HD Interference Case #1 (FM)

[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?

WOW bit of a stretch, even for you.

Are you for anything? Or just against thing?

I'm for many things, including:
FMeXtra www.dreinc.com
and:
The world standard method for totally Digital Radio www.drm.org
I have often said so here. Therefore you comments are just another "red herring" attempt to misdirect the board away from HD radio and it's defects, mirepresentations, hype, lobbying, and problematic nature.

 

[1q2w3e]

[/quote]
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?
[/quote]

WOW bit of a stretch, even for you.

Are you for anything? Or just against thing?
[/quote]
I'm for many things, including:
FMeXtra www.dreinc.com
and:
The world standard method for totally Digital Radio www.drm.org
I have often said so here. Therefore you comments are just another "red herring" attempt to misdirect the board away from HD radio and it's defects, mirepresentations, hype, lobbying, and problematic nature.
[/quote]

POT KETTLE BLACK my friend.

As I have mentioned in previous posts, FMeXtra could be interesting, but I have two concerns... No receivers, and very limited bandwidth. Even less bandwidth than HD.

I would not exactly say DRM is a world standard. At NAB there was very little interest in DRM, though there were about the same number of presentations for DRM than for HD Radio.

My comments are none of the above. I personally dont care if HD takes off or not. HD has its issues. But it appears to be the better of the sigital formats out there.

I DO care about proper and accurate information. Something you and your "friends" seem to have a problem with.

 

[SUPERCASTER]

I DO care about proper and accurate information.

I would not call HD cartel hype "proper and accurate information." Since there has been no impartial, third party, comprehensive engineering study of HD Radio, your claims to having such information are nothing more then a fraud being perpetrated on the public.
I have no problem with such a study of HD Radio and FMeXtra, why do you?

 

[audiophile.]

I DO care about proper and accurate information.

I would not call HD cartel hype "proper and accurate information." Since there has been no impartial, third party, comprehensive engineering study of HD Radio, your claims to having such information are nothing more then a fraud being perpetrated on the public.
I have no problem with such a study of HD Radio and FMeXtra, why do you?

If the ultimate goal is provide secondary channels of audio and put the squeeze on the satcastors, why don't the HD radio broadcasters also install DRE's system and add even more channels?

 

[SUPERCASTER]

I DO care about proper and accurate information.

I would not call HD cartel hype "proper and accurate information." Since there has been no impartial, third party, comprehensive engineering study of HD Radio, your claims to having such information are nothing more then a fraud being perpetrated on the public.
I have no problem with such a study of HD Radio and FMeXtra, why do you?

If the ultimate goal is provide secondary channels of audio and put the squeeze on the satcastors, why don't the HD radio broadcasters also install DRE's system and add even more channels?

HD supporters then would have created competition. The flawed, incompatible HD system would become obvious, and unnecessary. They can't have that. They are trying to peddle HD Radio, not FMeXtra.

 

[audiophile.]

If the ultimate goal is provide secondary channels of audio and put the squeeze on the satcastors, why don't the HD radio broadcasters also install DRE's system and add even more channels?
HD supporters then would have created competition. The flawed, incompatible HD system would become obvious, and unnecessary. They can't have that. They are trying to peddle HD Radio, not FMeXtra.I'd love their response to this...

 

[Chuck]

If the ultimate goal is provide secondary channels of audio and put the squeeze on the satcastors, why don't the HD radio broadcasters also install DRE's system and add even more channels?
HD supporters then would have created competition. The flawed, incompatible HD system would become obvious, and unnecessary. They can't have that. They are trying to peddle HD Radio, not FMeXtra.I'd love their response to this...

Some pubcasters are experimenting with using both IBOC and FMeXtra. From what I've been able to gather, it seems to work. That's why I envision radios capable of receiving both.

 

[IBOCRocks]

If the ultimate goal is provide secondary channels of audio and put the squeeze on the satcastors, why don't the HD radio broadcasters also install DRE's system and add even more channels?
HD supporters then would have created competition. The flawed, incompatible HD system would become obvious, and unnecessary. They can't have that. They are trying to peddle HD Radio, not FMeXtra.I'd love their response to this...

Some pubcasters are experimenting with using both IBOC and FMeXtra. From what I've been able to gather, it seems to work. That's why I envision radios capable of receiving both.

If it provides the same choices as IBOC, I'd love to see the testing move forward!

 

[Len14043]

I agree. If there is a technology superior to IBOC for FM, it should be tested. I don't know much about FM extra but I heard that stations could use FM extra and IBOC simultaniously. Does FM extra allow for a transition to all-digital? I would like to know more about the technical aspects.

 

[1q2w3e]

I agree. If there is a technology superior to IBOC for FM, it should be tested. I don't know much about FM extra but I heard that stations could use FM extra and IBOC simultaniously. Does FM extra allow for a transition to all-digital? I would like to know more about the technical aspects.

Ditto! But I have not seen a receiver for FMeXtra yet.

The problem I see with FM eXtra is that the bandwidth is less than half of what HD offers, So the audio quality would be quite diminished. That is a good question about

I would be more than happy to try it on my stations when I get my HD up and running (I recently moved to a new market and will be working on HD Radio pretty soon. I have installed 4 FMs and one AM already however.)

OK Audiophile. Are you happy with the answers? It appears that us HD Radio supports are not as mean and nasty as you all protray us to be.

 

[audiophile.]

The problem I see with FM eXtra is that the bandwidth is less than half...

It's NOT less than half!

Unless you are using the whole 96k to simulcast your analog (largely pointless) FM Extra will not be any different in terms of kbps...

DRE doesn't require you to simulcast your analog, so you can save that bandwidth for second or third channels if you desire.

Longterm the plans with DRE is to go 164 kpbs by eliminating the L-R signal. This will still be 100% analog compatible.

Check this out:
http://www.energy-onix.com/Images/DRE Presentation wo animation/DRE1.html

Are you happy with the answers? It appears that us HD Radio supports are not as mean and nasty as you all protray us to be.

Huh? When did I say that?

I'm encouraged by your responses.

But I have not seen a receiver for FMeXtra yet.

I played with one for hours at the MAB, maybe try looking them up at NAB this month...

 

[audiophile.]

I played with one for hours at the MAB, maybe try looking them up at NAB this month...

Booth 600 to be specific...

 

[IBOCRocks]

The problem I see with FM eXtra is that the bandwidth is less than half...

DRE doesn't require you to simulcast your analog, so you can save that bandwidth for second or third channels if you desire.

What if you WANT to simulcast your analog signal? Then yes, you are giving something up. What about the five figures I get a year for leasing out a subcarrier for data? What's going to happen with that?

 

[audiophile.]

That's the beauty of it. No one tells you what to do. Heck go 164 kbps on your simulcast for all I care!

Five figures??? Who get's that type of money from SCA paging (besides did you forget about the five-figure annual fees on the HD-2 or HD-3's???). Most of newer FM paging systems are using the 57 KHz RDS SCA anyway (which still works with DRE to my understanding).

 

[IBOCRocks]

That's the beauty of it. No one tells you what to do. Heck go 164 kbps on your simulcast for all I care!

Five figures??? Who get's that type of money (besides did you forget about the five-figure annual fees on the HD-2 or HD-3's???). Most of those companies are using the 57 KHz SCA anyway (which still works with DRE to my understanding).

I use 57 for RDS and 67 for data. We get that kind of money for the data.

 

[audiophile.]

Obiviously the 57 and 67 could be combined.

If that wasn't acceptable, it seems like a wash to me. Pay 5 figures to iBiquity, or lose 5 figures turning off SCA paging.

I will tell you this, it cost you a lot more implement Ibiquity than you'll get out of that paging.

There is no techincal reason digital paging couldn't be shared within the DRE bandwidth.

 

[IBOCRocks]

Obiviously the 57 and 67 could be combined.

If that wasn't acceptable, it seems like a wash to me. Pay 5 figures to iBiquity, or lose 5 figures turning off SCA paging.

I will tell you this, it cost you a lot more implement Ibiquity than you'll get out of that paging.

There is no techincal reason digital paging couldn't be shared within the DRE bandwidth.

Which, in turn, requires all of those SCA devices to be replaced. Not cheap either.

 

[Tom Wells]

There's no free lunch. Information takes up bandwidth, and any subdividing it requires loss of data or the digital equivalent, compressing.
In the case of analog, AM , less bandwidth results in lower adio response. In FM, analog, it results in quieter modulation. In either case digitally, reduced bandwidth would equal lower throughput speed, and insufficient buffer for correction.

"Split" digital signals sound garbly and grainy, especially worst on vocals because we KNOW how voices sound, while we accept a good deal of distortion on music finding it part of the presentation.
Nationally syndicated talks shows have varying degrees of this, I have no idea what rates they run, but some sound really bad.


The SCA is a noise producer that not all stations can run. WFMT FM 98.7 Chicago, a classical music station tried this a few years ago,
and the listeners went through the roof. It was a very little tiny squiggle in the audio, but it can't be "hidden".
Paticularly when the audio has quiet passages. SCA, when it is working correctly, is not very robust and does experience some
mighty strange noises in its output. It NEEDS to be background music or non-critical service.

I suspect FM Xtra would work about the same. There are tradeoffs and advantages of all the different schemes, but still no free lunch.

This is the equivalent of looking at a whole lot of poorly producing farm fields with existing fences , and deciding that what needs to be done is replace all them fences!

I suspect we's using the wrong kind o fertilizer, er mebbe need to try a differnt crop.

 

[1q2w3e]

There's no free lunch. Information takes up bandwidth, and any subdividing it requires loss of data or the digital equivalent, compressing.
In the case of analog, AM , less bandwidth results in lower adio response. In FM, analog, it results in quieter modulation. In either case digitally, reduced bandwidth would equal lower throughput speed, and insufficient buffer for correction.

"Split" digital signals sound garbly and grainy, especially worst on vocals because we KNOW how voices sound, while we accept a good deal of distortion on music finding it part of the presentation.
Nationally syndicated talks shows have varying degrees of this, I have no idea what rates they run, but some sound really bad.


The SCA is a noise producer that not all stations can run. WFMT FM 98.7 Chicago, a classical music station tried this a few years ago,
and the listeners went through the roof. It was a very little tiny squiggle in the audio, but it can't be "hidden".
Paticularly when the audio has quiet passages. SCA, when it is working correctly, is not very robust and does experience some
mighty strange noises in its output. It NEEDS to be background music or non-critical service.

I suspect FM Xtra would work about the same. There are tradeoffs and advantages of all the different schemes, but still no free lunch.

This is the equivalent of looking at a whole lot of poorly producing farm fields with existing fences , and deciding that what needs to be done is replace all them fences!

I suspect we's using the wrong kind o fertilizer, er mebbe need to try a differnt crop.

Exactly. there is no free lunch in any direction you go.. be it HD or FMeXtra or what ever. The problem with FMeXtra is that there are a number of stations running data on SCA. Read that as stations are making MONEY with SCA. Or how about RDS? If we were having troubles with RDS, we would get a boat load of calls complaining. I cant imagine taking that away at this point. That would leave 92kHz for FM eXtra. And that is not a lot of bandwidth.

You bring up a good point about the reboustness of the SCA signals (which FMeXtra is run on). We tried to use SCA for talk back for remotes. We found that the range was VERY limited so we gave it up. There is very little modulation you can apply to an SCA signal without getting into the analog. RDS is usually 3%. Data is typically 10%. Thats not a lot of modulation folks!

 

[I.B. Iquity]

"There is very little modulation you can apply to an SCA signal without getting into the analog. RDS is usually 3%. Data is typically 10%. Thats not a lot of modulation folks!"
Are you going to allow facts to get in the way of a good rant? People don't listen to radio, & people don't mind paying for anything, no matter what. I haven't listened to radio in 10 years but I know everythig played on it is lousy, because I read about it being bad somewhere. With this digital system I can't hear my favorite station from Uranus. It's that great statioon on a 9 Khz split which everyone where I live listens to and on and on.