More problems for in dash IBOC radios

[KB1OKL]

Well 'KB1OKL' let me ask you this: just how is it supposed to work? Spell it out. And what exactly are those '10 times in the last 7 years'? Educate me please.

As far as being 'needlessly complex and troublesome' I'd venture to guess a lot of people said that about FM stereo as it came in to use some 50 odd years ago.

It'd be very easy to look at any manner of evolving technology and to make the same claim.

How is it supposed to work? It should have at least the same coverage area as analog and we all know there just ain't no comparison, I had to put an FM Yagi antenna on my roof to get the same coverage in IBOC as I do in analog, was it worth it? My dust covered Sony HD tuner is the answer to that question. The difference in sound quality is infinitesimal and the SOS is played on the secondary channels.

 

[landtuna]

The lack of range should have killed IBOC and digital TV right out of the box.

 

[Ai4i]

Mono goes farthur than stereo, monochrome outdistances coloUr, and everything digital needs a higher s/n ratio than anal ogue.
If you want range, NBVM-SSB is unbeatable.

 

[Savage]

Hey Doug - haven't you heard? "Occam's Razor" has been suspended in all cases involving HD Radio for the simple reason why there is never "a simplest explanation!"

And I do agree with you that the Subaru guy is engaging in a little wishful thinking by positing that the disparity between analog and digital HD on their radios is because the digital sounds oh-so-much-more pristine. From what I hear about the Subaru problem, when the change occurs, it is very startling - it could actually cause driver distraction, involuntary reaction and possible accidents. So it's not a benign minor issue.

And please, please....give it a break with the comparison with FM Stereo. Find me one guy who has ever characterized FM Stereo as "needlessly complex and troublesome" and I'll buy the next round for you. Believe me, I was there. We broadcasters in the 1960s thought FM Stereo was the coolest thing ever. And we were right: to this day this development of Armstrong-Zenith-GE is arguably the most successful and robust system in broadcasting history, still in dominant useage worldwide. That's to be distinguished from....freakin' IBOC. If you can find people outside the US even aware of HD Radio, they usually treat it as the unfunny joke most US broadcasters do.

 

[rtc]

The Fix for mobile HD Dropouts:

http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/59692/going-ham-2/

 

[landtuna]

Mono goes farthur than stereo, monochrome outdistances coloUr, and everything digital needs a higher s/n ratio than analogue.
If you want range, NBVM-SSB is unbeatable.

What I meant, of course, is that digital solutions should have provided at least the same range as their analog counterparts, not less, and especially not greatly less.

SSB is great for RTTY or CW from SFO to SE Asia but for public broadcasting.....not so much.

 

[Uncle Fester]

@Savage--you got me there. That's cool that you worked in broadcast engineering 50 years ago--and are still doing it today. More power to you! Anyone I know of that age is long since retired. Obviously I can't back up my supposition that there were those that thought FM stereo was 'needlessly troublesome' any more than you can back up your statement that no one outside of the U.S. even knows what HD radio is. I still don't agree that HD is 'needlessly complex and troublesome' but we're each entitled to our opinions, right? No point in arguing that.

By the way, plenty of people have HD radios in their cars and don't even know about them. That's kind of an indictment of the marketing of the system, I know. A whole different topic.


I could not tell you the actual amount of power needed for IBOC to make it 'equivalent' to analog in terms of coverage, but knowing that the power for IBOC is (typically) 1/100th the power of the analog signal, I never expected it to be the same, or nearly the same. It's really kind of an 'apples vs oranges' comparison anyway. Still, I think I have more realistic expectations than most of the readers of this message board. Sure--it would have been great, right out of the gate, if the day that IBOC transmitters were all turned up that those who installed them knew the technology 100%, and that everything worked perfectly. It would be great if this new technology (at the time) allowed for the same amount of information to be transmitted with only 1% of the power, matching the same coverage area of the analog signal.

Did any of you really expect for the coverage to be the same with that amount of power?

Naturally one could ask 'Well why bother then, with that small amount of power?' If memory serves (going back to the late 90s) U.S. broadcasters opted to use our current spectrum for digital transmissions (as opposed to what the Canadians did). Obviously this necessitated certain compromises--the bandwidth of the transmissions, and especially the power, needed to be limited.

So--the results we now see are from the application of a standard technology (OFMD) limited in power and bandwidth due to interference considerations. Basically we got what we asked for.

The question I would put to anyone that has read this far is this: what system would you propose for digital radio, and what makes you think it would work better than what we already have? Don't forget the Canadian DAB system--used different spectrum, and already turned off--and keep in mind that spectrum is even more valuable now than it was in the late 90's.

I look forward to reading all the answers.

 

[Uncle Fester]

oops--I meant 'OFDM' of course.

 

[local oscillator]

Savage is so right -- FM stereo was (and is) the coolest thing ever. Back then, some of us even went crazy over its predecessor -- AM/FM simulcast stations that put the left channel on one and the right channel on the other. Kind of a backdoor way at the desired result, but it sure worked better than HD Radio!

Anyway, I think that proponents of digital radio in all its forms are wrongly presupposing that digital radio is somehow automatically "better." Makes me think about all the fuss over the digital wristwatches and speedometers of a few decades ago, they were "better," too! Analog and digital ideas compete in the same world economy. Sometimes digital is better, sometimes analog; the marketplace decides. So far, digital radio generally, and HD Radio specifically have failed. If a digital radio system comes along that is truly better -- hey, I'm there. But analog FM has set such a high bar, it's going to be difficult. And in the long run, I think that HD Radio has probably somewhat hurt the chances of marketplace acceptance for digital radio in the future. Once bitten, twice shy.

 

[diymedia]

Did any of you really expect for the coverage to be the same with that amount of power?

HD proponents did; go back and read the FCC record on the rulemaking and you'll see they promised the moon. The object here was to gain regulatory approval of HD technology and preclude any consideration of alternatives. On that front, mission accomplished in spades.

The question I would put to anyone that has read this far is this: what system would you propose for digital radio, and what makes you think it would work better than what we already have? Don't forget the Canadian DAB system--used different spectrum, and already turned off--and keep in mind that spectrum is even more valuable now than it was in the late 90's.

Perhaps the best digital radio transition is not to have one at all – as you highlight, Canada tried and failed in a digital radio transition (and even had a brief affair with HD), and their radio industry still stands. If this is not a workable option, I'd like to see the exploration of alternative technologies, of which DRM comes to mind. Not because I think DRM is a savior, but because it's gotten absolutely no meaningful attention from anyone in the U.S. and if we're going to be serious about effecting a digital transition I think we should consider all viable options.





[/quote]

 

[Tom Wells]

Any in-band digital solution has no choice but harm the host analog signal and/or the adjacents.
The best solution would have been to have every analog allocation "mapped" to another frequency offset by a specific amount,
and in "new" spectrum.

AM MW's digital component should have been mapped to 2.0 to 3.8 mhz, the FM broadcast band should
have been mapped into the 45 mhz range, or some other under-utilized spectrum.
I can't believe the ITU hasn't already made such a decision for worldwide application.

It's not as though digital audio transmission is so new that the ITU couldn't have already made some allocations.

Perhaps it's just another example of pretending that competition will always bring the best result.
Many times, it can be proven that a cooperative solution does the most good.

What we got here in the US was the most divisive possible solution, that permitted the greatest amount of disruption,
mostly to the benefit of corporations over natural persons.

I still miss how clean and uncluttered FM used to sound, particularly in the car.
Where I live, FM constantly has spits and flutters as airplane reflections cause cancellation, allowing the FM iboc sideband
noise to intrude, making city grade signals sound like semi-dx did 30 years ago.

I did notice the cancellation noises/etc when I moved near the airport, before iboc came along, but it wasn't obnoxious.

I actually get a lot less noise on AM than FM. And I'm using a mono-only Motorola receiver in the car.
I used to be able to listen to many signals across the lake, from Michigan.
Not that I wanted to very much, but now it's hard to listen to signals from 10 miles away.
Oh, I can listen, but I choose not to listen to something where I have to hear so much extraneous noise.
If I wanted so much noise, I could be listening to shortwave instead, if there were anything left to listen to.
That's unacceptable.

 

[local oscillator]

Ah, yes. IBiquity's partner in wiping out Radio as we've known and liked it: the FCC. This outfit isn't satisfied to merely defy the laws of physics and stuff 10 lbs. into a 5 lb. bag, it wants to make sure there are 10 lbs. in every 5 lb. bag. By the time they're done with it, the FM band is going to sound like a Class C AM channel at midnight. Oh, boy -- I can't wait for all those 2003 back-logged translator apps to be resolved, and then there's the LPFM window in October. How about fast-tracking some new classes of LPFM -- say LP50, LP10, LP5, LP1, and LP0.5, so as to make sure that the clutter is absolutely maximized? Or better yet, how about just giving Part 15 blanket approval to all the FM "transmitters" on eBay?

I think we broadcasters really need to ask ourselves, "Is the FCC intentionally trying to kill off broadcasting in favor of the Internet?" The evidence points to "yes."

Whew! Am I off-topic, or what?

 

[KB1OKL]

The question I would put to anyone that has read this far is this: what system would you propose for digital radio, and what makes you think it would work better than what we already have? Don't forget the Canadian DAB system--used different spectrum, and already turned off--and keep in mind that spectrum is even more valuable now than it was in the late 90's.

I look forward to reading all the answers.

Doug, your question begs this question: Why should we have a digital radio system at all? Why do we need one? Every audiophile knows that good old analog records sound more natural than CD's but.. CD's are a hell of a lot more practical, they don't wear out, they don't skip, they're small, they can be played in a car bouncing all over the road etc, etc, etc. Contrast that to IBOC radio, what are the advantages over analog radio? The one advantage I can think of (which doesn't matter in a car anyway) is a lowered noise floor, the disadvantages it has such as it's lousy range and the fact that it invades neighboring channels' territory far outweigh any dubious advantage it has over analog. Dab is also failing all over the world, the forced digital radio transition in Britain is not going very well either:

http://radiomagonline.com/digital_radio/uk-analog-shutdown-doubt-0203/

There is no reason for digital radio, some jokers thought they were going to reinvent radio and make a fortune, oh well.

 

[TheBigA]

I think we broadcasters really need to ask ourselves, "Is the FCC intentionally trying to kill off broadcasting in favor of the Internet?" The evidence points to "yes."

Since the FCC has no regulatory role over the internet, and Congress is determined to prevent them from having any regulatory role over the internet, I'd say the answer is a definite no. The FCC has every reason to keep the regulatory fees coming from broadcasters. It's partly what keeps their budget alive.

 

[local oscillator]

I think we broadcasters really need to ask ourselves, "Is the FCC intentionally trying to kill off broadcasting in favor of the Internet?" The evidence points to "yes."

Since the FCC has no regulatory role over the internet, and Congress is determined to prevent them from having any regulatory role over the internet, I'd say the answer is a definite no. The FCC has every reason to keep the regulatory fees coming from broadcasters. It's partly what keeps their budget alive.

Good point. They do like the fees. They just don't like to provide anything in return -- like maintaining the integrity of the broadcast bands. There was a time, long before the imposition of regulatory fees, when the FCC thought it was their job -- in fact, one of their main reasons for being -- to protect the integrity of the bands. These days, they trash the broadcasting bands while collecting regulatory fees, yet work themselves into a frenzy over broadband -- gratis!?! Hmmm . . .

 

[TheBigA]

Good point. They do like the fees. They just don't like to provide anything in return -- like maintaining the integrity of the broadcast bands.

Kind of like radio owners. They like to make money and not provide anything in return. Right?

 

[local oscillator]

Good point. They do like the fees. They just don't like to provide anything in return -- like maintaining the integrity of the broadcast bands.

Kind of like radio owners. They like to make money and not provide anything in return. Right?

Apples and oranges. I agree that many owners (in particular the large groups) shoot themselves in the foot on a regular basis by not doing THEIR jobs, but in the end they will have to answer to the marketplace (which would unfortunately hurt the rest of the industry in the process). The FCC, on the other hand, answers only to the Administration directly and Congress indirectly, neither of which (in my opinion) gives a damn about radio broadcasting and sees it as "so last century." The result is that the FCC is pretty much left to its own devices as long as it funds itself and provides auction proceeds to the General Fund -- the result for radio broadcasting being somewhere between destruction and neglect. I do absolutely agree that many of the large groups and their front man, the NAB, are complicit in the current state of affairs. I would argue that the greatest threats to Radio as we have known it are not Pandora, SiriusXM, iPods, and the Internet; but Consolidation, HD Radio, the NAB, and the FCC.

Getting back to my original point by analogy -- radio companies are like teams in a game; they will win or lose depending on their abilities. The marketplace will decide. The FCC should be a fair and impartial arbiter on the field protecting the integrity of the game. Unfortunately, at this point in time, many of the teams and most of the officials are incompetent. Sad.

 

[TheBigA]

I would argue that the greatest threats to Radio as we have known it are not Pandora, SiriusXM, iPods, and the Internet; but Consolidation, HD Radio, the NAB, and the FCC.

The greatest threat to "radio as we have known it" is time. Nothing stays the same. "Radio as we have known it" is not the same as radio as our grandparents knew it. The future won't be like the past.

 

[local oscillator]

I would argue that the greatest threats to Radio as we have known it are not Pandora, SiriusXM, iPods, and the Internet; but Consolidation, HD Radio, the NAB, and the FCC.

The greatest threat to "radio as we have known it" is time. Nothing stays the same. "Radio as we have known it" is not the same as radio as our grandparents knew it. The future won't be like the past.

Given that time frame, I agree. My "radio as we have known it" comment was meant to go back only to the recent past, not our grandparents' time. In fact, much of my grandparents' "time" preceded broadcast radio!

Change is indeed the only certainty.

 

[TheBigA]

My "radio as we have known it" comment was meant to go back only to the recent past, not our grandparents' time. In fact, much of my grandparents' "time" preceded broadcast radio!

My comment was that radio in the 80s was not like radio in the 40s. Therefore, radio today should not be like radio in the 80s. The audience has changed, the marketplace has changed, the music has changed, and the technology has changed. In fact, one of the biggest enemies of "radio as we have known it" is the lack of new devices that incorporate AM & FM. The electronics manufacturers even refuse to incorporate FM in cell phones. You didn't have that antagonism 30 years ago.