IBOC stations shutting off the IBOC to save electricity?

[KB1OKL]

Another nail in the coffin of iBlock? Some FM's are shutting off the hiss makers and there have been NO complaints.

This from Tom Taylor's newsletter:

"Have some FMs temporarily shut off their HD signals – to save on the electric bill?

Yesterday’s T-R-I lead story predicted that this 2009 NAB convention will have “truths revealed” about issues like HD Digital Radio – and sure enough, I got this email from a regional exec at a big group who knows of “several companies shutting down their HD signals in some markets to cut electrical cost.

/snip/

By the way – there have been no complaints or calls in the markets that have done it."

read more at:

http://boards1.radio-info.com/newsletter/html/tri-04212009.html

 

[Savage]

Absolutely hilarious. This is unprecedented. It's gotta be the first time in the history of the industry that a much-hyped technical "innovation" has been voluntarily shut off to save on the electric bill.

There appears to be some confusion about whether the "saving $3000 to $5000" refers to a monthly electric bill or for some longer billing increment - but in any case it's a picayune amount given the enormous hyperbole about how HD Radio purports to be The Savior Of Radio.

I guess this is a pretty accurate indicator of the actual value operators place on HD Radio. It's well-established that can be measured by "what a willing purchaser is willing to pay." So what's HD really worth? "Less than 3 to 5 grand."

Would somebody PLEASE just administer the coup de grace? The amply-deserved suffering of this terminal patient is simply TOO ENTERTAINING.

 

[landtuna]

There appears to be some confusion about whether the "saving $3000 to $5000" refers to a monthly electric bill or for some longer billing increment ...

From the article it appears it is an annual amount for one specific market:

"And in one market I know of, we’ll save about $3,000 to $5,000 annually."

You're right - peanuts. Perhaps the station owners are citing a convenient excuse?

 

[Savage]

Bingo, landtuna!

Coming soon: "Uh-oh. Forecast is for partly cloudy for the next few days. Better turn off the HD."

 

[pocket-radio]

HD's shutting off this is fantastic news! HD radio's will play correctly without searching for an HD signal.

 

[audioguy]

To me, it does not make sense that an annual savings of $3K or $5K would be worth bothering about. And it certainly wouldn't save someone's job (unless you're talking about a high school student working on weekends)!

I wonder if it's just a convenient way to save face-- perhaps owners are starting to realize that the IBOC system is a technical disaster. When WGN turned off their noise generator, I was sure it would be back on within a week or two, but it's been months now. Over that time they've tweaked their audio processing, and they sound way better than any of their IBOC competitors. Just switch between WGN and neighboring WBBM and hear the difference... WBBM sounds muddy, and their audio is weak and dull by comparison to 'GN. Maybe the PD doesn't care about audio quality, but they should care about the fact that the level is lower.

We can only hope that there are a few more engineers and PD's who are willing to stand up and be counted. Turn off the noise, and get back to putting out a quality signal! Until the day comes (if it ever does) when radio goes 100% digital, "hybrid" is not worth bothering with.

 

[radiotower40]

To me, it does not make sense that an annual savings of $3K or $5K would be worth bothering about. And it certainly wouldn't save someone's job (unless you're talking about a high school student working on weekends)!

I wonder if it's just a convenient way to save face-- perhaps owners are starting to realize that the IBOC system is a technical disaster. When WGN turned off their noise generator, I was sure it would be back on within a week or two, but it's been months now. Over that time they've tweaked their audio processing, and they sound way better than any of their IBOC competitors. Just switch between WGN and neighboring WBBM and hear the difference... WBBM sounds muddy, and their audio is weak and dull by comparison to 'GN. Maybe the PD doesn't care about audio quality, but they should care about the fact that the level is lower.

We can only hope that there are a few more engineers and PD's who are willing to stand up and be counted. Turn off the noise, and get back to putting out a quality signal! Until the day comes (if it ever does) when radio goes 100% digital, "hybrid" is not worth bothering with.

You are completely right about the difference in sound between WBBM and WGN. I suspect that WGN will not turn
their IBOC back on, if it has not happened yet. Another problem I have in my area is that WVON can be heard on 790AM,
due to the fact that their transmitter is only a couple of miles from me. This tends to make WBBM virtually intolerable on
all but my most sensitive radio's. I should mention WVON is on 1690, so you can see why it shows up on 790. Between the
HD hiss and degradation of WBBM's signal of their own doing. I also have to compete with WVON sneaking in. At times it's so
bad I can't even listen to WBBM. I should also note that when 1690 signed on about six years ago, I could hear them on 790,
but, it never interfered with 780's signal, pre HD. I sometimes wonder if it is WBBM's HD or WVON's HD that is causing this
"mixing" problem. Is it possible that it is both? I guess this would be another one of those"TINY" problem's that HD radio
and the FCC must have "FORGOTTEN" about when allowing this "technology" hit the airwaves ???.

 

[nd2023]

The HD is only 2% of the analog power (both sidebands), plus the electricity to run the encoder. For a 50000 watt station, that would be about 1500 watts including the encoder. That's the same electricity savings as turning off a few lights or reducing the air conditioner.

 

[SUPERCASTER]

The HD is only 2% of the analog power (both sidebands), plus the electricity to run the encoder. For a 50000 watt station, that would be about 1500 watts including the encoder. That's the same electricity savings as turning off a few lights or reducing the air conditioner.

Wrong.

HD radio requires a low efficiency linear amplifier instead of the high efficiency class c amplifier almost all analog FM stations have been using. When you include the necessary HD combiner and reject load losses overall HD radio transmission efficiency is dreadful.

Many stations have to add huge amounts of additional power consuming air conditioning to their transmitter building just to dump all the extra heat (power losses) generated by the conversion to HD.

 

[w9wi]

The HD is only 2% of the analog power (both sidebands), plus the electricity to run the encoder. For a 50000 watt station, that would be about 1500 watts including the encoder. That's the same electricity savings as turning off a few lights or reducing the air conditioner.

Just how bad it is really depends on how HD was added to the station. See this technical study by the CBC in Canada: http://www.cbc.radio-canada.ca/technologyreview/pdf/issue4-trial.pdf&ei=dmX0SYzLC5PoMJKLzMMP&usg=AFQjCNEmW9ZTIy76eNafUAiD4AWq-uaAgg and this document from antenna maker Jampro: http://www.jampro.com/uploads/hd_pdfs/HDoverview.pdf&ei=dmX0SYzLC5PoMJKLzMMP&usg=AFQjCNEYbTF6WR2yFV4DzCa2pV_yJ1bdJw The latter document cites the AC efficiency as 30% for HD transmitters and 65% for analog. ("AC efficiency" is the number of watts of RF output divided by the number of watts of 60Hz AC pulled from the electric utility)

There are basically three ways to do HD:

1) Separate HD transmitter and antenna. You need 500 watts of HD RF at 30% efficiency. About 1,660 watts of additional AC will be drawn from the utility. Your 50,000-watt analog transmitter at 65% efficiency is drawing 77,000 watts from the utility. Your utility bill increases by about 2%.

2) Separate HD transmitter, high-level combining. The combiner is only 10% efficient. (?!, see the CBC document) You need 5000 watts of HD RF at 30% efficiency. About 16,600 watts of additional AC will be drawn from the utility. Your utility bill increases by about 22%.

3) Combined HD/analog transmitter, with the HD and analog signals combined in the exciter. Broadcast Electronics (http://www.bdcast.com/fgal/prod_brochure/BE_FMiTSeries_BCEPBR.pdf+HD+radio+combined+amplifier+efficiency&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a) says they can get 58% AC efficiency in this configuration. This would require about 87,000 watts from the utility - your bill increases by about 13%.

The problem with method #1, as I understand it, is that there's a fairly high risk of self-interference -- because the two separate antennas will not have precisely the same directional characteristics, there will be places where the HD signal is much stronger by comparison to the analog than it should be, and where the HD will interfere with the station's own analog. In cases where tower space is rented it may also be expensive to get permission to install the second antenna and feedline.

The problem with method #2 is obvious, unless the station is owned by an electric utility The added utility cost is likely to be even higher than cited, because the inefficient combiner generates quite a bit of heat which will need to be removed with larger fans and/or air conditioners. #2 does seem to be the most common method. (probably because it can be implemented at relatively low capital cost)

The problem with method #3 is capital expense -- you're having to replace the entire transmitter. The 13% utility bill increase is not negligible either. There will be some increase in cooling costs as well.

We are of course talking only about FM-HD here. All AM HD stations are using method #3, and since the AM analog signal already requires linear amplification, the transmitter efficiency doesn't change when HD is added. The RF power required increases 1% and with it the utility bill. I'm actually somewhat surprised existing AM HD stations are dropping HD as there doesn't seem to be any economic reason for it. (unless the HD exciter died and the station felt it wasn't worth the money to fix it)

 

[Savage]

Concur that the most common method of doing HD-FM is Door #2. So, just to be clear: that means if you intend to implement -10dBc digital, not only do you need a new reject load/combiner and transmitter (plus beefier transmission lines, hardware and beefing up your tower structurally) - your utility costs will increase by 220 PERCENT as compared with analog-only. (Excluding increased HVAC consumption. Which would be considerable.)

Just for reference; as a 1kw daytimer on 1030 kHz, WYSL used a 1961-vintage RCA BTA-1R tube type transmitter, which typically ran 67-70% efficient. In 1997 we moved to 1040, went directional and installed a BE AM-2.5 for 2500 watts days and 500 watts at night. When we went from 1kw daytime-only to 2.5/0.5 24 hours thanks to the solid-state rig our electric bill went DOWN 30%. I can't imagine running a Tx plant at efficiency levels of 30% to 58%. That's absurd.

The reasons AMs are turning off HD are not utility-cost related, as you are correct in noting the incremental increase in utility operating cost. The problems are self and adjacent station interference and the fact that about two-thirds can't use the system at night, because existing directional systems don't play with HD. What's the point of running a digital daytimer? Also the exciter is notoriously unreliable, freezing, crashing and getting out of time-alignment and thus representing an ongoing maintenance headache (note comments from the WTAG engineer noted elsewhere on this board.)

 

[RadeoEngineer]

My guess is that if the increase goes through, there will be at least 2/3 less FM HD's on the air due to the expense of once again having to upgrade the transmitter plant to handle it. These iShitquity people would be good for some laughs, if it wasn't so sad. I'm working with a group right now that has four FM's, three of which are running HD. They can't do the extra 10dB without redoing the entire plant on each of the three, and won't if it happens.

 

[JohnnyElectron]

It's a shame to turn-off an AM-HD for "power consumption" as it uses VERY little, especially compared to the wasted power on FM-HD.
Now the widebandwidth crud it spews 20KHz up and down the dial on AM is another story.

However, why couldn't some genious figure out how to reprogram their Dexstar to broadcast in C-Quam stereo - it would be rock steady with the GPS sync, and since you're already using phase modulation it should be quite "do-able", plus, there's probably still more CQuam radios out there that still work than all the HD radios combined? You could always just use the little 3 digital bits required for "station identification" so that the HD display would still work, and then generate the quadrature phase modulation for the stereo difference signal. Open your audio bandwidth back to NRSC 10.2KHz and call it a day!

 

[w9wi]

My guess is that if the increase goes through, there will be at least 2/3 less FM HD's on the air due to the expense of once again having to upgrade the transmitter plant to handle it.

I can't see the 10dBc thing causing any existing FM HDs to drop the digital. Nothing is going to force existing 20dBc operations to increase.

I do think adoption of the power increase will be far from universal.

 

[KB1OKL]

My guess is that if the increase goes through, there will be at least 2/3 less FM HD's on the air due to the expense of once again having to upgrade the transmitter plant to handle it.

I can't see the 10dBc thing causing any existing FM HDs to drop the digital. Nothing is going to force existing 20dBc operations to increase.

I do think adoption of the power increase will be far from universal.

Why would they stay on the air when only a small minority of the already small minority of listeners who actually own an IBOC receiver can't hear them? IBOC is already yesterday's technology.

 

[Savage]

I don't think any magnitude of increase in potential authorized digital power (such as -10 dBc) is going to force stations to drop IBOC in and of itself. But I concur with the posters here that the most likely scenario is a few show-horse stations (read: Alliance-owned) will install the increase as a kind of Hail-Mary last desperate stab at getting HD Radio some momentum.

This effort will fail.

The reasons have been exhaustively discussed here and elsewhere: excessive and unrealistic costs in return for elusive benefit. No receivers. Increased self and adjacent-channel interference. Vastly increased operating costs. No listener or consumer interest in the product. Etc., Etc.....

HD Radio will stumble along for another year or two, gradually becoming more obsolete and less relevant with each passing day, and the IBOC hash-carriers will start to wink off one by one. As HD continues to generate little more than expense and embarassingly disappointing performance, the politics of big broadcasting companies will start forcing the system's abandonment. You'll find fewer and fewer engineers willing to put their reputations and credibility with management on the line to defend it.

Increasingly, the question in the EVP/GM's office will be: "Just WHY are we doing HD Radio?" Also increasingly, the answer will be: "Beats me. We tried it. It isn't helping us."

 

[hipporadio]

The reasons AMs are turning off HD are not utility-cost related, as you are correct in noting the incremental increase in utility operating cost. The problems are self and adjacent station interference and the fact that about two-thirds can't use the system at night, because existing directional systems don't play with HD. What's the point of running a digital daytimer? Also the exciter is notoriously unreliable, freezing, crashing and getting out of time-alignment and thus representing an ongoing maintenance headache (note comments from the WTAG engineer noted elsewhere on this board.)

Savage is correct, on a modern Broadcast Electronics rig [or Nautel – ‘cause you own one, Bob] – the added “HD” cost is negligible... The “cost” comes in the form of a degraded analog mono signal that 99.999% of your audience depends on. There is NO practical reason that an AM operator would want to degrade their analog signal for merely the benefit [if you could call it that] of the owner and GM at the station with one of the VERY-FEW “HD” receivers in the market in his office.

The emphasis should remain on encouraging receiver manufacturers to build BETTER AM RADIOS... I understand that this falls into the category of historical rhetoric, but may I point out that in the last ARB – the TOP TWO ratings performers in Cincinnati were AM stations—WLW and WKRC [a 14.2 total]. When is the last time you saw that trend? ...20 years ago? There is clearly a market for aggressively-presented and promoted AM stations. I have noticed an "up-trend" in the receive quality of consumer AM radios [my new Pontiac]. “HD” is defective and destructive on the AM band – it is merely a casual afterthought by the purveyors of this so-called “technology”... It clearly degrades reception for ALL analog-bound listeners. The typical radio listener remains UNINTERESTED! It is surprising to me that most “HD-saddled” stations cannot [or will not] admit the same!

 

[Carmine5]

There's an interesting entry about the 10 db increase on John Anderson's DIY Media blog. He discusses the CPB's newly-launched study on the power increase and points out what the NPR (through the CPB) has at stake in seeing it happen.

The purpose of the $350,000 study is to look at ways to.."more "closely manage" a potential HD Radio upgrade (and) is geared more toward figuring out how to allow individual stations to maximize their digital power, as opposed to devising a universal solution to the interference problem."

Particularly interesting are the links to his article which include, among other things, engineer Doug Vernier's assessment on the interference potential of HD Radio.

As Mr. Anderson points out, HD Radio is already 15 years old and yet the problems surrounding it have still not been satisfactorily worked out. And given the battered state of the radio industry right now it's hard for a station to justify investing in (as he says) "an unproven and highly expensive "signal upgrade" with no discernible return-on-investment."

http://www.diymedia.net/

C5

 

[KB1OKL]

Very good read and I think this sentence says it all:

"CPB's newly-launched study is literally an effort to squeeze blood out of a stone."

I never realized how much CPB and NPR had at stake in this bomb:

"The protocol's first (and, arguably, still only) "killer application" is multicasting, or the ability to split a single FM radio signal into multiple program streams. iBiquity's initial HD technology did not include that feature - it was wholly developed in a crash-program undertaken by NPR in 2003, and was not even deployment-ready until 2006. Therefore, it's safe to say that not only does NPR have an historically-vested interest in the success of a flawed digital broadcast protocol, but it's also been the most innovative developer of the technology to-date. Although the private sector foisted this dog of a digital radio protocol upon us all, it's been the public sector that's invested the most in trying to teach it new tricks (your tax dollars at work!)."

 

[Savage]

I never understood the NPR/CPB's obsession with HD for multicasting purposes. Ostensibly the rationale is, to provide alternate distribution methods for their signal-challenged sister AM stations (via the HD subs.)

If this was the raison d'etre, why not just repurpose and slightly re-engineer SCA subchannels? The technology is proven, easy to implement, non-interfering, open-source (no licensing) and getting SCA receivers into the hands of listeners would be arguably easier and cheaper than trying to salt the earth with dopey, semi-functional, expensive HD Radios.

(I know, I know....as usual: "follow the money.")