FCC Leaning Toward a 1 t0 5 dB boost for digital FM stations..not 10dB.

[VeteranPD]

That according to Tom Taylor. IMHO, 10dB is the very LEAST increase that should be acceptable. At 1 to 5dB, I'd say "why even bother." Until HD radio is plug and play good and preforms as well as FM and FM stereo, it hasn't got a chance. Interesting that TV stations are already realizing that DTV also seems to require more power that it worked out to "on paper." Look at the problems since WABC-TV, WPIX and WNET all migrated their digital signals to VHF. I wonder if a soon to be coined slogan might be "Digital...well, we THOUGHT it was a good idea."

 

[fm-engineer]

That according to Tom Taylor. IMHO, 10dB is the very LEAST increase that should be acceptable. At 1 to 5dB, I'd say "why even bother." Until HD radio is plug and play good and preforms as well as FM and FM stereo, it hasn't got a chance. Interesting that TV stations are already realizing that DTV also seems to require more power that it worked out to "on paper." Look at the problems since WABC-TV, WPIX and WNET all migrated their digital signals to VHF. I wonder if a soon to be coined slogan might be "Digital...well, we THOUGHT it was a good idea."

You can boost it 30 dB, but if no one is listening does it really matter? A local 50 kW FM shut down the HD several months ago. No calls at all.

 

[oldiesstation]

LOL fm-eng.1 to 5db ain't even worth messing with.When would you expect the FCC to get something right.Yep, TV engs around here are saying the coverage looked better on paper.the local fox's audio stutters,video out of sync,etc.local consensus is give us back the analog.

 

[OKCRadioGuy]

Something close to 6db WOULD help the HD signal quite a bit. Keep in mind that's like double of double. The interference issues will come up of course even at that level. The power consumption and transmitter costs will sore but it will be MUCH better than trying to do the 10db thing. After about 6 it gets REAL interesting to implement with little increased return. Personally I rather not bother at all...

 

[RadeoEngineer]

Something close to 6db WOULD help the HD signal quite a bit. Keep in mind that's like double of double. The interference issues will come up of course even at that level. The power consumption and transmitter costs will sore but it will be MUCH better than trying to do the 10db thing. After about 6 it gets REAL interesting to implement with little increased return. Personally I rather not bother at all...

Not criticizing you at all, just quoting to make the point:

Who is going to spend one dollar to go back and completely redo a system that has shown no growth and no return on investment?

GM: Mr Chief Engineer I understand we can finally get reasonable coverage comparable to our analog now that we've been approved for a power increase. Can you please go turn up the power on this turkey so I can at least hear it on my drive home?

CE: Sure boss. But I need another transmitter, combiner, reject load, bigger transmission line and about six months to make it happen.

GM: Wh, wh, wh, what's this gonna cost?

CE: What did we spend last time? About the same, maybe a little more since we're still depreciating equipment we can't use anymore, but I might be able to sell it to Panama. I hear they're going big on HD.

GM: YOU BYASTAHD!!!! YOU"RE JUST TRYING TO SABOTAGE THE SALVATION OF OUR MEDIUM!!!!!

CE: No. I just screw the wires together. You make the goofy decisions to implement erector set technology while you and your fellow GM buddies are sitting at the club where the trade is about to run out comparing the size of your um/M and who has the true black beemer, you pea brained dork.

GM: YOU'RE FIRED!!

CE: Cool. Who's gonna program all your remote controls for your big screens, DVR's, and swinging patio doors now? And make your email from the bimbos go to your crackberry?

GM: Um, wait a second there bro'. Maybe we need to review here. You know about the bimbos?

 

[greg.hahn]

The other side of the coin- I put a new FM site on last summer, and did it in HD. Got two calls the first week thanking us for the HD signal.

And keep in mind that 6 DB is about the difference between a class A and a B1 or C3. Hell yes it makes a difference!


Broadcast engineers and owners need to quit acting like it doesn't matter, or else that just becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Instead why not be an engineer and make it what it can be? Sync up the audio. Get rid of the MP3s. Get a seperate processor for HD.

And OKCRadioGuy may be right- it may be as bad as he described to increase the HD power on your station, or it might not be that bad. It depends on the installation. Check it and see. It may be worth it.

 

[BobOnTheJob]

Personally, I VERY STRONGLY feel the interference that IBOC is currently causing should be reduced rather than increased. If they can confine 100% of the signal within +/- 100khz of their licensed frequency, they should have all they want up to 100%. But any portion of that signal that spills into an adjacent channel (like 1% IBOC already does) should have 0.0% power.

 

[Eng.Mike]

Personally, I VERY STRONGLY feel the interference that IBOC is currently causing should be reduced rather than increased. If they can confine 100% of the signal within +/- 100khz of their licensed frequency, they should have all they want up to 100%. But any portion of that signal that spills into an adjacent channel (like 1% IBOC already does) should have 0.0% power.

Thanks Bob for mentioning the interferrence! WQXR in NYC is presently getting hammered by a second adjacent with IBOC in Monmouth County NJ. There was never a problem before the IBOC went on.
This keeps me from listening to it in my car now. I'm sure I'm not alone in my experience.

 

[OKCRadioGuy]

Stations should have to demonstrate they won't cause harmful interference via individual studies on a case by case basis. A shortcut of allowing a across the board increase is a very horrible idea. In some cases increasing only one side may be the right thing to do. In some cases even the current iboc level is actually too much. If the big boys want to upgrade then spend a bit more and do a study. I am dead against a set limit that is just an arbitrary number. Bad bad idea!

 

[littlejohn]

Well, the system works. Run th epower up and you can hear it where you can hear the analog. A couple of thoughts though. Those whose business plan includes splitting up the bandwidth to run other services are thinking shoret term and will kill the service if i8t ain't already dead. The fulkl bandwidth results in a decent fidelity. Reduced bandwidth doesn't. Why 'screw yer buddy' on a second adjacent to sound as bad as, or worse than satellite audio?
The (politically unpalatable) idea is to do as the TV folks realized they hadda do, drop the idea of IBOC and reallocate. Sunset analog. This will give decent bandwidth for good fidelity. Realize that radio's stock in trade is localism, and watch the successful stations... most of which are so because they're tied to their communities.
Since that ain't gonna happen, I'll take the increase and do the best I can with it.

 

[Eng.Mike]

Stations should have to demonstrate they won't cause harmful interference via individual studies on a case by case basis. A shortcut of allowing a across the board increase is a very horrible idea. In some cases increasing only one side may be the right thing to do. In some cases even the current iboc level is actually too much. If the big boys want to upgrade then spend a bit more and do a study. I am dead against a set limit that is just an arbitrary number. Bad bad idea!

My sentiment is that this whole FM IBOC implementation was always a bad idea! Here's my reasoning.

1. The listener experience of adjacent channel interference. That means noise and inconsistency when there had never been any before. FM analog listening becomes less enjoyable.

2. The listener is told he has to buy an new radio at a time when a trip to the radio store will present him with satellite radio, Internet streaming media players, MP3 players for car, home and body and some new cellular phones that may seem like better purchases listening.

3. The listener who buys the IBOC radio finds that changing channels now takes several seconds but his MP3s and CDs start right up when the button is pushed. FM listening becomes less immediate and perhaps with an new annoyance associated for him.

4. The mobile IBOC listener now has to hear his radio cross fade to and from analog when ever the signal becomes marginal. I've only listened to the New York City and some New Jersey FM IBOC stations. But I've heard level jumps, some brief spacey flanging effects due to small time offsets and some significant shifts of the processing character. There was one station that didn't use a delay on the analog and so the program would jump ahead and back in time. The cross fade is a definite annoyance that becomes part of the FM listening experience.

5. The sound quality is certainly not any better. Un-rate reduced 20Hz - 15 kHz audio will always sound better than 20Hz - 20 kHz that has been rate reduced to 92kbps. It would require a rate of well over 400kbps before the damage goes away. My T1 lines that send full quality audio use over 1400kbps. Now how about those MP3's that we have to play on the air because the record companies insist on pointing our program directors to their new download sites to get new releases. I'm not kidding. Cascade the MP3 music or the MP3 agency spots with the new IBOC rate reduction and it really becomes bad. But that's what is happening now. Some stations even use rate reduced STL and or rate reduced satellite programming in the sequence. These digital "compression" algorithms were not created to cascaded like that for good reason. The result is not very engaging.

Shame on the ones that tout IBOC as "High Definition" and "CD quality". They are simply lying. Shame on the record companies for pushing MP3s on radio stations. Shame on the ad agencies for delivering commercials that sound terribly strident. Compromises and more compromises that marginalize the listening experience. There are plenty of people that say they can't hear differences. How about a chef that can't taste the subtleties of his cooking ingredients. Should we keep visiting his restaurant? Maybe we're impressed with it's atmosphere and haven't found a better experience. Posing radio as the metaphorical restaurant; shouldn't we be paying closer attention to the quality of the food?

This is my personal view only. It's not intended to be associated with employer or any organization.

Ahhh.... I feel better now!

 

[RadeoEngineer]

Excellent post!

 

[bossbill]

Eng.Mike... right on...

 

[BobOnTheJob]

Eng.Mike...THANK YOU for putting my feelings into words. I totally agree with your sentiments!

 

[greg.hahn]

Stations should have to demonstrate they won't cause harmful interference via individual studies on a case by case basis. A shortcut of allowing a across the board increase is a very horrible idea. In some cases increasing only one side may be the right thing to do. In some cases even the current iboc level is actually too much. If the big boys want to upgrade then spend a bit more and do a study. I am dead against a set limit that is just an arbitrary number. Bad bad idea!

My sentiment is that this whole FM IBOC implementation was always a bad idea! Here's my reasoning.

1. The listener experience of adjacent channel interference. That means noise and inconsistency when there had never been any before. FM analog listening becomes less enjoyable.

2. The listener is told he has to buy an new radio at a time when a trip to the radio store will present him with satellite radio, Internet streaming media players, MP3 players for car, home and body and some new cellular phones that may seem like better purchases listening.

3. The listener who buys the IBOC radio finds that changing channels now takes several seconds but his MP3s and CDs start right up when the button is pushed. FM listening becomes less immediate and perhaps with an new annoyance associated for him.

4. The mobile IBOC listener now has to hear his radio cross fade to and from analog when ever the signal becomes marginal. I've only listened to the New York City and some New Jersey FM IBOC stations. But I've heard level jumps, some brief spacey flanging effects due to small time offsets and some significant shifts of the processing character. There was one station that didn't use a delay on the analog and so the program would jump ahead and back in time. The cross fade is a definite annoyance that becomes part of the FM listening experience.

5. The sound quality is certainly not any better. Un-rate reduced 20Hz - 15 kHz audio will always sound better than 20Hz - 20 kHz that has been rate reduced to 92kbps. It would require a rate of well over 400kbps before the damage goes away. My T1 lines that send full quality audio use over 1400kbps. Now how about those MP3's that we have to play on the air because the record companies insist on pointing our program directors to their new download sites to get new releases. I'm not kidding. Cascade the MP3 music or the MP3 agency spots with the new IBOC rate reduction and it really becomes bad. But that's what is happening now. Some stations even use rate reduced STL and or rate reduced satellite programming in the sequence. These digital "compression" algorithms were not created to cascaded like that for good reason. The result is not very engaging.

Shame on the ones that tout IBOC as "High Definition" and "CD quality". They are simply lying. Shame on the record companies for pushing MP3s on radio stations. Shame on the ad agencies for delivering commercials that sound terribly strident. Compromises and more compromises that marginalize the listening experience. There are plenty of people that say they can't hear differences. How about a chef that can't taste the subtleties of his cooking ingredients. Should we keep visiting his restaurant? Maybe we're impressed with it's atmosphere and haven't found a better experience. Posing radio as the metaphorical restaurant; shouldn't we be paying closer attention to the quality of the food?

This is my personal view only. It's not intended to be associated with employer or any organization.

Ahhh.... I feel better now!

In my opinion your point #1 is somewhat valid, but for most people irrelevant. The vast majority of people don't listen to weak radio signals. There is already a substantial mileage seperation requirement for fist adjacents, so what you are really saying is you can no longer listen to a distant station out around it's 0.1 mV contour. That would matter to a broadcast engineer , a station owner, PD, and a really hard core fan.

Point 2- those alternatives are already on the shelves. If you think you can keep that stuff hidden from your listeners you're kidding yourself. (Besides, Best Buy is buying spots on your station to tout these products.)

Point 3- False. have you ever tuned a station on an HD receiver? because if you have, you know you get it in analog instantly.

Point 4a- The mobile listener ALWAYS had his radio blending to mono in those same areas. This is just a different manifestation of what we've lived with all our lives.

Point 4b- I've also heard analog stations out of phase, channels missing, pilots modulating, L-R gain misadjusted, Pilot phase cranked, excessive AM noise, and everything else you can think of. You've heard all that too. Don't act like HD is the first medium that requires proper installation, maintenance, and monitoring of electronic equipment.

If some cheap operation set their diversity delay by ear because they wouldn't get a monitor, or they have no way of knowing when these things drift off, what's new? We've always had cheap operators who did stupid stuff.

You can get a monitor that gets your delay difference out to zero, checks analog / digital phase agreement, and measures the level difference. It will even check it once a day and send you an email if any of these parameters gets out of tolerance. Why don't you?

Point 5- Don't play MP3s. My company made it a policy years ago that we don't. Nor do we use STLs with bit reduction. You can eliminate it almost everywhere if you try. You've got me on the satellite programming, but I don't mind having an advantage for local program origination over satellite program origination, so I'm fine with that problem.

HD has no mulitpath issues. No "ffft ffft ffft" as you drive down the road. No 50-60 Db noise floor. It's simply better, and with good engineering it can be a significant improvement. Why don't we at least do the basics and give it a chance?

 

[radiorob2.0]

Stations should have to demonstrate they won't cause harmful interference via individual studies on a case by case basis. A shortcut of allowing a across the board increase is a very horrible idea. In some cases increasing only one side may be the right thing to do. In some cases even the current iboc level is actually too much. If the big boys want to upgrade then spend a bit more and do a study. I am dead against a set limit that is just an arbitrary number. Bad bad idea!

My sentiment is that this whole FM IBOC implementation was always a bad idea! Here's my reasoning.

1. The listener experience of adjacent channel interference. That means noise and inconsistency when there had never been any before. FM analog listening becomes less enjoyable.

2. The listener is told he has to buy an new radio at a time when a trip to the radio store will present him with satellite radio, Internet streaming media players, MP3 players for car, home and body and some new cellular phones that may seem like better purchases listening.

3. The listener who buys the IBOC radio finds that changing channels now takes several seconds but his MP3s and CDs start right up when the button is pushed. FM listening becomes less immediate and perhaps with an new annoyance associated for him.

4. The mobile IBOC listener now has to hear his radio cross fade to and from analog when ever the signal becomes marginal. I've only listened to the New York City and some New Jersey FM IBOC stations. But I've heard level jumps, some brief spacey flanging effects due to small time offsets and some significant shifts of the processing character. There was one station that didn't use a delay on the analog and so the program would jump ahead and back in time. The cross fade is a definite annoyance that becomes part of the FM listening experience.

5. The sound quality is certainly not any better. Un-rate reduced 20Hz - 15 kHz audio will always sound better than 20Hz - 20 kHz that has been rate reduced to 92kbps. It would require a rate of well over 400kbps before the damage goes away. My T1 lines that send full quality audio use over 1400kbps. Now how about those MP3's that we have to play on the air because the record companies insist on pointing our program directors to their new download sites to get new releases. I'm not kidding. Cascade the MP3 music or the MP3 agency spots with the new IBOC rate reduction and it really becomes bad. But that's what is happening now. Some stations even use rate reduced STL and or rate reduced satellite programming in the sequence. These digital "compression" algorithms were not created to cascaded like that for good reason. The result is not very engaging.

Shame on the ones that tout IBOC as "High Definition" and "CD quality". They are simply lying. Shame on the record companies for pushing MP3s on radio stations. Shame on the ad agencies for delivering commercials that sound terribly strident. Compromises and more compromises that marginalize the listening experience. There are plenty of people that say they can't hear differences. How about a chef that can't taste the subtleties of his cooking ingredients. Should we keep visiting his restaurant? Maybe we're impressed with it's atmosphere and haven't found a better experience. Posing radio as the metaphorical restaurant; shouldn't we be paying closer attention to the quality of the food?

This is my personal view only. It's not intended to be associated with employer or any organization.

Ahhh.... I feel better now!

Amen, I've been screaming this for years. The mp3 factor is the cherry atop the problem. I give up on arguments with those who claim you can't tell the difference between .wav and mp3. But you hit upon my big annoyance, HD RADIO ISN'T HIGH DEFINITION!

 

[BobOnTheJob]

Stations should have to demonstrate they won't cause harmful interference via individual studies on a case by case basis. A shortcut of allowing a across the board increase is a very horrible idea. In some cases increasing only one side may be the right thing to do. In some cases even the current iboc level is actually too much. If the big boys want to upgrade then spend a bit more and do a study. I am dead against a set limit that is just an arbitrary number. Bad bad idea!

My sentiment is that this whole FM IBOC implementation was always a bad idea! Here's my reasoning.

1. The listener experience of adjacent channel interference. That means noise and inconsistency when there had never been any before. FM analog listening becomes less enjoyable.

2. The listener is told he has to buy an new radio at a time when a trip to the radio store will present him with satellite radio, Internet streaming media players, MP3 players for car, home and body and some new cellular phones that may seem like better purchases listening.

3. The listener who buys the IBOC radio finds that changing channels now takes several seconds but his MP3s and CDs start right up when the button is pushed. FM listening becomes less immediate and perhaps with an new annoyance associated for him.

4. The mobile IBOC listener now has to hear his radio cross fade to and from analog when ever the signal becomes marginal. I've only listened to the New York City and some New Jersey FM IBOC stations. But I've heard level jumps, some brief spacey flanging effects due to small time offsets and some significant shifts of the processing character. There was one station that didn't use a delay on the analog and so the program would jump ahead and back in time. The cross fade is a definite annoyance that becomes part of the FM listening experience.

5. The sound quality is certainly not any better. Un-rate reduced 20Hz - 15 kHz audio will always sound better than 20Hz - 20 kHz that has been rate reduced to 92kbps. It would require a rate of well over 400kbps before the damage goes away. My T1 lines that send full quality audio use over 1400kbps. Now how about those MP3's that we have to play on the air because the record companies insist on pointing our program directors to their new download sites to get new releases. I'm not kidding. Cascade the MP3 music or the MP3 agency spots with the new IBOC rate reduction and it really becomes bad. But that's what is happening now. Some stations even use rate reduced STL and or rate reduced satellite programming in the sequence. These digital "compression" algorithms were not created to cascaded like that for good reason. The result is not very engaging.

Shame on the ones that tout IBOC as "High Definition" and "CD quality". They are simply lying. Shame on the record companies for pushing MP3s on radio stations. Shame on the ad agencies for delivering commercials that sound terribly strident. Compromises and more compromises that marginalize the listening experience. There are plenty of people that say they can't hear differences. How about a chef that can't taste the subtleties of his cooking ingredients. Should we keep visiting his restaurant? Maybe we're impressed with it's atmosphere and haven't found a better experience. Posing radio as the metaphorical restaurant; shouldn't we be paying closer attention to the quality of the food?

This is my personal view only. It's not intended to be associated with employer or any organization.

Ahhh.... I feel better now!

Amen, I've been screaming this for years. The mp3 factor is the cherry atop the problem. I give up on arguments with those who claim you can't tell the difference between .wav and mp3. But you hit upon my big annoyance, HD RADIO ISN'T HIGH DEFINITION!

I had an HD radio & sent it back. On stations without HD-2 streams, the sound was about equal to analog minus the multipath (which in my part of the world isn't much of an issue). On stations with HD-2, it sounded like a marginal Internet audio stream, swishes & all. Not only that, but it takes a LOT of nerve to design something, test it for years, refine it, get it authorized & then come back & ask for more power...makes me question a) the competence of the testing people/process or b) their apparent lack of candor--knowing that if they requested 10% up front, it would never have been authorized. Whether it's a) or b), it's not the kind of process that I want guiding the future of American radio. If there's a silver lining to this "worst economic crisis since the great depression" (his words, NOT mine), it's that it slowed down the IBOC train...not much would make me happier than to see it derail entirely.

 

[DaveBayArea]

In my opinion your point #1 is somewhat valid, but for most people irrelevant. The vast majority of people don't listen to weak radio signals. There is already a substantial mileage seperation requirement for fist adjacents, so what you are really saying is you can no longer listen to a distant station out around it's 0.1 mV contour. That would matter to a broadcast engineer , a station owner, PD, and a really hard core fan.

I beg to differ on that one. My station, KKUP, is 200 watts on 91.5 with significant HAAT - 787 meters. KALW in San Francisco is on 91.7 with an 18-watt IBOC transmitter. With the hilly terrain of the Bay Area, KKUP experiences degradation many places throughout our city-grade contour. We're listener supported, and used to have subscribers in San Francisco. No more. Now the signal is pretty much useless north of San Carlos. If this power increase becomes reality and KALW takes advantage of the opportunity we will experience even more problems. A similar situation exists in Sacramento with KVMR on 89.5 and KQEI on 89.3. Both experience significant interference within their 1.0 mV/m contours.

Dave B.

 

[greg.hahn]

In my opinion your point #1 is somewhat valid, but for most people irrelevant. The vast majority of people don't listen to weak radio signals. There is already a substantial mileage seperation requirement for fist adjacents, so what you are really saying is you can no longer listen to a distant station out around it's 0.1 mV contour. That would matter to a broadcast engineer , a station owner, PD, and a really hard core fan.

I beg to differ on that one. My station, KKUP, is 200 watts on 91.5 with significant HAAT - 787 meters. KALW in San Francisco is on 91.7 with an 18-watt IBOC transmitter. With the hilly terrain of the Bay Area, KKUP experiences degradation many places throughout our city-grade contour. We're listener supported, and used to have subscribers in San Francisco. No more. Now the signal is pretty much useless north of San Carlos. If this power increase becomes reality and KALW takes advantage of the opportunity we will experience even more problems. A similar situation exists in Sacramento with KVMR on 89.5 and KQEI on 89.3. Both experience significant interference within their 1.0 mV/m contours.

Dave B.

Dave,

I'm sorry that the FCC doesn't impose on non-comms the same distance seperation requirements imposed on the rest of us, but that really makes you a special case.

You're a class B1, 55 miles away from another B1 on a first adjacent channel, and you want to have listeners in his backyard. And that in the worst possible area of the country for FM listening.

The normal minimum mileage seperation between 2 class B1s on 1st adjacent channels is 71 miles. That would really go a long way toward fixing your problem had those rules been enforced.

I'm thinking that things in San Fran weren't all that great for you even before he turned on his HD. That's really not your market.

 

[Play Freebird]

I'm sorry that the FCC doesn't impose on non-comms the same distance seperation requirements imposed on the rest of us, but that really makes you a special case.

The normal minimum mileage seperation between 2 class B1s on 1st adjacent channels is 71 miles. That would really go a long way toward fixing your problem had those rules been enforced.

I'm thinking that things in San Fran weren't all that great for you even before he turned on his HD. That's really not your market.

Are you aware of the first-adjacent short-spacings in the commercial FM band that exist in some of the largest markets? Starting in Boston and working south to Washington, you can find dozens, and many of these stations operate without directional antennas or reduced power to provide contour protection.

For example, check out the distance between New York's Empire State Building and Philadelphia's Roxborough antenna farm and compare this against the 73.207 separation for B to B first adjacent. Or take a look at the situation between Baltimore and Washington, or the Chicago area, or southern California (where a lot of stations aren't only short-spaced, but operate above the Class B power limit). It's not just the non-comm reserved band where you will find spacing problems.

The big question in this proceeding is how to resolve new interference problems when they occur. If a 10 dB across-the-board increase is approved, they will.