• 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

FMExtra at NRB Convention, Orlando

C

Chuck

The Armstrong transmitter booth is showing actual FMExtra radios. They seem quite nice. Its appearance is very similar to the Tovoli/Kloss radio, with the same tuning knob and several pre-set buttons (10 I think). It has a blue rectangular digital display, which can also show graphics, logo's or other eye candy. When tuning it shows frequency, call letters and tuning status.

The radio has a front mounted headphone jack, rear mounted aux input, audio out, and a USB port for software upgrades. There is also a fiber optic digital output to send directly to a stereo receiver. The antenna connects to an easy to get to F connector which comes with a short (16-18") rat tail antenna. It seemed to work well in the exhibit hall, not just on the FMExtra demo, but also on a variety of analog stations. It sounded quite pleasant through the built in speaker. A second matching speaker is available for stereo.

Interestingly, there was a slot on the front for a memory stick, so I suppose you could also play audio files through the radio. Missing from the radio is AM reception. I guess that's why it says "FMExtra" on the front.

The radios exist. I have no idea how they will be marketed, but it looks like it could be a serious contender to me. I believe the price is about $150.
 
Thanks for the report, Chuck. I hope they will also be on display at the NAB Convention in Las Vegas this April. Is it time to begin formation of the FMeXtra Digital Radio Alliance?

Ubiquitous hypsters can now stop saying that theirs is the only system out there with actual receivers.
 
Excellent! I saw a working receiver a year ago at MAB but this seems to be a newer production model than the one I remember.

The fact that it has a USB port and a memory slot means they were thinking ahead...
 
audiophile. said:
Excellent! I saw a working receiver a year ago at MAB but this seems to be a newer production model than the one I remember.

The fact that it has a USB port and a memory slot means they were thinking ahead...
Click to expand...

I took some pictures today. I'll try to post them soon, but I'm sitting in a motel room right now.
 
Chuck said:
Here is a quick web page with pictures: http://www.chalkhillmedia.org/kzqx/fmextra.htm
Click to expand...

Ah! A simple, un-cluttered design that does call the Kloss Tivoli One to mind. Thank you for posting these.

I'm curious: Has DRE ever tried a Part 15 FMExtra transmitter? Even at the "peanut whistle" Part 15 FM power level, the FMExtra digital signal might have considerably greater range than analog Part 15 FM signals.


-- Black Shire
 
Let me preface this question by saying I'm not against FMeXtra. I'm all about multicasting, and this seems like as effective a solution for that as HD Radio. It's even HD Radio compatible, so HD2 stations that want to hedge their bets with both formats can do so.

My question is where was FMeXtra during the whole digital standard evaluation process? Why now when IBOC has already been accepted as the de facto standard?
 
EasyPeazy said:
Let me preface this question by saying I'm not against FMeXtra. I'm all about multicasting, and this seems like as effective a solution for that as HD Radio. It's even HD Radio compatible, so HD2 stations that want to hedge their bets with both formats can do so.

My question is where was FMeXtra during the whole digital standard evaluation process? Why now when IBOC has already been accepted as the de facto standard?
Click to expand...
FMeXtra was always right there, has final approval right now, is simpler, but is not proprietary, so anyone can make and sell an FMeXtra radio. But iBiquity and the cartel thought they were going to make boatloads of money by selling expensive, proprietary, HD radios to millions of gullable consumers who (they thought) will run out and buy anything just because it's digital.
IBiquity, the cartel, and their lobbysts, made sure there was no "digital standard evaluation process", there still has not been any such independent technical evaluation, which is the reason for the current iBiquity/HD cartel calamity. There is no digital defacto standard, in spite of more of your false claims.
It is not necessary to repeat the already satisfactory analog FM programming at low bitrates, so with FMeXtra the HD2 becomes a high bitrate better fidelity 64 kbps digital stream. FMeXtra is the clear winner, not defective, unnecessary, expensive, complex, HD Radio.
http://www.bext.com/pdf/Bext FMeXtra NAB 05.pdf
http://www.rwonline.com/pages/s.0049/t.463.html
http://www.rwonline.com/reference-room/special-report/05_rw_opinion_may_25_revised.shtml
http://www.rwonline.com/pages/s.0101/t.809.html
http://www.rwonline.com/dailynews/show_issue.cgi?year=2005&month=10&week=40
http://www.rwonline.com/dailynews/show_issue.cgi?year=2006&month=4&week=16
http://www.rwonline.com/dailynews/show_issue.cgi?year=2006&month=4&week=17
http://www.rwonline.com/dailynews/show_issue.cgi?year=2005&month=11&week=44
http://www.rwonline.com/rwsp/issue.php?w=2005-09-15
http://www.rwonline.com/dailynews/show_issue.cgi?year=2006&month=5&week=18
http://www.rwonline.com/reference-room/iboc/2006.04.20-06_rwrf_april_20_part_3.shtml
http://www.rwonline.com/dailynews/show_issue.cgi?year=2006&month=11&week=45
http://www.rwonline.com/dailynews/show_issue.cgi?year=2005&month=4&week=17
http://www.rwonline.com/pages/s.0049/t.p0001.html
http://www.rwonline.com/reference-room/special-report/index.shtml
 
SUPERCASTER said:
EasyPeazy said:
Let me preface this question by saying I'm not against FMeXtra. I'm all about multicasting, and this seems like as effective a solution for that as HD Radio. It's even HD Radio compatible, so HD2 stations that want to hedge their bets with both formats can do so.

My question is where was FMeXtra during the whole digital standard evaluation process? Why now when IBOC has already been accepted as the de facto standard?
Click to expand...
FMeXtra was always right there, has final approval right now, is simpler, but is not proprietary, so anyone can make and sell an FMeXtra radio. But iBiquity and the cartel thought they were going to make boatloads of money by selling expensive, proprietary, HD radios to millions of gullable consumers who (they thought) will run out and buy anything just because it's digital.
IBiquity, the cartel, and their lobbysts, made sure there was no "digital standard evaluation process", there still has not been any such independent technical evaluation, which is the reason for the current iBiquity/HD cartel calamity. There is no digital defacto standard, in spite of more of your false claims.
It is not necessary to repeat the already satisfactory analog FM programming at low bitrates, so with FMeXtra the HD2 becomes a high bitrate better fidelity 64 kbps digital stream. FMeXtra is the clear winner, not defective, unnecessary, expensive, complex, HD Radio.
http://www.bext.com/pdf/Bext FMeXtra NAB 05.pdf
http://www.rwonline.com/pages/s.0049/t.463.html
http://www.rwonline.com/reference-room/special-report/05_rw_opinion_may_25_revised.shtml
http://www.rwonline.com/pages/s.0101/t.809.html
http://www.rwonline.com/dailynews/show_issue.cgi?year=2005&month=10&week=40
http://www.rwonline.com/dailynews/show_issue.cgi?year=2006&month=4&week=16
http://www.rwonline.com/dailynews/show_issue.cgi?year=2006&month=4&week=17
http://www.rwonline.com/dailynews/show_issue.cgi?year=2005&month=11&week=44
http://www.rwonline.com/rwsp/issue.php?w=2005-09-15
http://www.rwonline.com/dailynews/show_issue.cgi?year=2006&month=5&week=18
http://www.rwonline.com/reference-room/iboc/2006.04.20-06_rwrf_april_20_part_3.shtml
http://www.rwonline.com/dailynews/show_issue.cgi?year=2006&month=11&week=45
http://www.rwonline.com/dailynews/show_issue.cgi?year=2005&month=4&week=17
http://www.rwonline.com/pages/s.0049/t.p0001.html
http://www.rwonline.com/reference-room/special-report/index.shtml
Click to expand...

Great!

So why did the "cartel" decide to spend all of that money on HD Radio? 1,100+ stations broadcasting in HD Radio vs. 5 broadcasting in FMeXtra - I'd call that a de facto standard.
 
EasyPeazy said:
SUPERCASTER said:
EasyPeazy said:
Let me preface this question by saying I'm not against FMeXtra. I'm all about multicasting, and this seems like as effective a solution for that as HD Radio. It's even HD Radio compatible, so HD2 stations that want to hedge their bets with both formats can do so.

My question is where was FMeXtra during the whole digital standard evaluation process? Why now when IBOC has already been accepted as the de facto standard?
Click to expand...
FMeXtra was always right there, has final approval right now, is simpler, but is not proprietary, so anyone can make and sell an FMeXtra radio. But iBiquity and the cartel thought they were going to make boatloads of money by selling expensive, proprietary, HD radios to millions of gullable consumers who (they thought) will run out and buy anything just because it's digital.
IBiquity, the cartel, and their lobbysts, made sure there was no "digital standard evaluation process", there still has not been any such independent technical evaluation, which is the reason for the current iBiquity/HD cartel calamity. There is no digital defacto standard, in spite of more of your false claims.
It is not necessary to repeat the already satisfactory analog FM programming at low bitrates, so with FMeXtra the HD2 becomes a high bitrate better fidelity 64 kbps digital stream. FMeXtra is the clear winner, not defective, unnecessary, expensive, complex, HD Radio.
http://www.bext.com/pdf/Bext FMeXtra NAB 05.pdf
http://www.rwonline.com/pages/s.0049/t.463.html
http://www.rwonline.com/reference-room/special-report/05_rw_opinion_may_25_revised.shtml
http://www.rwonline.com/pages/s.0101/t.809.html
http://www.rwonline.com/dailynews/show_issue.cgi?year=2005&month=10&week=40
http://www.rwonline.com/dailynews/show_issue.cgi?year=2006&month=4&week=16
http://www.rwonline.com/dailynews/show_issue.cgi?year=2006&month=4&week=17
http://www.rwonline.com/dailynews/show_issue.cgi?year=2005&month=11&week=44
http://www.rwonline.com/rwsp/issue.php?w=2005-09-15
http://www.rwonline.com/dailynews/show_issue.cgi?year=2006&month=5&week=18
http://www.rwonline.com/reference-room/iboc/2006.04.20-06_rwrf_april_20_part_3.shtml
http://www.rwonline.com/dailynews/show_issue.cgi?year=2006&month=11&week=45
http://www.rwonline.com/dailynews/show_issue.cgi?year=2005&month=4&week=17
http://www.rwonline.com/pages/s.0049/t.p0001.html
http://www.rwonline.com/reference-room/special-report/index.shtml
Click to expand...

Great!

So why did the "cartel" decide to spend all of that money on HD Radio? 1,100+ stations broadcasting in HD Radio vs. 5 broadcasting in FMeXtra - I'd call that a de facto standard.
Click to expand...
The iBiquity and the HD cartel saw a chance to make tons of money selling proprietary, expensive HD radios to a gullible public that, they thought, was buying anything digital.
Nope, the number of stations has nothing to do with being a "defacto standard". Only widespread public acceptance will decide the new digital broadcasting standard, and HD is failing miserably in that area.
How can a "defacto standard" only have FCC "interim approval", and for multicast, "experimental authorization". When FMeXtra already has final approval?
Your false claims just do not hold up to the clear light of reality.
 
EasyPeazy wrote: "So why did the "cartel" decide to spend all of that money on HD Radio?  1,100+ stations broadcasting in HD Radio vs. 5 broadcasting in FMeXtra - I'd call that a de facto standard."

Let's see, broadcasters who bought a stake in this rat-hole included: ABC, Beasley, Bonneville, Citadel, Clear Channel, Cox Radio, Cumulus, Emmis, Entercom, Gannett, Radio One, Regent, Saga, Susquehanna, Univision and Viacom. It's no surprise that they have poured in more money after the bad to support their prior mistakes.

Now let's count 'em: 1,100 or so stations out of a total of 13,837 FCC licensed AM, FM and FM educational stations, plus another 4,131 FM translators and boosters. I'd call that far short of a de facto anything - let alone the fact that the FCC has only given HD radio temporary/experimental authority.
 
vsa said:
Let's see, broadcasters who bought a stake in this rat-hole included: ABC, Beasley, Bonneville, Citadel, Clear Channel, Cox Radio, Cumulus, Emmis, Entercom, Gannett, Radio One, Regent, Saga, Susquehanna, Univision and Viacom. It's no surprise that they have poured in more money after the bad to support their prior mistakes.
Click to expand...
I think it is more sinister that that. HD is a cheap (relatively speaking) and easy way to eliminate competition by dividing radio broadcasting into "Have's" and "Have Nots." It is a technology that favors high power stations, and does a disservice to lower power stations. Small stations either suffer reduced coverage due to legal interference, or they have to spend lots of money they don't have to convert to HD. For most, neither are good options.

Digital radio has the potential to level the playing field between small stations and big ones, and HD is a handy way to make sure that does not happen.
 
Chuck said:
vsa said:
Let's see, broadcasters who bought a stake in this rat-hole included: ABC, Beasley, Bonneville, Citadel, Clear Channel, Cox Radio, Cumulus, Emmis, Entercom, Gannett, Radio One, Regent, Saga, Susquehanna, Univision and Viacom. It's no surprise that they have poured in more money after the bad to support their prior mistakes.
Click to expand...
I think it is more sinister that that. HD is a cheap (relatively speaking) and easy way to eliminate competition by dividing radio broadcasting into "Have's" and "Have Nots." It is a technology that favors high power stations, and does a disservice to lower power stations. Small stations either suffer reduced coverage due to legal interference, or they have to spend lots of money they don't have to convert to HD. For most, neither are good options.

Digital radio has the potential to level the playing field between small stations and big ones, and HD is a handy way to make sure that does not happen.
Click to expand...

Good points Chuck. HD radio also jams the real "stations between the stations".
A local high power FM/HDer went off the air last night for about an hour for maintenance. When the HD and main carriers disappeared, I was immediately able to pick up stations on the first adjacent channels, on my portable radio with telescope type rod antenna. The adjacent channel stations were a bit noisy and mono, but they were there and listenable.
Proof that FM/HD radio blocks the stations between the stations!
I guess the HD supporters will call the DX police and have me arrested, fined, and executed for accidental DXing.
ALL HDers ARE DXers! HD DXers use extraordinary means, such as special radios and extra antennas, to pick up weak (one-hundredth power) signals.
Now that FMeXtra is here, fully approved, and radios are available, HD radio is unwanted, redundant, superfluous, unnecessary, and creates needless interference (a clear violation of FCC rules).
 
Chuck wrote: "I think it is more sinister that that.  HD is a cheap (relatively speaking) and easy way to eliminate competition by dividing radio broadcasting into "Have's" and "Have Nots..."

It certainly appears that way. Eliminating or buying out the competition seems to be a way of life in terrestrial and now satellite radio.
 
Hi Does anyone have a list of stations that have FMXtra in use yet? DRE should put a webpage like that on their web site. For 10k this seems like a good way for small FM stations to add digital.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom