Chicago-- WSCR and WBBM give AM IBOC a rest

[Tom Wells]

For some reason, WSCR AM 670 and WBBM AM 780 have turned the IBOC off. I think it was gone Friday, March 2, and is still off for both stations as of noon today.

Both of these are owned by CBS East, and it seems odd for both to cease at the same time.

Maybe something broke both at one time, (unlikely) or maybe they both need to go back for upgrades...

I'd like to beleive management has come to its senses.

Neither station has taken off the 5 kc brickwall audio filter yet.

 

[Mike Walker]

What I wish is that CBS, Clear Channel, and others with multiple AM and FM stations in a market would get smart and do what I, and recently Holland Cooke have suggested...use the extended coverage of FM HD (in comparison to many AM signals, particularly at night) to take the AMs where they haven't gone before. Now THAT would be a great incentive for lots of talk radio fans (perhaps millions) to buy HD radios...suddenly that scratchy station that carries Limbaugh and Hannity, the one you can't even get at night, comes in like gangbusters!

 

[PhilJSmith67]

This morning at 7:30am there was no IBOC signal on WSCR, but WBBM was running HD Radio. Was it off again after that?

WTMJ (Milwaukee), WGN, WLS, WGRB and WVON were still running HD Radio.

 

[Tom Wells]

This morning at 7:30am there was no IBOC signal on WSCR, but WBBM was running HD Radio. Was it off again after that?

WTMJ (Milwaukee), WGN, WLS, WGRB and WVON were still running HD Radio.

WBBM was analog only at 10:00 AM, 2 PM and 5 PM.

WLS is still breaking my heart....
I'd love to hear someone from SW michigan tell us how badly WLS's upper sideband trashes WGTO AM 910 Stereo CQUAM.

Mr Langford has had commentary published in RW before, it will be interesting to see how he feels about this late development.

 

[Mike Walker]

Quick, someone come up with a viable alternative to AM HD. NOW! PLEASE! Everything on Earth "must be digital". We get that. SO COME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT ISN"T SO FREAKIN' DESTRUCTIVE that it degrades the listening experience of EVERY existing listener!

 

[stevenNOLA]

This morning at 7:30am there was no IBOC signal on WSCR, but WBBM was running HD Radio. Was it off again after that?

WTMJ (Milwaukee), WGN, WLS, WGRB and WVON were still running HD Radio.

WBBM was analog only at 10:00 AM, 2 PM and 5 PM.

WLS is still breaking my heart....
I'd love to hear someone from SW michigan tell us how badly WLS's upper sideband trashes WGTO AM 910 Stereo CQUAM.

Mr Langford has had commentary published in RW before, it will be interesting to see how he feels about this late development.

Someone posted a similar comment on the Houston/Galveston board regarding KLIF 570 Dallas running IBOC. There is a 5kw station 80 miles away (KLVI-560 Beaumont) that has a listenable signal into Houston. The question was about degradation of 560 due to IBOC on 570 @ 50kw. Not a single person reported any problems. In fact, I was able to listen to the 5kw station while traveling towards Dallas this weekend with no change in its previous coverage. The fact is IBOC (if running properly) on AM will not affect another station within its DMA. I like DXing as much as anyone else but station owners do not sell out-of-market and the advertisers do not care about out-of-market listeners. When they are outside of the DMA, listening is so fragmented, the advertising dollar is basically wasted anyways

 

[Tom Wells]

I wouldn't expect to much problem from the sidebands 200 miles out, but I'm sure the coverage on the side toward Dallas has a lot of
trash in the audio.

I used to be able to listen to 910 AM Cassopolis, MI on the northside of Chicago, how was I to know I was doing wrong?

I just thought it was it was another one of my choices. Well, it was...

Anyway, both WBBM and WSCR were still analog only today.

At critical hours, I can hear WSAI 1530 Cinn, throwing a sizzle into my part 15 AM on 1550 here in Chicago, and that's 350 miles....

 

[Tom Wells]

At 5:00 PM today, WBBM was back in IBOC, but WSCR was still analog only.

(Insert emoticon for dashed-hopes but still with hope for truth, liberty and justice)

Maybe new equipment, and the higher-popularity station gets the upgrade first?
Still makes the station sound awful on a normal radio.

 

[tomservo]

Is WTMJ from Milwaukee putting a receivable HD signal into Chicago proper? Just curious.

 

[Mike Walker]

Yeah, I don't see how this extremely distant AM HD works, especially east of the Mississippi where the AM dial is so full. For HD to work at a distance (on AM) not only does the main channel have to be clear (of anything but the desired station), but the adjacent channels must be clear as well. I don't know about you, but 80 to 100 miles from a clear channel, I usually get SOMETHING on adjacent channels. The AM band is FULL. I don't see how this spillover onto your neighbors is tolerable.

 

[PhilJSmith67]

FYI, WSCR's HD Radio signal returned a few days ago.

In response to the WTMJ question, I can just about lock WTMJ 40 miles south of Chicago. The "WTMJ" call occasionally shows up on the display, with the signal hovering just below the threshold to lock. I have not yet experimented with the AM antenna on my Sangean HDR-1 receiver; I am only using the stock loop.

 

[Tom Wells]

Yes, both are back to IBOC. WBBM was only off for maybe a week, WSCR was off 2-3 weeks, then back on except one day last week.
They probably want WBBM to get the upgrades/updates first.

 

[R.F. Burns]

Yes, both are back to IBOC. WBBM was only off for maybe a week, WSCR was off 2-3 weeks, then back on except one day last week.
They probably want WBBM to get the upgrades/updates first.

I wonder is any of this has to do with WCBS. they had to send their exciter back a few months ago to have it repaired. When they reinstalled it with the latest software the stations HD audio was finally acceptable. they sound great in HD, with much fewer artifacts than other AM HD facilities. Maybe others are sending theirs back for firmwear upgrades.

 

[vsa]

Mike Walker wrote: "Quick, someone come up with a viable alternative to AM HD. NOW! PLEASE! Everything on Earth "must be digital". We get that. SO COME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT ISN"T SO FREAKIN' DESTRUCTIVE that it degrades the listening experience of EVERY existing listener!"

It's been done by Leonard Kahn. It's called CAM-D.

http://www.wrathofkahn.org

1.) CAM-D is up...on KDYL-AM 1060 in Salt Lake City and several other stations.
2.) CAM-D does not interfere with adjacent channels.
3.) CAM-D dramatically increases, and does not limit, sky wave coverage.
4.) CAM-D is fully compatible with the more than 800 million radios in America.
5.) CAM-D more than passes NRSC Standards with +/- 8 KHz bandwidth.
6.) CAM-D utilizes several data channels for news, information and emergencies.
7.) New transmitters, tower antennas, or processors are NOT required.
8.) There is no time delay.
9.) Interference from high power electrical lines is eliminated almost completely.
10.) CAM-D works to improve the AM band, not take it backwards to 5 KHz.

What's wrong with CAM-D?

It is not owned or licensed by iBiquity. That's why most HD radio boosters bad-mouth or ignore it.

 

[davideduardo]

Mike Walker wrote: "Quick, someone come up with a viable alternative to AM HD. NOW! PLEASE! Everything on Earth "must be digital". We get that. SO COME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT ISN"T SO FREAKIN' DESTRUCTIVE that it degrades the listening experience of EVERY existing listener!"

It's been done by Leonard Kahn. It's called CAM-D.

http://www.wrathofkahn.org

1.) CAM-D is up...on KDYL-AM 1060 in Salt Lake City and several other stations.
2.) CAM-D does not interfere with adjacent channels.
3.) CAM-D dramatically increases, and does not limit, sky wave coverage.
4.) CAM-D is fully compatible with the more than 800 million radios in America.
5.) CAM-D more than passes NRSC Standards with +/- 8 KHz bandwidth.
6.) CAM-D utilizes several data channels for news, information and emergencies.
7.) New transmitters, tower antennas, or processors are NOT required.
8.) There is no time delay.
9.) Interference from high power electrical lines is eliminated almost completely.
10.) CAM-D works to improve the AM band, not take it backwards to 5 KHz.

What's wrong with CAM-D?

It is not owned or licensed by iBiquity. That's why most HD radio boosters bad-mouth or ignore it.

An AM only solution is not practical as:

Broadcasters know that AM can not be driven by such a system as the AM band no longer has critical mass; it did not have it in the early 80's with CQuam and definitely does not have it now.

Manufacturers know there is no interest in AM alone.

Only a dual band system can hope to drag AM along with the building interest in FM digital.

As to the specifics: HD does not require new transmitters or towers. Any digital system requires separate processing. Almost all stations of significance today have a delay anyway, due to the huge liability for profanity / indecency fines, so the time delay issue is moot. HD is fully compatible with existing radios. A system that "dramatically increases... skywave coverage" would be illegal, and would produce a product nobody in radio wants. HD also is less subject to power line noise and other analog interference. HD has been run successfully with 6 kHz and 7 kHz bandwidths on analog... the issue is that on nearly all receivers, there is no real benefit. KDYL is a virtual daytimer (10 kw day, 149 watts night). So nearly all the benefits you mention are either not benefits, not true or not unique.

 

[R.F. Burns]

Mike Walker wrote: "Quick, someone come up with a viable alternative to AM HD. NOW! PLEASE! Everything on Earth "must be digital". We get that. SO COME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT ISN"T SO FREAKIN' DESTRUCTIVE that it degrades the listening experience of EVERY existing listener!"

It's been done by Leonard Kahn. It's called CAM-D.

http://www.wrathofkahn.org

1.) CAM-D is up...on KDYL-AM 1060 in Salt Lake City and several other stations.
2.) CAM-D does not interfere with adjacent channels.
3.) CAM-D dramatically increases, and does not limit, sky wave coverage.
4.) CAM-D is fully compatible with the more than 800 million radios in America.
5.) CAM-D more than passes NRSC Standards with +/- 8 KHz bandwidth.
6.) CAM-D utilizes several data channels for news, information and emergencies.
7.) New transmitters, tower antennas, or processors are NOT required.
8.) There is no time delay.
9.) Interference from high power electrical lines is eliminated almost completely.
10.) CAM-D works to improve the AM band, not take it backwards to 5 KHz.

What's wrong with CAM-D?

It is not owned or licensed by iBiquity. That's why most HD radio boosters bad-mouth or ignore it.

An AM only solution is not practical as:

Broadcasters know that AM can not be driven by such a system as the AM band no longer has critical mass; it did not have it in the early 80's with CQuam and definitely does not have it now.

Manufacturers know there is no interest in AM alone.

Only a dual band system can hope to drag AM along with the building interest in FM digital.

As to the specifics: HD does not require new transmitters or towers. Any digital system requires separate processing. Almost all stations of significance today have a delay anyway, due to the huge liability for profanity / indecency fines, so the time delay issue is moot. HD is fully compatible with existing radios. A system that "dramatically increases... skywave coverage" would be illegal, and would produce a product nobody in radio wants. HD also is less subject to power line noise and other analog interference. HD has been run successfully with 6 kHz and 7 kHz bandwidths on analog... the issue is that on nearly all receivers, there is no real benefit. KDYL is a virtual daytimer (10 kw day, 149 watts night). So nearly all the benefits you mention are either not benefits, not true or not unique.

And apparently Leonard won't provide specs for his system. Many of his items, like the powerside look like home made equipment and one last and all improtant thing. He so screwed up the AM stereo conversion by not giving up like every other C-Quam competitor, due to his huge ego, that he turned the entire industry against him. He's a brilliant quirk. One look at Kahn's web site will prove that we're not dealing with a professional, rational individule. His writing come across as rather sarchastic and childish. Also, I've never heard of a compression scheme that doesn't require buffering. Are you saying the Mr Kahn system defy's the laws of physics (a line used very often by those of you who are against IBOC). Has Leonard demonstrated D-Cams ability to turn off the analogue portion and run a pure digital system? A lot of this sounds like a 2007 version of powerside. A system which worked for some stations and not for most. Also, talk about cost, I heard that a Kahn assisted installation ran in the neighborhood of $15 K or more.

 

[vsa]

I stated earlier: "What's wrong with CAM-D? It is not owned or licensed by iBiquity. That's why most HD radio boosters bad-mouth or ignore it."

It appears that we have a couple of negative reactions.

David Eduardo opined: "...HD is fully compatible with existing radios. A system that "dramatically increases... skywave coverage" would be illegal, and would produce a product nobody in radio wants. HD also is less subject to power line noise and other analog interference. HD has been run successfully with 6 kHz and 7 kHz bandwidths on analog..."

Fully compatible? Minus the hash and hiss on top of adjacent AM stations. The skywave coverage improvement comes with a reduction in signal fading - including on analog radios. CAM-D reduces power line noise on analog radios as well. Please explain to us one more time why HD proponents continue to push for and use a 5kHz brick wall. It's no big deal to include CAM-D within a multipurpose chip.

R.F. Burns wrote: "And apparently Leonard won't provide specs for his system...One look at Kahn's web site will prove that we're not dealing with a professional, rational individule...Are you saying the Mr Kahn system defy's the laws of physics...Has Leonard demonstrated D-Cams ability to turn off the analogue portion and run a pure digital system?"

No specs until he gets a patent. Leonard Kahn is not stupid.

As for his website, he's told me that friends have suggested and offered to put up a fancy website for him. He's an engineer, not a slick spinmeister. It's his personal style. He likes it the way it is.

CAM-D adheres to the laws of physics, that's why it works and is a good neighbor. It improves signal coverage in analog and digital modes. Pure digital on AM is decades away, if ever. Kahn says the tough part, the part all of iBiquity's engineers couldn't figure out how to do, has been accomplished. Going pure digital with CAM-D should be a cakewalk by comparison to figure out.   

If iBiquity was smart, I think they should go for a licensing deal. An honest one.

Unfortunately, egos and too much lost money stand in the way.

 

[davideduardo]

David Eduardo opined: "...HD is fully compatible with existing radios. A system that "dramatically increases... skywave coverage" would be illegal, and would produce a product nobody in radio wants. HD also is less subject to power line noise and other analog interference. HD has been run successfully with 6 kHz and 7 kHz bandwidths on analog..."

Fully compatible? Minus the hash and hiss on top of adjacent AM stations. The skywave coverage improvement comes with a reduction in signal fading - including on analog radios. CAM-D reduces power line noise on analog radios as well. Please explain to us one more time why HD proponents continue to push for and use a 5kHz brick wall. It's no big deal to include CAM-D within a multipurpose chip.

"Fully compatible" in this industry means that heritage radios can still hear analog. Since there is not much, if any, listening close to a local station on first or second adjacent AM channels, that point is moot... and the radios are 100% compatible and even have fallback features on both bands.

We pust for HD because AM is nearly dead and needs to do something. An AM only system was tried before, and it did not work. We nead an AM / FM system, as AM can not drive interest or sales. You are ignoring the fact that, today, AM gets less htan 20% of radio listening. Nobody cares unless they are over 50.

R.F. Burns wrote: "And apparently Leonard won't provide specs for his system...One look at Kahn's web site will prove that we're not dealing with a professional, rational individule...Are you saying the Mr Kahn system defy's the laws of physics...Has Leonard demonstrated D-Cams ability to turn off the analogue portion and run a pure digital system?"

No specs until he gets a patent. Leonard Kahn is not stupid.

Then the system is not ready... time passed Kahn by... after killing AM, he now wants to build the coffin. Lots of luck. Nobody in the industry is likely to find him credible.

CAM-D adheres to the laws of physics, that's why it works and is a good neighbor. It improves signal coverage in analog and digital modes. Pure digital on AM is decades away, if ever. Kahn says the tough part, the part all of iBiquity's engineers couldn't figure out how to do, has been accomplished. Going pure digital with CAM-D should be a cakewalk by comparison to figure out.

But nobody wants an AM only system.

If iBiquity was smart, I think they should go for a licensing deal. An honest one.

How absurd.

 

[vsa]

David Eduardo wrote: "...We pust [pushed?] for HD because AM is nearly dead and needs to do something. An AM only system was tried before, and it did not work. We nead an AM / FM system..."

We've gone round and round on this before. More than one company's system can go on any one chip, and you ought to know and admit that by now! CAM-D is not wanted because it is not the property of iBiquity and its investors. One of those investors is UNIVISION - your employer - DAVID!!!

David, I respect you as a successful fellow broadcaster, but when it comes to HD radio, you and your employer have a conflict of interest in this matter.

 

[davideduardo]

David Eduardo wrote: "...We pust [pushed?] for HD because AM is nearly dead and needs to do something. An AM only system was tried before, and it did not work. We nead an AM / FM system..."

We've gone round and round on this before. More than one company's system can go on any one chip, and you ought to know and admit that by now! CAM-D is not wanted because it is not the property of iBiquity and its investors. One of those investors is UNIVISION - your employer - DAVID!!!

David, I respect you as a successful fellow broadcaster, but when it comes to HD radio, you and your employer have a conflict of interest in this matter.

Sorry, that dog don't hunt.

The broadcasters that invested in iBiquity dids so after the system was well near its final development, already tested extensively in experimental transmissions, and ready to be finalized. This was because we all realized the system, the combination of the work of two companies (one of them Lucent, the former Bell Labs), was the best AM and FM solution.

On the other hand, many of us who were ready to go to AM stereo in 1978 saw Leonard Kahn kill that chance to save AM as a music medium, and we are not going to be part of his shennagans today. I don't care if you can get Kahn's system on my fillings for free... I would never endorse his system. And I have a considerable amount of credibility here, as I had signed order #1 with a deposit for the first AM Stereo system from two of the contenders in '78, and had a 50% chance of managing the first non-experimental AM stereo station in the US (WQII-1140). Then Kahn sued... and AM died.