• 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 Papers / Course

A

AMX

Guest
I am wondering if any of you know of a good website that has an article or paper on HD radio. I know the basics of it, but I want to get more in depth with it, and learn more about the fundamentals with it, and understanding why it's measured in a certain way, etc. If any of you know of a good paper on this, let me know. Thanks.
 
AMX said:
I am wondering if any of you know of a good website that has an article or paper on HD radio. I know the basics of it, but I want to get more in depth with it, and learn more about the fundamentals with it, and understanding why it's measured in a certain way, etc. If any of you know of a good paper on this, let me know. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Check the technical papers on BE's web site... Also, take a look at the Radio Guide archives. IIRC there were some pretty good articles by Phil Alexander on the topic of IBOC transmission.


Regards,
Goran Tomas
 
AMX said:
I am wondering if any of you know of a good website that has an article or paper on HD radio. I know the basics of it, but I want to get more in depth with it, and learn more about the fundamentals with it, and understanding why it's measured in a certain way, etc. If any of you know of a good paper on this, let me know. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Last fall I bought David P. Maxon's "The IBOC Handbook," published by the NAB and Focal Press. It's nearly 500 pages and goes into a LOT of detail, including a glossary and a useful collection of TLA jargon definitions.

Websites will always be more timely than any book, but it's copyright 2007 so it's pretty current.

Kind Regards,
David
 
My White Paper

Excuse me, GREEN Paper.

Let's set up SAT Radio and HD then change the Rules on terrestrial radio.

Am Stereo was the most recent paper we have to rely on when evaluating HD. It's not about what's right, it's about who has money to throw at corrupt FCC officials.

I know of few foolish people who spend 10 times the cost of their analog station to establish Class B HD stations you can't hear 10 miles.

Has all common sense left us?
 
Re: My White Paper

ChiefEngineer said:
Excuse me, GREEN Paper.

Let's set up SAT Radio and HD then change the Rules on terrestrial radio.

Am Stereo was the most recent paper we have to rely on when evaluating HD. It's not about what's right, it's about who has money to throw at corrupt FCC officials.

I know of few foolish people who spend 10 times the cost of their analog station to establish Class B HD stations you can't hear 10 miles.

Has all common sense left us?
Click to expand...

This isn't a thread for posting your opinions about HD radio.
 
"HD" is a technology that doesn't work well, have signal coverage comparable to current "mother station" maijn channel standards, costs broadcasters too much to implement, andf is not embraced because of the design and acceptance flaws.

Then let us discuss interference to existing stations.

None of the technical papers have been up front about the reasons better technology was ignored.

In looking for information on IBOC you need to also search out the things left out of the "technology" and the the information about IBOC.

This is a discussion board. If you can't handle an honest discussion of this destruction of radio as we know it, so be it.

Explain why I can't hear an HD signal on a 1000 foot tower when I can physically see the beacon? This is GREAT technology....

Anyone in radio with any idea of this whole green paper making a poor technology accepted because some big companies own the rights that embraces this is ) for discussion purposes) whipped.

My opinion as discussion of the technology continues.
 
Surely we aren't all lapdogs to this nonsense?

What can be done to : 1) Make the product viable (Coverage comparable to current allocations); 2) get radios out there that are worthwhile for consumers to purchase (See 1); and 3) make the technology something a regular station can afford to implement without exorbitant rights fees?
 
I don't address the business end of it, save to say I think the current business model is faulted. I refer to FM - HD, I've no direct experience with AM. The FM works... given the time to develop more sensitive receiver front ends it will work better. Sunset the analog and it will work better still. Keep improving the CODECs and it gets even better.
As to the business model, I think it a misteak to add programming at the exoense of fidelity. When the whole bitstream of the current system is used for the audio, it sounds pretty good. When it's reduced, artifacts creep in. It quickly sounds as bad as satellite delivered music.
Satellite is currently a paper sword for the local broadcaster, but if the local garbages up his audio, it will becime a competitor. That seems to me to be a poor plan.
As to 'lapdog', depends on your definition. My employers pay me to get the HD on the air, make it sound its best, and keep it there. I do so. If they want the thing painted pale pea-green and nothing but tones, I'll need a color chip and a tone generator and that's what they shall have. I point out the technical fallacy of actions which are counter to good practice, make them aware of improvements in the genre, and at that point I've done what I was hired to do.
 
We all know about some of the downfalls with HD radio as it is right now. However, it is still early on in it's introduction and development. Improvements are being worked on as we speak. Be optimistic "Chief Engineer", don't start taking things out on people who simply want to learn more about HD radio.
 
AMX said:
We all know about some of the downfalls with HD radio as it is right now. However, it is still early on in it's introduction and development. Improvements are being worked on as we speak. Be optimistic "Chief Engineer", don't start taking things out on people who simply want to learn more about HD radio.
Click to expand...

I think Chief's ire stems from the AM situation. Mine sure does. The FM version can do the job, and will respond to tweaking and improvements.

The AM - HD technology as described in ibiquity's white paper sounded horrific even on paper, long, long before the first digital sideband was added to a
commercial AM station. The system as described for AM is a massive noise generator, and those who "do" AM are rightfully driven to distraction by what seems a criminal assault on their ears and their profession. Like putting purple dye in milk, then advertising it as your assurance of a higher-quality product,
this fools only the gullible, and annoys everyone who expected that milk would always be white.

When the specification calls for what anyone would describe as garbage, and garbage is delivered, no one is surprised.
But those who have been dealing with "food-grade" products are rightfully "more-than annoyed" when told they must now respect garbage as
the new standard for food.

Here's hoping that ibiquity will come to their senses and pull the plug on this deformed monster (AM HD).
I bet no tears would be shed anywhere.
 
Tom Wells said:
AMX said:
We all know about some of the downfalls with HD radio as it is right now. However, it is still early on in it's introduction and development. Improvements are being worked on as we speak. Be optimistic "Chief Engineer", don't start taking things out on people who simply want to learn more about HD radio.
Click to expand...

I think Chief's ire stems from the AM situation. Mine sure does. The FM version can do the job, and will respond to tweaking and improvements.

The AM - HD technology as described in ibiquity's white paper sounded horrific even on paper, long, long before the first digital sideband was added to a
commercial AM station. The system as described for AM is a massive noise generator, and those who "do" AM are rightfully driven to distraction by what seems a criminal assault on their ears and their profession. Like putting purple dye in milk, then advertising it as your assurance of a higher-quality product,
this fools only the gullible, and annoys everyone who expected that milk would always be white.

When the specification calls for what anyone would describe as garbage, and garbage is delivered, no one is surprised.
But those who have been dealing with "food-grade" products are rightfully "more-than annoyed" when told they must now respect garbage as
the new standard for food.

Here's hoping that ibiquity will come to their senses and pull the plug on this deformed monster (AM HD).
I bet no tears would be shed anywhere.
Click to expand...

Thanks for explaining the AM side of things Tom. I didn't realize that's what some of you were talking about. I work in the FM side of things, and didn't even think about this topic also relating to AM! My apologizes for not specifiying in my first post that FM HD is what I'm interested in.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom