Feeling A Bit More Positive Towards HD Radio on FM

[Barry]

At the heart of of the criticism of HD radio is its poor reception. I've had an HD receiver since shortly after the technology became available, and heartily agree that receiving stations in HD can be an exercise in frustration.
I'm in the New York area, which has lacked a regular country music station for many years. WLTW HD2 carries the Country Road stream from Clear Channel, which I believe is well programmed, and has good dj's. But it had the usual awful HD reception, and was down for several months this summer.
The HD2, called New York Country, returned about a week ago, and immediately I noticed a huge difference in the reception. It is now rock solid indoors, at my listening location. More significantly, it now works quite well mobile, and I enjoy it. As I travel about the area, dropouts are infrequent, and usually last only a few seconds. The power must have been boosted. I believe that an online stream from a smartphone would have at least as many dropouts during a trip, and unlike the HD signal, is not free.
Adding power to the weak signals seems to be a good initial step. I've also read that there are other technological enhancements being developed. So I would keep an open mind on the future of HD radio, and would not be as quick as some to condemn it to the scrap heap.

 

[tomservo]

It's good to hear the reception issue has been addressed with that subchannel. I've said for a long time that if they're going to push a unique format people wanna hear they gotta go the extra mile and maximize the power because the reception headaches we enthusiasts put up with won't hunt with the general public.

 

[RadeoEngineer]

Sure, keep adding power and wiping out ever more 1st and 2nd adjacent stations. Hell add enough to wipe out 3rd adjacents so we can get those Hd-2s playing to those massive audiences clamoring for more CC jukebox programming.

 

[Barry]

Sure, keep adding power and wiping out ever more 1st and 2nd adjacent stations. Hell add enough to wipe out 3rd adjacents so we can get those Hd-2s playing to those massive audiences clamoring for more CC jukebox programming.

I've read a number of times on this board about alleged interference from HD FM stations.
Sure, AM HD causes bad interference. I would be very pleased if WFAN AM 660 shut down its HD signal, so I could once again enjoy WSM 650 AM at night.
But I can find no signs of interference caused by HD on FM. WFAF on 106.3 is a weak signal, located at least 15 miles away. It comes in just as clear when WLTW 106.7 is broadcasting in HD, as when it was switched off during the summer. WXPK on 107.1, similar situation.
And while there certainly are many HD stations that are jockless jukeboxes, some are not. As previously mentioned, Country Road has personable dj's. Most if not all are with large market stations.

 

[TheBigA]

Sure, keep adding power and wiping out ever more 1st and 2nd adjacent stations. Hell add enough to wipe out 3rd adjacents so we can get those Hd-2s playing to those massive audiences clamoring for more CC jukebox programming.

People seem to feel wiping out 3rd adjacents is OK for LPFM. But it's not OK for HD. Which is it? It can't be both.

 

[local oscillator]

Adjacent channel interference is NOT OK regardless of the source -- including, but not limited to, AM HD, FM HD, LPFMs, translators, overmodulation, and pirates.

 

[Casey]

At the heart of of the criticism of HD radio is its poor reception. I've had an HD receiver since shortly after the technology became available, and heartily agree that receiving stations in HD can be an exercise in frustration.
I'm in the New York area, which has lacked a regular country music station for many years. WLTW HD2 carries the Country Road stream from Clear Channel, which I believe is well programmed, and has good dj's. But it had the usual awful HD reception, and was down for several months this summer.
The HD2, called New York Country, returned about a week ago, and immediately I noticed a huge difference in the reception. It is now rock solid indoors, at my listening location. More significantly, it now works quite well mobile, and I enjoy it. As I travel about the area, dropouts are infrequent, and usually last only a few seconds. The power must have been boosted. I believe that an online stream from a smartphone would have at least as many dropouts during a trip, and unlike the HD signal, is not free.
Adding power to the weak signals seems to be a good initial step. I've also read that there are other technological enhancements being developed. So I would keep an open mind on the future of HD radio, and would not be as quick as some to condemn it to the scrap heap.

You mean the same Country Road format that has dj's like Michael J., Joe Boxer, Angie Ward, etc.? I suppose it is better than nothing at all, but I can't help but think of it as perhaps the worst formats I have ever heard. It is one of those things that makes you want to subscribe to satellite radio.

 

[RadeoEngineer]

Barry what makes you think the "good dj's" are live? And you don't get something for nothing. You increase the power in the HD sidebands and you expand the occupied bandwidth. Somebody gets stepped on.

 

[Barry]

I realize the dj's on IHeartRadio channels such as Country Road are probably voicetracked, as they generally are on satellite radio, and on many conventional radio stations. Plenty of voice tracked programs sound fine, and lots of live shows sound bad. What's most significant is how the personalities sound on the air, not whether they are live or not. Country Road may not be the finest country format I've ever heard, but it is not a mere jukebox, and is a lot better than nothing. .
The main point in my original post is that HD radio on FM seems to work quite well when the stations are able to raise the power somewhat from the extremely low levels they had been using (only 1% of the analog signal). It is now practical for me to use HD radio to hear a format I enjoy while traveling, which is not otherwise available on free radio in New York.
I tried hard but could not find any interference to adjacent stations caused by WLTW HD2. As I previously mentioned, weak signals on nearby frequencies sound the same as when the HD was off the air for a few months. How could there be significant interference if the stations close by on the dial sound fine?

 

[DaveBayArea]

As I previously mentioned, weak signals on nearby frequencies sound the same as when the HD was off the air for a few months. How could there be significant interference if the stations close by on the dial sound fine?

The stations you mention, at 106.3 and 107.1, are 400 KHz away from the HD signal. If an HD transmitter is operating properly with no "spectral regrowth" (that's the new term for spurious emissions) the digital carriers will occupy the frequency range of 106.5 through 106.6 and 106.8 through 106.9. There is a 100 KHz guard band between the HD carriers and 2nd adjacent stations. If there was a desired station on 106.5 or 106.9 MHz in your reception area you would have trouble receiving them.

The problem comes in parts of the country where 1st adjacent channels are either short-spaced or the predicted contours are wildly inaccurate due to terrain conditions. Here in the San Francisco Bay Area we have several of those. 91.5/91.7, 92.1/92.3, 107.5/107.7, 95.7/95.9, and 98.9/99.1 are some of the worst. In Sacramento there's a conflict between 89.3 and 89.5 that's so bad you can't decode HD on 89.3 while driving on the freeway where you can clearly see the tower across an open field. Yet reception on 89.5 is compromised for miles.

In one of the most egregious examples I've seen, Ibiquity published this study:

http://www.nabfastroad.org/Reports/FMHDRadio_FieldPerformance.pdf

It details how HD reception has problems with adjacent channels. The HD signals will not decode where there is an adjacent analog station - no surprise. So they came up with a way to increase the power of sidebands independently. This paper talks about how they enhance HD reception of WKLB right in the city of license of the station that is doing the "interfering". These situations are adjacent channel, 102.3 and 102.5. So apparently it's OK for HD to interfere with analog broadcasts, but of course those analog stations will be met with increased power when they interfere with HD. Even if it's well outside of the HD station's listening area.

Do I detect a double-standard here?

Dave B.

 

[Savage]

Yes. (Of course.) The spectacle of HD Radio "engineering" is rife with double standards, outright lies, recruitment of special interest groups like NPR, and "creative" efforts to finesse the interference problems which are instantly obvious to any qualified and reasonably objective engineer. Like the laughable spectrum-analyzer standards utilized to "prove" that there really isn't any adjacent-channel HD-AM interference problem - as if any consumer out there has a receiver capable of dialing back its bandwidth to 300 Hz.

It's like the butcher's-thumb on the scale, or "bundling" of toxic mortgages by Fannie Mae. Your corrupt government, hand-in-hand with a self-interested elite. At least HD Radio hasn't cost the American taxpayers billions... :

 

[spunker88]

It's funny how much different an urban market is than a rural one. Up here country gets the largest signal and the best ratings.

You can't tell me that you don't notice first adjacent noise from HD Radio. Tune to a first adjacent and you can hear that distinctive noise and some radio's signal indicators will show the presence of a signal. If iBiquity really wanted to prove HD Radio, they would set up a station that broadcasts in 100% digital and stays on frequency without going into the sidebands. Then you'd be able to broadcast at full power, and only then would we have an idea at how HD Radio performs vs analog.

 

[JohnnyElectron]

Here's the BIG CATCH - do NOT ask someone with an HD RADIO to listen to ADJACENT CHANNEL INTERFERENCE - you don't really get any - there is some special BS filter in there that masks HD interference!
Instead, have them listen on a WalMart portable, or any standard analog radio - THEN you'll hear it. On AM, listen on a decent (AM stereo) radio, and you'll hear the digital spray 2 slots either side. My ole Delco UX-1 - on AM is 2nd adjacents wiped-out; on FM when you hit 'SEEK' it stops 200KHz away on the HD spray!
So the moral of the story - the only people NOT affected by 1st and 2nd channel adjacent toxic HD noise are those with HD radios!

Case and point; 560 KHz HD in Monroe Michigan wipes out 580KHz analog from Windsor Ontario on my analog AM radio so that it is unlistenable; BUT with my super-duper HD radio tuner adapter, there is enough 'secret HD filters' to have a usable signal - still not great, but usable from 580KHz, even though I still cannot get an HD lock on 560KHz it still destroys its friends.
On FM, the HD allows me to tune a 1st adjacent in analog, albeit choppy, but still possible to get a 60% read where it's impossible on a straight analog.
I should probably record my findings and post it on YouTube, along with the HD tuner temperature (97 degrees F).

 

[Barry]

You can't tell me that you don't notice first adjacent noise from HD Radio. Tune to a first adjacent and you can hear that distinctive noise and some radio's signal indicators will show the presence of a signal. If iBiquity really wanted to prove HD Radio, they would set up a station that broadcasts in 100% digital and stays on frequency without going into the sidebands. Then you'd be able to broadcast at full power, and only then would we have an idea at how HD Radio performs vs analog.

I am by no means a cheerleader for HD radio, but just someone that is trying to have an objective view of it. I bought an HD radio years ago shortly after they first became available, and made numerous posts on another board conveying my dismay with the awful reception of HD signals. So I have been trying to replicate the interference that has been referred to on this thread.
It should be noted that as crowded as the FM dial is here in radio market #1, there are very few stations on first adjacents. Most are spaced .4 MHz. apart. An exception is WBLI 106.1. It broadcasts
in HD, and is adjacent to WQXR on 105.9, which also broadcasts in HD. WFAF on 106.3 does not, and has a weak, distant signal. I can hear all 3 just fine without any noticeable interference.
I've never been able to hear a station on 106.5 (whether or not WLTW 106.7 is broadcasting in HD). So what I hear there (on a quality analog radio) is a slight hiss. I do not think that hiss is caused by WLTW's strong HD signal, because there is a hiss that sounds exactly the same between two other stations that do not broadcast in HD.
So my guess is that technical equipment is needed to detect any interference to adjacent frequencies that may be emitted by HD FM signals. In practical real world listening conditions, if this interference exists, it is undetectable to the average listener.

 

[Chuck]

There is nothing like being co-channeled with a neighboring HD signal. I am. I run a small Class A which is on the same frequency as 100 KW signal that is running HD in a major market about 135 miles away. Under some conditions, an HD radio will decode their digital signals near the edge of (but within) our 60 dbu contour. Since there are very few HD radios in my area, and many of those are deaf as a post, it isn’t a big problem so far. I can see that one day, it may be. If everybody lights up in HD, this problem may become very common.
I may have to fire up HD myself, just to jam the offending station. That would help me within my protected contour, but it would cause some very interesting listening conditions in the area between the two stations’ protected contours. Normally, you can get one station or the other for quite some distance past the protected contour. If that happens, I suspect we will all have to redefine what “local radio” is.

 

[JH_Radio]

It has been my experience that if you are close enough to the transmitter, you will not be able to get DX ajacent stations.
I live about 15 miles away from most of the Philly FM Transmitters at least according to radio-locator, and found that due to the broadcasting of HD FM, I am unable to get most of the stations I was able to receive before HD was turned on.
I used to be able to pull in New York, Atlantic City stations. Stations included 92.3 WXRK, 95.5 WPLJ, 102.7 WWFS or WWAC. If I'm lucky during tropo openings, I can pull these stations in almost clearly. Most of the time it is static (the hiss, and putting it in mono doesn't always help. Stereo is compromized too. In the case of WEMP and WAWZ, there is a constant hiss which wasn't there on those two frequencies when HD was not on WUSL and WIOQ. I realize I'm a radio geek, and that most do not own roopftop antenna's with tuners that have sullective filters in them. This may not matter to most if they even know about it.
On the AM side, My Maduci tuner, along with any car radio or portibal boombox has a distinct horid loud sound on any AM that broadcast in HD.
Its been my experience that car radios tend to seak the sidebands of FM Hd signals, passing by the anolog ones when you are downtown and much closer to the transmitter. Manual tuneing works fine though.
I've found that HD is more jukebox radio which does not interest me in getting an HD tuner.
I've gotten a tuner for my mom's car which had HD by default. I've not played around with it enough to see how it sounds as the speakers in the front need to be fixed. It has been my experience that the signal doesn't drop out around this area, and since most have the anolog and HD sinked, you wouldn't notice the difference in a car with roadnoise, and only back speakers.
I dont know that you can compare a webstream, but AM Hd sounds to high if that is possible, anolog radio of the same stations sounds way too flat.
Hd could be good if it wasn't such a canned jukebox, that part i do agree with.
However, who (of the average listeners) really care? HD, anolog, whatever, as long as the reception is good, and there is a decent song on or fave talk program, tha'ts all that matters. Most dont even know what HD is still in my experience, at the very least have heard of it and tha'ts it. Same with AM Stereo.

 

[JH_Radio]

If say WBEN and WPLJ has the exact same power as the anolog in HD, how would it do in area's such as Toms River, NJ or Freehold, NJ?

 

[nd2023]

I do notice the hiss on the adjacents even when listening on an HD radio. The HD radios are more selective than the analog radios. HD radio is what pushed me over the edge and caused me to just completely hate classical music: classical-formatted 89.1 WWFM blasts IBUZ all over dance-formatted Z88.9.

There may be nothing on 106.5 or 106.9 in the immediate area, but 106.7 Lite FM's HD is interfering with other stations. Streetz 106.5 lost a lot of its coverage area (but it shouldn't have any coverage to begin with since it's a pirate), WKDN 106.9 reception is worse in central NJ (which will matter when Family Radio sells it), and I presume 106.9 WCCC reception is worse in Connecticut.

If 95.7 BEN FM and 95.5 PLJ had the same HD power as analog, it would have a better coverage area than the current analog coverage. But where analog goes to static, HD drops out. So it would drop out a few times in Toms River, and would be solid in Freehold. Right now you can't get either of them in HD in Freehold.

 

[local oscillator]

Chuck, I feel your pain, but I can go you one better. I have a Class A that is first-adjacent to a grandfathered, super-powered station running HD on a signal that is in excess of full Class C facilities located only 80 miles away! In my opinion, HD on both AM and FM can't die too soon.

 

[JH_Radio]

Nick, I'm not talking about that .
I'm talking about WPLJ and WBEN on an anolog receiver. Wouldn't neither station come in on an anolog radio in these area's?
This s whare I think HD on FM simply wont work.
IF HD and anolog both had the exact samepower, and you had an anolog receiver in the fringe area of two markits that had ajasent signals, i'd think in the fringe that both signals would be blocked out on anolog receivers.