers in the AM trenches. All we have is speculation by idiots like me.

And I know these engineers are reading. Why won't they speak?

As clouseau said:

Frankly, many people are going to look pretty stupid soon when HD at night lights up.

All that's left to see is who it is.

I can't wait!

I get the impression that Tom Ray has said all he can in defense of HD Radio. He's graciously presented his data (which I've read elsewhere) and drawn his conclusions and it's up to the reader to accept it or not.

But in the latest CGC newsletter #806, editor/engineer Robert Gonsett indicated that engineers who oppose IBOC are being discouraged from saying so publicly or as he put it, "have been muzzled from making comment." That may also explain why so few have made comments about it on forums like this.

Only a full implementation of IBOC nationwide will provide the definitive answer.

db

 

[Radioman100]

This is the problem with quoting 5 year old stuff with a new technology. Many seem to think that Littlejohn has been corrupted. Did it ever occur to anyone that he may have actually SEEN some of this subsequent testing? I'll be he at least gets a copy of Radio world.

The selective quoting of outdated writing is not really intelectually honest. And in fairness neither is the "Jamming", the "Buzzing Off" or the like.

Frankly, anyone who describes Digital signals heard on analog as "Buzzing" strikes me as a person who hasn't heard it.

Clouseau

Beyond that, how many people quoting Jeff Littlejohn here actually know him? Jeff is a really bright guy and a great engineer, but he's not one of Clear Channel's deep tech guys. He manages them.

Jeff's brilliance is in his ability to manage projects and get the most out of nerds. Let's face it, many engineers are socially retarded freaks. What Jeff does, probably better than anyone in the business is channel their work and make it presentable for the corporate world. Jeff is one of a really rare breed of engineers. He gets the big picture. He understands engineering, programming, sales, management and he's completely comfortable talking to the corporate suits about all of it.

Perhaps Jeff's early thoughts on AM HD have evolved because of his understanding of the big picture? He doesn't suffer the myopia most HD bashers do.

 

[rbrucecarter5]

I get the impression that Tom Ray has said all he can in defense of HD Radio. He's graciously presented his data (which I've read elsewhere) and drawn his conclusions and it's up to the reader to accept it or not.

I would hate to be in his position right now. His entire professional reputation is at stake for this technology. Two big uncertainties await him"

--- If there is massive interference at night and it whittles down WOR's coverage more and more as more stations sign on, advertising revenue at night will drop. Station owners really don't like to see revenue drop.

--- If the public does not adopt HD radio, then he has spent at least 100,000 dollars of station budget for a system nobody wants. And he has hobbled the audio of the station to do it. NY stations without bad audio may get more listeners. I have to admit I have my radio on WBAP locally, because KLIF and KRLD sound terrible with muffled audio. And - my car radio IS of the old narrowband design. I can still tell a big difference between a station with 5 k audio and one with 10k. Station owners may start questioning why their station sounds so bad.

Tom has spent a great deal of time and effort supporting this HD system. If it pays off in broad consumer acceptance, then WOR was on the vanguard of the revolution and he was a visionary. But if there is little or no consumer acceptance, very few HD radios being used, then the station ownership may well wonder if his time and energy was well spent or not. I know managers who think like that, I've had them all my career. And, occasionally, I have been accused of pursuing pet projects that have little or no revenue potential. I would hate for that to happen to Tom - it is a really bad feeling to believe in something very strongly and have it not pan out.

 

[davideduardo]

--- If there is massive interference at night and it whittles down WOR's coverage more and more as more stations sign on, advertising revenue at night will drop. Station owners really don't like to see revenue drop.

There is very little revenue at night. Most revenue is in daytime, and night spots are either very cheap or bonuses to match CPP goals for the daytime.

--- If the public does not adopt HD radio, then he has spent at least 100,000 dollars of station budget for a system nobody wants.

On a station that bills $25 million, that is barely noticiable... and since it is a capex item, it will be amortized over several years, three to five at least. Overall, it probably costs less than the manager's reserved parking spot in Manhattan.

 

[arnoldevns]

There is very little revenue at night. Most revenue is in daytime, and night spots are either very cheap or bonuses to match CPP goals for the daytime.

It depends on the station. Many AM stations used to bill quite well at night if they had a big signal. They were quite popular with truckers.
I know that WBAP in Fort Worth used to bill nearly 2 million dollars a year for their overnight hours with Bill Mack. That situation has certainly changed, but the general idea hasn't. If the truckers can't hear this station, it'll be a huge hit to the bottom line. There are other exceptions like this all over the country. I suspect KMOX, WLS, KOA, WHAS, and KSL will all take a big hit to the bottom line if the HD AM stuff makes their signal hard to hear at night.

 

[rbrucecarter5]

There is very little revenue at night. Most revenue is in daytime, and night spots are either very cheap or bonuses to match CPP goals for the daytime.

Then WHY was there such a tremendous push for IBOC at night? If nobody cares, why not just power down and save operating expenses? If people barely listen at night now, how is IBOC going to change that?

 

[SUPERCASTER]

Did anyone else notice that clouseau's posts contain very little information, facts or links, but are mostly fictional personal inflammatory remarks, criticisms, insults, and attacks?
What have your fantasies to do with HD Radio, clouseau?

If you have something of substance to add to the debate, why not post that instead of the continuous fictional tirade of personal invectives.

As for his continuing references to "tin foil hats" they are only likely to be worn by HD radio proponents trying to get reliable digital reception.

I am not attacking YOU. I am showing how many of the positions you espouse here are unfounded, exagerrated, inflammatory and just plain wrong.

Now I'm not going to sit here and tell you that the Littlejohn report linked here is Pro HD radio. But it isn't totally Anti-HD radio either. And if you read it in the context of "Contour protection" when it was written it makes a little more sense. The Context of AM service has changed fairly dramatically in the last few years. The idea os skywave service seems to have been completely discarded. Also the unofficial "Noise Floor" has been allowed to increase dramatically. From LED traffic lights, Computers, crummy dimmers and the like. I live 24 KM from my 1 KW ND graveyard AM and nights are really becoming interesting already. The fact is, with Am radio, the listening area is shrinking. And it will continue to shrink.

There ARE significant qualifiers which you conveniently left out of the Littlejohn article you are quoting.

Most of our measurements were conducted outside of the protected contour of
WARK...

And it would appear that a determination was made that the contour was the "boundary". Don't shoot me. I didn't make the determination... I'm only saying what it appears happened.
Other Quotes from the beloved report...

...testing should include a real world study of how AM sky wave listening
will be impacted by the addition of Hybrid AM IBOC....Clear Channel
is working with Ibiquity to install IBOC on WLW in Cincinnati. WLW produces a 50%
sky wave that covers most of the Eastern United States and as a result the station should
be illustrative of the impact that this additional energy will have on the existing service.

Say, didn't I read about those tests in Radio World with WLW and WOR? Didn't Tom Rey talk about them here? The selective quoting of what this report asks for isn't exactly being portryed honestly in the quotes we've seen here, is it?

However, if the results found in our abbreviated field test can be
extrapolated to all situations, we feel the impact of adding IBOC to existing AM band
will be profoundly deleterious.

This is the problem with quoting 5 year old stuff with a new technology. Many seem to think that Littlejohn has been corrupted. Did it ever occur to anyone that he may have actually SEEN some of this subsequent testing? I'll be he at least gets a copy of Radio world.

The selective quoting of outdated writing is not really intelectually honest. And in fairness neither is the "Jamming", the "Buzzing Off" or the like.

Frankly, anyone who describes Digital signals heard on analog as "Buzzing" strikes me as a person who hasn't heard it.

Clouseau

Clouseau gets busted!
Here is the link:
http://www.radio-info.com/smf/index.php/topic,79023.msg584750.html#msg584750

 

[Radioman100]

I get the impression that Tom Ray has said all he can in defense of HD Radio. He's graciously presented his data (which I've read elsewhere) and drawn his conclusions and it's up to the reader to accept it or not.

I would hate to be in his position right now. His entire professional reputation is at stake for this technology. Two big uncertainties await him"

--- If there is massive interference at night and it whittles down WOR's coverage more and more as more stations sign on, advertising revenue at night will drop. Station owners really don't like to see revenue drop.

--- If the public does not adopt HD radio, then he has spent at least 100,000 dollars of station budget for a system nobody wants. And he has hobbled the audio of the station to do it. NY stations without bad audio may get more listeners. I have to admit I have my radio on WBAP locally, because KLIF and KRLD sound terrible with muffled audio. And - my car radio IS of the old narrowband design. I can still tell a big difference between a station with 5 k audio and one with 10k. Station owners may start questioning why their station sounds so bad.

Tom has spent a great deal of time and effort supporting this HD system. If it pays off in broad consumer acceptance, then WOR was on the vanguard of the revolution and he was a visionary. But if there is little or no consumer acceptance, very few HD radios being used, then the station ownership may well wonder if his time and energy was well spent or not. I know managers who think like that, I've had them all my career. And, occasionally, I have been accused of pursuing pet projects that have little or no revenue potential. I would hate for that to happen to Tom - it is a really bad feeling to believe in something very strongly and have it not pan out.

Seeing how Rick Buckley, the president of Buckley Broadcasting, has appeared in ads endorsing Harris in Radio World and other trade magazines, I'm pretty sure Tom's job is safe. Tom is enthusiastic about HD Radio, but he's not the only one in his company.

As far as reputation goes, I think people saying things like "I have to admit I have my radio on WBAP locally, because KLIF and KRLD sound terrible with muffled audio." are going to be ones whose reputation suffers when more people hear the stations for themselves. I've compared the analog audio on those stations myself and found WBAP sounds no better and no worse than KLIF and KRLD. Gotta call BS on you there. Having made the same comparison, I put as much stock in statements like these as I do with esoteric hi-fi nuts. You know, the ones that claim using certain cables between their CD player's digitial output and their receiver's digital input will allow you to hear more "air" in a recording. Do you suppose the real reason you spend more time listening to WBAP could be the same reason everyone else does too? WBAP has a killer line-up of talent. It's a conservative market and WBAP has both Rush and Hannity.

Since you hear so much difference in these stations, would you mind explaining something? You listed three talk stations. The human voice typically has a response of 80hz to 1100hz, well under 5khz. Does the traffic sounder and bumper music sound that much better to you on WBAP? Here's a hint, most normal people don't listen to talk stations for the traffic sounder and bumper music. They listen for the material in the 80hz to 1100hz range, the TALK!

People here seem to think it's some great conspiracy that more engineers aren't speaking out about the technology. I have a much more reasoned explanation. Like me, they've heard it and they don't see a reason to. They're content to let the lunatic fringe look like lunatics.

 

[davideduardo]

It depends on the station. Many AM stations used to bill quite well at night if they had a big signal.

The truckers and night travelers have satellite and iPods now. There is very, very little overnight revenue outside of PI's and such for the individual station to obtain.

And saying "many" is a real overstatement. Maybe some of the former 1A clears got some revenue, and maybe a couple of 1B's did... but that is maybe 50 stations out of 4800 AM licencess. The immense majority... probably 98%... of AMs... have less coverage at night than during the daytime.

I know that WBAP in Fort Worth used to bill nearly 2 million dollars a year for their overnight hours with Bill Mack.

The truckers are on satellite. Better quality, no fading, no static, and one station across the whole country. The big clears get interferece that sometimes reaches within a hundred miles of the transmitter at night.

That situation has certainly changed, but the general idea hasn't. If the truckers can't hear this station, it'll be a huge hit to the bottom line. There are other exceptions like this all over the country. I suspect KMOX, WLS, KOA, WHAS, and KSL will all take a big hit to the bottom line if the HD AM stuff makes their signal hard to hear at night.

I suspect the stations you mention are not billing much of anything in overnights that comes from the skywave signal.

 

[davideduardo]

Then WHY was there such a tremendous push for IBOC at night? If nobody cares, why not just power down and save operating expenses? If people barely listen at night now, how is IBOC going to change that?

I guess I was mistaken in thinking you worked or had worked in radio; this is all about consistency and is a prime tenet of broadcasting. One of the first rules of radio programming is to offer what listeners expect every hour of every day, all through the broadcast week. This means that if you have HD, and your listeners start buying receivers, don't yank it away from them should they be listening at night.

The reason why stations carry Art Bell (few make any money from it, and many have to give up daytime inventory to get the show) is to have consistent, good and appropriate programming on even in overnights so that the very few that tune in then will keep the dial on your station as it delivers to listeners' expectations 168 hours a week.