Is there a website or other source that explains an alternative to buying the separate HD transmitter for FM? Can you get an FM translator for the “FMeXtra” system’s sub channels like you can for a “HD2”? Is the FMeXtra system even FCC “type” approved? The reason I am asking , after a 9 year hiatus from the day to day hassle of broadcasting I have been asked to help a friend of the family who is about to foreclose on a station her late husband financed. I am “slightly” behind on the HD Technology from a technical view.
-
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
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
HD basics?
- Thread starter secondchoice
- Start date
secondchoice said:Can you get an FM translator for the “FMeXtra” system’s sub channels like you can for a “HD2”? Is the FMeXtra system even FCC “type” approved?
FMeXtra requires no special FCC authorization, since they consider it to be a form of SCA encoding, which is already OK. Because the FCC considers it to be a SCA service, they also consider it to be a private system, not intended for a general audience. There-in, lies the rub. Currently, the FCC will not allow it to be rebroadcast on a translator like you can with HD-2, which they consider to be a public broadcast service.
Somebody needs to petition the FCC to get that changed, and if successful, I think you'd see a lot of interest in FMeXtra.
Chuck said:
Really, Chuck? Can you cite any FCC documents, published in the Federal Register or anywhere else, explicitly classifying FM Extra as a private communications service, not a public broadcast service?
Material posted on the web some years ago by Digital Radio Express, Inc. indicated that FM Extra was originally conceived as a public broadcast service. DRE promoted the capacity of the system to transmit both regularly encoded programming for the general public and material specially encoded for addressable receivers at the same time and on the same station because they knew they’d need that capability if they wanted to sell the system to stations that were making money by leasing their analog SCA signals for subscription services. And they could also sell it to stations that were using analog SCA’s and had no interest in broadcasting their main signals digitally as well conventionally, since such stations would be able to lease more than the two narrow-band FM SCA’s (at 67 and 92 kc) possible without FM Extra.
But the main attraction was that FM Extra offered a higher quality and lower cost alternative to “HD” for FM stations, as this 2006 article clearly shows: http://www.rwonline.com/article/road-testing-the-fmextra/15234
Unfortunately, I can’t direct you to any of DRE’s old web pages because the new owners took them all down when they changed the name from Digital Radio Express to VuCast. They also changed the name of FM Extra to VuCast Streaming Audio Solutions -- as you’ll see if you try to go to www.dreinc.com , because you’ll end up at www.vucast.com . Why? A former DRE guy told me he thought the Indian investors who bought DRE changed the name of both the company and the technology because they’re not radio people, and they don’t really believe in the future of radio. And looking at the VuCast web site, I think he may be onto something.
But let me rephrase the question I asked above, Chuck. Where has the FCC ever stated categorically that they consider FM Extra to be a private service, and thus not a suitable source for a translator?
FMeXtra requires no special FCC authorization, since they consider it to be a form of SCA encoding, which is already OK. Because the FCC considers it to be a SCA service, they also consider it to be a private system, not intended for a general audience. Therein lies the rub. Currently, the FCC will not allow it to be rebroadcast on a translator like you can with HD-2, which they consider to be a public broadcast service.
Somebody needs to petition the FCC to get that changed, and if successful, I think you'd see a lot of interest in FMeXtra.
Really, Chuck? Can you cite any FCC documents, published in the Federal Register or anywhere else, explicitly classifying FM Extra as a private communications service, not a public broadcast service?
Material posted on the web some years ago by Digital Radio Express, Inc. indicated that FM Extra was originally conceived as a public broadcast service. DRE promoted the capacity of the system to transmit both regularly encoded programming for the general public and material specially encoded for addressable receivers at the same time and on the same station because they knew they’d need that capability if they wanted to sell the system to stations that were making money by leasing their analog SCA signals for subscription services. And they could also sell it to stations that were using analog SCA’s and had no interest in broadcasting their main signals digitally as well conventionally, since such stations would be able to lease more than the two narrow-band FM SCA’s (at 67 and 92 kc) possible without FM Extra.
But the main attraction was that FM Extra offered a higher quality and lower cost alternative to “HD” for FM stations, as this 2006 article clearly shows: http://www.rwonline.com/article/road-testing-the-fmextra/15234
Unfortunately, I can’t direct you to any of DRE’s old web pages because the new owners took them all down when they changed the name from Digital Radio Express to VuCast. They also changed the name of FM Extra to VuCast Streaming Audio Solutions -- as you’ll see if you try to go to www.dreinc.com , because you’ll end up at www.vucast.com . Why? A former DRE guy told me he thought the Indian investors who bought DRE changed the name of both the company and the technology because they’re not radio people, and they don’t really believe in the future of radio. And looking at the VuCast web site, I think he may be onto something.
But let me rephrase the question I asked above, Chuck. Where has the FCC ever stated categorically that they consider FM Extra to be a private service, and thus not a suitable source for a translator?
radioskeptic said:Really, Chuck? Can you cite any FCC documents, published in the Federal Register or anywhere else, explicitly classifying FM Extra as a private communications service, not a public broadcast service?
I can't tell you where it is codified. In fact, I don't think it is. I've looked diligently and have not found it. I did make a phone call to the FCC to ask for clarification. I spoke with Jim Bradshaw, who was very emphatic that the FCC did not recognize ANY SCA service, FMeXtra or not, as a public broadcast service. As such, it would be a violation to rebroadcast that feed on a translator. I disagree with Bradshaw, but that conversation cost Digital Radio Express a sale.
After my conversation, I then called the FMeXtra folks and told them of my findings. I took several weeks for them to return my call, but the gentleman I eventually spoke with told me they were aware of the FCC's position, but went on to say they were unwilling to challenge it. He told me that "someone like you" needs to petition for a change. Yeah, right... I'm busy trying to run a radio station, and I don't have the time or resources to do it so someone else can make money from it.
I still think the FCC staff is wrong in their conclusion. In fact, my personal observation is pretty much what you have stated. It's just that I don't have the ambition to fight somebody else's battle...
I'm only the messenger. Call Jim Bradshaw yourself... It has been several years. Maybe he has changed his mind.
mgpt6 said:Looks like Vucast has different ideas than what DRE had thought of when it brought out FMXtra.
They do. That's why they've raised more capital and have moved into different areas for their marketing.
They are concentrating on using the Data component of Digital SCA for other purposes. They envision a datastream feeding info to changable signs in a metro. Maybe force fed pictures on the radio's screen.
I think their biggest problem in they can't get the radios made for anything CLOSE to reasonable so they are looking for greener pastures.
Clouseau
I guess the FMeXtra system is not option in the next 3 to 6 months. Is there a way for a FM station to run HD with out a separate HD transmitter? Can the “HD” be a digital component in the analog fm transmitted signal that includes the stereo pilot, RDS, and optional SCA, and the regular audio with the imbedded sub-audio PPM in the audio?
secondchoice said:I guess the FMeXtra system is not option in the next 3 to 6 months. Is there a way for a FM station to run HD with out a separate HD transmitter? Can the “HD” be a digital component in the analog fm transmitted signal that includes the stereo pilot, RDS, and optional SCA, and the regular audio with the imbedded sub-audio PPM in the audio?
The HD carriers include an amplitude-modulated component (as well as phase-modulated), so they can't be passed through a conventional analog FM amplifier (operating as "Class C") without being severely distorted. Linear amplifiers don't have this problem, but they are significantly less efficient -- and more costly, because they require larger power supplies and more cooling.
Note that some forms of digital modulation are based exclusively on phase shift and don't have this problem -- for example, GMSK (Gaussian minimum-shift keying) used in GSM mobile phones in which extended battery life is important. However, the developers of IBOC were forced to cram digital signals into bands intended for analog-only and needed to add the amplitude component to reduce bandwidth requirements.
The whole system is full of compromises.
This conversation leads me to wonder if software defined radios, such as my ntg4, can - or will - be able to carry billboard type messages on the display maybe as an evolution of the RDS.
I look at this radio and think that there is so mch more that it is capable of if I could get into the programming.
Jeff in Sa-ra-so-ta!
I look at this radio and think that there is so mch more that it is capable of if I could get into the programming.
Jeff in Sa-ra-so-ta!
badjef said:This conversation leads me to wonder if software defined radios, such as my ntg4, can - or will - be able to carry billboard type messages on the display maybe as an evolution of the RDS.
I look at this radio and think that there is so mch more that it is capable of if I could get into the programming.
I would think that's possible. Recently, I upgraded the radio in my VW Jetta to an RMT-100 with RDS, but it came loaded with US firmware rather than European; therefore, it supports PS name, but not PTY nor AF switching. I've located an update on the German "VW Zubehör" website which would include this feature, but I'm hesitant to install because it will probably force the AM side to tune in 9 kHz steps. Here's the link to the download page (and if you don't read German, Google Chrome does a fair job of translation):
http://www.volkswagen-zubehoer.de/update_rmt100.html
Take a look at this file in Notepad and you'll find some interesting stuff about 90% of the way down, including the Euro PTY codes.
The RMT-100 (made for VW by Clarion) is a superb performer on FM; I suspect it uses the same RF/IF chipset as Sony's XDR-F1HD, although the primary reason I bought it is Bluetooth. AM sensitivity is also far better than any car radio I've had in 30+ years, but I wish the audio bandwidth on that band were a bit broader. Perhaps this is software defined as well -- I hope to reach someone at VW's US office who can shed more light on the matter.
If I’m right, then this technology should solve all of our problems with regard to modes that don’t work or we don’t want. And upgrading should be a snap to the ones we want.Play Freebird said:badjef said:This conversation leads me to wonder if software defined radios, such as my ntg4, can - or will - be able to carry billboard type messages on the display maybe as an evolution of the RDS.
I look at this radio and think that there is so mch more that it is capable of if I could get into the programming.
I would think that's possible. Recently, I upgraded the radio in my VW Jetta to an RMT-100 with RDS, but it came loaded with US firmware rather than European; therefore, it supports PS name, but not PTY nor AF switching. I've located an update on the German "VW Zubehör" website which would include this feature, but I'm hesitant to install because it will probably force the AM side to tune in 9 kHz steps. Here's the link to the download page (and if you don't read German, Google Chrome does a fair job of translation):
http://www.volkswagen-zubehoer.de/update_rmt100.html
Take a look at this file in Notepad and you'll find some interesting stuff about 90% of the way down, including the Euro PTY codes.
The RMT-100 (made for VW by Clarion) is a superb performer on FM; I suspect it uses the same RF/IF chipset as Sony's XDR-F1HD, although the primary reason I bought it is Bluetooth. AM sensitivity is also far better than any car radio I've had in 30+ years, but I wish the audio bandwidth on that band were a bit broader. Perhaps this is software defined as well -- I hope to reach someone at VW's US office who can shed more light on the matter.
That's pretty exciting.
Jeff in Sa-ra-so-ta!
- Status
- This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.