Another one for the pro-iBlock vultures to attack

[KB1OKL]

From a radio list, anonymous of course to protect the innocent


Kind of a downer to close out the year, and a possible warning for the
future... a family member works in Detroit on auto designs for future
years, and the audio systems that go in them. During a recent holiday
chat, he informed me that he was just about to wrap up the work for Ford
2009 models. "So they have HD tuners, right?" I asked. Well, no they
don't he responded. They are loaded and ready for Sirius radio, THX sound
as an option, many other lovely audio treats, but unless requested custom
by the buyer, HD will not be included in the 2009 audio systems.

I find this bit of news to be very very troubling. It also adds to my
growing fears that while it "seemed like a good idea at the time" spending
$250,000 to upgrade our signal to HD was a HUGE waste of time and money.
Sure, we did some much needed upgrading of our transmitter site, beefed up
the infrastructure and wiring, but I think we could have done it for less
than a 1/4 mil.

It would be less than kind to suggest that we're being taken for a ride on
this, but with virtually no interest from consumers and no support from
industry leaders, it sure feels that way.

H(D)appy New Year

 

[rbrucecarter5]

2009 models. "So they have HD tuners, right?" I asked. Well, no they

I think this may be a sound decision. Based on my static (non-moving) observations, the HD signal is not very robust. It works well enough for about 30 miles, much more requires a directional antenna system which would be impractical in cars. The thing that would be the killer for HD would be the combination of the multipath changes and the lock time of the signal. If an airplane in motion in the reception path produces enough flutter in the signal to lose HD lock, and the lock time is longer than the period of the flutter - there is no way to get the HD signal to lock. And if - by some chance, it does lock, the next null will drop it out.

Now, instead of an airplane in the reception path - you put the receiver in motion. The vehicle speed is slower, so the periodicity of FM signal flutter is longer - but the same priciple would apply.

Unfortunately, the nature of FM signal strength is geometric - it can go from strong to barely receivable in a very short period if time. There is nothing inherent in digital transmission that will change this characteristic.

Bottom line - the only real hope for HD reception in car would be the same things that improve analog reception. Go back to whip antennas, and / or put two of them for diversity reception. In that way, you reduce the instance where the antenna is in a null. The nulls are small, and the chances of getting both antennas into a null is remote.

Now - will auto makers put TWO 31 inch whip antennas on a vehicle for reliable HD reception? Not very likely, since it is not fashionable to have whips on cars - or not cool - or whatever logic. So much for the best solution. But will they put two of something - hidden - on a car for diversity antennas? Cost is really important for Detroit and if you try to tell them you not only need a new radio for HD, but also a new antenna system it would be even more of a hard sell. Of course I will put two antennas and a combiner system on my car if and when I decide to install HD - but I sure want the receiver to be made by Pioneer so it has a chance of being sensitive enough! And Pioneer isn't any more sold on HD than the big automakers are.

 

[Mike Walker]

Wow, the "experts' have spoken!

 

[Savage]

And the pro-IBOC lobby has responded with typical insults aimed at those who dare to criticize HD Radio.

The appropriate responses are to either (a) defend the system credibly, e.g., explain how it may or could still succeed in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary, or (b) candidly admit that maybe HD isn't going to work and suggesting alternatives that would or might.

It's telling that there is any controversy surrounding HD at all. If HD were truly a revolution for radio, or even a true evolution, there wouldn't be any. Any digital system in-band that actually worked would be greeted with wild enthusiasm by any sane broadcaster; because HD doesn't function well enough and causes unacceptable problems there is sober and solid opposition. HD is crafted in an elitist fashion that makes it susceptible of implemenation by only the biggest, wealthiest broadcasters, and at the expense of others. I was there, so I can say - there was no similar controversy over FM. Or FM stereo. Or NTSC color TV.

It's too bad that the discussion as devolved into:

Challenge: "I think HD Radio has problems, and here's why."
Retort: "You're a jerk. Your station is garbage. You have no listeners. You're a naysayer." Etc.

 

[Len14043]

I am pro-IBOC for FM and respect most of the IBOC critics here. Reasonable minds can disagree. I just have a problem with the unreasonable posters that can't see any redeeming qualities of IBOC. I had to swallow my pride when coming to the realization the AM IBOC is problematic. Perhaps some of the anti-IBOC people should open their minds up too! I own two HD radios and believe I am qualified to chime in now and then. With regards to the multipath issue, I respectfully disagree with Bruce. I won't go out on a limb and claim the IBOC is immune from multipath, but I will say it is highly resistant. My findings indicate that signal strenght is the most important factor for digital reception. On my Radiosophy HD-100, I can fiddle with the with antenna until multipath renders the analog signal nearly unlistenable, but the HD signal still locks in. I'll try to make a recording when I figure out how to do it. While listening to out-of-market stations, an overhead plane will probably cause the digital signal to fail, but it will not cause a local station to fail. In the car, the HD signal does not fail when listening to local stations plauged by multipath and is solid to about 35 miles out. Hence, the digital signal covers most of the local market. This indicates that an increase in digital power will prove to be very effective.

 

[SUPERCASTER]

Len14043

Reasonable minds can disagree. I just have a problem with the unreasonable posters that can't see any redeeming qualities of IBOC.

Those "redeeming qualities of IBOC" are mostly spurious, self serving hype.

So "Reasonable minds" can't disagree because they see that HD Radio is unnecessary, undesirable, it's adjacent channel nature does not fit the current channel assignments and causes far more harm then any possible good?

Truly In Band On Channel FMeXtra provides similar quality digital FM without problematic use of other's adjacent channels, rendering HD Radio an overly complex, proprietary, expensive, unnecessary waste. It also had "FCC final approval" predating HD Radio's.
www.dreinc.com

To hiss (on your neighbors) or not to hiss. That is the question.

 

[Radioman100]

Len14043

Reasonable minds can disagree. I just have a problem with the unreasonable posters that can't see any redeeming qualities of IBOC.

Those "redeeming qualities of IBOC" are mostly spurious, self serving hype.

So "Reasonable minds" can't disagree because they see that HD Radio is unnecessary, undesirable, it's adjacent channel nature does not fit the current channel assignments and causes far more harm then any possible good?

Truly In Band On Channel FMeXtra provides similar quality digital FM without problematic use of other's adjacent channels, rendering HD Radio an overly complex, proprietary, expensive, unnecessary waste. It also had "FCC final approval" predating HD Radio's.
www.dreinc.com

To hiss (on your neighbors) or not to hiss. That is the question.

Commercials like this are probably one of the reasons FMeXtra is going nowhere.

I actually like the FMeXtra concept. It can even work alongside HD Radio on an FM, but the only people I ever see promoting it are anti-IBOC zealots that nobody wielding any decision making power would take seriously.

 

[Tom Wells]

I am pro-IBOC for FM and respect most of the IBOC critics here. Reasonable minds can disagree. I just have a problem with the unreasonable posters that can't see any redeeming qualities of IBOC. I had to swallow my pride when coming to the realization the AM IBOC is problematic. Perhaps some of the anti-IBOC people should open their minds up too! I own two HD radios and believe I am qualified to chime in now and then. With regards to the multipath issue, I respectfully disagree with Bruce. I won't go out on a limb and claim the IBOC is immune from multipath, but I will say it is highly resistant. My findings indicate that signal strenght is the most important factor for digital reception. On my Radiosophy HD-100, I can fiddle with the with antenna until multipath renders the analog signal nearly unlistenable, but the HD signal still locks in. I'll try to make a recording when I figure out how to do it. While listening to out-of-market stations, an overhead plane will probably cause the digital signal to fail, but it will not cause a local station to fail. In the car, the HD signal does not fail when listening to local stations plauged by multipath and is solid to about 35 miles out. Hence, the digital signal covers most of the local market. This indicates that an increase in digital power will prove to be very effective.

This is why I have raised the question of whether the FM issue is airplane multipath vs. airplane downward-firing radar pulses on landing approaches.
I suspect there are cases where either might be, but the likelihood would seem remote on locals if the analog isn't suffering badly.

 

[LinoNYC]

And the pro-IBOC lobby has responded with typical insults aimed at those who dare to criticize HD Radio.

The appropriate responses are to either (a) defend the system credibly, e.g., explain how it may or could still succeed in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary, or (b) candidly admit that maybe HD isn't going to work and suggesting alternatives that would or might.

It's telling that there is any controversy surrounding HD at all. If HD were truly a revolution for radio, or even a true evolution, there wouldn't be any. Any digital system in-band that actually worked would be greeted with wild enthusiasm by any sane broadcaster; because HD doesn't function well enough and causes unacceptable problems there is sober and solid opposition. HD is crafted in an elitist fashion that makes it susceptible of implemenation by only the biggest, wealthiest broadcasters, and at the expense of others. I was there, so I can say - there was no similar controversy over FM. Or FM stereo. Or NTSC color TV.

It's too bad that the discussion as devolved into:

Challenge: "I think HD Radio has problems, and here's why."
Retort: "You're a jerk. Your station is garbage. You have no listeners. You're a naysayer." Etc.

Please, save the self-effacing nonsense. Anyone who logs in can click on your handle and review your posting history. They'll find it replete with mocking, insults and soft-core bigotry.

You are the one responsible for how you have been handled in the past.

In the seven months I have been reading this board no one has called you (or anyone else) a "jerk"...it has been tempting, nor your station "garbage". As for having "no listeners" well, by the standard of the industry: Arbitron, that would appear to be so but it isn't relevant to the issue of iboc and the interference you claim has damaged your coverage area.

The appropriate responses are to either (a) defend the system credibly, e.g., explain how it may or could still succeed in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary, or (b) candidly admit that maybe HD isn't going to work and suggesting alternatives that would or might.

Thanks for setting the guidelines for us.

The "mounting evidence" is more like wishful thinking on your part, as I and others have stated in the past, nothing that radio does at this point is going to make a splash at this time in a media market saturated with new gadgetry.

IBOC is an additive technology from both a technical and content standpoint, It's about giving AM a fighting chance by providing the only thing that can..better audio. For FM it's a significant improvement in eliminating multipath distortion and the additional streams if properly developed might win back some of those listeners lost to other media. It might also provide a training ground for future talent now that many of the AM stations in the sticks are either going dark or have little local origination.

I was there, so I can say - there was no similar controversy over FM. Or FM stereo. Or NTSC color TV.

I was in tv studios as a child actor in the mid-sixties, there were naysayers about both NTSC color (often called 'Never Twice the Same Color), FM stereo was cited as causing reduced coverage, limited frequency response and added noise.

It took almost twenty years for color sets to outsell monochrome (1972) and it was only the popularity of the all-stereo Walkman in the early '80s that pushed FM stereo into the majority.

Those pining for a return to C-Quam should get a dose of reality, there were millions of AM stereo radios standard in cars untill (I believe) the 2004 model year, the majority are still on the road and it has done nothing to stem the slide of AM.

HD is crafted in an elitist fashion that makes it susceptible of implemenation by only the biggest, wealthiest broadcasters, and at the expense of others.

For an admitted Republican that's quite a statement. There may be hope for you yet.

Lino

 

[SUPERCASTER]

LinoNYC said:

there were millions of AM stereo radios standard in cars untill (I believe) the 2004 model year, the majority are still on the road and it has done nothing to stem the slide of AM.

Neither will AM HD Radio. No consumer acceptance, short range, greatly increased noise, interference, and the necessity of reducing analog fidelity to less then half, make AM HD radio a total non-starter. In spite of the HD cartel's best efforts HD radio sales including AM and FM are a tiny percentage of radio sales and the total number of radios in consumer hands.

 

[rbrucecarter5]

locks in. I'll try to make a recording when I figure out how to do it. While listening to out-of-market stations, an overhead plane will probably cause the digital signal to fail, but it will not cause a local station to fail. In the car, the HD signal does not fail when listening to local stations plauged by multipath and is solid to about 35 miles out. Hence, the digital signal covers most of the local market. This indicates that an increase in digital power will prove to be very effective.

Thanks for not insulting me! I think we actually are saying the same thing, but from different perspectives caused by being in different metro areas. I am beyond that 35 mile local limit. But I am still in the middle of the DFW area. There are subdivisions stretching at least 30 miles beyond me. So a significant, perhaps most, of the listener base of our local stations is beyond that limit.

I agree that a power increase for the digital sidebands will help, but there are significant dangers associated with self noise, that is well documented here. Also it would take a geometric - not linear - increase in power. Even that may not eliminate all of the dropouts 35 or more miles out. Remember, now I have the receiver, and am taking actual measurements and observations. It takes an outdoor antenna for local stations, with a stationary receiver. I doubt a mobile receiver will work very well in this location.

 

[R.F. Burns]

For those on the anti-IBOC side who are always accusing those of us who accuse those of us who aren't in the anti group of having a bad attitude I must ask a question. This thread-line isn't too inflamatory is it?

 

[Len14043]

Thanks for not insulting me! I think we actually are saying the same thing, but from different perspectives caused by being in different metro areas. I am beyond that 35 mile local limit. But I am still in the middle of the DFW area. There are subdivisions stretching at least 30 miles beyond me. So a significant, perhaps most, of the listener base of our local stations is beyond that limit.

I agree that a power increase for the digital sidebands will help, but there are significant dangers associated with self noise, that is well documented here. Also it would take a geometric - not linear - increase in power. Even that may not eliminate all of the dropouts 35 or more miles out. Remember, now I have the receiver, and am taking actual measurements and observations. It takes an outdoor antenna for local stations, with a stationary receiver. I doubt a mobile receiver will work very well in this location.

You are probably correct in that we are coming to the same conclusions regarding IBOC for AM and FM. I think 35 miles is tops for reliable reception in FM IBOC in the car in areas where the FM band is packed. I don't see a yagi as extending that range in the Cinci area due to the close spacing of stations. When losing the digital signal at about 35 miles, it probably due to first ajacients encroaching on the digital sideband. Reception is spotty beyond that. As Mike stated, a yagi can extend the range to upwards of 80 miles in rural North Carolina, which is probably due to the lack of close first ajacients. My observation indicates that 50 dbu is necessary for reliable car reception and 70 dbu is needed for reliable penetration into typical homes where a rat tail is used. I find IBOC to work much better in the car than in my home, but that could be different in your case in you have a better receiver than my Radiosophy HD-100. Considering the small power levels of the digital signal, I see the all-digital mode as being very successful. Without trying to put words in your mouth, I believe you stated that dxing could be amazing in the all-digital mode and I totally agree. IMHO, the FM hybrid system is a good method to transition to an all-digital scheme. For AM, the current hybrid system is unworkable and a portion of the band should be dedicated to the all-digital mode. 1500 to 1710 would be a good place to start.