AM HD TURNOFF PACE ACCELERATES

[tomservo]

hipporadio;

WLW is #1 with a solid 12.2. The #2 station is sporting an 8.2. That's 4 percentage points ahead, Einstein!

-

But how many are listening in HD, and are they worth the destruction of the otherwise-clean and clear analogue signal?

I mean, WLW has a phenomenal day coverage area so it should be a showcase of "best possible scenario" for AM HD. If there are dedicated Cincy-area HD listeners to the station, no one knows about them.

 

[badjef]

hipporadio;

WLW is #1 with a solid 12.2. The #2 station is sporting an 8.2. That's 4 percentage points ahead, Einstein!

-

But how many are listening in HD, and are they worth the destruction of the otherwise-clean and clear analogue signal?

I mean, WLW has a phenomenal day coverage area so it should be a showcase of "best possible scenario" for AM HD. If there are dedicated Cincy-area HD listeners to the station, no one knows about them.

The only way they would know it was in HD would be to tune to 690 and 710 to hear the hash developed by the HD. But, you are specifically referencing WLW, I find it hard to believe I'm the only one with a HD radio in the car, in Florida, or anyplace else. I would be curious to find out how many people have HD and listen (or, try to listen) to it. I'm sure we would find that if it was shut off, those people would still be listening to the station, so in that care, it is a waste of electricity to keep it on. But, it is about attempting to enhance the radio listening experience and when it is working "properly", it accomplishes that.

I would bet there would be a very strong ratio between radio people and non-radio people listening to HD.

Jeff in Sa-ra-so-ta!

 

[iyiyi]

One out of eight radios in the Cincinnati market is tuned to WLW. WLW is 4.0 ratings points ahead of the 2nd ranked station in the market. There are countless stations that only wish they could pull a 4.0. I cannot understand how anybody can say that WLW is not a "showcase best case scenario" for ANY radio station, AM or FM. WTF does HD have to do with the success of a first class radio station? Come to think about things, I can't recall very many successful AMs that AREN'T running HD!

 

[badjef]

One out of eight radios in the Cincinnati market is tuned to WLW. WLW is 4.0 ratings points ahead of the 2nd ranked station in the market. There are countless stations that only wish they could pull a 4.0. I cannot understand how anybody can say that WLW is not a "showcase best case scenario" for ANY radio station, AM or FM. WTF does HD have to do with the success of a first class radio station? Come to think about things, I can't recall very many successful AMs that AREN'T running HD!

All of those stations were successful BEFORE they were running HD. In fact, I'm sure they do not suffer at all when they do not run HD since there aren't that many receivers capable of presenting the pleasurable effects associated with the HD experience.

Jeff in Sa-ra-so-ta!

 

[iyiyi]

All of those stations were successful BEFORE they were running HD. In fact, I'm sure they do not suffer at all when they do not run HD since there aren't that many receivers capable of presenting the pleasurable effects associated with the HD experience.

Jeff in Sa-ra-so-ta!

I agree that they may not suffer much when they don't run HD. The important thing is: Not one of those stations HAS suffered by RUNNING HD! Anyone have any documentation on even ONE station that has lost ratings because of broadcasting an HD signal?

-

 

[Tom Wells]

All of those stations were successful BEFORE they were running HD. In fact, I'm sure they do not suffer at all when they do not run HD since there aren't that many receivers capable of presenting the pleasurable effects associated with the HD experience.

Jeff in Sa-ra-so-ta!

I agree that they may not suffer much when they don't run HD. The important thing is: Not one of those stations HAS suffered by RUNNING HD! Anyone have any documentation on even ONE station that has lost ratings because of broadcasting an HD signal?

-

Even if a station has turned off what they come to see as interference to their own primary "product",
I am sure the contract such stations signed with ibiquity precludes the release of any data which could be so construed.

And I'm sure you're aware of such contractual riders, so what is the purpose of your question/challenge?

 

[TheBigA]

Even if a station has turned off what they come to see as interference to their own primary "product",
I am sure the contract such stations signed with ibiquity precludes the release of any data which could be so construed.

And I'm sure you're aware of such contractual riders, so what is the purpose of your question/challenge?

Why would it have to come from the station?

 

[Savage]

"Not one of these stations has suffered by running HD?" And you demand proof of this? Of course there isn't proof. It's a fallacy to demand proof of a negative. That's no more valid than demanding proof that your failure to have a car accident on the way to work this morning is directly due to your wearing a seat belt and not texting while you drive.

One thing we do know: AM's fortunes have NOT been helped by HD. Common sense dictates that crapping up the band with thundering skywave noise during night and critical hours, especially in the AM-band-congested northeast where people listen to AM a lot for live sports play-by-play, late-night talk, school closings, weather, etc. is NOT a good thing.

The interference is not even good for HD, assuming you're one of the half-dozen remaining HD-AM fans. The system requires about 40 mV/m of interference-free signal for reliable decode, and that's impossible due to the nighttime noise on AM, unless you're practically within visual distance of a 50kw AM antnna system. HD-AM is the ultimately self-defeating system, to say nothing of the destructive interference it visits on defenseless adjoining stations.

 

[TheBigA]

"Not one of these stations has suffered by running HD?" And you demand proof of this? Of course there isn't proof. It's a fallacy to demand proof of a negative.

Here's a simple test that anyone here should be able to do:

It's been documented in this group that certain stations are turning their HD on and off in somewhat predictable patterns. Do those stations exhibit any increase or loss in ERP or ratings as a result of HD?

 

[rbrucecarter5]

Here's a simple test that anyone here should be able to do:

It's been documented in this group that certain stations are turning their HD on and off in somewhat predictable patterns. Do those stations exhibit any increase or loss in ERP or ratings as a result of HD?

I can answer about coverage! The difference is dramatic when a station shuts down IBOC. Coverage vastly increases, which means building penetration would also increase. The lastest example is KMIC Houston. Much stronger signal all over town, and some decent coverage out of town daytime, compared to a little over a week ago when they were running IBOC. KMIC simply cannot afford to lose coverage in affluent suburbs like Sugarland, Katy, Cypress, and the Woodlands - so I think it was a smart decision. This gives them a decent shot at Conroe, Brenham, and Galveston that they didn't have before.

 

[Savage]

Well, BigA, a couple of things. First of all, there is no such thing as "ERP" in AM broadcasting. Effective Radiated Power is an abstraction used to determine FM class and has nothing to do with AM. The power of an AM station is simply measured as the base current into the tower in a nondirectional system or the common-point current in a DA. HD has no effect on either.

As has been thoroughly argued here, the deleterious effect of HD on AM coverage (other than the interference it causes by radiating massive energy outside of the assigned channel, regardless of HD proponents' strenuous arguments to the contrary) is caused by the system's effect on typical receivers. Because of the adjacent channel digital sidebands, the receiver's AGC is tricked into thinking it's being hammered by a strong signal. This throttles back the radio's sensitivity, reducing effective coverage for the desired analog channel. It's a real-world receiver effect since about 99.9999% of AM listening to done to non-HD capable radios.

As far as "loss of ratings" goes, see the previous discussions re: the general state of AM and the impossibility of proving a negative.

 

[TheBigA]

As far as "loss of ratings" goes, see the previous discussions re: the general state of AM and the impossibility of proving a negative.

I'm not looking to "prove a negative." I'm looking for scientific information that demonstrates ANY connection between HD and ratings. If they go up or down. If certain stations are turning their HD on and off, that gives you a scientific basis from which to do a fair test.

 

[Savage]

That would be great if it were possible. But it isn't. Station ratings go up and down for an infinite number of reasons, all of which impact the subject station at the same time. Programming changes at the station in question, its competitors, technical issues other than HD, etc. are all factors.

Your premise is faulty. It assumes that the only relevant factor is the presence or absence of HD, which is course never the case.

 

[TheBigA]

Your premise is faulty. It assumes that the only relevant factor is the presence or absence of HD, which is course never the case.

I'll keep that in mind next time someone says that HD is causing listener tune-out.

 

[Tom Wells]

Even if a station has turned off what they come to see as interference to their own primary "product",
I am sure the contract such stations signed with ibiquity precludes the release of any data which could be so construed.

And I'm sure you're aware of such contractual riders, so what is the purpose of your question/challenge?

Why would it have to come from the station?

Because anything else is simply hearsay.

I related quite a while back how Chicago Cubs fans got really tired of wondering what all the hiss was.

I had no problems finding listeners who heard and didn't like the continuous hissing.
Very likely the station go tired of fielding calls about the hiss.

You reject any common sense reasons why a station would continue to cripple their product, and THEN ask why
such info would have to come from the station?

I guess it wouldn't, it seems you would have predisposition to discount or discredit even inside knowledge.

 

[Savage]

I think the point here is, it's indisputable that HD has not helped AM. And common sense dictates that adding massive amounts of noise to local listening at night - and sometimes during the daytime - certainly can't be helping. The "conventional wisdom" is that AM is dying and that interference is a large contributor. QRM and QRN come from a number of sources from fluorescent lights and LED traffic controls to leaky power lines to computers, and HD is a prominent contributor. So draw the conclusions you like. If HD isn't helping AM's fortunes (recall it's been touted endlessly that it would) and essentially nobody is listening to the digital, even if you don't think the interference is a problem - why continue with it?

When you hear hoofbeats, look for horses, not zebras. If you're interested in likely correct conclusions, that is.

 

[TheBigA]

I guess it wouldn't, it seems you would have predisposition to discount or discredit even inside knowledge.

Because ratings information isn't "inside knowledge."

Why make up stories that the station was "tired of fielding calls about the hiss," when you don't actually KNOW that's the case?

Is making up stories more credible than hearsay?

There are lots of truthful and factual things you can say about HD without making stuff up.

I think the point here is, it's indisputable that HD has not helped AM.

NOTHING has helped AM. It's been in a downward spiral for 40 years. The fact that one or two stations per market continue to attract an audience is amazing. You saying HD hasn't helped AM is, to use your words, trying to prove a negative. Because at the same time, it hasn't hurt it either. At least not in a way that can be proven.

 

[Tom Wells]

Big A, pull it together and stay on topic, please.

I know I actually asked Cubs fans their opinion of WGN during the noisy period.

If you'd like to suggest I'm spinning a tale, then I admit we DO live in separate worlds where I require of myself truthfulness,
yet your world system view automatically discounts/dicredits almost everything as potential/probable lies fabrications.

I don't really see much overlap between such viewpoints.
Hit me over the head with a bludgeon because I MIGHT be an enemy?
First, assume everyone else is an "enemy"?

Thanks for the openess.

I don't make things up, and have a hard time imagining the world you seem to be able to live in, where
such a thing would be your choice of perception.

I thought we were here to have intelligent discourse, attempts to defame or discredit would seem excessively childish.

Let us return to the idea of WHY stations might turn it off and say nothing.....

A "no-defamatory statements" clause would certainly preclude any statements/figures any station might make in any way,
which could potentially be construed as indicating that the use of iboc was in any way detrimental.

 

[TheBigA]

If you'd like to suggest I'm spinning a tale, then I admit we DO live in separate worlds where I require of myself truthfulness,
yet your world system view automatically discounts/dicredits almost everything as potential/probable lies fabrications.

I was very specific with what I was talking about. I have no reason to believe people are calling WGN to complain about HD. Or that WGN is tired of fielding such calls. As Savage points out, there are lots of reasons why AM sounds bad. Eliminating HD won't solve the problem. The ONLY solution is to move to another band, and that won't happen.

Let us return to the idea of WHY stations might turn it off and say nothing.....

That sounds like an exercise in fiction creation. How about "The contract is up, and we don't have the budget to renew?" One needn't be critical when making a decision.

 

[pianoplayer88key]

Well, BigA, a couple of things.  First of all, there is no such thing as "ERP" in AM broadcasting.  Effective Radiated Power is an abstraction used to determine FM class and has nothing to do with AM.  The power of an AM station is simply measured as the base current into the tower in a nondirectional system or the common-point current in a DA.  HD has no effect on either.

If "ERP" is not used in AM broadcasting, then when you have a directional array, and are quoting the power that would be required to produce the same field at a particular azimuth with a non-directional antenna (assuming you're using one of the existing towers), what term do you use?  For example, there's a station 9.3 miles north of me on 1170 that runs 50kW daytime.  They run the equivalent of 112kW toward me, and about 200kW in their main southwest lobe.

Also could something similar apply when talking about antennas of varying efficiency?  For example a 1/4-wave over a ground plane does about 305 mV/m @ 1 km for 1 kW applied power, a 1/2-wave does about 380 mV/m, a 5/8-wave does about 440 mV/m, and the Franklin at KSTP (179.4° stacked on another 179.4°, insulated & fed at the center) does 511.7 mV/m at 1 km for 1 kW of applied power.
Speaking of which, this may be a little OT, but if R Fry is reading this, what may be the efficiency, in mV/m @ 1 km for 1 kW of applied power, for an antenna that is functionally compliant with 15.219(b)?

On topic for HD stations interfering with analog, I've been trying to come up with a way of allowing analog-only stations to compensate for the interference from HD stations.  One idea I had was allowing the analog stations to increase their transmit power output (without needing to notify the FCC or get a permit, and even if their TPO would exceed 50kW) to compensate.  The station would find out where the HD signal is the strongest within their coverage, including the fringe (even out to the 0dB above quietest atmospheric noise, even if that means using the ground conductivity maps and groundwave charts to determine the distance, not making actual field measurements).  Then, they would increase their TPO (without changing their antenna pattern) so the signal-to-noise ratio of their unmodulated carrier over the strongest HD signal (wherever it was in their coverage area - wouldn't necessarily have to be at the extreme fringe) was equivalent to what their S/N ratio of their 125% modulated carrier would be over the noise level if that was an electrically quiet location approximately 20,000+ km from the nearest AC power grid and thunderstorm activity.  Only analog stations would be permitted to do this, though - HD stations would be disqualified.
Also, if HD continues to be allowed, how about allowing analog stations to increase their bandwidth to +/- 15 kHz (or such that the RMS value of their splatter is the same as that of an HD station)?

(Alternately, though, I'd prefer to require devices that emit RF that aren't intended to be received on an analog broadcast receiver to have field strengths so low, when measured at the surface of the device with any end-user-removable covers/shields removed, to not even register on a FIM in a screen room, even when that FIM is capable of measuring the noise floor in that room.  Exceptions could be made for devices that are intended for testing radios, for example, or some hobby kits as long as they're not used unattended for extended periods of time, like more than a few minutes to a couple hours or so.)

Another thing (maybe I should find another topic to piggyback this onto) ...  I'd like better receiver standards mandated.  One example would be to require better IF filters - for example if a radio (or a device that includes a radio) has an MSRP of over, say, $20, then require the -60dB IF bandwidth to be no more than 2x as wide as the the -6dB bandwidth (which can be no wider than the audio bandwidth), and require stop-band attenuation to be at least 90dB and no more than 3x the -6dB bandwidth on AM, and at least match the Tecsun DSP radios on FM.  For radios costing upwards of $60, $150, $250 or more, the filters would need to be much better. (A $150+ radio, for example, should be able to receive a weak but usable signal of a station near the atmospheric noise floor, splatter-free, while at the occupational/controlled maximum permissible exposure contour of a first-adjacent strong signal, and allowing the full analog bandwidth of the desired signal, if at all possible.)