HOW FAR SHOULD HD-FM WORK?

[BRNout]

This is the exact reason why I have supported a new band for digital right from the start. If people were going to have to buy new radios anyway for HD - new bands would have made sense. Longwave is basically wasted in the US and would have been perfect for digital AM. And - we have the perfect opportunity to extend the FM band down to 54 MHz to accomodate digital FM. The reason the FCC didn't do it has more to do with politics and greed than it does technical reasons.

Me too. The FCC should have set this up in the same high VHF bands that they use in the UK (~174 - 190 MHz) and/or Europe (~190 - 207 MHz). Dump all of the digital stations into one of those bands. Nice, noise free frequencies. Can you imagine the mess they would have in Europe with their 250 kw am stations at a 9 kHz step in IBOCrap? The thing would start World War III for cryin' out loud! At least they were smarter than that and have developed DAB and DAB+ technologies to compliment their existing systems.

Not only that, but you'd enjoy economies of scale with global radio manufacturers that already make the units for use over there.

Why the US has been so dumb about this astounds me. ???

 

[R.F. Burns]

This is the exact reason why I have supported a new band for digital right from the start. If people were going to have to buy new radios anyway for HD - new bands would have made sense. Longwave is basically wasted in the US and would have been perfect for digital AM. And - we have the perfect opportunity to extend the FM band down to 54 MHz to accomodate digital FM. The reason the FCC didn't do it has more to do with politics and greed than it does technical reasons.

Me too. The FCC should have set this up in the same high VHF bands that they use in the UK (~174 - 190 MHz) and/or Europe (~190 - 207 MHz). Dump all of the digital stations into one of those bands. Nice, noise free frequencies. Can you imagine the mess they would have in Europe with their 250 kw am stations at a 9 kHz step in IBOCrap? The thing would start World War III for cryin' out loud! At least they were smarter than that and have developed DAB and DAB+ technologies to compliment their existing systems.

Not only that, but you'd enjoy economies of scale with global radio manufacturers that already make the units for use over there.

Why the US has been so dumb about this astounds me. ???

Perhaps the US should change from 110 Volt 60 Hz to 220, 50 hz just so we can be like the Europeans. Different regions of the world use different parts of the RF spectrum for different things. The US doesn't have to worry about 9 Khz channel seperation because at least during my lifetime we have always used 10 Khz. They have many 100,00, 500, and higher powered transmitter sites, heck the Saudis have a 1 MW site on 1521. North American broadcasting is different than it is in most of the world. Until recently there was no commecial broadcasting in many parts of the world, the UK included. If you wanted to work in broadcasting you worked for the government. Perhaps we should try that too.

 

[Dighton Rockhead]

When it comes to technical standards, it almost seems as if the US goes out of its way to be 'different' for its own sake.

I wonder...Would Apple be more likely to offer electronic appliances which included digital audio recievers here IF they didn't have to deal with the fact that our IBOC system is fairly 'geographically limited'?

Leads me to think they would be more disposed to offer something like that in Europe, where there IS a continent-wide standard...(and quite possibly, the emerging WORLD standard)...DRM.

Just thinking out loud. As Dennis Miller might say "I could be wrong".

 

[hipporadio]

This a classic example of “sneaking in the back door” – getting APPROVAL at a permissible power then running back to “Charlie” and crying “It DOESEN’T work and we cant cut-it”... So [hopefully] for the HD cadre, the FCC will authorize additional power [and thus INTERFERRENCE] to “save” the flawed HD investment. This affair was predicted - an LA station has been “secretly” running elevated HD power for years as a "test"... The industry is proposing to “feast upon itself” to save this doomed technology... Creating ADDITIONAL interference within major-market metro cities to simply afford reception of the DEFECTIVE iBiquity IBOC system. INSANE!

They destroyed the AM band in pursuit of their narrow self-interest, NOW their heading over to FM to attempt the same! I hope the FCC has some “common sense”... but DON’T hold your breath.

 

[SUPERCASTER]

If all stations on the present very overcrowded radio broadcasting bands increase their power by 10 db will they increase their interference free coverage?

Probably not.

If same stations on the same very overcrowded radio bands switch from using one channel each to using 3 or more channels bandwidth (HD Radio) will the result be better fidelity, increased coverage, more listeners, or just a massive mess of interference?

Guess.

In the most densely populated markets in the USA there are easily 40 or more stations on each broadcasting band that can be heard on cheap radios with simple indoor antennas.

If each of 40 stations start broadcasting on 3 channels (HD Radio) instead of their single assigned channel it would take at least 40 X 3 = 120 perfectly spaced channels to accommodate these same radio stations and with no "guard band" vacant channels in between.

Neither the AM or FM bands have 120 channels to accommodate this additional HD Radio interference.

Conclusion:
HD Radio is incompatible with current AM or FM bands, and is a very bad idea that serves no one except those peddling the defective HD radio system or the necessary new equipment.

 

[clouseau]

If all stations on the present very overcrowded radio broadcasting bands increase their power by 10 db will they increase their interference free coverage?

Probably not.

Well it's nice to see that what would take a team of people a good deal of tiime to run several thousand interference scenarios to get a rough idea of what would happen has been cleared up by you in 2 words, after as much as a full minute of "Research"

If same stations on the same very overcrowded radio bands switch from using one channel each to using 3 or more channels bandwidth (HD Radio) will the result be better fidelity, increased coverage, more listeners, or just a massive mess of interference?

Guess.

Well at least you've avoided the "truth in advertising" claims against your research methodology.

In the most densely populated markets in the USA there are easily 40 or more stations on each broadcasting band that can be heard on cheap radios with simple indoor antennas.

If each of 40 stations start broadcasting on 3 channels (HD Radio) instead of their single assigned channel it would take at least 40 X 3 = 120 perfectly spaced channels to accommodate these same radio stations and with no "guard band" vacant channels in between.

On FM, There are occasional situations where the HD parts of the signal would overlap. This COULD cause HD lock loss here or there. Analog would be fine I would think. Of course this does not include your consistanly whacky idea that first adacents on FM have or deserve any protection out of thier protected contour.

Neither the AM or FM bands have 120 channels to accommodate this additional HD Radio interference.

It really makes no sense for you to continue to try and work your first adjacent FM agenda into being wronged by HD. The intent to listen to first adjacent FMs outside their service area has never been included or intended in the rules.

At ground zero of radio congestion, New York CIty, there are 43 FM radio stations listed on Radio Locator as being local. Some of these are CO-CHANNEL. Virtually non of your "analog will be ruined by HD interference stuff" has even the tiniest shread of merit.. In fact the vast majority of stations on this New Yourk FM list ARE HD. Why are the majority of the HD complaints for New York coming from you in Suburban Philadelphia?

Conclusion:
HD Radio is incompatible with current AM or FM bands, and is a very bad idea that serves no one except those peddling the defective HD radio system or the necessary new equipment.

Junk assumptions in = junk conclusions out.

You made the assertion that FMHD was incompatible with analog FM.

WHERE IS THE BEEF?

Not junk science "Number of frequencies".

Where is it happening?

Clouseau

 

[SUPERCASTER]

If all stations on the present very overcrowded radio broadcasting bands increase their power by 10 db will they increase their interference free coverage?

Probably not.

Well it's nice to see that what would take a team of people a good deal of tiime to run several thousand interference scenarios to get a rough idea of what would happen has been cleared up by you in 2 words, after as much as a full minute of "Research"

If same stations on the same very overcrowded radio bands switch from using one channel each to using 3 or more channels bandwidth (HD Radio) will the result be better fidelity, increased coverage, more listeners, or just a massive mess of interference?

Guess.

Well at least you've avoided the "truth in advertising" claims against your research methodology.

In the most densely populated markets in the USA there are easily 40 or more stations on each broadcasting band that can be heard on cheap radios with simple indoor antennas.

If each of 40 stations start broadcasting on 3 channels (HD Radio) instead of their single assigned channel it would take at least 40 X 3 = 120 perfectly spaced channels to accommodate these same radio stations and with no "guard band" vacant channels in between.

On FM, There are occasional situations where the HD parts of the signal would overlap. This COULD cause HD lock loss here or there. Analog would be fine I would think. Of course this does not include your consistanly whacky idea that first adacents on FM have or deserve any protection out of thier protected contour.

Neither the AM or FM bands have 120 channels to accommodate this additional HD Radio interference.

It really makes no sense for you to continue to try and work your first adjacent FM agenda into being wronged by HD. The intent to listen to first adjacent FMs outside their service area has never been included or intended in the rules.

At ground zero of radio congestion, New York CIty, there are 43 FM radio stations listed on Radio Locator as being local. Some of these are CO-CHANNEL. Virtually non of your "analog will be ruined by HD interference stuff" has even the tiniest shread of merit.. In fact the vast majority of stations on this New Yourk FM list ARE HD. Why are the majority of the HD complaints for New York coming from you in Suburban Philadelphia?

Conclusion:
HD Radio is incompatible with current AM or FM bands, and is a very bad idea that serves no one except those peddling the defective HD radio system or the necessary new equipment.

Junk assumptions in = junk conclusions out.

You made the assertion that FMHD was incompatible with analog FM.

WHERE IS THE BEEF?

Not junk science "Number of frequencies".

Where is it happening?

Clouseau

Nothing you said in this post is true.

The blanket AM class C (IV) power increase from 250 watts to 1,000 watts has proven that blanket increases in power and interference do not necessarily produce increased coverage.

I never said first adjacent's on FM should be given any more protection then they were afforded when originally licensed, or previously "included and intended in the rules".

I have never made any "HD complaints for New York", so your imaginary "majority of the HD complaints for New York" did not come from me.

I have said that a station's digital HD radio signals can interfere and reduce received analog stereo signal to noise ratios. I linked this observation to substantiated independent test results.

My "beef" is that virtually none of the claims made by the HD radio cartel or by it's most rabid supporters is true.

 

[clouseau]

Nothing you said in this post is true.

Well it's nice to see you're being rational and not just lashing out.

The blanket AM class C (IV) power increase from 250 watts to 1,000 watts has proven that blanket increases in power and interference do not necessarily produce increased coverage.

This isssue was not raised in this thread before, but I woul contend it DOES produce increased coverage. I work at a graveyad facility. I've tested this factually day and night. There is a significant difference in coverage. DO we get more interference from the additional power of the 7 or 8 stations in Texas on our frequency. Yes. Does the power increase offset that. ABSOLUTLY. We have better coverage than when the power levels were lower. I know the original GM from when they went on in '46. She say they used to go a lot furthur when there were almost no stations on our freq, but by the time we got the go ahead for 1KW full time, IT MADE A BIG DIFFERENCE.

I never said first adjacent's on FM should be given any more protection then they were afforded when originally licensed, or previously "included and intended in the rules".

No you didn't, but you have consistantly complained about the your inability to receive 1st adjacents while in another station's service area.

I have never made any "HD complaints for New York", so your imaginary "majority of the HD complaints for New York" did not come from me.

You were complaining about HD by claiming that it was not analog compatable in densely radioes areas. I chose NY for an example. You are correct. My assertion that you are complaing basically about theiry is true. The fact that I attributed a SPECIFIC EXAMPLE of what you alledged is not. I apologise for attributing THIS locale to you. Again I will ask. WHERE IS THIS A PROBLEM???

I have said that a station's digital HD radio signals can interfere and reduce received analog stereo signal to noise ratios. I linked this observation to substantiated independent test results.

There is no link I see in the original post.

My "beef" is that virtually none of the claims made by the HD radio cartel or by it's most rabid supporters is true.

I suspected as much.
Your beef is NOT with the System itself.
Your Beef is NOT that it doesn't work.
Your beef is NOT based on radios or antennas

Your beef IS "that virtually none of the claims made by the HD radio cartel or by it's most rabid supporters is true."

Ahh you don't like the way it was presented.

Too bad for you Ibiquity didn't just say "here it is... take it or leave it"

Then, according to you, you'd have no beef, right?

Glad to hear it.

Clouseau

 

[SUPERCASTER]

Nothing you said in this post is true.

Well it's nice to see you're being rational and not just lashing out.

Answer- I have always been rational, and will continue my habit. "Just lashing out" is just an HD supporter's mistaken interpretation.

The blanket AM class C (IV) power increase from 250 watts to 1,000 watts has proven that blanket increases in power and interference do not necessarily produce increased coverage.

This isssue was not raised in this thread before, but I woul contend it DOES produce increased coverage. I work at a graveyad facility. I've tested this factually day and night. There is a significant difference in coverage. DO we get more interference from the additional power of the 7 or 8 stations in Texas on our frequency. Yes. Does the power increase offset that. ABSOLUTLY. We have better coverage than when the power levels were lower. I know the original GM from when they went on in '46. She say they used to go a lot furthur when there were almost no stations on our freq, but by the time we got the go ahead for 1KW full time, IT MADE A BIG DIFFERENCE.

Answer- I'm glad you agree that "that blanket increases in power and interference do not necessarily produce increased coverage." Otherwise we might as well just let all stations broadcast with a mega-watt.

I never said first adjacent's on FM should be given any more protection then they were afforded when originally licensed, or previously "included and intended in the rules".

No you didn't, but you have consistantly complained about the your inability to receive 1st adjacents while in another station's service area.

Answer- No I have not. I said, digital HD radio interference from a 1st adjacent HD station can be plainly heard within the primary coverage area of an analog station. The exact opposite of what you claim I said.

I have never made any "HD complaints for New York", so your imaginary "majority of the HD complaints for New York" did not come from me.

You were complaining about HD by claiming that it was not analog compatable in densely radioes areas. I chose NY for an example. You are correct. My assertion that you are complaing basically about theiry is true. The fact that I attributed a SPECIFIC EXAMPLE of what you alledged is not. I apologise for attributing THIS locale to you. Again I will ask. WHERE IS THIS A PROBLEM???

Answer- After seeing all the compalints on this board about HD radio interference, you still can't figure it out?

I have said that a station's digital HD radio signals can interfere and reduce received analog stereo signal to noise ratios. I linked this observation to substantiated independent test results.

There is no link I see in the original post.

Answer- I'll be glad to provide another link to the "original post" that includes a reference link to the website with the test results.

My "beef" is that virtually none of the claims made by the HD radio cartel or by it's most rabid supporters is true.

I suspected as much.
Your beef is NOT with the System itself.
Your Beef is NOT that it doesn't work.
Your beef is NOT based on radios or antennas

Answer- No. I did not say that my ONLY beef is that most of what is posted here by HD promoters is false. That is ONE of my objections.

Your beef IS "that virtually none of the claims made by the HD radio cartel or by it's most rabid supporters is true."

Ahh you don't like the way it was presented.

Answer- No. Truth has nothing to do with wether I "don't like the way it was presented." I never said that.


Too bad for you Ibiquity didn't just say "here it is... take it or leave it"

Then, according to you, you'd have no beef, right?

Answer- Wrong again. I never said that either.

Glad to hear it.

Answer- You should be.

Clouseau

 

[SUPERCASTER]

Quote from supercaster's pervious post:

I have said that a station's digital HD radio signals can interfere and reduce received analog stereo signal to noise ratios. I linked this observation to substantiated independent test results.

clouseau:

There is no link I see in the original post.

supercaster:

Answer- I'll be glad to provide another link to the "original post" that includes a reference link to the website with the test results.

As promised, here is the link to my original post including the link to the website with test results. As usual, you are wrong, "inspector".

http://www.radio-info.com/smf/index.php/topic,85748.msg644811.html#msg644811

 

[BRNout]

Perhaps the US should change from 110 Volt 60 Hz to 220, 50 hz just so we can be like the Europeans. Different regions of the world use different parts of the RF spectrum for different things. The US doesn't have to worry about 9 Khz channel seperation because at least during my lifetime we have always used 10 Khz. They have many 100,00, 500, and higher powered transmitter sites, heck the Saudis have a 1 MW site on 1521. North American broadcasting is different than it is in most of the world. Until recently there was no commecial broadcasting in many parts of the world, the UK included. If you wanted to work in broadcasting you worked for the government. Perhaps we should try that too.

Bad analogy while, at the same time, you missed my point. We had a perfect opportunity to realign our band structure with the advent of digital TV and we blew it. And, the Europeans came up with a better system for digital radio, pure and simple. Its in use in Japan now too. Our attempt was poorly thought out and the opportunity lost.

 

[R.F. Burns]

The frequencies used by Europeans for digital radio are not available in the US. HD is here and this is what we have. I have no problem with HD on FM. The added programing is a very welcome addition.

 

[jras20]

I would have no problem with it if only I could get it to work the way I wanted it to!

 

[R.F. Burns]

I wish I could experience your listening conditions. I have no problem receiving HD in my home on any of my HD radios.

 

[jras20]

I wish I could experience your listening conditions. I have no problem receiving HD in my home on any of my HD radios.

If I had a decent Video phone or Video recorder then I would record my analog reception & HD reception and my antenna setup, but all I can give you is a audio sample of my analog reception or digital reception. I wish there was a way I could improve it.

 

[RichWood]

I don't live in the 70dBu contour of any analog radio station (and within the 60kBu contour of only two or three) and yet hear a band full of analogs just fine... are you trying to tell me that THIS is what iBiquity is pushing as a complete replacement for analog radio? Something that, if implemented, would leave my rural area completely without reliable radio service?

No. The original assumption was that the hybrid mode would go to all digital and power levels would be raised significantly. Since receivers aren't selling and there appears to be very little consumer and retailer interest in replacing the estimated 800 million analog radios in use, we're in hybrid mode for decades to come. Even the head IBUZ dude admitted pure digital is unlikely. There are a few stations experimenting with 10% digital, up from 1%, but I haven't seen any credible reports on how the increase affects the analog. Some have reported noise in the analog. No one near me is using the higher power, so I can't hear for myself.

You won't lose analog service in your or your grandchildren's grandchildren's lives unless that asteroid hits. Then it won't be an issue.

Rich

 

[ve3jf]

So far, I've only seen anecdotal observations posted in response to this question about HD-FM coverage. I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned that there is real data on this subject available - it was collected by NPR, using 26 different stations. In a nutshell, it was found that the reliable coverage range for HD varied enormously from station to station. In the best case, digital coverage extended approximately to the 50 dBu contour, and in the worst case, only to the 85 dBu contour. This just goes to show that, in most cases, coverage is interference-limited rather than noise-limited. Not a surprising consequence when you usurp your 1st adjacent channels to run digital!

The NPR study can be downloaded from http://www.nprlabs.org/public/research.php

Barry

 

[Fieldtech1]

Here's my reception report on a Kenwood EZ900, an older unit with no HD2 recption

Driving around Lafayette, LA I receive:
WYNK 101.5 (100kw@1500') with very few drop outs which is a Baton Rouge station, Transmitter about 50 miles from Lafayette as the crow flies.
WFMF 102.5 (100kw@1500' same stick as WYNK) is a different story drops out regularly because it is smached between two class C's (102.1 and 102.9 which runs HD)

Driving to and from Houston, the maxed class C's (KTBZ/KHMX/KODA, ect) kick in to Locked HD around Winnie, 65 or so miles from their tower.

 

[scanman1]

I can get good HD reception of most Chicago FM stations in Kenosha WI (about 55 miles away), and from there I can get some of the Milwaukee (about 31 miles away) HD channels to receive in HD while I'm parked (at Diaryland Greyhound Park, that's where I was). 8)

 

[KB1OKL]

It is interesting that reliable HD Radio car reception is limited to the 70dbu coverage area, about 12 miles in this case. No doubt indoor HD reception would be even more challenging in commercial buildings and high rises using the supplied antennas.
To quote an old saying from this board "HD Radio? If you can't see the broadcasting tower you probably can't (reliably) get it!"

Yes, did you read the post here from the poor guy who can't lock onto the signal at 8 miles from the EMPIRE STATE BUILDING??? He has many "bad" HD days, those are even worse than bad hair days.