Interesting blog on possible HD power level increases, with the impact on reception.
http://www.rwonline.com/pages/s.0049/t.13597.html
JohnEB
http://www.rwonline.com/pages/s.0049/t.13597.html
JohnEB
-
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
HD Power Levels
- Thread starter johneb2johneb2
- Start date
"An engineer who works for a major broadcast group said his company is disappointed with coverage of the FM digital signal. His company believes the HD Radio rollout “is dead” without the increase, he said."
It's already dead, and iBiquity's answers to lousy reception are all BS, improving antennas? Right. If there were better antennas, they'd be in radios now.
An increase in the digital carrier will just increase co-channel interference.
“As we look at the power increase [issue], it’s time for broadcasters to start living in the digital world and leave the analog world behind,” Walden concluded."
Does he mean what I think he's implying? Does that mean that broadcasters are going to all be in their own little worlds as virtually no one owns IBOC radios? As someone else here wrote if an HD signal is broadcast and no one hears it, is it still a sound?
The whole article smacks of desperation.
It's already dead, and iBiquity's answers to lousy reception are all BS, improving antennas? Right. If there were better antennas, they'd be in radios now.
An increase in the digital carrier will just increase co-channel interference.
“As we look at the power increase [issue], it’s time for broadcasters to start living in the digital world and leave the analog world behind,” Walden concluded."
Does he mean what I think he's implying? Does that mean that broadcasters are going to all be in their own little worlds as virtually no one owns IBOC radios? As someone else here wrote if an HD signal is broadcast and no one hears it, is it still a sound?
The whole article smacks of desperation.
There's no such thing as digital. There is only analog with some defined level of voltage below which is zero, a small amibiguous range, and a voltage above which is one. Many things with "digital" outputs are firmly analog-based with some discriminator making the go/no-go
decision.
Anyone who thinks the world is digital will be daily disappointed with food, air, drink, transportation, etc.
Wait till you pay for a plumber sometime, you'll see how water CANNOT be made digital.
Go ahead and fix your own pipes, that's pretty analog, too.
A good number of things should not be converted into digital. Tele-smell need not exist in anaolg or digtal.
Button-pushing functions, this type of discourse and many things work well digitally in the wired (huge bandwidth)
environment of a computer and internet.
In radio I again agrue that analog in longer wavelengths, at least, is the the most efficient means of
of transmission ( of audio ) as the mod IS the information, save detection/rectification.
Another digital reality is it has many more total faliure modes than analog equivalents.
I drive a car using ignition points, and I could tell monday exactly when they began to hiccup a tiny bit that they had worn funny.
Monday I drove to KC, Mo and decided I was tired of the analog hiccup I experienced at the top of hills, or beginning to climb one at the bottom. So I spent 30 minutes changing points. No longer than putting in a new tube and re-neutralizing.
Such a system works because it is following the laws of physics and has no choice.
But I never had the total failure like when your crankshaft position sensor fails.
I prefer such things stay analog for me because I have to fix computer, analog, mechanical and digital problems.
I have far more faith in the the laws of physics than any software or computer hardware yet developed.
The radio, when respecting the laws of physics is truly a musical instrument, quite unlike the nature of computers.
They reasonate exactly like a musical instrument and work in harmony with natural tuning methods.
If iboc were an efficient method, it would seem to propogate better.
I would liken it to wave nature in water. If we intend to modulate info upon water, why not make waves which water will easily carry?
Digital would be a massive splash-pulse we are expected to translate at a distance through a medium which does not wish to
convey pressure pulses nearly as cleanly as waves. And then there's HOW many sidebands in the AM system?
Go ahead and say digital is more dependable. It is until it isn't and then it's failing for some analog problem like a connection somewhere
or a DC imbalance that screws up your comm handshake to auxilliary equipment.
I'll still prefer the stuff you can take care of ( but have to) over the stuff you don't have to take of ( but can't ).
decision.
Anyone who thinks the world is digital will be daily disappointed with food, air, drink, transportation, etc.
Wait till you pay for a plumber sometime, you'll see how water CANNOT be made digital.
Go ahead and fix your own pipes, that's pretty analog, too.
A good number of things should not be converted into digital. Tele-smell need not exist in anaolg or digtal.
Button-pushing functions, this type of discourse and many things work well digitally in the wired (huge bandwidth)
environment of a computer and internet.
In radio I again agrue that analog in longer wavelengths, at least, is the the most efficient means of
of transmission ( of audio ) as the mod IS the information, save detection/rectification.
Another digital reality is it has many more total faliure modes than analog equivalents.
I drive a car using ignition points, and I could tell monday exactly when they began to hiccup a tiny bit that they had worn funny.
Monday I drove to KC, Mo and decided I was tired of the analog hiccup I experienced at the top of hills, or beginning to climb one at the bottom. So I spent 30 minutes changing points. No longer than putting in a new tube and re-neutralizing.
Such a system works because it is following the laws of physics and has no choice.
But I never had the total failure like when your crankshaft position sensor fails.
I prefer such things stay analog for me because I have to fix computer, analog, mechanical and digital problems.
I have far more faith in the the laws of physics than any software or computer hardware yet developed.
The radio, when respecting the laws of physics is truly a musical instrument, quite unlike the nature of computers.
They reasonate exactly like a musical instrument and work in harmony with natural tuning methods.
If iboc were an efficient method, it would seem to propogate better.
I would liken it to wave nature in water. If we intend to modulate info upon water, why not make waves which water will easily carry?
Digital would be a massive splash-pulse we are expected to translate at a distance through a medium which does not wish to
convey pressure pulses nearly as cleanly as waves. And then there's HOW many sidebands in the AM system?
Go ahead and say digital is more dependable. It is until it isn't and then it's failing for some analog problem like a connection somewhere
or a DC imbalance that screws up your comm handshake to auxilliary equipment.
I'll still prefer the stuff you can take care of ( but have to) over the stuff you don't have to take of ( but can't ).
johneb2johneb2 said:
What the article really doesn't go into is the difficulty of implementing this. With the typical high-level combiners in use, increasing the digital power by 10dB requires a digital transmitter with the same power output as the analog transmitter. Going to 10dB roughly doubles the space required, roughly doubles the utility power required (both in terms of the bill and in terms of whether the existing wiring is large enough), roughly doubles the heat that must be cleared from the building. It is not a simple tweak.
I found this statement interesting:
It's a bit vague but it looks like some stations are having trouble confining the HD sidebands to the bandwidth called for in the spec, and they want the spec relaxed.
Also interesting is this one:
which again is vague but suggests they want to increase the occupied bandwidth a bit. (however, it's possible the extra partitions would be on the "inside" of the signal where the analog is, or that they want to split part of the existing bandwidth)
Yes, once again IBOC's mad scientists can't make their system do what it's supposed to. So they indulge in a little "drawing the curve, then plotting the data" when it comes to "compliance." In other words; cheating. As said before: it isn't IBOC. It's IBAC (not on-channel, adjacent-channel.)
The combiners necessitated by a purported 10db increase will be massively wasteful of the station's analog RF, which means higher-powered transmitters will have to be installed, with a large proportion of the RF generated being dissipated as heat. Heavier antennae and TX lines will be required, and dual antennas for hybrid analog/digital may well exceed the structural and wind-load limits for existing sticks. Translation: in some cases towers will have to be replaced. Also, leased-facility owners will exact higher rent. At self-owned sites tax assessments may increase. Of course HVAC costs will increase sharply. IBOC proponents helpfully suggest that "combining multiple stations at single sites may be more efficient." In other words: negotiation of new space-sharing deals, legal and FCC filing costs to change TL.
In today's economic environment for radio, I seriously doubt whether this is going to occur except in a few "show-horse" cases owned by Alliance members.
The combiners necessitated by a purported 10db increase will be massively wasteful of the station's analog RF, which means higher-powered transmitters will have to be installed, with a large proportion of the RF generated being dissipated as heat. Heavier antennae and TX lines will be required, and dual antennas for hybrid analog/digital may well exceed the structural and wind-load limits for existing sticks. Translation: in some cases towers will have to be replaced. Also, leased-facility owners will exact higher rent. At self-owned sites tax assessments may increase. Of course HVAC costs will increase sharply. IBOC proponents helpfully suggest that "combining multiple stations at single sites may be more efficient." In other words: negotiation of new space-sharing deals, legal and FCC filing costs to change TL.
In today's economic environment for radio, I seriously doubt whether this is going to occur except in a few "show-horse" cases owned by Alliance members.
DX'n HD Sux. sorry for the word, but it just does. I cant get a drop of a HD signal with my dipole 84 miles from Houston, but I can get a decent FM stereo sound out of my tuner. My outdoor antenna even has a hard time bringing it in. I would of been all for this if it was not so hard to get. I can also DX to san antonio with a dipole 60 miles away with a good decent FM stereo sound.
I'm still waiting to see how the 10 dB proponents plan to sidestep the FCC's established definition of occupied bandwidth. There's no way to make this additional energy fit into an FM channel while holding the total mean power of the digital "spillover" to less than 0.5 percent on each side.
The relevant rule is 47 CFR 2.202(a); here's a link to the full text:
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/tex...8&view=text&node=47:1.0.1.1.3.3.217.2&idno=47
The relevant rule is 47 CFR 2.202(a); here's a link to the full text:
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/tex...8&view=text&node=47:1.0.1.1.3.3.217.2&idno=47
Tom, THAT WAS A GREAT POST, and summed the situation up well... I wouldn’t expect any less from you. I can’t author anything and not be repetitive. Great follow-up, Savage... I’m expecting such from you 
...BTW, How is 1040 WYSL doing – I hope WELL my friend!
...BTW, How is 1040 WYSL doing – I hope WELL my friend!Tom, I agree all digital is, is electricity stopping and starting. On, off, on, off, ones and zero's, that's why digital sound sounds ragged. No nice gradual rise and fall from full to nothing like analog which is why analog sounds infinitely better. Great post. This whole thread has been good.
Play Freebird said:
There's just one problem: the FCC doesn't care. The fact is, it can be shown mathematically that adding the digital sidebands at the current -20 dBc power level doubles the occupied bandwidth of the FM signal. The occupied bandwidth of existing FM IBOC signals, using the definition you quote, already exceeds the 200 kHz channel width. I pointed this out in my comments filed in 2004 on FCC Docket 99-325 (see http://topazdesigns.com/iboc/McLarnon-Comments-Jun04.pdf, page 2). They ignored this inconvenient little truth when they issued their Second IBOC Report & Order.
Of course, increasing digital power will increase the occupied bandwidth even more beyond the confines of the channel, but anything goes these days...
Thanks again, ve3jf, for exposing HD radio's defects, lack of integrity and the dishonesty necessary to get and keep HD radio on the air.
There was a time when radio was evaluated by the quality of the content and signal received. Now HD radio is based on the amount and lack of quality deceived.
This is why radio's audience is disappearing, and not because it was not digital, as some here would have you believe.
HD radios are frequently returned because of both reception and deception problems with the product and technology.
There are simply better technical alternatives and more compelling content available elsewhere.
There was a time when radio was evaluated by the quality of the content and signal received. Now HD radio is based on the amount and lack of quality deceived.
This is why radio's audience is disappearing, and not because it was not digital, as some here would have you believe.
HD radios are frequently returned because of both reception and deception problems with the product and technology.
There are simply better technical alternatives and more compelling content available elsewhere.
Hippo, my man - WYSL is doing fine, no thanks to IBOC. This summer we lost one of our major live sports play-by-play accounts, a pro soccer team which has been on the station for 9 seasons of the team's 12-year existence. We also lost an associated paid nighttime feature show. The revenue from both of these clients exceeded $15,000. The reason, of course, was IBOC noise from WBZ. The team's post-game show would be all but unlistenable in the parking lot of the home stadium.
We were able to make this revenue up with spot sales elsewhere, but it's not a good harbinger for later this year. We are now in the longest days of high-power day-pattern operation of the year, so the effects of WBZ-HD's taking out our night signal are minimized. But as we all know - November and December will be here before we know it.
Of course, in violation of its own Second Report and Order, the FCC has ignored three detailed complaints filed since November 2007. Despite a direct appeal we made to Mass Media Bureau Chief Peter Doyle, the Commission has taken no action. There's no question in my mind about what's going on.
So a defenseless, successful AM is being obliterated at night by sleazy engineering charlatans like WBZ Engineering Manager Mark Manuelian and Lyin' Glynn Walden, and.....why, to superserve the twelve existing HD-AM listeners in Boston? I seriously doubt it.
I hope the CBS stockholders revolt and kick all their IBOC crooks out on their (deaf) ears. Mason and Company deserve no less for hitching Radio's Worst Company to the IBOC Train To Nowhere.
We were able to make this revenue up with spot sales elsewhere, but it's not a good harbinger for later this year. We are now in the longest days of high-power day-pattern operation of the year, so the effects of WBZ-HD's taking out our night signal are minimized. But as we all know - November and December will be here before we know it.
Of course, in violation of its own Second Report and Order, the FCC has ignored three detailed complaints filed since November 2007. Despite a direct appeal we made to Mass Media Bureau Chief Peter Doyle, the Commission has taken no action. There's no question in my mind about what's going on.
So a defenseless, successful AM is being obliterated at night by sleazy engineering charlatans like WBZ Engineering Manager Mark Manuelian and Lyin' Glynn Walden, and.....why, to superserve the twelve existing HD-AM listeners in Boston? I seriously doubt it.
I hope the CBS stockholders revolt and kick all their IBOC crooks out on their (deaf) ears. Mason and Company deserve no less for hitching Radio's Worst Company to the IBOC Train To Nowhere.
I live 40 miles form Boston and wrote to Mark whom I don't know months ago and complained about the horrendous noise on both sides of his signal, he basically assured me that IBOC was a wonderful thing and it created no problems anywhere. This showed me what kind of people are running at least this particular power house. They care NOTHING about what they are doing to their neighbors or the AM band. In fact I might write to him again and complain about his station's part in the now noisy bunch of spectrum now inhabited by WINS, KDKA, and WBZ and probably WHO. The last time I checked, WINS was killing the other ones, KDKA was just about non-existent and even WBZ was not very strong.
So I had a few carriers and mostly noise from about 995 to 1045. I used to get WHO very good here at night and also WCFL. Gone now for the most part and definitely unlistenable if they are in.Yes I know I am out of almost all of these station's contours. I really miss WSM which is covered up by WFAN, was a great sounding station, one of the best on the dial.
I'll tell you what, WBZ definitely does not sound as good as it used no matter what anyone here says to the contrary, it sounds tinny and thin and doesn't seems to come in as good as it used to. They are shooting themselves in the foot.
So I had a few carriers and mostly noise from about 995 to 1045. I used to get WHO very good here at night and also WCFL. Gone now for the most part and definitely unlistenable if they are in.Yes I know I am out of almost all of these station's contours. I really miss WSM which is covered up by WFAN, was a great sounding station, one of the best on the dial.
I'll tell you what, WBZ definitely does not sound as good as it used no matter what anyone here says to the contrary, it sounds tinny and thin and doesn't seems to come in as good as it used to. They are shooting themselves in the foot.
A
audiophile.
Guest
ve3jf said:
Barry I would aslo have an American with radio station ownership file your comments for next time.
KB10KL, if you write to Manuelian, be sure you cc: the FCC enforcement bureau. PM me if you need contact info and guidance about how to do this. Don't expect Mark to do anything. He's a patsy who has to do as he's told to protect his job.
Another casualty of HD Radio - honesty and integrity within the radio engineering fraternity, supplanted by intimidation and force from self-interested corporate suits. Manuelian should be ashamed of himself for being such a tool and a wimp. Rather than being a sellout he should have quit and gone to work for a company with some integrity rather than willingly participating in destruction of other broadcasters.
There actually exist, radio management who do possess male genitalia....like Martin Stabbert, Watt Hairston, Bob Neil, etc.
Another casualty of HD Radio - honesty and integrity within the radio engineering fraternity, supplanted by intimidation and force from self-interested corporate suits. Manuelian should be ashamed of himself for being such a tool and a wimp. Rather than being a sellout he should have quit and gone to work for a company with some integrity rather than willingly participating in destruction of other broadcasters.
There actually exist, radio management who do possess male genitalia....like Martin Stabbert, Watt Hairston, Bob Neil, etc.
- Status