Savage said:
The new IDC system uses the AAC codec and the audio should be much better. All said both ABC and Westwood still deliver programs digitally.
-
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 Station Admits Digital is Inferior to Analog
- Thread starter Play Freebird
- Start date
The new IDC system uses the AAC codec and the audio should be much better. All said both ABC and Westwood still deliver programs digitally.
Here's a link to the audio Bob
http://download.yousendit.com/3DB9BD661083D67B
The point I was making is that trying to receive a radio station in areas outside of its protected contour can sound like this which is basically unlistenable. WRKL is 24 hour Polish with a deep null towards northern Westchester county. Cal goes on and on about supposed interference to WRKL (Here's a hint, it isn't from WCBS unless your front end is as broad as a barn door). Hey, I used to be able to hear WOAI, wCCO, WGY, WOWO, KSL etc every night, but no longer thanks to deregulation which considering the numbers of stations put on the air at night since the 1970's caused much more interference to the AM band than any IBOC transmission. I guess Cal knows more about engineering and what is legal and what isn't in the broadcast band then the engineers at WCBS and the FCC. That's the FCC who found in favor of WCBS. Of course the fact that the WRKL filing included maps from radio Locator, which clearly say, for entertainment puposes only, had no effect on the finding. Heck, we don't need no stinkin' spectrum analyzers or Potomic meters, we'll use our super radio to determine what is interferening and what isn't!!
http://download.yousendit.com/3DB9BD661083D67B
The point I was making is that trying to receive a radio station in areas outside of its protected contour can sound like this which is basically unlistenable. WRKL is 24 hour Polish with a deep null towards northern Westchester county. Cal goes on and on about supposed interference to WRKL (Here's a hint, it isn't from WCBS unless your front end is as broad as a barn door). Hey, I used to be able to hear WOAI, wCCO, WGY, WOWO, KSL etc every night, but no longer thanks to deregulation which considering the numbers of stations put on the air at night since the 1970's caused much more interference to the AM band than any IBOC transmission. I guess Cal knows more about engineering and what is legal and what isn't in the broadcast band then the engineers at WCBS and the FCC. That's the FCC who found in favor of WCBS. Of course the fact that the WRKL filing included maps from radio Locator, which clearly say, for entertainment puposes only, had no effect on the finding. Heck, we don't need no stinkin' spectrum analyzers or Potomic meters, we'll use our super radio to determine what is interferening and what isn't!!
R.F. Burns said:
It doesn't matter how wide or narrow your front end is, if there is RF 30 Khz out from from either side of the center of the carrier signal you'll pick it up. I have never encountered it more than 15 Khz on either side. WBZ puts out horrendous IBOC hash here, I can put my radios in the 2 Khz (or 1Khz for that matter) position and still pick up the hash on both 1020 and 1040 even though I'm not receiving the audio from the carrier. I can hear hash on 1015 and 1045 as a matter of fact, same with WOR and WFAN etc. They own 30 Khz of spectrum across much of the US at night despite the bought and paid for FCC's harmful interference rule. AM IBOC cuts a 30 Khz wide swath through the AM band for hundreds of miles. This will happen on FM if the digital signal is ever increased as iNiquity wants.
KB1OKL said:
Well just to help you out here. There IBOC signal is NOT 30 KHz wide. I've seen the spectrum analyzer results printed on the WCBS AM reply. Any interference is a product of poor receiver selectivity and not what is being transmitted. Many years ago I built a crystal radio using an old '5 tube' tuning capacitor. You'd think that WABC covered the bottom half od the bcb, they were that strong and that wide. Of course they weren't that wide but the crystal radio had very poor selectivity. C'mon, your a ham and have I would guess taken a exam or two. You must know how this works and yet you jump to such incorrect conclusions. Here's an example. For CW I use a 400 hz filter to seperate stations. Now if I used my 6 Khz AM filter or my 2.4 Khz SSB filter you'd think everyone was transmitting on the same frequency. They aren't and it all comes down to using the correct filter or having a radio with decent selectivity.
Sorry, RF. This brings up two frequently-chanted IBOC lies - one, that adjacent-channel problems have something to do with "receiver bandwidth" and two, that the IBOC noise is suppressed so it isn't troublesome.
It is well-known that IBOC places digital carriers directly WITHIN the passband of adjacent channels, so at the outset the claim that the system is "in-channel" is a lie which the Alliance and the NAB hoped to run past the marketplace - e.g., "everyone other than us is too stupid to notice." AM channel bandwidth is too restricted - 10 kHz - to accomodate both the analog and the digital information, so IBOC has to cheat by plunking its digital carriers in adjacent channels. The much-debated analog bandwidth reductions - often to as narrow as 4.5 kHz - is just a hail-Mary attempt to mitigate the inevitable problems caused by "trying to stuff a tornado through a keyhole," rf-wise. In the case of WBZ the station radiates a total of 25 COFDM digital carriers from 1040.356 to 1040.717 kHz. Receiver bandwidth is irrelevant. You can't eliminate a co-channel signal by tinkering with receiver bandwidth - the wanted and unwanted information are in the same channel!
Second, IBOC proponents argue that the unwanted information is suppressed -28dbc. That may be true if you reference the noise to a SINGLE digital carrier. But there are 25 of them in the passband! Your receiver doesn't just say, "well, iBiquity says the digital noise is 28 db below carrier, so I'll just obligingly refrain from detecting 24 of the digital carriers to back up their press releases." No - your receiver detects all 25 at once, cranks them through the IF and audio system and they come out of the speaker and hit your ears, producing lovely, tuneout-producing HISS. This is the real world speaking: the noise floor presented by 25 carriers simultaneously detected must be calculated as ADDITIVE. Looking at just ONE digital carrier for a noise reference is just another form of IBOC engineering masturbation. The real world noise suppression below carrier is more on the order of -16 dbc.
28db down, 16db down, it really doesn't make any difference anyway. Any piece of gear I've got that shows noise figures only 28 or 16 db below program reference is what I - or any sane engineer - would call "a malfunctioning piece of equipment." LP records were trashed by digital audio fans because of their "unacceptable" 45 db dynamic range. Why are the characteristics of the human ear being retroactively revised - along with the laws of physics - to accomodate IBOC??
Oh, that's right - I forgot. We all have to try to help iBiquity, Big Radio executives and corrupt regulators get rich at our own expense. Sorry - not gonna play that game. Neither should any other nonsuicidal person.
It is well-known that IBOC places digital carriers directly WITHIN the passband of adjacent channels, so at the outset the claim that the system is "in-channel" is a lie which the Alliance and the NAB hoped to run past the marketplace - e.g., "everyone other than us is too stupid to notice." AM channel bandwidth is too restricted - 10 kHz - to accomodate both the analog and the digital information, so IBOC has to cheat by plunking its digital carriers in adjacent channels. The much-debated analog bandwidth reductions - often to as narrow as 4.5 kHz - is just a hail-Mary attempt to mitigate the inevitable problems caused by "trying to stuff a tornado through a keyhole," rf-wise. In the case of WBZ the station radiates a total of 25 COFDM digital carriers from 1040.356 to 1040.717 kHz. Receiver bandwidth is irrelevant. You can't eliminate a co-channel signal by tinkering with receiver bandwidth - the wanted and unwanted information are in the same channel!
Second, IBOC proponents argue that the unwanted information is suppressed -28dbc. That may be true if you reference the noise to a SINGLE digital carrier. But there are 25 of them in the passband! Your receiver doesn't just say, "well, iBiquity says the digital noise is 28 db below carrier, so I'll just obligingly refrain from detecting 24 of the digital carriers to back up their press releases." No - your receiver detects all 25 at once, cranks them through the IF and audio system and they come out of the speaker and hit your ears, producing lovely, tuneout-producing HISS. This is the real world speaking: the noise floor presented by 25 carriers simultaneously detected must be calculated as ADDITIVE. Looking at just ONE digital carrier for a noise reference is just another form of IBOC engineering masturbation. The real world noise suppression below carrier is more on the order of -16 dbc.
28db down, 16db down, it really doesn't make any difference anyway. Any piece of gear I've got that shows noise figures only 28 or 16 db below program reference is what I - or any sane engineer - would call "a malfunctioning piece of equipment." LP records were trashed by digital audio fans because of their "unacceptable" 45 db dynamic range. Why are the characteristics of the human ear being retroactively revised - along with the laws of physics - to accomodate IBOC??
Oh, that's right - I forgot. We all have to try to help iBiquity, Big Radio executives and corrupt regulators get rich at our own expense. Sorry - not gonna play that game. Neither should any other nonsuicidal person.
Savage said:
Great Bob, funny though, I don't have any problem with WRKL and WCBS. I'll post a demo for you later if I have a chance. You and I will just have to disagree about this. I still maintain much more interference is caused by overpopulation of the AM BCB since deregulation than IBOC. I say shut down IBOC and turn off all of those daytimers who have destroyed the once clear channel frequencies at night. You can't have it both ways.
R.F. – I may have to agree with you on both counts - but temporarily as the FACTS continue to accumulate. Bob Savage rightfully maintains that AM-IBOC is an affront. Believe me – that beast is there - and it isn't "purdy", but so is increased nighttime RFI due to co-channel allowances on the former “clears”. 1040 kHz is an excellent example in the Ohio Valley. Once, the exclusive real estate of WHO – no longer –it’s full of IBOC hiss and co-channel. That once-proud WHO signal tries to punch-thru about half the time... The rest is a maze of phase-infested hiss-bog combined with low-level “monkey-chatter” on the fade-out and IBOC hiss from WBZ [which IS NOT listenable either]. I’ve never heard Bob’s station in my eastern Indiana hometown, but I’ve heard others [some who shouldn't be there]... And they get in the way and frustrate me as I try to listen to Mike Regan at 11PM on WHO - once a SOLID and dependable service! The problem IS NOT that Bob’s station is not conforming to his license [he’s invisible there] – the trouble is that OTHERS DON’T ... I have heard the “low rent” Hispanic station in Atlanta on 1040 go to full power on a January morning at 6AM – TWO HOURS before they should and wreck everyone else’s room. In this new era of “nights on the clears” the FCC doesn’t have the available field staff to patrol the turf. Many are abusing their low-power privileges. Yet, I’m sure Bob IS NOT!
Regardless of this, IBOC is an irrefutable nighttime detriment... Sorry, man – THE INTERFERENCE IS THERE [trust me] and causes a listening detriment to most in the rural Midwest. Sit back and try to release yourself from your Manhattan listening experience. These stations, who can’t illuminate a “digital AM” icon 20-miles from the Holland Tunnel still pulverize adjacent channels over 500 miles away and make formerly dependable signals—un-listenable. This is an accurate report from “the field”, R.F.
Our national resource called “AM radio” should NOT be sacrificed because a bunch of corporate “HACKS” driven by a defective profit-directive and an angary stock market should NOT be allowed to ruin it for none-other then a simple 4-share and another 6 months on a job they can't handle.
Regardless of this, IBOC is an irrefutable nighttime detriment... Sorry, man – THE INTERFERENCE IS THERE [trust me] and causes a listening detriment to most in the rural Midwest. Sit back and try to release yourself from your Manhattan listening experience. These stations, who can’t illuminate a “digital AM” icon 20-miles from the Holland Tunnel still pulverize adjacent channels over 500 miles away and make formerly dependable signals—un-listenable. This is an accurate report from “the field”, R.F.
Our national resource called “AM radio” should NOT be sacrificed because a bunch of corporate “HACKS” driven by a defective profit-directive and an angary stock market should NOT be allowed to ruin it for none-other then a simple 4-share and another 6 months on a job they can't handle.
WCBS AM: http://download.yousendit.com/344FE14C1354602A
WRKL AM: http://download.yousendit.com/A9822963329D92BA
Above are the two radio stations we have been talking about. You'll notice that WRKL has a nice buzz caused by a ground loop, but no hint of WCBS or IBOC. On the WCBS audio you'll here nice studio "hiss" but no IBOC hiss. The source for both files is a standard ferric cassette tape played from a Sony TCM-5000EV cassette machine. No noise reduction was used on these recordings. Hey, AM IBOC isn't great and I'm still waiting to read the outcome of Bobs suit against WBZ and what the commission rules in his case. But the WRKL nonesense is just that. Polnet purchased a station in Northern Rockland county with the intent of serving Brooklyn and central Jersey, some 40 miles or more from the transmitter. You can't do that with 1KW here in the land of poor ground conductivity and high RF levels. Other than the buzz and the fact that WRKL is running a very loud audio, within its service area there is no interference from anyone. As I said IBOC is far from perfect on AM but if its so bad at least get your facts straight before you post what really amounts to nonsense. I don't care if you could eak out a signal from WRKL in their null, the interference you are getting isn't from WCBS.
WRKL AM: http://download.yousendit.com/A9822963329D92BA
Above are the two radio stations we have been talking about. You'll notice that WRKL has a nice buzz caused by a ground loop, but no hint of WCBS or IBOC. On the WCBS audio you'll here nice studio "hiss" but no IBOC hiss. The source for both files is a standard ferric cassette tape played from a Sony TCM-5000EV cassette machine. No noise reduction was used on these recordings. Hey, AM IBOC isn't great and I'm still waiting to read the outcome of Bobs suit against WBZ and what the commission rules in his case. But the WRKL nonesense is just that. Polnet purchased a station in Northern Rockland county with the intent of serving Brooklyn and central Jersey, some 40 miles or more from the transmitter. You can't do that with 1KW here in the land of poor ground conductivity and high RF levels. Other than the buzz and the fact that WRKL is running a very loud audio, within its service area there is no interference from anyone. As I said IBOC is far from perfect on AM but if its so bad at least get your facts straight before you post what really amounts to nonsense. I don't care if you could eak out a signal from WRKL in their null, the interference you are getting isn't from WCBS.
He still continues to live in his corporate radio fantasy... ‘An obviously talented technician blinded by a forced allegiance to his corporate masters... This is SO SAD... and a paradigm I have never seen in a competent AND CONFIDENT engineer. My past experience generally dictated that engineers were to be depended upon for the truth - regardless. Now, I guess they publish aliased audio files on the internet to bolster their corporate boss’s fruitless position - and defend their compromised "honor".
My pertinent question is... IS ALL THIS WORTH defending a flawed investment in sub-standard technology? WHY can’t these intelligent and capable souls just wake-up on a Monday morning and say to themselves – I’m no longer a b***h... You’d feel so much better by lunch-time!
My pertinent question is... IS ALL THIS WORTH defending a flawed investment in sub-standard technology? WHY can’t these intelligent and capable souls just wake-up on a Monday morning and say to themselves – I’m no longer a b***h... You’d feel so much better by lunch-time!
R. F. Burns said about HD radio interference to analog radios:
In spite of your bias supporting HD radio or your "reasoning" you completely confirmed what everyone except a few remaining rabid HD radio promoters have been saying:
HD radio is incompatible with existing broadcast channel assignments and most (if not at least many) analog radios.
Why has the HD cartel been (for years) promoting this deception to the public and government that HD radio causes no analog reception problems?
Never mind, I think I know.
In spite of your bias supporting HD radio or your "reasoning" you completely confirmed what everyone except a few remaining rabid HD radio promoters have been saying:
HD radio is incompatible with existing broadcast channel assignments and most (if not at least many) analog radios.
Why has the HD cartel been (for years) promoting this deception to the public and government that HD radio causes no analog reception problems?
Never mind, I think I know.
SUPERCASTER said:
Don't you realize that its all a plot to get under your skin. We all knew the reason for a few years now. If I were you I'd keep an eye out. You obviously have many enemies...Didn't Ted Kazinski start this way? lol ;D
That’s a LOW BLOW – and one I’d expect from a TRIP [terrestrial radio industry patriot]—fresh out of a “session” in the cluster-boss’s office! Come now... ‘Don’t you still posses a mind [and groundwork] of your own? ...Or, are you merely doing the bidding of your corporate radio bosses who have seen their stock flirt with “penny stock” status? [BTW, Radio One has THIRTY DAYS to raise their value or be de-listed]. 
Hurling personal insults DOES NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM – nor does a zombie’s defense of a flawed transmission scheme... re: IBOC!
Hurling personal insults DOES NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM – nor does a zombie’s defense of a flawed transmission scheme... re: IBOC!
FWIW, RF, my comments about IBOC-AM apply only to first- and in a very few especially egregious cases, SECOND adjacents. Quite frankly I have never heard of a case of third-adjacent IBOC jamming.
The WRKL case makes no sense to me. As mentioned before I would suspect a local interference problem or an array problem at 910, rather than IBOC from WCBS (and all you guys know what I think about IBOC and its interference problems.) I have seen some truly weird sources of co-channel interference in my career, including the AM station in the Southern Tier of New York plagued by frying noises in back of the program. Audio chain and equalized phone loop tested quiet and flat. Tx audio system tested fine, so did the limiter and AGC. Turned out the source was a bad thyratron tube that fired the mod montor peak-flasher, backfeeding RF into the Tx!
I never read the WRKL complaint or saw the WCBS response, but I'm sure if it used radio-locator as an exhibit it couldn't have been professionally done. WYSL's two complaints on file are certainly not of this caliber.
The WRKL case makes no sense to me. As mentioned before I would suspect a local interference problem or an array problem at 910, rather than IBOC from WCBS (and all you guys know what I think about IBOC and its interference problems.) I have seen some truly weird sources of co-channel interference in my career, including the AM station in the Southern Tier of New York plagued by frying noises in back of the program. Audio chain and equalized phone loop tested quiet and flat. Tx audio system tested fine, so did the limiter and AGC. Turned out the source was a bad thyratron tube that fired the mod montor peak-flasher, backfeeding RF into the Tx!
I never read the WRKL complaint or saw the WCBS response, but I'm sure if it used radio-locator as an exhibit it couldn't have been professionally done. WYSL's two complaints on file are certainly not of this caliber.
Savage said:
I'm being serious here, Thank you Bob for your response to this issue. While you and I don't always agree (and your issue is not one we disagree about), at least you've been a vaild debate partner. I really believe that if the level of debate were listed to this level, there would be much less anymous between the debators. Again, thank you Bob.
R.F. Burns said:
I understand what you're saying of course RF, that is in the first grade of radio. I use a R-390A which is among the most selective and sensitive radios ever made including new ones. I can tune to 1042 for example with my 1 Khz filter on, this does not allow anything wider than 1 kilohertz through unless it is VERY strong and even then I can phase it out, what I do get is hash from WBZ. This extends from 1015 to 1045 khz with the audio in the middle centered on 1030. You're a ham yourself if you know CW, I'm quite surprised you haven't noticed this, it's very easy to demonstrate, you must have some good communications receivers laying around. I have many very selective and sensitive radios around like this, they all exhibit the same thing, and it isn't that the radios have wide front ends, the front ends of R390A's are so good you can practically park in front of a 50 KW transmitter and no get any intermod. It is the saddle bag sidebands. WFAN and WOR also do this, if fact WOR and WFAN are worse at night, I seem to be on their first hop or something.
R. F. Burns clarified:
I never said that I know more about engineering than people who are in the broadcasting business. The fact is, I don't know anything about anything. Again, you attack at a personal level when things are said with which you do not happen to agree because it does not further your own point of view.
All I know is that I am unable to listen to WRKL anymore where I used to be able to listen to it. The problem seemed to start occurring when WCBS turned on their IBOC. That's all I know. End of story. And then you keep apologizing for why WRKL doesn't deserve to be heard outside of their transmitter's parking lot (exaggeration intended).
Yes I know the FCC ruled in favor of WCBS. That is good for WCBS. I happen to like WCBS. I wish them no ill will. In fact I wish I could hear their HD signal in mid town Manhattan. Please don't comment, R. F. I know why I can't. You have explained it to me several times.
Well that much I DO know! My problem was not trying to listen to that station in Brooklyn or central New Jersey, or even in Manhattan for that matter. I don't care why Polnet purchased this station or what they (perhaps wishfully) were trying to achieve. This is yet another argument why that station isn't "deserving" and it has absolutely nothing to do with the point that I raised, which is that I can no longer listen to it across the Hudson river from where their transmitter is located. Why is that?? Whether or not the interference is actually from WCBS, I don't know, but the fact that I cannot listen to it anymore doesn't make sense to me.
I don't expect anyone to know the answer to this question or if they do for it to be answered truthfully, so please do not bother trying. I have heard all the arguments, pro and con.
I never said that I know more about engineering than people who are in the broadcasting business. The fact is, I don't know anything about anything. Again, you attack at a personal level when things are said with which you do not happen to agree because it does not further your own point of view.
All I know is that I am unable to listen to WRKL anymore where I used to be able to listen to it. The problem seemed to start occurring when WCBS turned on their IBOC. That's all I know. End of story. And then you keep apologizing for why WRKL doesn't deserve to be heard outside of their transmitter's parking lot (exaggeration intended).
Yes I know the FCC ruled in favor of WCBS. That is good for WCBS. I happen to like WCBS. I wish them no ill will. In fact I wish I could hear their HD signal in mid town Manhattan. Please don't comment, R. F. I know why I can't. You have explained it to me several times.
Well that much I DO know! My problem was not trying to listen to that station in Brooklyn or central New Jersey, or even in Manhattan for that matter. I don't care why Polnet purchased this station or what they (perhaps wishfully) were trying to achieve. This is yet another argument why that station isn't "deserving" and it has absolutely nothing to do with the point that I raised, which is that I can no longer listen to it across the Hudson river from where their transmitter is located. Why is that?? Whether or not the interference is actually from WCBS, I don't know, but the fact that I cannot listen to it anymore doesn't make sense to me.
I don't expect anyone to know the answer to this question or if they do for it to be answered truthfully, so please do not bother trying. I have heard all the arguments, pro and con.
I'd have to know what kind of field strength the station has in the part of Westchester you are talkiing about. Perhaps you can identify the town where you are having trouble hearing the station. If WRKL is receiving interference it isn't from WCBS. What time of day are you trying to listen to the station? Is it post sunset? (A time of day would be helpful).
Here's the WRKL FCC page;
http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/amq?list=0&facid=50057
Take a look at the null they put into the east, north east from Pomona. After dark they run four towers and 800 watts. I don't know how long ago you used to listen to WRKL. When they were an English language station, they ran about 72 watts post sunset with a much less restrictive pattern from their 2 tower array.
Here's the WRKL FCC page;
http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/amq?list=0&facid=50057
Take a look at the null they put into the east, north east from Pomona. After dark they run four towers and 800 watts. I don't know how long ago you used to listen to WRKL. When they were an English language station, they ran about 72 watts post sunset with a much less restrictive pattern from their 2 tower array.
M
murcuryvapor
Guest
R.F. Burns said:
Frankly, the world (meaning the US) consumes its entertainment in a very perfunctory manner. This includes cell phones-which potentially have more important uses than being some annoying jukebox. I have noticed horrible artifacts with Direct TV and other small-dish services. I was able to hear a good quality, land-line- sounding cell phone call in the UK, while here in the states they sound AWFUL! But the Sat TV and cellphone work-they deliver a fax of what you recall as being quality product. But it's really the same shite we've accepted for years. Would you still buy an american car?
While there may be an uptick in analog technology sales, the majority of people will go with the flow that the FCC, the respective industries, and peers foist upon us. And I guess I will reluctantly tag along, if I want to keep in touch. I'll just forget there was an SACD, or that there was possibly a better-quality CD possible from the getgo, or that the UK has better sounding cells-just to do my business.
CDs- originally, if you remember 1982, were stamped out of any tape they could find in order to shift a few units. But people were willing to accept the 'small, scratchless record' because the quality of NEW vinyl was crap. I suspected the record companies were degrading the quality of records in order to boost sales of the new shiny discs. Same thing with the whole 'analogue sucks' rhetoric-it's motivated by the same 'newer is better, cramming more crap into the same bandwidth is better-ooh, more choices!' Forget that compression algorithms have a way to go-that's just pro-analogue agitprop!
Life goes on. But as the economy swirls the bowl, and the power goes out, we will all-some of us more reluctantly than others-be subject to the physics of analogue.
M
murcuryvapor
Guest
amfmsw said:
Normalizing is taking the peaks to as much as 100% modulation, and raises the lowest 'valleys' of the dynamics proportionally. You're talking about compression-in this case, multiband compression.
- Status