Like, for example, the FCC. They approved its use, and they continue to believe in it. They approved the power increase, and a couple years ago, the head of the Media Bureau said he can't understand why more stations don't use it.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Like, for example, the FCC. They approved its use, and they continue to believe in it. They approved the power increase, and a couple years ago, the head of the Media Bureau said he can't understand why more stations don't use it.
It seems to me that a lot of the users on this very website seem to be more keen than public experts as to what is best for the future of radio.
Whose job is it to regulate and manage public resources such as the spectrum?
It's one thing to have opinions, even knowledgeable opinions. It's quite another to get things to change.
As it stands now, iBiquity is the way of the future despite the public either:
A. Not wanting to use it
B. Not understanding how it works or what needs to be done
Its sort of like the DTV transition. Many over-the-air television viewers were either in the dark about how DTV worked, or resented the change. Interestingly enough, DTV turned out to be a "flop". The DTV transition caused my family to make the switch to cable tv, as digital signals are worthless.
I guess you don't have the internet where you live?
The radio industry has already expanded to the internet for distribution, and they're also making sure radio stations will be available via mobile phone.
Ibiquity may have been considered the way of the future 12 years ago, but a lot of water has passed under the bridge since then.
I'm really do not know all that much when it comes to the timeline of HD radio.
As with most changes of this type DTV had good and bad attributes:
Flops:
1. Inadequate testing beforehand did not discover the reduction in range of a digital TV signal nor issues with buildings in metro areas. Result was viewers too far away from towers or too close could not get signal.
2. Digital signals affected much more by sunlight, wind, dust, rain and trees than analog.
3. Addition of sub-channels largely a waste with the exception of a couple of retro/movie channels.
4. Cost of converter boxes and/or premature replacement of analog TV sets.
Successes:
1. Improvement in picture quality of HD signals (but not all digital signals are HD).
2. Addition of several retro/movie channels.
I blame the vacation of the VHF band in favour of the UHF band. The only signals I could get after the transition were the signals that remained on RF channels 13 and below.
That was another partially successful/unsuccessful program attribute. Digital signals are far more efficient on the UHF band than VHF (and particularly VHF-Lo, 2-6). Unfortunately VHF-Lo was the strongest band for analog TV. Although some stations remain on VHF-Hi (7-13) they are generally not as strong as those on UHF. In my market RF 8, 10 and 12 all have trouble reaching their former analog audience and RF 10 actually transmits an SD signal on a UHF sub-channel as a "backup".
It is quite a mess.
But what is DTV going to look like after Sept 2015?
Still as worthless as it is currently
What happens in Sept 2015?
R
rbrucecarter5
Guest
And another problem for HD radio. Now that skip season has arrived here, any skip at all and HD FM goes down. This is going to be completely independent of antenna type, receiver type, or protected contours. Skip can and will make inroads everywhere, and bring in those first adjacents and co-channels that will wreck the system. I had a LOCAL on this morning, 20 miles from the tower of a full class C, flat terrain, tower in sight. HD dropped so often that it was unusable. Problem was a first adjacent skipping in. I checked other local stations from the same antenna farm, same thing. Given that gulf coast skip goes on for several months, HD reliability - especially in the morning and late evening - will be virtually none. On the other hand, some of the distant first adjacents are pretty good, so at least I have something to replace the unreliable HD until skip season ends.
"Great" system they got there. If they had just given up on SCA, RDS, and other stuff they could have kept HD in the existing channels and the first adjacent skip problem never would have happened.
Crappy engineering leads to crappy results and an unreliable system for FM. Bunch of pompous incompetents at iBiquity ignored any result that challenged their system. Now we are left with this pile of crap they rolled out.
"Great" system they got there. If they had just given up on SCA, RDS, and other stuff they could have kept HD in the existing channels and the first adjacent skip problem never would have happened.
Crappy engineering leads to crappy results and an unreliable system for FM. Bunch of pompous incompetents at iBiquity ignored any result that challenged their system. Now we are left with this pile of crap they rolled out.
I never have had the opportunity to try HD radio in a moving car for myself. I imagine that its a complete abomination in my region, as there are many hills and even the analog FM reception is not the greatest. The FM band consistently suffers from fluttering (even full power class C stations). I don't think many people notice. However, if the analog signal diapered (like in the case of the digital transition), we'd probably have nothing.
I saw a video on YouTube a few years ago which featured some sort of new technology that could be added to FM transmission sites that would allow for better reception. As I recall, it had nothing to do with HD, nor did it have anything to do with the listener. It was simply a way to weed out the FM "flutters" you get when you try to listen in a region with rugged terrain. Does anyone know anything about this technology? If this is actually in existence, I think adding this service to an FM station would be much more beneficial than HD. Especially where I live.
Last edited:
Did you make that video? From the exit signs I see...it appears to be just on the line...maybe even outside.
.....do we know how efficiently KVMR was running that day? Were they at half-power? Low modulation?
Well, we could go back to the old "clear channel" system, remove all other stations on the same frequency....and have nationwide reception.
If there were no other stations on that or adjacent frequency, You could probably pick up KVMR for a lot further as well.
But that's not how it works, is it?
And you've failed (or cannot) understand the "real life" of the radio industry...then I'm done too. See ya'.
Of course, the HD Haters can't stand that anyone says anything positive about HD Radio. Drives them crazy, right Eduardo? ..so they show up like a swarm. LOL
Last edited:
Yes - it was me. The video was made on the North side of Auburn, about 2 miles inside that line - as I said. But it's kind of immaterial. The interference occurs all over Auburn, Alta Sierra, and along Highway 49 near La Bar Meadows and Dog Bar Road (google knows where they are if you want to check) in Grass Valley. Oh - and all along McCourtney Road surrounding Wolf Mountain. Unfortunately, the more prestigious locations (with a gorgeous view of the Central Valley) are the places where reception is the worst.
And yes, KVMR has a very nice Harris Z5 with a solid backup transmitter and has not wavered from 100% for at least 2 years. Modulation is controlled by an Omnia. Not real aggressive, but always 100%.
The NPR study estimated that about 48% of the population in our coverage area would receive objectionable interference at elevated power levels. I don't think it's quite that bad, but I haven't been everywhere yet.
Dave B.
I was a staunch supporter of HD at the beginning of the period when broadcasters invested seed capital in the company. Even when I heard the early demos of AM HD at the Nautel booth at NAB along with folks like Tom Ray and realized that it was not mature and might never be, I thought that HD was radio's digital window.
Now I know that streaming is radio's digital window, not HD.
Along the way, around 2002 or so Strubbe was a guest at a meeting. I asked when we would see portable HD devices like a Walkman... or even like a boom box. He gave a "in development but not in the channels" statement that indicated that the battery drain of HD was far from being resolved. It still is.
Then I heard HD AM on the air, with 99.99% of the audience (maybe more) getting 5 kHz audio instead of 10 kHz. I heard the sideband buzz, and saw how it prevented car radio seek buttons from working... they stopped on the adjacent channel buzz! And that happened on FM, too, negating radio's powerful ability to be "found" by folks scanning the dial.
I realized FM HD-1 was nearly identical to analog, and offered no amazing gain. Adding HD-2 channels diminished the quality of the HD-1, and so on. Synchronization of the analog and digital was not easy, particularly on AM. So in areas where the HD signal dropped out... and in... and out... and in... and out, the audio was often off in timing, making listening unbearable. Or the processing was so different that it sounded like going between bandwidth options on a short wave receiver. And I heard and still hear this on stations like KFI and KNX and KIIS and KBIG.
And finally, except when getting a translator is involved, there was nothing interesting on HD in most markets unless I liked Bollywood tunes and spoke Hindi.
The window for HD was only open briefly. The recession slammed it shut, and people are not buying radios anymore... they are buying smartphones and want to link them to the dashboard. As the recession subsided somewhat, the web became the delivery tool of choice. HD is sorta' like the appendix. We got one, it does not do anything to enhance life, and it causes problems for some people that require surgery to cure.
HD is being "saved" only by traffic data and the occasional translator. On its own, it never gets ratings or revenues.
Last edited:
R
rbrucecarter5
Guest
You may be referring to diversity reception, which is two antennas on the car going to two front ends that are summed together. Diversity antennas fight the flutter by trying to place at least one antenna in a node of the station - assuming they are far enough apart to put one in a node while the other is in a null. I've long held that multiple antenna bays produce moire patterns, hence flutter in the fringes. I compared the Roswell stations with ridiculous numbers of bays covering the entire tower - and high levels of picket fencing - to a station that experimented with a single bay and had absolutely no flutter. Single bay antennas are inefficient, but the lack of flutter in the fringes would probably substantially improve HD reception in cars. At the cost of tremendous electric bills at the station.
Interesting! I don't think we are referring to the same thing though. I need to step up my game and try to find that source! As I recall, this system allowed a FM signal to be as strong as a mono signal, while still being in stereo. Someone will eventually run across this thread and know what i'm talking about
(so i hope)Does anyone know a good resource to view the 60dbu map for HD-1 signals?
Last edited:
- Status