NEW WEBSITE - WWW.STOPIBOC.COM

[Savage]

Check it out: www.stopiboc.com

Not all features are fully functional yet, like the FCC complaint form, but that's coming soon.

Mike W: relax, the site only addresses the HD-AM problem. We're not advocating the end of HD-FM.

 

[Radioman100]

Mike W: relax, the site only addresses the HD-AM problem. We're not advocating the end of HD-FM.

Yet you do take swipes at it with gems like this one, incorrect as it may be: "Only 84% of FM stations are utilizing IBOC, including noncommercial licensees. This is after four years of frantic industry promotion, ineffectual on-air promotion and lobbying of the FCC to establish IBOC as "the" digital standard."

Only 84%? I had no idea it was that high. ;D

As I would expect from you guys, the site presents statistics with no context. The actual REAL percentage of FMs doing IBOC is much lower than 84%, but those stations mostly cover the 100 biggest, and especially the 50 biggest metros where the population is.

Why not present stats showing the potential listenership of IBOC equipped FMs vs. non-IBOC equipped FMs? Naah... Wouldn't want to do that. Too much truth, not enough spin!

 

[radionekkid]

Just guessing now, I would venture the statistical case may be focused in a direction where it will be effective, certainly not in this forum of nameless drive-by talkers who have nothing on the line and are owed nothing.

 

[JIBGUY]

I think the site stopiboc.com MEANT to say that 84% of FM's were NOT using iBloc

 

[radioskeptic]

Savage writes:

Mike W: relax, the site only addresses the HD-AM problem. We're not advocating the end of HD-FM.

Bob, maybe you're not advocating the end of Ibiquity's FM system, but you should be. Why?

There are only a handful of AM stations -- primarily all-news stations in major markets, most of them 50-kw blowtorches -- among the highest billing stataions in radio. I don't have the exact figures at my fingertips, but everybody knows that FM outbills AM by a wide margin.

Ibiquity is depending on patent royalty payments from stations using its system as its main source of income, and those payments are to be a percentage of what the stations bill, just like the music copyright royalty payments paid to ASCAP, BMI and SESAC.

The point is that the lion's share of those payments come from FM, not AM, stations. Ibiquity can afford to write off the AM band, but not the FM band. But they won't write off the AM band as long as they have any money to work with. If this thing ever really gets off the ground, that money will be coming from FM stations.

But FM stations, too, should be giving up on this flawed technology. True, it's not as bad as the AM version. But in absolute terms, it's bad enough. And it's especially bad for the non-com stations in the crowded low end of the dial.

Unfortunately, the public radio establishment has been sold a bill of goods. They think they're doing us a favor by putting classical music on "HD-2," which, at its best, sounds like third-rate internet audio (when it isn't breaking up!). We should try to disabuse them of that notion.

And BTW, I just checked the prices of some vintage McIntosh MR-78 tuners on E-Bay. The MR-78, which is noted for having exceptional first-adjacent channel rejection, is bringing only about half as much as it did a few years ago, before the widespread adoption of a flawed FM system that occupies one-half of each first adjacent, making formerly usable signals unlistenable.

 

[LinoNYC]

The point is that the lion's share of those payments come from FM, not AM, stations

From what I have read, the "royalities" come from revenue use of the FM HD2-3 not the digital carrier of the main channel.

If somebody knows otherwise, please correct.

Unfortunately, the public radio establishment has been sold a bill of goods. They think they're doing us a favor by putting classical music on "HD-2," which, at its best, sounds like third-rate internet audio (when it isn't breaking up!). We should try to disabuse them of that notion.

How might that be? Aside from ethnic, only the non-comm sector has shown listener growth over the last decade. Moreover non commercial broadcasters have the best educated and most affluent listeners. A new digital mode of transmission is likely to appeal to them both in quality and the ability to provide formats that have secondary appeal.

And BTW, I just checked the prices of some vintage McIntosh MR-78 tuners on E-Bay. The MR-78, which is noted for having exceptional first-adjacent channel rejection, is bringing only about half as much as it did a few years ago, before the widespread adoption of a flawed FM system that occupies one-half of each first adjacent, making formerly usable signals unlistenable.

Hi-fi gear collecting cycles through fads, people buy such equipment for show and impression, these ridiculously over priced museum pieces are rarely used for daily listening. Most collectors keep them covered to protect their "value".

Two blocks away from me is a high end store that sells boutique sound systems, their top line setup sells for over $350k of that $65k is for the connecting cables.

I have no patience for these loonies.

Lino

 

[4dude]

GOOD WEBSITE

 

[Play Freebird]

Two blocks away from me is a high end store that sells boutique sound systems, their top line setup sells for over $350k of that $65k is for the connecting cables.

I have no patience for these loonies.

Hey, if it makes the "loonies" feel good to spend all that money on esoteric cables, why deprive them of the pleasure?

However, I don't see much difference between "audiophools" who claim they can hear a huge improvement by using $1000 cables, and HD radio enthusiasts who are convinced the system performs as well as promised and sounds amazing.

The promoters of HD radio would have us believe it offers "CD-Quality Sound, Crystal-clear reception, No station drop-off, and No static, hiss, or distortion", which would be nice if it were true... but these are misleading claims.

Not to mention that AM analog signals are harmed in the process -- unlike the purchase of linear-crystal, oxygen-free cables, which only destroy a sucker's bank balance.

 

[radioskeptic]

Thanks, LinoNYC, for providing us with a textbook example of a “straw man” argument in Reply # 5 above.

Nothing I said could be construed in any way as an endorsement of such nonsense as spending $65,000 for cables alone in an audio system costing over a third of a million dollars.

I only pointed out that used McIntosh MR-78 FM tuners from the 1970‘s are fetching, on average, only about one-half as much money on E-Bay nowadays as they were few years ago, before FM IBOC made many once-usable deep-fringe first-adjacent signals unlistenable.

Most MR-78 buyers were interested in the tuner for its unexampled first-adjacent rejection -- not for its audio quality, which, while well above average, is still somewhat short of state-of-the-art by today’s standards. And McIntosh made no claims about superior audio when the tuner was used with its selectivity switch in the “super-narrow” position. To quote their brochure:

SUPER-NARROW permits receiving stations which are on channels adjacent to local stations. With an adequate FM antenna, there are usable signals never heard before ordinary FM tuners.

And why were the buyers of used MR-78’s interested in that aspect of its performance? Obviously because they were dissatisfied with their local FM stations in the age of consolidation. Content!

But now that I-BUZZ is jamming those distant signals, such a tuner is reduced to its value as a collectable item, since there’s no longer a practical use for it.

It was disingenuous of you to conflate interest in a genuine performance parameter like selectivity with the gullibility of the audiophile lunatic fringe.

Now I have one other question for you, Lino:

From what I have read, the "royalities" come from revenue use of the FM HD2-3 not the digital carrier of the main channel.

If somebody knows otherwise, please correct.

What have you read about this? Can you give us a link? Can anybody on the pro-Ibiquity side? If not, you’ll have to excuse the rest of us for dismissing such an assertion out of hand!

 

[davideduardo]

I think the site stopiboc.com MEANT to say that 84% of FM's were NOT using iBloc

Yet every significant FM in the top 100 markets, reaching nearly 70% of the population, is in HD. That's all it takes.

 

[Radioman100]

Hey, if it makes the "loonies" feel good to spend all that money on esoteric cables, why deprive them of the pleasure?

However, I don't see much difference between "audiophools" who claim they can hear a huge improvement by using $1000 cables, and HD radio enthusiasts who are convinced the system performs as well as promised and sounds amazing.

The promoters of HD radio would have us believe it offers "CD-Quality Sound, Crystal-clear reception, No station drop-off, and No static, hiss, or distortion", which would be nice if it were true... but these are misleading claims.

I'd love to know where you get your terms. I've heard "CD-quality sound" claimed as I have heard "crystal-clear reception." I've also heard "no static" and "no hiss" claimed, but "no distortion" and "no station drop-off" I've never heard anyone claim.

At decent bitrates, the system does offer better audio quality than analog FM radio. To me anyway, the difference is as dramatic as the difference you hear when switching from cassette tape to CD. If you're traveling through a multipath prone area, the difference is a lot more dramatic than that.

Most HD promotion I hear focuses on multicasting. If esoteric audio cables were capable of doubling the size of your music library while adding even more unique choices to your library like talk and lifestyle-niche targeted formats, even I might see some value in them.

 

[Savage]

Radioman, thanks for catching the text-editing snafu about the percentage of FMs NOT utilizing HD. We'll correct it ASAP. If you see anything else we missed pass it along - appreciate the feedback.

70% of "significant FMs" in major markets with HD, and "that's all it takes?"

"That's all it takes" for WHAT? For IBOC fans to declare victory to each other via blogsites, or to actually have a successful launch of a technical standard?

"That's all it takes?" Not unless IBOC proponents have fantasized a way for HD-FM broadcasts to enter the heads of prospective listeners through some kind of RF osmosis. Last I checked receivers had to be in the hands of listeners, who in turn had to show some interest in on-air products in order to justify the purchase thereof, and then to actually listen thereto. Thus far leading surveys declare decidedly otherwise is the case. See "Recalibrating Expectations" in the most recent inside back page of RW.

 

[Radioman100]

And why were the buyers of used MR-78’s interested in that aspect of its performance? Obviously because they were dissatisfied with their local FM stations in the age of consolidation. Content!

No, it's because they're DXers. It has nothing to do with content. It's the thrill of the hunt for them.

Way back when I was in high school, I worked for an AM/FM combo, often on the daytime AM side running the board for local high school games. We frequently made use of PSSA (Post Sunset Sports Authority) when broadcasting high school sports, and we were also frequently hounded by DXers that wanted us to verify reception for them when we were supposed to be off the air. Wanna guess how many of those cards ended up in file 13?

You'll never be able to convince me that those guys were tuning in because they were so dissatisfied with local radio in their own communities that they just HAD to hear some far off, small town football game. That's a disingenuous argument if I ever heard one.

Likewise, I reject the notion that droves of people are trying to tune in distant FM broadcasts because they're dissatisfied with their local offerings "in the age of consolidation." Why would they? If the city they're tuning into is large enough, it's the same corporate radio, just by a different name. If they're tuning into some small town station, more likely than not it's some satellite music format, programmed by corporate people with the SAME playlist their local corporate run stations have but with much more amateurish execution.

No, it's not about being able to lock onto first adjacents because you're unhappy with your local stations, it's about being able to lock onto them because it's your DXing hobby, plain and simple.

 

[Radioman100]

70% of "significant FMs" in major markets with HD, and "that's all it takes?"

"That's all it takes" for WHAT? For IBOC fans to declare victory to each other via blogsites, or to actually have a successful launch of a technical standard?

"That's all it takes?" Not unless IBOC proponents have fantasized a way for HD-FM broadcasts to enter the heads of prospective listeners through some kind of RF osmosis. Last I checked receivers had to be in the hands of listeners, who in turn had to show some interest in on-air products in order to justify the purchase thereof, and then to actually listen thereto. Thus far leading surveys declare decidedly otherwise is the case. See "Recalibrating Expectations" in the most recent inside back page of RW.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, all of this discussion of HD success or failure is moot until the radios are a standard feature in most new cars. Fortunately, Ford is moving us closer to that.

And as others have said before, having HD integrated into reasonably priced, mainstream entertainment devices (like the new Insignia shelf system) is one of the keys.

Hardly anyone is going to go out and buy a pricey new radio just to receive "something" which is all the radio industry is promising them. They might if they actually knew what was available to them, but radio as an industry has elected to not promote the HD2 and HD3 channels properly. I certainly wouldn't go out and spend $200 or more to buy a box that does "something." Would you?

Since the industry is doing such a piss poor job of promoting HD2 channels now, the only way they'll really catch on is when the radios end up in people's hands by some other means and they're discovered accidentally. Then, and only then will word of mouth spread and we'll see what HD's true impact will be.

 

[awj223]

Likewise, I reject the notion that droves of people are trying to tune in distant FM broadcasts because they're dissatisfied with their local offerings "in the age of consolidation." Why would they? If the city they're tuning into is large enough, it's the same corporate radio, just by a different name. If they're tuning into some small town station, more likely than not it's some satellite music format, programmed by corporate people with the SAME playlist their local corporate run stations have but with much more amateurish execution.

No, it's not about being able to lock onto first adjacents because you're unhappy with your local stations, it's about being able to lock onto them because it's your DXing hobby, plain and simple.

I disagree. I live in market #4 (or market #35 if you want to look at it that way, but they're pretty close together). When I'm not listening to AM and I want to listen to music, I tune into stations like KDND-FM 107.9 from Sacramento as soon as I get north of Sunol or east of the Caldecott Tunnel, because corporate radio in this market refuses to provide the content I want. The last major station that I liked in the market was KZQZ on 95.7, and the only in market music station I listen to regularly now is tiny KOHL on 89.3 and it doesn't cover the outer East Bay communities. So, as soon as I get out there I tune in KDND.

This has nothing to do with making a distant catch and everything to do with content. I'd probably be able to hold KDND even farther into SF if it wasn't being I-BLOCed by KSAN.

 

[LinoNYC]

From what I have read, the "royalities" come from revenue use of the FM HD2-3 not the digital carrier of the main channel.

If somebody knows otherwise, please correct.

What have you read about this? Can you give us a link? Can anybody on the pro-Ibiquity side? If not, you’ll have to excuse the rest of us for dismissing such an assertion out of hand!

The most recent quote on this came from Tom Ray via another site. Ofcourse he doesn't count, right? And you are excused.

You are still asserting that some antique from decades ago has had it's collector's valuation impaired by iboc.

Once again, collectors are faddists -prices vary widely over a short time.

Since you are earnestly tracking the value of this item, might I guess that you made a bad investment?

Lino

 

[radioskeptic]

Ah, Lino, still purposely missing the point?

You are still asserting that some antique from decades ago has had it's collector's valuation impaired by iboc.

No, not at all. I only said that its functional value -- that is, the ability to receive distant stations that are first-adjacent to strong local stations -- was impaired by IBOC. The MR-78's much lower value as a collector's item, like a 1920's Victrola or an old Edison cylinder player in pristine condition, is unimpaired.

Radioman100 tried to dismiss those who would pay $1,500-$2,000 for an MR-78 a few years ago with this:

Likewise, I reject the notion that droves of people are trying to tune in distant FM broadcasts because they're dissatisfied with their local offerings "in the age of consolidation." Why would they? If the city they're tuning into is large enough, it's the same corporate radio, just by a different name. If they're tuning into some small town station, more likely than not it's some satellite music format, programmed by corporate people with the SAME playlist their local corporate run stations have but with much more amateurish execution.

I see that awj223 already answered that pretty well:

I disagree. I live in market #4 (or market #35 if you want to look at it that way, but they're pretty close together). When I'm not listening to AM and I want to listen to music, I tune into stations like KDND-FM 107.9 from Sacramento as soon as I get north of Sunol or east of the Caldecott Tunnel, because corporate radio in this market refuses to provide the content I want. The last major station that I liked in the market was KZQZ on 95.7, and the only in market music station I listen to regularly now is tiny KOHL on 89.3 and it doesn't cover the outer East Bay communities. So, as soon as I get out there I tune in KDND.

This has nothing to do with making a distant catch and everything to do with content. I'd probably be able to hold KDND even farther into SF if it wasn't being I-BLOCed by KSAN.

But let me give you another concrete example. If you lived southwest of Philadelphia, and missed WFLN after Greater Media flipped that former classical commercial station to "Modern Adult" (the illegitimate offspring of Hot AC and Alternative Rock), you could get WQXR (96.3) from New York if you had a good enough antenna and tuner, despite the presence of Beasley's talk WWDB (now dance-CHR WRDW) as a local first adjacent on 96.5 almost directly in the path of WQXR's signal. But that's been impossible ever since Beasley turned on the I-BUZZ!

Since you are earnestly tracking the value of this item, might I guess that you made a bad investment?

No, Lino, I've never had that kind of mad money. I'm tracking it because it tells us something about what I-BUZZ has done to FM. While the baleful effects aren't nearly as bad as on AM, they're hardly inconsequential.

And finally, how about a link to verify that statement about the patent royalties applying only to revenues from HD-2 and -3? Just pretend you're writing a term paper, and you have to document your sources!

 

[Play Freebird]

I'd love to know where you get your terms. I've heard "CD-quality sound" claimed as I have heard "crystal-clear reception." I've also heard "no static" and "no hiss" claimed, but "no distortion" and "no station drop-off" I've never heard anyone claim.

Right off the HD Radio website. See:

http://www.hdradio.com/how_does_hd_digital_radio_sound.php

At decent bitrates, the system does offer better audio quality than analog FM radio. To me anyway, the difference is as dramatic as the difference you hear when switching from cassette tape to CD. If you're traveling through a multipath prone area, the difference is a lot more dramatic than that.

I did notice an genuine improvement on WXPN when they were running a single HD channel. As a non-comm station, they don't feel a need to over-process, so their their analog audio has sounded above-average for years. But the HD at 96k had a more 'open" quality, which I truly found enjoyable.

However, after the multicasting began, the quality of WXPN's HD-1 declined because bits were sacrificed to accommodate HD-2. I still notice a slight difference in tonal balance when the reciever blends between analog and digital, but WXPN's digital audio now lacks the depth it had before. This is an unfortunate compromise, because they offer an interesting format on HD-2.

We should all keep in mind that perceptual codecs rely on aural "sleight of hand". A lot of information is thrown away, just as is done during MPEG and JPEG encoding. And at some point, your ears catch on to the bandwidth reduction "trick". I think the HD codec sound quite impressive at 96k, but starts fall apart at 64k, and sounds pretty raunchy at 48 and below. To call it "CD-Quality" is an outright lie.

As for the multipath reduction, this works OK in strong signal urban areas (it can deal with refections off buildings a couple of km away), but I've found little improvement with longer time delays typically encountered in mountainous terrain.

 

[Radioman100]

But let me give you another concrete example. If you lived southwest of Philadelphia, and missed WFLN after Greater Media flipped that former classical commercial station to "Modern Adult" (the illegitimate offspring of Hot AC and Alternative Rock), you could get WQXR (96.3) from New York if you had a good enough antenna and tuner, despite the presence of Beasley's talk WWDB (now dance-CHR WRDW) as a local first adjacent on 96.5 almost directly in the path of WQXR's signal. But that's been impossible ever since Beasley turned on the I-BUZZ!

Well, take heart skeptic! It looks like Greater Media will be returning classical to the market via WJJZ-HD2, and unlike your first adjacent example, it will be available to anyone via inexpensive HD radios, not just people who can afford a $1,000+ super-tuner with unusually good first-adjacent rejection. In other words, mere mortals and not just radio geeks with outdoor antennas and expensive audiophile tuners will be able to get it.

And for awj223, in San Francisco CHR is offered on KMVQ-HD2.

You guys just need to buy a few HD Radios to get your respective music fixes.

 

[radioskeptic]

What’s that you say about “inexpensive HD radios”? Doesn’t that phrase belong in the same category as “country music,” “political ethics” and “military intelligence”? Sounds to me like a contradiction in terms!

But seriously, I don’t intend to buy an Ibiquity-licensed radio at any price, and I don’t even want one for free! I’m not impressed with the 64k streams I’ve heard on the web, and I understand that Ibiquity’s proprietary CODEC is inferior to the aacPlus used on the web, even at 96k.

I haven’t tried the 128k streams on the Real Pass subscription service, but I’m not about to pay for that, either, because I’m not all that fond of un-compressed digital audio.

In fact, I’ve never yet bought a CD player, either (unless you count the two DVD/CD transports in my computer, one of which records, and neither of which I use for audio or video; for that matter, I’ve never even “burned” data!). And I watch so little TV that I have absolutely no intension of buying a digital set when they discontinue analog TV broadcasting in 2009. (Obviously, I don’t care enough about TV to subscribe to either cable or satellite; and my computer connection is DSL!)