• 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

AM HD situation somewhat reminiscent to the old CBS Color issue

In 1953, the FCC approved the CBS Mechanical Color system, a system of color television that, if implemented, would have simply left millions of black and white receivers obsolete (without a converter). In that nickel plated, vacuum tube era, the CBS Color system was not practical due to the bulky mechanical disk and shortages of material (we were fighting the Korean War at the time, a “police action”) the CBS system was quickly withdrawn by the FCC and CBS. The current color system (until 2/17/09), NTSC, was an electronic color system, which is compatible with existing black and white television sets. The CBS color system was not practical, due to the current state-of-the-art of television in 1953. NTSC eventually got the blessing of the FCC as THE color system for the USA.

Fast forward to 2007. There’s a saying that “you can’t make a silk purse from sow’s ear”. While HD FM is practical (to a point, but with somewhat limited coverage), all indications point to the opposite for HD AM. Everybody knows that nighttime skywave reception is a way of life for AM, whether you’d purposely want to listen to out-of-town stations, or if you have wanted to listen to a semi-local station and find it to be two to three stations deep in co-channel interference. Well, that’s the nature of the beast. Adding loud white noise (a by-product of IBOC transmission) to an already congested and mismanaged portion of spectrum is not the way to regain listeners. We’ve seen the results of nighttime IBOC reception with a company, who owns two major adjacent channel 50,000 watt blowtorches, discontinuing the nighttime IBOC due to mutual interference concerns and from actual complaints from listeners.

The IBOC system requires a station to brickwall their analog audio purposely to 4 to 5 kHz bandwidth, to protect the two IBOC sidebands used for digital broadcasting. The result, what used to be comparably wideband audio is now limited to the sound of a dialup phone line. Adding adjacent channel white noise to the mix, and you’re wondering why the band is losing listeners? Which brings up the question.., is IBOC the really the only way to bring AM to the digital age? Why not revisit Kahn’s CAM-D or possibly DRM? IMHO, the current version of AM HD should be revisited before the AM band is rendered completely useless. The interference issues are not going away anywhere soon without a definitive decision on how to deal with it. And there is nothing wrong with AM stereo (C-QUAM). Had the FCC mandated the C-QUAM sooner (rather than letting the marketplace decide) and mandated its’ use in portable stereo radios (like Walkmans and boom-boxes), we might have seen better results today with AM Stereo.

Like the CBS color issue, where the FCC revisited it and eventually decided to go with NTSC color instead, maybe the Commission should revisit HD AM and consider other alternatives or have Ibiquity try to rework their system to where adjacent channels are not subject to unwanted interference. I’m wondering if a hybrid IBOC/day and C-QUAM night configuration might be a possible temporary fix for the moment (like what WLS was doing). The chipsets are already out there to automatically handle both systems with ease.

Just a thought.
 
Peter Q. George (K1XRB) said:
I’m wondering if a hybrid IBOC/day and C-QUAM night configuration might be a possible temporary fix for the moment (like what WLS was doing). The chipsets are already out there to automatically handle both systems with ease.
You might be on to something. AM hybrid IBOC isn't great under any circustances. It can at least be tolerated during the day, but its useless at night. Perhaps your suggestion could be a bridge to an all-digital system.
 
The IBOC system requires a station to brickwall their analog audio purposely to 4 to 5 kHz bandwidth, to protect the two IBOC sidebands used for digital broadcasting. The result, what used to be comparably wideband audio is now limited to the sound of a dialup phone line.

Not true, the 5K limit can be exceeded w/slight degradation of the iboc signal's reach.

Here is an aircheck of WABC during evening iboc operation as received on a KLH analog radio. It's a Mark Simone phoner with Adam West in July '06.

http://www.sendspace.com/file/9h9cq7 8MB MP3

-And yes, if you ride up the gain real fast during the pauses in speech you'll hear a slight hiss.

.., is IBOC the really the only way to bring AM to the digital age? Why not revisit Kahn’s CAM-D or possibly DRM

Two points here: Whatever is implemented must be compatible with hundreds of millions of existing radios.

Second: Forget any AM only scheme, people don't buy radio for AM anymore. The main advantage that AM iboc has is being bundled with it's FM counterpart.

I’m wondering if a hybrid IBOC/day and C-QUAM night configuration might be a possible temporary fix for the moment (like what WLS was doing). The chipsets are already out there to automatically handle both systems with ease.

That would be fine, but you still are going to need a mandated improvement in analog AM receiver performance.

Lino
 
Peter Q. George (K1XRB) said:
digital age? Why not revisit Kahn’s CAM-D or possibly DRM?

I see DRM frequently cited as a better alternative to IBOC. Thing is, best I can tell DRM as originally configured is not capable of co-existing with analog on the same frequency. You can run either analog *OR* DRM on a channel, not both at once.

With minor tweaking you could do the same with IBOC. Drop the lower set of digital sidebands, move the upper set down 10KHz in frequency, and you've got the whole thing confined to the same space currently occupied by the analog. Plus the increased digital power would probably greatly improve the coverage.

On the other hand, if you have to keep the analog going then you have to work out an "on-channel" scheme for DRM - which is going to have precisely the same interference issues as IBOC. (I believe someone is in fact working on this, not that I see much point!)

Without more technical details released, I think it's going to be pretty much impossible to reasonably evaluate CAM-D.

there is nothing wrong with AM stereo (C-QUAM). Had the FCC mandated the C-QUAM sooner (rather than letting the marketplace decide) and mandated its’ use in portable stereo radios (like Walkmans and boom-boxes), we might have seen better results today with AM Stereo.

IMHO the widespread implementation of AM stereo would have had no effect on the current state of the AM dial. For precisely the same reason that IBOC will not save AM, even if you ignore the interference question: those who don't listen don't listen because they aren't interested in the programming, or because they can't receive the station. Neither AM stereo nor AM HD provide any improvement to the station's coverage, and neither AM stereo nor AM HD improve the listeners' choices of programming.
 
Fifty to seventy-five years ago the FCC had some real engineers on staff that could influence the commissioners and the FCC made semi-intelligent rulings until about 1983.

Anyhow, as we all know, now the FCC is full of incompetent lawyers, politicians, and political cronies who rarely look out for the citizens and ignore technical issues, so what's the chance these 5 'tards would actually admit that they made a mistake and take measures to correct the injustice of AM-HD as it is?
Do you really think they would acknowledge my five documents I submitted to them with alternates to iBiquity's AM system? Nope, but at least they did list one in the proceedings that were dimissed by them; so why would they backtrack now and admit they made a mistake?
I don't have anyone paid in DC to lobby the FCC to make some AM band 'fixes' like mandatory AM receiver standards for any new AM radio that's included in an HD-FM tuner.
My question to all of you: What can we do to help get the FCC to 'fix' this AM band situation we're currently stuck with?
 
LinoNYC said:
.., is IBOC the really the only way to bring AM to the digital age? Why not revisit Kahn’s CAM-D or possibly DRM

Two points here: Whatever is implemented must be compatible with hundreds of millions of existing radios.

Second: Forget any AM only scheme, people don't buy radio for AM anymore. The main advantage that AM iboc has is being bundled with it's FM counterpart.
The whole argument about being bundled with FM IBOC doesn't hold water. This is an age where everything is moving toward systems (yes, plural) on single chips and/or devices. Consider some of the things you can buy on single devices that are fundamentally incompatible:
- Bluetooth and WiFi, which are completely incompatible but just happen to share the same frequency band (but use different channel sizes, modulation schemes, etc.)
- GSM and UMTS/WCDMA. They do share the same underlying network core, and so can hand off calls between systems, but the physical layers of these two systems are fundamentally different and incompatible. Yet every UMTS device is backward compatible with GSM. All UMTS chipset manufacturers include GSM functionality in there as well.
- AM and FM! Duh.

It really shouldn't be that hard to produce a single chip decoder for CAM-D/FMeXtra/DRM/DRM+ and mandate that all radios be digital capable. CAM-D and FMeXtra can serve as the interim solutions leading up to an analog sunset after which DRM and DRM+ get used.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom