HD Station Admits Digital is Inferior to Analog

[R.F. Burns]

My cosmopolitan friend R.F Burns reflected on this opinion:

Quote from: The Dude on Yesterday at 11:18:46 am:

ANALOG always has been and always WILL BE BETTER THAN DIGITAL!

May we quote you on that Mr. Sarnoff?

Welcome to the world of 1932. By the way, This just in, the world is flat!

There is the R.F. Burns I know and love! Don't address the engineering opinion. Just try and make the poster look stupid and old fashioned.

I missed you while you were gone! Not much to say in recent weeks, eh? How are things in the world of big apple broadcasting? Have all the budget cuts been made?

Fascinating, your words would have the reader believe that I made my comments arbitrarily. Did you read the post I was responding to or just write a reply of your own to my response? Engineering options? What engineering went into the comment that Analog is great and digital is bad. Sometimes reading this board brings back memories of the publication, Absolute Sound. They initially dismissed CD’s at being “unmusical”. I guess the vast majority of the world disagreed with that concept. Cal, you talk about everyone else’s prejudices and preconceptions, ala “baggage” while refusing to admit your own or at the least explaining how you arrive at your notions with other than a cryptic explanation. By the way, your insistance that those of us who aren’t taking the “anti” stance are somehow “on the payroll” of Ibiquity is way off base. Maybe it’s possible that we could just have a good old, disagreement about this topic.

 

[KB1OKL]

Sometimes reading this board brings back memories of the publication, Absolute Sound. They initially dismissed CD’s at being “unmusical”. I guess the vast majority of the world disagreed with that concept.

I think the majority are slowly coming around to agree with Absolute Sound's idea of them being unmusical or else why would LP's have begun to make a comeback? I have always preferred the term harsh, unmusical is so, well... harsh. We missed you RF, you always makes the board such a warm fuzzy place to come back to

 

[calstymes]

My old buddy R. F. Burns defended:

Quote from: Cal Stymes on Today at 08:11:06 am

My cosmopolitan friend R.F Burns reflected on this opinion:

Quote from: The Dude on Yesterday at 11:18:46 am:

ANALOG always has been and always WILL BE BETTER THAN DIGITAL!

May we quote you on that Mr. Sarnoff?

Welcome to the world of 1932. By the way, This just in, the world is flat!

There is the R.F. Burns I know and love! Don't address the engineering opinion. Just try and make the poster look stupid and old fashioned.

I missed you while you were gone! Not much to say in recent weeks, eh? How are things in the world of big apple broadcasting? Have all the budget cuts been made?

Fascinating, your words would have the reader believe that I made my comments arbitrarily. Did you read the post I was responding to or just write a reply of your own to my response? Engineering options? What engineering went into the comment that Analog is great and digital is bad. Sometimes reading this board brings back memories of the publication, Absolute Sound. They initially dismissed CD’s at being “unmusical”. I guess the vast majority of the world disagreed with that concept. Cal, you talk about everyone else’s prejudices and preconceptions, ala “baggage” while refusing to admit your own or at the least explaining how you arrive at your notions with other than a cryptic explanation. By the way, your insistance that those of us who aren’t taking the “anti” stance are somehow “on the payroll” of Ibiquity is way off base. Maybe it’s possible that we could just have a good old, disagreement about this topic.

Of course I read the post to which you were responding. It was a one line post expressing an engineering opinion. You obviously disagree with the opinion. So instead of explaining why you disagree with the opinion, you ridicule the poster by making fun of him and liking his mentality to that which existed in the early 1930s. I have found the pro IBOC guys to be extremely sensitive about their HD radio and as such, they seem to like to attack the poster rather than argue the validity of the data or the opinion.

As for my own "prejudices and preconceptions", I have explained ad infinitum on this here message board why I am disenchanted with the AM HD technology. I had no "preconceptions" about it at all. Then when I had very bad experiences with two BA Receptors where I couldn't hear much of anything, my "prejudices" began to take shape. That's no secret. At that point I started to suspect that this technology was not what it was cracked up to be.

Following that, there was a small station that I formerly listened to when I was in Rockland county that I am unable to listen to anymore because of AM HD sideband interference from a big NYC powerhouse. I was then informed (probably by your own posts here) that because Rockland county is not inside this small station's "primary coverage area" that I am no longer entitled to listen to it where I formerly could. You see, stuff like that makes no sense to me. So yes, these and a continued diligence with keeping up with reports about this technology in the marketplace have further solidified my "prejudices" against it.

Yes R.F., I admit my prejudices, but one thing I do not do is belittle posters of opposing viewpoints by minimalizing their contributions to the discussion.

And lastly, as for my "insistence" that those who aren’t taking the “anti” stance are somehow “on the payroll” of Ibiquity being way off base, all I can say is that I am still looking for a reason why they are constantly belittling those of us who do take the "anti" stance and why the FCC continues to make decisions in favor of what (at least to me) is clearly a failing technology.

 

[R.F. Burns]

Sometimes reading this board brings back memories of the publication, Absolute Sound. They initially dismissed CD’s at being “unmusical”. I guess the vast majority of the world disagreed with that concept.

I think the majority are slowly coming around to agree with Absolute Sound's idea of them being unmusical or else why would LP's have begun to make a comeback? I have always preferred the term harsh, unmusical is so, well... harsh. We missed you RF, you always makes the board such a warm fuzzy place to come back to

I feel like the Aflac duck responding to a "Yogism". "The Majority"? I could make a sarcastic comment here but I’ll refrain and only say, just because you write it doesn't make it so. Are you aware that for over 20 years satellite distributed broadcasts have been digitally compressed, or that $99.44/100 of live sports arrive at the broadcaster over compressed ISDN. How about the fact that both DIRECTV and Dish network are both digitally compressed and yet, you don't hear anyone saying, Gee, I long for the days of the 12 channel analog delivered cable feed. How about his classic, Cell phone technology was much better back in the days before the new fangled digital cell phone was invented. I repeat, "The Majority"? I think it's time for you to take a new poll on that question.

 

[R.F. Burns]

My old buddy R. F. Burns defended:

Quote from: Cal Stymes on Today at 08:11:06 am

My cosmopolitan friend R.F Burns reflected on this opinion:

Quote from: The Dude on Yesterday at 11:18:46 am:

ANALOG always has been and always WILL BE BETTER THAN DIGITAL!

May we quote you on that Mr. Sarnoff?

Welcome to the world of 1932. By the way, This just in, the world is flat!

There is the R.F. Burns I know and love! Don't address the engineering opinion. Just try and make the poster look stupid and old fashioned.

I missed you while you were gone! Not much to say in recent weeks, eh? How are things in the world of big apple broadcasting? Have all the budget cuts been made?

Fascinating, your words would have the reader believe that I made my comments arbitrarily. Did you read the post I was responding to or just write a reply of your own to my response? Engineering options? What engineering went into the comment that Analog is great and digital is bad. Sometimes reading this board brings back memories of the publication, Absolute Sound. They initially dismissed CD’s at being “unmusical”. I guess the vast majority of the world disagreed with that concept. Cal, you talk about everyone else’s prejudices and preconceptions, ala “baggage” while refusing to admit your own or at the least explaining how you arrive at your notions with other than a cryptic explanation. By the way, your insistance that those of us who aren’t taking the “anti” stance are somehow “on the payroll” of Ibiquity is way off base. Maybe it’s possible that we could just have a good old, disagreement about this topic.

Of course I read the post to which you were responding. It was a one line post expressing an engineering opinion. You obviously disagree with the opinion. So instead of explaining why you disagree with the opinion, you ridicule the poster by making fun of him and liking his mentality to that which existed in the early 1930s. I have found the pro IBOC guys to be extremely sensitive about their HD radio and as such, they seem to like to attack the poster rather than argue the validity of the data or the opinion.

As for my own "prejudices and preconceptions", I have explained ad infinitum on this here message board why I am disenchanted with the AM HD technology. I had no "preconceptions" about it at all. Then when I had very bad experiences with two BA Receptors where I couldn't hear much of anything, my "prejudices" began to take shape. That's no secret. At that point I started to suspect that this technology was not what it was cracked up to be.

Following that, there was a small station that I formerly listened to when I was in Rockland county that I am unable to listen to anymore because of AM HD sideband interference from a big NYC powerhouse. I was then informed (probably by your own posts here) that because Rockland county is not inside this small station's "primary coverage area" that I am no longer entitled to listen to it where I formerly could. You see, stuff like that makes no sense to me. So yes, these and a continued diligence with keeping up with reports about this technology in the marketplace have further solidified my "prejudices" against it.

Yes R.F., I admit my prejudices, but one thing I do not do is belittle posters of opposing viewpoints by minimalizing their contributions to the discussion.

And lastly, as for my "insistence" that those who aren’t taking the “anti” stance are somehow “on the payroll” of Ibiquity being way off base, all I can say is that I am still looking for a reason why they are constantly belittling those of us who do take the "anti" stance and why the FCC continues to make decisions in favor of what (at least to me) is clearly a failing technology.

I can tell you why those of us who respond to the anti IBOC people as we do. It's because of the language, much of it of a childish nature which the anti group use (I don't believe I need to repeat the words here) and the personal bitterness expressed towards those of us who disagree. It's as if we have insulted their child. Mr. Stymes, you continue to rail against your failed HD Receptors as a reason you are so against this technology. Mine works, your's doesn't and I know that BA released some very poor radios which in reality were defective and shouldn't have hit the market. I'd suggest you have a look at the unit reveiewed here;

http://ham-radio.com/k6sti/xdr-f1hd.htm


I'm considering purchasing this unit to have a look for myself. Lastly, as far as AM IBOC is concerned, I could care less. There's nothing on AM worth improving audio wise. I couldn't care less if IBOC failed on the AM BCB. It really doesn't matter to me. On the other hand as Mike has often stated and I concur, IBOC on FM with its multi channel capability is a major improvement and already provides me with a clear signal providing audio I can not otherwise hear at my house clearly at all hours of the day and night. By the way, the statement that "analog audio is always better than digital audio" holds no engineering weight. It's only an opinion and we know what they say about opinions.

 

[JohnnyElectron]

I bought the last Paul Simon CD with 'Outrageous' on it - and that is what the recording is - outrageous. There is no frickin dynamic range! I always thought his 70's LP were great in the recording / engineering department - but I was depressed beyond belief when I listened to this recording - I had to import it into Adobe Audition to look at the maxed-out waveform. How depressing - even the 70's 'dinosaurs' have crappy overprocessed audio now. I wish they released two versions - the maxed-out dynamicaly retarded MP3 crap version, and an 'analog-like' wide dynamic range version. Is this what Brian Eno did, or what?

 

[R.F. Burns]

I bought the last Paul Simon CD with 'Outrageous' on it - and that is what the recording is - outrageous. There is no frickin dynamic range! I always thought his 70's LP were great in the recording / engineering department - but I was depressed beyond belief when I listened to this recording - I had to import it into Adobe Audition to look at the maxed-out waveform. How depressing - even the 70's 'dinosaurs' have crappy overprocessed audio now. I wish they released two versions - the maxed-out dynamicaly retarded MP3 crap version, and an 'analog-like' wide dynamic range version. Is this what Brian Eno did, or what?

I believe you are confusing digital compression (The removal of certain theoretically non audible audio to lessen bandwidth) with audio compression which limits dynamic range. Audio compression in one form or another has been around for decades. The same limited dynamic remastering job was done to the Who's, Who's Next. One has nothing to do with the other.

 

[KB1OKL]

A lot of the re-releases of 70's albums really sound lousy in comparison to the original, for ex. I have two LP's of Highway 61 Revisited by Bob Dylan, one is a new LP, the other is an original (not sure when it was pressed) and the sound on the original is far superior to the newly released version. I would be willing to bet that it is overly compressed and was digitally remastered which takes the life out of them. I was quite disappointed in the new LP and only play the old one.
Perhaps majority was to strong for a blanket term, I meant the majority of audiophiles who are turning to LP's.

 

[amfmsw]

Contemporary Rock CD's are "engineered" to be loud by normalizing the tracks. There is no dynamic range. Then, feed it through an Omnia or Optimod, and the "needles don't kick" at all. LOOK AT YOUR METERS...it looks like the Raspberries "Go All The Way"! The music actually makes the commercials sound good!

The Columbia/Epic CD's of late 60's / early 70's Classic Rock were crap. The CTA an d BS&T albulms sounded better on original vinyl pressing with a good cartridge than the CD. Thank God Rhino got hold of the masters and did it right.

Do yourself a favor and but the Beatles "Love" CD. My dogs bark everytime "I Am The Walrus" plays. You'll truly hear George Martin's genius.

 

[Carmine5]

But for anyone who has not heard a freshly minted LP or 45 cut from masters that were mixed from 1" 8 or 2" 16-track source tapes (WITHOUT noise reduction I might add) you've missed an incredible sonic experience.

I have yet to hear anything like it from a CD or any other digital source.

C5

Yes, but the whole point is that 50, 100 or 1000 plays later the digital media still plays at its original quality while the analog media is seriously degraded.

It doesn't even take 1000 plays to degrade an LP or single. Just storing it can be hazardous to its health. Apparently, air pollution will attack the vinyl and damage it over time.

In listening to a 45 of "Join Together" by The Who, there's so much sonic energy coming from Keith Moon's drumming on those grooves that it can almost punch a hole right through you. Entwistle's bass is smooth and full.

But the CD version of the song is brittle with no punch at all. A real disappointment.

Digital just doesn't do the recording justice.

C5

 

[Tom Wells]

Contemporary Rock CD's are "engineered" to be loud by normalizing the tracks. There is no dynamic range. Then, feed it through an Omnia or Optimod, and the "needles don't kick" at all. LOOK AT YOUR METERS...it looks like the Raspberries "Go All The Way"! The music actually makes the commercials sound good!

The Columbia/Epic CD's of late 60's / early 70's Classic Rock were crap. The CTA an d BS&T albulms sounded better on original vinyl pressing with a good cartridge than the CD. Thank God Rhino got hold of the masters and did it right.

Do yourself a favor and but the Beatles "Love" CD. My dogs bark everytime "I Am The Walrus" plays. You'll truly hear George Martin's genius.

What part do the dogs bark at? I made a cleaned and polished dub from my mono 45, which I am listening to now on the computer, and am wondering
what sets the dogs off.

When I want to make my dogs bark I play "Caroline No" by the Beach Boys. The part at the end where the dogs bark at the passing train fools them
every time.

I've been able to wash away 70 to 80 percent of the noise on vinyl using HOT water, dish detergent and a fine brush.
Then I clean with isopropyl alcohol ( I know this is supposedly bad for records but have never heard any detriment).
I usually dub the records while playing them WET with water/isopropyl.
Real-time click-and-pop reduction, DNR hiss reduction, mild expansion completes the live step.
Then if I edit digitally, I apply more click reduction and sometimes more hiss/crackle reduction.
By the time this is all done, my dubs generally sound better than any songs I've dubbed straight from a CD, or even listening live to a CD.
I avoid editing if possible because Nero wave editor only outputs 128k, and really good recordings DO suffer at this bitrate.
Even 192k has detectable artifacts on some recordings but I can live with 128, which still sounds great once on the AM with 1960's style reverb.

Digital is handy, but I'm not planning on ever getting rid of any my analog stuff.
I have successfully super-glued a stylus tip back to the end of the tiny shank, and am going to get my money's worth out of it.
(yes I did get it back perfectly aligned)
I can't imagine being able to repair much on a CD drive.
ALL things analog are generally easier to repair and support, I have to deal with analog/digital and their integration every single day.
Digital devices offer fewer clues as to their faults and failures, and require a different mindset for diagnosing problems. There is also the accelerated obsolescence of things digital.......while my 78s and cylinders are still quite playable, and
NEW turntables for consumers are still being produced that go 78 RPM.

 

[calstymes]

Mr. R.F. Burns did gently propose:

I'd suggest you have a look at the unit reveiewed here;

http://ham-radio.com/k6sti/xdr-f1hd.htm

I'm considering purchasing this unit to have a look for myself.

Actually I did obtain a Sangean HDT-1X a few months ago, which is an equivalent unit to the Sony and something I have not discussed on this here message board. It is truly a lovely tuner. But it still won't decode the HD signals of some of my favorite AM stations here in NYC and for the ones that do decode, I really do not like the artifacts I hear in the audio. It just doesn't sound "natural" to me.

All things considered, I doubt very seriously that I will be obtaining another one to "try out".

I notice that you did not say a word about my Rockland county listening experience. Is that because maybe you have been rethinking the opinion you have been very vocal about in the past that, if you are located within an area that is not inside a station's "primary coverage area" that it does not deserve to be heard by you?

This could be a fascinating turn of events!

Lastly, as far as AM IBOC is concerned, I could care less. There's nothing on AM worth improving audio wise. I couldn't care less if IBOC failed on the AM BCB. It really doesn't matter to me.

Wait now! Hold the presses! Now THIS is a completely shocking and newsworthy event!

What made you have such a drastic change of heart? I can recall the good old days when you said that AM WILL fail without IBOC. You must admit, this does represent a major shift in another opinion you have been very vocal about for the past two years.

It seems like everyone is starting to walk away from AM HD now. Goodness, gracious! I wonder why? I had thought you would defend AM IBOC to the end. I needed to hear some good chatter about its advantages again. I am afraid to say that without you, LinoNYC may be its last hope of survival now.

 

[R.F. Burns]

Mr. R.F. Burns did gently propose:

I'd suggest you have a look at the unit reveiewed here;

http://ham-radio.com/k6sti/xdr-f1hd.htm

I'm considering purchasing this unit to have a look for myself.

Actually I did obtain a Sangean HDT-1X a few months ago, which is an equivalent unit to the Sony and something I have not discussed on this here message board. It is truly a lovely tuner. But it still won't decode the HD signals of some of my favorite AM stations here in NYC and for the ones that do decode, I really do not like the artifacts I hear in the audio. It just doesn't sound "natural" to me.

All things considered, I doubt very seriously that I will be obtaining another one to "try out".

I notice that you did not say a word about my Rockland county listening experience. Is that because maybe you have been rethinking the opinion you have been very vocal about in the past that, if you are located within an area that is not inside a station's "primary coverage area" that it does not deserve to be heard by you?

This could be a fascinating turn of events!

Lastly, as far as AM IBOC is concerned, I could care less. There's nothing on AM worth improving audio wise. I couldn't care less if IBOC failed on the AM BCB. It really doesn't matter to me.

Wait now! Hold the presses! Now THIS is a completely shocking and newsworthy event!

What made you have such a drastic change of heart? I can recall the good old days when you said that AM WILL fail without IBOC. You must admit, this does represent a major shift in another opinion you have been very vocal about for the past two years.

It seems like everyone is starting to walk away from AM HD now. Goodness, gracious! I wonder why? I had thought you would defend AM IBOC to the end. I needed to hear some good chatter about its advantages again. I am afraid to say that without you, LinoNYC may be its last hope of survival now.

A few questions for you Cal, What Rockland experience? I don't know what you are talking about but I'd like to hear what you found and what part of Rockland you were in. On to the next topic, AM IBOC. You have never heard me say that AM IBOC was good, great whatever. The only decent sounding AM IBOC station I have heard is WFAN. There, the IBOC audio has few artifacts, relatively speaking and IBOC opens up the quality to near FM souund. Other than that, AM is the CW of the 21st century. I enjoy CW and at one time when I was active I could do 30-35 wpm. All well and good but in todays world tere are technologies which have far surpassed CW as a means of communications. While AM found a way to survive by switching to talk programing, the numbers show that its future isn't all that bright for the majority of stations. That combined with real estate issues in many markets, where the huge towers needed to operate a AM facility are being forced to move due to to the needs of the population for other use, is a sure sign that AM radio as we know it might go the way of the horse and buggy in the future. IBOC is a major improvement to the current FM service in many ways, Better seperation, lower noise floor, no multipath, multi channel programing, as contribute to what makes FM IBOC well worthwhile. I know some in here will show how a 50 KW Am'er is still showing healthy billing, but I'd be willing to venture that the majority of AM's in this country can't say the same. As Canada has moved away from the AM bcb so will the US. As Brook Benton sang, It's just a matter of time.

 

[calstymes]

Mr. R.F. Burns did hereby engage:

A few questions for you Cal, What Rockland experience? I don't know what you are talking about but I'd like to hear what you found and what part of Rockland you were in.

I said this wrong. I'm sorry. I meant the Rockland county radio station listening experience. When I am in Westchester county taking a leisurely drive up or down Rt. 9, I can no longer hear WRKL, which is a station that is located somewhere in Rockland county. I used to be able to hear it on 910 KHz. in Westchester county. Now all I hear on 910 KHz. in Westchester county is IBOC hash from what I presume to be WCBS on 880 KHz.

Somebody then said Westchester county is not technically in WRKL's primary coverage area so people are no longer entitled to hear it in Westchester county. Personally, I think that is a very poor argument why I should not be able to listen to a station I always listened to before but is now being obliterated by IBOC on an adjacent channel. Yeah I know, it is now administrative law that I should not be able to listen to it anymore because the FCC has condoned it. This makes me (and many other people) wonder WHY the FCC would do such a thing.

This is the sort of thing that Tom Wells and Bob Savage talk about happening all the time in the midwest and Rochester, respectively. It is my considered opinion that the public does not win here.

On to the next topic, AM IBOC. You have never heard me say that AM IBOC was good, great whatever. The only decent sounding AM IBOC station I have heard is WFAN. There, the IBOC audio has few artifacts, relatively speaking and IBOC opens up the quality to near FM souund.

I have heard AM IBOC and to me, it does NOT souund even close to being of near FM quality! I understand that there are broadband engineering considerations at AM stations which cause these artifacts to exist. But as far as I'm concerned, I'd gladly give up AM IBOC in order to get back the way the AM band sounded before it was introduced.

Other than that, AM is the CW of the 21st century. I enjoy CW and at one time when I was active I could do 30-35 wpm. All well and good but in todays world tere are technologies which have far surpassed CW as a means of communications.

I am sure your associates who work at AM radio stations would be pleased as punch to hear you say that. Have you ever tried saying that to the faces of any of them? How about to Tom Ray?

While AM found a way to survive by switching to talk programing, the numbers show that its future isn't all that bright for the majority of stations. That combined with real estate issues in many markets, where the huge towers needed to operate a AM facility are being forced to move due to to the needs of the population for other use, is a sure sign that AM radio as we know it might go the way of the horse and buggy in the future.

Well yes, it may. But for a long time you stated that AM needed IBOC to have "a chance" of surviving. I never believed that. And now apparently you don't believe it anymore either. In fact, you appear to have gone the other way entirely. You have lost all hope because you think "there's nothing on AM worth improving audio wise" (your quote not mine). I think that is a very revealing statement.

IBOC is a major improvement to the current FM service in many ways, Better seperation, lower noise floor, no multipath, multi channel programing, as contribute to what makes FM IBOC well worthwhile.

I have absolutely nothing bad to say about FM IBOC. It is the AM IBOC technology to which I object so strenuously.

I know some in here will show how a 50 KW Am'er is still showing healthy billing, but I'd be willing to venture that the majority of AM's in this country can't say the same. As Canada has moved away from the AM bcb so will the US. As Brook Benton sang, It's just a matter of time.

And as I said above paraphrased, perhaps it will. In the meantime, maybe if AM broadcasters would stop letting bean counters run their companies and hire talented people again to produce quality programming none of this would be happening, AM IBOC or not.

 

[Play Freebird]

Other than that, AM is the CW of the 21st century. I enjoy CW and at one time when I was active I could do 30-35 wpm. All well and good but in todays world tere are technologies which have far surpassed CW as a means of communications. While AM found a way to survive by switching to talk programing, the numbers show that its future isn't all that bright for the majority of stations. That combined with real estate issues in many markets, where the huge towers needed to operate a AM facility are being forced to move due to to the needs of the population for other use, is a sure sign that AM radio as we know it might go the way of the horse and buggy in the future. As Canada has moved away from the AM bcb so will the US. As Brook Benton sang, It's just a matter of time.

This is why the NAB needs to get their priorities straight. They have wasted millions of dollars fighting benign threats like the XM-Sirius merger, and continue to kick sand in the face of small non-profit LPFM operators, needlessly spend money on a new logo and "Radio Heard Here" nonsense, and relentlessly insist that IBOC is the solution to all problems, when they should really be working with the FCC to develop a plan to reassign vacant low-band VHF TV spectrum to AM licensees, then work to make inexpensive receivers available for this expanded FM band.

If the NAB doesn't wake up, we are likely to see the vacant TV spectrum turned over to non-broadcast use. Use it or lose it. Companies like Microsoft are already going after "white spaces" in the UHF TV band.

 

[R.F. Burns]

Mr. R.F. Burns did hereby engage:

A few questions for you Cal, What Rockland experience? I don't know what you are talking about but I'd like to hear what you found and what part of Rockland you were in.


I said this wrong. I'm sorry. I meant the Rockland county radio station listening experience. When I am in Westchester county taking a leisurely drive up or down Rt. 9, I can no longer hear WRKL, which is a station that is located somewhere in Rockland county. I used to be able to hear it on 910 KHz. in Westchester county. Now all I hear on 910 KHz. in Westchester county is IBOC hash from what I presume to be WCBS on 880 KHz.

Somebody then said Westchester county is not technically in WRKL's primary coverage area so people are no longer entitled to hear it in Westchester county. Personally, I think that is a very poor argument why I should not be able to listen to a station I always listened to before but is now being obliterated by IBOC on an adjacent channel. Yeah I know, it is now administrative law that I should not be able to listen to it anymore because the FCC has condoned it. This makes me (and many other people) wonder WHY the FCC would do such a thing.

This is the sort of thing that Tom Wells and Bob Savage talk about happening all the time in the midwest and Rochester, respectively. It is my considered opinion that the public does not win here. "

This may or may not be relavent here. WRKL is a Polish language radio station. They re located on Rt 202 in Pomona NY and licensed to New City, the county seat. They have a deep null to the north east to protect the station in Conneticut. That means they have little signal in northern Westchester county. I thought it might help to demonstrate the kind of signal the station put into Manhattan in 1964. Click on this linkso that you can hear the kind of "robust" signal they put into the city long before IBOC and deregulation.

http://www.wrkl.org/firstday.ra

The recording was made at WNEW on the east side of Manhattan. This was recorded long before the days of computers and they high level of RF noise we now enjoy in 2008. I'll bet plenty of people would love to spend hours listening to a signal like that.I'm sure you are aware that Mark Olkowski has done the interfeernce messurements and produced a report for the FCC when Polnet and Kahn filed against WCBS and the commission ruled for WCBS. More important than any of this is the fact that WRKL is allowed to broadcast a foreign language program aimed at listeners far outside its protected contour and provides no public service for the county of Rockland. It took months for the station to renew its license due to locals filling against its renewal

On to the next topic, AM IBOC. You have never heard me say that AM IBOC was good, great whatever. The only decent sounding AM IBOC station I have heard is WFAN. There, the IBOC audio has few artifacts, relatively speaking and IBOC opens up the quality to near FM souund.


I have heard AM IBOC and to me, it does NOT souund even close to being of near FM quality! I understand that there are broadband engineering considerations at AM stations which cause these artifacts to exist. But as far as I'm concerned, I'd gladly give up AM IBOC in order to get back the way the AM band sounded before it was introduced."

Right you are Cal. I had hope, but that hope was dashed. My problem with AM IBOC isn't interference, it's the artifacts that while not as bad as those heard on XM are still harsh. I say, fine, don't allow AM IBOC and let the band try to survive in mono analog. I'm willing to admit that I've change my mind, but not for the same reasons that so many of the anti IBOC
have been stating.

Other than that, AM is the CW of the 21st century. I enjoy CW and at one time when I was active I could do 30-35 wpm. All well and good but in todays world tere are technologies which have far surpassed CW as a means of communications.


I am sure your associates who work at AM radio stations would be pleased as punch to hear you say that. Have you ever tried saying that to the faces of any of them? How about to Tom Ray?

I have a lot of respect for Tom. That said, I am not beholding to anyone and am a big enough person to change my mind. Have you been to any SBE meetings? I have and some people like IBOC others don't/ Tom doesn't hold a grudge against those who disagree with him. To make this sort of statement means you don't know Tom.

While AM found a way to survive by switching to talk programing, the numbers show that its future isn't all that bright for the majority of stations. That combined with real estate issues in many markets, where the huge towers needed to operate a AM facility are being forced to move due to to the needs of the population for other use, is a sure sign that AM radio as we know it might go the way of the horse and buggy in the future.


Well yes, it may. But for a long time you stated that AM needed IBOC to have "a chance" of surviving. I never believed that. And now apparently you don't believe it anymore either. In fact, you appear to have gone the other way entirely. You have lost all hope because you think "there's nothing on AM worth improving audio wise" (your quote not mine). I think that is a very revealing statement.

Read my comments about this subject above. AM is in real trouble and for all the anti digital railling I read in here, No one has said word one about Starguide, which is the default distribution system (soon to change) for all network transmissions. Starguide uses MP2 coding and some form of digital compression has been taking place on radio for over 20 years. Mr. Savage who you reference has been a CNN affiliate for years. I wonder if he knows how many digital hops it takes to get the audio from Atlanta to Avon?

IBOC is a major improvement to the current FM service in many ways, Better seperation, lower noise floor, no multipath, multi channel programing, as contribute to what makes FM IBOC well worthwhile.


I have absolutely nothing bad to say about FM IBOC. It is the AM IBOC technology to which I object so strenuously.

Then we don't have anything to argue about here.

I know some in here will show how a 50 KW Am'er is still showing healthy billing, but I'd be willing to venture that the majority of AM's in this country can't say the same. As Canada has moved away from the AM bcb so will the US. As Brook Benton sang, It's just a matter of time.


And as I said above paraphrased, perhaps it will. In the meantime, maybe if AM broadcasters would stop letting bean counters run their companies and hire talented people again to produce quality programming none of this would be happening, AM IBOC or not.

Radio is no different than any other industry, its a business, run by the money people. For those who believe it was otherwise in the past, they are only fooling temselves.

 

[Tom Wells]

Thank you R.F., for clearing up my ignorance.

Now I know who I have been cursing at for 20 years: Starguide!

Not in the industry, I never knew who to blame for the garbled ruination of network and syndicated audio feeds.

The old EQ'd long lines sounded better.

And why, yes now that you mention it the garbling of network feeds is almost exactly the same amount and nature as AM in HD.

Probably the last 20 years this has been trying get us accustomed to accepting such a faulty audio reproduction as normal.


I have said a word or two about the flawed sound of such feeds many places, maybe here, too.
If I'd known who it was you'd sure have heard me complain about them specifically.

 

[Savage]

RF, WYSL hasn't been a CNN affiliate since 2006. We were an original affiliate of CNN Headline News from 1989 (the format's inception) to 1999, and it was distributed in thrilling ANALOG on the old Weststar-Mutual bird during that time period. We made the mistake of trying to fill in non-talk segments with the Westwood One-distributed version (as in "Westwood One, Affiliates Nothing") of HLN in 2005-2006, but the net was so endlessly screwed up technically, and CNN had the annoying habit of changing format clocks with as little as 24 hours notice (usually just before a holiday weekend) that we quickly scrapped it.

Between 99 and 06, WYSL ran AP All-News Radio which used a proprietary satellite system on the Hey-You band for data and audio.

All this being said, you'll get no argument from me about Starguide audio quality. It sucks. Plus some feeds, like Laura Ingraham as distributed on TRN, are packed with annoying artifacts and ISDN crud. HD exacerbates these shortcomings though, rather than helping to mask them.

I've got one XDS receiver - the one for ABC/TRN - cranked up and ready to deploy. Last I heard the Westwood version should be here shortly. I can't wait to get these boxes on the air and have high hopes that they'll sound better.

 

[calstymes]

Lordy, lordy, lordy. We're not actually reading, are we? I'll try it again.

My big network pal the honorable R. F. Burns did hereby pontificate:

Quote from: Cal Stymes on Yesterday at 09:16:49 am

Mr. R.F. Burns did hereby engage:

A few questions for you Cal, What Rockland experience? I don't know what you are talking about but I'd like to hear what you found and what part of Rockland you were in.

I said this wrong. I'm sorry. I meant the Rockland county radio station listening experience. When I am in Westchester county taking a leisurely drive up or down Rt. 9, I can no longer hear WRKL, which is a station that is located somewhere in Rockland county. I used to be able to hear it on 910 KHz. in Westchester county. Now all I hear on 910 KHz. in Westchester county is IBOC hash from what I presume to be WCBS on 880 KHz.

Somebody then said Westchester county is not technically in WRKL's primary coverage area so people are no longer entitled to hear it in Westchester county. Personally, I think that is a very poor argument why I should not be able to listen to a station I always listened to before but is now being obliterated by IBOC on an adjacent channel. Yeah I know, it is now administrative law that I should not be able to listen to it anymore because the FCC has condoned it. This makes me (and many other people) wonder WHY the FCC would do such a thing.

This is the sort of thing that Tom Wells and Bob Savage talk about happening all the time in the midwest and Rochester, respectively. It is my considered opinion that the public does not win here. Sad"

This may or may not be relavent here. WRKL is a Polish language radio station. They re located on Rt 202 in Pomona NY and licensed to New City, the county seat. They have a deep null to the north east to protect the station in Conneticut. That means they have little signal in northern Westchester county. I thought it might help to demonstrate the kind of signal the station put into Manhattan in 1964. Click on this linkso that you can hear the kind of "robust" signal they put into the city long before IBOC and deregulation.

http://www.wrkl.org/firstday.ra

The recording was made at WNEW on the east side of Manhattan. This was recorded long before the days of computers and they high level of RF noise we now enjoy in 2008. I'll bet plenty of people would love to spend hours listening to a signal like that.

Well I don't recall where I said anything about listening to WRKL in the city, so I think most of what you said above is irrelevant. I was talking strictly about listening to this station in Westchester county on Rt. 9, which I used to be able to do and can do no more.

I'm sure you are aware that Mark Olkowski has done the interfeernce messurements and produced a report for the FCC when Polnet and Kahn filed against WCBS and the commission ruled for WCBS. More important than any of this is the fact that WRKL is allowed to broadcast a foreign language program aimed at listeners far outside its protected contour and provides no public service for the county of Rockland. It took months for the station to renew its license due to locals filling against its renewal.

I see. Is this relevant to my not being able to hear it anymore in Westchester county where I used to be able to hear it? Perhaps. I'm sure Mr. Olkowski's intereernce messurements were right on the money. All I know is, I can't listen to that station anymore where I used to be able to listen to it. I seem to recall that this happened right after WCBS lit up its IBOC. I am sorry I don't remember what month and year it was, but it was definitely AFTER "the days of computers and the high level of RF noise we now enjoy in 2008" had started.

Are there any more non-excuses for this? How silly of me. Perhaps I just don't understand how broadcasting "works".

On to the next topic, AM IBOC. You have never heard me say that AM IBOC was good, great whatever. The only decent sounding AM IBOC station I have heard is WFAN. There, the IBOC audio has few artifacts, relatively speaking and IBOC opens up the quality to near FM souund.

I have heard AM IBOC and to me, it does NOT souund even close to being of near FM quality! I understand that there are broadband engineering considerations at AM stations which cause these artifacts to exist. But as far as I'm concerned, I'd gladly give up AM IBOC in order to get back the way the AM band sounded before it was introduced."

Right you are Cal. I had hope, but that hope was dashed. My problem with AM IBOC isn't interference, it's the artifacts that while not as bad as those heard on XM are still harsh. I say, fine, don't allow AM IBOC and let the band try to survive in mono analog. I'm willing to admit that I've change my mind, but not for the same reasons that so many of the anti IBOC have been stating.

Fascinating.

Other than that, AM is the CW of the 21st century. I enjoy CW and at one time when I was active I could do 30-35 wpm. All well and good but in todays world tere are technologies which have far surpassed CW as a means of communications.

I am sure your associates who work at AM radio stations would be pleased as punch to hear you say that. Have you ever tried saying that to the faces of any of them? How about to Tom Ray?

I have a lot of respect for Tom. That said, I am not beholding to anyone and am a big enough person to change my mind. Have you been to any SBE meetings? I have and some people like IBOC others don't/ Tom doesn't hold a grudge against those who disagree with him. To make this sort of statement means you don't know Tom.

Ok let's see... to make this sort of a statement that I don't know Tom because you have incorrectly interpreted what I wrote above is amazing to me. Yeap clouseau, I just don't get it.

I wasn't referring to whether or not you disagree with Tom and then told him so. I was referring to whether or not you have told him that "AM is the CW of the 21st century. I enjoy CW and at one time when I was active I could do 30-35 wpm. All well and good but in todays world tere are technologies which have far surpassed CW as a means of communications". You have essentially likened AM radio broadcasting to CW. I was simply asking whether or not you have actually said this to your fellow professional associates (including Tom Ray) who work at AM radio stations. Oh yes, I am sure he doesn't agree with you on that and I am glad to know he does not harbor a grudge against you for thinking this way.

While AM found a way to survive by switching to talk programing, the numbers show that its future isn't all that bright for the majority of stations. That combined with real estate issues in many markets, where the huge towers needed to operate a AM facility are being forced to move due to to the needs of the population for other use, is a sure sign that AM radio as we know it might go the way of the horse and buggy in the future.

Well yes, it may. But for a long time you stated that AM needed IBOC to have "a chance" of surviving. I never believed that. And now apparently you don't believe it anymore either. In fact, you appear to have gone the other way entirely. You have lost all hope because you think "there's nothing on AM worth improving audio wise" (your quote not mine). I think that is a very revealing statement.

Read my comments about this subject above. AM is in real trouble and for all the anti digital railling I read in here, No one has said word one about Starguide, which is the default distribution system (soon to change) for all network transmissions. Starguide uses MP2 coding and some form of digital compression has been taking place on radio for over 20 years. Mr. Savage who you reference has been a CNN affiliate for years. I wonder if he knows how many digital hops it takes to get the audio from Atlanta to Avon?

Pardon me? I know nothing about Starguide and I really don't understand what its relevance is to this discussion here. Ok, I think I will go back to sleep now. Please wake me up when this AM HD nightmare is over.

IBOC is a major improvement to the current FM service in many ways, Better seperation, lower noise floor, no multipath, multi channel programing, as contribute to what makes FM IBOC well worthwhile.

I have absolutely nothing bad to say about FM IBOC. It is the AM IBOC technology to which I object so strenuously.

Then we don't have anything to argue about here.

Fabulous!

I know some in here will show how a 50 KW Am'er is still showing healthy billing, but I'd be willing to venture that the majority of AM's in this country can't say the same. As Canada has moved away from the AM bcb so will the US. As Brook Benton sang, It's just a matter of time.

And as I said above paraphrased, perhaps it will. In the meantime, maybe if AM broadcasters would stop letting bean counters run their companies and hire talented people again to produce quality programming none of this would be happening, AM IBOC or not.

Radio is no different than any other industry, its a business, run by the money people. For those who believe it was otherwise in the past, they are only fooling temselves.

Oh, it was "otherwise" in the past for sure. There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that a profit has always been deemed to be the ultimate goal in business. I don't dispute that for a moment. But not at the expense of screwing the product or the public who "buys" it. It seems to me this mentality on the parts of the "money people" is much of what is wrong with business thinking today. Ah, a subject for another thread and topic.

Since we don't have anything to argue about anymore, Mr. Burns, I will not expect you to reply to this post.

 

[Savage]

RF, can't open the WRKL audio file from 1964. Can you send a new link to this in mp3 format?

Cal - not quite following you on WRKL (there is still blond hair amongst the gray here, duh.) WRKL is on 910 kHz, and WCBS is 880 kHz.

CBS is splashing 30 KILOHERTZ either side?? Holy moley. Are you hearing IBOC on the lower sideband this bad, like extending to 850 kHz?

Just wondering if there is some local interference condition affecting WRKL or if they might have an array problem (??) I've heard/seen bad cases of IBOC adjacents, but this one would definitely take the cake.