Heard another idiotic HD commercial on WZLX yesterday

[Don Juan]

Re: Heard another i[/quote]diotic HD commercial on WZLX yesterday

"Give the kewpie doll in this thread to......BRNout."
He's just posted one of the best-written, most logical and complete summations of the HD Radio situation I've read. In particular the parallel tiresomely drawn between HD and FM's rollout is deconstructed perfectly.

I'm sure it looks that way for someone who has a vested interest in promoting HD's failure.

HD doesn't cut it and the interference represents two steps backwards for audio quality, at a time when radio desperately needs to press its advantages.

Back to AM-HD-DX.

All the sophistry and wishful thinking in the world don't overcome engineering problems and an inadequately-assessed marketplace which is pushing past HD Radio. HD is an idea whose time has never come - and never will.

Wishful thinking? I think it's wishful thinking for the haters that it will "go away".

The rest of us are willing to let it play out. We dont have a vested interest.

 

[Savage]

(Don, can't help but be amused by the fact that you write under the screen name "Don Juan" but you've posted your apparent real name as a slogan. Thanks for the ongoing tide of guffaws posed by your posts. VERY entertaining.)

Don Juan says I'm engaging in wishful thinking. I say he and his ilk are. Personally I like my odds a lot better: HD is stalled at about 14% of the existing FM station population. Once the Alliance stations invested in HD (talk about "vested interests") and NPR stations, whose HD installs were almost all paid for with federal grants, were done - the conversions slowed to a trickle. With the current fiscal problems facing the radio industry they've essentially stopped, with a small but growing number of smaller operators actually turning HD off. Sometimes the reasons are economic, but mostly it's because of technical problems.

-10 dBc is a nonstarter among most people who are in the know. Eventually HD's digital ceiling will be something like -14, maybe -16 or -12 depending on local interference issues. This is not sufficient to provide for a reliably improved digital decode except under ideal circumstances. In driving in hilly terrain or in urban areas your car radio frequently has to deal with signal strength variations on the order of several decades. A digital power hike of a single decade won't even be noticed by the average car radio, and in an office building, even a tenfold increase in digital power will improve penetration by (Drake tympani roll) maybe 10 or 12 feet.

The KROQ single-station, single-market -10dBc experiment cited by Guy Wire in the 6/10 RWEE has been mostly greeted with derision. It was conducted by iBiquity with heavy involvement by CBS people who are personally invested (again, talk about "vested interests") in HD. CBS engineering chief Glynn Walden and president Dan Mason are former iBiquity executives who probably have plenty of stock personally. The KROQ "study" proves nothing except the desperation of the HD-pushers. In any event, even HD's most ardent fans concede that without a digital power increase the system is toast.

HD-AM has devolved into a head-wagging joke in the radio biz. Not even Guy Wire defends it. Notwithstanding your mean-spirited taunt, WBZ does not decode in Western New York in digital - despite a received signal strength in the range of 6 to 8 mv/m (experiments have proved that HD often needs local signals exceeding 30 mv/m to decode under typical skywave conditions.) The sidebands are indeed awful, though. The number of HD stations on-air represents about 2% of all AMs, and even that paltry number includes a large majority which are "digital daytimers" who turn the system off at night because of incompatibility with complex directional arrays. According to Barry McLarnon's site, there are about 85 AM stations transmitting in HD at night. Burrowing into the detailed facility list, we find that almost half are graveyarders on the 6 local channels. Even with that situation HD stations are annihilating local signals on first-adjacents in distant cities. Note that this is NOT a "DX" complaint - we're talking about LOCAL reception. The "DX" argument is now, and has always been, a red herring.

Posters here can decide for themselves which side of the controversy is involved in "wishful thinking." Go ahead, indulge in the new HD talking point "well, FM took 30 years to take off" if that's what works for you. Personally I prefer to look at the reality of the marketplace - which is decidedly disastrous for HD Radio, and worsening.

 

[Don Juan]

Don, can't help but be amused by the fact that you write under the screen name "Don Juan" but you've posted your apparent real name as a slogan.

Why is that amusing? You can pick any screen name or nickname you want.

Don Juan says I'm engaging in wishful thinking. I say he and his ilk are.

Well, of course thats the way it appears to you...as someone with a vested interest ($$$) presenting yourself as an unbias source of information is not genuine.

Personally I like my odds a lot better: HD is...

The public embraced VHS instead of the technically superior Beta. Again, the public will decide. Not the DX-ers, IBOC haters, and hobbyist....nor the people trying to talk it up or down for their own benefit.

HD-AM has devolved into a head-wagging joke in the radio biz.

Ummmm...not really. Not among the major companies. Again, AM IBOC has issues, but it will be a risk vs reward scenario. Every step forward means leaving some things behind. Take away the hobbyist, DX-ers and those with a vested interest and the "noise level" goes down pretty quickly. On this thread alone, almost everyone who has spoken against it is a hobbyist/DX-er.

Not even Guy Wire defends it.

No one is defending it. Just adding an ounce of reality to the HD-haters who are obsessed. ;-)


The "DX" argument is now, and has always been, a red herring.

Not at all. It keeps coming up over and over again.

Posters here can decide for themselves which side of the controversy is involved in "wishful thinking." Go ahead, indulge in the new HD talking point "well, FM took 30 years to take off" if that's what works for you.

People are claiming HD is not a success because it has not grown as fast as the ipod.
It's not "what works for me"...it's the truth.

Personally I prefer to look at the reality of the marketplace - which is decidedly disastrous for HD Radio, and worsening.

It disastrous for radio in general....in case you haven't notice, the public doesn't care that much about radio in all it's forms...and the industry is in a slump. HD is not the problem.

 

[fybush]

-10 dBc is a nonstarter among most people who are in the know. Eventually HD's digital ceiling will be something like -14, maybe -16 or -12 depending on local interference issues. This is not sufficient to provide for a reliably improved digital decode except under ideal circumstances. In driving in hilly terrain or in urban areas your car radio frequently has to deal with signal strength variations on the order of several decades. A digital power hike of a single decade won't even be noticed by the average car radio, and in an office building, even a tenfold increase in digital power will improve penetration by (Drake tympani roll) maybe 10 or 12 feet.

The KROQ single-station, single-market -10dBc experiment cited by Guy Wire in the 6/10 RWEE has been mostly greeted with derision. It was conducted by iBiquity with heavy involvement by CBS people who are personally invested (again, talk about "vested interests") in HD. CBS engineering chief Glynn Walden and president Dan Mason are former iBiquity executives who probably have plenty of stock personally. The KROQ "study" proves nothing except the desperation of the HD-pushers. In any event, even HD's most ardent fans concede that without a digital power increase the system is toast.

I think you may be dismissing the KROQ experiment too quickly. As far as interference to adjacent channels goes, I had the opportunity to drive much of the LA basin in April 2008, before the power boost had been publicly disclosed (but after visiting the tx site and seeing the higher shoulders on the spectrum analyzer!), and heard no new interference to the second-adjacent As on 106.3/107.1, or to the more distant first-adjacent signals in San Diego and the Antelope Valley - and believe me, I was listening for it.

As for whether or not that extra 10dB makes a difference, our friend KB1OKL inadvertently told us it was working for him, earlier in the thread:

I'm one town East of Worcester, MA and NOT ONE SINGLE FM HD WILL LOCK IN except for WKLB HD-1 and HD-2 and WAAF HD-1 right now

Surely that wouldn't have anything to do with WKLB's STA to run HD at -10 dB instead of -20 dB, now would it?

That having been said: I do agree with Bob (Savage, not Young) that an across-the-board 10 dB increase is a non-starter. I'm hopeful that the FCC will wait until NPR Labs finishes its ongoing study on the matter before rendering a decision. I suspect the end result will be some sort of phased increase - -10 dB for fully-spaced class B and C stations in the commercial band, some lower figure for noncomms and short-spaced commercial signals, or something to that effect.

And in defense of Sr. Don Juan, it should be noted that this does closely parallel the development of FM power levels: aside from the tiny handful of super-power operators, the vast majority of FMs prior to 1964 were kicking along at power levels far lower than today's class maxima, with signal problems to match. The adoption of the present FM class system in 1964, with the regulatory push that compelled stations to maximize within their classes, surely has to be seen as a factor in the rise of FM as a mass medium, too.

 

[BRNout]

"Give the kewpie doll in this thread to......BRNout."

He's just posted one of the best-written, most logical and complete summations of the HD Radio situation I've read. In particular the parallel tiresomely drawn between HD and FM's rollout is deconstructed perfectly.

Thank you, coming from you that is an honor.

I recall the days when FM was far from "fantastically clear reception" and when a majority of the FM's were mono. When exposed to HD radio....people react pretty positively (I wouldn't use "mind blowing"....people aren't too fascinated by anything to do with radio anymore.)
____________________________
(about older FM radios) No, it was MUCH bigger...expensive, needed a large outdoor antenna...and most of the first FM recievers were simply mono. (and insert all the same complaints people have about HD...programming, inferior technology, etc, etc.)

Yes, I recall that too. But those mono signals were still superior (in most cities) to most AM stations. By the late 1960s, you already had hand-held transistor radios which did pretty well with FM. I remember my grandfather's radio very well. It was a GE with a nice leather case which had a simple straight whip antenna. That was in about 1968-69. Still before FM had a lot of market share. It was a little bigger than a comparable AM and quite a bit more expensive, but not out of reach.

You're thinking of hi fi systems. Portables most certainly did exist - back as early as 1961 or so. They did not require an outdoor antenna. Our hi fi system had a 300 ohm wire antenna, just as today's receivers do.

Really? Are you having trouble figuring out how to work your radio? I have not seen any information indicating that people are "frustrated" trying to get their HD unit working. I think this is false.

I live 25 miles from downtown Chicago and can pick up relatively few HD signals with my Insignia system. And, those are from very strong signals that I had to invest quite a bit of time setting up an antenna to pick up. This is in a relatively level area served by lots of strong signals, yet I need to do a lot of setup to get ANY HD signals. Most people won't do this. They just won't take the time. Not acceptable. Yes, when they don't decode, you get the analog signal. But I get a better signal on any of my analog receivers - so what's the use in that?

Ah, yes, we keep coming back to AM-IBOC-DX issues. I knew we'd get around to that. There have not been massive complaints from listeners since AM stations started using HD.

You are far too dismissive of this reality. Not only does AM HD muck things up for dxers, but the skywave interferes with local broadcasters who are innocent and have nothing to do with this. The interference is intolerable and is being permitted by a group of people who would love to deny the physics of signal propagation. And for what? The HD hash won't decode at those distances. All they do is invade the protected contours of less-powerful local stations. And, by the way, AM stations' audio sounds like crap when they have the exciter on. Flat and lifeless and if you use a really good wideband AM receiver, you get interference in the background too.


Those are the highlights - I would love to debate more, but am up against a hard break....

 

[Savage]

Scott, I will respectfully - but emphatically - disagree with your comparison of HD's rollout with that of FM and FM stereo. I was actually there and in radio at the time and the situations have only a proposed power increase in common.

Maybe there is a tenuous comparison between the proposed digital power increase for HD-FM and the upgrades of FMs to class maximums in ERP in the 60s - plus developments like universal stereo and circular polarization. But using the two power increase scenarios to predict similar widespread acceptance for HD is a fallacy.

By far, the major impetus for FM's rollout was the 1966 proscription on 24-7 simulcasting with sister AMs. This forced mass-appeal formats onto FM. And as BRNout has quite accurately observed, FM Stereo represented a huge improvement over AM with its directional pattern shortfalls, noise and limited bandwidth, even on superior AM radios of the era. HD offers no such advance over analog FM - and brings along a big stack of technical baggage as well. Enthusiasts notice the difference of digital over analog but the general public doesn't get it.

Another factor which hasn't gotten much discussion: HD is controversial, for a variety of reasons. FM never was. It was immediately embraced as an obvious technical improvement, readily apparent even to casual listeners. FM didn't degrade the status quo of radio reception or injure other broadcasters. And it was reasonably priced without confiscatory perpetual licensing.

As BRNout has observed, 1965-75 was a different media era. HD has a far bigger acceptance mountain to climb and hauls along with it a lot more negatives, from both the broadcaster's and listener's perspectives.

For a fair comparison you really have to compare FM in that specific span. Really, the FM mass-acceptance rollout spanned less than ten years when you factor in real-world conditions at the time. FM was far, far more accepted at a similar point in development as HD is. There was never a question about FM. There always will be about HD.

 

[fybush]

Scott, I will respectfully - but emphatically - disagree with your comparison of HD's rollout with that of FM and FM stereo. I was actually there and in radio at the time and the situations have only a proposed power increase in common.

Maybe there is a tenuous comparison between the proposed digital power increase for HD-FM and the upgrades of FMs to class maximums in ERP in the 60s - plus developments like universal stereo and circular polarization. But using the two power increase scenarios to predict similar widespread acceptance for HD is a fallacy.

I will respectfully - but emphatically - note that I have never made such a prediction.

And I will respectfully - and jealously - note that you were there for the "mainstreaming" of FM in the sixties and early seventies. (I wish I had been.)

But having said that, I would also note that the historical record where FM is concerned does not fully agree with your interpretation. To wit:

Another factor which hasn't gotten much discussion: HD is controversial, for a variety of reasons. FM never was. It was immediately embraced as an obvious technical improvement, readily apparent even to casual listeners. FM didn't degrade the status quo of radio reception or injure other broadcasters. And it was reasonably priced without confiscatory perpetual licensing.

I am quite certain that Major Armstrong would differ rather severely with you that "FM never was (controversial)," and that General Sarnoff would disagree vehemently on the licensing issue.

But it's easy, in hindsight, to forget that by the time 1965 rolled around, FM broadcasting had been a part of the media landscape - admittedly, a far different one from today's - for nearly three decades.

The historical record, from a time before either Counselor Savage and I were around to experience it firsthand, testifies rather amply to the disruption that FM threatened to cause to the established AM broadcasters - the networks in particular - during its initial rollout in the years just before and immediately after WWII. There's also ample evidence that FM was far from "immediately embraced"; one can only imagine what a Radio-Info of 1948 might have sounded like in the days when all those (not inexpensive) 42-50 mc FM receivers were being obsoleted in order to kick the band upstairs to 88-106 mc. (106-108 mc being reserved, of course, for facsimile broadcasting...

As BRNout has observed, 1965-75 was a different media era. HD has a far bigger acceptance mountain to climb and hauls along with it a lot more negatives, from both the broadcaster's and listener's perspectives.

For a fair comparison you really have to compare FM in that specific span. Really, the FM mass-acceptance rollout spanned less than ten years when you factor in real-world conditions at the time. FM was far, far more accepted at a similar point in development as HD is. There was never a question about FM. There always will be about HD.

I think the issue here is one of comparative timeframes. I agree with you that FM took off like a rocket, for very good reasons, in 1965-1975. But I also think one has to put that in the proper context: that while the mass-acceptance rollout spanned less than a decade, when it finally happened, it was mass acceptance of a technology that had been around for almost three decades at that point, with considerably more mixed prospects for success until the mid-sixties.

I do concur, however, that the lessons one can take from FM, with respect to HD many decades later, are limited indeed. Far too much has changed in the media landscape between 1939 - or 1965 - and now to allow for a truly relevant comparison.

 

[Don Juan]

Yes, I recall that too. But those mono signals were still superior (in most cities) to most AM stations.

A little revisionist history, eh? Please see Scotts post.

It was a little bigger than a comparable AM and quite a bit more expensive, but not out of reach.

Same with HD.

Our hi fi system had a 300 ohm wire antenna, just as today's receivers do.

Just like most HD units.

Gee, it's sounding more and more like FM!


I live 25 miles from downtown Chicago and can pick up relatively few HD signals with my Insignia system.

Then they need a power increase. (Just like FM) BTW...thats coming and should solve that problem.

You are far too dismissive of this reality. Not only does AM HD muck things up for dxers, but the skywave interferes with local broadcasters who are innocent and have nothing to do with this.

There has not been widespread complaints from listeners about IBOC interfering with local broadcasters. It's a risk vs. reward thing. So far, the only complaints are from (once more) DX-ers and hobbbyist.

The interference is intolerable

There has not been widespread complaints from the listening public apparently it's not intolerable.

Those are the highlights - I would love to debate more, but am up against a hard break....


Next! ;-)

 

[bigtom101]

-10 dBc is a nonstarter among most people who are in the know. Eventually HD's digital ceiling will be something like -14, maybe -16 or -12 depending on local interference issues. This is not sufficient to provide for a reliably improved digital decode except under ideal circumstances. In driving in hilly terrain or in urban areas your car radio frequently has to deal with signal strength variations on the order of several decades. A digital power hike of a single decade won't even be noticed by the average car radio, and in an office building, even a tenfold increase in digital power will improve penetration by (Drake tympani roll) maybe 10 or 12 feet.

The KROQ single-station, single-market -10dBc experiment cited by Guy Wire in the 6/10 RWEE has been mostly greeted with derision. It was conducted by iBiquity with heavy involvement by CBS people who are personally invested (again, talk about "vested interests") in HD. CBS engineering chief Glynn Walden and president Dan Mason are former iBiquity executives who probably have plenty of stock personally. The KROQ "study" proves nothing except the desperation of the HD-pushers. In any event, even HD's most ardent fans concede that without a digital power increase the system is toast.

In Dec 07/Jan 08, WJRZ-FM (Class A FM - 1.7 kw @ 500 ft) tested out -10 dBc with a dual input antenna. This created augmented the coverage area 100%, increasing HD coverage by 46% as measured by iBiquity in their mobile measuring vans. WJRZ is a station that I am familiar with, as I have worked there for 3+ years and live an hour away from the transmitter site. -10 power levels were enough to get the station to lock where it hadn't even fired up the "HD" light before. HD would die out at exit 83 on the Parkway, was now getting to 98 - I was also able to get the station going east & west on I-195 from Belmar to Jackson. And this was in my Cadillac with the stock power antenna - before I began using a modified broadcast antenna with ground radials. A drastic improvement from HD @ -20. And WHTZ did not suffer loss of HD coverage - I could turn the knob and still get them with no problems. I have the reports in PDF form with coverage maps and breakdowns from the various experiments from 07/08 if you want to see - stations doing -10 testing were KROQ, KOST, WCSX, WKCI, WDHA, WRAT & WJRZ.

Do I think all stations should be at -10? Only if they want to - if the engineer is happy with coverage at -15 or -12, then that is what they should run at. It should be "up to -10", not at -10.

Oh, and about the commercials - they do blow. I'd rather local stations produce their own spots, but thats just me.

 

[JIBGUY]

There has not been widespread complaints from listeners about IBOC interfering with local broadcasters. It's a risk vs. reward thing. So far, the only complaints are from (once more) DX-ers and hobbbyist.

That's because most non-radio-geek listeners have no idea what is causing that noise. They just write it off as "a bad night for distant-station reception". There really ARE people who like to listen to their hometown station when away, or after they moved away. Imagine someone from Pittsburgh trying to hear KDKA-1020 in Detroit, where all they get on 1020 is BZ's sideband garbage.

HD is junk-technology, pushed upon us by big money interests.

In 1969, the country was waiting for an expansion of repetitive-music AM stations. All across the USA, "progressive rock" stations started up. It gave REASON to switch to FM. Right now, the USA already HAS what we were yearning for in 1969.... we now have internet radio, satellite radio (alto that is becoming more like FM radio due to immense cutbacks), ipods, file-sharing. And what do big-city FM's do with some of their HD-2 and HD-3 channels? --simulcast their AM stations!!! THAT will really help HD grow!!!!

HD is doomed due to:
1) lousy signals, dropouts
2) excessive monopolistic high fees for stations
3) contracts which box in stations so tightly; unfriendly-to-stations contracts.

Only in America could such a terrible system be allowed to exist, a system which violates so many previous interference rules.

 

[Don Juan]

There really ARE people who like to listen to their hometown station when away, or after they moved away. Imagine someone from Pittsburgh trying to hear KDKA-1020 in Detroit

So someone can hear KDKA in Detroit? Thats the reason? You claim that we have internet radio. Isn't that a much more efficient way to listen to KDKA in Detroit?

And what do big-city FM's do with some of their HD-2 and HD-3 channels? --simulcast their AM stations!!! THAT will really help HD grow!!!!

It certainly would! Especially if the AM format gets added reach....like WRKO to the Western suburbs after sunset! It would be a great plus if WRKO's programming was on WAAF's secondary HD channel.

Only in America could such a terrible system be allowed to exist, a system which violates so many previous interference rules.

In a purist world, we would never have broken down the clears. But, life goes on. In a purist world WNVR would never have been allowed nighttime authority in Illinois. The benefit outweighed the downside.

Just curious, is WJIB getting noise from anyone on 730 or 750?

 

[Savage]

Scott, every technical advance brings with it a measure of controversy. What is at issue is the NATURE of the controversy, seen in the context of using FM's slow rate of acceptance to act as a predictor of HD's eventual acceptance (and I know that you aren't drawing that parallel, but many other observers here and elsewhere have - one might say, "tiresomely.")

FM certainly had tough sledding for Major Armstrong and others. Color TV and magnetic recording had a tough initial go as well. I know about technological controversy, having gotten into radio in the era when cart machines were disliked by engineers because they put control board and transcription operators out of jobs.

What we're talking about here is the comparison of FM to HD and their developmental timelines, which I will argue is fallacious. We can debate the reasons, but the fact is that most operators weren't interested in developing FM until the late 1960s and put little effort into their FM outlets. There are many, many examples of AM licensees which never built FM CPs or turned in existing licenses because they saw no need for FM. And guess what? In the context of the time, they were right.

But FM's time came - right around 1967 or so. I recall seeing a 1967 Arbitron, then called 'ARB,' which issued a supplemental pamphlet with their market reports titled "FM Stations" - in other words FMs weren't even listed in the survey alongside "real radio stations," the AMs!

Once concerted programming and engineering efforts were concentrated on FM, and receiver prices came down within reason, the trajectory of FM was very rapid. And as I have noted, with absolutely NO technical controversies or interference problems such as those which are hobbling HD.

24-7 simulcasting of AMs ended in 1966-67 causing groundbreaking mass-appeal formats to roll out such as WOR-FM, WYSL-FM, WMMS, WDVE, etc. Most major and medium-market facilities were upgraded to class maximums by 1970, with circular polarization becoming commonplace by the middle of the decade (until then many stations maintained separate horizontal and vertical antennas and transmitters!)

By the middle 1970s it was plain that most music audiences were migrating rapidly to FM, and by the late 70s heritage AM music stations were struggling. The point here is that once controversy-free FM rolled out, it was less than 10 years - probably more like 7 - as the real-life timeline for AM to be overtaken by FM as the dominant radio medium. HD has been around for 6 years already and hasn't made anything remotely resembling the impact FM had by, say, 1973.

The "FM took 40 years" argument is yet another excuse and red herring profferred by the HD crowd. The situations have nothing in common, especially when argued in a way which is bereft of historical context. It's like comparing HD's rollout to the time it took radial tires to supplant bias-ply tires.

 

[Don Juan]

The "FM took 40 years" argument is yet another excuse and red herring profferred by the HD crowd..

It appears that anything that goes against your vested interest is a "red herring". (Apparently one of your favorite phrases.) Any apparent good that HD might accomplished is considered a red-herring....as it might affect the operation of your radio station negatively.

The situations have nothing in common

All analogies are imperfect....but to say they have nothing in common is foolish.

What they have in common is that technology blossoms when the time is right...even imperfect technology. I never understood the appeal of the (inferior) 8-track tape....but the public liked it for the longest time.

The betamax was technically superior to the VHS....the public decided to go for VHS in spite of the technical review.

Like FM...there are many issues that led to it's acceptance.....a new generation grew into it....better transmission.....alternative (and compelling) formats...price portability....FCC edicts....Detroit.

When everything comes together....like the perfect storm...(or a triple high bio-rhythm) then things snowball.

HD will putter along...and sit there as an ancillary service that is available for people to enjoy if they choose to. Like the origins of stereo...most people didn't care...and listened in mono anyway. But it's far from DOA.

 

[JIBGUY]

Just curious, is WJIB getting noise from anyone on 730 or 750?

NIGHTTIME: Fortunately, WJIB-740 is surrounded by a Canadian station on one side (coming from a country smart enough not to use our style of HD), CKAC-730. And on the other side, 750, WSB-Atlanta is too far away to cause harm. I don't even know if they are or were doing HD.

DAYTIME: Also fortunately, that coastal power-signal, coming out of Bath, Maine, WJTO-730, (whose non-HD signal closely collides with WJIB); they up there have the sense not to go HD, too. ;D

 

[bigtom101]

Just curious, is WJIB getting noise from anyone on 730 or 750?

NIGHTTIME: Fortunately, WJIB-740 is surrounded by a Canadian station on one side (coming from a country smart enough not to use our style of HD), CKAC-730. And on the other side, 750, WSB-Atlanta is too far away to cause harm. I don't even know if they are or were doing HD.

DAYTIME: Also fortunately, that coastal power-signal, coming out of Bath, Maine, WJTO-730, (whose non-HD signal closely collides with WJIB); they up there have the sense not to go HD, too. ;D

But what about that 50kw station from Toronto, CFZM-AM?

 

[JIBGUY]

But what about that 50kw station from Toronto, CFZM-AM?

CFZM is not HD. The discussion was HD interference. However CFZM's analog signal does kill WJIB outside of Rt 128 at night; and often close inside it too.

 

[KB1OKL]

There has not been widespread complaints from listeners about IBOC interfering with local broadcasters. It's a risk vs. reward thing. So far, the only complaints are from (once more) DX-ers and hobbbyist.

That's because most non-radio-geek listeners have no idea what is causing that noise. They just write it off as "a bad night for distant-station reception". There really ARE people who like to listen to their hometown station when away, or after they moved away. Imagine someone from Pittsburgh trying to hear KDKA-1020 in Detroit, where all they get on 1020 is BZ's sideband garbage.

Bingo, this seems to escape many HD pushers, can't figure that out. I've been posting that fact now for a while and no one ever seems to pick up on it, it IS driving up the noise floor.

HD is junk-technology, pushed upon us by big money interests.

In 1969, the country was waiting for an expansion of repetitive-music AM stations. All across the USA, "progressive rock" stations started up. It gave REASON to switch to FM.

Bingo again! That is the REAL reason FM caught on, it caught the tail of the whole hippy thing in radio form. Everything was new back in '69 including FM radio (now don't take this literally DJ as I know you will). Progressive rock embraced FM as it was ripe for the taking, it was a wasted band. I remember trying to pick up WBCN in 1969 on my friends console stereo, it came in lousy but we WANTED to hear that station, it was new, hip and cool and there was nothing else around like it. We couldn't have cared less if it were AM or FM or radar for that matter, in fact when we drove close to Boston we used to listen to WNTN AM on 1550 as it had a progressive rock format early on. AM was too set in it's ways to accept this new format so it lost out. FM took off because of what was on it, not because of what it was, it was a lucky break, FM had nothing going for it, so it was ripe for a new movement. Those were exciting times to listen to radio.



HD is doomed due to:
1) lousy signals, dropouts
2) excessive monopolistic high fees for stations
3) contracts which box in stations so tightly; unfriendly-to-stations contracts.

Only in America could such a terrible system be allowed to exist, a system which violates so many previous interference rules.

Amen.

 

[Don Juan]

There really ARE people who like to listen to their hometown station when away, or after they moved away. Imagine someone from Pittsburgh trying to hear KDKA-1020 in Detroit, where all they get on 1020 is BZ's sideband garbage.

Bingo, this seems to escape many HD pushers, can't figure that out. I've been posting that fact now for a while and no one ever seems to pick up on it, it IS driving up the noise floor.

No, it doesn't escape anyone. But listening to KDKA in Detroit is back to discussing skywave and DX...and "skywave service" is irrelevant to radio today. Stations don't make any money based on their skywave service. WBZ hits 38 states...and they don't make a penny off of it. And these listeners don't show up in the ratings. (Don't you remember you were tellling us about all the other technology out there?) Plus it's more efficient for the few people in DTW that want to listen to KDKA to listen on the internet?




In 1969, the country was waiting for an expansion of repetitive-music AM stations. All across the USA, "progressive rock" stations started up. It gave REASON to switch to FM.

Bingo again! That is the REAL reason FM caught on...

Maybe it's bingo on your card....but not everyone else. If this is the reason FM caught on for you, great!

But to say one thing (one format no less) was responsible for FM taking a foothold is foolish. There were MANY market forces at work.


Only in America could such a terrible system be allowed to exist, a system which violates so many previous interference rules.

Amen.

America! The place where we chose the VHS tape over the technically superior Betamax! The place where the public embraced 8-Track tapes over cassettes!

 

[BoscoGoldBear]

In 1969, the country was waiting for an expansion of repetitive-music AM stations. All across the USA, "progressive rock" stations started up. It gave REASON to switch to FM.

Bob, I'm surprised to hear that from you, of all people! Your FM predecessor, the original WJIB, was the first FM radio station that was very popular. BCN had finally started to catch on by around 74 or so with prog rock (IIRC), but was eclipsed in 75 by F-105 (CHR/disco from Ron Robin; the CHR/rock came by 77) and COZ (arena rock, but with some room for prog rock; the uber-tight hard rock format came in 80 with John Sebastian), with ROR (oldies) and EEI-FM (true soft rock, NOT AC), then BOS (disco from Ron Robin), BCN (the strike and after) and Kiss (disco/CHR from Sunny Joe) followed in that order. HUE (until its last pre-Kat/ZLX book in Fall 84) and Wish (until it backed away from pure easy listening) never even made the top 10 (Magic beat both of those stations by Spring 82); even EEI-FM's successor Hitradio made the top 10. By 85, there were only 4 AMs doing well: WEEI (news; now WEZE), WRKO (talk), WHDH (pop hits; now WEEI) and WBZ (pop hits).

 

[Savage]

I'm just curious, "Don Juan" Guilmette - I let it go the first time, but you stated it again in a subsequent post.
In which parallel universe did 8-track tapes prevail over cassettes as a consumer product?

Would that be kind of like the Oz where you live, where defending a successful business like my radio station, the staff people and their families who work here for a living, serving the public with a valuable audio service, contributing to the tax base and building business for our many advertisers - is viewed as a BAD thing?

You know: like how you sneer about how speaking out against HD interference that is injuring us, is REALLY due to my "vested interest." (Whatever THAT means.)

It's been noted before. For some guy who constantly protests that you're impartial about HD, you certainly spend a lot of time and effort ferociously attacking its critics. Or maybe you're just another guy who comes here because you like the sound of hearing yourself argue??