HD board has changed....

[ElCheapo]

Yawn... no wonder, the argument has been settled. Boy, this sounds just like the math I did on the number of HD radios sold, considering number of votes over a certain period, and the number of sites selling HD radios - that number was purposefully very optimistic, but still very dismal !

I'd stick with the programming thing if I were you - you'll never be a mathematician.

 

[hipporadio]

Many people log on as guests, so you have no idea, who reads these threads.

As of this posting, this thread has been viewed 158 times.

There are 7 participants and 14 posts. If each of the particpants checks the thread once after each post that's 98 of the 158.

I'm glad that you made this post E-C... Yesterday I was wondering if you were actually expecting us to believe that the R-I site SysOp appeared in your dreams with the secret password to their web server, so you could "get in" and count distinct IP address logons versus "page views"... Now I find that your "math" is very much in line with the iBiquity culture--flawed and intended to mislead.

You're forgetting one small pesky point--or I should say "file"--It's call a "cookie". R-I conveniently deposits one on your hard drive and updates it every time you click here. Unless you take the initiative to clear your internet cache EVERY time you view a page here--it is not routinely practical to "run up" a "page view" from the same PC or possibly the same IP address. One cannot do it at Amazon, MSN, or The Drudge Report--and one cannot do it here. That little "control feature" is very common at any forum or opinion site.

I'm even less inclined to believe that you enjoy mystic powers that allow you first-hand knowledge of ANYONE'S private message communication at (or as result of) a topic followed at this site. Fact is: You have no idea of who-reads-what and who-messages-who here.

Now, I have a family to prepare turkey for... I hope ALL of you have a mighty-fine Thanksgiving!

 

[700WLW]

Yawn... no wonder, the argument has been settled. Boy, this sounds just like the math I did on the number of HD radios sold, considering number of votes over a certain period, and the number of sites selling HD radios - that number was purposefully very optimistic, but still very dismal !

I'd stick with the programming thing if I were you - you'll never be a mathematician.

"Apple Is Up To Something"

"Yet few get excited over clunky HD radios that don't have content much different than what you can get on a regular radio... Can those awful looking HD radios get any uglier? And they don't do anything really different or desirable."

http://insidemusicmedia.blogspot.com/2006/11/apple-is-up-to-something.html

I told the HD Radio Cartel to make the (see above) HD radios more like boom-boxes !

 

[jim8230]

Geez guys! I wasn't trying to start a war....I was simply making an observation.

Look... Obviously there are strong opinions on both sides of this issue. I can't speak for others but I would guess that most of the anti-Iboc crowd are not opposed to digital radio per se, they are opposed to iBiquity's version of digital radio. I know I am.

I work in radio. I'm the last person that wants to see the medium go under. However, I believe strongly that the rollout of this technically flawed system may cause more listeners to move away from over the air radio faster than they are leaving now. Why?

A) Listeners that complain now about the atmospheric noise on AM now ain't heard nothin' yet. If AM IBOC is allowed after dark, these folks may switch off AM for good.

B) When all the FM's go hybrid, many listeners will lose the ability to hear stations they like due to the cutback in analog power. (Why do the pro IBOC gang think this is a minor inconvenience? They pay your salaries, too!) Please stop telling me there is no loss of the analog signal when IBOC is switched on. I have seen enough to the contrary. You can't cut the power of the transmitter and have no loss of coverage.

C) So I go on the air tomorrow evening and tell my audience, "We are now broadcasting in 'HD'". Basically meaningless jargon to most of them. A few might be curious and find out more. Then it hits them: In order to hear this I have to buy new radios? So far the attitude has clearly been, "No Thanx!"

D) I think the fact the FCC tried to cover up their own study of broadcast ownership speaks volumes. The report cited what we already knew: Listenership has declined because we are not getting what we want from radio. More commercials, same music on more stations, etc. Maybe the FCC and the big corporations thought we wouldn't notice! Content has been the real culprit all along. Not the fidelity.

E) If we accept D as true, then the motivation to "go digital" is a solution to a problem that didn't exist in the first place. This may be why there has been no rush to embrace HD by the public. BTW: If you consider that HD TV's are not selling anywhere near as fast as expected, why would anyone think that radios will?

I'm sure there will be some here that will disagree with all of this, but I strongly believe that iBiquity's version of digital broadcasting will fail. There are too many negatives with this system to ignore.

 

[calstymes]

jim8230, thank you for your very intelligent post.

And this from a person who works in the radio industry!

You would think from most of the pro-IBOC comments I have seen on here that commercial broadcasting will die a horrible and ugly death if this badly thought out and poorly implemented technology is not adopted as "mainstream" and be permitted to flourish. jim8230, I happen to be in 100% agreement with your statement:

I believe strongly that the rollout of this technically flawed system may cause more listeners to move away from over the air radio faster than they are leaving now.

Heaven help the AM broadcast band if the FCC approves this system for night time use. And if they do approve it, then we can all be absolutely assured that the FCC is no longer looking out for the public interest but rather has been influenced to an unprecedented level by a private, corporate cartel whose only objective in this sad state of affairs is to make the quick buck and earn back the money that all the speculative investors put into iBiquity over the last ten years.

Tom Wells said it succintly in another thread:

My radio's not broken, until ibiquity offered to break it for me..

That pretty much sums it up.

 

[hipporadio]

Geez guys! I wasn't trying to start a war....I was simply making an observation.

Jim, THANK YOU for rejoining the discussion! Your post gets FIVE STARS... I agree with 100% of your content--NOT because it is just skeptical of the current HD system-- rather it has been made with logical questions and positions in addition to an “open mind” and desire to advance the state of the radio industry.

There is NO “war”. There appears to be one person here who heavily-edits the content of others, tweaks such to fit his mission, then performs a “hit ‘n run” in a fledgling attempt to defend IBOC by degrading the opinions of otherwise technically-competent people... In one such attack, he even went so far as to infer that many opinions expressed here lack importance simply because they are made by “engineers”. Now, how appropriate is that? Granted many who are skeptical of IBOC here have technical backgrounds and/or understanding, but I have witnessed many engineers debate and disagree on technical issues--yet remain respectful of the person and position they question.

The antagonist here appears to lack a technical background--I suspect he functions within programming, and his interest in HD Radio stems merely from his desire to add another “tool” to his ancillary positioning arsenal. He chooses to reside in that “dreamland” that believes all the problems associated with his low-end audience and their use of XM and iPods will suddenly go away when large market stations flip on the IBOC generator.

I can't speak for others but I would guess that most of the anti-IBOC crowd are not opposed to digital radio per se, they are opposed to iBiquity's version of digital radio. I know I am. I work in radio. I'm the last person that wants to see the medium go under. However, I believe strongly that the rollout of this technically flawed system may cause more listeners to move away from over the air radio faster than they are leaving now.

You hit the bull’s-eye Jim! I have followed IBOC since the mid-90s as a broadcast enthusiast and station owner. I was acquainted with a few who labored on that project. I felt it to be a Red Herring then--I feel more-so now after watching “theory” leave the drawing boards and feebly find its way into the field.

Contemporary support for IBOC seems to fall into three categories: (1) the corporate largess who contributed to its development then sweet-talked the FCC into approving their science fair project so they could profit from it; (2) programmers operating within the paradigm I described above; (3) the usual suspects in large-scale Public Radio who enjoy spending money--so long as it comes from others.

Listeners that complain now about the atmospheric noise on AM now ain't heard nothin' yet. If AM IBOC is allowed after dark, these folks may switch off AM for good.

Other idiosyncrasies aside, this is one of the most “destructive” issues regarding the use of the IBOC technology. I have not formerly witnessed the potential for interference by use of IBOC during periods of skywave propagation because its nighttime use is currently prohibited (and should remain so). “Tests” have been conducted--but only analysis fully sponsored by iBiquity and collaborated by technicians employed by them or broadcast members of their “cartel”. These evaluations were no doubt designed to promote fulltime use of IBOC in an application before the FCC.

I am preparing a post under a separate thread that will detail my observations of a 50kw AM station that (may have) “innocently forgot” to cease IBOC transmissions until a few hours after their local sunset on Thanksgiving evening. This was my first experience with the much-feared “IBOC nighttime effect” on the AM band. The results were intolerable to its second-adjacent close-by 50kw neighbors who are central to rural coverage and service in that region. The very specific details of my observations in a “real world” environment will be very disturbing and compelling. I will not publish that post with specifics, frequencies, and calls until I can make some reasonable verification of the circumstances. I wouldn’t involve an otherwise fine radio station in an interference accusation that could have been caused by an electric dog fence on the property. I feel that is highly unlikely, but I’m going to make sure before I post here.

When all the FM's go hybrid, many listeners will lose the ability to hear stations they like due to the cutback in analog power...

In all fairness Jim, I don’t believe that analog FM coverage suffers because IBOC carriers are added adjacent to a station’s main channel--unless those carriers interfere with a distant station’s analog signal. While my listening for this effect has been “casual” at best--I have not noticed a serious problem on a good FM tuner with second-adjacent out-of-market signals in the presence of a local HD station. I’m sure others will have more technically-substantiated observations that may be contrary.

My displeasure with IBOC is its digital coverage. In the lab, it’s projected to be 60%... In real world, that figure has proven itself to be MUCH LESS. Interestingly, that digital coverage may easily be nuked by its neighboring analog stations--or very possibly that electric dog fence I mentioned above. Unlike analog reception that gracefully degrades as signal weakens--IBOC just switches off to silence or back to a time-advanced analog signal. That is not a dependable or acceptable mode of broadcasting for “Joes” out there in the general public.

Content has been the real culprit all along. Not the fidelity... If we accept [this] as true, then the motivation to "go digital" is a solution to a problem that didn't exist in the first place...

A-B-S-O-L-U-T-E-L-Y! See... One doesn’t need an engineering degree to make the finest point here. Above, I mentioned “casual” observations on FM... Maybe because I spend so little time with it anymore... That is very sad considering my broadcast affinity. Regardless of whatever digital system is proposed, it will require the purchase of a new radio that functions accordingly. Regardless of price--the public won’t bother if they remain un-served and disinterested.

 

[ElCheapo]

There is NO “war”. There appears to be one person here who heavily-edits the content of others, tweaks such to fit his mission, then performs a “hit ‘n run” in a fledgling attempt to defend IBOC by degrading the opinions of otherwise technically-competent people... In one such attack, he even went so far as to infer that many opinions expressed here lack importance simply because they are made by “engineers”. Now, how appropriate is that? Granted many who are skeptical of IBOC here have technical backgrounds and/or understanding, but I have witnessed many engineers debate and disagree on technical issues--yet remain respectful of the person and position they question.

The antagonist here appears to lack a technical background--I suspect he functions within programming, and his interest in HD Radio stems merely from his desire to add another “tool” to his ancillary positioning arsenal. He chooses to reside in that “dreamland” that believes all the problems associated with his low-end audience and their use of XM and iPods will suddenly go away when large market stations flip on the IBOC generator.

You really should re-read my posts! I have never said the opinion of any engineers here aren't important because they're engineers, I said they weren't legitimate because they're DXers - which in my experience here anyway - are the only real naysayers for the technology.

I talk to a lot of engineers - many of whom are very well known and respected in the community. I haven't heard any of them attack IBOC the way it's attacked here. If you visit the engineering listservers you'll also find very little HD bashing going on - and when it does, it's obvious that it's a few of the same people posting here. Generally though, their rantings are ignored. They obviously found an audience here with the DX enthusiasts.

And for the record, I am the chief engineer for 7 stations. I also work in programming.

 

[jim8230]

"Other idiosyncrasies aside, this is one of the most “destructive” issues regarding the use of the IBOC technology. I have not formerly witnessed the potential for interference by use of IBOC during periods of skywave propagation because its nighttime use is currently prohibited..."

Some of my fellow announcers and I have heard what AM IBOC can do after sunset....

About a year and a half ago, I was tuning in our local 50KW. At the time they had a great "oldies" format. For a few evenings in a row, there was this awful metallic-sounding noise along with the music. I asked others if they had heard this and both of them said they had, but didn't know what it was either. Then we found out after the P.D. here complained about the interference.

The former WSAI in Cincinnati (1530 AM)was conducting evening IBOC tests and it was slamming WWKB (1520 AM) here in Buffalo.

Cincinnati to Buffalo = 440 miles!

 

[Kelly]

I've been following this board as a casual, (and somewhat amused observer), for about a year, and agree that you guys are in a bit of a "hamster wheel" with some of your comments. BUT I recognise your right to an opinion too.

First before I speak to Jim's points, a litttle about me: I've worked in broadcasting all my working life or about 30 years. Currently I am the VP CTO of a fairly large publically traded broadcast company who has none of it's radio stations currently broadcasting in HD/IBOC for reasons that I am happy to explain, but none of which are because of what the HD/IBOC Naysayer's on this board claim.

Geez guys! I wasn't trying to start a war....I was simply making an observation.

I work in radio. I'm the last person that wants to see the medium go under. However, I believe strongly that the rollout of this technically flawed system may cause more listeners to move away from over the air radio faster than they are leaving now. Why?

A) Listeners that complain now about the atmospheric noise on AM now ain't heard nothin' yet. If AM IBOC is allowed after dark, these folks may switch off AM for good.

K- In all my travels, I have yet to have heard of a station getting listener complaints from their local area due to data in the sidebands on AM stations. All the complaints I've heard are from DX listeners that use GE Superradio's or other receivers that have a "wide band" option, or can't hear distant stations due to adjacent channel noise from a IBOC station. An arguement can be made on both sides of course, but radio is a business, and I have never heard of a DX listener traveling to a distant market to support a advertiser they heard via long-distance listening.

B) When all the FM's go hybrid, many listeners will lose the ability to hear stations they like due to the cutback in analog power. (Why do the pro IBOC gang think this is a minor inconvenience? They pay your salaries, too!) Please stop telling me there is no loss of the analog signal when IBOC is switched on. I have seen enough to the contrary. You can't cut the power of the transmitter and have no loss of coverage.

K- With FM, IBOC "sideband carriers" do not cause a reduction in the station's analog ERP, nor performance. Most of the perceived signal loss is not coverage loss at all, but directly related to certain car radios that were new in Chrysler vehicles from 1995 through 2001, (and some others manufactured in the 90's). This particular radio has a microprocessor that looks at a IF swath of the channel selected, and determines the level of noise. If the level of noise is deemed to be below a unacceptable level, (like with data in the station SCA, or IBOC data), the radio is more likely to drop into "blend mode". Several independant consulting engineers have done measured tests in several levels of terrain, and have found no reduction in coverage nor field strength for the analog-modulated carrier.

C) So I go on the air tomorrow evening and tell my audience, "We are now broadcasting in 'HD'". Basically meaningless jargon to most of them. A few might be curious and find out more. Then it hits them: In order to hear this I have to buy new radios? So far the attitude has clearly been, "No Thanx!"

K- I'm not so sure consumers are saying "no thanks" as you mention, but more like.."I have an I-Pod, and don't need satellite radio"(mistaking the promotion of HD Radio to be the same as XM or Sirius). Until the big three auto manufacturers begin putting HD/IBOC in the car radios for free, the vast majority of consumers won't care. I drive a new Lexus with the integrated GPS/radio/climate system. I for one won't be trying to put some after-market radio in my car.

D) I think the fact the FCC tried to cover up their own study of broadcast ownership speaks volumes. The report cited what we already knew: Listenership has declined because we are not getting what we want from radio. More commercials, same music on more stations, etc. Maybe the FCC and the big corporations thought we wouldn't notice! Content has been the real culprit all along. Not the fidelity.

K- I'm not aware of any published study by the Commission that speaks of listenership being down due to more commercials or content. Could you please post a link of where this study could be found? That would be an interesting read! Since the FCC hasn't regulated format, or what a station's commercial load can be, I'm surprised they would adress that with tax-payer dollars.

E) If we accept D as true, then the motivation to "go digital" is a solution to a problem that didn't exist in the first place. This may be why there has been no rush to embrace HD by the public. BTW: If you consider that HD TV's are not selling anywhere near as fast as expected, why would anyone think that radios will?

K- Unlike HD/IBOC radio, receiver manufacturers of new TV sets must include a ATSC-DTV tuner in sets larger than I believe 25 inches. And as you may have heard, the turn-in of analog TV channels will occur in February of 2009, only three years away. I maintain that unless the Commission mandates the same with radio manufacturers, the HD/IBOC roll out will be sluggish. If you have an analog NTSC tuner in 2009, you will need to either replace it, or by a set-top box

I'm sure there will be some here that will disagree with all of this, but I strongly believe that iBiquity's version of digital broadcasting will fail. There are too many negatives with this system to ignore.

K- Honestly Jim, I'm not disputing what you believe to be true, but just adding some more information from a technical perspective.

 

[Chuck]

If you visit the engineering listservers you'll also find very little HD bashing going on - and when it does, it's obvious that it's a few of the same people posting here.

I do frequent the engineering list servers, so I don't think that is exactly the case. I'm sure there is some overlap on these boards, but I've noticed lots of unenthusiastic posts from many engineers, some of whom I actually know. Many of them are becoming less than thrilled with the technology. Even friends at Clear Channel confide in private conversations that they are disappointed in the performance of HD, especially when it comes to real world coverage of HD2 channels, and the paltry offerings of radios to receive it. I can understand their disappointment, since many of them have put a great deal of personal effort into converting their stations. It's not just the time and money, but it is also a loss to them in terms of personal commitment. Nobody likes to be disillusioned.

Obviously, not everyone thinks they were sold a bill of goods, but I've noticed that the thought is increasing, not decreasing. It is even the case in Public Radio circles, where many stations actually have something of significance to broadcast on their secondary channels, if only there were some listeners. Because NCE's are frequently short spaced, they are also finding that they can and do interfere with each other in some areas. Sure those areas are beyond their protected contour, but they represent listeners (and potential contributors) who have been lost. Regardless of what you think, people do listen past a station's protected contour. There may not be a lot of listeners, but if you are supported by their donations, each listener lost represents a loss of income. Fringe area support can be significant to the bottom line of these stations.

I have as yet to hear any engineer who runs an AM station who expresses an opinion that HD at night is a good idea. I think even you have mentioned that you have reservations about it as well.

As has been mentioned many times, I don't believe that many people here are against digital radio as a concept. It's just that they'd like to see a better technical and business model than the Ibiquity version.

 

[700WLW]

This is all good-and-fine, but the fate of HD Radio will be determined by consumers. Today, one of my boys saw a commercial for the new Verizon PDA-type phone, and you know what he is getting for Christmas - he said, absolutely cool ! Not one of my boys' high-school friends listens to terrestrial radio, and they laugh, when I tell them about HD Radio. I enjoy listening to the Clear Channels at night and early mornings to work. The average consumer may turn on terrestrial radio to/from work (some at work), if not listening to Satellite Radio, or iPods plugged in-dash. Evenings at most homes are spent watching TV, listening to iPods/MP3s/CDs, playing video games, and probably the majority on the Internet, with some Internet Radio/WiFi. Does anyone really believe that consumers just sit and listen to terrestrial radio, full of commercials - I don't think so ! DAB is failing to take hold in the UK and Canada - an obvious indication of general public apathy towards terrestrial radio, or any perceived improvements, thereto. HD Radio sales in the US are anemic. US car manufacturers are not interested in HD Radio, but are sure interested in Satellite Radio and its incentives. Does anyone really think that when consumers walk into Radio Shack, or Circuit City, if they stocked HD radios in-store, they are going to head for the HD radios, when there are really nice displays for Satellite Radio, gaming systems (look what just happened with the PS3s), and cellular phones ? All of the HD radios are ugly and require elaborate antenna systems, so from an asthestics/functional viewpoint, HD Radio is a failure - hell, my boys wouldn't go near one of those HD radios, but give them a cell phone and iPod and off they go ! From a consumer's perspective, I just don't see one good argument for HD Radio/IBOC/DAB. And yes, the HD channels will eventually contain commercials, if they can even be received - so, what is there to argue ? And what did Scott Sloan WLW suggest to me, more than once - if the FCC approves AM nighttime IBOC, then WLW is on XM channel 173 (which includes the Trucker's Network) !

 

[hipporadio]

About a year and a half ago, I was tuning in our local 50KW. At the time they had a great "oldies" format. For a few evenings in a row, there was this awful metallic-sounding noise along with the music. I asked others if they had heard this and both of them said they had, but didn't know what it was either. Then we found out after the P.D. here complained about the interference.

The former WSAI in Cincinnati (1530 AM) was conducting evening IBOC tests and it was slamming WWKB (1520 AM) here in Buffalo. Cincinnati to Buffalo = 440 miles!

I am familiar with both stations you mentioned. I grew up in the Cincinnati area, am currently spending the holiday in the far north-east Cincy ‘burbs, and made some rather interesting observations related to IBOC activity during “critical hours” and after sunset there last evening... Including a rather disturbing effect on 1530 (now WCKY) which continues to degrade its own signal with IBOC despite its full-time sports-talk format. That station has a pesky problem with close-in groundwave/skywave conflict that extends well into daylight hours. The effects seem worsened by the presence of the IBOC sidebands. During “phases”, you can actually hear the IBOC “hash” mixing within the main channel audio. This fading phase is unpleasant, but the addition of the demodulated “digital” noise renders that signal unlistenable only 20-miles from their transmitter site.

The former WSAI began IBOC transmission back in 2004 when it was RealOldies-1530. That 50kw station is severely short-spaced to 1kw-day/250w-night WKWH on 1520 in Shelbyville, Indiana (about 60 miles northwest). At that time WKWH was making an extraordinary attempt to be a “full service” local station with a classic hits music format--trying very hard to fill a void left after its FM service was earlier moved to Indianapolis. Shelbyville is the county seat and a fast-growing community of nearly 20,000. One spring day, the “metallic grunge” appeared in the wideband air monitor at their downtown studios... It also appeared on typical AM radios in several parts of that community--and made the WKWH signal unlistenable in south-east Shelby County. Today the formerly-staffed WKWH virtually resides on a PC in the broom closet of a sister FM station 30-miles away. An expectation to clearly receive and enjoy local service from this station has NOTHING to do with “DX”...

Nor do Chicago Cub fans’ desire to follow their team at 1PM on a summer afternoon in north-central Indiana via play-by-play from the very easily-received formerly-robust 50kw signal of 720 WGN--which now suffers from the infamous metallic IBOC buzz courtesy of second-adjacent 700 WLW... And we are not talking about the routine use of GE SuperRadios, Carver TX11s, or 30-year old McIntosh tuners set for “wideband” AM reception. BTW... Only a very few years ago, radio was down on their knees begging the consumer electronics industry for MORE of these radios!

Can I be considered overwhelmed by some desire to “DX” at the social expense of my fellow man because I enjoy listening to 1110 WBT Charlotte and 680 WPTF Raleigh while I reside in “the other Carolina”? Both of these signals would certainly receive IBOC interference from numerous stations should its nighttime use be “rubber-stamped”. Last evening, I suspect but yet have no verification that 1120 KMOX encountered a “timing malfunction” and continued to transmit in HD mode until 6PM CST (7PM and well past sunset in southwest Ohio). The classic symptoms were clearly present and easy to trace--I-buzz on both 1100 WTAM Cleveland and 1140 WRVA Richmond. Both stations routinely have very robust and stable signals in the Tri-State area. Should listening to an AM station from WITHIN your medium-sized state in another sports and political center be considered “exotic and irrelevant DX”?

Until Kelly offered his very considerate and informative response to you (but admitted a lack of implementation in his own group of stations)--VERY FEW of those posting here with a technical background seem to be supporting AM IBOC. None of these (including myself) appear in need of medial treatment for a DX obsession. I have worked with and/or know well twelve very good broadcast engineers, and here’s the score—eleven AGAINST AM IBOC--only one PRO (and he consulted in USDR’s development of IBOC). Very cogent arguments have been advanced and good examples have been given, yet I continue to see ONLY ONE self-assumed industry justification for this defective and destructive technology--“broadcasting is a business”... Any business demands a market... Is that the very same “marketplace” selling and buying IBOC-equipped radios? NOT!

 

[Kelly]

Having been involved in both Medium Wave and FM modulated tests of IBOC, (but as I mentioned, not implemented with my group), I am somewhat familiar with measured results using various industry-standard test equipment, and in a nutshell here is what we found: The issues with night operation on Medium Wave stations are that fringe area coverage is increased roughly by 3-4dB RMS. Obviously this creates issues with trying to keep the nulls in, or certainly meeting a station's RSS levels, and thus has been the concern of the FCC at night. This clearly increases the potential fringe coverage area for a station PROPERLY implementing the IBOC carrier. So the rumors that IBOC coverage is dissapointing for AM is quite the opposite, (assuming that is the station antenna system is well broadbanded, and the transmitter/exciter are operating correctly of course).

FM IBOC tests indicate reliable coverage ONLY to the 70 dBU coverage area, after that it regularly reverts back to analog, (WHICH is interesting when listening to a HD-2 channel I'll bet), much like good ol' FM subcarriers.

Okay you're probably wondering why after testing and knowing just enough to be dangerous, why my group hasn't implemented IBOC. Well its quite simple really..
I've allowed groups such as Clear Channel, Entercom and others, work out the bugs, (which are ongoing), have the Commission bless the modulation method, and have the transmission equipment manufacturers reduce the cost of gear.

Finally, with the lack of interest by Delphi, Visteon, Chrysler, etc., to implement HD/IBOC receivers in their vehicles, I thought it would be better to spend the hundreds of thousands of dollars on capital equipment that could improve the existing product, or replace aging and unreliable gear. In my view if the radio's don't end up in cars, then it's game over. Not because of the modulation methods, nor the actual or perceived band noise as DX listeners complain about, but because the consumer dosen't get it, nor cares.

 

[jim8230]

For Kelly:

Here is the link to the FCC report on consolodation-
http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6518462392

I don't know if you have read the comments to the FCC about IBOC but if you would like more reading material-
http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/...roceeding=99-325&start=41&end=60&first_time=N

The news stories about the cover up are readily available on the web. The AP ran that story.

I base my opinions and concerns on many factors.....what I read, what I hear from others in the business, input from our own engineering staff and feedback from our listeners.

We have three stations at our facility. A 2.5MW (ERP) TV, a 5KW AM and a 105KW (ERP) FM.(And a repeater about 60 miles south of us.) We are public broadcasters and I gotta tell you, we hear from our listeners regularly.

For example: When our new AM transmitter and the digital exciter were installed, the bandwidth was cut back as required. This caused many phone calls and e-mails either complaing or asking about our sound quality. One guy that talked to the PD bluntly told him, "it sounds like sh*t". So some listeners noticed the difference and told us so.
BTW, it now seems the AM transition is on hold. I mention this because I've often heard that listeners don't say anything they just change the station. And you know what, we are right next door to another 5KW station that is running the same transmitter we are without the exciter. Their audio blows us away. We sound like we are processed through a tin can compared to them.

One more thing. Since I do a lot of production for both radio stations, the joke has been to have me do a promo for the HD on AM. "Now listen to AM 970 in HD....from 7:30 am until 4:00pm......" The only problem is the joke isn't funny.

 

[calstymes]

ElCheapo opined:

I talk to a lot of engineers - many of whom are very well known and respected in the community. I haven't heard any of them attack IBOC the way it's attacked here. If you visit the engineering listservers you'll also find very little HD bashing going on - and when it does, it's obvious that it's a few of the same people posting here. Generally though, their rantings are ignored. They obviously found an audience here with the DX enthusiasts.

And for the record, I am the chief engineer for 7 stations. I also work in programming.

I am NOT a DXer, yet I think this technology is garbage.

You haven't been around this board long enough to know that I have addressed what you are saying about IBOC not being attacked the way it's attacked here and that there is very little HD bashing going on in the engineering listservers.

It's really quite simple: Gainfully employed broadcast engineers want to keep working. Therefore they will not PUBLICALLY say anything bad about this technology if their employers are using it.

Oh, and for the record, it doesn't matter what I do.

 

[Chuck]

Okay you're probably wondering why after testing and knowing just enough to be dangerous, why my group hasn't implemented IBOC. Well its quite simple really..
I've allowed groups such as Clear Channel, Entercom and others, work out the bugs, (which are ongoing), have the Commission bless the modulation method, and have the transmission equipment manufacturers reduce the cost of gear.

Finally, with the lack of interest by Delphi, Visteon, Chrysler, etc., to implement HD/IBOC receivers in their vehicles, I thought it would be better to spend the hundreds of thousands of dollars on capital equipment that could improve the existing product, or replace aging and unreliable gear. In my view if the radio's don't end up in cars, then it's game over. Not because of the modulation methods, nor the actual or perceived band noise as DX listeners complain about, but because the consumer dosen't get it, nor cares.

I am not a DX'er either. But I do operate a small FM station. I completely agree with your reasoning. In fact have reached the same conclusion. At this point, it simply doesn't make good business sense. I know quite a few other small station operators who are of the same opinion.

Nonetheless, I'd sure prefer some other way of doing this if we are going to go down this path. A system that is only viable to the 70 dbu contour is almost useless for any small or rural FM broadcaster.

 

[hipporadio]

Okay you're probably wondering why after testing and knowing just enough to be dangerous, why my group hasn't implemented IBOC. Well its quite simple really..
I've allowed groups such as Clear Channel, Entercom and others, work out the bugs, (which are ongoing), have the Commission bless the modulation method, and have the transmission equipment manufacturers reduce the cost of gear.

Finally, with the lack of interest by Delphi, Visteon, Chrysler, etc., to implement HD/IBOC receivers in their vehicles, I thought it would be better to spend the hundreds of thousands of dollars on capital equipment that could improve the existing product, or replace aging and unreliable gear. In my view if the radio's don't end up in cars, then it's game over. Not because of the modulation methods, nor the actual or perceived band noise as DX listeners complain about, but because the consumer dosen't get it, nor cares.

I am not a DX'er either. But I do operate a small FM station. I completely agree with your reasoning. In fact have reached the same conclusion. At this point, it simply doesn't make good business sense. I know quite a few other small station operators who are of the same opinion.

Nonetheless, I'd sure prefer some other way of doing this if we are going to go down this path. A system that is only viable to the 70 dbu contour is almost useless for any small or rural FM broadcaster.

Chuck... I was about to prepare a post after reading Kelly's very fine summation of the facts, but you made my point PERFECTLY! We are from a very similar market background. I also operated a pair of FMs--Class A and C3 (and two 1kw AMs). I would hate to imagine that after many-many-many dollars of investment--our HD audience would be limited to those listening 8-12 miles from our transmitters! I have heard various "percent of analog coverage" figures tossed about for projected HD range, but Kelly's info establishing 70dbu as an "HD circle on the map" is astounding to me. Even for a Class B--that's a mere 15-18 miles. Then consider areas with difficult topography that impedes quality FM reception well within the 3.16mV contour?

Did the "industry" invent HD... But NOT for the "small guy"? Why am I NOT surprised at that outcome?

IBOC: FM = defective... and IBOC AM = destructive

We ARE going down the wrong path!

Kelly... THANK YOU very much for your information!

 

[ElCheapo]

Why does the revelation that a couple of the chief detractors here are small market station owners not surprise me?

There are a hell of a lot of people inside the 70 dBU contour of WHTZ & KBIG.

Heck - there's a lot of people in the 70 dBU contours of my stations. 70 dBU covers the entire metro.

I'm home visiting the family for the holidays. With the exception of a few rimshots, 70 dBU would cover the entire metro here too.

 

[ElCheapo]

You haven't been around this board long enough to know that I have addressed what you are saying about IBOC not being attacked the way it's attacked here and that there is very little HD bashing going on in the engineering listservers.

It's really quite simple: Gainfully employed broadcast engineers want to keep working. Therefore they will not PUBLICALLY say anything bad about this technology if their employers are using it.

I really don't think that's the case. I don't think any of the guys I know have ever been afraid to speak their minds on the listservers.

Regardless - if they really did want to jump on the anti-IBOC bandwagon, they could do it anonymously. How hard is it to set up an anonymous e-mail account? Not very.

But I am starting to get the picture about this board. DX enthusiasts and small market station owners that aren't looking forward to replacing their Gates, RCA and Collins transmitters when the technology catches on.

 

[700WLW]

You haven't been around this board long enough to know that I have addressed what you are saying about IBOC not being attacked the way it's attacked here and that there is very little HD bashing going on in the engineering listservers.

It's really quite simple: Gainfully employed broadcast engineers want to keep working. Therefore they will not PUBLICALLY say anything bad about this technology if their employers are using it.

I really don't think that's the case. I don't think any of the guys I know have ever been afraid to speak their minds on the listservers.

Regardless - if they really did want to jump on the anti-IBOC bandwagon, they could do it anonymously. How hard is it to set up an anonymous e-mail account? Not very.

But I am starting to get the picture about this board. DX enthusiasts and small market station owners that aren't looking forward to replacing their Gates, RCA and Collins transmitters when the technology catches on.

iBiquity is running out of time - IBOC has been, and will be, a complete failure !