Cooney Talks HD Radio

[Carmine5]

Interesting interview with Mike Cooney, veep of engineering and CTO of Beasley.

While I found some of Cooney's answers, at times, to be a little too "weaselly" for my taste, I did find RW's hard questioning on HD-AM a surprising change from their usual kid glove handling of HD.

http://www.rwonline.com/article/77334

When Cooney spoke about "issues"with HD-AM RW replied:

"Issues (?)...

We have actually turned off most of our AM HD signals at night, and big signals especially, because we got complaints that we were causing interference to other broadcasters. To be good broadcasters, we agreed to turn them off at night. A lot of broadcasters are doing that until we can figure out a plan to all make it work well together."

Cooney indicated that it was up to iBiquity (as opposed to broadcasters) to work out the problems with HD-AM. He also seemed to indicate that a 10% power boost for HD-FM was overly optimistic, maybe 5%.

C5

 

[Savage]

And as we all know: the problems with AM-IBOC cannot be "worked out." It's an absurd suggestion to make, and a dishonest one at that. It is what it is. If it were possible to "work out" the interference problems with HD-AM it would have been done long ago.

Neither will a 5% increase in digital power fix the problems with HD-FM. In fact, even 10dB more digital won't do much more than cause a huge interference problem. And it's academic since almost no stations will make the cap-ex investment over HD - certainly not in the current economic climate.

You can't put a tornado through a keyhole. There isn't enough bandwidth for IBOC on either FM or AM, so the digital has to occupy adjacent channels. You can fudge the falsify the NRSC mask all you want, but that doesn't revise the laws of physics.

HD Radio makes a mockery of the allocation scheme....which is why it will never work acceptably.

 

[Carmine5]

And as we all know: the problems with AM-IBOC cannot be "worked out." It's an absurd suggestion to make, and a dishonest one at that. It is what it is. If it were possible to "work out" the interference problems with HD-AM it would have been done long ago.


You can't put a tornado through a keyhole. There isn't enough bandwidth for IBOC on either FM or AM, so the digital has to occupy adjacent channels. You can fudge the falsify the NRSC mask all you want, but that doesn't revise the laws of physics.

HD Radio makes a mockery of the allocation scheme....which is why it will never work acceptably.

As Cooney says, the issue is:

"In getting it to have a wide enough bandwidth so it sounds like FM but yet not such a wide bandwidth that you don't interfere with your neighbor."

Short of finding a new, more efficient codec or just using an upper or lower sideband (like DRM), I'm not sure what else iBiquity can do. Roll off analog AM even more, rendering it totally unlistenable?

Of course, in their mind they have a solution that works, as Struble said in a recent RW interview. It's up to AM stations to adopt it or not. Doesn't sound like iBiquity is really that interested in working on it.

C5

 

[Savage]

The whole HD debate is just another version of "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin." Nobody has any definitive answers, and it's irrelevant anyway.

Faced with the choice of listening to, as the blogger said, "crystal-clear free analog radio" and "crystal-clear digital which offers the same programming at a capital cost of at least $100," radio listeners will elect to stand pat - as they have for five years now, which is why the radios have all but disappeared at retail. The HD subs are an insufficient and unreliable value-add. The poor performance of the radios in the field has squelched what tiny interest there was. The vaunted 10dB digital power increase is too little, too late - you "only get one chance to make a first impression," and the small ripple of first-adopters for HD have already brought their receivers back to stores for refunds. They won't be suckered a second time.

Besides, even if it worked properly and offered a tangible benefit (from the perspective of consumers, not myopic and desperate industry promoters) few stations are going to invest the dough.

It's done. Let's focus on improving programming, improving analog AM fidelity and developing compelling internet platforms. Not HD, which is more "yesterday" and more irrelevant than disco, Wankel engines and Jimmy Carter.

 

[stacker]

It's done. Let's focus on improving programming, improving analog AM fidelity and developing compelling internet platforms. Not HD, which is more "yesterday" and more irrelevant than disco, Wankel engines and Jimmy Carter.

Amen.

The original Report and Order on IBOC waxed eloquently about the robustness and durability of the hybrid signal.

The only thing robust about the Ibiquity scheme is the noise it introduces on adjacent channels.

It's time for the market wake up and see that they have been taken for a ride. Time to flush Ibiquity. A couple of "robust" flushes should do it.

If Ibiquity can fix HD AM, they will be on the cover of every magazine in the country as recipients of the Nobel Prize in Physics.

 

[FM AM]

Not to veer off the topic too much, but reports on the Hudson Valley board indicate that 50,000 watt
WDCD (formerly WPTR-1540 Albany) has discontinued IBOC. I've been checking, and 1530 and 1550 seem clear of the IBOC hash...

 

[KB1OKL]

As Cooney says, the issue is:

"In getting it to have a wide enough bandwidth so it sounds like FM but yet not such a wide bandwidth that you don't interfere with your neighbor."

I don't know about anyone else here but AM HD does not sound anything like FM or a good sounding AM to me, it has a very artificial high end which is very grating on the ears. The only good thing about it is the noise floor drops but getting it locked in and keeping it locked in is a joke.