Irony of anti-IBOC posters

[Len14043]

It's ironic that those against IBOC complain about ajacient channel interference caused by the digital sidebands, but the 10 Khz audio run by non-IBOC AM stations doesn't seem to bother them.

 

[HD_Ready]

Neither do LPFMs, they never complain that their favorite distant station got squashed by an elementary school or church.

 

[Chuck]

Neither do LPFMs, they never complain that their favorite distant station got squashed by an elementary school or church.

LPFM’s are just the tip of the iceberg. There are WAY more translators than there are LPFM stations. LPFMs are usually on channels that have very little co-channel interference. They also have to protect third adjacent channels. That is much more strict than was necessary. Second adjacent works fine, as confirmed at your tax $$$ expense by the Mitre Report, at the request of Congress. They should send the bill for that one to NAB.

Translators (not to be confused with LPFM) only protect second adjacent channels. There are a ton more translators than there are LPFM stations. Anything that radiates RF causes some interference, but I'm not aware of either class of service causing much in the way of real interference problems. The funny thing is now NAB, who opposed LPFM, wants the FCC to approve the use of 250-watt translators for small AM stations. I'd really like to hear their argument about how a 250 translator protecting a second adjacent station causes less interference than a 100-watt LPFM protecting a third adjacent. The rules should be the same for both services. And yes, second adjacent protection is all that is really necessary, even with IBOC.

 

[audiophile.]

It's ironic that those against IBOC complain about ajacient channel interference caused by the digital sidebands, but the 10 Khz audio run by non-IBOC AM stations doesn't seem to bother them.

For news/talk 10 Khz sounds excellent on a dirt cheap GE Super Radio ($45 at Radio Shack while they last). Canadian stations like CKLW and CFCO still run AM stereo and 15 kHz audio (without pre-emphasis). Sounds nice!

The whole reason we cut bandwidth to 10 kHz was to reduce interference. With IBOC all of those interference improvements are lost 1000 fold!

Neither do LPFMs, they never complain that their favorite distant station got squashed by an elementary school or church.

Because of the NAB's caterwaling, the FCC required at 20 km buffer zone from interference. Maybe we should apply those same 20 km buffer standards to the new IBOC signals! Fair is fair....

LPFM’s are just the tip of the iceberg. There are WAY more translators than there are LPFM stations. LPFMs are usually on channels that have very little co-channel interference. They also have to protect third adjacent channels. That is much more strict than was necessary. Second adjacent works fine, as confirmed at your tax $$$ expense by the Mitre Report, at the request of Congress. They should send the bill for that one to NAB.
Translators (not to be confused with LPFM) only protect second adjacent channels. There are a ton more translators than there are LPFM stations. Anything that radiates RF causes some interference, but I'm not aware of either class of service causing much in the way of real interference problems. The funny thing is now NAB, who opposed LPFM, wants the FCC to approve the use of 250-watt translators for small AM stations. I'd really like to hear their argument about how a 250 translator protecting a second adjacent station causes less interference than a 100-watt LPFM protecting a third adjacent. The rules should be the same for both services. And yes, second adjacent protection is all that is really necessary, even with IBOC.

I'd love to see how they respond to the bold section.

 

[Chuck]

I'd love to see how they respond to the bold section.

Me too. I like your idea of making IBOC live up to the same technical standards as LPFM. Seems fair to me.... ;D

 

[Len14043]

AUDIOPHILE WROTE: For news/talk 10 Khz sounds excellent on a dirt cheap GE Super Radio ($45 at Radio Shack while they last). Canadian stations like CKLW and CFCO still run AM stereo and 15 kHz audio (without pre-emphasis). Sounds nice! The whole reason we cut bandwidth to 10 kHz was to reduce interference. With IBOC all of those interference improvements are lost 1000 fold.

I talking about reducing the bandwidth to 5 khz. See the link below on Clear Channels decision to reduce their bandwidth.

http://www.rwonline.com/reference-room/iboc/05_rw_bandwidth.shtml

 

[audiophile.]

That's a fair question (I don't know you how expected us to get that from the orginal question, even though I see it now).

First: density, my friend, density. Look at the density of IBOC signal compared AM sidebands of a talk show! EEEK! The brain can weed out occasional excursions too.

Secondly: Yes 5 Khz audio would help clean up the band if the IF filters matched the transmitted response. If the average bandwidth was wider then the effects would be less effective.

Why not consider Powerside? Then each station could keep 10 Khz audio AND not overlap either.

Sadly, none of these ideas accomplish much on voluntary basis. If IBOC is turned on it completely reverses anything we gained dropping from even 15 Khz.

 

[1q2w3e]

It's ironic that those against IBOC complain about ajacient channel interference caused by the digital sidebands, but the 10 Khz audio run by non-IBOC AM stations doesn't seem to bother them.

For news/talk 10 Khz sounds excellent on a dirt cheap GE Super Radio ($45 at Radio Shack while they last). Canadian stations like CKLW and CFCO still run AM stereo and 15 kHz audio (without pre-emphasis). Sounds nice!

The whole reason we cut bandwidth to 10 kHz was to reduce interference. With IBOC all of those interference improvements are lost 1000 fold!

Neither do LPFMs, they never complain that their favorite distant station got squashed by an elementary school or church.

Because of the NAB's caterwaling, the FCC required at 20 km buffer zone from interference. Maybe we should apply those same 20 km buffer standards to the new IBOC signals! Fair is fair....

LPFM’s are just the tip of the iceberg. There are WAY more translators than there are LPFM stations. LPFMs are usually on channels that have very little co-channel interference. They also have to protect third adjacent channels. That is much more strict than was necessary. Second adjacent works fine, as confirmed at your tax $$$ expense by the Mitre Report, at the request of Congress. They should send the bill for that one to NAB.
Translators (not to be confused with LPFM) only protect second adjacent channels. There are a ton more translators than there are LPFM stations. Anything that radiates RF causes some interference, but I'm not aware of either class of service causing much in the way of real interference problems. The funny thing is now NAB, who opposed LPFM, wants the FCC to approve the use of 250-watt translators for small AM stations. I'd really like to hear their argument about how a 250 translator protecting a second adjacent station causes less interference than a 100-watt LPFM protecting a third adjacent. The rules should be the same for both services. And yes, second adjacent protection is all that is really necessary, even with IBOC.

I'd love to see how they respond to the bold section.

Ummm no CKLW does not run stereo or 15kHz audio. I was at the transmitter site a year and a half ago (want to see the pictures?? Pretty cool actually). CFCO does run stereo however and it sounds pretty nice. But I doubt they run 15kHz audio. If they did I would expect the same kind of uproar from the non HD Radio believers as they would be interfering with their neighbors.

 

[Chuck]

That's a fair question (I don't know you how expected us to get that from the orginal question, even though I see it now).

First: density, my friend, density. Look at the density of IBOC signal compared AM sidebands of a talk show! EEEK! The brain can weed out occasional excursions too.

Secondly: Yes 5 Khz audio would help clean up the band if the IF filters matched the transmitted response. If the average bandwidth was wider then the effects would be less effective.

Why not consider Powerside? Then each station could keep 10 Khz audio AND not overlap either.

Sadly, none of these ideas accomplish much on voluntary basis. If IBOC is turned on it completely reverses anything we gained dropping from even 15 Khz.

Keep in mind that 5khz is hardly a "hi-fi" signal. It does not sound very good with music. Most people will accept 10 khz audio response as having fairly good fidelity. Even that isn’t really “hi-fi,” but it is listenable. It is true that running 10 khz bandwidth can splatter over into the adjacent channel. But it does that intermittently, unless the station is wildly exceeding what it should be doing. That kind of intermittent splatter is a lot easier for your brain to sort out than a continuous hissing sound that appears to be as loud, if not louder than the program audio.

I'm in Chicago as I write this. The radio in my rental car is nearly useless on AM. The IBOC hiss is much louder than most program audio. It seems that a lot of stations in this area have their HD signals going. The net effect is I can only get decent reception on maybe a half dozen AM stations. Is the car radio a piece of junk? Probably, but it is factory installed in what otherwise is a very nice car. The FM is not having anywhere near as many problems. Even if it is a terrible radio, I think it is quite typical of what we have to work with. The car is quite new, and shows only a couple of thousand miles on the odometer, so I'd have to say it is "state of the art" at the moment.

 

[1q2w3e]

That's a fair question (I don't know you how expected us to get that from the orginal question, even though I see it now).

First: density, my friend, density. Look at the density of IBOC signal compared AM sidebands of a talk show! EEEK! The brain can weed out occasional excursions too.

Secondly: Yes 5 Khz audio would help clean up the band if the IF filters matched the transmitted response. If the average bandwidth was wider then the effects would be less effective.

Why not consider Powerside? Then each station could keep 10 Khz audio AND not overlap either.

Sadly, none of these ideas accomplish much on voluntary basis. If IBOC is turned on it completely reverses anything we gained dropping from even 15 Khz.

Keep in mind that 5khz is hardly a "hi-fi" signal. It does not sound very good with music. Most people will accept 10 khz audio response as having fairly good fidelity. Even that isn’t really “hi-fi,” but it is listenable. It is true that running 10 khz bandwidth can splatter over into the adjacent channel. But it does that intermittently, unless the station is wildly exceeding what it should be doing. That kind of intermittent splatter is a lot easier for your brain to sort out than a continuous hissing sound that appears to be as loud, if not louder than the program audio.

I'm in Chicago as I write this. The radio in my rental car is nearly useless on AM. The IBOC hiss is much louder than most program audio. It seems that a lot of stations in this area have their HD signals going. The net effect is I can only get decent reception on maybe a half dozen AM stations. Is the car radio a piece of junk? Probably, but it is factory installed in what otherwise is a very nice car. The FM is not having anywhere near as many problems. Even if it is a terrible radio, I think it is quite typical of what we have to work with. The car is quite new, and shows only a couple of thousand miles on the odometer, so I'd have to say it is "state of the art" at the moment.

Then you have a faulty receiver! I have a full bandwith AM stereo receiver and just went through Chicago. I dont have any trouble getting any of the decent AM stations. Tell me if you are getting interference from AM stations and exactly what AM stations are running HD.

 

[audiophile.]

I condensed my writing for simplicity. It is my understanding the Canada does not require the NRSC AM specification.

My GE Super Radio doesn't have stereo but when they did the CKLW reunion the audio sounded very nice for an AM! It sounded better than a 10 kHz response. I do have an AM stereo tuner, I just haven't used it lately.

CFCO sounds nice too!

 

[Chuck]

Then you have a faulty receiver! I have a full bandwith AM stereo receiver and just went through Chicago. I dont have any trouble getting any of the decent AM stations. Tell me if you are getting interference from AM stations and exactly what AM stations are running HD.

Sorry, I'm getting on a plane in a few minutes and don't have time to do the research about who is interfering with whom. The radio seems fine on FM, and also has CD and cassette with Bose speakers. Good bad or indifferent, it is what they are selling these days. Nobody is going to rip it out of the dash of their brand new car to put in a better performing radio. The point is, it is fairly useless on all but a few AM stations. The rest is either static or very loud IBOC hash. That is all that Joe Consumer will hear in their otherwise very nice new car. The solution will be: Don't listen to AM.

 

[I.B. Iquity]

"The solution will be: Don't listen to AM"


That's already happening. Listeners don't need IBOC to help with that decision. that is why IBOC was invented!

 

[SayNoToIBOC]

The only time people listen to AM/FM is to-and-from work and errands. IBOC will not help, with adjacent channel interference and only 60% coverage of analog, but much better programming will save terrestrial radio.

 

[I.B. Iquity]

Could you do me a big favor SayNo? Please don't reply to my posts. You repeat the same nonesense over and over and it always ends the same way. You obviously have a problem with HD radio. WE KNOW THAT!!! You don't like it, I do.. THE END. The 60% of the coverage garbage is all B.S.

 

[SayNoToIBOC]

It is certainly obvious the amout of HD Radio shilling that is going on in this board. It is well-known that IBOC has only 60% coverage of analog; HD Radio receivers keep dropping the IBOC signal, when it goes out of range, then the analog signal kicks in - this is no secret.

 

[SUPERCASTER]

"The solution will be: Don't listen to AM"


That's already happening. Listeners don't need IBOC to help with that decision. that is why IBOC was invented!

HD Radio IBOC buzz does not help AM, it just causes more annoying high density interference, and more AM tune outs. The 5 kHz analog audio along with HD Radio buzz hurts AM even more. HD Radio is hurting AM, not helping.

 

[rbrucecarter5]

Re: Irony of pro-IBOC posters

It seems my last post on this topic was deemed unacceptable because I do not tow the company line. But I do have a suggestion: break the board into two boards - a pro-IBOC board and an anti-IBOC board. The moderators police it - moving OT posts to the appropriate place - and both sides leave each other alone.

As long as it is one board called HD radio - both pro and con posts are on topic, leading to contentious arguments unworthy of professionals.

 

[SayNoToIBOC]

What would be the fun in that ?

 

[SUPERCASTER]

Re: Irony of pro-IBOC posters

It seems my last post on this topic was deemed unacceptable because I do not tow the company line. But I do have a suggestion: break the board into two boards - a pro-IBOC board and an anti-IBOC board. The moderators police it - moving OT posts to the appropriate place - and both sides leave each other alone.

As long as it is one board called HD radio - both pro and con posts are on topic, leading to contentious arguments unworthy of professionals.

An HD Radio discussion board where no discussion is permitted, only promotional hype and favorable fabrications are permitted?
The other board is that way. Boared and full of deceptive self promotion and advertising.