• 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 Radio degrades stereo signal-Spectrum analysis.

> S/N may degrade 30-40 dB when you listen to a signal with HD
> Radio sidebands. (In some cases).
> Here is the link:
> http://users.tns.net/~bb/iboc.htm
>

Did you read all the way down to the end?

An S/N loss of this magnitude is mostly hypothetical, though, because few stations today transmit with S/N so high. On the other hand, few transmit with S/N so low that HD Radio self-noise would be unobservable.

That's the author's conclusion.
 
> S/N may degrade 30-40 dB when you listen to a signal with HD
> Radio sidebands. (In some cases).
> Here is the link:
> http://users.tns.net/~bb/iboc.htm
>


You know what...

I had written a bunch of stuff about spamming this board with junk science, etc., but then I realized:

99% of the poeple here are smart enough to see you for the schill you are.

You've been challenged to support your claims. You haven't. You run away whenever someone challenges you only to come back later and post the same thing over and over.

You have no broadcast engineering experience whatsoever. This is fact. You read third hand information and believed it whole. In fact, I am so positive that you couldn't make proper measurements that I hereby invite you to visit my stations. I'll even pay for your hotel room. Come here with your spectrum analyzer and prove that you're right and we'll settle this once and for all.

The rest of us here are smart. We use our knowledge and experience and utilize critical thinking. We aren't lemmings who follow the pack. For the most part people on both sides of the fence respect the others opinions, and are willing to provide proof, when asked, to back up any claim.

Go ahead and post that faulty spectrum analyzer picture again and again. We we all be here to remind everyone how faulty it is every time you post it.


<P ID="signature">______________
</P><P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by RadioDoc on 02/18/06 05:14 PM.</FONT></P>
 
> > S/N may degrade 30-40 dB when you listen to a signal with
> HD
> > Radio sidebands. (In some cases).
> > Here is the link:
> > http://users.tns.net/~bb/iboc.htm
> >
>
>
> You know what...
>
> I had written a bunch of stuff about spamming this board
> with junk science, etc., but then I realized:
>
> 99% of the poeple here are smart enough to see you for the
> schill you are.
>
> You've been challenged to support your claims. You haven't.
> You run away whenever someone challenges you only to come
> back later and post the same thing over and over.
>
> You have no broadcast engineering experience whatsoever.
> This is fact. You read third hand information and believed
> it whole. In fact, I am so positive that you couldn't make
> proper measurements that I hereby invite you to visit my
> stations. I'll even pay for your hotel room. Come here
> with your spectrum analyzer and prove that you're right and
> we'll settle this once and for all.
>
> The rest of us here are smart. We use our knowledge and
> experience and utilize critical thinking. We aren't
> lemmings who follow the pack. For the most part people on
> both sides of the fence respect the others opinions, and are
> willing to provide proof, when asked, to back up any claim.
>
> Go ahead and post that faulty spectrum analyzer picture
> again and again. We we all be here to remind everyone how
> faulty it is every time you post it.
>
Sad thing is Doc.....lot's of folks who hang out on this board don't have the experience and knowledge to form an educated opinion on IBOC!
I know there are many pros here.....And some of these folks have real problems with IBOC. I read these posts, question them, and learn.There are legitimate issues regarding IBOC - especially with AM.
But many are bammboozled off the course of logic by folks with only partial understanding of electronics, physics, and RF propagation. They THINK their point is important and proves some conclusion they have already reached.
ALL I know is that the FCC has performance specs for FM stations which MUST be met. No system would be type accepted if it caused degradation of the FM signal PAST the minimum criteria.
Now.....100 Db dynamic range, broadcast source to listener's ears, would be sweet! But think of all the variables involving the portion of the path PAST the transmit antenna. THAT is where much of the real world limitations occur....for example,improperly engineered receivers are an issue discussed on these boards daily. Audio circuitry design contributes DIRECTLY to S/N.
Supersound....you are misleading people. I don't know if this is intentional or simply due to you inability to understand the system.....Me thinks you are trying to muddy the waters......
 
> Sad thing is Doc.....lot's of folks who hang out on this
> board don't have the experience and knowledge to form an
> educated opinion on IBOC!
> I know there are many pros here.....And some of these folks
> have real problems with IBOC. I read these posts, question
> them, and learn.There are legitimate issues regarding IBOC -
> especially with AM.
> But many are bammboozled off the course of logic by folks
> with only partial understanding of electronics, physics, and
> RF propagation. They THINK their point is important and
> proves some conclusion they have already reached.
> ALL I know is that the FCC has performance specs for FM
> stations which MUST be met. No system would be type accepted
> if it caused degradation of the FM signal PAST the minimum
> criteria.
> Now.....100 Db dynamic range, broadcast source to listener's
> ears, would be sweet! But think of all the variables
> involving the portion of the path PAST the transmit
> antenna. THAT is where much of the real world limitations
> occur....for example,improperly engineered receivers are an
> issue discussed on these boards daily. Audio circuitry
> design contributes DIRECTLY to S/N.
> Supersound....you are misleading people. I don't know if
> this is intentional or simply due to you inability to
> understand the system.....Me thinks you are trying to muddy
> the waters......
>

Well put!

I am a pretty vocal proponent of FM IBOC, but I certainly believe there are legitimate problems with AM. I also understand the concerns that people have with FM. I firmly believe that this shouldn't be a pro-IBOC board - on the contrary, with the brainpower we have here, this should be a hotbed of intelligent, reasoned discussion of BOTH sides of the technology.

I certainly don't think that IBOC opponents should be silenced. I just believe that if you plan to bring it, well, then bring it!

Supersound is simply being a shill, and nothing else. He brings nothing substantial to the table. When challenged, he disappears.

I have news for him...if he doesn't start coming back to back up what he says, I am going to assume that he is simply trying to start a flame war, and his posts are going to start disappearing.
<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
 
My link, and the authors information, experiance, and conclusion were exactly why I posted this link, and the point I was making. It is a 100% accurate link to the authors discussion and findings. I have nothing to defend, and have changed nothing, or made any assertions in the beginning post to this thread.
Please take another look at my origional post. I can't see how anyone could find anything, infuriating or objectionable in it, unless the follow up posters are reading in their own assumptions, inaccuracies and illusions.
I am not the author of the story, I was only opening the discussion to another viewpoint and new information.
The follow up claims, theories, challenges, threats, misrepresentations, and name calling, all came from follow-up-posters falsely reading their own frustrations, positions, and insecurities into my posts. I have been providing links to comments and experiences reported by users, engineers, customers, and interested parties based on their personal experiences. These should be valuable, as public acceptance or rejection of HD radio will be the final judgement for the system, as it was for AM stereo.
If you look closely at the my beginning post for this thread, I briefly quoted from the author and provided a link. NOTING MORE. I don't believe I deserve all this indignation, derision, and outrage for posting a link to an interesting site with another viewpoint.
Unless other viewpoints are not allowed here?

> > S/N may degrade 30-40 dB when you listen to a signal with
> HD
> > Radio sidebands. (In some cases).
> > Here is the link:
> > http://users.tns.net/~bb/iboc.htm
> >
>
> Did you read all the way down to the end?
>
> An S/N loss of this magnitude is mostly hypothetical,
> though, because few stations today transmit with S/N so
> high. On the other hand, few transmit with S/N so low that
> HD Radio self-noise would be unobservable.
>
> That's the author's conclusion.
>
 
> If you look closely at the my beginning post for this
> thread, I briefly quoted from the author and provided a
> link. NOTING MORE. I don't believe I deserve all this
> indignation, derision, and outrage for posting a link to an
> interesting site with another viewpoint.
> Unless other viewpoints are not allowed here?
>

You have made your point, several times. The first time was fine. The fifth time is not.

You have posted "a link to an interesting site" (the same one, BTW) several times already. We have seen it and have moved on.

The only reason I can see for doing this is to fan flames. It would be different if you posted links to other sites, or come up with new arguments, but you don't.

Believe me, we get your point. Some of us may not agree, but we get it. There's no reason to post that link any more.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
 
>
> Sad thing is Doc.....lot's of folks who hang out on this
> board don't have the experience and knowledge to form an
> educated opinion on IBOC!
>
> I know there are many pros here.....And some of these folks
> have real problems with IBOC. I read these posts, question
> them, and learn.There are legitimate issues regarding IBOC -
> especially with AM.
>
> But many are bammboozled off the course of logic by folks
> with only partial understanding of electronics, physics, and
> RF propagation. They THINK their point is important and
> proves some conclusion they have already reached.
> ALL I know is that the FCC has performance specs for FM
> stations which MUST be met. No system would be type accepted
> if it caused degradation of the FM signal PAST the minimum
> criteria.

> Now.....100 Db dynamic range, broadcast source to listener's
> ears, would be sweet! But think of all the variables
> involving the portion of the path PAST the transmit
> antenna. THAT is where much of the real world limitations
> occur....for example,improperly engineered receivers are an
> issue discussed on these boards daily. Audio circuitry
> design contributes DIRECTLY to S/N.
>
> Supersound....you are misleading people. I don't know if
> this is intentional or simply due to you inability to
> understand the system.....Me thinks you are trying to muddy
> the waters......
>


I don't think Supersound is misleading anyone. You probably didn't read the entire anaylsis that he gave and you missed this:

"(But tuners with exceptionally high S/N are likely to have a postdetection filter, so this probably exaggerates). An S/N loss of this magnitude is mostly hypothetical, though, because few stations today transmit with S/N so high."

Ever hear of an experiment?
 
> > S/N may degrade 30-40 dB when you listen to a signal with
> HD
> > Radio sidebands. (In some cases).
> > Here is the link:
> > http://users.tns.net/~bb/iboc.htm
> >
>
> Did you read all the way down to the end?
>
> An S/N loss of this magnitude is mostly hypothetical,
> though, because few stations today transmit with S/N so
> high. On the other hand, few transmit with S/N so low that
> HD Radio self-noise would be unobservable.
>
> That's the author's conclusion.
>


I just posted exactly what you posted. I think some people here didn't read the entire analysis to the end and instead chose to jump the gun on SuperSound.
 
>
> I don't believe I deserve all this
> indignation, derision, and outrage for
> posting a link to an interesting site
> with another viewpoint. Unless other
> viewpoints are not allowed here?
>

Don't sweat it SuperSound. I got the "Salem Witch Hunt" treatment too by merely posting that my analog FM car radio, while scanning channels, stops on the adjacent HD channels and those channels make noise.
 
> Don't sweat it SuperSound. I got the "Salem Witch Hunt"
> treatment too by merely posting that my analog FM car radio,
> while scanning channels, stops on the adjacent HD channels
> and those channels make noise.

Part of the reason for that was you seemed to believe the problem you were experiencing, was going to affect "everyone" with an analog FM tuner. Quite a few people tried to duplicate the same problem and it simply didn't happen.

You were claiming that the problem you were having, was going to be the death bed for FM radio, and that everyone was going to flee to Satellite radio. In a nutshell, you were misleading and therefor you were subject to the treatment you received.
 
> > > S/N may degrade 30-40 dB when you listen to a signal
> with
> > HD
> > > Radio sidebands. (In some cases).
> > > Here is the link:
> > > http://users.tns.net/~bb/iboc.htm
> > >
> >
> > Did you read all the way down to the end?
> >
> > An S/N loss of this magnitude is mostly hypothetical,
> > though, because few stations today transmit with S/N so
> > high. On the other hand, few transmit with S/N so low that
>
> > HD Radio self-noise would be unobservable.
> >
> > That's the author's conclusion.
> >
>
>
> I just posted exactly what you posted. I think some people
> here didn't read the entire analysis to the end and instead
> chose to jump the gun on SuperSound.
>

Actually, a lot of us did. He got jumped on because he chooses to re-post the same data over and over. He didn't say "this is an experiment, draw your own conclusions". It was presented (several times) as fact.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
 
> > Don't sweat it SuperSound. I got the "Salem Witch Hunt"
> > treatment too by merely posting that my analog FM car
> radio,
> > while scanning channels, stops on the adjacent HD channels
>
> > and those channels make noise.
>
> Part of the reason for that was you seemed to believe the
> problem you were experiencing, was going to affect
> "everyone" with an analog FM tuner. Quite a few people
> tried to duplicate the same problem and it simply didn't
> happen.
>
> You were claiming that the problem you were having, was
> going to be the death bed for FM radio, and that everyone
> was going to flee to Satellite radio. In a nutshell, you
> were misleading and therefor you were subject to the
> treatment you received.
>

Precisely. Not only did you claim that everyone had this problem, and this would kill FM radio, but when others disagreed with you, you got rude.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
 
> >
> > Part of the reason for that was you seemed to believe the
> > problem you were experiencing, was going to affect
> > "everyone" with an analog FM tuner. Quite a few people
> > tried to duplicate the same problem and it simply didn't
> > happen.
> >
> > You were claiming that the problem you were having, was
> > going to be the death bed for FM radio, and that everyone
> > was going to flee to Satellite radio. In a nutshell, you
> > were misleading and therefor you were subject to the
> > treatment you received.
> >
>
> Precisely. Not only did you claim that everyone had this
> problem, and this would kill FM radio, but when others
> disagreed with you, you got rude.
>


Great! A tag-team... all for me?! I said exactly what I said. And many others posted the same experience.
 
>
> Great! A tag-team... all for me?! I said exactly what I
> said. And many others posted the same experience.
>


I counted one (you) in your "poll" thread. I think there was three in your original thread.

I wouldn't classify that as "many others". But that's my opinion. Feel free to correct me if I counted wrong.

As for your general posting, just as you feel you should be able to post about the death of FM due to IBOC, we feel we are able to present evidence that we think you are wrong.

Nobody wants to quiet you or "SuperSound". OTOH, you guys have been one-trick ponies. You keep posting the same thing over and over. You both ignore the facts that others bring to the table. If someone disagrees with you, they are either wrong or they don't understand you.

Nobody thinks that you are lying about the problems you are having with your radio. A lot of us, however, believe that this is not a widespread problem. I have counted several more "no problem" replies than "problem" replies.

Bottom line: we have beaten your and SuperSound's single issues to death. There is no more anyone can say that hasn't been said. There is no reason to bring it up any further. If you want to discuss other things, great! Let's move on, however.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
 
> >
> > Great! A tag-team... all for me?! I said exactly what I
> > said. And many others posted the same experience.
> >
>
>
> I counted one (you) in your "poll" thread. I think there
> was three in your original thread.
>
> I wouldn't classify that as "many others". But that's my
> opinion. Feel free to correct me if I counted wrong.
>
> As for your general posting, just as you feel you should be
> able to post about the death of FM due to IBOC, we feel we
> are able to present evidence that we think you are wrong.
>
> Nobody wants to quiet you or "SuperSound". OTOH, you guys
> have been one-trick ponies. You keep posting the same thing
> over and over. You both ignore the facts that others bring
> to the table. If someone disagrees with you, they are
> either wrong or they don't understand you.
>
> Nobody thinks that you are lying about the problems you are
> having with your radio. A lot of us, however, believe that
> this is not a widespread problem. I have counted several
> more "no problem" replies than "problem" replies.
>
> Bottom line: we have beaten your and SuperSound's single
> issues to death. There is no more anyone can say that
> hasn't been said. There is no reason to bring it up any
> further. If you want to discuss other things, great! Let's
> move on, however.
>


Thanks Doc.
 
> >
> > Great! A tag-team... all for me?! I said exactly what I
> > said. And many others posted the same experience.
> >
>
>
> I counted one (you) in your "poll" thread. I think there
> was three in your original thread.
>

That makes a total of 4. That is 2 more than you and that other guy saying the opposite. So by your logic... I win!



> I wouldn't classify that as "many others". But that's my
> opinion. Feel free to correct me if I counted wrong.
>

See my above statement.


> As for your general posting, just as you feel you should be
> able to post about the death of FM due to IBOC, we feel we
> are able to present evidence that we think you are wrong.
>


Here you go again putting words into my mouth. I never once said anything about the "death" of FM. I clearly said that HD channels add more noise to the scanning process with analong FM because the scan now stops on the adjacent HD channels.

You have a habit of that. Putting words into people's mouths. In the original thread you continued to say that I was saying that HD adjacent channels INTERFER with main channels. I had to say 1000 times that I was NOT talking about that. You made that up all on your own and then would try and shoot it down. It's called a straw man argument to which you have quite a habit of.


> Nobody wants to quiet you or "SuperSound". OTOH, you guys
> have been one-trick ponies. You keep posting the same thing
> over and over. You both ignore the facts that others bring
> to the table.

Sorry, but it is you who is ignoring facts. Analong radios do stop on the adjacent HD channels while scanning. That is a fact! You continue to ignore this fact. And your experiment was so erronous that it was laughable. I for one came to the conclusion that you weren't even sure what an HD adjacent channel was.


> If someone disagrees with you, they are
> either wrong or they don't understand you.
>

There you go again making stuff up. The only disagreement I had was when you kept putting words into my mouth about talking about interference and I had to keep repeating to you that I was NOT talking about interference.


> Nobody thinks that you are lying about the problems you are
> having with your radio. A lot of us, however, believe that
> this is not a widespread problem.

"A lot of us?" I have only seen two of you. I have seen more people with the problem that without.



> I have counted several
> more "no problem" replies than "problem" replies.


Count again.

>
> Bottom line: we have beaten your and SuperSound's single
> issues to death. There is no more anyone can say that
> hasn't been said. There is no reason to bring it up any
> further. If you want to discuss other things, great! Let's
> move on, however.
>

Look, SuperSound dismantled your little experiment with actual facts. And who is "we"??? I have only seen you and 1 other person throwing out straw men and red herrings.
 
>
> Thanks Doc.
>


You can thank him for killing information. Interestingly, at the car audio store every radio that I did a auto scan with stopped on the adjacent HD channels. That's a total of 15 brand new analong FM car radios.

Hmmmmm.... I know, I know, you know, you know it all. Done.
 
> Here you go again putting words into my mouth. I never once
> said anything about the "death" of FM.

Putting words into your mouth???? Buddy you need to revisit one of your own posts.

<a target="_blank" href=http://www.radio-info.com/mods/board?Post=653869&Board=hd>http://www.radio-info.com/mods/board?Post=653869&Board=hd</a>

“The "powers at be" did NOT think this through. This is going to drive listeners straight to satellite radio. The entire analog FM band now sounds like a swath of unlistenable junk!”
 
> >
> > Thanks Doc.
> >
>
>
> You can thank him for killing information. Interestingly,
> at the car audio store every radio that I did a auto scan
> with stopped on the adjacent HD channels. That's a total of
> 15 brand new analong FM car radios.
>
> Hmmmmm.... I know, I know, you know, you know it all.
> Done.
>


How far away from the transmitters is the car stereo place?

Also I refer you to the example I did two weeeks ago, where I use two different receivers and was right under the tower of a 50kW FM running HD and didnt have this problem.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom