"I-Buzz"

[Mike Walker]

If you don't remember when there was interference 10khz away from an AM station, you are too young to remember when top 40 music dominated the AM airwaves. EVERYBODY was W I D E! And LOUD! And it sounded great, too. WISE Asheville NC, and WAYS Charlotte NC had the best analog AM sound quality ever. But then so did WTOB and WAIR Winston Salem. Radio SOUNDED GOOD in those days. Audio (analog audio, anyway) was WAY better, even without the digital doo-dads.

But my point earlier was that while AM HD may occupy the same bandwidth as an AM music station at full tilt, the AM music station will only be putting lots of energy into adjacent channels intermittently...on transients, whereas AM HD puts this level into the adjacents CONTINUOUSLY. If you're look back rbruce, we're not actually in disagreement on that. Put another way, occupied bandwidth is as bad CONTINUOUSLY for AM HD as it is for fleeting moments with fully modulated analog AM.

 

[R.F. Burns]

I'm guessing the areas you refer to are rural areas with very low population denisity. The major difference between what was and what is, is that you have access to many more choices to get your news and information today then you ever did before. We had a home in upstate NY when I was growing up and the TV received 2 or 3 stations poorly, even with a deep fringe antenna. Today with cable of satellite you'd never know you weren't in NYC where even in the 60's we had 7 VHF's and an assortment of UHF's. If you can hear those IBOC sidebands and they are loud enough to mask the analog first adjacent, maybe a nice HD radio will bring in some new digital AM signals with a noise floor that even a local AM can't beat. By the way, I do live in the North East and the population density here is the highest in the country.

Yep - the other 99.9% of the land area of the country that is rural. While it is true that satellite radio and satellite TV are widely available, penetration into rural areas is slow at best. But really appreciated when people finally figure out it is available and they can get into town to get the equipment (assuming they can afford it). What doesn't have good penetration is wideband internet. So my bet is on satellite radio for those folks.

I am probably not your target audience as I am in a city. But I travel extensively to rural areas. Even though the digital sidebands sound really loud, it has been widely reported that the digital signal is not robust. At least not nearly as robust as C-Quam, which actually WORKED more than over the city grade contour. No wonder it is the fallback plan of Ibiquity.

Until tests are performed you can't assume that the digital sidebands won't hold up. As radios improve (and they already have) and error correction techniques become more sophisticated so will coverage. You can't assume because you can hear those sidebands on an analog radio that they won't decode on a HD receiver. As for rural vs urban, if you are running a business which group is more improtant to serve up front, the few out in the rural areas or the millions in the urban areas. Which do you believe would be more profitable, and radio is a business not a hobby at this level. C-Quam had its issues, not the least of which was platform motion and limited fidelity and typical analog noise issues. C-Quam is not a fallback from Ibiquity. After the initial Sangean firmwear which decoded C-Quam (somewhat) that feature has been removed from further HD receivers. AM Stereo is a dinosaur from another earlier generation and in today's world is like those screens people used to put over their black and white sets to produce fake color TV in the 50's. Remember radio is aimed at the 99% of the audience, not the 99% of lightly occupied land. Property doesn't pay the bills.

 

[Chuck]

<snip>You can't assume because you can hear those sidebands on an analog radio that they won't decode on a HD receiver. <snip>

Well, that's the problem, isn't it? There are hundreds of millions of analog radios. Up until now, they worked perfectly well. Now everyone has to buy a new radio? Pardon me for being skeptical.

I like to remain optimistic about the future of radio, but this is just doesn’t make a lot of sense. I'm sure that radios can be built that can cope with the challenge. I have great expectations about the limits of our technology, but I doubt that very many people will embrace the idea that their old stuff is junk simply because a minority of broadcasters say so. That's not going to be an easy transition. Besides, where do you propose to dispose of the old radios? Can you spell "Toxic Waste?"

 

[R.F. Burns]

<snip>You can't assume because you can hear those sidebands on an analog radio that they won't decode on a HD receiver. <snip>

Well, that's the problem, isn't it? There are hundreds of millions of analog radios. Up until now, they worked perfectly well. Now everyone has to buy a new radio? Pardon me for being skeptical.

I like to remain optimistic about the future of radio, but this is just doesn’t make a lot of sense. I'm sure that radios can be built that can cope with the challenge. I have great expectations about the limits of our technology, but I doubt that very many people will embrace the idea that their old stuff is junk simply because a minority of broadcasters say so. That's not going to be an easy transition. Besides, where do you propose to dispose of the old radios? Can you spell "Toxic Waste?"

ALL analog radios don't work? that's what you imply here. I live 25 miles from multiple 50 KW radio sattions and every one of my analog radios works as wel today as it did prior to IBOC. How many IBOC statons do you have/hear in your market? We've lived with IBOC fro a few years thanks to WOR and as Mike rightly said, in the AM music era first adjacents weren't possible anyway. I was driving into work this morning and listened to 1550 (first adjacent to 1560, WQEW which plays music) and it was unlistenable, Same for 1570. Listening to WOR as I drove towards NYC 700 was filled with WOR analog splash. Sure I could get an ID if I wanted to but the signal wasn't listenable for any period of time. same for every first adjacent here. 650 from WSM is barely audible due to WFAN sideband splash. My analog (both those with a digital read out and 10 K steps and an analog readout (GE superradio) work fine and there is no evidence of the IBOC sideband information on any of my properly tuned AM radios. For those who tuned off a bit in the past to get more high end in their audio, sorry but you have to tune to center channel to properly hear a AM station now. If you want more high end buy an IBOC radio.

 

[Mike Walker]

While I have concerns about adjacent interference from AM HD, if you're hearing this interference by using a wideband radio, and slowly tuning away from carrier center until you hear the "noise", then that's hardly typical of either the types of radios people usually use, or, more importantly, how they use them.

 

[rbrucecarter5]

While I have concerns about adjacent interference from AM HD, if you're hearing this interference by using a wideband radio, and slowly tuning away from carrier center until you hear the "noise", then that's hardly typical of either the types of radios people usually use, or, more importantly, how they use them.

Here we go again - the old "party line" that all AM radios are 3 to 4 kHz audio bandwidth, except for a few oddballs. I have found the exact opposite to be true, AM IBOC stations are unlistenable because virtually ALL newly designed AM radios are based on IC's and reference designs that are inherently wideband. Given the crummy IF ceramic filter they use, and the tiny speakers in the box which are really good as tweeters, AM IBOC, even perfectly tuned on center, sounds like a thousand angry crickets in the background - much louder and much more annoying than the worst 10 khz hetereodyne. And given the poor mechanical lash in the tuning assembly, it is so hard to get on frequency you will hear the 5 to 10 kHz sidebands as well.

AM radios are not what people buy. They buy boom boxes, clock radios, headphone radios, radios in flashlights, radios hanging in showers. Almost none of them will ever be tuned to AM, so the design on AM is as cheap as it can be so people can still tune in the occasional baseball game or talk show - which now sounds like _____ thanks to limited audio bandwidth and IBOC self jamming. This can only further erode the audience for AM, drive people to FM talk and FM sports stations which will still sound great on cheap radios.

You can try telling the average consumer to go buy a $200 HD radio so AM will sound better, but I don't think you will get many buyers. What few buyers there are are only in it for the HD-2 channels, IF and only if there is a format on them they are fanatical enough about to fork over the $200.

 

[Mike Walker]

rbruce, you're not only putting words in my mouth, you're claiming ideas that I just don't have. I LOVE wideband AM, and have said so many times. I HATE the idea of 5khz bandwidth restrictions for analog. And I LOVE my GE SuperRadio, Sony SRF-A100, and other wideband radios. NOWHERE did I say ANYTHING against wideband radios.

I said that if you're using a wideband radio, which most people don't, and using it in a specific way...slowly tuning away from carrier center in order to try and hear digital hash, then you're using a radio in a way that average people just don't. I think the above are facts. And nowhere did I say that broadband AM transmissions, or reception, are bad. In fact they're "wunnerful", as Lawrence Welk used to say.

Try reading what I SAY, rather than what you think I mean, and you might find that we're in agreement on plenty of stuff

 

[rbrucecarter5]

Try reading what I SAY, rather than what you think I mean, and you might find that we're in agreement on plenty of stuff

Sorry - I'm so used to the HD Radio zombies all saying the same things - using the same words - probably with glazed eyes: approaching me and saying "you WILL buy an HD radio you WILL buy an HD radio HD radio is wonderful HD radio is necessary to save radio the public loves HD radio people are flocking to buy HD radios HD radio sounds great DX'ers are outmodes that should be silent there is no need for skywave" Sometimes I wonder if the Ibiquity people plant subliminal messages in the encoders that brainwash people as they listen. Or maybe their sales presentation has subliminal messages. Hearing the same things in the same way from dozens of people - it's just not natural. A little creepy, too!

 

[davideduardo]

DX'ers are outmodes that should be silent there is no need for skywave" Sometimes I wonder if the Ibiquity people plant subliminal messages in the encoders that brainwash people as they listen. Or maybe their sales presentation has subliminal messages. Hearing the same things in the same way from dozens of people - it's just not natural. A little creepy, too!

AM skywave ceased to be relevant when TV supplanted radio, starting in the late 40's, as the method of delivery of entertainment to households. Radio listening at night declined dramatically after the lifting of the TV freeze in 1952 and the nation got vastly increased TV coverage by multiple networks.

Prior to then, Broadcasting Magazine is filled with ads by the bit clears and regional stations showing mail pull from 40 states, coverage maps, etc. By the mid-50's, radio station ads were based on ratings in the local market, format distinctions, awards won, etc. None of the ads streessed night coverage, althoug a few, like WNAX's "Big Aggie" series showed the huge daytime coverage of farm counties.

By the time Docket 80-90 was implemented, nearly every place in the US with a few people living nearby had an FM... or multiple FMs.

A good example would be Omena, MI, in northern Leelanau county. In the 60's, it had daytime reception of two Traverse City stations (1400 and 1310) when there were no thunderstorms. At night, the closest usable signals were WMAQ, WLS, WBBM and WJR, which had no content of relevance to the Cherry Capital of the World.

Today, AM is only one station better... but there are 7 FMs with a 70 dbu signal there, and another 9 with a 60 dbu signal. ... 15 listenable signals. On the other hand, only three AMs give over a 5 mv/m day signal, and at night only one has an interference free contour covering Omena. And Omena is a classic small town... less than 100 inhabitants, and a 15 minute drive to the two closest towns, Suttoms Bay and Northport, that have around 500 persons each.

Radio has changed considerably since the medium was invented. Today, with 13,000 radio stations, there is no need to endure fading, static, auroral effects, buzzes, noises and low fidelity to listen to the radio. Skywave was necessary before TV and when there were under 2000 stations in the US. Today, it is an aggravation to getting better local coverage; skywave is radio's buggy whip.

 

[Mike Walker]

No problem rbruce. I suspected you didn't really "catch my drift". What is it they call it, a "distinction without a difference".

I'm still in the "to be convinced" column with AM HD. I'll make up my mind when I get to hear it, and more important, when I get to hear if HD stations cause lots of interference to their neighbors. Stubborn as I am, I won't let anyone bully me into a position one way or the other. I'll make up my own mind.

Enjoy your weekend!

 

[Tom Wells]

DX'ers are outmodes that should be silent there is no need for skywave" Sometimes I wonder if the Ibiquity people plant subliminal messages in the encoders that brainwash people as they listen. Or maybe their sales presentation has subliminal messages. Hearing the same things in the same way from dozens of people - it's just not natural. A little creepy, too!

AM skywave ceased to be relevant when TV supplanted radio, starting in the late 40's, as the method of delivery of entertainment to households. Radio listening at night declined dramatically after the lifting of the TV freeze in 1952 and the nation got vastly increased TV coverage by multiple networks.

Prior to then, Broadcasting Magazine is filled with ads by the bit clears and regional stations showing mail pull from 40 states, coverage maps, etc. By the mid-50's, radio station ads were based on ratings in the local market, format distinctions, awards won, etc. None of the ads streessed night coverage, althoug a few, like WNAX's "Big Aggie" series showed the huge daytime coverage of farm counties.

By the time Docket 80-90 was implemented, nearly every place in the US with a few people living nearby had an FM... or multiple FMs.

A good example would be Omena, MI, in northern Leelanau county. In the 60's, it had daytime reception of two Traverse City stations (1400 and 1310) when there were no thunderstorms. At night, the closest usable signals were WMAQ, WLS, WBBM and WJR, which had no content of relevance to the Cherry Capital of the World.

Today, AM is only one station better... but there are 7 FMs with a 70 dbu signal there, and another 9 with a 60 dbu signal. ... 15 listenable signals. On the other hand, only three AMs give over a 5 mv/m day signal, and at night only one has an interference free contour covering Omena. And Omena is a classic small town... less than 100 inhabitants, and a 15 minute drive to the two closest towns, Suttoms Bay and Northport, that have around 500 persons each.

Radio has changed considerably since the medium was invented. Today, with 13,000 radio stations, there is no need to endure fading, static, auroral effects, buzzes, noises and low fidelity to listen to the radio. Skywave was necessary before TV and when there were under 2000 stations in the US. Today, it is an aggravation to getting better local coverage; skywave is radio's buggy whip.

OK, my dander, rarely gotten up, is piqued, at least. Mr Eduardo, there are a good many midwestern listeners who use Chicago, Des Moines, Nashville, St.Louis,
Detroit, etc, AM MW 50kw signals while driving in ways you must surely recognize yet not experience or consider relevant.

There is no excuse for bad radios, nor is there any excuse for the interference now considered "normal".

Only those unfortunate enough to live in such poor reception areas suffer.
I placed "clean signal" WAY up on the list when searching for my home. In fact, I was driving dark nighborhoods near the river listening to weak AMs
to determine where a "for sale" home was in a clean RF environment.

I too, find the "brainwashed" position odd, but expect this of a corporation.

rbruce, you're not only putting words in my mouth, you're claiming ideas that I just don't have. I LOVE wideband AM, and have said so many times. I HATE the idea of 5khz bandwidth restrictions for analog. And I LOVE my GE SuperRadio, Sony SRF-A100, and other wideband radios. NOWHERE did I say ANYTHING against wideband radios.

I said that if you're using a wideband radio, which most people don't, and using it in a specific way...slowly tuning away from carrier center in order to try and hear digital hash, then you're using a radio in a way that average people just don't. I think the above are facts. And nowhere did I say that broadband AM transmissions, or reception, are bad. In fact they're "wunnerful", as Lawrence Welk used to say.

Try reading what I SAY, rather than what you think I mean, and you might find that we're in agreement on plenty of stuff

During the past 80 years, the "right" way to tune an AM radio has changed many times.
These were the most common types.
There were "blooper" regens, TRFs, Autodynes, "early" superhets, "later" superhets, wideband designs with differing kinds of skirt shape according to the expected user's use.

The regens and TRFs really did need to be center-tuned for sensitivity's sake, and gained nothing by off-tuning, but the various others really did gain much fidelity by selecting a passband, upper or lower sideband favoring, which gave the MOST COMMON radios of 1950 to 1980 an electrical response
RF/IF/AF if side-tuned a bit, of 15.000 hz, +/-. The speaker had a lot to do with whether or not you heard it, along with how much any given design rolled off
the upper end, but most reproduced the 10khz whistle just fine.

The largest number of AM listeners, despite varying advanced age, ALL knew by the late part of the 50's to tune to the sidebands for better definition.
The modern "stoopid" radios which will not let "tuning" occur have done much to destroy the perception the AM can sound good.

Average people ALL did. My mother did. Not until bad operator interfaces and varactor diodes did people forget how to tune an AM radio.

 

[davideduardo]

OK, my dander, rarely gotten up, is piqued, at least. Mr Eduardo, there are a good many midwestern listeners who use Chicago, Des Moines, Nashville, St.Louis,
Detroit, etc, AM MW 50kw signals while driving in ways you must surely recognize yet not experience or consider relevant.

Actually, that is not so. Less than a third of radio listening is in the car. Night AM listening is about 25% of the daytime average listening levels. Very few listen to AM at all at night, and so few listen to distant AMs it is not particularly relevant. It is also not part of the revenue model that allows AMs to make enough money to survive. HD may be at least a hope in this direction; preserving distant reception at night on AM is not.

Fewer than 100 AMs in the US are really capable of covering areas big enough at night, without regular interfereance, to be listened to. Compare that to the thousands of AMs that may benefit if the band is given a new hope.

There is no excuse for bad radios, nor is there any excuse for the interference now considered "normal".

Since the increased interference is a reasonable trade-off for possible future growth of AM (bringing back the dead, in most cases), it's an acceptable compromise.

The largest number of AM listeners, despite varying advanced age, ALL knew by the late part of the 50's to tune to the sidebands for better definition.
The modern "stoopid" radios which will not let "tuning" occur have done much to destroy the perception the AM can sound good.

Average people ALL did. My mother did. Not until bad operator interfaces and varactor diodes did people forget how to tune an AM radio.

I did not know that, and I was a DXer from the late 50's on, and in most of the 60's owned a half dozen or so AM stations. I never recall tuning any radio to anything else than the carrier, and don't know anyone who did otherwise.

 

[wgliradio]

I did not know that, and I was a DXer from the late 50's on, and in most of the 60's owned a half dozen or so AM stations. I never recall tuning any radio to anything else than the carrier, and don't know anyone who did otherwise.

Alot of people know that. I knew about it when I was a kid. It's a very old trick and I know alot of people who did so when the bandwidth of AM radio and radios made it possible.

Maybe because there isn't a graph or a chart. Fair enough. I've drawn one and also included recognizable symbols so you won't get confused.


ll (tune here)
760____________$770___________780__________790__________800_________$810_________820

As you can see, some stations are making money, more are not. A sad day for radio.

 

[davideduardo]

Alot of people know that. I knew about it when I was a kid. It's a very old trick and I know alot of people who did so when the bandwidth of AM radio and radios made it possible.

I still have my first "personal radio" which was an Emerson 888 "Pocket Radio" and it sounded best when tuned to the carrier, not offset.

I'm pretty miffed that, despite 45 or 46 years of membership in the National Radio Club, I never learned this "trick" to make radios sound scratchy instead of full.

As you can see, some stations are making money, more are not. A sad day for radio.

Actually, in the 50's through the 70's when the FCC requiered annual financials, fully half of all stations did not make money. Was that a sad day for radio, too? (we are talking about roughly 10,000 days, of course)

 

[R.F. Burns]

I did not know that, and I was a DXer from the late 50's on, and in most of the 60's owned a half dozen or so AM stations. I never recall tuning any radio to anything else than the carrier, and don't know anyone who did otherwise.

Alot of people know that. I knew about it when I was a kid. It's a very old trick and I know alot of people who did so when the bandwidth of AM radio and radios made it possible.

Maybe because there isn't a graph or a chart. Fair enough. I've drawn one and also included recognizable symbols so you won't get confused.


ll (tune here)
760____________$770___________780__________790__________800_________$810_________820

As you can see, some stations are making money, more are not. A sad day for radio.

I used to do that but what it shows is not AM's attribues but AM's shortcomings. Tha fact that the bandwidth of most AM radios wasn't wide enough to take advantage of the full bandwidth many stations transmitted at. Even without IBOC those days of tuning off center to increase the brightness went away with the introduction of the NRSC Mask, which narrowed the bandwidth of AM facilities. That's why in todays world first adjacents can be heard occasionally when in years past when AM was AM they were inaudible. It's a matter of get some and loose some. If you want AM to have that good punchy loud sound, you need the old AM of the big loud sidebands but if you want selectivity you want today's anaolog AM of limited bandwidth. Music on today's AM band doesn't have the appeal that it did in the 60's when you had loud pumping AM stations. AM broadcasting today is basically designed for talk radio. So if you glorify those old AM days of loud punchy AM audio you have to conclude that if you have 70% noise on a first adjacent due to analog splash or 100% noise due to the IBOC sidebands you can't complain about one causing interference and not the other.

 

[wgliradio]

I know. This was usually only possible on narrow band analog tuned radios or digital radios with very sloppy front ends. Everyone I know knew about this though.

 

[wgliradio]

I still have my first "personal radio" which was an Emerson 888 "Pocket Radio" and it sounded best when tuned to the carrier, not offset.

I'm pretty miffed that, despite 45 or 46 years of membership in the National Radio Club, I never learned this "trick" to make radios sound scratchy instead of full.

Perhaps you should measure the bandwidth of the 888. It may have had a pleasant enough response where it didn't need to be offset. The "trick" depended on the radio. But you knew that and your 68 years in the AARL/NABET/ASCAP/BMI/IBEW

Actually, in the 50's through the 70's when the FCC requiered annual financials, fully half of all stations did not make money. Was that a sad day for radio, too? (we are talking about roughly 10,000 days, of course)

Perhaps the FCC should require them again. I still believe the FCC should decide on format changes, see the financials. Hold some of these people accountable. We wouldn't for sure have some of the on air train wrecks we call, as the NAB says, "Serving the 232 million weekly users".

Wind it back first to 96, force them all to divest the properties they could no longer own under the OLD rules. What sport! Watch the panic as they go for pennies on the dollar.

Next, yank all the licenses that were a product of 80/90 and replace them with LPFM or non-com operators.

Rule with a iron hand.

That would be a HAPPY day.

If you can undo AT&T, you can undo this.

 

[davideduardo]

I know. This was usually only possible on narrow band analog tuned radios or digital radios with very sloppy front ends. Everyone I know knew about this though.

It's unlikely that there were sloppier front ends than the Asian imports my AM listeners had, predominantly, in the 60's. And I never heard of this being done. Don't you find that odd, particularly when I had rather well rated stations? I had to go to the duty free in Panamá or Miami to get a decent radio to use... and I went through 12 to 15 radios a year.

 

[Tom Wells]

The IF design was the most important factor back when radios had physical components, and
the coupling of the coils had lot to do with the shape of the bandpass.

Loose coupling with coils far apart tends to give a sharp peaked response.
Medium coupling gives a wider response with a flatter top.
Over-coupled coils give a wide reasonance curve but mushy selectivity.

Most radios used medium coupling, and 2 IF amp stages. This gave nominal 10 khz response.
True hi-fi AM radios had variable-bandwidth IFs.
Many hi-fi AM radios specified aligning the IFs with a double-humped peak, so that center-tuning would still give high frequency
response on local AMs. They were never good for dxing, but sound great.

The normal radios were able to pick up 1st adjacents to 50 kws when over 75 miles from the stronger station.
The better ones with a tuned RF input stage were CLEAR on 1st adjacents if you could cancel the splat by rotating the radio.
I could never listen to the 1st adjacents from NY in Chicago until I got a Collins 390.
But I needed to use the 4kc setting to listen.

That's not going to help at all with IBOC.
I'll never hear NY direct ever again.

 

[semoochie]

The FCC cannot have a say in formats. It's unconstitutional!