• 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

Any Commercial Success with AM HD ?

I know Hubbard plays WSHE-AM 820 HD out of Frederick, MD (and it sounds great 75 miles away in Central PA).
Although it's been basically experimental up to this point, are there any AM HD stations that could be considered commercially viable ?
 
I only know of two HD stations in Southern California. Both do not have very strong signals in HD - KMZT in Beverly Hills (sounds great for about 8-10 miles when you're in range of the HD signal. The HD light flashes but does not get a lock in my car for about 30-50 miles) and KBRT in Costa Mesa which has a decent signal in Southern California but only seems to serve up HD in parts of Los Angeles and Orange County. The only other one I've picked up in 1160/KSL in Salt Lake City - I was visiting a friend in Yucca Valley and we listened one WInter night and the signal locked and sounded like FM. In the rest of Southern California I only seem to get the flashing HD light but no lock on the signal.
 
I believe the OP is asking about digital-only AM HD stations, which are not receivable on analog radios.

WFAS tried that for a while with a talk format, but ultimately Cumulus shut them down and turned in the license.
 
I believe the OP is asking about digital-only AM HD stations, which are not receivable on analog radios.

WFAS tried that for a while with a talk format, but ultimately Cumulus shut them down and turned in the license.

Right. I don't think that digital-only HD signals are going anywhere. No matter how good they may sound to the professional ear, there are not enough available and affordable receivers to pick up these signals and consumers are in no mood to purchase new receivers to pick up these channels anyway. In fact, HD on AM, with or without a digital-only signal, seems to be heading for a dead-end for the same reasons cited in the above sentence.
 
Ted is correct
IMHO There was a chance at the end of the last century first few years of this one. The Commission should have put a limit on the royalties per auto receiver of under a dollar per unit but mandated digital AM on every car radio*. Every AM class A and B should have had gone at least IBOC digital. If a AM class C or D wanted a FM translator they had to install IBOC on their AM first. The royalties for transmitters should have been under one or five thousand max.

*I know this seems small amount but how many new cars have been sold since 2000? More than 270 million. I thought the goal was to save AM not make the development of AM digital into a "profit center". The shame of this whole deal was there most likely was existing share ware that would have been cheaper to use. Old fashioned dial up Internet on a less than 4khz circuit sould deliver 2 solid 15 khz channels and since it's "one way".

But that ship has sailed.

If such a mandate was implemented now, a lot of operators would be turning in AM licenses that don't have FM translators, which might not be a bad thing.
 
There was some thinking a while back that if you operated in all digital mode you could technically have more than one audio stream which in theory would allow you to feed multiple translators (a la HD-2). You could imagine that being useful in some cases where all the listening is on the translator already. It was never clear to me if the existing receivers though would even support that mode for all digital AM.
 
There was some thinking a while back that if you operated in all digital mode you could technically have more than one audio stream which in theory would allow you to feed multiple translators (a la HD-2). You could imagine that being useful in some cases where all the listening is on the translator already. It was never clear to me if the existing receivers though would even support that mode for all digital AM.

There's been a little bit of experimentation, and most receivers were able to decode an AM HD2 on an all-digital AM. But the FCC was reluctant to sign off on letting stations use an AM HD2 to feed a translator.

So AM HD is pretty much dead in the water at this point, aside from the ongoing 820 experiment outside DC and maybe a few dozen stations still hanging on with the hybrid MA1 mode. It's sort of a shame - when MA3 all-digital works, it works REALLY well. I have been amazed at how far I can lock in that 820 signal, everywhere from York to Baltimore to south of DC.
 
So AM HD is pretty much dead in the water at this point, aside from the ongoing 820 experiment outside DC and maybe a few dozen stations still hanging on with the hybrid MA1 mode. It's sort of a shame - when MA3 all-digital works, it works REALLY well. I have been amazed at how far I can lock in that 820 signal, everywhere from York to Baltimore to south of DC.

Thanks for filling in some of those details.

Wondering aloud if the FCC would consider allowing all digital AMs to use fill-in translators beyond the 25 mile/2 mV/m signal limit since MA3 seems to be usable beyond analog levels. That might create some new interest in HD.

Speaking of which, I actually think the current rules are not ideal, especially from the AM revitalization effort top keep AMs viable.

The rule for FMs using fill-in translators is 60 dBu or 1 mV, while the burden for AMs, which need the help for the primary signal even more, is 2 mV (or about 66 dBu). Leveling this rule would really help a lot of AM operators better serve existing audiences who are having a harder and harder time using AM with each passing year, myself included.
 
AM HD is just terrible for music. Filled with more digital artifacts than the Smithsonian.

Speaking of artifacts, AM Stereo had some sort of range and life to it. But the AM HD I heard was just a flat mess. More fatigue inducing than the super lo-fi analog signal.
 
AM HD is just terrible for music. Filled with more digital artifacts than the Smithsonian.
This YouTube video compares the same Christmas song in HD and AM Stereo. To me, the HD version sounds kind of tinny. The CQUAM version sounds richer but still lacking the quality of FM. That could just be the processing they used. I've listened to the stream of WION 1430, which uses a real AM Stereo feed, and it sounds better to me than either of the two in the video.
 
This YouTube video compares the same Christmas song in HD and AM Stereo. To me, the HD version sounds kind of tinny. The CQUAM version sounds richer but still lacking the quality of FM. That could just be the processing they used. I've listened to the stream of WION 1430, which uses a real AM Stereo feed, and it sounds better to me than either of the two in the video.
Keep in mind YouTube compresses the audio in any video.
 
Keep in mind YouTube compresses the audio in any video.

radiofan2023-

As I understand it, You Tube digital audio data rate is reduced aka "compressed" from "CD" or original digital recording data rate.

I recall years ago for a while You Tube was applying aggressive audio processing to uploads or streaming play out. That stopped, or became more subtle. Right now You Tube may be using more subtle audio processing, or "normalizing" to set incoming upload maximum digital audio peak level to a set value for streaming play out.
 
Last edited:
radiofan2023-

As I understand it, You Tube digital audio data rate is reduced aka "compressed" from "CD" or original digital recording data rate.

I recall years ago for a while You Tube was applying aggressive audio processing to uploads or streaming play out. That stopped, or became more subtle. Right now You Tube may be using more subtle audio processing, or "normalizing" to set incoming upload maximum digital audio peak level to a set value for streaming play out.
ok
 
Also, keep in mind that what you hear on the Internet stream may be coming from the Board and not necessarily from the over-the-air signal.
I can't think of any case where the over the air signal would be captured to feed an internet stream. At a station, in simple terms, a distribution amplifier will send the "studio" audio to various destinations. First is to the OTA analog audio processing, then the digital HD processing, and then feeds to web services and other possible destinations, such as a feed to a network that simulcasts the same program or program format.
 
I agree with David. In an optimum situation audio is routed in a way that meets goals of decision makers, and does not have drawbacks. In the real world stations may be doing whatever works, that they are happy with or accept; because resources are not available for everything.

It can become complicated, resulting in a bespoke arrangement that works for a particular situation.
 
I can't think of any case where the over the air signal would be captured to feed an internet stream. At a station, in simple terms, a distribution amplifier will send the "studio" audio to various destinations. First is to the OTA analog audio processing, then the digital HD processing, and then feeds to web services and other possible destinations, such as a feed to a network that simulcasts the same program or program format.

In the early days of Internet radio, some radio stations, particularly smaller operations, literally took their Internet feeds from a portable radio. Thankfully, that has ended.
 
In the early days of Internet radio, some radio stations, particularly smaller operations, literally took their Internet feeds from a portable radio. Thankfully, that has ended.
I never saw that. Generally, the feed was from a "split" of the console output, either with a real distribution amplifier or just a parallel feed.

When I started feeding KTNQ in LA to the web as part of our original home-brew website, we simply sent audio from a DA to our ISP. That was back in early 1996. That was really in what you call "early days of internet radio".
 
Also, keep in mind that what you hear on the Internet stream may be coming from the Board and not necessarily from the over-the-air signal.
In this studio tour video of WION 1430, Ionia Michigan, the station owner Jim Carlilele mentions that their internet stream is sourced from an AM Stereo tuner, a Denon TU 680. This lets the general public hear what good AM Stereo can sound like without having to be in the local signal area or buying a hard to come by receiver.
 
AM stereo does show up as HD radio, look at AM 1480 WMLV or WRDN 1430 or WION 1430 - all 3 have AM stereo but apparently lock on as HD Radio SageEAN HD18 model.
 


Back
Top Bottom