New to the board

[Tom_Ray]

Hello Tom... We've chatted on other boards and on Usenet groups in the past. Regardless of the times we've agreed or disagreed on topics, I've always respected your experience and knowledge, and your civil demeanor on any board.

Welcome to HD Radio Heaven and Hell, which are co-located in the same forum!

Thanks, Philip.

Your last line made me chuckle. My mom sent me a joke tonight about this old man in a church, and the devil appears and he just sits there as calm as can be. When the devil asks him why he isn't afraid, the man says, "been married to your sister for 48 years". So I'm sure it will be a good time.

Tom Ray
WOR

 

[Tom_Ray]

>>>> Hi Cal:

>>>> My apologies for not getting back to you. If you would like to post our email exchange, please feel free to do so.

This point is well taken and it is always used when people like us need to be convinced that it is time to "upgrade".

But the programs that run on Windows, Linux or the Mac that can't be run under DOS do not interfere with anyone's ability to continue running the programs that DO still run under DOS which some people still need to use.

>>>> True. But it's becoming increasingly harder to find a roll of film and get it developed. It also is getting extremely difficult to find a VHS player/recorder and tapes. And what about those 8" floppy disks of days gone by? Since people would still like to use film, play and record VHS tapes and pull data off those 8" floppies, should manufacturers be forced to either make these items or maintain said items when they are going to be losing ventures from the get go? Things march on, technology changes.


And with like mind, R.F. Burns said in another thread:

What did you do when they stopped making LP's? Can't play a CD on a record machine can you? It's called evolution.

Yes indeed. We had to get CD players. But that did not interfere with anyone's ability to continue playing LPs on their turntables to which some people still enjoy listening.

>>>> Tried to find a turntable cartridge or replacement tone arm these days? Next to impossible. We have one - count it - one turntable in the WOR studio facility "just in case". It needed a cartridge. I waited 3 weeks for the damn thing so they could pull one 10 second cut off an archive album.


The thing to which I personally object is that our existing AM radios worked fine until iBiquity decided they were going to break them for us. When I was lamenting to Tom Ray in private email that the FCC has approved a technology that essentially interferes with adjacent channel radio stations in the AM broadcast band that it would have never done 20 years ago, in his reply he pointed out that it isn't 20 years ago anymore. And he's right! But while neither are Windows/Linux/Macs machines interfering with execution of programs on DOS machines that are still out there, nor are CDs interfering with the playing of LPs on turntables that are still out there, AM IBOC IS interfering with listening to AM radios that are still out there under relatively common circumstances.

I therefore propose that there is something not right about this "hybrid" AM model. Am I alone? I think not.

>>>> Maybe there is, maybe there isn't. It is, however, what is available. My job is to make it work the best it can. It is what it is.

As long as iBiquity's system is designed for "in band", "on channel" use, what happened to the commitment to backward compatibility? If "fade to analog" is considered to be iBiquity's contribution to backward compatibility in the AM IBOC system, then it is my opinion that we are in very serious trouble on the AM broadcast band.

>>>> Microsoft blew the commitment to backward compatibility out the window a long time ago. Remember trying to upgrade from one version or Word or Outlook? The bottom line is that we're moving forward. My opinion is that we're dealing with a system in AM radio that, besides technical improvements that have decreased the distortion in the transmitter and receiver, has not really changed in 100 years. Sometimes it's time to move on.

Tom Ray
WOR

 

[Tom_Ray]

the old narrowband AM radios are slowly on their way out. Research done based on the old 3 IF can designs is almost useless, because it is going to be increasingly hard to find them in the coming years. The IC manufacturers WILL take the market from the IF can people, who are already adapting to the inevitable. Therefore, wideband radios WILL dominate the market, it won't be for high fidelity, it will be for cost and reliability reasons. And therefore, IBOC self jamming noise WILL be a serious issue with listeners.

>>>> However, once the radio manufacturers start putting out IBOC compatible radios rather than just analog, now what? All these designs go down the tubes.

>>>> I just reviewed an HD radio for Radio World Magazine. The AM bandwidth was narrow - and they used DSP noise blanking which was horrendous. It completely destroyed the analog signal, both AM and FM. If this is where analog radios are going, I'll take HD any day.

Tom Ray
WOR

 

[Tom Wells]

>>>> Hi Cal:

>>>> My apologies for not getting back to you. If you would like to post our email exchange, please feel free to do so.

This point is well taken and it is always used when people like us need to be convinced that it is time to "upgrade".

But the programs that run on Windows, Linux or the Mac that can't be run under DOS do not interfere with anyone's ability to continue running the programs that DO still run under DOS which some people still need to use.

>>>> True. But it's becoming increasingly harder to find a roll of film and get it developed. It also is getting extremely difficult to find a VHS player/recorder and tapes. And what about those 8" floppy disks of days gone by? Since people would still like to use film, play and record VHS tapes and pull data off those 8" floppies, should manufacturers be forced to either make these items or maintain said items when they are going to be losing ventures from the get go? Things march on, technology changes.


And with like mind, R.F. Burns said in another thread:

What did you do when they stopped making LP's? Can't play a CD on a record machine can you? It's called evolution.

Yes indeed. We had to get CD players. But that did not interfere with anyone's ability to continue playing LPs on their turntables to which some people still enjoy listening.

>>>> Tried to find a turntable cartridge or replacement tone arm these days? Next to impossible. We have one - count it - one turntable in the WOR studio facility "just in case". It needed a cartridge. I waited 3 weeks for the damn thing so they could pull one 10 second cut off an archive album.


The thing to which I personally object is that our existing AM radios worked fine until iBiquity decided they were going to break them for us. When I was lamenting to Tom Ray in private email that the FCC has approved a technology that essentially interferes with adjacent channel radio stations in the AM broadcast band that it would have never done 20 years ago, in his reply he pointed out that it isn't 20 years ago anymore. And he's right! But while neither are Windows/Linux/Macs machines interfering with execution of programs on DOS machines that are still out there, nor are CDs interfering with the playing of LPs on turntables that are still out there, AM IBOC IS interfering with listening to AM radios that are still out there under relatively common circumstances.

I therefore propose that there is something not right about this "hybrid" AM model. Am I alone? I think not.

>>>> Maybe there is, maybe there isn't. It is, however, what is available. My job is to make it work the best it can. It is what it is.

As long as iBiquity's system is designed for "in band", "on channel" use, what happened to the commitment to backward compatibility? If "fade to analog" is considered to be iBiquity's contribution to backward compatibility in the AM IBOC system, then it is my opinion that we are in very serious trouble on the AM broadcast band.

>>>> Microsoft blew the commitment to backward compatibility out the window a long time ago. Remember trying to upgrade from one version or Word or Outlook? The bottom line is that we're moving forward. My opinion is that we're dealing with a system in AM radio that, besides technical improvements that have decreased the distortion in the transmitter and receiver, has not really changed in 100 years. Sometimes it's time to move on.

Tom Ray
WOR

Yes, Microsoft certainly did throw away backward compatibility, and it has been difficult for many people over many years.
Though there are those DOS programs which will run in windows, I have one which requires me to keep an old laptop that runs on fixed timing
instead of variable timing. Windows now will NOT run a program that requires synchronised fixed timing to a comm port.
It says, "you hang on, I'll get to that in just a micro-second", and by that time it's too late.
Try running a program that says "OK, I'm in charge now", and windows will slap it silly, just to remind it who's boss.

They never stopped making LPs, just stopped for mainstream. I have some new LPs.
In fact, last Saturday, a friend just bought me a new belt for my Edison cylinder player.
If anyone knows where I can pick up a real Scully record lathe and recording amp, with blanks, let me know.

Moving forward should not preclude the option of backing out of what might prove to be a net gain of zero or a detriment.
This sort of moving forward has only been acceptable since computers and marketing have become such a cozy couple.

There's an old farmer's quote, "Sometimes you have to back up to go forward."
Why did manufacturers take away AM radio antenna balanced inputs?
All the New Yorkers of 1928 were completely familiar with antenna dist systems, on AM.
I'll bet none of the master antenna systems now would even try to propogate AM MW on the coax. Why not?
Shouldn't THAT have been a required STANDARD long ago?

I feel most of the current RF mess is attributable to the FCC's lax attitude, which now finds AM challenged in many areas.
HD radio "AM" should be a focused effort to control the noise created by all the discontinuous current devices we have employed.
This is NOT impossible.

Didn't David Eduardo point out how much higher power is permitted elsewhere on AMs?
This would be huge improvement in S/N ratio, even with existing noise.
Then again, where has the FCC's teeth been all these years since the garbage SCR lamp dimmers started the RF noise parade?
The list of noise makers goes on and on....all these devices allegedly comply. We all know they don't.
It seems like the FCC let this garden get full of noxious weeds, and now wants to allow AM operations the right to splash louder than the noisemakers.
Why not get the @$%& factory to clean up the garbage they spew back up the AC line?
Doesn't the FCC have teeth to shut down a non-compliant business?
I know the answer will be "that's where we find ourselves", but I again wonder why radio must suffer, not the business, or the importer of
interfering electrical devices.

Once my neighbor had electrical work done, and somebody lifted a neutral.
Their TV which was "off", but really still "on", got 220'd.
It blew out a filter cap, but the TV still worked, albeit with a moving "tear" (prounounced as in "tearing a pice of paper").
But the RF interference was all over from .54 mhz to 30 mhz.
I gave them a radio and told them to walk through the house, and they came back and told me it was the TV.
I repaired it at MY expense on my own time. This was what it took me to keep AM capabilities at home.
If I could get authority to fix the whole #%@! country, I would.

Where are the FCC agents who should be writing N.A.L.s to these RF polluters?
They can be found. And they can be cited. Why has this never happened?

 

[calstymes]

Since R.F. Burns suggested in another thread:

Tom is very straight forward and happy to answer questions. E-mail him and maybe let us know how your conversation goes.

and Tom gave permission for me to release the contents of our private email exchange, here it is, edited to protect the innocent (and the guilty).

Hello Tom:

Thank you very much for logging into the message board so quickly!

You won't find any name calling on the message board. Fortunately, 99% of its regular participants are reasonable people and have interesting things to say. I think you will actually enjoy reading the more intelligent posts and replying to them when appropriate.

Your comment below about the primary coverage area for radio stations is certainly understood here. I really do understand that listeners to WOR in Florida really don't count. As it happens, I am NOT a DXer, so that really isn't what I was talking about. What I was talking about is when I leave the city and go to an adjacent county to a small station's "primary coverage area" where I used to be able to listen to that station and that all of a sudden I can't do that anymore because of IBOC now being broadcast on a 50 KW AM station that occupies an adjacent channel. I don't know all of the engineering terminology for what is going on with the IBOC carriers but I do know that I can no longer hear the small station where I used to be able to with no interference.

Yes, I do understand that there is an FCC defined coverage area for AM stations and I also think you are right on that the unfortunate part of HD is that stations will find out what their coverage really is. That is for sure! It's not 20 years ago (like you said) and we aren't in Kansas anymore (I guess). My son will not listen to "normal" radio either. His fascination is with the iPod.

With your permission, I would like to post my original email to you and your reply to me below on the message board (edited to take out the identities of the "innocent"), since **** (from ****, who's most recent moniker is **** and used to be ****) actually asked that I get back to the message board with some of your initial comments to me. I was so surprised to receive your reply so quickly that it caught me off guard, but I do very much appreciate your having taken time our of your busy schedule to reply.

Let me be the first to privately welcome you to the message board!

Cal Stymes

>From: "Tom Ray" <****>
>To: "Cal Stymes" <****>
>Subject: RE: AM IBOC
>Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 21:44:53 -0400
>
>Hi Cal -
>
>Good to hear from you. First, call me Tom. Mr. Ray was my Dad.
>
>I'd be happy to sign onto the board. I will say, however, that I don't mind
>disagreement with me (hey - I'm not always right - ask my wife!), but if
>people start name calling and the like, I will simply go away. There are
>certain things I just don't put up with - abuse is one of them. Heated
>discussions are always fun. While I will put forward my opinion, I also put
>forth the facts, and there are many who try to skew the truth and who report
>false "facts". Some people, of course, don't want to hear what I have to
>say, and that is their perogative.
>
>Anyway, I'll sign on possibly tonight when I'm finished checking email. And
>I've answered some of your comments below:
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: "Cal Stymes" <****>
>Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 7:16 PM
>To: "Tom Ray" <****>
>Subject: AM IBOC
>
>Hello, Mr. Ray:
>
>Permit me to introduce myself. My name is Cal Stymes and for the past year
>or so, I have been participating in the HD Radio message board area of
>radio-info.com forum:
>
>http://www.radio-info.com/smf/index.php/board,194.0.html
>
>While the discussion in this message board area is lively and can get heated
>at times, it is probably the most open forum in which to discuss the topic
>of IBOC, and for that I think all of the participants there are very
>appreciative.
>
>I originally became interested in participating in this forum because I had
>received a Boston Acoustics Receptor receiver a little over a year ago and I
>was rather disappointed with the performance of it in the AM broadcast band.
>
>I found that the receiver had lots of trouble holding a lock on the HD
>signals of your station (WOR), WABC, WCBS and WFAN. In midtown Manhattan,
>WCBS and WFAN were the worst and I could only very rarely decode their IBOC
>signal.
>
>[Tom Ray] The Boston Acoustics radio leaves a bit to be desired. I can
>offer pretty good insight into a good many of the radios available - I
>happen to have 9 of them, and am reviewing another new one right now. I
>gave the BA to our Asst. Program Director - I couldn't take it any more. It
>would lock up once per week.
>
>Needless to say, this immediately gave a rather bad impression of this
>technology to me, and I went on to this message board looking for answers
>and how other people were reacting to HD Radio. The discussions became so
>interesting and lively over the past year that I decided to continue
>participating.
>
>[Tom Ray] That's one of the issues I have with the manufacturers when I
>review a radio for them. For example, the radio I'm reviewing right now
>performs very well on HD and on analog - until you get to a marginal signal
>area (I live up near Newburgh, NY - right smack in the null of the WOR
>signal). This radio has "noise canceling", which turns into signal
>canceling up here. I have to goose the volume control almost 20dB to hear
>the station in my driveway. God help me if it kicks into HD (it did this in
>Monroe, NY where the signal is still low and almost blew me out of the
>car!). Frankly, I find the performance in low signal areas unacceptable,
>and told the manufacturer this - then listened to a lot of malarkey about
>their noise canceling technology. If this is what the general public is and
>will be putting up with, we're all in trouble.
>
>It is now a year later, and after hearing about all of the interference
>complaints being directed at the large AM stations which are using IBOC, I
>have become rather outspoken on the message board (as have others who
>actually have broadcast and other engineering backgrounds) about what
>several of us now consider to be a somewhat destructive set of rules and
>regulations that the FCC just recently approved in March. I feel that this
>is tantamount to not much more than being federally approved deliberate
>interference on the AM broadcast band, the kind of which would never
>have been approved as recently as, say, 20 years ago.
>
>[Tom Ray] I'll answer you more thoroughly over the weekend, but a lot of the
>interference complaints are hogwash. I can fill you in on several - one I
>was involved in. But....you need to understand that this isn't 20 years
>ago. You didn't have iPods, Internet radio, satellite radio and soon, wi-fi
>radios and wi-fi available throughout cities (yes, this is coming). That's
>a lot of competition - all digital, without the whines, whistles and buzzes.
>I base many of my observations on my 19 year old son and his friends - none
>of which will listen to AM radio, period. My son, thank you very much, has
>XM and will not listen to "normal" radio.
>
>Of course, the argument being made by the large stations is that the
>interference is being experienced only by small stations in areas which are
>outside of their primary areas of coverage. So that means, if I formerly
>listened to a small AM station just outside its primary area of coverage,
>and now a large AM station comes along on an adjacent channel with its IBOC
>carrier and wipes the small station out from me still being able to receive
>and hear it comfortably, then effectively iBiquity has broken my radio for
>me and the message from the enthusiastic supporters of HD Radio is, "Well
>that's too bad for you".
>
>[Tom Ray] Well, no, that's not the argument being made by large stations.
>You may experience hiss in the background outside of the primary signal
>coverage area. From a station's view point, we market to and sell spots in
>the primary coverage area. While there is nothing that explicitly exempts
>us from selling outside the primary area, it makes little sense for most
>stations, and comes down to economics for the radio station. Any audience
>outside the primary area will not count toward the ratings. Ratings are
>what help bring in revenue. While WOR has listeners in Florida at night, if
>they can't hear us, well, not nice to say it this way, but they don't count.
>That's not to say we don't like them or want them, but realistically, they
>bring nothing to the table. Additionally, there is an FCC defined coverage
>area for AM stations. The unfortunate part of HD is that stations will find
>out what their coverage really is.
>
>Recently, I lamented that while we have heated discussions on this message
>board, there is not one single broadcast engineer from a large AM station
>(from anywhere in the U.S.) that is using IBOC who is willing to come on to
>the message board and tell us all about how wonderful they think this
>technology is. One of the pro-IBOC participants on the message board, an
>individual named **** who works in **** at ****, always tells us that he
>is employed in the #1 broadcasting market in the country and that he knows
>some of the engineers who work at the large AM stations that are using IBOC.
>No doubt you know him. He finally challenged me to write an email to you
>and offered your email address. He said that you are "very straight forward
>and happy to answer questions".
>
>So, I am writing to you, not so much with specific questions, but with a
>request that you might consider coming on to the message board and talking
>about what you like about AM IBOC, what you don't like about AM IBOC (if
>your company will let you) and what you think about HD Radio and iBiquity in
>general. There do seem to be several people with broadcast and other
>engineering backgrounds who participate on this message board and agree
>that AM IBOC doesn't play nice. What I am asking is, where are the broadcast
>engineers who have actually worked with the technology and will point out
>the good things about it and be willing to support it publicly. All I ever
>hear from the enthusiastic supporters of AM IBOC is that it will "save" AM
>radio from becoming obsolete. But my perception is that the public doesn't
>really care too much about it or isn't paying too much attention to it.
>
>As one who loves listening to AM radio, particularly in the NYC market, I
>have a hard time believing that what I consider to be a destructive
>technology which introduces interference to adjacent channels on the AM
>broadcast band can save anything.
>
>[Tom Ray] I can tell you that I have *never* said that IBOC will "save" AM
>radio. I am on record - in print - stating that it is another tool and can
>help AM radio. The reason the public isn't paying too much attention is
>several fold, among the reasons is that the radios are just becoming
>available in "normal" stores, the price is finally coming down, and that
>there has been no push for it yet... because the radios have not been
>readily available. It's gonna be interesting.
>
>Thank you for taking the time to read this message. I will be looking
>forward to the favor of a reply, but if you are unable to do that, I will
>understand that as well.
>
>[Tom Ray] As I said, I'll sign in probably tomorrow night - I have a bunch
>of email to catch up on, and want to see if I can make a couple of Ham
>contacts tonight - I missed out on the guy from Finland on 20 Meters last
>night. And, as I said, I'll address more of your items over the weekend.
>
>TR
>
>Cal Stymes

 

[R.F. Burns]

Since R.F. Burns suggested in another thread:

Tom is very straight forward and happy to answer questions. E-mail him and maybe let us know how your conversation goes.

and Tom gave permission for me to release the contents of our private email exchange, here it is, edited to protect the innocent (and the guilty).

Hello Tom:

Thank you very much for logging into the message board so quickly!

You won't find any name calling on the message board. Fortunately, 99% of its regular participants are reasonable people and have interesting things to say. I think you will actually enjoy reading the more intelligent posts and replying to them when appropriate.

Your comment below about the primary coverage area for radio stations is certainly understood here. I really do understand that listeners to WOR in Florida really don't count. As it happens, I am NOT a DXer, so that really isn't what I was talking about. What I was talking about is when I leave the city and go to an adjacent county to a small station's "primary coverage area" where I used to be able to listen to that station and that all of a sudden I can't do that anymore because of IBOC now being broadcast on a 50 KW AM station that occupies an adjacent channel. I don't know all of the engineering terminology for what is going on with the IBOC carriers but I do know that I can no longer hear the small station where I used to be able to with no interference.

Yes, I do understand that there is an FCC defined coverage area for AM stations and I also think you are right on that the unfortunate part of HD is that stations will find out what their coverage really is. That is for sure! It's not 20 years ago (like you said) and we aren't in Kansas anymore (I guess). My son will not listen to "normal" radio either. His fascination is with the iPod.

With your permission, I would like to post my original email to you and your reply to me below on the message board (edited to take out the identities of the "innocent"), since **** (from ****, who's most recent moniker is **** and used to be ****) actually asked that I get back to the message board with some of your initial comments to me. I was so surprised to receive your reply so quickly that it caught me off guard, but I do very much appreciate your having taken time our of your busy schedule to reply.

Let me be the first to privately welcome you to the message board!

Cal Stymes

>From: "Tom Ray" <****>
>To: "Cal Stymes" <****>
>Subject: RE: AM IBOC
>Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 21:44:53 -0400
>
>Hi Cal -
>
>Good to hear from you. First, call me Tom. Mr. Ray was my Dad.
>
>I'd be happy to sign onto the board. I will say, however, that I don't mind
>disagreement with me (hey - I'm not always right - ask my wife!), but if
>people start name calling and the like, I will simply go away. There are
>certain things I just don't put up with - abuse is one of them. Heated
>discussions are always fun. While I will put forward my opinion, I also put
>forth the facts, and there are many who try to skew the truth and who report
>false "facts". Some people, of course, don't want to hear what I have to
>say, and that is their perogative.
>
>Anyway, I'll sign on possibly tonight when I'm finished checking email. And
>I've answered some of your comments below:
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: "Cal Stymes" <****>
>Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 7:16 PM
>To: "Tom Ray" <****>
>Subject: AM IBOC
>
>Hello, Mr. Ray:
>
>Permit me to introduce myself. My name is Cal Stymes and for the past year
>or so, I have been participating in the HD Radio message board area of
>radio-info.com forum:
>
>http://www.radio-info.com/smf/index.php/board,194.0.html
>
>While the discussion in this message board area is lively and can get heated
>at times, it is probably the most open forum in which to discuss the topic
>of IBOC, and for that I think all of the participants there are very
>appreciative.
>
>I originally became interested in participating in this forum because I had
>received a Boston Acoustics Receptor receiver a little over a year ago and I
>was rather disappointed with the performance of it in the AM broadcast band.
>
>I found that the receiver had lots of trouble holding a lock on the HD
>signals of your station (WOR), WABC, WCBS and WFAN. In midtown Manhattan,
>WCBS and WFAN were the worst and I could only very rarely decode their IBOC
>signal.
>
>[Tom Ray] The Boston Acoustics radio leaves a bit to be desired. I can
>offer pretty good insight into a good many of the radios available - I
>happen to have 9 of them, and am reviewing another new one right now. I
>gave the BA to our Asst. Program Director - I couldn't take it any more. It
>would lock up once per week.
>
>Needless to say, this immediately gave a rather bad impression of this
>technology to me, and I went on to this message board looking for answers
>and how other people were reacting to HD Radio. The discussions became so
>interesting and lively over the past year that I decided to continue
>participating.
>
>[Tom Ray] That's one of the issues I have with the manufacturers when I
>review a radio for them. For example, the radio I'm reviewing right now
>performs very well on HD and on analog - until you get to a marginal signal
>area (I live up near Newburgh, NY - right smack in the null of the WOR
>signal). This radio has "noise canceling", which turns into signal
>canceling up here. I have to goose the volume control almost 20dB to hear
>the station in my driveway. God help me if it kicks into HD (it did this in
>Monroe, NY where the signal is still low and almost blew me out of the
>car!). Frankly, I find the performance in low signal areas unacceptable,
>and told the manufacturer this - then listened to a lot of malarkey about
>their noise canceling technology. If this is what the general public is and
>will be putting up with, we're all in trouble.
>
>It is now a year later, and after hearing about all of the interference
>complaints being directed at the large AM stations which are using IBOC, I
>have become rather outspoken on the message board (as have others who
>actually have broadcast and other engineering backgrounds) about what
>several of us now consider to be a somewhat destructive set of rules and
>regulations that the FCC just recently approved in March. I feel that this
>is tantamount to not much more than being federally approved deliberate
>interference on the AM broadcast band, the kind of which would never
>have been approved as recently as, say, 20 years ago.
>
>[Tom Ray] I'll answer you more thoroughly over the weekend, but a lot of the
>interference complaints are hogwash. I can fill you in on several - one I
>was involved in. But....you need to understand that this isn't 20 years
>ago. You didn't have iPods, Internet radio, satellite radio and soon, wi-fi
>radios and wi-fi available throughout cities (yes, this is coming). That's
>a lot of competition - all digital, without the whines, whistles and buzzes.
>I base many of my observations on my 19 year old son and his friends - none
>of which will listen to AM radio, period. My son, thank you very much, has
>XM and will not listen to "normal" radio.
>
>Of course, the argument being made by the large stations is that the
>interference is being experienced only by small stations in areas which are
>outside of their primary areas of coverage. So that means, if I formerly
>listened to a small AM station just outside its primary area of coverage,
>and now a large AM station comes along on an adjacent channel with its IBOC
>carrier and wipes the small station out from me still being able to receive
>and hear it comfortably, then effectively iBiquity has broken my radio for
>me and the message from the enthusiastic supporters of HD Radio is, "Well
>that's too bad for you".
>
>[Tom Ray] Well, no, that's not the argument being made by large stations.
>You may experience hiss in the background outside of the primary signal
>coverage area. From a station's view point, we market to and sell spots in
>the primary coverage area. While there is nothing that explicitly exempts
>us from selling outside the primary area, it makes little sense for most
>stations, and comes down to economics for the radio station. Any audience
>outside the primary area will not count toward the ratings. Ratings are
>what help bring in revenue. While WOR has listeners in Florida at night, if
>they can't hear us, well, not nice to say it this way, but they don't count.
>That's not to say we don't like them or want them, but realistically, they
>bring nothing to the table. Additionally, there is an FCC defined coverage
>area for AM stations. The unfortunate part of HD is that stations will find
>out what their coverage really is.
>
>Recently, I lamented that while we have heated discussions on this message
>board, there is not one single broadcast engineer from a large AM station
>(from anywhere in the U.S.) that is using IBOC who is willing to come on to
>the message board and tell us all about how wonderful they think this
>technology is. One of the pro-IBOC participants on the message board, an
>individual named **** who works in **** at ****, always tells us that he
>is employed in the #1 broadcasting market in the country and that he knows
>some of the engineers who work at the large AM stations that are using IBOC.
>No doubt you know him. He finally challenged me to write an email to you
>and offered your email address. He said that you are "very straight forward
>and happy to answer questions".
>
>So, I am writing to you, not so much with specific questions, but with a
>request that you might consider coming on to the message board and talking
>about what you like about AM IBOC, what you don't like about AM IBOC (if
>your company will let you) and what you think about HD Radio and iBiquity in
>general. There do seem to be several people with broadcast and other
>engineering backgrounds who participate on this message board and agree
>that AM IBOC doesn't play nice. What I am asking is, where are the broadcast
>engineers who have actually worked with the technology and will point out
>the good things about it and be willing to support it publicly. All I ever
>hear from the enthusiastic supporters of AM IBOC is that it will "save" AM
>radio from becoming obsolete. But my perception is that the public doesn't
>really care too much about it or isn't paying too much attention to it.
>
>As one who loves listening to AM radio, particularly in the NYC market, I
>have a hard time believing that what I consider to be a destructive
>technology which introduces interference to adjacent channels on the AM
>broadcast band can save anything.
>
>[Tom Ray] I can tell you that I have *never* said that IBOC will "save" AM
>radio. I am on record - in print - stating that it is another tool and can
>help AM radio. The reason the public isn't paying too much attention is
>several fold, among the reasons is that the radios are just becoming
>available in "normal" stores, the price is finally coming down, and that
>there has been no push for it yet... because the radios have not been
>readily available. It's gonna be interesting.
>
>Thank you for taking the time to read this message. I will be looking
>forward to the favor of a reply, but if you are unable to do that, I will
>understand that as well.
>
>[Tom Ray] As I said, I'll sign in probably tomorrow night - I have a bunch
>of email to catch up on, and want to see if I can make a couple of Ham
>contacts tonight - I missed out on the guy from Finland on 20 Meters last
>night. And, as I said, I'll address more of your items over the weekend.
>
>TR
>
>Cal Stymes

See Cal, didn't I tell you that Tom is a great guy and I agree with him 100%. I've never said that IBOC would be the salvation of radio. However, I do believe it's one piece of the puzzle for an industry which is trying to attract new audiences in the face of all the new digital competiton. While I believe some form of Wi-Fi will be the eventual transmission method for all broadcasters, I also believe IBOC serves as a transition vehicle, as our society moves into a completely digital world.

 

[R.F. Burns]

Oh, nearly forgot. Try to order carts or reel to reel tape today. They were a mainstay of broadcasting for years.

 

[rbrucecarter5]

>>>> However, once the radio manufacturers start putting out IBOC compatible radios rather than just analog, now what? All these designs go down the tubes.

>>>> I just reviewed an HD radio for Radio World Magazine. The AM bandwidth was narrow - and they used DSP noise blanking which was horrendous. It completely destroyed the analog signal, both AM and FM. If this is where analog radios are going, I'll take HD any day.

Assuming that HD is a success in the marketplace with consumers, the IC manufacturers will sink it into single IC's. As we have already seen with the Sangean HDT-1, they will throw the kitchen sink in - including C-Quam capability on AM, because it costs virtually nothing extra. So the designs will not go down the tubes, there will just be similar designs that use single chips.

Depending on who implements the design with the IC, their cost constraints, and whether they can read the data sheet or not - the radio will either be great or a piece of junk. The same IC that was in the boom box with really good performance was also in a headset radio. The IF had NO ceramic filter AT ALL - it was bypassed with a capacitor! Even though the architecture on the IC supports great performance, the implementation ruined it. It was not even a true superhet design with the IF bypassed like that. ALL of the selectivity was based on the Q of the ferrite bar antenna / tuning capacitor combo. The IF strip became a broadband RF amplifier. It was, of course, very wideband.

My point? All this cost cutting and bad design WILL continue - and performance of HD radios implemented by bad engineers will suffer. HD will not cure incompetant design of receivers like you encountered.

BTW - I have a new car stereo with the adaptive IF strategy. First adjacent reception on FM is now completely viable even in the presence of a strong local. It sounds to me like your radio already has adaptive IF built in - on AM as well as FM. Something is confusing the AM section into lowering the IF bandwidth so far it made the audio unlistenable. Probably - a bad design. Somebody didn't read the data sheet - or did and "cost reduced" the design. It may be a simple fix if you can get hold of the data sheet for the IC and schematic of the unit.

Oh - and my recently acquired GE Superradio 1 is among the most selective AM radios I have ever had - and has correspondingly narrow audio bandwidth. AM IBOC stations sound pretty good on it, muffled of course, but free of hash unless I tune off frequency. It is also relatively good on second adjacents, the high selectivity mitigates IBOC splatter somewhat. I'll have to compare the 1 against the 3, and see what modifications could be done to the 3 to make it narrower in the narrow setting. Hacks for DX'ers that improve their situation might lower opposition to HD!

 

[PocketRadio]

... I also believe IBOC serves as a transition vehicle, as our society moves into a completely digital world.

"Goodbye to Analog TV"

"As you mention, Proponents of digital say the picture and audio quality of the signal is significantly clearer and sharper than analog... That is, if you consider that locations who get scratchy analog reception won't get ANY reception at all with digital. (Just like with cell phones, an all digital network has no static, but it also has no coverage when signal strength is below a a certain level.) Ever watch digital TV via satellite during a heavy rainstorm, or a snowstorm? Digital loses signal, while analog is able to continue to show the programming in those situations."

http://askbobrankin.com/goodbye_to_analog_tv.html

DAB has stalled in Canada, consumer interest in DAB is slowing in the UK, and there is virtually no consumer interest in HD/IBOC in the US - looks like "going digital" isn't as hugely successful/encompasing as you indicate.

 

[R.F. Burns]

... I also believe IBOC serves as a transition vehicle, as our society moves into a completely digital world.

"Goodbye to Analog TV"

"As you mention, Proponents of digital say the picture and audio quality of the signal is significantly clearer and sharper than analog... That is, if you consider that locations who get scratchy analog reception won't get ANY reception at all with digital. (Just like with cell phones, an all digital network has no static, but it also has no coverage when signal strength is below a a certain level.) Ever watch digital TV via satellite during a heavy rainstorm, or a snowstorm? Digital loses signal, while analog is able to continue to show the programming in those situations."

http://askbobrankin.com/goodbye_to_analog_tv.html

DAB has stalled in Canada, consumer interest in DAB is slowing in the UK, and there is virtually no consumer interest in HD/IBOC in the US - looks like "going digital" isn't as hugely successful/encompasing as you indicate.

Just to clear things up a bit, the loss of signal during rain has nothing to do with its being digital. It all has to do with the frequencies used. At KU and above rain fade is a major problem, be it analog or digital. We distribute a digital signal via C band and never lose the bird. Of course we must increase the power at the transmit end to achive the proper levels during major rain storms (Car wash type rain), but the same holds true for analog transmissions. By the way, snow has no effect on digital television, as long as the receive dish remains free of snow and ice build up. That's why at the transmit end we use heaters on the uplink. At home snow has never cause any issues with my DirecTv reception. Then there's sun fade, which is caused when the sun is directly behind the satellite. It happens twice a year and during that period the earth stations can not rceeive the relatively weak signals from satellites. This is a natural occurance and has nothing to do with the signal being digital or analog. One of the problems with cell coverage is due to the very low power produced by cell phones and the fact that at those freq.'s line of sight is a must. With hilly terrane difficulties are multiplied.

 

[PhilJSmith67]

Ever watch digital TV via satellite during a heavy rainstorm, or a snowstorm? Digital loses signal, while analog is able to continue to show the programming in those situations."

As soon as I read that I knew the author was some mindless twit who wouldn't know RF from AF or IF.

 

[davideduardo]

Ever watch digital TV via satellite during a heavy rainstorm, or a snowstorm? Digital loses signal, while analog is able to continue to show the programming in those situations."

That has to rank among the most uninformed statements ever posted here.

 

[Tom_Ray]

Ever watch digital TV via satellite during a heavy rainstorm, or a snowstorm? Digital loses signal, while analog is able to continue to show the programming in those situations."

That has to rank among the most uninformed statements ever posted here.

>>>> Digital loses signal and lock because you are receiving a frequency of around 11GHZ, on a small dish with virtually zero gain. The size of the 11GHZ wavelength is extremely sensitive to rain, as the wave isn't much longer than the length of a typical raindrop. If the RF goes away, so does your digital lock. If you were satching an analog satellite signal, the picture would snow up and disappear in a real hurry under the same conditions, and sooner than the digital signal does. Over the air analog TV, and its digital counterpart, tend not to have this issue because the frequencies are less prone to rain fade. The difference you described has nothing to do with analog versus digital.

Tom Ray
WOR

 

[Mike Walker]

I've had DirecTV for 9 years (Primestar before that), and I've lost signal for perhaps ten minutes total in that time. It's phenomenally reliable. Now analog tv reception (via my roof antenna before a storm took it out) was unwatchable under storm conditions.

Analog AM is completely useless around here during a thunderstorm, but XM works in all but the heaviest rain (in my home..it works even during heavy rain in my car). The idea that digital is inherently less robust is simply uninformed bs. In act, I look forward to HD coming to AM in this area because something (I think my neighbor's electric fense) produces a cyclical popping sound on analog AM. This should disappear entirely with digital.

 

[Mike Walker]

Yeah it would be absolutely true that a momentary interruption of the stream would result in a complete loss of audio. It would be true...IF THAT WAS HOW DIGITAL AUDIO WORKED! With HD there are THREE layers of protection against total loss of signal.

Layer 1: ERROR CORRECTION---there are redundant layers of data fed with a digital audio signal. That's part of why the signal is delayed before transmission...so the extra information can be interleaved. So if a bit is lost, it can be recovered elsewhere, correcting completely what was lost. Result: NO INTERRUPTION.

Layer 2: ERROR CONCEALMENT---occasionally the loss of signal will be so great that there isn't sufficient redundant information to perfectly correct the missing data. Hence layer 2...the system takes the clean part from before the data loss, compares it with what came after the signal was re-captured, and makes an educated guess at what's missing.

The above two layers of protection apply to ALL digital audio and video systems. But with HD Radio there's actually an additional layer beyond what's available with CD, DVD, ATSC, XM, Sirius, MP3, or other digital formats...

Layer 3: BLEND TO ANALOG---even when the digital carrier is absent for a prolonged period, all is not lost. The radio simply blends to the analog audio. Another great reason to never turn off analog!

So contrary to what the uninformed may try to convince you, HD DOES NOT FAIL CATASTROPHICALLY! AT WORST your radio temporarily reverts to analog.

 

[PhilJSmith67]

Unfortunately the first two levels of protection do indeed fail in the real world on AM, at least for me, regardless of the technical design of the system. Any interference whatsoever to my strongest HD AM stations unlocks the HD signal for anywhere from 4 to 8 seconds at time, and if the noise is repetitive (an electric fence is a good source for this), the bitstream never locks. I've proven this by simply turning a lightswitch on and off near my receiver at 1-second intervals. This lightswitch test causes absolutely zero detectable noise in the analog audio for the same station. Lightning even at 30 ~ 50 miles causes the same problem. If HD Radio is capable of masking your neighbor's electric fence, that's great. It

Then, there's HD at night, which I've been able to analyze thanks to various local stations accidentally leaving on the HD signal overnight. Wow, what a disaster. Not only do the HD signals become almost completely unlockable for minutes at a time, it trounces adjacent channels. I've witnessed this with 670 WSCR, 780 WBBM, and 890 WLS. WLS is so strong at my location that it booms in through the earpiece on one of those powerless hobby crystal sets, day or night.

With HD on FM, I have a considerable net gain of stations even though a few first-adjacents have become unlistenable. HD AM at night is a different story. I not only cannot get the benefit from HD Radio, but I lose two stations for every station that implements it, which is a significant net loss.

 

[SUPERCASTER]

Brucecarter5 said:

AM music stations sound great - they are out to 10 kHz easily. But the annoying 10 kHz heterodyne is filtered out inside the IC!!! Talk radio DOES sound good in wideband - so perhaps IBOC has an advantage for talk stations if it provides similar wideband experience. It must be vocal harmonics that make a difference. But wideband does not require IBOC. Merely a desire on the part of the station to do so, plus a newly designed radio capable of it. Which includes a whole lot of radios!

and

All this goes to make the point - the old narrowband AM radios are slowly on their way out. Research done based on the old 3 IF can designs is almost useless, because it is going to be increasingly hard to find them in the coming years. The IC manufacturers WILL take the market from the IF can people, who are already adapting to the inevitable. Therefore, wideband radios WILL dominate the market, it won't be for high fidelity, it will be for cost and reliability reasons. And therefore, IBOC self jamming noise WILL be a serious issue with listeners.

I agree!
All the more reason why stations are shooting themselves in the foot by cutting fidelity in half by switching on HD radio and reducing their analog signal to nasal sounding 5kHz bandwidth.
A well engineered AM station is already transmitting near FM quality for their listeners and should continue to do so and ignore interfering, problematic HD radio, which has virtually no listeners. Hi-Fi AM stations provide excellent service and are a real testament to serving the public.

 

[SUPERCASTER]

I've had DirecTV for 9 years (Primestar before that), and I've lost signal for perhaps ten minutes total in that time. It's phenomenally reliable. Now analog tv reception (via my roof antenna before a storm took it out) was unwatchable under storm conditions.

Analog AM is completely useless around here during a thunderstorm, but XM works in all but the heaviest rain (in my home..it works even during heavy rain in my car). The idea that digital is inherently less robust is simply uninformed bs. In act, I look forward to HD coming to AM in this area because something (I think my neighbor's electric fense) produces a cyclical popping sound on analog AM. This should disappear entirely with digital.

Unlikely.
AM HD radio has proven poor noise immunity and to be even more susceptible to interference then analog, and displays total and frequent interruptions from power line noise, dimmers, thunderstorms, computers, TV's, and just about any other interference. So instead of a noisy signal, with AM HD radio you get no HD signal, just rebuffering and rollback to analog.
AM HD radio also has even poorer building penetration then FM HD, and requires equally careful positioning of extra external antennas.

The only reason the noise disappears is because the AM HD signal also disappears, and is rebuffering or rolling back to analog.

The proof is that many places get analog AM and FM stations perfectly, but can't get the same stations HD signal on the same antennas.

 

[SUPERCASTER]

To say that all formats are either 25-54 or 18-34 is ingenuous. Those are sales demos, and only the broadest of them. However, 18-54 is where the money is, and there is none outside that range. So stations must focus on some niche inside the area where they can make money.

Stations are far more targeted. KYSR in LA is 25-39 Females. KRCD is 30-49 First Generation Spanish DOminant Hispanics born in Mexico. THose are but two examples, but every station is very tightly targeted in competitive markets. [/qu

In most of the Top 100 markets there are between 0 and 2 viable AMs. In very few, there are 3 to 5. Otherwise, the other AMs are relegated to religion, ethnic, brokered, etc. In a growing number of cases, the significant AM format, news & talk, have been migrating to FM, because of the inability of AM to capture 35-54 listeners and the proven ability for the same format to get them when offered on FM.

Funny how he didn't answer my question about not being able to recover digital from an almost pristine AM signal from a 50kw AM..... just more framentated nonsense.

Here is what I want to hear from him. I have made it easier by using this form letter.

I am David (Circle One) Gleason Eduardo on this ____ Day of _________ in the Year of our Lord ______. I work in radio. I realize the current business model, driven by forces not of my control will eventually spell doom for our industry. While it does put food in my mouth and gas in my car, I do not enjoy seeing what is happening to our business and I do know better. I realize excluding certain demos does not build lasting relationships between radio and listeners, something that is so important to prevent future generations from defecting to other media. I realize radio has, for reasons of the almighty dollar, pushed the listener aside. I realize I am part of the system, a system that one person cannot change. I wish there was a better way for all of us, to create real content, to show our clients what we can really do with all demos. I wish there were a way

Yours in broadcasting

________________________

What are you using for an AM antenna? How far away from the radio do you keep the loop? I brought my Receptor about 45 miles north of the city and had no problem tuning in any of the NY HD signals. I believe you've heard my demos. Have you brought the new radio to the station? WHat kind of structure is the radio located in? Does the building have aluminum siding? How does it do on FM? Is there a master antenna in your building?

Wait a minute, let's review.
If most listeners get acceptable to excellent analog AM or FM reception of a station or stations at their location, on the built in antennas that come attached to their radios, then shouldn't the necessity of adding additional, carefully positioned HD antennas be considered a serious drawback for the typical radio listener?
Perhaps even one of the many serious defects in the whole HD radio system?
This does not bode well for wide consumer acceptance of HD radio.
This defective, retrograde HD technology often requires careful positioning of external AM loops and rooftop FM antennas, often even within plain sight of the broadcasting towers.
Back to the 1920's and 30's I guess.

 

[PhilJSmith67]

My personal experience at 40 miles south of Chicago is that HD Radio on FM is viable, with little fuss. I have to go through the same fuss with the antenna to get clean analog FM reception, too. I have two stations (93.1 WXRT and 101.1 WKQX) whose reception is sometimes worse with analog than digital because of multipath.

My issue is with AM. When there are no storms within 50 miles (nor man-made electrical noise on AM), I can get reliable daytime HD Radio reception from only my local 50kW stations, and semi-reliable reception from a 10kW X-Bander. If there are storms within 30 to 50 miles, the signal reverts to analog, sometimes for extended periods of time, even if the analog signals remain clean. Nighttime is total toss-up, even with only one station at a time ever having run HD Radio at night.

If someone were taking a vote based on personal experience, I would give one thumb-up for FM-HD, and two thumbs down for AM-HD.