• 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

"Minimal Interference to Analog Seen in Power Hike"

A

audioguy

All--

Just received the latest issue of Radio World Engineering Extra. There is a "white paper" on the above topic on the front page.

In the credits, the authors (Steve Densmore and Russ Mundschenk) "wish to thank the staff of iBiquity Digital Corp., Columbia, MD for their support and assistance is (sic) preparing this paper".

I'll bet.

This ought to make interesting reading over the holidays...
 
I read it like the propaganda piece it was. RW should be ashamed to print such rubbish IMHO. Clearly it was very one-sided in favor of iBiquity.
 
Radio World lately has definitely taken a left-turn in editorial stance in favor of HD Radio. Editor Paul McLane has made no secret of the fact he's bought into the rubbish that "radio needs to be digital to survive." He also recently ran a lengthy and adoring tribute to HD bootlicker Cris Alexander. After reading it, I wanted to write - jeez, Paul and Cris - "go get a room already."

I suppose that this is self-preservation - NewBay Media is completely dependent upon ad revenue from the gear manufacturing firms, distributors and consultants who stand to make dough from HD Radio.

It doesn't change the bleak landscape for HD Radio. You can sit at your computer while the winter winds drift snow outside your window and pine for a warm summer day all you want. All the adjectives you type about sunshine and warm breezes don't change the reality outside.

Over and over, for more than five years now, incessant hype has utterly failed to propel the destructive scam sham known as "HD Radio" to anything approaching objective success.
 
Hey, I would just like to remind the transmitter and antenna manufacturers that they'll probably sell a lot more new gear if the BMC Channel 5/6 digital radio proposal is adopted instead of the 10 dB IBOC power increase, especially if expanded use of single frequency networks is adopted. Let's think; how many more cellular telephone sites are in use today, compared with the former IMTS approach? This would be a "win-win" scenario for equipment suppliers (and trade publications like Radio World) as well as broadcaster and the general public.

I just read the "propaganda piece" online; it's mainly a rehash of the test report iBiquity filed with the FCC last summer. However, in the RWEE article, the writers neglected to mention that the tests on WKCI, WCSX, and KOST were conducted between January 22 and March 2 of 2007 and each "cherry-picked" location was surveyed for about a week. Which raises a question: To those of you familiar with FM signal propagation (either as broadcasters or devoted listeners), what time of year is noted for "tropo skip" and coverage enhancement? If you've worked as CE of an FM station, when does the GM usually complain loudest about co-channel interference? I'll bet it's during the late summer, not in the middle of winter.

Figure 7 of the article, with its "perfect circles", oversimplifies the real world of first-adjacent IBOC interference. First, there are hundreds of short-spaced stations (particularly in densely-populated markets) that don't meet this level of contour protection. Also, maximum interference doesn't always occur at the point where the contours "touch"; - the actual zones of objectionable interference depend greatly on terrain anomalies -- but you already knew that!

Much more testing is needed before we begin to think about allowing this power increase. We can save a lot of time AND achieve better end results by moving forward with the BMC proposal.
 
Good points, Freebird. Another fresh point re: "minimal interference" that needs to be brought out:

In food-for-thought-land, how far do you think you'd get with the FCC if you filed an application for a new station, major or minor change, where your engineering statement casually dismissed the "minimal interference" to existing services which would result if your app was granted?

Ummm....most engineering statements filed as a matter of record with the Commission recite "NO harmful interference will result from grant" of the instant application. Unless the consulting engineer doesn't really care much about a later malpractice claim, that is.

WHY are "certain parties" (guess which ones) in the radio industry so tolerant of "minimal interference" to be added to already-congested radio broadcast bands? There has been much moaning and gnashing of teeth on this board and elsewhere about how AM is such an interference cesspool because of stations being authorized "which never should have been." With the translatorization and LP-populating of FM, AM's allocation scenario post-1980 or so is already being re-enacted. It's ironic how the same pundits who beat the drum for HD Radio and its proposed 10db digital increase are the same ones decrying increased interference.

Just a TAD inconsistent in your arguments, HD people. (sarcasm mode off)
 
I agree with Freebird’s analogy in Reply #3. At this point, IBOC interference [on FM] is negligible in most places, but let’s just remember the power of a mere 3db [not to mention 10db]... I’m not a certified geek, but this proposal sounds INSANE. Remember that margerine commercial from the 70s: "You can't fool Mother Nature."
 
There are many inconsistencies in the arguments coming from the HD Radio camp.

Remember a couple of years ago when they recommended that the analog audio bandwidth on AM be restricted to 5 kHz because it would reduce adjacent channel interference? HA! What about those NASTY OFDM sidebands... those are the problem, not the analog signal! But it definitely made the analog signal sound dull and lifeless so that when you switch to HD (assuming you can), the audio sounds "so much better" (gasp)!

Now, take a look at the extremely unrealistic triangular representation of the analog FM signal in Figure 1 of the subject article. Does anyone on this board think their signal looks like that? How long will it be before NAB tells engineers to roll off the analog signal at 10 kHz, or even 8 kHz... so it also sounds bad in comparison to "Hi-Def"?

And speaking of that... have you noticed that there is a push to refer to HD on the air as "high definition" radio? :eek:

Do these people take us for simpletons?
 
"Do these people take us for simpletons?"

Yup! Actually The NAB, National Association of blunders, has to do something to make themselves appear relevant.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom