• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Let's be fair about this...

R

Radiogeek500

I realize that HD Radio isn't perfect. But we are in the initial stage of a new technology. Think about HDTV and all that. Or Computers. They didn't start out perfect, but as time went on they were made more better. HD Radio is in a similar mode right now, it's just starting out, and hopefully the issues will be delt with as time goes on, including the adjenct channel interference and the inability to run AM HD at night because of issues there too.

I mean, did you expect Radio to stay Analog? Then I guess you expected VCRs to remain. Or Typewriters. Or Audio Tapes.

NOTE: I am not a Cheerleader for the technology, nor do I work for Ibiquity, any of the Alliance Broadcasters, or non Alliance broadcasters, or for Boston Acoustics, Radiosophy, Polk, or anyone else making HD Radios. Just simply making observations.<P ID="signature">______________
Happy 20th Birthday Power 106

JOSH, Moderating the whole Radio-Info radio state of California and Indiana too!

www.myspace.com/radiogeek500</P>
 
> I realize that HD Radio isn't perfect. But we are in the
> initial stage of a new technology. Think about HDTV and all
> that. Or Computers. They didn't start out perfect, but as
> time went on they were made more better. HD Radio is in a
> similar mode right now, it's just starting out, and
> hopefully the issues will be delt with as time goes on,
> including the adjenct channel interference and the inability
> to run AM HD at night because of issues there too.
>
> I mean, did you expect Radio to stay Analog? Then I guess
> you expected VCRs to remain. Or Typewriters. Or Audio Tapes.
>
>
> NOTE: I am not a Cheerleader for the technology, nor do I
> work for Ibiquity, any of the Alliance Broadcasters, or non
> Alliance broadcasters, or for Boston Acoustics, Radiosophy,
> Polk, or anyone else making HD Radios. Just simply making
> observations.
>

Agreed! I think that is what a number of us "Cheerleaders" have been trying to say.
 
> > I realize that HD Radio isn't perfect. But we are in the
> > initial stage of a new technology. Think about HDTV and
> all
> > that. Or Computers. They didn't start out perfect, but as
> > time went on they were made more better. HD Radio is in a
> > similar mode right now, it's just starting out, and
> > hopefully the issues will be delt with as time goes on,
> > including the adjenct channel interference and the
> inability
> > to run AM HD at night because of issues there too.
> >
> > I mean, did you expect Radio to stay Analog? Then I guess
> > you expected VCRs to remain. Or Typewriters. Or Audio
> Tapes.
> >
> >
> > NOTE: I am not a Cheerleader for the technology, nor do I
> > work for Ibiquity, any of the Alliance Broadcasters, or
> non
> > Alliance broadcasters, or for Boston Acoustics,
> Radiosophy,
> > Polk, or anyone else making HD Radios. Just simply making
> > observations.
> >
>
> Agreed! I think that is what a number of us "Cheerleaders"
> have been trying to say.
>

I'm with you, k9ez and Radiogeek500. I can't wait to see how improvements in this technology will be made.
<P ID="signature">______________
16-year-old radio geek.</P>
 
IBOC Isn't Mandatory

> I mean, did you expect Radio to stay Analog?

Anolog signals will remain and some stations won't invest in IBOC equipment. As I've stated before, IBOC conversion isn't mandatory.<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by randrewsIII on 03/04/06 07:29 AM.</FONT></P>
 
Re: Let's be fair about this-THE iBIQUITY SYSTEM IS DEFECTIVE.

Digital radio is fine, it is just the iBiquity AM and FM systems that cause all the jamming and problems. Here is a sane alternative for FM that sounds just as good as HD Radio, and does not tresspass on your neighbors stations.
www.dreinc.com
As has been repeated very frequently by HD Radio supporters on this site, if the FM digital iBiquity system known as HD Radio, does not fit in the 200 kHz bandwidth allotted, HD Radio should not get final approval from the FCC. (HD Radio now only has interim FCC approval).
I AGREE! The FM digital HD Radio signal takes up over 400 kHz of bandwidth, and the FCC should not give HD FM (or AM) final approval.
SEE, I AGREE!
So what's all the rancor and argument about?

> > > I realize that HD Radio isn't perfect. But we are in the
>
> > > initial stage of a new technology. Think about HDTV and
> > all
> > > that. Or Computers. They didn't start out perfect, but
> as
> > > time went on they were made more better. HD Radio is in
> a
> > > similar mode right now, it's just starting out, and
> > > hopefully the issues will be delt with as time goes on,
> > > including the adjenct channel interference and the
> > inability
> > > to run AM HD at night because of issues there too.
> > >
> > > I mean, did you expect Radio to stay Analog? Then I
> guess
> > > you expected VCRs to remain. Or Typewriters. Or Audio
> > Tapes.
> > >
> > >
> > > NOTE: I am not a Cheerleader for the technology, nor do
> I
> > > work for Ibiquity, any of the Alliance Broadcasters, or
> > non
> > > Alliance broadcasters, or for Boston Acoustics,
> > Radiosophy,
> > > Polk, or anyone else making HD Radios. Just simply
> making
> > > observations.
> > >
> >
> > Agreed! I think that is what a number of us
> "Cheerleaders"
> > have been trying to say.
> >
>
> I'm with you, k9ez and Radiogeek500. I can't wait to see how
> improvements in this technology will be made.
>
 
Re: Let's be fair about this-THE iBIQUITY SYSTEM IS DEFECTIVE.

> Digital radio is fine, it is just the iBiquity AM and FM
> systems that cause all the jamming and problems. Here is a
> sane alternative for FM that sounds just as good as HD
> Radio, and does not tresspass on your neighbors stations.
> www.dreinc.com
> As has been repeated very frequently by HD Radio supporters
> on this site, if the FM digital iBiquity system known as HD
> Radio, does not fit in the 200 kHz bandwidth allotted, HD
> Radio should not get final approval from the FCC. (HD Radio
> now only has interim FCC approval).
> I AGREE! The FM digital HD Radio signal takes up over 400
> kHz of bandwidth, and the FCC should not give HD FM (or AM)
> final approval.
> SEE, I AGREE!
> So what's all the rancor and argument about?
>
> > > > I realize that HD Radio isn't perfect. But we are in
> the
> >
> > > > initial stage of a new technology. Think about HDTV
> and
> > > all
> > > > that. Or Computers. They didn't start out perfect, but
>
> > as
> > > > time went on they were made more better. HD Radio is
> in
> > a
> > > > similar mode right now, it's just starting out, and
> > > > hopefully the issues will be delt with as time goes
> on,
> > > > including the adjenct channel interference and the
> > > inability
> > > > to run AM HD at night because of issues there too.
> > > >
> > > > I mean, did you expect Radio to stay Analog? Then I
> > guess
> > > > you expected VCRs to remain. Or Typewriters. Or Audio
> > > Tapes.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > NOTE: I am not a Cheerleader for the technology, nor
> do
> > I
> > > > work for Ibiquity, any of the Alliance Broadcasters,
> or
> > > non
> > > > Alliance broadcasters, or for Boston Acoustics,
> > > Radiosophy,
> > > > Polk, or anyone else making HD Radios. Just simply
> > making
> > > > observations.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Agreed! I think that is what a number of us
> > "Cheerleaders"
> > > have been trying to say.
> > >
> >
> > I'm with you, k9ez and Radiogeek500. I can't wait to see
> how
> > improvements in this technology will be made.
> >
> Your argument is with the FCC mask....IBOC CLEARLY fits in the 200 KHZ channel. Go back to the post from RFRY. It shows the spectrum analyzer snap and the FCC mask. The energy in the 200-400 spectra is WAY, WAY down....almost to the noise floor.
BUT....if you are in the 100 dbu circle of the station, you will hear noise on the adjacent channels. In an urban transmitter location, this could cause issues on thousands of radios. But without IBOC the adjacents are not usable either....this is probably receiver front end overload more than anything else. I accept there is energy in 200-400 Khz spectra BECAUSE RFRY has provided PROOF!But I would argue that this energy is so far below carrier that it is insignificant.(except, as stated above, if you are close to the transmitter)Futhermore, it is LEGAL, by FCC rules, and MINOR activity in the 200-400 khz spectra is not as uncommon as you might think in the analog world.
Most RF devices have SOME energy out of band...that is why we filter the power amp outputs. And the filtering is only required to knock the out of band energy down aprox 80 db, maximum.
Mr. Fry.....you are obviously a qualified RF design engineer. Could you comment, clarify, or correct, if needed?
 
Re: Let's be fair about this-THE iBIQUITY SYSTEM IS DEFECTIVE.

> Here is a
> sane alternative for FM that sounds just as good as HD
> Radio, and does not tresspass on your neighbors stations.
> www.dreinc.com

NOOOOOOOO!! And here is why...DRE pulled out of, what is now Ibiquity but kept it's finaincial interest in it, so they have no incentive to follow thru to make sure that FMExtra prevails. In doing so, they want over 9 grand for their technology. Cost recovery is one thing but come on!

> As has been repeated very frequently by HD Radio supporters
> on this site, if the FM digital iBiquity system known as HD
> Radio, does not fit in the 200 kHz bandwidth allotted, HD
> Radio should not get final approval from the FCC. (HD Radio
> now only has interim FCC approval).

Yeah but any noise is on and un-used channel, not that that makes it right! How the hell Ibiquity is able to hold a monopoly on this is beyond me.
A few points simply cause we are at the top of the page now...
The biggest need is getting the least attention...AM. We are providing a solution to a problem that doesn't exist; digital delivery on FM is not a fix, it complicates the problem which is reduced TSL due to other mediums and we need to address the content.
Why are we trying to reinvent the wheel? We have been shooting digital for years, from POTS codecs all the way up to sats. Now, because one company seems to have the FCC by the short hairs, we must adopt this flawed technology??? WTF??? Again, we need to address AM first because it sounds the worst. I realize the AM stereo people are going to jump in here but be for real, 10k is 10k and whether it is stereo or not, you hear the difference in the audio. We need to come up with a viable solution to send digital full 15k audio via AM.
FMExtra sounds real good but it too ignores th AM signal.
 
Re: Let's be fair about this-THE iBIQUITY SYSTEM IS DEFECTIVE.

> Again, we need to address AM first because it sounds
> the worst. I realize the AM stereo people are going to jump
> in here but be for real, 10k is 10k and whether it is stereo
> or not, you hear the difference in the audio. We need to
> come up with a viable solution to send digital full 15k
> audio via AM.

I don't know about you, but I'd definitely take clean, crisp, clear 24-hour-a-day, groundwave- AND skywave-compatible, local- and DX-capable analog 10 kHz C-Quam AM Stereo audio over Highly Distorted Radio's wishy-washy, artificial-sounding, highly-artifacted daytime-only, groundwave-only, local-only 15 kHz AM IBUZ audio.
<P ID="signature">______________
It's a common mistake to not use punctuation in its proper form.
<a target="_blank" href=http://www.cgl.uwaterloo.ca/~csk/its.html>Be kind to your friend, the apostrophe.</a></P>
 
IBOC = It's Better Off Canceled

> I realize that HD Radio isn't perfect. But we are in the
> initial stage of a new technology. Think about HDTV and all
> that. Or Computers. They didn't start out perfect, but as
> time went on they were made more better.

IBOC has been in development since the early '90s. The first test transmissions were done in 1992, and by 1993, IBOC proponents were claiming that FCC approval was "right around the corner" and that receivers would be on store shelves by the end of the year. That was the "initial stage of a new technology" -- over a decade ago.

> HD Radio is in a
> similar mode right now, it's just starting out, and
> hopefully the issues will be delt with as time goes on,
> including the adjenct channel interference and the inability
> to run AM HD at night because of issues there too.

They've had 14 years to work out these "issues". How much longer are you going to wait? Many of these "issues" are inherent design features of the IBOC system and thus can never be eliminated unless the system is completely re-designed, thus turning existing HD Radio receivers into useless obsolete junk. The longer we take to recognize this fact, the worse shape the terrestrial radio industry will be in.
<P ID="signature">______________
It's a common mistake to not use punctuation in its proper form.
<a target="_blank" href=http://www.cgl.uwaterloo.ca/~csk/its.html>Be kind to your friend, the apostrophe.</a></P>
 
THE iBIQUITY SYSTEM IS JUST FINE.

> Digital radio is fine, it is just the iBiquity AM and FM
> systems that cause all the jamming and problems. Here is a
> sane alternative for FM that sounds just as good as HD
> Radio, and does not tresspass on your neighbors stations.
> www.dreinc.com
> As has been repeated very frequently by HD Radio supporters
> on this site, if the FM digital iBiquity system known as HD
> Radio, does not fit in the 200 kHz bandwidth allotted, HD
> Radio should not get final approval from the FCC. (HD Radio
> now only has interim FCC approval).
> I AGREE! The FM digital HD Radio signal takes up over 400
> kHz of bandwidth, and the FCC should not give HD FM (or AM)
> final approval.
> SEE, I AGREE!
> So what's all the rancor and argument about?


All we ask is that you prove what you say. You have not. Move on.

When someone asks you to prove anything, you walk away.

When you went and measured several representative stations to back up your claims, you did save copies of the scans, right?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

The FCC will approve IBOC.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
 
Re: IBOC = It's Better Off Canceled

> They've had 14 years to work out these "issues". How much
> longer are you going to wait? Many of these "issues" are
> inherent design features of the IBOC system and thus can
> never be eliminated unless the system is completely
> re-designed, thus turning existing HD Radio receivers into
> useless obsolete junk. The longer we take to recognize this
> fact, the worse shape the terrestrial radio industry will be
> in.

Hmm. This is strrange. I was recently told by one of the cheerleaders, in this forum, that "everyone" here was supportive of IBUZ, that only Supersound and I (nutjobs he called us) found fault with the system and its implementation. What caused almost "everyone" to have an overnight change of heart?

Or, God forbid, was he wrong? He actually used the term "everyone."

Since my questions are usually ignored or met with personal attacks I probably shouldn't ask this again, but I'd like an answer.

If the RIAA prevails either in Congress or the courts will the requirement of a digital radio flag obsolete existing receivers. According to the C/Net article it would make selling existing receivers without the flag illegal. I know, directly from Kenwood, that their receivers will not be upgradable via software. Would a digital flag mute audio if the receiver doesn't include whatever Congress may mandate?

Rich
 
Re: THE iBIQUITY SYSTEM IS JUST FINE.

> The FCC will approve IBOC.

The FCC will approve FM IBOC, but AM is another story. There's just too many problems with the AM system to approve it.
 
Re: IBOC = It's Better Off Canceled

> If the RIAA prevails either in Congress or the courts will
> the requirement of a digital radio flag obsolete existing
> receivers. According to the C/Net article it would make
> selling existing receivers without the flag illegal. I know,
> directly from Kenwood, that their receivers will not be
> upgradable via software. Would a digital flag mute audio if
> the receiver doesn't include whatever Congress may mandate?


Excellenmt question, and unfortunately I don't have an answer.

What I also want to know is, what purpose does this flag serve? To keep people from making perfect carbon copies of the IBOC broadcasts? If that's the case, the designers of this flag system better not hold their breath. If there are "bright" people who can come up with this technology, history has shown there are almost always "bright" people who can dismantle it.

Remember the "green ink on a CD"?
 
Re: IBOC = It's Better Off Canceled

> > They've had 14 years to work out these "issues". How much
>
> > longer are you going to wait? Many of these "issues" are
> > inherent design features of the IBOC system and thus can
> > never be eliminated unless the system is completely
> > re-designed, thus turning existing HD Radio receivers into
>
> > useless obsolete junk. The longer we take to recognize
> this
> > fact, the worse shape the terrestrial radio industry will
> be
> > in.
>
> Hmm. This is strrange. I was recently told by one of the
> cheerleaders, in this forum, that "everyone" here was
> supportive of IBUZ, that only Supersound and I (nutjobs he
> called us) found fault with the system and its
> implementation. What caused almost "everyone" to have an
> overnight change of heart?
>
> Or, God forbid, was he wrong? He actually used the term
> "everyone."
>
> Since my questions are usually ignored or met with personal
> attacks I probably shouldn't ask this again, but I'd like an
> answer.
>
> If the RIAA prevails either in Congress or the courts will
> the requirement of a digital radio flag obsolete existing
> receivers. According to the C/Net article it would make
> selling existing receivers without the flag illegal. I know,
> directly from Kenwood, that their receivers will not be
> upgradable via software. Would a digital flag mute audio if
> the receiver doesn't include whatever Congress may mandate?
>
> Rich
>

Where did I say "everyone here is supportive of IBOC", or even "only the two of you" found fault? In fact, I conceded that AM IBOC was flawed. Please point to the post where I said the above, because if I did, I was wrong, and I should correct it.

If you can't, should I assume that it's your "sarcasm" at work?
<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
 
Re: THE iBIQUITY SYSTEM IS JUST FINE.

> > The FCC will approve IBOC.
>
> The FCC will approve FM IBOC, but AM is another story.
> There's just too many problems with the AM system to approve
> it.
>


Agreed.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
 
Implications of the RIAA Digital Flag

> Excellenmt question, and unfortunately I don't have an
> answer.
>
> What I also want to know is, what purpose does this flag
> serve? To keep people from making perfect carbon copies of
> the IBOC broadcasts? If that's the case, the designers of
> this flag system better not hold their breath. If there are
> "bright" people who can come up with this technology,
> history has shown there are almost always "bright" people
> who can dismantle it.
>
> Remember the "green ink on a CD"?

Since there's no form of broadcasting that's CD Quality I don't understand how they expect to stop people from simply making copies from the analog outputs. If kids find 128Kbps MP3 acceptable listening quality why bother concerning oneself with a digital copy? The biggest issue for me would be the artifacts from the cascaded codecs. For satellite radio I would assume three: the compressed digital storage, the satellite codec and the MP3 copy that ends up on the iPod.

The real concern should be CD and DVD copying. The DVD CSS code was cracked a few days of its release.

Rich
 
Re: Let's be fair about this-THE iBIQUITY SYSTEM IS DEFECTIVE.

> Most RF devices have SOME energy out of band...that is why
> we filter the power amp outputs. And the filtering is only
> required to knock the out of band energy down aprox 80 db,
> maximum.
_____________

Although for analog FM, r-f filtering is needed for suppression of carrier harmonics, only. It is not used/needed to meet the occupied bandwidth spec (analog mask).

Some early implementations of hybrid FM+HD systems needed a high-level bandpass filter to meet the mask for the total radiated waveform. More recent systems use "active pre-correction" in low-power r-f stages to eliminate the need for the mask filter.
 
Enter DRM? (Re: Let's be fair about this-THE iBIQUITY SYSTEM IS DEFECTIVE.)

Yes, you're right, I'd prefer AM Stereo to AM HD.

However, I am not against any digital broadcasting scheme that would actually make AM sound better without jamming adjacent stations, ruining analog AM reception, and destroying AM's long-distance skywave reception qualities.

From what I've read, DRM (Digital Radio Mondiale) does these things for Medium Wave (530 kHz - 1700 kHz) AM and Long Wave AM. I don't know if it can comfortably co-exist on the same frequency with an analog signal, but the FCC has granted AM stations dual frequencies before, as when the expanded AM band first opened up.

This could also solve the receiver price problem, because DRM is also used in Europe (and is being tested on some Mexican AM stations as well). There is a larger market for DRM receivers than just the US, as is the case for HD receivers. Has anyone ever conducted DRM test transmissions in the US? -- JasonW

> > Here is a
> > sane alternative for FM that sounds just as good as HD
> > Radio, and does not tresspass on your neighbors stations.
> > www.dreinc.com
>
> NOOOOOOOO!! And here is why...DRE pulled out of, what is now
> Ibiquity but kept it's finaincial interest in it, so they
> have no incentive to follow thru to make sure that FMExtra
> prevails. In doing so, they want over 9 grand for their
> technology. Cost recovery is one thing but come on!
>
> > As has been repeated very frequently by HD Radio
> supporters
> > on this site, if the FM digital iBiquity system known as
> HD
> > Radio, does not fit in the 200 kHz bandwidth allotted, HD
> > Radio should not get final approval from the FCC. (HD
> Radio
> > now only has interim FCC approval).
>
> Yeah but any noise is on and un-used channel, not that that
> makes it right! How the hell Ibiquity is able to hold a
> monopoly on this is beyond me.
> A few points simply cause we are at the top of the page
> now...
> The biggest need is getting the least attention...AM. We are
> providing a solution to a problem that doesn't exist;
> digital delivery on FM is not a fix, it complicates the
> problem which is reduced TSL due to other mediums and we
> need to address the content.
> Why are we trying to reinvent the wheel? We have been
> shooting digital for years, from POTS codecs all the way up
> to sats. Now, because one company seems to have the FCC by
> the short hairs, we must adopt this flawed technology???
> WTF??? Again, we need to address AM first because it sounds
> the worst. I realize the AM stereo people are going to jump
> in here but be for real, 10k is 10k and whether it is stereo
> or not, you hear the difference in the audio. We need to
> come up with a viable solution to send digital full 15k
> audio via AM.
> FMExtra sounds real good but it too ignores th AM signal.
>
 
Re: Enter DRM? (Re: Let's be fair about this-THE iBIQUITY SYSTEM IS DEFECTIVE.)

> Yes, you're right, I'd prefer AM Stereo to AM HD.
>
> However, I am not against any digital broadcasting scheme
> that would actually make AM sound better without jamming
> adjacent stations, ruining analog AM reception, and
> destroying AM's long-distance skywave reception qualities.
>
> From what I've read, DRM (Digital Radio Mondiale) does these
> things for Medium Wave (530 kHz - 1700 kHz) AM and Long Wave
> AM. I don't know if it can comfortably co-exist on the same
> frequency with an analog signal, but the FCC has granted AM
> stations dual frequencies before, as when the expanded AM
> band first opened up.

I think the biggest thing that would hold up DRM is that it can't co-exist with analog, which means that you'd have to have two frequencies. At that point, you might as well use iBiquity. I don't know much about DRM, except that many think that it's superior to iBiquity.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
 
Re: Enter DRM? (Re: Let's be fair about this-THE iBIQUITY SYSTEM IS DEFECTIVE.)

That's what I figured. That also explains why DRM still seems to be restricted to occasional test transmissions. They have to turn the analog off while using DRM and don't want to drive away their much, much more numerous analog listeners.

The AM HD situation looks like neophilia (adopting new things just because they are new) in action--AM is being pushed to go digital just to be digital, whether it is actually better than analog or not.

Given the current situation, I'd rather see the FCC mandate C-QUAM AM Stereo for all AM stations (it was mandated for expanded band AM stations and may still be) and all AM receivers. It could be broadcast 24/7, there would be no IBOC hash, and people with monoaural receivers could receive it in mono with no problems. -- JasonW

> > Yes, you're right, I'd prefer AM Stereo to AM HD.
> >
> > However, I am not against any digital broadcasting scheme
> > that would actually make AM sound better without jamming
> > adjacent stations, ruining analog AM reception, and
> > destroying AM's long-distance skywave reception qualities.
>
> >
> > From what I've read, DRM (Digital Radio Mondiale) does
> these
> > things for Medium Wave (530 kHz - 1700 kHz) AM and Long
> Wave
> > AM. I don't know if it can comfortably co-exist on the
> same
> > frequency with an analog signal, but the FCC has granted
> AM
> > stations dual frequencies before, as when the expanded AM
> > band first opened up.
>
> I think the biggest thing that would hold up DRM is that it
> can't co-exist with analog, which means that you'd have to
> have two frequencies. At that point, you might as well use
> iBiquity. I don't know much about DRM, except that many
> think that it's superior to iBiquity.
>
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom