Morning Edition "puff piece" on "HD radio" yesterday

[radioskeptic]

NPR delivered a real lump of coal yesterday to anyone who cares about the future of radio. It was a puff piece on “HD radio” on “Morning Edition. You can hear it here:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6672638

The story made no mention of the controversy within the broadcast industry, with small local stations, especially AM’s worrying about having their signals jammed by first- or second-adjacent flame-throwers. It didn’t mention the reduced coverage areas of the “HD” FM signals. And of course, it didn’t mention iNiquity's exorbitant licensing fees. (But then, the cartel lobbied the CPB to give major NPR stations grants for "HD"!)

Well, we can’t expect a general reporter like Renée Montagne to know about all that. She was assigned this story from the business/media desk, and was pointed to Tom Taylor of Inside Radio (which is owned by Clear Channel) for a Panglossian soundbite on the future of “HD.”

What we can do is write to NPR to let them know that there's a controversy about this technology, no mater how successfully iNiquity and its stakeholders have been able to suppress coverage of it in the general media.

But you can only e-mail them through their contact page: http://www.npr.org/contact. (For that reason, I recommend that you compose your letter on word and save it -- or in your e-mail account, and then send it to yourself for safekeeping -- and then copy and paste it into their compose pad, so that you'll have a copy for your files.)

I doubt any of us could make the case in few enough words to have something read in their “letters” segment this Thursday morning; but if enough of us write, they’ll know that there is some controversy here, and they may consider doing a story about it.

(BTW, there’s an interesting post on the Phila. board this morning from an LPFM owner in Bridgeton, NJ: IBOC Digital doesn't compare to FMEXTRA.COM . http://www.radio-info.com/smf/index.php/topic,58409.0.html
Take a look at it.)

 

[Mike Walker]

Far from a "puff piece", it's a look at HD Radio from NPR's perspective. Don't forget that NPR is distributed almost entirely via FM stations, University owned and well funded, many of whom have already received grants to convert to HD. And they're proving how well it can work.

The concept of "multicasting" came from NPR's "Tomorrow Radio" project, and provided the "power app" necessary for HD Radio's growth.

The AM system has some problems. They'll be solved in time (I believe). But the FM system is working very well, demonstrably well for FM stations across the country. And FM HD coverage (in my experience) is both as great (in terms of distance), and as robust as clean FM stereo reception. In other words, if you can't get the HD, you weren't going to be able to get a clean stereo signal either.

A netork carried almost entirely by FM stations focusing primarily on the FM angle. Geez, what a scandal!

 

[700WLW]

That was absolutely a puff-piece, as usual, and no mention of the common problems with reception and adjacent-channel interference, one gets with HD Radio.

 

[OKCRadioGuy]

What AM needs is either channel 6 TV (in digital mode only!) or if we're stuck with in-band for AM, let's at least make the radios were they'll get DRM also so in 10 yrs we can get ourselves out of this mess when some stations will want to go completely digital.

 

[700WLW]

What AM needs is either channel 6 TV (in digital mode only!) or if we're stuck with in-band for AM, let's at least make the radios were they'll get DRM also so in 10 yrs we can get ourselves out of this mess when some stations will want to go completely digital.

That is highly doubtful - digital radio is struggling in the UK and failing in Canada, and there is no reason to believe otherwise in the US.

 

[SUPERCASTER]

NPR delivered a real lump of coal yesterday to anyone who cares about the future of radio. It was a puff piece on “HD radio” on “Morning Edition. You can hear it here:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6672638

The story made no mention of the controversy within the broadcast industry, with small local stations, especially AM’s worrying about having their signals jammed by first- or second-adjacent flame-throwers. It didn’t mention the reduced coverage areas of the “HD” FM signals. And of course, it didn’t mention iNiquity's exorbitant licensing fees. (But then, the cartel lobbied the CPB to give major NPR stations grants for "HD"!)

Well, we can’t expect a general reporter like Renée Montagne to know about all that. She was assigned this story from the business/media desk, and was pointed to Tom Taylor of Inside Radio (which is owned by Clear Channel) for a Panglossian soundbite on the future of “HD.”

What we can do is write to NPR to let them know that there's a controversy about this technology, no mater how successfully iNiquity and its stakeholders have been able to suppress coverage of it in the general media.

But you can only e-mail them through their contact page: http://www.npr.org/contact. (For that reason, I recommend that you compose your letter on word and save it -- or in your e-mail account, and then send it to yourself for safekeeping -- and then copy and paste it into their compose pad, so that you'll have a copy for your files.)

I doubt any of us could make the case in few enough words to have something read in their “letters” segment this Thursday morning; but if enough of us write, they’ll know that there is some controversy here, and they may consider doing a story about it.

(BTW, there’s an interesting post on the Phila. board this morning from an LPFM owner in Bridgeton, NJ: IBOC Digital doesn't compare to FMEXTRA.COM . http://www.radio-info.com/smf/index.php/topic,58409.0.html
Take a look at it.)

The LPFM owner's post on the Philly board seems to have vanished faster then an HD radio signal!

 

[clouseau]

The LPFM owner's post on the Philly board seems to have vanished faster then an HD radio signal!

Tin foil hats aside, It was posted to several boards including Engineering, Philly (I hate that Abbreviation) and at least one other one.(I think)

That and it was basically a plea to do FMExtra instead of HD. Frankly, I might try both if I had more money than sense. FMExtra is like CamD. I really Really REALLY want to believe, but WHERE ARE THE RADIOS???

Clouseau.

 

[Kelly]

Not that I am defending nor promoting the whole IBOC HD radio implementation, but again those who claim that FM analog coverage is reduced with IBOC sidebands are flat-out wrong. I've seen, and participated in testing both band-versions. Whereas it is true that the ability to receive a FM-HD signal is usually within the 70dbU contour, it has absolutely no effect on the analog demodulation.

The AM IBOC sidebands generally increase the fringe-area coverage, (digital demod), in the neighborhood of 3dB. That is one of the concerns of exceeding the night RSS contours with the digital sidebands.

 

[SUPERCASTER]

Not that I am defending nor promoting the whole IBOC HD radio implementation, but again those who claim that FM analog coverage is reduced with IBOC sidebands are flat-out wrong. I've seen, and participated in testing both band-versions. Whereas it is true that the ability to receive a FM-HD signal is usually within the 70dbU contour, it has absolutely no effect on the analog demodulation.

The AM IBOC sidebands generally increase the fringe-area coverage, (digital demod), in the neighborhood of 3dB. That is one of the concerns of exceeding the night RSS contours with the digital sidebands.

First-

Not that I am defending nor promoting the whole IBOC HD radio implementation, but again those who claim that FM analog coverage is reduced with IBOC sidebands are flat-out wrong.

I have not seen anyone here, ever, claim that analog coverage of the transmitting HD station is reduced on this HD radio board. Where where did you see that?
I have seen frequent complaints, and engineering studies that prove HD radio interferes with other stations by buzzing on adjacent channels, and reduces the number of stations received.

Second-

it has absolutely no effect on the analog demodulation.

Not true.
As shown, several times, elsewhere on this HD board, by reputable engineering studies, and actual test equipment results, HD digital interferes with, and significantly reduces the stereo subcarrier signal to noise ratio, especially when broadcasting HD2, 3 signals. So the stereo noise HD radio seems to eliminate when the radio switches over to HD, is actually created by the station's own HD signal causing the poor analog stereo.
On AM, with most AM radio detectors, HD cuts the analog frequency response in half, and creates a hiss that is continuously heard on the analog audio, reducing the analog audio signal to noise ratio.
Your statements are therefore false.
Are you trying to serve up another HD promoter plate of "red herrings", or are you just mistaken?

Third-

The AM IBOC sidebands generally increase the fringe-area coverage, (digital demod), in the neighborhood of 3dB. That is one of the concerns of exceeding the night RSS contours with the digital sidebands.

No, the AM interfering digital noise is at least 3db worse then it should be in the secondary coverage area on adjacent channels. This does not help AM HD coverage which has proven to be reliable only within the AM HD station's city grade coverage area.

In short, HD Radio creates many more problems, even then it pretends to solve.
HD Radio is a problematic solution to imaginary analog listener dissatisfaction.

 

[Mike Walker]

I know the extra digital info is measurable as interference on FM. Measurable. But I would defy anyone to tell me BY LISTENING ALONE, using a high quality analog FM radio, which stations are HD, and which are not. I've tried. I can't. Others whom I respect, including guys who have spent their entire adult lives in rf engineering can't. Many of them were skeptics too, until they heard for themselves, and concluded "it works. It actually works! Great sound, and no audible interference." Quoting an engineer friend of mine I've known my entire radio career...33 years and counting).

I'm in a good place to judge interference. Nearly all fm reception at my house is "dx". Stations from 100 miles away, which are now adjacent to HD stations, still come in as well as they ever did (but if there is an adjacent signal, you may well not receive them in HD). There has been NO increased interference (on real radios), and no reduction of coverage in the real world (home component tuner, high quality portable, walkman, or expensive car stereo).

 

[700WLW]

I know the extra digital info is measurable as interference on FM. Measurable. But I would defy anyone to tell me BY LISTENING ALONE, using a high quality analog FM radio, which stations are HD, and which are not. I've tried. I can't. Others whom I respect, including guys who have spent their entire adult lives in rf engineering can't. Many of them were skeptics too, until they heard for themselves, and concluded "it works. It actually works! Great sound, and no audible interference." Quoting an engineer friend of mine I've known my entire radio career...33 years and counting).

I'm in a good place to judge interference. Nearly all fm reception at my house is "dx". Stations from 100 miles away, which are now adjacent to HD stations, still come in as well as they ever did (but if there is an adjacent signal, you may well not receive them in HD). There has been NO increased interference (on real radios), and no reduction of coverage in the real world (home component tuner, high quality portable, walkman, or expensive car stereo).

HD Radio/IBOC causes adjacent-channel interference (well-documented) and has only 60% the coverage of analog:

"RWOnline Commentary: IBOC Has Been a Mistake"

"As Mr. Conrad said, broadcasters' efforts to promote IBOC will only disappoint, and perhaps antagonize, a significant segment of the audience who find that the system doesn't deliver."

http://www.rwonline.com/pages/s.0044/t.357.html

 

[clouseau]

HD Radio/IBOC causes adjacent-channel interference (well-documented) and has only 60% the coverage of analog:

"RWOnline Commentary: IBOC Has Been a Mistake"

This is part of the problem with the methodology use by the Anto HD crowd. They repeat the same irrelevant claims and then claim to document them with a reference from a 4 month old commentary piece that they don't appear to have read.

The "Writer" of the original comentary was severly criticized when that piece came out for a variety of reasons, not the least of which was all the problem we have today with AM stereo. That's a convinently left out fact for anyone wondering if the writer of the commentary is credible. And the Conrad item is great.

"As Mr. Conrad said, broadcasters' efforts to promote IBOC will only disappoint, and perhaps antagonize, a significant segment of the audience who find that the system doesn't deliver."

The system doesn't deliver in this case. But if you know anything about Cleveland radio, It's not the system's fault. It's WCLVs fault.

Conrad runs WCLV which used to be on this stick

http://www.radio-locator.com/cgi-bin/pat?call=WFHM&service=FM&status=L&hours=U

But WCLV tought they could continue to do what they were doing and make a bunch of cash so they sold their FM, formed a foundation which gave them financial security and bought this station to run classical.

http://www.radio-locator.com/cgi-bin/pat?call=WKNR&service=AM&status=L&hours=D

A nice signal, but apparently they didn't think there would be any problem putting classical on AM after decades of stereo FM. Not surprisingly, The audience wasn't too thrilled. So in an effort to placate some of them they bought the station they're on now.

http://www.radio-locator.com/cgi-bin/pat?call=WCLV&service=FM&status=L&hours=U

And then since no one liked classical on AM they sold the AM station. Now if you actually look at the 104.9 version of WCLV you'll see it is a "Class A" fm station and doesn't cover Cleveland worth a darn. Never has - Never will.

My guess would be that they're very disappointed because they have conciously made a good portion of their prospective audience DX through their "Cashing in" their once great signal. Conrad and WCLV jaded? You bet. They've stuck it to their audience over the last few years and I'm sure they hear it in feedback every day. But it's not HD's fault. It's the money grab.

Clouseau

 

[700WLW]

"IBOC Coverage and Interference NAB Fall 2006"

http://www.radio-info.com/smf/index.php/topic,53607.0.html

 

[Mike Walker]

I've already said that measurements agree with your position. Real world experience does not. The FM HD system causes minimal interference IN THE REAL WORLD. That's MY experience, and the experience of many others who have investigated by LISTENING, and trying to hear problems. No link you post can erase evidence gained by people in the boondocks who receive magnificent HD reception, and whose analog reception isn't degraded one whit! Go ahead, post another link. Like that'll make a difference. I can post hard evidence...audio recorded from my HD radio at 80 miles that's pristine, and rock solid. And analog audio from WFDD Winston Salem, an analog FM station adjacent to an HD...WNCW (88.7) in Spindale NC. The presence of digital information from WNCW has NO impact on WFDD. None. It's clean as it ever was.

 

[clouseau]

"IBOC Coverage and Interference NAB Fall 2006"

http://www.radio-info.com/smf/index.php/topic,53607.0.html

Now you're quoting your own posts on this board. We've seen this report. You've shown us this report. In fact, there's a lot of positive info about HD in this report. I guess you missed these.

Testing shows that IBOC shows a “profound” improvement in multipath
rejection

In NRSC ticker testing, testers found nearly 1/5 as many audio
impairments for HD than for analog over the same path.

NRSC Laboratory tests showed that IBOC was significantly more robust
than analog in the presence of a co-channel interferer and IBOC could handle
a significant amount of Impulse noise that would impair FM Analog.

IBOC performed better than the Analog host station in the presence of a
single hybrid first-adjacent interferer and IBOC was “extremely more robust”
with regard to single or dual 2nd adjacent hybrid interferers.

IBOC receivers will exhibit full stereo under conditions when most analog
receivers have blended to monaural.


IBOC has additional data capacity – minimum 3-4 kbps, up to 35-36 kbps
when the main channel audio bit rate was reduced from 94 kbps to 64 kbps.

IBOC offers the possibility of OFDM synchronization, which could allow
IBOC boosters or single frequency networks.

IBOC brings the opportunity of Multicasting (Not part of NRSC Study) – the
most likely combination is where the main channel is reduced to 64 or 48 kbps
and the second channel HD2 runs 28 kbps or 48 kbps. There are now HD3
stations broadcasting.

NRSC study concludes that IBOC has similar coverage to Analog.

Now there are also some reasonable con points in the report as well. But to just throw out a link to a post you wrote, that you have to wade through to get a working link, to a report that's 50 pages long that's pretty technical and proclaim Oooooohh... Interference... is a little bit of a stretch. You keep claiming the sky is falling, but you just can't seem to find the evidence.

What's next, a shift back to your "Clear Channel can't program the majority of the HD stations (That they don't really own?)".

Or they're not making any money with it. (Even if it is required to be Non Comm at the moment)?

Or maybe "Struggling in the UK?" (By the way can anyone point me to a reference on this oft touted "Fact"?)

Clouseau

 

[radioskeptic]

About that disappearing post (Replies Nos. 5 and 6 above):

The LPFM owner's name is Joe Burke. His station's website is http://www.lift985.com, and you can e-mail him there at [email protected], Attention: Joe Burke.

 

[SUPERCASTER]

About that disappearing post (Replies Nos. 5 and 6 above):

The LPFM owner's name is Joe Burke. His station's website is http://www.lift985.com, and you can e-mail him there at [email protected], Attention: Joe Burke.

Thanks, radioskeptic. I'll visit his website. Perhaps he has posted something there.
Right now, the HD proponents are on another "HD FM causes no interference" radio sales campaign, in spite of all the evidence, and reports to the contrary.
The NAB claims little microwatt iPod and sat. radio FM converters, and LPFM stations, are causing severe, objectionable interference, but much higher powered signals that they generate don't.
Hypocrisy?
You bet!
Totally in denial?
That, too, and much worse.
Only others' signals cause interference, theirs never do, even at much greater power levels. It would be amazing, if it were not so pathetic.

 

[ElCheapo]

Thanks, radioskeptic. I'll visit his website. Perhaps he has posted something there.
Right now, the HD proponents are on another "HD FM causes no interference" radio sales campaign, in spite of all the evidence, and reports to the contrary.
The NAB claims little microwatt iPod and sat. radio FM converters, and LPFM stations, are causing severe, objectionable interference, but much higher powered signals that they generate don't.
Hypocrisy?
You bet!
Totally in denial?
That, too, and much worse.
Only others' signals cause interference, theirs never do, even at much greater power levels. It would be amazing, if it were not so pathetic.

Neither the NRSC nor the FCC have said HD Radio doesn't create interference - in fact, they have both said the technology has the potential to create some interference to stations rimshotting another market, however they have also said the benefits to the listening public outweigh the potential drawbacks.

I agree with them.

The NAB isn't objecting to properly designed satellite radios with FM transmitters - they're objecting to the ones that are improperly designed and have an output power that exceeds the legal limit for such devices - often by 10X or more.

The fear most broadcasters have of LPFMs is that they will utilize inferior equipment that will trash the band when it malfunctions.

 

[radioskeptic]

In response to Clouseau in Reply No. 11:

Robert Conrad certainly made a mistake back in 2001, but you got the details all wrong. If you had checked http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WCLV, you would have have had the AM station right (it was 1420), but there was much more to it. Let me give you the details.

It was a three-way swap involving Clear Channel, Salem and Conrad's Seaway. Salem had the broken-down 5-kw AM on 1420 in Cleveland and a Class B FM on 98.1 in Canton; Clear Channel owned the Class A on 104.9 in Lorain; and Seaway owned the full-powered Class B on 95.5 in Cleveland.

Salem wanted a full-powered B in Cleveland. Clear Channel, having just acquire Chancellor, was maxed out in the Cleveland market, and couldn't take on another station of any kind (or make a move-in of the Lorain station), but Canton was just far enough away that it wouldn't affect their ownership cap for Cleveland. And Conrad and his partners wanted money -- and, supposedly, a secure future for commercial classical radio in Cleveland.

So a deal was worked out to give 95.5 in Cleveland to Salem, 98.1 in Canton to CC, and the Lorain FM and the 5-kw Cleveland AM to Seaway.

In a Nov. 2, 2000 interview on the NPR program "Morning Edition," Conrad bragged that the value of WCLV's license was so great that he and his partners "were able to get two radio stations and a whole bunch of cash for it."

Yes, but did they get enough for it? Absolutely not. In fact, they got only $10.5 million in cash.

That same day (11/2/2000), the Cleveland Plain Dealer reported that the 95.5 license was worth about $45 million, while the Lorain station was worth only $8 million. And Salem had paid only $6.5 million for the 1420 AM license. in 1996.

So Conrad got snookerd. He got only $25 million for a station worth $45 million!

Then he set up a non-profit corporation loosely modeled on the one the Bullett sisters set up in Seattle to run KING-FM as a not-for-profit commercial classical station, with its earnings supporting the opera, the symphony and other classical music groups in that market. But the Bulletts gave their non-profit a prime quality Class C with a killer signal, not a Class A rimshot!

By the way, to be (perhaps a little too) indulgent of Conrad, I'll point out that he always stressed the problems 95.5 had in the Western suburbs. That assignment was, and is, short-spaced to grandfathered, super-powered (100 KW) Class B co-channel in Detroit, and there were often problems with co-channel interference that no other Class B in Cleveland had. But that was no reason to think that a Class A in Lorain was the solution, much less that a 5-kw AM could fill the void in the eastern suburbs (especially when classical had already failed dismally on 5-kw AM's in Denver and Detroit).

No matter what you think motivated Conrad to enter into that ill-advised deal -- whether it was stupidity, cupidity, or a combination of the two -- I don't see how that invalidates his position on FM IBOC. Of course, having such a crappy signal makes him much more keenly aware of the system's weaknesses!

 

[Chuck]

The fear most broadcasters have of LPFMs is that they will utilize inferior equipment that will trash the band when it malfunctions.

By law, LPFMs operate at more stringent technical standards than translators. Home brew transmitting equipment simply isn't allowed.