• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

FM Band - More Stations (using existing [approved?] tech)

DaveBayArea said:
In Kirk's proposal, the HD carrier of the 94.7 signal would drown out KCMO and the HD carrier of the 94.3 signal would drown out KFKF.
Click to expand...
Another option - analog FM with much less frequency deviation, say +/-15kHz with a required NR system (dBx type NR [40 to 45dB wideband]) placed in the unused FM channels in a radio market.

Existing FM radios would receive this new format FM signal as a lower volume FM station (stereo could be encoded as a digital L-R signal [existing FM stereo radios would play mono only, ignoring the new digital L-R signals])

So long as the FM signal format is being changed, may as well go all the way and abandon the analog L-R signal and use the newest digital techniques to encode and provide error correction for a digital L-R signal.

(would require FCC approval, but this seems like a way to add FM signals in the existing FM band without the new signals causing interference with existing FM signals and with the new signals being receivable by existing FM radios)


Kirk Bayne
 
kfbkfb said:
I like tech just for the sake of tech, hence my moderate interest in HD Radio.

I guess the impetus now will be to develop a very low data rate (monophonic), moderate bandwidth (maybe to 10kHz or 12kHz) audio codec so that even more streamers can listen to acceptable sounding audio (at least on their smartphone speakers) on existing cell phone networks without overloading them.


Kirk Bayne
Click to expand...
Who is listening to radio on their smartphone speakers? I listen to a lot of radio on my phone, including in the car, but I use Bluetooth to send the audio to my car's sound system, I don't perch the phone on the dash and strain to hear my tinny little cell phone speaker on the road.
 
Miss Tuned said:
Who is listening to radio on their smartphone speakers? I listen to a lot of radio on my phone, including in the car, but I use Bluetooth to send the audio to my car's sound system, I don't perch the phone on the dash and strain to hear my tinny little cell phone speaker on the road.
Click to expand...
Yep, in modern vehicles, that's a function of Apple Carplay, or at least the ability to plug your phone into the vehicles entertainment system. That method has been around in some form since early 2000's.
 
kfbkfb said:
this seems like a way to add FM signals in the existing FM band without the new signals causing interference with existing FM signals and with the new signals being receivable by existing FM radios
Click to expand...

However, those "existing FM radios" would have to be able to receive HD. And most don't.

Then the other issue is what to program on those stations. Right now there are more signals than the ad market can support. That's why you see so many commercial stations selling to non-commercial operators.
 
I should have been more specific, my low deviation compatible FM idea doesn't involve HD anymore, just a low deviation FM signal (in my sketched example a low +/-15kHz deviation FM signal should be able to be used in both 94.3 and 94.7)

This new low deviation FM signal could be used for more AM translators.


Kirk Bayne
 
kfbkfb said:
I should have been more specific, my low deviation compatible FM idea doesn't involve HD anymore, just a low deviation FM signal (in my sketched example a low +/-15kHz deviation FM signal should be able to be used in both 94.3 and 94.7)

This new low deviation FM signal could be used for more AM translators.


Kirk Bayne
Click to expand...
Low-deviation FM just sounds like lower volume on a standard broadcast FM radio. It won't help add more stations.
 
My low deviation FM signal idea could be used to provide several FM translators in a given radio market for 1 AM station, perhaps with low deviation (equating to low total bandwidth - could be bandpass filtered to make sure there's no interference) the FM translator power could be increased beyond 250W.


The more I think about this idea of allowing a different format FM signal in the FM band (nonetheless compatible with existing FM radios [USA]), the more useful it sounds, could even lower the deviation to +/-5kHz, whatever it takes to keep the total bandwidth usage so low that this new format FM signal could be slipped into a "full" 'FM spectrum without causing interference with standard format FM stations in the next highest or lowest frequency.

(maybe allow these low deviation FM signals to be mono only, 75 microsecond EQ and leave the audio processing up to the station)


Kirk Bayne
 
KeithE4 said:
Low-deviation FM just sounds like lower volume on a standard broadcast FM radio. It won't help add more stations.
Click to expand...
The total bandwidth a low deviation FM signal needs is lower (and could be bandpass filtered [with a penalty of some increased distortion in some cases]) to limit the bandwidth so this new format FM signal could just be dropped into most empty FM channels.

Here, KPRS FM is at 103.3 and the translator for KCMO AM is at 103.7, with my idea, I think more translators could be placed in 103.5 (and 103.1).


Kirk Bayne
 
Miss Tuned said:
Who is listening to radio on their smartphone speakers? I listen to a lot of radio on my phone, including in the car, but I use Bluetooth to send the audio to my car's sound system, I don't perch the phone on the dash and strain to hear my tinny little cell phone speaker on the road.
Click to expand...
I often wondered how anyone could do this. Music on phones sounded like it was under water. The first time I tried to listen to Paul Harvey online when I missed his show on the actual radio, that's what he sounded like.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom