FMeXtra

[RadeoEngineer]

This system has been mentioned several times in the HD discussions and a few have said they don't know what it is.

FMeXtra is a system that digitizes the subcarriers in the FM baseband. It will allow you to operate two very high quality stereo channels, or up to ten low quality mono channels within any FM station's existing subcarrier spectrum. It can work on any existing analog FM transmission system, and can even be added to a system running HD. The cost of the equipment is a little under $10,000 and can be on the air in under an hour. There are no requirements for antenna work or additional transmission equipment. Coverage is reported to be similar to the 54 dBu contour.

A table top style radio is being ramped up for production in China, with a Walkman type unit to follow. It is possible that two versions of the table top style radio will be produced, the FMeXtra only and the FMeXtra with HD. Initial pricing on the FMeXtra table top will be around $180 with FMeXtra/HD approaching $250. The first radios are enroute now, with substantial increases in production units occurring in the very near future.

The system is capable of addressibility as well.

This is meant only to inform, not to argue the merits of the two systems.

 

[SUPERCASTER]

This system has been mentioned several times in the HD discussions and a few have said they don't know what it is.

FMeXtra is a system that digitizes the subcarriers in the FM baseband. It will allow you to operate two very high quality stereo channels, or up to ten low quality mono channels within any FM station's existing subcarrier spectrum. It can work on any existing analog FM transmission system, and can even be added to a system running HD. The cost of the equipment is a little under $10,000 and can be on the air in under an hour. There are no requirements for antenna work or additional transmission equipment. Coverage is reported to be similar to the 54 dBu contour.

A table top style radio is being ramped up for production in China, with a Walkman type unit to follow. It is possible that two versions of the table top style radio will be produced, the FMeXtra only and the FMeXtra with HD. Initial pricing on the FMeXtra table top will be around $180 with FMeXtra/HD approaching $250. The first radios are enroute now, with substantial increases in production units occurring in the very near future.

The system is capable of addressibility as well.

This is meant only to inform, not to argue the merits of the two systems.

Thank you for your input. Many, here have argued that FMeXtra is "vaporware". I believe you have settled that point.
An article in "Radio World" Engineering Extra Dec. 14, 2005, FMeXtra: Another On-Channel Solution by Michael LeClair interviewing Derek Kumer, VP, about the history and technical aspects of FMeXtra is very informative.
Yes, FMeXtra WAS around in 2005.
A Google search at the www.rwonline.com website revealed dozens of FMeXtra references, that some here seem unaware of, or have ignored.
The good news is that there is another digital broadcast FM system that has full FCC approval, with equal or (in some respects, like coverage) better specifications, and without all the adjacent channel interference, complications, complexities, and expense that plagues iBiquity/HD Radio. And it is real, here, and available, now.
It is time for HD supporters to come out of deep denial.

 

[dbdigital]

I think an ideal standards combination would be FMeXtra and DRM for AM.

DRM is open source, license free to the broadcaster and totally flexible (offering three codecs in a wide variety of bit rates depending on content). It only needs, at minimum, an extra 5 kHz on one side, either above or below, the primary channel. DRM uses a second, smaller power (down about 16 db) TX but is carried on the same antenna as the analog signal. A station could even broadcast in AM stereo on it's primary channel and DRM digital since the signals are not muxed together.

And because DRM was designed for the LW, MW and SW bands it utilizes the skywave and groundwave propagation characteristics inherent in those bands and is thus more robust then HD-AM and nearly immune to multipath interference.

db

 

[calstymes]

Finally, an intelligent and positive thread without citing links to blogs, personal opinions by "experts" or sales statistics!

And now with RadeoEngineer's offer to educate us, the HD supporters can't ever say that a technically superior solution doesn't exist.

I would love to see additional comments by hipporadio, Tom Wells and dumber than a box of hair on this!

 

[hipporadio]

And now with RadeoEngineer's offer to educate us, the HD supporters can't ever say that a technically superior solution doesn't exist.

I would love to see additional comments by hipporadio, Tom Wells and dumber than a box of hair on this!

My observations on FMExtra must be foot-noted by the fact that I have not personally witnessed the technology. My knowledge is limited to what I have followed in print and received as “hearsay”. I do know of a working example (albeit auxilary in application) as I have described in the “Challenge Accepted” topic:

http://www.radio-info.com/smf/index.php/topic,61675.msg435903.html#msg435903

I can admit a 100% confidence level in the source, but that remains second-best to a “hands-on”. The architecture of FMExtra is very adaptive, competent, and logical. Given today’s typical FM-stereo operation—FMExtra offers the operator 64kb of data potential which may be used for a number of services (stereo digital FM for the station’s current format, AM station programming in high-quality digital stereo on FM, auxiliary mono program services, and STL). Granted this is lower than the MAXIMUM offered by iBiquity, but generally EQUALS the typical IBOC bitrate used for primary program audio when the HD-2 stream is added. Also consider that “bits don’t necessarily equal bits” when codec quality is considered. The aacPlus codec is “state-of-the-art”... iBiquity’s IS NOT.

Until the radio industry decides to subjectively flip the switch and forever cease analog service (just imagine the dramatic “scrap” certain to accompany THAT process), iBiquity’s FM “HD science fair project” is limited to a rigid 96kbps of data potential. I am prepared to concede: The current bandwidth (despite the well-aged codecs involved) CAN provide a fulfilling experience for most in the marketplace. Consider, that 96k MUST BE REDUCED with each additional service offered—those heavily-touted “stations between the stations” that appear to be the primary focus of the FM HD push will subtract from that potential. It’s nearly certain that the full HD audio capability one may now enjoy will be reduced as additional avenues are asked to carry traffic. If audio quality is the primary consideration in your pursuit of an HD radio—understand, what initially “sold you” may soon no longer gratify you.

As an operator who paid above-average attention to technical matters, here’s what I have observed from SCA services... They can be fragile—but no more unreliable than fraction-powered IBOC carriers intent upon “spreading their party onto a non-permissive neighbor’s lawn”. In the analog domain, SCAs are far-more-likely to be noisy and restricted in audio quality—many would describe that scenario as the optimum candidate for digital transport.

FMExtra offers an interesting option for a “graceful migration” toward a progressive digital implementation on the FM band. It is flexible. If more bits are required or program services need to be added beyond the current-day road-map—simply forgo the stereo FM occupation WITHIN the FM baseband. FMExtra’s potential then jumps from 64-164kbps and options increase substantially. Please note that I placed emphasis on the term “WITHIN”. At such time when the remaining 15kHz of analog audio spectrum is truly deemed to be “fully antiquated”, a decision could be VOLUNTARILY made to cease that transmission and re-appropriate the space for an additional or enhanced digital service. As I read the current FCC rules, action by that agency may ONLY be required to exercise the FINAL phase.

Contrast the FMExtra capability described above to the present IBOC template... Substandard “hybrid digital” or an “all or nothing” demand with NO option for “graceful migration”—not unless you consider the current “hybrid” technology to be even remotely “graceful”.

FMExtra is due a fair and serious examination!

 

[hipporadio]

Also consider that “bits don’t necessarily equal bits” when codec quality is considered. The aacPlus codec is “state-of-the-art”... iBiquity’s IS NOT.

SUPERCASTER, vsa... Could it be true—IBOC in aacPlus? Believe me—I’ve already been spanked, but when did it happen? I just received a nice Email “thumbs up” on my post to this thread, but I had to stand corrected on my prior belief that iBiquity was using the PAC codec from Lucent Technology. I believe they started out in that boat, but I was told that they are now onboard with Coding Technology. How recent was this development?

I don’t make it a priority to live at the iBiquity site, but just visited and could find NO detailed technical explanation of the system whatsoever, and NO mention of codecs or aacPlus. The “details” were nearly NON-EXISTENT—mostly just marketing bluster. I went to the new companion www.hdradio.com site (for Joe Consumer) and took the audio tour... WHAT A LOAD! The “Classic AM” demo is an absolute LMOL! Isn’t there some Federal agency designed to protect plain ‘ole folks from these tactics?

Contrast this to the Energy-Onix site where FMeXtra is completely detailed (theory, application(s), occupied spectrum alternatives, codec technology, and all in a lengthy slide show. All this for a product that is barely on the market. The DRE folks are much more candid and informative.

This is news to me... I try to miss as little as possible... Do you guys have the “skinny” on this development? iBiquity is no help when it comes to the “meat”, I feel somewhat embarrassed when I’m asked for an opinion—and am innocently shy of an important fact :-[

 

[Kelly]

Well for whatever your view is on Ibquity's IBOC solution, fundamentaly FM extra is the same thing..That being occupying the side bands, (or SCA region), with digitally modulated subcarriers.

From what I understand, the reason most HD radio stations use a second transmitter to produce the digital sidebands, is to correct for non-linearaties in the typical two or three stage FM broadcast transmitter, which can't modulate that wide. Continental, and now B.E., are selling a FM transmitter that can do both HD and analog, but at a significantly reduced power and efficency over the same model doing analog only. Wouldn't this be the case with FM extra? The more modulation you pack into the sidebands, (unless one caches in memory at the receiver), the broader, and more linear the bandwidth required of the amplification stages.

The other thing that has been discussed several time on this board, is coverage of a FM-HD-Ibquity licensed station. Studies have clearly shown that coverage of the HD modulated signal is limited to the 70dBu city-grade contour. Well guess what folks..physics being what they are, so are plain ol' SCA's limited to the city grade contour. Anyone who has been the chief at a station who had foreign language content, Muzak, or paging services being leased on their FM station subcarriers knows this truth when the leasee calls and complains that their subscribers can't hear the SCA to the extent one can hear the main station. Therefore one can deduce that a station modulating the subcarrier with digital modulation of any sort would also be limited to reception within the 70dBu contour of said station.

So in other words, would FM Extra offer improved coverage over Ibquity's solution? I seriously doubt it.

 

[Chuck]

Well for whatever your view is on Ibquity's IBOC solution, fundamentaly FM extra is the same thing..That being occupying the side bands, (or SCA region), with digitally modulated subcarriers.

<snip>

So in other words, would FM Extra offer improved coverage over Ibquity's solution? I seriously doubt it.

The major difference is that FMExtra remains entirely within the stations allotted 200KHz bandwidth. IBOC is broader band and has its digital sidebands located in the next adjacent channels, which they lovingly call the "NRSC Mask." It is this "mask" that most of us have a big issue with. FMExtra truly is "in band on channel." HD is really "in band adjacent channel." And yes, it is harder to get antennas and transmitters to run efficiently when they need wider bandwidth. FMExtra needs nothing that your current antenna or transmitter isn't already designed to do.

There is a well respected consulting engineer named Lyle Henry, who is quite an expert on matters dealing with SCA issues. It’s what he does for a living. You should talk to him. He is the real deal. He spent last summer traveling around the country trying prototype FMExtra systems at a variety of “on the air” stations. He could do this because it only takes about 30 minutes to get the rig up and working. He has reported on numerous radio engineering groups that the FMExtra signal usually works quite well to the 54 dbu contour, and has been workable out into the high 40's in some cases. That is pretty good. I've spoken to him personally by phone, and he has made me a believer. In fact, he was going to use our LPFM and translator set up as a guinea pig, but my travel schedule conflicted with his availability, so it never happened. That's too bad, because I'd really like to see first hand how it works at low power levels.

Even though we never had the chance to try it, it is pretty easy to figure out where out stations 54 dbu contour is. For us, it would be a workable solution. Not everyone would be able to receive it, but a quite a lot of people would. Circles being what they are, there is a huge difference in population coverage between HD's 64 dbu contour and FME's 54 dbu contour.

Simply put, for lower power stations (i.e.; those under 10,000 watts) FMExtra seems to have the edge. For low power stations (i.e.: those under 1000 watts) it seems to be the only viable digital option that is available at this time. Better yet, regardless of you power level; it causes no adjacent channel interference. Add to that, it is a heck of a lot cheaper. What's not to like?

Oh, you say “no radios?” They are coming. I have to say I don’t see what the rush is to convert to digital, but a little caution right now may pay dividends in the future.

 

[audiophile.]

Lets assume everythign you just said is true:

A) $9000 encoder and a BNC cable and your installation is done in minutes, not days and weeks.
B) No additional licensing fees for multicasting.
C) No future revenue sharing with iNiquity.
D) No wasted power in combiners or class "A" finals (think green).
E) No increased interference to first and second adjacents (Is truly in band, in ON channel)
F) No need for frequent occupied bandwith tests.
G) No need to replace existing transmitter, works fine with existing equipment.
H) Capable of more bandwidth / quality for secondary channel, by not requiring simulcast of analog.
I) Not owned by broadcasting behmoths. Why buy products from your competitors?
J) Your exciter won't have to be rebooted after a thunderstorm, or have it's hard drive replaced in three to five years.
K) No need to install bigger air conditioner to handle increased heat from reject load, or new low efficiency HD transmitter, or I-BLOC second transmitter.
L) No need to buy new expensive HD mod monitor.
M) Easy simulcast options with standard composite audio technology.
N) Keeps the REAL occupied bandwidth lower than I-BLOC solutions.
O) No need to delay audio, for easier off air monitoring, and sports.
P) No need to buy a new audio processor or delay system for analog station.
Q) All DRE controls and equipment can be installed at studio away from lightning / heat.
R) No license or permission key requred to begin multicasting.
S) No FCC paperwork to file
T) No hassle from potential interference to unintended persons in case of tight or short spaced assignments.
U) Receivers are just as user friendly as iNiquity's, with less bufffering wait.
V) Coverage to simular to stereo coverage area.
W) No separate antennas with increased winloading, tower rent, and expensive tower rigging, etc.
X) Quicker return on your monetary investment.
Y) No hassles for your overworked engineering team.
Z) Increased bandwith to 128k (32k more than iNiquity) with monoral operation.

 

[RadeoEngineer]

It's really not a question of one or the other. Both can coexist. For the smaller station without the capital to do an Ibiquity installation, it offers an avenue to more channels at a reasonable cost that can be separarately programmed or leased to another operator. It can also be run as a subscription service as the receivers are (supposedly) addressable. All of these same opportunities are still available to the IBOC broadcaster.

This system is about to get traction, and the reality (OK my belief and opinion) is that we won't live to see the day the analog is turned off.

 

[radioskeptic]

Kelly, Chuck covered the bandwidth issue, but I think you still might be confused about the power and efficiency problems associated with High Deaf FM.

As Chuck pointed out, the side channels, which actually occupy one-half of each first-adjacent channel, are not an integral paart of the "host" (and I use that term loosely!) FM analog signal. They are independently generated, and must be combined with the signal from the analog exciter before being fed to the finals.

But they can't be fed to the finals in many transmitters. Why not?

Because many finals in many trasnmitters are high-efficiency Class C amplifiers, and the digital side channels contain analog (as opposed to purely frequency) variations. If you don't understand what Class C operation is (and why it's so much more efficient,though incapable of passing analog signals properly), I suggest that, if you're not any engineer (or a gadgeteer), you might try reading the explanation in the ARRL handbook, which is about as clear as any.

 

[dumber than a box of hair]

Finally, an intelligent and positive thread without citing links to blogs, personal opinions by "experts" or sales statistics!

And now with RadeoEngineer's offer to educate us, the HD supporters can't ever say that a technically superior solution doesn't exist.

I would love to see additional comments by hipporadio, Tom Wells and dumber than a box of hair on this!

It sounds very promising, as it seems to address every legitimate engineering objection to HD Radio. I'd like to see more technical details, especially what it does (if anything) to analog FM stereo which, with about 800 million analog radios in the US, is going to be around for a long time.

 

[vsa]

Hipporadio wrote: "SUPERCASTER, vsa... Could it be true—IBOC in aacPlus?  Believe me—I’ve already been spanked, but when did it happen?  I just received a nice Email “thumbs up” on my post to this thread, but I had to stand corrected on my prior belief that iBiquity was using the PAC codec from Lucent Technology.  I believe they started out in that boat, but I was told that they are now onboard with Coding Technology.  How recent was this development?"

Let me correct myself a bit. It is at least very aacPlus-like within a shroud of iBiquity's secrecy, certainly using Coding Technology's spectral band replication (the Plus part) and probably much of what makes up AAC itself. Here are some snippets from a long article in Radio World from September 2003 - HD Radio: Will New Codec Do the Trick?.
 
"...Ibiquity's PAC codec not good enough for broadcast on AM...Ibiquity has a new codec called HDC....Ibiquity has not released technical details of its new codec; and as yet there is no public data...The HDC coded is unique and proprietary to Ibiquity, according to President and Chief Executive Officer Robert Struble. He and some industry sources say the codec is not aacPlus, nor is it PAC. Other believe it could be a custom version of aacPlus...Coding Technologies Vice President and U.S. General Manager David Frerichs said the Spectral Band Replication technology used in the codec helps Ibiquity...Ibiquity intends to support PAC because it still has a customer for the codec, Sirius."

http://www.rwonline.com/reference-room/iboc/01_rw_hd_codec_2-09.10.03.shtml

If HCD was substantially different or better than aacPlus, iBiquity would be offering it for someone else's use, being short of cash and all. I think it's mostly aacPlus in iBiquity drag.

 

[Kelly]

Thanks for the clarity guys, but I've been doing VHF broadcast for 30 years and am pretty familiar with how Class C amplification works. I guess I didn't make my point very well, so let me elaborate about the whole rumor of adjacent channel interference issue first...

A properly installed HD Radio system stays generally within 200 kHz. I've measured it in field tests.

For instance, consider the noise limit at 400 kHz offset from carrier is –60 dB in a 1kHz bandwidth with respect to the PM power in a 1 kHz bandwidth. Using the normalization of 41 dB with respect to the FM carrier, the specification for hybrid noise at 400 kHz offset is 101 dB below the FM analog carrier power. Based on the foregoing, the limit for all emissions greater than 270 kHz offset from center frequency is the 60 dB specification plus the 41 dB normalization to the FM carrier level, which totals -101 dBcFM (FM analog carrier power reference). This is based on the specifications adopted by the FCC in Report and Order 02-286. Granted the mask specifically for the hybrid digital transmission system, as the analog signal is still subject to the standard occupied spectrum mask for analog FM.

Now will poorly installed, or poorly functioning equipment cause a station to exceed the hybrid mask? Sure, but I've seen stations not monitoring their SCA's that have exceeded their occupied bandwidth on good ol' analog.

Honestly, to me FM Extra smacks of "snake oil". I have tried to obtain some spectral information, coding details, or anything with some techincal data with substance for FME, but have come up empty. All the DRE website has is a bad photo of some black box, and that they announced a partnership with Energy-Onix and Orban CRL. With all respect to Bernie Wise, I don't hold his company up to any sort of modern science development or R&D for our industry. And who cares about audio processing for digital radio? In my view, if radio wants to compete with new technology, we need to move away from compression and clipping the dynamics.

Maybe the folks at DRE are being protective of their invention, but if they keep making wild claims without technical data to back it up, they too will fall the way of Leonard Kahn or those guys from Scotland and their coffee-can AM antennna that cheats the laws of physics.

But before you tear into me, yeah I know Ibquity and HD radio is evil..blah blah.. But I want to see proof, not some claims but no substance. Like it or not, at least we have real measurements and standards with IBOC.

 

[Tom Wells]

Thanks for the clarity guys, but I've been doing VHF broadcast for 30 years and am pretty familiar with how Class C amplification works. I guess I didn't make my point very well, so let me elaborate about the whole rumor of adjacent channel interference issue first...

A properly installed HD Radio system stays generally within 200 kHz. I've measured it in field tests.

For instance, consider the noise limit at 400 kHz offset from carrier is &#150;60 dB in a 1kHz bandwidth with respect to the PM power in a 1 kHz bandwidth. Using the normalization of 41 dB with respect to the FM carrier, the specification for hybrid noise at 400 kHz offset is 101 dB below the FM analog carrier power. Based on the foregoing, the limit for all emissions greater than 270 kHz offset from center frequency is the 60 dB specification plus the 41 dB normalization to the FM carrier level, which totals -101 dBcFM (FM analog carrier power reference). This is based on the specifications adopted by the FCC in Report and Order 02-286. Granted the mask specifically for the hybrid digital transmission system, as the analog signal is still subject to the standard occupied spectrum mask for analog FM.

Now will poorly installed, or poorly functioning equipment cause a station to exceed the hybrid mask? Sure, but I've seen stations not monitoring their SCA's that have exceeded their occupied bandwidth on good ol' analog.

Honestly, to me FM Extra smacks of "snake oil". I have tried to obtain some spectral information, coding details, or anything with some techincal data with substance for FME, but have come up empty. All the DRE website has is a bad photo of some black box, and that they announced a partnership with Energy-Onix and Orban CRL. With all respect to Bernie Wise, I don't hold his company up to any sort of modern science development or R&D for our industry. And who cares about audio processing for digital radio? In my view, if radio wants to compete with new technology, we need to move away from compression and clipping the dynamics.

Maybe the folks at DRE are being protective of their invention, but if they keep making wild claims without technical data to back it up, they too will fall the way of Leonard Kahn or those guys from Scotland and their coffee-can AM antennna that cheats the laws of physics.

But before you tear into me, yeah I know Ibquity and HD radio is evil..blah blah.. But I want to see proof, not some claims but no substance. Like it or not, at least we have real measurements and standards with IBOC.

It can be very hard to get support for your product, even if it's the BEST mousetrap.

See Beta, et al. What if the coffee-can antenna has happened upon a new specific truth we can learn from? I have to look this one up!
Mr Kahn's robust former Am stereo system was supressed as being "not busy enough" in engineering to suit the moneyed opposition.
Motorola had way more money than Kahn, but less radio sense. We all lost.
My own patent makes use of a new method to witness and measure electron mobility at astonishingly low potentials, at low, low cost.
Is also tells you if you should be cleaning the garage, or heading to the lake to go fishing, because the fish are biting.
It also may attract fish to the area where you are fishing, if you have the device operating.

Why is it the best technology is sometimes supressed, in favor of things that are much more expensive, complicated, or ill-suited?

My own technology >necessitates< thermionic emission to work, which is why it will be a hard sell. (look this one up)
If anyone knows any Venture Capitalists, I'm willing to talk to anyone who sees $$ in this, as I have spent all I had.

I am certain FMExtra has a similar story to tell, with a higher-dollar expenditure. I suspect they will be the big spoiler for
ibiquity, as the way-more-than fair entry price is worth the gains. And not having to provide multi-streaming, the
resultant output may easily stay within the prescribed dev limits.

The proof is in the pudding however, and either the chicken or egg preceded...

Class C is unbiased, needs a whole LOTTA drive to stay in control, else burn up, any analog to a class c must be like AM plate mod to DC in.

I can prove my tech is better, as I suppose FMExtra can, so why aren't we rich and famous yet?

 

[Kelly]

Thats great Tom. So I guess both you, and the FME guys can share more specifics of your inventions. Otherwise, its just a bunch of unsubstantiated claims.

 

[SUPERCASTER]

Thats great Tom. So I guess both you, and the FME guys can share more specifics of your inventions. Otherwise, its just a bunch of unsubstantiated claims.

200 kHz on each side of the carrier for HD digital is not the same thing as the total bandwidth of 200 kHz that is the standard for analog FM. It's double.
Orban makes the FMeXtra encoding exciter to generate the aac+ encoded digital subcarrier for FMeXtra. It is not the same unit as their audio processors.
Because you are familiar with HD radio, and mystified about FMeXtra, that is more your shortcoming, and not any reflection on FMeXtra. Some people are more comfortable sticking with what they already know, rather then exploring better, more efficient technology.
The "snake oil" is all from HD radio and their blatantly false claims of In Band On Channel, etc. HD radio's vast distribution of "snake oil" seems addictive.
FMeXtra is simply sending a digital aac+ encoded signal by using the same old SCA frequencies that have been around for over 50 years. No mystery, or "snake oil" with FMeXtra, just simple, sweet, engineering common sense.
Many articles describing FMeXtra have appeared in "Radio Guide", "Radio World", and other broadcast publications.

Perhaps this will help you (parts reprinted from my earlier post for your enjoyment):

Thank you for your input. Many, here have argued that FMeXtra is "vaporware". I believe you have settled that point.
An article in "Radio World" Engineering Extra Dec. 14, 2005, FMeXtra: Another On-Channel Solution by Michael LeClair interviewing Derek Kumer, VP, about the history and technical aspects of FMeXtra is very informative.
Yes, FMeXtra WAS around in 2005.
A Google search at the www.rwonline.com website revealed dozens of FMeXtra references, that some here seem unaware of, or have ignored.
The good news is that there is another digital broadcast FM system that has full FCC approval, with equal or (in some respects, like coverage) better specifications, and without all the adjacent channel interference, complications, complexities, and expense that plagues iBiquity/HD Radio. And it is real, here, and available, now.
It is time for HD supporters to come out of deep denial.

"Seek, and ye shall find".

 

[buttonpuncher]

Could someone clear this up, is there a license fee for FMeXtra?

I know there isn't one for DRM, but haven't heard if there is for FMeXtra.

 

[RadeoEngineer]

There is no licensing fee for FMeXtra.

 

[Kelly]

Thats great Tom. So I guess both you, and the FME guys can share more specifics of your inventions. Otherwise, its just a bunch of unsubstantiated claims.

200 kHz on each side of the carrier for HD digital is not the same thing as the total bandwidth of 200 kHz that is the standard for analog FM. It's double.
Orban makes the FMeXtra encoding exciter to generate the aac+ encoded digital subcarrier for FMeXtra. It is not the same unit as their audio processors.
Because you are familiar with HD radio, and mystified about FMeXtra, that is more your shortcoming, and not any reflection on FMeXtra. Some people are more comfortable sticking with what they already know, rather then exploring better, more efficient technology.
The "snake oil" is all from HD radio and their blatantly false claims of In Band On Channel, etc. HD radio's vast distribution of "snake oil" seems addictive.
FMeXtra is simply sending a digital aac+ encoded signal by using the same old SCA frequencies that have been around for over 50 years. No mystery, or "snake oil" with FMeXtra, just simple, sweet, engineering common sense.
Many articles describing FMeXtra have appeared in "Radio Guide", "Radio World", and other broadcast publications.

Perhaps this will help you (parts reprinted from my earlier post for your enjoyment):

Thank you for your input. Many, here have argued that FMeXtra is "vaporware". I believe you have settled that point.
An article in "Radio World" Engineering Extra Dec. 14, 2005, FMeXtra: Another On-Channel Solution by Michael LeClair interviewing Derek Kumer, VP, about the history and technical aspects of FMeXtra is very informative.
Yes, FMeXtra WAS around in 2005.
A Google search at the www.rwonline.com website revealed dozens of FMeXtra references, that some here seem unaware of, or have ignored.
The good news is that there is another digital broadcast FM system that has full FCC approval, with equal or (in some respects, like coverage) better specifications, and without all the adjacent channel interference, complications, complexities, and expense that plagues iBiquity/HD Radio. And it is real, here, and available, now.
It is time for HD supporters to come out of deep denial.

"Seek, and ye shall find".

Okay then I'm seeking, but there appears to be nothing to find. Where are the test results? You'd think the DRE folks would have SOME technical information on the decoding chips needed for FME, or even some spectral results of the wonderful spectral efficiency. Even some lab results!

Again, go to their website! Other than a bunch of text-hype, there is no meat to their claims. And what about the list of their test stations? Oh that's right, they're working on that too...

If, and I emphasize IF, they actually can do as claimed, then DRE should do the industry a favor and approach a major manufacturer with real R&D and marketing money to develop and sell the product. Otherwise FME will be just another garage dream with a bad web site.