An I(BOC) For An I(BOC)

[nd2023]

Do radio stations on adjacent frequencies get IBOC because their neighbor did so and their hash is killing their signal? I see that this seems to be happening between many adjacent stations here. We all know where Mutually Assured Destruction got us in the Cold War. The same thing seems to be happening with IBOC in radio. Pretty soon, the radio dial will be nuked with only very local stations and IBOC hash listenable.<P ID="signature">______________
17-year-old radio geek
Location: Princeton Junction, NJ
AIM: KewlDude471</P>

 

[Grrradio]

> Pretty soon, the radio
> dial will be nuked with only very local stations and IBOC
> hash listenable.

I fear the same thing myself. (And I must say, your Cold War analogy was impressive, but be careful... in most high schools these days, having actual independent thoughts makes you a suspicious character. ;-) I also fear - politics being what it is these days - that neither commercial broadcasters nor Congress will ever listen to even the clearest engineering or public-interest arguments against IBOC. That leaves us with only the power of the marketplace - a dubious vehicle for social change, to be sure, but it's really all we've got. Someone's going to have to start an organized campaign informing broadcasters that listeners are unwilling to make the extra effort to dig signals out of the trash heap.

 

[HD_Ready]

> > Pretty soon, the radio
> > dial will be nuked with only very local stations and IBOC
> > hash listenable.
>
> I fear the same thing myself. (And I must say, your Cold
> War analogy was impressive, but be careful... in most high
> schools these days, having actual independent thoughts makes
> you a suspicious character. ;-) I also fear - politics
> being what it is these days - that neither commercial
> broadcasters nor Congress will ever listen to even the
> clearest engineering or public-interest arguments against
> IBOC. That leaves us with only the power of the marketplace
> - a dubious vehicle for social change, to be sure, but it's
> really all we've got. Someone's going to have to start an
> organized campaign informing broadcasters that listeners are
> unwilling to make the extra effort to dig signals out of the
> trash heap.
>

How many listeners out there actually care about "out of market" signals? Most people I talk to have no idea they even exsist. Most listeners want crystal clear reception of thier favorite radio station - bring on the digits!<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by HD_Ready on 07/23/05 12:23 PM.</FONT></P>

 

[Chuck]

> How many listeners out there actually care about "out of
> market" signals? Most people I talk to have no idea they
> even exsist. Most listeners want crystal clear reception of
> thier favorite radio station - bring on the digits!

I suspect that IBOC may be a very nifty way of obliterating your competition, and doing it legally. That may be what it is all about, since I’ve never heard too many people complain about FM reception as it is.

I will admit that the IBOC demonstrations I’ve heard did sound pretty good, but I’m not sure I’d really notice in my car driving at 70 mph on a noisy road surface.

What will probably get the attention of the public is finding a place for their iPod or satellite radio modulators to work without interference. On a recent trip to Chicago, I had a hard time making my satellite radio modulator work. There were simply no easy to find open channels. I also found that it was easier to overpower a weak station with it, than it was to compete with the IBOC sidebands.

 

[THEInsultant]

> > How many listeners out there actually care about "out of
> > market" signals? Most people I talk to have no idea they
> > even exsist. Most listeners want crystal clear reception
> of
> > thier favorite radio station - bring on the digits!
>
> I suspect that IBOC may be a very nifty way of obliterating
> your competition, and doing it legally. That may be what it
> is all about, since I’ve never heard too many people
> complain about FM reception as it is.
>
> I will admit that the IBOC demonstrations I’ve heard did
> sound pretty good, but I’m not sure I’d really notice in my
> car driving at 70 mph on a noisy road surface.
>
> What will probably get the attention of the public is
> finding a place for their iPod or satellite radio modulators
> to work without interference. On a recent trip to Chicago,
> I had a hard time making my satellite radio modulator work.
> There were simply no easy to find open channels. I also
> found that it was easier to overpower a weak station with
> it, than it was to compete with the IBOC sidebands.
>

I'd hate to own a small AM that is 15-25 miles out-of-town or on the outskirts, trying to compete in the "big city" when IBOC gets into full swing. In a way, it IS a way for the big boys to force the little guys out on the AM band. If you don't own at least a 5k or you own a station with deep directional nulls though populated areas, it's TIME TO SELL before your property becomes WORTHLESS thanks to In-Band-Over(your)-Channel. (lots of examples of this already.. like 1190 in dallas getting WOAI interference, etc) IBOC belongs on channel 6 (when analog is dumped in 20 yrs) or 1700-1800kc (by moving other services), not rideing on the skirts of the existing channels. Honestly, the best thing for a "group" in a market to do is just use one of the secondary FM IBOC channels for their AM "digital" broadcast. No fades, less noise issues, and the AM analog doesn't get trashed.

<P ID="signature">______________
--- THE Insultant ---</P>

 

[Len14043]

> I will admit that the IBOC demonstrations I’ve heard did
> sound pretty good, but I’m not sure I’d really notice in my
> car driving at 70 mph on a noisy road surface.

I agree that in most of the eastern and midwestern cities, the difference on FM will not be that noticeable. But in cities near mountains such as San Francisco, Salt Lake City and Denver where multipath distortion is severe, IBOC will sound much cleaner.

 

[w7dtl]

> > I will admit that the IBOC demonstrations I’ve heard did
> > sound pretty good, but I’m not sure I’d really notice in
> my
> > car driving at 70 mph on a noisy road surface.
>
> I agree that in most of the eastern and midwestern cities,
> the difference on FM will not be that noticeable. But in
> cities near mountains such as San Francisco, Salt Lake City
> and Denver where multipath distortion is severe, IBOC will
> sound much cleaner.

I would beg to differ. Likely the weak signal and multi path will cause IBAC (FM) to flop back and forth between it and analog. This could really sound bad if the timing (read analog delay) and processing are even slightly different. The fact that IBAC must revert to analog tells the whole story. Once people hear the digital cell like signal they are really going to try sat or whatever. Many of the road tests were rigged to avoid such test areas.

73 Rich W7DTL
>

 

[jlehmann]

> I suspect that IBOC may be a very nifty way of obliterating
> your competition, and doing it legally. That may be what it
> is all about, since I’ve never heard too many people
> complain about FM reception as it is.

This is becoming a problem with at least one station here in Boston. When you drive within about 10 miles of the tower of 99.5 WKLB Lowell (running IBOC), their IBOC wipes 99.1 WPLM Plymouth off the map. WPLM is a small independent station that will probably never be able to afford installing IBOC to return the favor to WKLB, south of Boston.<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by jlehmann on 07/24/05 02:20 PM.</FONT></P>

 

[Chuck]

> I would beg to differ. Likely the weak signal and multi path
> will cause IBAC (FM) to flop back and forth between it and
> analog. This could really sound bad if the timing (read
> analog delay) and processing are even slightly different.
> The fact that IBAC must revert to analog tells the whole
> story. Once people hear the digital cell like signal they
> are really going to try sat or whatever. Many of the road
> tests were rigged to avoid such test areas.

I think the flip-flop from digital to analog will be a big problem for many listeners, but I suppose we'll just have to wait and see about that. Maybe it won’t be that big a deal. Then again, maybe it will. All the IBOC demonstrations I've witnessed were stationary and worked well.

I've recently heard of a technology that involves running the digital signal on the FM stations existing sub-carrier frequencies. I'm probably too ignorant to understand what's not to like about this idea, but it makes sense to me. It’s one of those things that seems so simple, that I’m wondering why I didn’t think of it myself. You get the benefit of digital transmission, and you don't cause any interference to your neighbor. Since the FCC lets you do as you want with your SCA channels, it seems like it would be a very easy way to accomplish many of the same results as IBOC without further impacting a very crowded FM band.

I know that it doesn't give the broadcaster the additional audio or data channels that the Ibiquity promises, but it doesn't take up as much spectrum either. Do we really need more channels? Only if somebody thinks up something creative to do with them. Most broadcasters have trouble putting decent programming on their existing channels. I'm not sure they really need more. All it will do is further fragment their existing audience. Why are they so anxious to pay big bucks to do that?

It also appears to me that IBOC will be the end of AM radio as we know it, especially if it is authorized for night operation. What’s really odd is the stations who would benefit most are AM's that carry music. Unfortunately, it will take 5-10 years (some would argue less) for most radios to be replaced with IBOC compatible units. In the mean time, these stations have to severely limit their analog frequency response, making music almost unlistenable. I wonder if they can hang on financially, while they wait for enough market saturation to become viable as a digital broadcaster. It would be very tough. If adopted, full time IBOC will probably insure that AM will remain little more than brokered talk radio, Bible thumping preachers or blocks of "special interest" programming in various foreign languages.

The Kahn system makes more sense for AM as far as I can tell, but his "less than masterful" public relations campaign has probably doomed that idea to failure. Most people are convinced that Leonard is a little bit like “Mad Man” Earl Muntz. (Muntz TV’s, the Muntz Jet automobile and Muntz 4 Track car stereo).

Aside from a hand full of really well programmed 50KW news-talk stations, this technology may even result in many AM stations hanging it up. That would be a huge loss, which I'd hate to see.

 

[w7dtl]

> > I would beg to differ. Likely the weak signal and multi
> path
> > will cause IBAC (FM) to flop back and forth between it and
>
> > analog. This could really sound bad if the timing (read
> > analog delay) and processing are even slightly different.
> > The fact that IBAC must revert to analog tells the whole
> > story. Once people hear the digital cell like signal they
> > are really going to try sat or whatever. Many of the road
> > tests were rigged to avoid such test areas.
>
> I think the flip-flop from digital to analog will be a big
> problem for many listeners, but I suppose we'll just have to
> wait and see about that. Maybe it won’t be that big a deal.
> Then again, maybe it will. All the IBOC demonstrations
> I've witnessed were stationary and worked well.
>
> I've recently heard of a technology that involves running
> the digital signal on the FM stations existing sub-carrier
> frequencies. I'm probably too ignorant to understand what's
> not to like about this idea, but it makes sense to me. It’s
> one of those things that seems so simple, that I’m wondering
> why I didn’t think of it myself. You get the benefit of
> digital transmission, and you don't cause any interference
> to your neighbor. Since the FCC lets you do as you want with
> your SCA channels, it seems like it would be a very easy way
> to accomplish many of the same results as IBOC without
> further impacting a very crowded FM band.
>
> I know that it doesn't give the broadcaster the additional
> audio or data channels that the Ibiquity promises, but it
> doesn't take up as much spectrum either. Do we really need
> more channels? Only if somebody thinks up something
> creative to do with them. Most broadcasters have trouble
> putting decent programming on their existing channels. I'm
> not sure they really need more. All it will do is further
> fragment their existing audience. Why are they so anxious to
> pay big bucks to do that?
>
> It also appears to me that IBOC will be the end of AM radio
> as we know it, especially if it is authorized for night
> operation. What’s really odd is the stations who would
> benefit most are AM's that carry music. Unfortunately, it
> will take 5-10 years (some would argue less) for most radios
> to be replaced with IBOC compatible units. In the mean
> time, these stations have to severely limit their analog
> frequency response, making music almost unlistenable. I
> wonder if they can hang on financially, while they wait for
> enough market saturation to become viable as a digital
> broadcaster. It would be very tough. If adopted, full time
> IBOC will probably insure that AM will remain little more
> than brokered talk radio, Bible thumping preachers or blocks
> of "special interest" programming in various foreign
> languages.
>
> The Kahn system makes more sense for AM as far as I can
> tell, but his "less than masterful" public relations
> campaign has probably doomed that idea to failure. Most
> people are convinced that Leonard is a little bit like “Mad
> Man” Earl Muntz. (Muntz TV’s, the Muntz Jet automobile and
> Muntz 4 Track car stereo).
>
> Aside from a hand full of really well programmed 50KW
> news-talk stations, this technology may even result in many
> AM stations hanging it up. That would be a huge loss, which
> I'd hate to see.

The FM subcarrier system promoted by DRE, Digital Radio Express, does offer the advantages if IBAC FM and without the expensive equipment, license fees or adjacent channel interference. It too is a fairly old idea but with new implementation and coding which allows for a pretty good digital throughput. Go to the BEXT WEB site for an explanation of the details. Again like IBAC FM little if any mobile test data has been published. Could be a great alternative. The NRSC 5 proposal must not be allowed to preclude other systems. The DRE system does indeed fit inside the IBAC FM plan. Now what we really need is good field test data and a real "drive off".

Rich W7DTL
>

 

[tpt]

"digital Radio Express" is intended to be another method of distributing SCA signals, not a s a replacement for main channel FM stereo.

There is still a demand in larger cities for SCA transmissions, especially for ethnic programing that could not support a main channel audience.

 

[Chuck]

> "digital Radio Express" is intended to be another method of
> distributing SCA signals, not a s a replacement for main
> channel FM stereo.

Perhaps so, but take the idea a step further. These days you can get a fairly decent stereo stream crammed into 32 KBS, which ought to fit into one SCA channel. FM stations are allowed two, plus their RDS channel. As codecs improve, I suspect that the audio quality using compression technology will improve even further. It's certainly come a long way in the last few years.

You could also use both sub carriers to do a very high quality digital stream. It just depends what your priorities are.

My point is not an endorsement of DRE, but just a thought that there is probably a better way to do this than what is currently on the table.

 

[JohnnyElectron]

I couldn't agree more with the comments regarding IBOC/IBAC radio - but who ever listens to engineers anymore? I'd love to have engineers as FCC commissioners - but that would be logical.

I still believe that legacy analog AM is our last best backup in emergencies - and was proven as such during the Great Lakes power blackout of August 2003. IBOC/IBAC will destroy the AM band - and the only reason it is being backed is that the 50KW stations didn't want equality with 250W daytimers IF all the AMs were offered a VHF/UHF digital-only band - which in my opinion is what should have happened. Leave AM analog, move AMs to a local 220MHz or 80MHz digital band.

FM should use their SCA for digital only, and then put their programming energies into their newly relocated AM station on the new digital band - if that had done that the energy level would have shifted to their old AM's - and the improved programming would have benefited listeners.

In another vein, IF IBOC AM sounded really, really good it would be one thing, but this weeks edition of RADIO WORLD, Cris Alexander road tests an "HD Radio" in his vehicle and he said ALL of the the Salt Lake City AM's sound like crap - except ONE. He said the digital artifacts are horrible, except for one. Not a good sign. CQuam and Kahn AM Stereo stations sounded really good with the later model of radios; too bad receiver manufacturers won't make us better receivers!

 

[Chuck]

> Leave AM analog, move AMs to a local 220MHz or 80MHz digital
> band.
>
I agree that digital broadcasting should be done on a different band. Bootstrapping something into exixting space just doesn't seem like the right way to attack the problem. But it looks like that's what we've got.

Since the rest of the world seems to be adopting Eureka 147, it seems odd to me that we want to become radio isolationsts. Canada has adopted it, and Mexico may. Why shouldn't the US? I know Eureka hasn't caught on very well as yet, but it might. It's still early in the game. It took a long time for FM to catch on too.

A recent Radio World article about resurecting Major Armstrong's original FM station made me wonder what is going on in the old 45-50 MHz FM band. According to them, not much, since most Public Service communications has moved to much higher frequencies. I'm sure some areas still use it, but maybe this would be a good area to start a new all digital service.

You could call it "The Armstrong Band."

 

[k9ez]

> > Leave AM analog, move AMs to a local 220MHz or 80MHz
> digital
> > band.
> >
> I agree that digital broadcasting should be done on a
> different band. Bootstrapping something into exixting space
> just doesn't seem like the right way to attack the problem.
> But it looks like that's what we've got.
>
> Since the rest of the world seems to be adopting Eureka 147,
> it seems odd to me that we want to become radio
> isolationsts. Canada has adopted it, and Mexico may. Why
> shouldn't the US? I know Eureka hasn't caught on very well
> as yet, but it might. It's still early in the game. It took
> a long time for FM to catch on too.
>
> A recent Radio World article about resurecting Major
> Armstrong's original FM station made me wonder what is going
> on in the old 45-50 MHz FM band. According to them, not
> much, since most Public Service communications has moved to
> much higher frequencies. I'm sure some areas still use it,
> but maybe this would be a good area to start a new all
> digital service.
>
> You could call it "The Armstrong Band."
>

COOL IDEA!!!

Has anyone actually heard AM IBOC? I have and will reserve my comments for later.

 

[Chuck]

> > You could call it "The Armstrong Band."
> >
>
> COOL IDEA!!!
>
> Has anyone actually heard AM IBOC? I have and will reserve
> my comments for later.
>
Just in a very controlled demo. It sounded like a very good stereo web stream. It was a huge improvement over the usual "telephone answering machine" sound quality of most cheap AM radios. You'd be very happy listening to it IMHO. If AM broadcasters can wait it out, they will gain the most from IBOC, assuming that a neighboring station does not wipe out their signal in the process.

Unfortunately, it may be a long wait for enough IBOC receivers to get into market for it to make much difference. How long can they wait? I guess that depends on how deep their pockets are.

I have no objection to digital radio. It most certainly is the future, but I wish we could do this with out creating even more interference in an already troubled RF spectrum.