For listeners unfamiliar with the hybrid digital HD radio terminology...

[thezak]

For listeners unfamiliar with the hybrid digital HD radio terminology would it be a good idea to include hybrid digital, uncapitalized unembolded when written, and make it easier for listeners less expert with it to recognize the difference from the HD referring to TV ?... At electronics stores sales staff have similar difficulties with the terminology.

Any other ideas?... that could clarify the technology for everyone.


Thanks folks. Here the exchanges are a better source of good information and more up to date!... about hybrid digital HD radio than at http://ibiquity.com or at http://hdradio.com or via the email thoughts at ibiquity.com

 

[w9wi]

It would, but I'm thinking the marketing people *want* buyers to mistake HD radio for HDTV.

 

[audioguy]

I agree. I think they were hoping to cash in on the public's awareness of HDTV and its association with better quality.

 

[Savage]

Zak, we're just a bunch of poor schlubs who love radio, posting on a radio message board. We're DJs, newspeople, station owners, salespeople, and engineers. We have no control over the name for HD Radio or anything to do with it as a product. The decision to name IBOC ("in-band-on-channel," another misnomer given the system's propensity to hog adjoining channels) HD Radio was made by the development company iBiquity in connivance with self-anointed industry "leaders." I think there is little doubt they were cynically trying to "tailgate" on HDTV, a genuine innovation with real merit, which was rolling out and catching a lot of media attention at the same time. The name "HD Radio" is just one of a number of dishonest things about this.

 

[Darth_vader]

I just call it the "Ibiquity System" (or just generically "digital radio" when speaking to those not "in the know".) Problem solved.

[size=8pt]thezak (not to be confused with "motozak3" on com.pdxradio.feedback; c'est moi), if you're looking for "good information" about the System, chances are you won't find it around here. Lots of cynical anti-NRSC5 FUD, propaganda and bias, yes, but if you're coming here for actual unbiassed explanations of things or whatever, you'd best look elsewhere. I do try to maintain a sense of neutrality on this board toward the Ibiquity System, as do a few others, but historically we've been part of a very small minority as such things go. Just take what you see here with a particle of salt.

Just telling it as I see it......

 

[KB1OKL]

I just call it the "Ibiquity System" (or just generically "digital radio" when speaking to those not "in the know".) Problem solved.

[size=8pt]thezak (not to be confused with "motozak3" on com.pdxradio.feedback; c'est moi), if you're looking for "good information" about the System, chances are you won't find it around here. Lots of cynical anti-NRSC5 FUD, propaganda and bias, yes, but if you're coming here for actual unbiassed explanations of things or whatever, you'd best look elsewhere. I do try to maintain a sense of neutrality on this board toward the Ibiquity System, as do a few others, but historically we've been part of a very small minority as such things go. Just take what you see here with a particle of salt.

Just telling it as I see it......

unbiased opinion: A few people love it, a few people hate it and the vast majority in the middle couldn't care less or have no idea what it is.

 

[mgpt6]

Hate it for AM. Has hope on FM with -10 or -14db carrier level instead of -23 db.

 

[Darth_vader]

At least we can agree on that. VHF is far better suited to systems like Ibiquity, and is where it will really come of age. The mediumwave implementation is just nuts.

 

[badjef]

I think there is little doubt they were cynically trying to "tailgate" on HDTV, a genuine innovation with real merit, which was rolling out and catching a lot of media attention at the same time. The name "HD Radio" is just one of a number of dishonest things about this.

I would submit to you the switch from analogue to digital TV was just as dishonest. So, if Ibiqity was indeed "tailgating" with a dishonest switch over business model to begin with, how good could their system be?

By the way, the business model used for the switchover to digital from analogue TV was the flawed switch from Loran to GPS.

Jeff in Sa-ra-so-ta!

 

[MarioMania]

I don't get people at the last min for DTV on doomsday June 12th 2009, they had to wait to get the DTV Boxes....

 

[badjef]

I don't get people at the last min for DTV on doomsday June 12th 2009, they had to wait to get the DTV Boxes....

Over The Air digital TV first went on line in 1998. The "boxes" were not even available for the first several years. Even after they started making them available, they were several hundred dollars.
Somebody in Congress suggested that the poor would be left without TV. As the boxes were becoming available, the prices were coming down. Most were burning out in a short period of time. As we drew closer to the 2nd cut-off date, the FCC started offering voucher cards for $40.00 per box and a limit of 2 per address. The cards were only valid for 90 days from the issue date and they ran out of money and boxes. The money was set aside in a grant program that wasn't funded properly. Additional funding is the reason the date was extended by the New administration since it was a democrat screw-up to begin with.

People were caught off guard because they were looking for additional funding that never happened.

The lesson here was, don't rely on a government program. You will be let down each time.

Jeff in Sa-ra-so-ta!

 

[ajc_trw]

I don't get people at the last min for DTV on doomsday June 12th 2009, they had to wait to get the DTV Boxes....

Over The Air digital TV first went on line in 1998. The "boxes" were not even available for the first several years. Even after they started making them available, they were several hundred dollars.

When KTLA fired up KTLA-HD their morning show had one of their reporters in an electronics store looking at an RPTV showing the pre-HD launch. The set came without a built-in tuner at a cost of ...

55" RPTV monitor - $5,500
HD OTA STB - $1,500

IIRC not many TVs had built-in tuners. :-X

 

[audioguy]

If this was a TV board, I would comment that the switchover to DTV has made my TV reception completely unreliable due to being in a rural area although supposed still within the Grade B contour of the stations I am trying to receive. And it is worse than useless during thunderstorms and severe weather conditions, which is precisely when reception is most important. Sometimes digital is not better. Like when it comes to broadcasting... AM - FM - or TV... But I do agree that the picture quality is excellent when I can receive it... WHEN... which is not often.

 

[Tom Wells]

If this was a TV board, I would comment that the switchover to DTV has made my TV reception completely unreliable due to being in a rural area although supposed still within the Grade B contour of the stations I am trying to receive. And it is worse than useless during thunderstorms and severe weather conditions, which is precisely when reception is most important. Sometimes digital is not better. Like when it comes to broadcasting... AM - FM - or TV... But I do agree that the picture quality is excellent when I can receive it... WHEN... which is not often.

Any system which is not live real-time delivery might still work, IF the original analog were left "unmolested" entirely.

Then the new mode could go ahead and do its job of looking fabulous, in a NEW, separate slice of electromagnetic spectrum.
This would have required new bandwidth the military will still not relinquish.

Then, when data is missing or corrupt, a "data field " for each analog frame as delivered, internally generated by the receiver would become a "comaparator register" for the "assumed-preferred" digital signal.

If I designed it, there would be a more/less knob, where full CCW would give you perfect 100% digital reception, when that was available.

Turned more CW, a threshold of detection for data loss or interference would give increasing preference to the analog signal, which would become a locked 100% analog mode at full clockwise.

During thunderstorms, such a picture might switch continuously between digital and analog, but wouldn't need to
suffer the ridiculous effects TV now does.

Every time air traffic control has O'Hare E-W takeoff/landings a certain way, we must get accustomed to watching frequent
grotesque human mutations or phantasms of people locked into solid walls, yet still moving.

Radio is given less bandwidth proportionally and as audioguy notes it doesn't matter what the service type is,
it's hardly worth getting excited about something that has been so "improved" that it doesn't work at all anymore.
Not enough data is Not enough data.

 

[iyiyi]

If this was a TV board, I would comment that the switchover to DTV has made my TV reception completely unreliable due to being in a rural area although supposed still within the Grade B contour of the stations I am trying to receive. And it is worse than useless during thunderstorms and severe weather conditions, which is precisely when reception is most important. Sometimes digital is not better. Like when it comes to broadcasting... AM - FM - or TV... But I do agree that the picture quality is excellent when I can receive it... WHEN... which is not often.

Invest in a good antenna, rotator and a high gain RF amp. Install the antenna about 30 feet above ground. Make sure that the FM trap is enabled in the amp. If you want FM, install a separate antenna/amp for FM. I believe that you will find it is money well spent. You get what you pay for.

-

 

[Tom Wells]

If this was a TV board, I would comment that the switchover to DTV has made my TV reception completely unreliable due to being in a rural area although supposed still within the Grade B contour of the stations I am trying to receive. And it is worse than useless during thunderstorms and severe weather conditions, which is precisely when reception is most important. Sometimes digital is not better. Like when it comes to broadcasting... AM - FM - or TV... But I do agree that the picture quality is excellent when I can receive it... WHEN... which is not often.

Invest in a good antenna, rotator and a high gain RF amp. Install the antenna about 30 feet above ground. Make sure that the FM trap is enabled in the amp. If you want FM, install a separate antenna/amp for FM. I believe that you will find it is money well spent. You get what you pay for.

-

The man you're taking to has many years of rf experience at many wavelengths.

I'm sure his opinion and comments follow much experimentation including measures beyond what you suggest.

I happen to know exactly where his comments refer to and assure you he is telling the truth.

TV worked before, given some mild effects/snow, but now it's a game that's not even fun to play.

 

[badjef]

If you want FM, install a separate antenna/amp for FM. I believe that you will find it is money well spent. You get what you pay for.

-

I can not seem to find an FM only locally, anymore.

Jeff in Sa-ra-so-ta!

 

[iyiyi]

If you want FM, install a separate antenna/amp for FM. I believe that you will find it is money well spent. You get what you pay for.

-

I can not seem to find an FM only locally, anymore.

Jeff in Sa-ra-so-ta!

Any (reasonable) VHF or VHF/UHF antenna will be OK for FM. The "secret" is to enable the FM trap in the HDTV amp. There are no "carriers" in the HDTV bands. Therefore you can have the HDTV antenna amp "cranked" without worrying about the amp getting swamped or overloaded. The only signals that can cause trouble are the FMs, because their carriers are always "on". The FM trap eliminates this. The guy that thinks he is "smart" or "cute" by using the HDTV antenna to also receive HD or analog FM is only porking himself.

-

 

[fybush]

Any (reasonable) VHF or VHF/UHF antenna will be OK for FM. The "secret" is to enable the FM trap in the HDTV amp. There are no "carriers" in the HDTV bands. Therefore you can have the HDTV antenna amp "cranked" without worrying about the amp getting swamped or overloaded. The only signals that can cause trouble are the FMs, because their carriers are always "on". The FM trap eliminates this. The guy that thinks he is "smart" or "cute" by using the HDTV antenna to also receive HD or analog FM is only porking himself.

-

This is not correct, on several counts. The ATSC DTV signal most certainly has a carrier associated with it, and at 4300 feet from my local DTV stations, I can testify that it is absolutely possible to overload an amplifier, creating images and intermodulation products and front-end receiver overload.

One of my locals is on RF 45. When it's on, and when I'm using an amplifier at my rooftop antenna, a signal in a neighboring market on RF 44 will not decode under any circumstances. Turn off my local 45 and 44 comes in like a local. Remove the amp and use a sufficiently directional antenna, and 44 decodes just fine.

With DTV, the important thing isn't raw signal strength at the receiver - it's the signal-to-noise ratio. Many inexpensive amps (and some expensive ones) have such high noise figures that they actually do more damage to the signal than good. If you're at a great distance from the desired signals, a low-noise amp is likely to help. If you're close enough to an antenna farm that an FM trap is needed, you likely have enough RF coming in that an amp is of questionable value, especially "cranked."

It is true that a powerful nearby FM signal can also overload an amplifier, and that the use of a trap can reduce this. But it's also perfectly possible to use a combo antenna to receive FM and VHF DTV. I use a CM Quantum 1110 for just that purpose, and it works just as well (at least on the signals remaining on VHF, which are fewer) in the digital era as it did in the analog days. I don't run an amp on the VHF antenna, and I trap my local FMs at the receiver end (using Microwave Filter in-line traps) when I'm using that antenna for TV.

I find, at my location close to a tower farm, that the most critical factor is directionality. Being able to get a reasonable null on the locals - FM, analog TV or DTV - makes an enormous difference across the rest of the dial, which is why one of my summer projects will be replacing the CM 4248 corner reflector I'm using for UHF with a 7' parabolic.

 

[audioguy]

Overload from FM is not the problem. Nor is noise figure. Setup here uses the largest VHF only Winegard they made, with a 2 dB NF preamp at the antenna. UHF is an 8-bay screen with a similar very low noise mast mounted preamp. All of that is on a rotator at 35 feet AGL. Everything worked reasonably well, considering the terrain and distance from transmitters, until the switchover to digital. Wet leaves on the trees are a particular problem after rain showers. That is why I went to the 8 bay stack instead of a long yagi. The leaves create a lot of scattering resulting in a very diffuse field. Paths are not line of sight by any means.

The FM rig is a 10 element LPY on a separate mast. Works great for listening to WAUS, 50 kW analog-only classical station from Andrews University that sounds fantastic due to not having any digital carriers gunking up the signal.

Long live analog!