HD signals receivable at your location

[700WLW]

Let's NEVER destroy a medium in an effort to "save" it. Neither AM nor FM need "saving". Both are doing rather well...shockingly so when one considers the added competition in recent years. Most are still profitable, and with growing revenue (though that growth has slowed). HD is an enhancement, not a "savior". As an enhancement, it should of course not be applied if it makes things worse! "Enhancements" DON'T MAKE THINGS WORSE!

"Anywhere But USA Radio Is Booming"

"There is but one mission now. To save radio -- to make it have the chance to do what radio is successfully doing in the UK, other countries and here on NPR stations that are not consolidated -- legislative action has to be sought to break up the monopolies and right the wrong."

http://insidemusicmedia.blogspot.com/2007/02/anywhere-but-usa-radio-is-booming.html

"How To Do An Intervention On Radio"

"The human element -- when you have your job downsized, outsourced, combined or replaced by virtual technology you no longer work in an industry conducive to new ideas. In effect you are no longer in a growth industry. Google is a growth company. Todays Clear Channel and CBS are not."

http://insidemusicmedia.blogspot.com/2007/01/how-to-do-intervention-on-radio.html

 

[R.F. Burns]

R. F. Burns said:

See, it's the use of these kind of pejorative words such as IBUZZ which cause friction in here.

Why do you find terms such as iBuzz so personally offensive?
The constant litany and hype of HD promoters is almost all about pejoratives. Anyone with eyes can see, and ears can hear all the negativism from HD promoters, about anything other then promoting their pro-HD agenda.
I should not have to point out examples. They are all over this website, and everywhere else that promotes HD radio.
Just picking one example might be, HD supporters attacking all HD opponents as DXers with a special personal agenda.
Is it because HD supporters believe DXing interferes with their personal HD agenda?
The fact is, that HD promoters, are HD-DXers. They fiddle with expensive, special, new HD radios and antennas to pick up weak, hard to get, radio signals to brag about. Just as SWL's or DXers. If one is bad, so is the other, and HD promoters certainly have a biased agenda.
I believe there is nothing wrong with DXers. I can't think of a more harmless hobby. Yet they are regularly attacked by the pro-HD crowd, for nothing other then enjoying a hobby many of them have had for decades. I just do not happen to be one of them.
Why do HD supporters think DXing is so evil and must be eliminated?
If DXing were outlawed today, would it not eliminate all HD radio (listening to weak signals) as well?

Because using terms like IBUZZ or INIQUITY is nothing more than childish name calling. Its only purpose is to anger others and nothing more. I'm a DXer as are probably most of the people who post to these boards. DXing is a hobby and broadcasting is a profession. You have people supporting families and who have spent their lives in radio and they are doing what they consider neccessary to make their vocation attractive to the general population. I believe if every DXer in the country decided to stop listening to radio there would be no effect overall on radio ratings. You're talking about a very small group of people. No one to the best of my knowledge is being forced to move to IBOC. That is the decision of the individule radio station. If the station running an IBOC exciter is found to be interfering with a neighboring station, then there is recourse and that is do contact their local FCC bureau. the FCC came to our local SBE meeting and they do respond to illegal activity, if they are contacted. All I am saying is that it's fine if you'd rather not see IBOC succeed, that of course is your right. When you and other start with the name calling it weakens your argument.

 

[calstymes]

R. F. Burns postulated:

If you are seriously having trouble receiving your local analogue AM stations due to a continual buzz may I suggest that you have some problematic radios.

My AM radios used to be fine until iBiQuity offered to break them for me.

That's it. Break my stuff so I am forced to go out and purchase new stuff and put money in YOUR pocket for no other reason except that you truly believe you are entitled to define the new world order and make life miserable for the rest of us who didn't ask for your solution to a problem that didn't formerly exist.

Geez! What a wonderful way to do business.

 

[Mike Walker]

Revenue in radio grew by an average of 3 percent last year. Hardly "broken", but certainly not stellar. Keeping up with inflation. Not a crisis...but in need of innovative PROGRAMMING...something TO SELL!

 

[hipporadio]

"Anywhere But USA Radio Is Booming"
http://insidemusicmedia.blogspot.com/2007/02/anywhere-but-usa-radio-is-booming.html

Very good link, 700WLW... Again “Dr. DC” has diagnosed the patient well! I have NEVER found cause to disagree with an article he has published—they are insightful and provocative. Before you dismiss “provocative” as merely “antagonistic”—understand that in reality, it induces reflection and further exploration. How could such possibly “hurt”—unless one can premeditate self-guilt from the outcome? He has long warned us about the impact of “mega-corporate radio” on our industry and the broader public it is duty-bound to serve—and the outcome has become painfully obvious... You can witness the disappointment and disillusion on nearly every board at this site.

Make no mistake about it... The current floor-plan for HD radio was brewed, hatched, and now propagated by and for the exclusive interest of the entities that Mr. Del Colliano has referenced as “the problem”. HD was never designed to benefit broadcasters like Chuck (who participates here) or the hilarious scenario concerning the new Alt-Rock 1kw AM station discussed on the “The Radio Racket” thread. Even my wildest imagination could not have justified iBiquity HD Radio at my former four stations (2 AM / 2 FM) in a market bubbling just above the top-200.

”Small companies that take their public trust seriously—that will do it. As my friend Bill O'Shaughnessy puts it, radio station owners are "permitees" and the sooner we demand a return to radio as a public trust the sooner this once proud industry can get growing again.”

BRAVO Jerry! I’ve been mentioning this “covenant” for many years when debating the horrific results of TOA abuse and one-step (so-called “minor”) changes in COLs—merely to diminish (or eliminate local service) in favor of enhancing the corporate cluster in a larger market... And I have been viewed by the "usual suspects" as some “pathetic and prehistoric non-conformist” in dyer need of a marketing refresher! Jerry Del Colliano seems to keep some rather fine references in his Rolodex. I first read of Mr. O’Shaughnessy’s gallant pursuits in “local community radio” in suburban New York City as far back as the 1970s. Well within the shadow of signals more formidable—he managed to prosper locally and invite notice and acclaim nationally. I doubt he’d be off at the bank borrowing money for IBOC today!

 

[700WLW]

"Anywhere But USA Radio Is Booming"
http://insidemusicmedia.blogspot.com/2007/02/anywhere-but-usa-radio-is-booming.html

Very good link, 700WLW... Again “Dr. DC” has diagnosed the patient well! I have NEVER found cause to disagree with an article he has published—they are insightful and provocative. Before you dismiss “provocative” as merely “antagonistic”—understand that in reality, it induces reflection and further exploration. How could such possibly “hurt”—unless one can premeditate self-guilt from the outcome? He has long warned us about the impact of “mega-corporate radio” on our industry and the broader public it is duty-bound to serve—and the outcome has become painfully obvious... You can witness the disappointment and disillusion on nearly every board at this site.

Make no mistake about it... The current floor-plan for HD radio was brewed, hatched, and now propagated by and for the exclusive interest of the entities that Mr. Del Colliano has referenced as “the problem”. HD was never designed to benefit broadcasters like Chuck (who participates here) or the hilarious scenario concerning the new Alt-Rock 1kw AM station discussed on the “The Radio Racket” thread. Even my wildest imagination could not have justified iBiquity HD Radio at my former four stations (2 AM / 2 FM) in a market bubbling just above the top-200.

”Small companies that take their public trust seriously—that will do it. As my friend Bill O'Shaughnessy puts it, radio station owners are "permitees" and the sooner we demand a return to radio as a public trust the sooner this once proud industry can get growing again.”

BRAVO Jerry! I’ve been mentioning this “covenant” for many years when debating the horrific results of TOA abuse and one-step (so-called “minor”) changes in COLs—merely to diminish (or eliminate local service) in favor of enhancing the corporate cluster in a larger market... And I have been viewed by the "usual suspects" as some “pathetic and prehistoric non-conformist” in dyer need of a marketing refresher! Jerry Del Colliano seems to keep some rather fine references in his Rolodex. I first read of Mr. O’Shaughnessy’s gallant pursuits in “local community radio” in suburban New York City as far back as the 1970s. Well within the shadow of signals more formidable—he managed to prosper locally and invite notice and acclaim nationally. I doubt he’d be off at the bank borrowing money for IBOC today!

Thanks... I thought, these were some interesting comments, attached to the articles:

"In response to the anonymous blogger above, I think you raised a really good point when you said that UK radio stations rely on taxpayer money. The public might be up in arms if they were paying for the kind of commercialized content to which we in the US are subjected."

"Also, on a side note: I recently came back from being abroad in the UK last semester, and I can say from firsthand experience that, as a culture, the Brits just aren't as obsessed with being as constantly wired as we are. I had friends who lived in flats without internet."

"You hit the nail right on the head, Jerry! When terrestrial radio in other parts of world is doing well, as opposed to the states, it's obvious that this industry, at least in the U.S., is in very sad shape."

"With good content, people will want to listen. Portability is a plus but does not define the success of radio. The success of the iPod is due to its portability, but the content on the iPod is top notch, controlled by the individual. No one wants a portable device with horrible content."

http://insidemusicmedia.blogspot.com/2007/02/anywhere-but-usa-radio-is-booming.html

"It is really mind boggling that in so many of your blog entries, class discussions and in my own discussions with friends, there seems to be a consensus as to the true problem with radio. The content is the problem... Although I am a representative of "Generation Y", I still remember when I was growing up and radio was good and exciting, meeting my needs. Today, I cannot listen to it for more than 2 minutes before I shut it off out of boredom and monotony. I wish radio could be exciting again. It is a great form of entertainment while on the road or in the home yet until these radio companies such as Clear Channel, realize the ramifications of their consolidation and more importantly, the lack of content, radio will continue to suffer and reach its end."

http://insidemusicmedia.blogspot.com/2007/01/how-to-do-intervention-on-radio.html

I listen, to out-of-state AM for news/talk/sports, for quality programming; local AM/FM sucks, and I only listen to FM while driving, and never listen to local nighttime/daytime AM (many times, local FM gets so annoying, I just turn it off). I grew up, listening to SW, when it was exciting, but now, many stations have gone the way of the Internet, and the rest are religious fanatics, and just plain junk. Growing up on AM (only, listened to WABC out-of-state), the 1960's Classic Rock was great, and there were quality DJs - now, they just seem annoying. From what I have read, news/talk/sports AM is doing well, but I have to wonder, about the future of FM, with iPod/Bluetooth connectivity becoming standard in-dash (for example, the 2008 Nissan Sentra and Altima), as competition. If the programming on the HD channels was so great, then why, don't they put it on the main analog channels - HD Radio is a farce !

 

[Chuck]

<snip>
If the station running an IBOC exciter is found to be interfering with a neighboring station, then there is recourse and that is do contact their local FCC bureau. the FCC came to our local SBE meeting and they do respond to illegal activity, if they are contacted. All I am saying is that it's fine if you'd rather not see IBOC succeed, that of course is your right. When you and other start with the name calling it weakens your argument.

The problem is a lot of stations, especially the smaller ones, rely on having a workable signal past their protected contour. It is a fact of life for small stations that is not guaranteed by their license. At least in their cars, people have always been able to pick them up as far away as their 50 dbu contour. That is a general statement, but we all know there is a lot of truth to it. In some cases with no co-channel interference, a small station's range can far greater than that.

When a higher power neighboring station fires up their IBOC equipment, it will have a negative effect on the smaller station, although it may do nothing to the area within their protected contour. How much trouble that is depends on a lot of variables, but it is conceivable that the smaller station will have to make do with the audience that is within their protected contour. After all, that’s all they were ever awarded by the FCC. Unfortunately, that is taking away something that was there in the past, regardless of any FCC decree. And yes folks, it comes down to money. Without listeners beyond their protected contour, many small stations would cease to be viable.

There are a lot of small broadcasters out there. As far as I can tell, IBOC is not their friend. If a new technical enhancement only helps large broadcasters by doing something that degrades the value of others, it is simply not fair. Any technical enhancement that does not help all broadcasters should not receive FCC approval. Unfortunately, that is not how the IBOC debate seems to be playing out.

This is much more than an argument of sound quality or additional programming opportunities. As I see it, the real problem is that it gives a legal way to squelch competition in the name of technical improvements. How very convenient…

 

[R.F. Burns]

R. F. Burns postulated:

If you are seriously having trouble receiving your local analogue AM stations due to a continual buzz may I suggest that you have some problematic radios.

My AM radios used to be fine until iBiQuity offered to break them for me.

That's it. Break my stuff so I am forced to go out and purchase new stuff and put money in YOUR pocket for no other reason except that you truly believe you are entitled to define the new world order and make life miserable for the rest of us who didn't ask for your solution to a problem that didn't formerly exist.

Geez! What a wonderful way to do business.

I guess my observations are based on living in a major market where station coverage out to its protected ontour is not effected by the implimentation of IBOC. It all comes down to your own experience. MY local 1 K station can still be heard 20 miles away from the transmitter, even though it's 30 K away from a 50 KW IBOC facility. The signal from that 1 K has never been good at that distance, with our poor ground conductivity and IBOC doesn't help but it doesn't make the station impossible to hear either. In my locations there are no open channels on either AM or FM and we have over half a dozen 50 KW stations operating 24 hours a day. I can only base my opinions on my own experiences. It might be that some of the IBOC stations aren't engineered as well as they might otherwise be. If so, that's the fault of the station and not the technology itself. Just a thought. With all the RF in my area, IBOC has had no impact on my reception other then on first adjacents and to be honest there's so much sideband noise anyway from these stations that first adjacent reception is useless, at least in this area.

 

[dumber than a box of hair]

using terms like IBUZZ or INIQUITY is nothing more than childish name calling. Its only purpose is to anger others and nothing more.

No. Its purpose is to make a point. A system that interferes with other stations by putting a buzzing noise on their carriers, and a system which extorts huge amounts of money in licensing fees because it's, so far, the only game in town deserves the ridicule inherent in those nicknames.

I'm a DXer as are probably most of the people who post to these boards.

I see no evidence of that. Most of the posters here are involved in the radio business one way or another.

You have people supporting families and who have spent their lives in radio and they are doing what they consider neccessary to make their vocation attractive to the general population.

What you have are corporations which have banded together to implement HD Radio in the mistaken belief that it fixes some sort of problem which wasn't there to begin with. The only thing it "fixes" is something that wasn't broken. When the competitors for radio's audience are listening to data-compressed low-bitrate audio streams, fidelity obviously isn't the issue that iNiquity and its supporters think it is.

No one to the best of my knowledge is being forced to move to IBOC. That is the decision of the individule radio station.

Recall the legal principle, "your right to swing your arm ends at my nose." Those who don't move to IBOC, particularly on the AM band, stand a good chance of being interfered with by another station which does make the move. There are plenty of documented examples, on the record, of such interference.

If the station running an IBOC exciter is found to be interfering with a neighboring station, then there is recourse and that is do contact their local FCC bureau.

No. There is no recourse. Stations can only turn on IBOC pursuant to Special Temporary Authority, which the station must apply for before turning it on. Once that STA is in place, the interference is legal, and the FCC has so far not demanded that any station turn IBOC off despite interference which has been reported to them.

 

[hipporadio]

R. F. Burns said:
“See, it's the use of these kind of pejorative words such as IBUZZ which cause friction in here.”

Why do you find terms such as iBuzz so personally offensive?

Because using terms like IBUZZ or INIQUITY is nothing more than childish name calling. Its only purpose is to anger others and nothing more.

While I generally refer to iBiquity under its proper chartered name here, I DO admit to an occasional use of the popular “I-Buzz” anecdote. If it flies like a bee... If it stings like a bee... If it BUZZES like a bee—it most likely IS a bee... Or should I say—“I-BUZZzzzz”!

 

[R.F. Burns]

"No. Its purpose is to make a point. A system that interferes with other stations by putting a buzzing noise on their carriers, and a system which extorts huge amounts of money in licensing fees because it's, so far, the only game in town deserves the ridicule inherent in those nicknames."


But that ruins your argument to anyone who doesn't hold such an anti IBOC opinion and no matter how you feel it is still open to debate. Nothing is 100% bad or 100% good. Life is filled with grey areas. You've disallowed that with your name calling and who is forcing anyone to become an IBOC station? A station doesn't have to pay those fees as long as they choose not to broadcast using their technology. When Armstrong first invented FM there were licensing fees. While I don't believe that Ibiquity should charge a penny above what it costs to purchase the hardware, what they are doing has happend before.



"I see no evidence of that. Most of the posters here are involved in the radio business one way or another."


Why? A person can't be a broadcaster and a DXer? What does one have to do to convince you, should he or she want to, that they are DXer's. Just because someone is employed in the radio business as you put it, does that make their comments a source for ridicule? Talk about the scarlet letter.


"What you have are corporations which have banded together to implement HD Radio in the mistaken belief that it fixes some sort of problem which wasn't there to begin with. The only thing it "fixes" is something that wasn't broken. When the competitors for radio's audience are listening to data-compressed low-bitrate audio streams, fidelity obviously isn't the issue that iNiquity and its supporters think it is."


Do you really believe that broadcasters are doing this just to ruin your life? Maybe they saw the continuing erosion of the audience and advertiser base as an indication of forthcoming troubles. I'm sure they just didn't come up with this system without doing some research that their listeners mentioned that the lack of certain formats was one cause for their going to alternative sources of entertainment and again, calling Ibiquity Iniquity only makes you sound like a spoiled child and someone not to be taken seriously. As to the fidelity issue, I’ve heard that the IBOC audio quality is superior to that of either XM or Sirius. To use a TV analogy, both DirecTV and Dish suffer from pixilization due to digital compression. Still, their subscription numbers are excellent. The average person just isn’t that critical.


"Recall the legal principle, "your right to swing your arm ends at my nose." Those who don't move to IBOC, particularly on the AM band, stand a good chance of being interfered with by another station which does make the move. There are plenty of documented examples, on the record, of such interference."



I'd like to see any interference complaints brought before the commission. I've heard allegations but so far no legal action has taken place. As for the legal principle you quote, while it is true that there can be no damage done to another party due to negligence or disregard, a radio stations coverage pattern is only assured in certain geographic protected zones. there is no grandfathering in this case. You can't say that with the old Grebe you could hear that 10 watts station from 200 miles away but you can't any longer because a local station is now interfering with their signal. There is no coverage guarantee outside of a stations protected zone. I used to be able to hear KSL, KOA, WBAP WOAI & WCCO at my location, which is over 1,000 miles from those locations and then the FCC opened up the AM broadcast band. Now I have a local on 1160 and a first adjacent on 820 which makes it impossible for me to hear these stations. Does it matter if my loss of these stations is caused by analogue of hybrid digital interference?

]

"No. There is no recourse. Stations can only turn on IBOC pursuant to Special Temporary Authority, which the station must apply for before turning it on. Once that STA is in place, the interference is legal, and the FCC has so far not demanded that any station turn IBOC off despite interference which has been reported to them."


Believe me, if the interference to a radio station within its licensed coverage area could be proved and the commission ignored that complaint, the owner would have a law suit which would bring greater wealth than anything they could ever have dreamed of. All they have to do is prove it. I can understand that legal costs might be an issue. Here's a suggestion, team up with Mr. Kahn. He seems to have the resources to keep his lawyers occupied and if you have a real case I'll bet he'd be glad to help you out.

 

[Mike Walker]

No I'd say that something that causes that much interference to it's neighbors, drastically reduces the usability of an existing medium (the oldest of all electronic media...and most widely used), and makes night-coverage a joke...I'd say that does qualify as "100 percent bad", RF Burns. A solution in search of a problem.

Better sound is great as a goal. But the samples of AM HD I've heard don't even sound better. Ever heard analog AM on a well engineered station, through a radio with wide bandwidth (say 8-9khz)? IT SOUNDS BETTER THAN ANY AM HD I'VE YET HEARD!

I'm not saying the low bitrate codecs can't be improved. I'm saying that, with all the other problems, what conceivably is the point???? AM stations are already only 10khz apart, for Christ's sake! Under the best of circumcisions, er...circumstances...they're on freakin' top of one another. WHY MAKE IT WORSE??? AM (marginally in some cases) WORKS! Leave it alone until you actually have something better (DRM? An alternate band? SOMETHING!)

 

[tomservo]

Methinks it'd be cheaper to simply make better analog AM radios, from portables up to home theater receivers, than to incorporate the HD circuitry.

 

[R.F. Burns]

No I'd say that something that causes that much interference to it's neighbors, drastically reduces the usability of an existing medium (the oldest of all electronic media...and most widely used), and makes night-coverage a joke...I'd say that does qualify as "100 percent bad", RF Burns. A solution in search of a problem.

"Better sound is great as a goal. But the samples of AM HD I've heard don't even sound better. Ever heard analog AM on a well engineered station, through a radio with wide bandwidth (say 8-9khz)? IT SOUNDS BETTER THAN ANY AM HD I'VE YET HEARD!"

Actually Wide Band AM received from a sampling loop under ideal condx sounds fantastic. The problem is that those ideal condx are nearly imposible to rely on. Compression schemes are always improving and there's no reason to believe that improvements will not continue to be the case.


"I'm not saying the low bitrate codecs can't be improved. I'm saying that, with all the other problems, what conceivably is the point???? AM stations are already only 10khz apart, for Christ's sake! Under the best of circumcisions, er...circumstances...they're on freakin' top of one another. WHY MAKE IT WORSE??? AM (marginally in some cases) WORKS! Leave it alone until you actually have something better (DRM? An alternate band? SOMETHING!)

"

DRM requires another band and the FCC is unwilling to allocate new bandwidth for digital broadcasting. So that won't happen. Also from what I've heard the DRM codec is inferior to the HD codec. Again, the licensees or larger broadcasting groups feel that they must do something to make their product more desirable to the average person from improving AM audio quality to adding more formats on FM (and it's the added streams which make FM HD's case, not improved audio). As I've stated before, if someone can prove that an HD station is operating illegally and interfering within a stations protected contour, then please contact the FCC. That's really at this point the only answer if you want to see HD transmisson stopped.

 

[700WLW]

DRM requires another band and the FCC is unwilling to allocate new bandwidth for digital broadcasting. So that won't happen. Also from what I've heard the DRM codec is inferior to the HD codec. Again, the licensees or larger broadcasting groups feel that they must do something to make their product more desirable to the average person from improving AM audio quality to adding more formats on FM (and it's the added streams which make FM HD's case, not improved audio). As I've stated before, if someone can prove that an HD station is operating illegally and interfering within a stations protected contour, then please contact the FCC. That's really at this point the only answer if you want to see HD transmisson stopped.

With the failure of AM stereo in the 1980's, it is pretty obvious, that consumers do not care that much about supposed improvements in audio quality, on the broadcast bands:

"How To Do An Intervention On Radio"

"And last, but not least (as the old trite phrase goes) the folly of HD Radio. I say folly because HD radio as a savior for the medium is a joke. As an engineering enhancement it's not a bad upgrade, but it won't save radio from itself. One reason is because few people care about it. Terrestrial radio dragged its feet on this for years and now its too late. But don't be guilty. Today's consumers like convenience, fresh innovative programming -- not fidelity. Just watch Gen Y listen to the Internet on their puny computer speakers or enjoy their highly-compressed iPods with low tech ear buds."

http://insidemusicmedia.blogspot.com/2007/01/how-to-do-intervention-on-radio.html

HD Radio transmissions will eventually stop, when the HD Radio Cartel/iBiquity runs-out-of-funds, due to anemic sales of HD Radios, stations unwilling to convert to HD due to high conversion and on-going costs, interference issues especially on AM, and almost total consumer apathy (HD Radio and MSN Direct versus XM, podcasting, and Internet Radio):

http://www.google.com/trends?q="hd+radio",+"msn+direct",+xm,+podcast,+"internet+radio"

"RW Opinion: Rethinking AM’s future"

"Only 175 or so AM stations have even licensed AM-HD. For a number of reasons, quite a few have tried it and taken it off the air, or so the anecdotal evidence suggests. (Ibiquity no longer reports in its public summaries whether a station is on the air.)"

"Making AM-HD work well as a long-term investment is seen as an expensive and risky challenge for most stations and their owners. With the bulk of successful AMs airing news, talk and sports, the improved fidelity advantage of HD and stereo seem only marginally attractive. There is the significant downside of potential new interference to some of their own AM analog listeners as well as listeners of adjacent-channel stations. And of course we still have no nighttime authority for AM-HD."

http://www.rwonline.com/pages/s.0044/t.557.html

 

[SUPERCASTER]

No I'd say that something that causes that much interference to it's neighbors, drastically reduces the usability of an existing medium (the oldest of all electronic media...and most widely used), and makes night-coverage a joke...I'd say that does qualify as "100 percent bad", RF Burns. A solution in search of a problem.

"Better sound is great as a goal. But the samples of AM HD I've heard don't even sound better. Ever heard analog AM on a well engineered station, through a radio with wide bandwidth (say 8-9khz)? IT SOUNDS BETTER THAN ANY AM HD I'VE YET HEARD!"

Actually Wide Band AM received from a sampling loop under ideal condx sounds fantastic. The problem is that those ideal condx are nearly imposible to rely on. Compression schemes are always improving and there's no reason to believe that improvements will not continue to be the case.


"I'm not saying the low bitrate codecs can't be improved. I'm saying that, with all the other problems, what conceivably is the point???? AM stations are already only 10khz apart, for Christ's sake! Under the best of circumcisions, er...circumstances...they're on freakin' top of one another. WHY MAKE IT WORSE??? AM (marginally in some cases) WORKS! Leave it alone until you actually have something better (DRM? An alternate band? SOMETHING!)

"

DRM requires another band and the FCC is unwilling to allocate new bandwidth for digital broadcasting. So that won't happen. Also from what I've heard the DRM codec is inferior to the HD codec. Again, the licensees or larger broadcasting groups feel that they must do something to make their product more desirable to the average person from improving AM audio quality to adding more formats on FM (and it's the added streams which make FM HD's case, not improved audio). As I've stated before, if someone can prove that an HD station is operating illegally and interfering within a stations protected contour, then please contact the FCC. That's really at this point the only answer if you want to see HD transmisson stopped.

WDAS 1480 AM's HD clearly interferes with WBCB 1490 within WBCB's 1 mv/m contour. I have heard that someone representing WBCB has contacted the FCC. I do not know the result. But I'll bet it is only the tip of the BuzzBerg. Perhaps WBCB will iBuzz back, and so will all the other AM stations. Then we'll all have an opportunity to enjoy the heterodyning buzz fest all over the AM dial.
What a country! :

 

[R.F. Burns]

No I'd say that something that causes that much interference to it's neighbors, drastically reduces the usability of an existing medium (the oldest of all electronic media...and most widely used), and makes night-coverage a joke...I'd say that does qualify as "100 percent bad", RF Burns. A solution in search of a problem.

"Better sound is great as a goal. But the samples of AM HD I've heard don't even sound better. Ever heard analog AM on a well engineered station, through a radio with wide bandwidth (say 8-9khz)? IT SOUNDS BETTER THAN ANY AM HD I'VE YET HEARD!"

Actually Wide Band AM received from a sampling loop under ideal condx sounds fantastic. The problem is that those ideal condx are nearly imposible to rely on. Compression schemes are always improving and there's no reason to believe that improvements will not continue to be the case.


"I'm not saying the low bitrate codecs can't be improved. I'm saying that, with all the other problems, what conceivably is the point???? AM stations are already only 10khz apart, for Christ's sake! Under the best of circumcisions, er...circumstances...they're on freakin' top of one another. WHY MAKE IT WORSE??? AM (marginally in some cases) WORKS! Leave it alone until you actually have something better (DRM? An alternate band? SOMETHING!)

"

DRM requires another band and the FCC is unwilling to allocate new bandwidth for digital broadcasting. So that won't happen. Also from what I've heard the DRM codec is inferior to the HD codec. Again, the licensees or larger broadcasting groups feel that they must do something to make their product more desirable to the average person from improving AM audio quality to adding more formats on FM (and it's the added streams which make FM HD's case, not improved audio). As I've stated before, if someone can prove that an HD station is operating illegally and interfering within a stations protected contour, then please contact the FCC. That's really at this point the only answer if you want to see HD transmisson stopped.

WDAS 1480 AM's HD clearly interferes with WBCB 1490 within WBCB's 1 mv/m contour. I have heard that someone representing WBCB has contacted the FCC. I do not know the result. But I'll bet it is only the tip of the BuzzBerg. Perhaps WBCB will iBuzz back, and so will all the other AM stations. Then we'll all have an opportunity to enjoy the heterodyning buzz fest all over the AM dial.
What a country! :

OK, I know WDAS which barely covers it's city of license. If there are interference issues, allow the FCC to do its job. Untilk then all your iBuzz and BuzzBerg just make you look silly to those who are waiting to see how this plays out legally. Interesting though, WBCB allthough short spaced with WDAS is in a null of the WDAS pattern, both day and night. Considering that WDAS is playing gospel music which contains lots of high frequency audio, I wonder how WBCB does with what must be an awful lot of current analogue splash as it is. In my market you can't hear any first adjacent signals within 30 miles or so of the current non IBOC transmitters. Does it matter it matter if you're signal suffers from an 80% inteference problem of 100% interference problem Either way, if the interference is that bad, one station or the other won't be listenable.

 

[Chuck]

As I've stated before, if someone can prove that an HD station is operating illegally and interfering within a stations protected contour, then please contact the FCC. That's really at this point the only answer if you want to see HD transmisson stopped.

Properly implemented, HD will not cause interference within a station's protected contour. If you are a 100,000 watt station, that isn't much of a problem, since your protected contour probably covers the metro area you serve. The people in your fringe areas make little or no impact on your daily existence. If a few of them can no longer receive your signal because of new interference, that is of little consequence. It's all in percentages, and will have little or no impact on your bottom line.

The situation is quite different for Class A stations, lots of rural stations, rim-shots, LPFM's and translators. (By the way, there are a lot of those stations on the air). Their protected contour usually does not cover the all of area where people actually listen. They depend on listenership well into what is technically a fringe area. Even with a weak signal, people do listen, if you give them something worth listening to. I know. I run one.

By law, these stations have no ground to stand on. They are only guaranteed protection within their protected contour. These small stations are the ones who are going to suffer the consequences if IBOC flourishes. I don't know if many of them have figured that out yet. It seems that you haven't, or that you don't care. If someone wants to "thin the herd" in radio, IBOC is a great way to do it. I suspect that is part of the plan.

 

[R.F. Burns]

As I've stated before, if someone can prove that an HD station is operating illegally and interfering within a stations protected contour, then please contact the FCC. That's really at this point the only answer if you want to see HD transmisson stopped.

Properly implemented, HD will not cause interference within a station's protected contour. If you are a 100,000 watt station, that isn't much of a problem, since your protected contour probably covers the metro area you serve. The people in your fringe areas make little or no impact on your daily existence. If a few of them can no longer receive your signal because of new interference, that is of little consequence. It's all in percentages, and will have little or no impact on your bottom line.

The situation is quite different for Class A stations, lots of rural stations, rim-shots, LPFM's and translators. (By the way, there are a lot of those stations on the air). Their protected contour usually does not cover the all of area where people actually listen. They depend on listenership well into what is technically a fringe area. Even with a weak signal, people do listen, if you give them something worth listening to. I know. I run one.

By law, these stations have no ground to stand on. They are only guaranteed protection within their protected contour. These small stations are the ones who are going to suffer the consequences if IBOC flourishes. I don't know if many of them have figured that out yet. It seems that you haven't, or that you don't care. If someone wants to "thin the herd" in radio, IBOC is a great way to do it. I suspect that is part of the plan.

Of course I care. No right minded person wants to see someone lose their job. That said maybe the answer is to do what some other stations are doing and that is to apply for a change in city of license. I know of at least 3 northeastern stations currently doing just that.

 

[700WLW]

As I've stated before, if someone can prove that an HD station is operating illegally and interfering within a stations protected contour, then please contact the FCC. That's really at this point the only answer if you want to see HD transmisson stopped.

Properly implemented, HD will not cause interference within a station's protected contour. If you are a 100,000 watt station, that isn't much of a problem, since your protected contour probably covers the metro area you serve. The people in your fringe areas make little or no impact on your daily existence. If a few of them can no longer receive your signal because of new interference, that is of little consequence. It's all in percentages, and will have little or no impact on your bottom line.

The situation is quite different for Class A stations, lots of rural stations, rim-shots, LPFM's and translators. (By the way, there are a lot of those stations on the air). Their protected contour usually does not cover the all of area where people actually listen. They depend on listenership well into what is technically a fringe area. Even with a weak signal, people do listen, if you give them something worth listening to. I know. I run one.

By law, these stations have no ground to stand on. They are only guaranteed protection within their protected contour. These small stations are the ones who are going to suffer the consequences if IBOC flourishes. I don't know if many of them have figured that out yet. It seems that you haven't, or that you don't care. If someone wants to "thin the herd" in radio, IBOC is a great way to do it. I suspect that is part of the plan.

"Running interference"

"Conversely, when WOR's IBOC carriers were on, and WLW's carrier was 10dB down, the WLW analog signal was rather noisy. It was not bad enough to make me want to tune WLW out, but it was annoying. If WLW's signal decreased to a level of 15dB below that of WOR, the signal was unlistenable. If, however, WLW's signal level was equal to or exceeded WOR's signal level, the noise was only slightly audible and the analog signal was useable. When the WLW signal was unlistenable and WOR's IBOC carriers went off, the WLW signal was still unlistenable, either because of another station on 700kHz coming in, or the sideband from a station at 690kHz splattering. In general, I would say that it was not strictly the IBOC carriers that made the signal unlistenable... My opinion is that if the IBOC carriers were reduced by 3dB to 6dB for all stations at night, the digital coverage would obviously be reduced, but there would be less effect on the analog signals. Certainly, digital coverage is adequate at night on the WOR signal."

http://beradio.com/features/radio_running_interference/

Disclaimer: This test, was run out of one of iNiquity's vans.