How Far Does the Digital Go?

[Mike Walker]

You make a good point, JohnnyElectron, but if people are willing to ALSO put up a decent antenna, then FM HD can reach as far as noise-free stereo reception. That's been my experience.

My birthday is in Sept. I've told my wife I want the new Sony XDR-F1HD HD Tuner (J&R mistakenly calls it a "receiver", but we all know "receivers" have amps built in!) http://www.jr.com/sony/pe/SON_XDRF1HD/

The reviews of this thing are outstanding, and not just for it's HD reception. It seems to maintain great separation AND low noise on very weak analog FM stations. Pretty damn cool!

 

[Play Freebird]

My birthday is in Sept. I've told my wife I want the new Sony XDR-F1HD HD Tuner (J&R mistakenly calls it a "receiver", but we all know "receivers" have amps built in!) http://www.jr.com/sony/pe/SON_XDRF1HD/

The reviews of this thing are outstanding, and not just for it's HD reception. It seems to maintain great separation AND low noise on very weak analog FM stations. Pretty damn cool!

Mine arrived yesterday and I'm very impressed with the FM performance. This tuner's ability to receive weak signals in stereo without a noise penalty or loss of separation is amazing. I tested FMX back in the '80s and this "single-ended" approach just blows it away.

I'm currently listening to 92.3 WXRK from New York in stereo from 100 miles away, and aside from some occasional over-the-horizon signal fades, the audio quality is quite acceptable. 92.5 WXTU is less than 25 miles away so I must adjust my antenna to null out their lower digital sideband on 92.3, but I don't detect any FM spillover.

97.1, 103.5, and 106.7 sound even better than the other NYC stations because of the extra separation from our local hash generators.

If Sony's DSP IF filter, FM demodulator, and RDS decoder could be combined with diversity front-end switching (and an FMeXtra decoder) and incorporated in car radios, this could make IBOC as obsolete as FMX! Why spend time and money on expensive, inefficient transmitting equipment and pay royalties to use a proprietary digital system?

My only complaint about this tuner is that it lacks good AM frequency response. I had also expected that the AM-HD codec would sound better than on earlier receivers, but I hear those same low-bitrate artifacts. But the incredible FM performance is certainly worth $50 (after rebate).

 

[Mike Walker]

Thanks for the info PlayFreebird. That's still the best screen name going!

I think FMExtra should be added to the "HD Radio" standard. After all, Ibiquity doesn't own the FCC. The FCC works for us, and can (hopefully) modify existing standards in the public interest. FMExtra would obviously be in the public interest, as it would give small stations a low-cost route to digital, and allow existing HD stations to offer more services, higher bandwidth, or return to the air some lost services such as reading for the blind. Were I "King for a Day", I'd REQUIRE future digital radios to receive BOTH FMExtra and HD, then "let the marketplace decide". With future radios capable of receiving both, there are no "wrong answers". PLUS stream all of your audio (from all channels) on the internet, making them available on all those new devices we keep hearing about EVERYBODY WINS (at least once HD disappears from AM, everybody wins!)

 

[Play Freebird]

The major groups need to understand they can keep on sending money to iBiquity, even if they take a station's HD signal off the air and switch to FMeXtra -- or choose to operate analog only. As far as I know, iBiquity will accept the money regardless of digital transmission status.

In fact, any station owner can pay the $25,000 upfront license fee and not have to worry about about meeting a deadline to buy or install any HD equipment. That's correct -- after you pay there's no obligation to do anything else; the rules were recently changed to allow this.

 

[Chuck]

Has anyone read the article titled "Researchers Explore Digital Coverage" in the July 2, 2008 issue of Radio World? You should. You'll find it on page 22. It has a lot of answers.

http://www.rwonline.com/pages/s.0049/t.14274.html

To summarize, it says that mobile HD coverage is 70-90% of analog coverage. Indoor and portable reception is about 50-60% of analog, calling it a "dramatic drop-off in digital coverage for home receivers."

As for the idea of a 10 db power increase, they conclude that it "causes a substantially larger amount of interference, including a larger number of stations that may lose 50% of their analog service."

Somehow, that doesn't sound very attractive. For those who haven't read it, this article summarizes the findings of NPR Labs. As you know, NPR is a HD "cheerleader," or at least they were. I suggest picking up a copy of Radio world. I imagine it will eventually show up on their web site.


[Link added as a courtesy by Radio Info]

 

[Play Freebird]

Has anyone read the article titled "Researchers Explore Digital Coverage" in the July 2, 2008 issue of Radio World? You should. You'll find it on page 22. It has a lot of answers.

http://www.rwonline.com/pages/s.0049/t.14274.html

John Kean knows what he's talking about. NAB and the big commercial groups would be wise to listen to him, but I fear their minds are already made up and they don't want to be confused with the facts. If he keeps revealing the truth, might they pressure Congress to cut off CPB's funding of his research?

I nominate John to chair the committee that will develop our next digital radio system -- the system that actually works.

 

[Chuck]

I nominate John to chair the committee that will develop our next digital radio system -- the system that actually works.

The really sad part of all this is I'm certain there is a way to have digital radio that actually works. We sent men to the moon using a computer that was in the neighborhood of 72 K. Surely we can figure out a way to use digital technology to play music on the radio that does not cause more problems than it solves. In any engineering quandary, there are almost always multiple methods that will work. This couldn’t be much different. The real problem is we took the first item on the menu without looking to see what else might be available. That's what you get for being in a hurry (and maybe greedy).

 

[KB1OKL]

I nominate John to chair the committee that will develop our next digital radio system -- the system that actually works.

The really sad part of all this is I'm certain there is a way to have digital radio that actually works. We sent men to the moon using a computer that was in the neighborhood of 72 K. Surely we can figure out a way to use digital technology to play music on the radio that does not cause more problems than it solves. In any engineering quandary, there are almost always multiple methods that will work. This couldn’t be much different. The real problem is we took the first item on the menu without looking to see what else might be available. That's what you get for being in a hurry (and maybe greedy).

I've been reading this whole thread with interest and for the life of me (having heard some of these wonderful IBOC receivers), I can't figure out why do most people here feel that WE HAVE to go digital? My analog FM receiver sounds great and it was made thirty years ago and with a dipole antenna and so do my good analog AM receivers. I see no real inherant advantages to HD except that a lot of manufacturers get to line their pockets from receiver sales and transmitter companies get to sell new transmitters. It still has interference, the frequency response seems to be no better, it actually creates artificial highs on at least the AM band. It's failing all around the world and most of it is DAB not IBOC. If we have to fool with an unwanted technology with no real benefits why not do it on another band instead OF RUINING THE ALREADY EXISTING BANDS?

 

[pqgeorge]

I nominate John to chair the committee that will develop our next digital radio system -- the system that actually works.

The really sad part of all this is I'm certain there is a way to have digital radio that actually works. We sent men to the moon using a computer that was in the neighborhood of 72 K. Surely we can figure out a way to use digital technology to play music on the radio that does not cause more problems than it solves. In any engineering quandary, there are almost always multiple methods that will work. This couldn’t be much different. The real problem is we took the first item on the menu without looking to see what else might be available. That's what you get for being in a hurry (and maybe greedy).

Couldn't have said it any better. I personally feel that quickly jumping on the IBOC bandwagon was a mistake in the first place. If only DRE's FMeXtra got into the digital fray sooner, the ultimate outcome would have been a little different. Here is a system that also works, but is not destructive to first or second adjacents. It uses the existing bandwidth currently used for analog SCA. Also, it's easy to implement and does not cost a station a young fortune. $15,000 with no licenses fees (that's it!) and it's something that any station could afford, even the non-commercial LPFM's. Multicasting? You bet! It's all there. I think the Commission should at least revisit FMeXtra.

 

[clouseau]

I think the Commission should at least revisit FMeXtra.

There's nothing to "Revisit". It's authorized right now. It apparently works pretty well. (Hard to prove woith real world experience... NO ONE is using it).


There's virtually NO radios aside from a couple of broadcast supply houses.

You think HD audiences are small, I can only imagine FMExtra. I was going to implement FMExtra instead of SCA. My SCA client alluded to a lawsuit. I backed off.

YMMV.

Clouseau

 

[Mike Walker]

Ya' know Clouseau, I'm not big on government regulation. But all it would take for FMExtra to take off, and small market stations to get an affordable path to digital, is requiring that all future HD Radios include FMExtra. That's it. Problem solved! (Actually LOTS of problems solved). Current (and future) HD stations will continue to work just fine on the big stations with big budgets, small stations will be able to broadcast a digital signal without breaking the bank, multicasting would be available to all, and if you're already HD, you'd even be able to add MORE multicast services without sacrificing sound quality. Everybody wins. Is there a loser in this scenario? I can't find one!

Prices for HD Radios are already dipping into the territory where "real people" can afford them (the Sony tuner can be had for 50 dollars after rebate, and it's a "hot rod" even if you only listen to analog stations). Adding FMExtra would no-doubt add a little to price initially, but in no time prices would be back down to this level, and there would be something new and (potentially) exciting for everyone!

Isn't a little government regulation occasionally a good thing? THIS is what small stations should lobby for...makd FMEXtra MANDATORY in radios that receive HD.

 

[JohnnyElectron]

Mike, I agree. FMExtra should be mandatory in HD radios. CQuam should be mandatory in HD radios. Switchable wide AM bandwidth should be mandatory in HD radios. A switch to force analog in HD radios should be mandatory (and just plain common sense).

AND - if they (NAB) keep pushing it - IF the FCC mandates that all SatRad's have to include HD radio, then I say all HD radios should also include SatRad reception! How's them cookies?

Chuck wrote: "As for the idea of a 10 db power increase, they conclude that it "causes a substantially larger amount of interference, including a larger number of stations that may lose 50% of their analog service." To me, this is like divorcing your sweet average-looking wife that's been just fine for many years (analog wife) to marry a hot-looking '10' who's a real bitch 50% of the time (HD wife)?

 

[Chuck]

Mike, I agree. FMExtra should be mandatory in HD radios. CQuam should be mandatory in HD radios. Switchable wide AM bandwidth should be mandatory in HD radios. A switch to force analog in HD radios should be mandatory (and just plain common sense).

AND - if they (NAB) keep pushing it - IF the FCC mandates that all SatRad's have to include HD radio, then I say all HD radios should also include SatRad reception! How's them cookies?

Chuck wrote: "As for the idea of a 10 db power increase, they conclude that it "causes a substantially larger amount of interference, including a larger number of stations that may lose 50% of their analog service." To me, this is like divorcing your sweet average-looking wife that's been just fine for many years (analog wife) to marry a hot-looking '10' who's a real bitch 50% of the time (HD wife)?

I like that analogy.

In a rare moment of agreement, I'd be all for making FMExtra mandatory on all future HD radios. I imagine it is mostly a software issue anyway, so I doubt that long term it would be any big deal cost wise. Off hand, I really don't see any loser in that. Perhaps DRM should be included in the party it the radio is capable of AM reception.

 

[clouseau]

In a rare moment of agreement, I'd be all for making FMExtra mandatory on all future HD radios.

Chuck.

In my heart I agree with you. But we have to mix a brain in here somewhere as well. And how about (Heaven forbid) a sense of fairness.

You (As I) file the occasional FCC application. They open a window, we file an app, and if the stars favor us and no one else applies for it, we get granted.

The same thing happened with HD radio. A "Window" was opened. A few players developed a system. A decision was made. Should we include PAL and SECAM on out new TVs?

We set a deadline and then we make a decision. I would suspect GW Bush might not be an election winner TODAY. But we're not voting today.

FMExtra is a system with "NO" traction. Frankly, at $15K a transmitter, can anyone show me how they are still in business? And therefore why do THEY deserve a government mandate?

Clara Bell asked "Where's the Beef". With FMExtra it's "Where's the stations?". *Or the radios) Too bad, too, because I really like the system.

We aren't even ready to specify a technical reciever standard. Aside from Mandatory UHF tuners, when has this ever worked.

Clouseau

 

[Seattleradiodude]

Now we're talkin! ;D

FMeXtra is a system that I’ve been really researching recently and
from what I’ve learned its far superior to Ibiquity's HD!

(I think ol' KB1OKL even like it if im not mistaken )

THIS is the system that the industry should be looking at...

but instead of the traditional implementation of Big market -> down,
Why not do a roll out in a BUNCH of small - mid sized markets and work your way up?

Speakin "real talk", CC, CBS, Entercomm (the big corporations) are NOT going to simply "do away"
with HD because of the licensing fees they have already paid for.
The realistic way is to add FMeXtra to co-exist with HD on a station.

ahhh... if only there were more receivers

 

[clouseau]

Now we're talkin! ;D
...

but instead of the traditional implementation of Big market -> down,
Why not do a roll out in a BUNCH of small - mid sized markets and work your way up?


The realistic way is to add FMeXtra to co-exist with HD on a station.

ahhh... if only there were more receivers

It's an interesting situation. FMExtra doesn't really appear to WANT to have radios widely available. I have approaced them about retailing radios. Got the domain name and offered to purchase the inventory. Never heard back from them.

I am speculating, but I suspect they are trying to protect their suppliers Bext and Energy-Onyx. They are vital to assure the TRANSMISSION equipment.

However, I am under the opinion that a retail outlet for FMExtra radios is critical to gaining ANY public acceptance at all and right now they don't have it. I just do NOT believe a consumer is going to call a broadcast supplier and go through the "What state are you calling from - Who is you sales rep" stuff.

Retail radio availability was an issue when I attempted to swing my SCA client to FMExtra. That and the $199 price tag. Maybe some of these things have changed in a year, but not that I've heard. I have also wondered if the radios actually cost $199 or more to MAKE and are being sold on an as needed basis at no prifit or perhaps even a slight loss.

I don't know. I love the system and frankly was looking forward to possibly even losing "The FMExtra Challenge" back in Feb 07 and converting. From the consumer end, AKA the subchannel leasee, it didn't fly.

Clouseau

 

[Mike Walker]

As I understand it, it's not a case of HD having won "fair and square" (which they did, of course), because FMExtra, being an SCA technology, is legal NOW. It's not going back on the HD Radio standard, because nobody (sane anyway) is proposing that digital radios not receive HD, only that they be REQUIRED to also receive FMEXtra. Stations could actually implement BOTH if they chose to. Small stations would have access to digital broadcasting AND multicasting at a price that actually makes sense. And hell, since most HD Radios receive C-Quam anyway, requiring C-Quam would largely be like requiring that all future water be wet. So why not do that as well? C-Quam is an established standard, with (still) lots of stations in place (or unused in racks, waiting to be restored and put back into service), and with transmission equipment still widely available. Why the hell not give AM HD the "deep six", and let AM have a high quality stereo system that actually works, PLUS widely available radios from dozens of manufacturers NOW??? Why not actually let EVERYBODY, including the public (especially the public) WIN?

We can ALL DECLARE VICTORY, and argue about something else! Politics? Religion, anyone? As Rodney King famously said "Can't we all just get along?"

 

[Chuck]

<snip> They open a window, we file an app, and if the stars favor us and no one else applies for it, we get granted.

The same thing happened with HD radio. A "Window" was opened. A few players developed a system. A decision was made. Should we include PAL and SECAM on out new TVs?
<snip>

I may be wrong, but in the end, wasn’t the Ibiquity system the only player in the FCC process? The others had merged or were bought out to become Ibiquity. FMExtra didn't need any FCC approval. It works within the confines of the (then and now) existing rules. That took some of the competition out of the contest.

I don't hold my breath that anyone will ever mandate FMExtra's inclusion into HD radios, but it should be noted that Ibiquity and NAB are campaigning heavily to have HD included on satellite radios. Should they be successful (I doubt they will) then I think it would be appropriate to include FMExtra in the party as well. There might be other standards that should also be there as well. When the difference is simply one of software that turns on a function, it costs very little to implement such a change.

These days, it is very common for consumer electronics products to be virtually identical circuitry wise, but have entirely different features and functions. Naturally, they will have different model numbers and prices, but as often as not; this is a marketing decision, not a manufacturing decision. It is simply cheaper to design a device that does everything, and then deliver models with some of the features disabled. This idea keeps competition at bay and makes their dealers happy. For instance, Wal-Mart, Best Buy and Circuit City may all sell a Sony TV that looks pretty much the same. Upon close investigation, you'll find that each one has a different model number and a slightly different set of features. They are basically the same TV with some of the available features enabled or disabled. This is done do this to keep the consumer from being able to make a direct apples-to-apples price comparison. It also makes it very hard to cash in on those "If you see the same model at a better price, we'll give you 110% of the difference" offers. Frequently, you won't find the same model in any other store.

In retail electronics, this has been a very common practice for quite some time. With the advent of so many products based around DSP chips, it has never been even easier to do. Even those TV's you mentioned may actually be capable of decoding multiple video formats. Most TV's sold in Europe do it automatically. I have a ten year old Panasonic TV that will make a picture on PAL (and probably SECAM) if the signal is run in the video inputs. (The tuner is programmed for US Standards). I discovered this by accident. They don't make any mention of its specs or instruction manual, but it takes the output of a PAL tape deck and makes a nice color picture. Obviously, the decoding must all be done on the same chip, and it is probably easier to leave it on than make individual chips for various countries. The same thing could be done to radios.

 

[Mike Walker]

I know the new digital tv standard for the UK is TVs with either 720p or 1080i panels, and I think it's at 60hz, rather than the 50hz they've used previously (from what I gather reading British electronics mags). Of course that's the display technology, not the frequencies used for broadcasting, or the modulation specifics, which may well be quite different than American TV.

 

[Chuck]

I know the new digital tv standard for the UK is TVs with either 720p or 1080i panels, and I think it's at 60hz, rather than the 50hz they've used previously (from what I gather reading British electronics mags). Of course that's the display technology, not the frequencies used for broadcasting, or the modulation specifics, which may well be quite different than American TV.

I visited Ireland not very long ago, and the hot items in the TV stores were HDTV's that could do 1080P. Just like here. They also sold lots of 720P and 1080i sets. Usually I notice the flicker from 50 cycle PAL signals, but that was not apparent on these TV's, so I suspect the 60 Hz refresh rate is correct. The sets were unique, with 240 volt power cords and a couple of SCART connectors, but it makes you wonder how much is really different. With the advent of switching power supplies, it isn't hard to make most electronics run on any power source you can give it. That leaves adding a couple of connectors and perhaps programming the tuner for local standards. I think that makes good sense in the “economies of scale” department.