Are there any AM-HD broadcasts going on at night ? ?

[Savage]

RF, appreciate your reply. Sorry to correct you but I am absolutely NOT against digital technology. I initially embraced HD-AM until I started to look at the system, and all its shortcomings, in practice. Once the potential for destructive interference became obvious, I went over to "the dark side" and have publicly maintained ever since that we need to hold out for something that works better and which represents a sincere, well-engineered initiative which benefits all AM broadcasters - not just an elite few, and at the expense of others.

Sorry, but iBiquity's HD-AM has all the appearances of a system primarily conceived to enrich investors and give big-group broadcasters an advantage unattainable by most other stations out there. A digital standard that holds genuine promise for everyone, as opposed to crushing much-maligned "mom and pop" operators, is what's needed. There also needs to be a system that works better and which provides a real, demonstrable advantage over analog AM. I have publicly maintained that the many, serious, much-publicized faults of HD-AM will prevent its being accepted by listeners. Field experience is bearing out my predictions. Really, the problem is: there just isn't sufficient bandwidth, and night and winter propagation will cause much havoc. Then there is the preposterous recurring license system. If iBiquity's digital standard is so wonderful, its eventual universality would render unnecessary the requirement for broadcast operators using HD-AM to pay Bob Struble an annuity.

I'm not trying to "push my technology" on anyone. I'm trying to protect what we, and all of our staff and associates, have proudly built over 20 years.

There - now that wasn't "lashing out," was it??

I think anyone who's being honest would admit that they would strongly oppose imposition of a standard that would IMMEDIATELY jeopardize $100,000 of their income in a few months. That's what IBOC-AM does to us. It could kill our station's profitability instantly.

 

[R.F. Burns]

I agree with RF about the use of other IFB methods for fixed-venue events like sports play-by-play - but what about the news reporter on a cellphone in the field? Or the traffic reporter in the air? Maybe NYC has found a better way, but I can think of other "top-10" markets that are still cueing talent over the air in those contexts, or were until the HD delay came in. (I know of at least one that deliberately left its analog non-time-aligned for several months until an alternate cueing method could be worked out.)

The reporter in the field uses his/her cell phone or an auto answer coupler if other methods aren't available, with mix-minus capability. Hey, you can even do GSP mode using a cell phone with a Comrex Matrix now. Cell phones are everywhere.. Copters use UHF links. They certainlyaren't listening to an AM signal with no mix minus in a helocopter. Mix Miuns with IFB has been and still is standard practice. When we do affiliate two ways with stations all over the country, there isn't one which can not provide mix minus to us. Either over ISDN or over a phone, where we uplink the guest using a satellite channel. Even a simple telephone hybrid will provide a mix minus otherwise the echo/lag time would make using a telephone impossible. The days of the single channel audio board is a thing of the past.

 

[R.F. Burns]

RF, appreciate your reply. Sorry to correct you but I am absolutely NOT against digital technology. I initially embraced HD-AM until I started to look at the system, and all its shortcomings, in practice. Once the potential for destructive interference became obvious, I went over to "the dark side" and have publicly maintained ever since that we need to hold out for something that works better and which represents a sincere, well-engineered initiative which benefits all AM broadcasters - not just an elite few, and at the expense of others.

Sorry, but iBiquity's HD-AM has all the appearances of a system primarily conceived to enrich investors and give big-group broadcasters an advantage unattainable by most other stations out there. A digital standard that holds genuine promise for everyone, as opposed to crushing much-maligned "mom and pop" operators, is what's needed. There also needs to be a system that works better and which provides a real, demonstrable advantage over analog AM. I have publicly maintained that the many, serious, much-publicized faults of HD-AM will prevent its being accepted by listeners. Field experience is bearing out my predictions. Really, the problem is: there just isn't sufficient bandwidth, and night and winter propagation will cause much havoc. Then there is the preposterous recurring license system. If iBiquity's digital standard is so wonderful, its eventual universality would render unnecessary the requirement for broadcast operators using HD-AM to pay Bob Struble an annuity.

I'm not trying to "push my technology" on anyone. I'm trying to protect what we, and all of our staff and associates, have proudly built over 20 years.

There - now that wasn't "lashing out," was it??

I think anyone who's being honest would admit that they would strongly oppose imposition of a standard that would IMMEDIATELY jeopardize $100,000 of their income in a few months. That's what IBOC-AM does to us. It could kill our station's profitability instantly.

See, I'm not inflexable. I can't disagree with you Bob. Taken at this level of discourse I don't know how anyone could. I wish there was an answer. I still can't understand why the FCC refused to allocate spectrum for the shift. It would have made the most sense, but of course that doesn't answer the question which is, is there a decent digital system out there? I don't believe DRM is any better than IBOC.

 

[TheRover]

We need the mfgs of HD radios to be responsive to consumers needs and tastes.

I, for one, would prefer an HD radio that would not give me the analog singal first...then the HD.

I would like the radio to remain quiet, until the HD signal has been acquired. It is most aggrivating tohear the analog come on, and then hear a repeat of what was just heard, as the HD signal comes in. Delay or not..... that is not the issue.... the mfgrs. adjusting the unit to do what I asked will compensate for that.

And I will not feel like someone is repeating themselves to me....

As if I was a dullard or something !!

 

[clouseau]

We need the mfgs of HD radios to be responsive to consumers needs and tastes.

I, for one, would prefer an HD radio that would not give me the analog singal first...then the HD.

I would like the radio to remain quiet, until the HD signal has been acquired. It is most aggrivating tohear the analog come on, and then hear a repeat of what was just heard, as the HD signal comes in. Delay or not..... that is not the issue.... the mfgrs. adjusting the unit to do what I asked will compensate for that.

And I will not feel like someone is repeating themselves to me....

As if I was a dullard or something !!

If a station is operating this way they are in violation of their Ibiquity license. This is the kind of BS operation which compromises the system.

Clouseau

 

[JohnnyElectron]

My mobile HD radio stays mute for 6 seconds to allow for the digital buffer to fill-up first.
The delay between analog and digital here is sometimes a quarter second, and that blows on the rimshot FM station when it switches back and forth every 20 seconds.

 

[SUPERCASTER]

Responding to Savage's objections to adjacent channel HD broadcasting R. F. Burns said:

I wish there was an answer.

The answer is simple, obvious, and instantaneous. Just pull the plug on HD Radio.

 

[vsa]

RF, appreciate your reply. Sorry to correct you but I am absolutely NOT against digital technology. I initially embraced HD-AM until I started to look at the system, and all its shortcomings, in practice. Once the potential for destructive interference became obvious, I went over to "the dark side" and have publicly maintained ever since that we need to hold out for something that works better and which represents a sincere, well-engineered initiative which benefits all AM broadcasters - not just an elite few, and at the expense of others.

Sorry, but iBiquity's HD-AM has all the appearances of a system primarily conceived to enrich investors and give big-group broadcasters an advantage unattainable by most other stations out there. A digital standard that holds genuine promise for everyone, as opposed to crushing much-maligned "mom and pop" operators, is what's needed. There also needs to be a system that works better and which provides a real, demonstrable advantage over analog AM. I have publicly maintained that the many, serious, much-publicized faults of HD-AM will prevent its being accepted by listeners. Field experience is bearing out my predictions. Really, the problem is: there just isn't sufficient bandwidth, and night and winter propagation will cause much havoc. Then there is the preposterous recurring license system. If iBiquity's digital standard is so wonderful, its eventual universality would render unnecessary the requirement for broadcast operators using HD-AM to pay Bob Struble an annuity.

I'm not trying to "push my technology" on anyone. I'm trying to protect what we, and all of our staff and associates, have proudly built over 20 years.

There - now that wasn't "lashing out," was it??

I think anyone who's being honest would admit that they would strongly oppose imposition of a standard that would IMMEDIATELY jeopardize $100,000 of their income in a few months. That's what IBOC-AM does to us. It could kill our station's profitability instantly.

See, I'm not inflexable. I can't disagree with you Bob. Taken at this level of discourse I don't know how anyone could. I wish there was an answer. I still can't understand why the FCC refused to allocate spectrum for the shift. It would have made the most sense, but of course that doesn't answer the question which is, is there a decent digital system out there? I don't believe DRM is any better than IBOC.

"...is there a decent digital system out there?"

Yeah. It's called CAM-D.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAM-D

 

[R.F. Burns]

RF, appreciate your reply. Sorry to correct you but I am absolutely NOT against digital technology. I initially embraced HD-AM until I started to look at the system, and all its shortcomings, in practice. Once the potential for destructive interference became obvious, I went over to "the dark side" and have publicly maintained ever since that we need to hold out for something that works better and which represents a sincere, well-engineered initiative which benefits all AM broadcasters - not just an elite few, and at the expense of others.

Sorry, but iBiquity's HD-AM has all the appearances of a system primarily conceived to enrich investors and give big-group broadcasters an advantage unattainable by most other stations out there. A digital standard that holds genuine promise for everyone, as opposed to crushing much-maligned "mom and pop" operators, is what's needed. There also needs to be a system that works better and which provides a real, demonstrable advantage over analog AM. I have publicly maintained that the many, serious, much-publicized faults of HD-AM will prevent its being accepted by listeners. Field experience is bearing out my predictions. Really, the problem is: there just isn't sufficient bandwidth, and night and winter propagation will cause much havoc. Then there is the preposterous recurring license system. If iBiquity's digital standard is so wonderful, its eventual universality would render unnecessary the requirement for broadcast operators using HD-AM to pay Bob Struble an annuity.

I'm not trying to "push my technology" on anyone. I'm trying to protect what we, and all of our staff and associates, have proudly built over 20 years.

There - now that wasn't "lashing out," was it??

I think anyone who's being honest would admit that they would strongly oppose imposition of a standard that would IMMEDIATELY jeopardize $100,000 of their income in a few months. That's what IBOC-AM does to us. It could kill our station's profitability instantly.

See, I'm not inflexable. I can't disagree with you Bob. Taken at this level of discourse I don't know how anyone could. I wish there was an answer. I still can't understand why the FCC refused to allocate spectrum for the shift. It would have made the most sense, but of course that doesn't answer the question which is, is there a decent digital system out there? I don't believe DRM is any better than IBOC.

"...is there a decent digital system out there?"

Yeah. It's called CAM-D.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAM-D

Cam D isn't a pure digital system. There is an analog element to it and that alone makes it equivelant to to old RCA needle in groove video disc. Cam-D is no answer. Is there a way for the analog carrier to be turned off completely? We've all read promises but so far that's all. Unfortunately Mr. Kahn's technology is all a variation on a theme. Whatever system does succeed, it will have to be purely digital with no analog element.

 

[vsa]

RF, appreciate your reply.  Sorry to correct you but I am absolutely NOT against digital technology.  I initially embraced HD-AM until I started to look at the system, and all its shortcomings, in practice.  Once the potential for destructive interference became obvious, I went over to "the dark side" and have publicly maintained ever since that we need to hold out for something that works better and which represents a sincere, well-engineered initiative which benefits all AM broadcasters - not just an elite few, and at the expense of others.

Sorry, but iBiquity's HD-AM has all the appearances of a system primarily conceived to enrich investors and give big-group broadcasters an advantage unattainable by most other stations out there.  A digital standard that holds genuine promise for everyone, as opposed to crushing much-maligned "mom and pop" operators, is what's needed.  There also needs to be a system that works better and which provides a real, demonstrable advantage over analog AM.  I have publicly maintained that the many, serious, much-publicized faults of HD-AM will prevent its being accepted by listeners.  Field experience is bearing out my predictions.  Really, the problem is: there just isn't sufficient bandwidth, and night and winter propagation will cause much havoc.  Then there is the preposterous recurring license system.  If iBiquity's digital standard is so wonderful, its eventual universality would render unnecessary the requirement for broadcast operators using HD-AM to pay Bob Struble an annuity.

I'm not trying to "push my technology" on anyone.  I'm trying to protect what we, and all of our staff and associates, have proudly built over 20 years. 

There - now that wasn't "lashing out," was it??

I think anyone who's being honest would admit that they would strongly oppose imposition of a standard that would IMMEDIATELY jeopardize $100,000 of their income in a few months.  That's what IBOC-AM does to us.  It could kill our station's profitability instantly. 

See, I'm not inflexable. I can't disagree with you Bob. Taken at this level of discourse I don't know how anyone could. I wish there was an answer. I still can't understand why the FCC refused to allocate spectrum for the shift. It would have made the most sense, but of course that doesn't answer the question which is, is there a decent digital system out there? I don't believe DRM is any better than IBOC.

"...is there a decent digital system out there?"

Yeah. It's called CAM-D.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAM-D

Cam D isn't a pure digital system. There is an analog element to it and that alone makes it equivelant to to old RCA needle in groove video disc. Cam-D is no answer. Is there a way for the analog carrier to be turned off completely? We've all read promises but so far that's all. Unfortunately Mr. Kahn's technology is all a variation on a theme. Whatever system does succeed, it will have to be purely digital with no analog element.

"...We've all read promises but so far that's all..."

I'll say the very same thing about HD radio. Nothing but broken promises.

I believe everyone here still has analog ears, or have you had a pair of DACs installed into your head?

The debate is pointless anyway. By the time any new system could reach critical mass in the marketplace, everyone will be connected and listening via the Web. There's your pure "digital" signal. Bandwidth limitations, interference issues, coverage problems and the need to sell single-purpose specialized radios?

All solved.

 

[RadioFixerCLE]

Also, I don't believe there are any CAM-D capable receivers out there. At least I've never seen, or even heard, of one. :-\

 

[Tom Wells]

RF, appreciate your reply. Sorry to correct you but I am absolutely NOT against digital technology. I initially embraced HD-AM until I started to look at the system, and all its shortcomings, in practice. Once the potential for destructive interference became obvious, I went over to "the dark side" and have publicly maintained ever since that we need to hold out for something that works better and which represents a sincere, well-engineered initiative which benefits all AM broadcasters - not just an elite few, and at the expense of others.

Sorry, but iBiquity's HD-AM has all the appearances of a system primarily conceived to enrich investors and give big-group broadcasters an advantage unattainable by most other stations out there. A digital standard that holds genuine promise for everyone, as opposed to crushing much-maligned "mom and pop" operators, is what's needed. There also needs to be a system that works better and which provides a real, demonstrable advantage over analog AM. I have publicly maintained that the many, serious, much-publicized faults of HD-AM will prevent its being accepted by listeners. Field experience is bearing out my predictions. Really, the problem is: there just isn't sufficient bandwidth, and night and winter propagation will cause much havoc. Then there is the preposterous recurring license system. If iBiquity's digital standard is so wonderful, its eventual universality would render unnecessary the requirement for broadcast operators using HD-AM to pay Bob Struble an annuity.

I'm not trying to "push my technology" on anyone. I'm trying to protect what we, and all of our staff and associates, have proudly built over 20 years.

There - now that wasn't "lashing out," was it??

I think anyone who's being honest would admit that they would strongly oppose imposition of a standard that would IMMEDIATELY jeopardize $100,000 of their income in a few months. That's what IBOC-AM does to us. It could kill our station's profitability instantly.

See, I'm not inflexable. I can't disagree with you Bob. Taken at this level of discourse I don't know how anyone could. I wish there was an answer. I still can't understand why the FCC refused to allocate spectrum for the shift. It would have made the most sense, but of course that doesn't answer the question which is, is there a decent digital system out there? I don't believe DRM is any better than IBOC.

"...is there a decent digital system out there?"

Yeah. It's called CAM-D.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAM-D

Cam D isn't a pure digital system. There is an analog element to it and that alone makes it equivelant to to old RCA needle in groove video disc. Cam-D is no answer. Is there a way for the analog carrier to be turned off completely? We've all read promises but so far that's all. Unfortunately Mr. Kahn's technology is all a variation on a theme. Whatever system does succeed, it will have to be purely digital with no analog element.

I can't believe what I'm reading. You want the carrier to go away?
The carrier is not what makes CAM-D analog, or even what makes "analog" analog.
It is the continuous resolution of data compared or referenced to this carrier.
If we send continuous digital data, we are referencing still to the carrier.
Turn off the carrier and you have no reference, just as in SSB.
Notice how large the frequency distortion is in SSB because almost never is the restored "carrier" on proper frequency
so the common result is funny-pitched voices.


How exactly do your proposed digital waves propogate?
How do you decode absent any reference for the 1s or 0s in your data?
In wired circuits we have loading to give us "reference to 0", in AM radio we have no such reference,
so we add a carrier. Please say you were being funny. The carrier is not going away on MW.

You would have us take photos with no light by natural extension of such logic.



And perhaps you would cancel Newton's law of equal and opposite reaction to make this work?

Go ahead first perform just one small feat of magic, maybe levitiate your coffee.

 

[Tom Wells]

One more hint in the form of a question, as the 8-second buffer is surely there for necessary redundancy to occur:

What happens as we increase data rates, and our data transistons occur simultaneously with carrier zero crossings?

 

[R.F. Burns]

RF, appreciate your reply. Sorry to correct you but I am absolutely NOT against digital technology. I initially embraced HD-AM until I started to look at the system, and all its shortcomings, in practice. Once the potential for destructive interference became obvious, I went over to "the dark side" and have publicly maintained ever since that we need to hold out for something that works better and which represents a sincere, well-engineered initiative which benefits all AM broadcasters - not just an elite few, and at the expense of others.

Sorry, but iBiquity's HD-AM has all the appearances of a system primarily conceived to enrich investors and give big-group broadcasters an advantage unattainable by most other stations out there. A digital standard that holds genuine promise for everyone, as opposed to crushing much-maligned "mom and pop" operators, is what's needed. There also needs to be a system that works better and which provides a real, demonstrable advantage over analog AM. I have publicly maintained that the many, serious, much-publicized faults of HD-AM will prevent its being accepted by listeners. Field experience is bearing out my predictions. Really, the problem is: there just isn't sufficient bandwidth, and night and winter propagation will cause much havoc. Then there is the preposterous recurring license system. If iBiquity's digital standard is so wonderful, its eventual universality would render unnecessary the requirement for broadcast operators using HD-AM to pay Bob Struble an annuity.

I'm not trying to "push my technology" on anyone. I'm trying to protect what we, and all of our staff and associates, have proudly built over 20 years.

There - now that wasn't "lashing out," was it??

I think anyone who's being honest would admit that they would strongly oppose imposition of a standard that would IMMEDIATELY jeopardize $100,000 of their income in a few months. That's what IBOC-AM does to us. It could kill our station's profitability instantly.

See, I'm not inflexable. I can't disagree with you Bob. Taken at this level of discourse I don't know how anyone could. I wish there was an answer. I still can't understand why the FCC refused to allocate spectrum for the shift. It would have made the most sense, but of course that doesn't answer the question which is, is there a decent digital system out there? I don't believe DRM is any better than IBOC.

"...is there a decent digital system out there?"

Yeah. It's called CAM-D.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAM-D

Cam D isn't a pure digital system. There is an analog element to it and that alone makes it equivelant to to old RCA needle in groove video disc. Cam-D is no answer. Is there a way for the analog carrier to be turned off completely? We've all read promises but so far that's all. Unfortunately Mr. Kahn's technology is all a variation on a theme. Whatever system does succeed, it will have to be purely digital with no analog element.

I can't believe what I'm reading. You want the carrier to go away?
The carrier is not what makes CAM-D analog, or even what makes "analog" analog.
It is the continuous resolution of data compared or referenced to this carrier.
If we send continuous digital data, we are referencing still to the carrier.
Turn off the carrier and you have no reference, just as in SSB.
Notice how large the frequency distortion is in SSB because almost never is the restored "carrier" on proper frequency
so the common result is funny-pitched voices.


How exactly do your proposed digital waves propogate?
How do you decode absent any reference for the 1s or 0s in your data?
In wired circuits we have loading to give us "reference to 0", in AM radio we have no such reference,
so we add a carrier. Please say you were being funny. The carrier is not going away on MW.

You would have us take photos with no light by natural extension of such logic.



And perhaps you would cancel Newton's law of equal and opposite reaction to make this work?

Go ahead first perform just one small feat of magic, maybe levitiate your coffee.

Of course I was refering to the analog portion and using SSB as a guide where a carrier is introduced locally, instead of at trasnmission, why can't the analog carrier disappear. My poiint is that Cam-D has shown no way of turning off all analog components and still functioning.

 

[Tom Wells]

And I must suspend disbelief to think that any "carrier-less digital-only AM scheme would work for the reasons I've stated.
It is very-very difficult to zero-beat to something that there us no reference to.
It is actually easiest to decode SSB when someone's xmit is not properly supressing the carrier, you have a tiny
carrier to zero-beat to, then you can receive in whatever fidelity may be praticed, but at least with no frequecy distortion introduced.

 

[R.F. Burns]

And I must suspend disbelief to think that any "carrier-less digital-only AM scheme would work for the reasons I've stated.
It is very-very difficult to zero-beat to something that there us no reference to.
It is actually easiest to decode SSB when someone's xmit is not properly supressing the carrier, you have a tiny
carrier to zero-beat to, then you can receive in whatever fidelity may be praticed, but at least with no frequecy distortion introduced.

Are you suggesting that HDTV is using an analog carrier as part of its transmission method? The entire point of HD radio is that eventually, stations will have the ability to turn off their analog transmitters if they so desire. Can that be done with Cam-D?

 

[Tom Wells]

I would advance that at whatever frequency a carrier-less system operates, they need a reference for accurate decoding.
I suspect it is easier at the very high frequencies digital TV is allocated. If there is enough bandwidth to carry
video signals. it is pretty easy to throw in a few bits for a comparator to use as reference.

I don't know enough about digital TV modes to say with any better than this above guess.
I realize how expensive it is to power an AM station, and why any scheme to eliminate the carrier seems desirable.

 

[radionekkid]

This is crazy stuff lot of bull going on here, a pure digital carrier, 1 and 0? No such thing not even Morse code, on and off state. Carrier is analog, FSK, OFDM what have you. 8-VSB is constellation of analog carriers with ref pulse. HD transmission demands pure and undistorted SINE waves to carry packets, analog folks. FSK, OFDM does not work with out some steady state ref signal all interrelated.

 

[TheRover]

And I must suspend disbelief to think that any "carrier-less digital-only AM scheme would work for the reasons I've stated.
It is very-very difficult to zero-beat to something that there us no reference to.
It is actually easiest to decode SSB when someone's xmit is not properly supressing the carrier, you have a tiny
carrier to zero-beat to, then you can receive in whatever fidelity may be praticed, but at least with no frequecy distortion introduced.

Are you suggesting that HDTV is using an analog carrier as part of its transmission method? The entire point of HD radio is that eventually, stations will have the ability to turn off their analog transmitters if they so desire. Can that be done with Cam-D?

If an Am Station decided go Digital ONLY, then, they could foreseably have an HD-1 and an HD-2 signal. That would not be possible with hybird transmissions...

 

[PhilJSmith67]

I would advance that at whatever frequency a carrier-less system operates, they need a reference for accurate decoding.
I suspect it is easier at the very high frequencies digital TV is allocated. If there is enough bandwidth to carry
video signals. it is pretty easy to throw in a few bits for a comparator to use as reference.

I don't know enough about digital TV modes to say with any better than this above guess.

Actually there is a reference signal for 8-VSB television. If memory serves me correctly, you can find a "carrier" signal of sorts approximately 310kHz above the lower boundary of the 6MHz channel segment. I can hear that "dead carrier" on any of my local DTV stations if I just add .310 to the lower boundary of the channel, using either of my scanners that can tune the VHF and UHF bands in AM or NFM mode.