HD Interference Case #1 (FM)

[audiophile.]

That's a pretty bold claim that it isn't interfering with ANY stations within the protected contour. I've given 173 potential cases in this thread alone on first adjacent FM's... I have a lot more examples I just haven't had time to show ya'll yet!

73.201 states that each each FM channel is 200 kHz wide. To have a true "honest-to-goodness" IBOC (emphasis: "On Channel)" system that produces any intentional continious emissions should fit within the 200 KHz spectrum.

DRE is one possible system that would comply with that. The listening tests on WFMK with the DRE system proved to me it doesn't increase first adjacents interference as I monitored WWJQ, Holland, MI during the test. I noticed no difference. The DRE system was tested in a mobile environment out to 1 Mv/m of WFMK. Another credible engineering collegue in the car at the time said it worked amazingly well!

THe DRE system suggested configuration is 64k (Many others are possible. The other suggessed one is 128k.). Use first 32k for your HD-1 and second 32 k for HD-2 and you have same bitrate as INiquity. I don't see a real advantage to putting your analog signal on one of the HD channels.

If FCC allowed greater subcarrier injection, peak modulation and eased the 100 kHz SCA restriction, the DRE could almost have endless possiblities for bandwidth, at the expense of possibly increasing first adjacent interference (but it certainly would not be worse than the "HD" system). If the FCC is open to this, I would suggest a digital system shoot-out, and let the chips fall where they may...

 

[I.B. Iquity]

and we'll end up in the same the same place as AM stereo. IBOC is it as far as digital goes for the moment. If these other systems are so wonderful where are the receivers? Why are these systems only coming out now and do they work on both AM & FM bands? As to interference all I'll say is that there's a lot of bad engineering out there. Below 92 Mhz stations do not have the same interference protection that those above 92 have (Here in NY the FM commercial band starts at 92.3 and goes to 107.9 and there are no first adjacent stations audible) but every second adjacent is occupied with no detectable problems.

 

[SUPERCASTER]

If FCC allowed greater subcarrier injection, peak modulation and eased the 100 kHz SCA restriction, the DRE could almost have endless possiblities for bandwidth, at the expense of possibly increasing first adjacent interference (but it certainly would not be worse than the "HD" system). If the FCC is open to this, I would suggest a digital system shoot-out, and let the chips fall where they may...

Agreed, Audiophile.
Why are HD supporters so afraid of competition, and an objective, unbiased, impartial, third party engineering study?
What law said the AM solution for digital has to come from the same company or at the same time as an
In Band On Channel fully compatible system, such as FMeXtra?
You can use FMeXtra with or without simutaneous HD Radio digital saddlebags, and with much less trouble and expense then HD Radio.
No mask to hide behind, no trespassing, interference creating, adjacent channel saddlebags, no new transmission equipment (just an inexpensive encoder/digital SCA exciter), no rules changes, no waiting for final FCC approval, same AAC plus digital encoder, same fidelity, and inexpensive radios. Any station, but the most miniscule station can afford it, and it won't jam their neighbors.
Sounds like we found a winner with FMeXtra.
No, FMeXtra won't create the same problem as AM Stereo. The people did not buy AM Stereo because they saw no need for it, as they already had FM Stereo. Why not let the people have the final decision?
They are bound to make the final decision anyway, buy buying or not buying the radios, but at least the investment for FMeXtra is much smaller, and less risky.

 

[autopaint-1]

"Why are HD supporters so afraid of competition, and an objective, unbiased, impartial, third party engineering study?"

Who is stopping you? No one said that FMeXtra or D-cam can't be transmitted. Knock yourselves out, but don't ask Ibiquity to subsidise the cost of manufacturing radios. Who has said that you guys can't compete? You don't want competition really, you want to DX or whatever and so it's not Ibiquities job to support your claim. Go ahead and compete and stop whining. Ibiquity has developed a system and had radios built to its specs. Now it's up to others to do the same. All I hear are a bunch of claims and so far nothing to back it up.

 

[RexManning]

on the super power fms, dont forget that they are only protected to their class limits.
so wbct at 320,000 watts is still a class B station , and only has protection to the 50kw contour, under FCC rules.

 

[SUPERCASTER]

"Why are HD supporters so afraid of competition, and an objective, unbiased, impartial, third party engineering study?"

Who is stopping you?

A-Glad you admit I'm so impartial, factual, unbiased, objective, qualified, recognized and endorsed by all parties. Thanks.

No one said that FMeXtra or D-cam can't be transmitted.

A-In the case of FMeXtra, it is being transmitted, and it's even comatible with HD although I don't know why FMeXtra broadcasters would bother with HD. A few thousand expensive, troublesome HD radios, in the field is no reason to stop deployment of FMeXtra.

Knock yourselves out, but don't ask Ibiquity to subsidise the cost of manufacturing radios.

A-Who has asked Ibiquity to subsidize manufacturing FMeXtra radios? Ibiquity has enough trouble getting their HD radios manufactured, especially since they don't even have final approval from the FCC yet.

Who has said that you guys can't compete?

A-HD supporters have been saying FMeXtra should not be allowed, because it will muddy the HD waters, and make HD Radio's deficiencies clear to all.

You don't want competition really, you want to DX or whatever and so it's not Ibiquities job to support your claim.

A-I would love real impartial, quality, interference, coverage, cost, engineering assessment and competition between the systems, that is far more preferable then having HD lobbyists writing the FCC rules, and having them force this defective HD Radio system on the public.
Why do you always hammer on DXers?
Your blind hatred for DXers is clear. Perhaps because they are not listening to what HD supporters claim are "lawfully legal" local stations?
Personnally, I rarely DX, but support the right of others to listen to whatever they wish, secondary coverage, and even to skip , if the public wishes. Isn't freedom wonderful?
Who asked Ibiquity to support my claim?
Ibiquity and the HD cartel are having enough trouble supporting their own claims. The lobbying expenses alone must be enormous.

Go ahead and compete and stop whining. Ibiquity has developed a system and had radios built to its specs. Now it's up to others to do the same. All I hear are a bunch of claims and so far nothing to back it up.

A-I'm not the one constantly whining about DXers and claiming they have no rights. You and your brethren are. If we could have an impartial engineering appraisal, instead of lobbyists and lawyers submitting spurious "de minimus" engineering filings about interference masks with the FCC, that would be terriffic.

All I hear are a bunch of claims and so far nothing to back it up.

A-Well, that's Ibiquity and the HD cartel for you. All deceptive sales hype, and no substance.

 

[autopaint-1]

We do have impartial engineering experts who will judge whether IBOC should be allowed. They're called the FCC. Everything else does muddy the water. As to DXers, I'm one myself and I don't HATE them. It's just that they don't matter in this equation. Let's be relaistic here, They come to the table with no cards and have no rights.

 

[SayNoToIBOC]

"We do have impartial engineering experts who will judge whether IBOC should be allowed. They're called the FCC. Everything else does muddy the water. As to DXers, I'm one myself and I don't HATE them. It's just that they don't matter in this equation. Let's be relaistic here, They come to the table with no cards and have no rights."

Impartial - hardly ! The FCC is in bed with the NAB, iBiquity, and Clear Channel ! I was very surprised, when the FCC pulled IBOC off its agenda in July.

 

[audiophile.]

We do have impartial engineering experts who will judge whether IBOC should be allowed. They're called the FCC. Everything else does muddy the water. As to DXers, I'm one myself and I don't HATE them. It's just that they don't matter in this equation. Let's be relaistic here, They come to the table with no cards and have no rights.

???
I have to take issue with these statements Autopaint1:
FCC impartial? Engineering Experts? DX's don't matter in this equation? Who's water is being muddied (yours or ours)? No rights (last I checked they DO have rights in democracy and as part of the listening public)?
???


So has the FCC has done it's own testing of several digital technologies, compared the robustness of the signal, and sound quality testing and published the studies? If so, please provided link to such a comprehensive study.

Has the FCC done INDEPENDANT tests on digital interference, on say 50 different radios, and published the studies? If so, please provided link to such a study.

Has the OET released any detailed reports on their digital tests? If so, please provided link to such a study.

How come the FCC pays millions of dollars for the Mitre Report on LPFM and no such test has been done on Digital broadcasting?

Do ANY of the Commissioners have an engineering background...or even a ham license? If so, please provide bio or ham call sign.

Aren't DX'er part of the public interest the FCC also supposedly serves? Why is there such a thing a protected skywave signal?

C'mon Autopaint1, lets be honest with ourselves...

 

[Tom Wells]

Ibquity did not design "radios" and have them built. They took their loveable Lucent (Loose Ends) technology for multi-carrier high speed modems, and influenced the FCC to permit one-way modem communications to be accepted as a "radio" mode. And they didn't even seem to be able to accurately measure BANDWIDTH or POWER.
So just how much do they know about radio?

AM-mode radio happens EASILY and naturally, this is why any semiconductor junction (even a razor blade and pencil lead), can demodulate it, and it derives enough power to run high-impedance headphones directly.

FM is a little harder to accomplish, and requires a different detector, (slope, ratio, product etc.) but still
demodulates inherently, in real time, with no processing.

It is easy to to take something simple and make it complicated.

It is much harder to take something difficult and make it seem simple. This is why radio is art.

When a computer style "clock" is present to run a processor, and this processor reassembles an audio "waveform", it is
not radio any longer.

I accept that the end product "resembles" radio to the end user.
I do not accept the premise that a signal requiring "reassembly" by a computer is radio.

I have called PLL radios "radio emulators" for years, because you can't TUNE them.
I'm NOT going to dig into one these things to figure out where to add a voltage vernier on the tuning varactor diode, because that only moves the oscillator, and to do any good you must tune an RF amp circuit as well, and these things are all broad-banded inputs now.
Radios TUNE, computers have "presets".

If digital is so good, why did nature (or God) evolve all these purely analog systems in our world?
Why are our ears analog? A small consideration of the variation in sound pressure levels we are exposed to, makes it clear
that we'd need large "registers" and lots of processing to handle the data.
It's simply not efficient enough to be worth the trouble, so nature didn't take that path.
Analog radio was so successful all by itself that the Federal Radio Commission had to be created to restrain and control its
wild growth. Digital "radio", on the other hand, needed to dupe the FCC into allowing permission for this new mode.

Name please, any naturally occuring digital modes.

 

[calstymes]

autopaint-1 proclaimed:

We do have impartial engineering experts who will judge whether IBOC should be allowed. They're called the FCC.

My goodness! I am REALLY surprised to hear you say that, given the fact that you have spent so many years in the #1 broadcasting market in the country. They are neither the engineering experts you think they are nor are they impartial. I do believe that because you said that you have been lucky enough to have never actually had to deal with this agency in your professional capacity.

The last FCC "engineering expert" inspector who came to a particular 50 KW station that I have some knowledge about had to have the theory of its transmitter output and antenna circuits explained to him because he was having trouble understanding how some of the measured parameters were being calculated! Yes, quite an engineering expert he was.

vsa said in another thread:

iBiquity’s owners include industry leaders: ABC, Beasley, Bonneville, CBS Radio, Citadel, Clear Channel, Cox Radio, Cumulus, Emmis, Entercom, Gannett, Radio One, Regent, Saga, and Univision.

If there is one thing those Ubiquitous guys are, they are slick salespeople. Look at all the other companies they've gotten to invest! And now the Univision guy says that Intel has invested? Wow, if pure engineering ever DOES win out here (and unfortunately it seldom does) then these companies are all going to be sorry they invested so heavily in this technology.

I.B. Iquity announced:

IBOC is it as far as digital goes for the moment. If these other systems are so wonderful where are the receivers?

Follow the cash (see above).

Fact: There are systems out there (which people are talking about on this message board) that the Ubiquitous gang doesn't want you to know about. And the Ubiquitous gang paid an awfully hefty price to make sure these other systems stayed "small". Their "all or nothing at all" attitude has pervaded their business practices since the very beginning of the consortium (cartel). But the price that gets paid only comes due if they are successful which is when they can have their public offering and their investors get paid back. If that happens, then everyone who has a financial stake in HD/IBOC is happy.

That is... everyone except for the general public, which will ultimately have to live with "cellular" radio. You think its bad that your calls get dropped now? Just wait until we have nothing but cellular "radios" on which to listen! This goes for WiFi radio and any other technology that uses computers which masquerade as radios.

 

[1q2w3e]

Fact: There are systems out there (which people are talking about on this message board) that the Ubiquitous gang doesn't want you to know about. And the Ubiquitous gang paid an awfully hefty price to make sure these other systems stayed "small". Their "all or nothing at all" attitude has pervaded their business practices since the very beginning of the consortium (cartel). But the price that gets paid only comes due if they are successful which is when they can have their public offering and their investors get paid back. If that happens, then everyone who has a financial stake in HD/IBOC is happy.

That is... everyone except for the general public, which will ultimately have to live with "cellular" radio. You think its bad that your calls get dropped now? Just wait until we have nothing but cellular "radios" on which to listen! This goes for WiFi radio and any other technology that uses computers which masquerade as radios.


A few things.....

Imagine a company that wants to try to elliminate its competition. OH MY! What a shock! What will happen next? (smart pants mode off)

You are right about "cellular" radio. There are people out there that think that WiMAX and Cell phone streaming will be the next great thing. What do you think will happen when everyone wants to stream from their phones? Where will the bandwidth come from? With WiMAX, you will haev the range of a small FM or AM station. Then what happens??

IMHO why not let HD continue? For the distant future we will still have analog, but the HD signal gives extra channels for more choices.

Personally I have looked at other digital methods. I dont see other systems being as well implemented nor researched. Yes it appears that HD may not have been researched. You should look at some of their technical papers! Good grief! Makes my eyes roll back into my head. WHat HD needs is some good MARKETING! They have been a tad slow on that aspect.

 

[SUPERCASTER]

We do have impartial engineering experts who will judge whether IBOC should be allowed. They're called the FCC. Everything else does muddy the water. As to DXers, I'm one myself and I don't HATE them. It's just that they don't matter in this equation. Let's be relaistic here, They come to the table with no cards and have no rights.

Who do you think you are to say which Americans have rights and matter?
You have a much more severe set of problems and issues that even HD Radio can't cure. Your waters already completely muddied, and you are the one not playing with a full deck.

 

[audiophile.]

I think what autopaint1 was saying is licensed broadcasters only have the "rights". That false assumption also fails to consider broadcasters who are opposed to increasing interference.

It's in everyone’s best interest to be vigilant against interference. I'm just as adamant about other sources of interference such as BPL, digital devices, power line buzz, dimmers, pirates and mobile fm modulators....

 

[1q2w3e]

I think what autopaint1 was saying is licensed broadcasters only have the "rights". That false assumption also fails to consider broadcasters who are opposed to increasing interference.

It's in everyone’s best interest to be vigilant against interference. I'm just as adamant about other sources of interference such as BPL, digital devices, power line buzz, dimmers, pirates and mobile fm modulators....

IMHO those items are much more of a problem than HD radio. What do you say we get together and work on those items? Those are the true trouble makers!

 

[IBOCRocks]

I think what autopaint1 was saying is licensed broadcasters only have the "rights". That false assumption also fails to consider broadcasters who are opposed to increasing interference.

It's in everyone’s best interest to be vigilant against interference. I'm just as adamant about other sources of interference such as BPL, digital devices, power line buzz, dimmers, pirates and mobile fm modulators....

IMHO those items are much more of a problem than HD radio. What do you say we get together and work on those items? Those are the true trouble makers!

Good question. If "SayNo" and "SUPERCASTER" spent as much time fighting that as they do IBOC, we might be on to something. I guess those items aren't as "sexy" as fighting IBOC.

 

[audiophile.]

I think what autopaint1 was saying is licensed broadcasters only have the "rights". That false assumption also fails to consider broadcasters who are opposed to increasing interference.

It's in everyone’s best interest to be vigilant against interference. I'm just as adamant about other sources of interference such as BPL, digital devices, power line buzz, dimmers, pirates and mobile fm modulators....

IMHO those items are much more of a problem than HD radio. What do you say we get together and work on those items? Those are the true trouble makers!

Seriously, I am!

After the recent NPR reports, I think FM modulators should be not be used in moving vehicles.

I should post the email of fella that was complaining about FM station was interfering with HIS FM modulator! What a hoot! What part of "part 15" does he not understand?

 

[SUPERCASTER]

I think what autopaint1 was saying is licensed broadcasters only have the "rights". That false assumption also fails to consider broadcasters who are opposed to increasing interference.

It's in everyone’s best interest to be vigilant against interference. I'm just as adamant about other sources of interference such as BPL, digital devices, power line buzz, dimmers, pirates and mobile fm modulators....

IMHO those items are much more of a problem than HD radio. What do you say we get together and work on those items? Those are the true trouble makers!

Good question. If "SayNo" and "SUPERCASTER" spent as much time fighting that as they do IBOC, we might be on to something. I guess those items aren't as "sexy" as fighting IBOC.

I am opposed to BPL, digital devices, power line buzz, dimmers, pirates and OVEPOWERED mobile fm modulators, and say so in the appropriate places. Not on the HD Radio board.
You find HD Radio buzz and hiss sexy?
No wonder you support HD. Interference turns you on. Gives you a sense of power?

 

[IBOCRocks]

I think what autopaint1 was saying is licensed broadcasters only have the "rights". That false assumption also fails to consider broadcasters who are opposed to increasing interference.

It's in everyone’s best interest to be vigilant against interference. I'm just as adamant about other sources of interference such as BPL, digital devices, power line buzz, dimmers, pirates and mobile fm modulators....

IMHO those items are much more of a problem than HD radio. What do you say we get together and work on those items? Those are the true trouble makers!

Good question. If "SayNo" and "SUPERCASTER" spent as much time fighting that as they do IBOC, we might be on to something. I guess those items aren't as "sexy" as fighting IBOC.

I am opposed to BPL, digital devices, power line buzz, dimmers, pirates and OVEPOWERED mobile fm modulators, and say so in the appropriate places. Not on the HD Radio board.
You find HD Radio buzz and hiss sexy?
No wonder you support HD. Interference turns you on. Gives you a sense of power?

What? Wow...you off your meds or something?

Just...wow...

 

[1q2w3e]

I think what autopaint1 was saying is licensed broadcasters only have the "rights". That false assumption also fails to consider broadcasters who are opposed to increasing interference.

It's in everyone’s best interest to be vigilant against interference. I'm just as adamant about other sources of interference such as BPL, digital devices, power line buzz, dimmers, pirates and mobile fm modulators....

IMHO those items are much more of a problem than HD radio. What do you say we get together and work on those items? Those are the true trouble makers!

Good question. If "SayNo" and "SUPERCASTER" spent as much time fighting that as they do IBOC, we might be on to something. I guess those items aren't as "sexy" as fighting IBOC.

I am opposed to BPL, digital devices, power line buzz, dimmers, pirates and OVEPOWERED mobile fm modulators, and say so in the appropriate places. Not on the HD Radio board.
You find HD Radio buzz and hiss sexy?
No wonder you support HD. Interference turns you on. Gives you a sense of power?

WOW bit of a stretch, even for you.

Are you for anything? Or just against thing?