Savage in Radio World

[Carmine5]

The 3/24 issue of Radio World is almost entirely devoted to HD Radio and primarily the FM power increase. But no discussion on HDR interference is complete without citing WYSL and a few choice quotes from Mr. Savage, "The poster boy for naysayers of HD Radio." His quotes are on pps. 11-12. I didn't realize the FCC wants six complaints of sustained interference within a station's protected contour before they would investigate. At that rate, Bob is definitely safe in offering the best steak dinner in town.

There's another article on page 22 that describes a method for achieving HD-AM while preserving a full 10 kHz of the analog signal by eliminating the secondary carriers. The entire package is still well outside the FCC mask but apparently that no longer matters (given that the Commission is run entirely by non-engineers).

http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/newbay/rw_20100324/#/22

c5

 

[Tom Wells]

Those with AM analog systems wideband enough to do it, should implement full audio. No mask.
Any bandwidth is now fair game for the taking.
I'm not sure what to think about how this will sound on the host signal.
This shifts much more noise onto the neighbors.
Last week I found an early iboc "application help" paper which stated very definitively that in an AM iboc, negatve modulation
peaks may NOT exceed 94%. This ensures there is always enough carrier left for the sidebands to reference,
and explains the effectively reduced analog coverage and audio density noted by so many.

 

[Savage]

Well, I tried this yesterday, but for some reason the post didn't make it. I can't tell if some web glitch kept the comment from posting or if the Moderator didn't like it and deleted it....no PMs from the Board Editor, so I'll try again.

I just want to say for the record that Radio World never contacted or interviewed me for this article. I was surprised - first I heard about "my quotes" was when Carmine started this thread. I'm disappointed. The "naysayer" quote appears to have been lifted wholesale from my comments on this board, and the article seems to subtly ridicule me and WYSL and our interference situation with WBZ-HD, suggesting it's an isolated case of a noisy obstructionist.

The context of my "naysayer" reference was that I was satirizing those who constantly rely on that hackneyed term as well as "Luddites" as IBOC-boosters denigrate HD critics. I was not indulging in self-deprecation; I was quoting the trite rhetoric of the pro-HD faction. So at least in this regard the RW article isn't accurate.

Paul and Leslie should know better. If you're going to quote somebody, attribution of sources is basic journalistic practice. RW should have noted my quotes came from posts on radio-info.com and provided some context for them.

For the record: I do NOT see myself as a "naysayer." I regard myself as standing up for quality radio reception on the analog receivers used by 99.999994% of the listening public.

 

[Carmine5]

Those with AM analog systems wideband enough to do it, should implement full audio. No mask.
Any bandwidth is now fair game for the taking.
I'm not sure what to think about how this will sound on the host signal.
This shifts much more noise onto the neighbors.
Last week I found an early iboc "application help" paper which stated very definitively that in an AM iboc, negatve modulation
peaks may NOT exceed 94%. This ensures there is always enough carrier left for the sidebands to reference,
and explains the effectively reduced analog coverage and audio density noted by so many.

I see this idea as a tacit acknowledgement that the vast majority of radio users listen in analog and will be doing so for many years to come (so it better sound good, right?). It also shows that it is impossible to use HD-AM without bleeding onto first adjacent channels. In any other scenario this would result in a fine and a follow up visit from the FCC but for HDR it's OK.

Mr. Savage: well, now we know that Radio World reads Radio-Info, warts and all. I'm surprised and very disappointed by their stealth method of getting an "interview" with you. It certainly does call into question RW's journalistic integrity. Besides the focus of the article was on the power increase and HD-FM. Why they should mention an interference conflict between two AM stations is puzzling and shows that they were straining for some copy to fill that subject.

Hey, I worked for a national magazine for a short time so I know how editors can massage a topic and make it work for them.

c5

 

[Savage]

Yes, and WYSL used to own the local newspaper. As Publisher if one of my writers ever lifted quotes and used them out of context and without attribution, I would have whacked their knuckles with a pica ruler.

 

[audioguy]

The 3/24 issue of Radio World is almost entirely devoted to HD Radio and primarily the FM power increase. But no discussion on HDR interference is complete without citing WYSL and a few choice quotes from Mr. Savage, "The poster boy for naysayers of HD Radio." His quotes are on pps. 11-12. I didn't realize the FCC wants six complaints of sustained interference within a station's protected contour before they would investigate. At that rate, Bob is definitely safe in offering the best steak dinner in town.

There's another article on page 22 that describes a method for achieving HD-AM while preserving a full 10 kHz of the analog signal by eliminating the secondary carriers. The entire package is still well outside the FCC mask but apparently that no longer matters (given that the Commission is run entirely by non-engineers).

http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/newbay/rw_20100324/#/22

c5

This particular issue of RW arrived in my mailbox with a renewal wrapper. There was a time when I eagerly awaited every issue and read it cover to cover, including the ads. However, as the whole sorry saga of HD radio began to unfold, I became less and less interested. When I saw the article in this issue devoted to cranking up the HD injection level, that was it! I took my copy and deposited it in the recycle bin.

Now I don't blame this company for supporting HD radio; they obviously derive a considerable amount of revenue from advertisers who are HD proponents, and they have to keep them happy. But as an audio professional, I find that HD radio is totally unsatisfying in terms of the product it delivers. I am tired of hearing about how great it is from people who seem to have no concept of what constitutes quality audio.

As far as further widening the bandwidth of HD AM signals is concerned, beyond the obvious increase in interference, what would be gained? HD AM (and FM, for that matter) already sounds awful on an analog receiver due to the annoying hiss in the background; widening the signal is just going to make it that much worse, especially if the listener is using a radio with a wide IF bandwidth that can benefit from the additional analog frequency response. HD AM is bad; please, let's just be done with this unsuccessful experiment.

 

[Carmine5]

Now I don't blame this company for supporting HD radio; they obviously derive a considerable amount of revenue from advertisers who are HD proponents, and they have to keep them happy. But as an audio professional, I find that HD radio is totally unsatisfying in terms of the product it delivers. I am tired of hearing about how great it is from people who seem to have no concept of what constitutes quality audio.

It's true. When you run a trade magazine you walk a fine line between objectivity and slumming. Radio World has crossed it on the wrong side more than once and, as you observed, no doubt it is because of advertisers. I've noticed that RW's biggest clients are the transmitter manufacturers who offer a lot of HD gear in addition to amplifiers (at the other extreme, far be it from Ibiquity or the Alliance to ever spend a dime on advertising).

Yes, occasionally RW offers opposing views on HD, either in the form of a guest editorial or letters. But more often then not the HD opponents are marginalized and regarded as not facing up to the realities of a world gone digital.

c5

 

[jhardis]

The 3/24 issue of Radio World is almost entirely devoted to HD Radio and primarily the FM power increase.

Hey, I kind of like the fact that Radio World tried to paint a broad picture.

Of course, the content of the article was outdated by the time it hit print, but I realize that the press is constrained by production deadlines.

- Jonathan

 

[davideduardo]

...at the other extreme, far be it from Ibiquity or the Alliance to ever spend a dime on advertising).

The Alliance is just an association of stations that band together to promote HD to the radio audience. They have no reason to advertise in any trade publication, as they do not address nor have anything to sell to the industry.

iBiquity publishes those scorecards, and has for several years... that is advertising.

 

[Carmine5]

...at the other extreme, far be it from Ibiquity or the Alliance to ever spend a dime on advertising).

The Alliance is just an association of stations that band together to promote HD to the radio audience. They have no reason to advertise in any trade publication, as they do not address nor have anything to sell to the industry.

iBiquity publishes those scorecards, and has for several years... that is advertising.

Yes, I'm aware of who make up the HD Alliance. One of their primary functions is to "spread the word" about HD Radio and create marketing materials to that end for others to use in advertising. But what this consortium of radio groups need to do is put their money where their mouth is, cut loose of some their own cash and, through the Alliance, spend on advertising HDR themselves instead of expecting CE manufacturers to do it or expect the press to routinely publish every press release they issue. Of course, they wouldn't advertise in a trade journal but they certainly would and should advertise in consumer electronics magazines or for that matter, People or any other newsstand magazine. Instead HD Radio is MIA.

I forgot about the HD scoreboard and that's the point. We haven't seen it in a while, have we? A tepid advertising effort courtesy of Ibiquity. And here again, Ibiquity shouldn't be wasting ad dollars, what few they spend, in a trade mag but in publications consumers read.

c5

 

[Savage]

I don't have a past issue of RW to check, but IIRC.....wasn't the HD Radio Scoreboard actually sponsored by BE.....? (And yes, regardless of whether the page was bought by iBiquity or Broadcast Electronics, it is indeed advertising. Extremely hyped and inaccurate advertising. Generally the totals claimed for operating and on-air HD stations were considerably inflated.)

 

[davideduardo]

Yes, I'm aware of who make up the HD Alliance. One of their primary functions is to "spread the word" about HD Radio and create marketing materials to that end for others to use in advertising. But what this consortium of radio groups need to do is put their money where their mouth is, cut loose of some their own cash and, through the Alliance, spend on advertising HDR themselves instead of expecting CE manufacturers to do it or expect the press to routinely publish every press release they issue. Of course, they wouldn't advertise in a trade journal but they certainly would and should advertise in consumer electronics magazines or for that matter, People or any other newsstand magazine. Instead HD Radio is MIA.

HD Alliance has no significant cash budget... except for a small amout for creative and a coordinator. The Alliance is principally a way to have a unified message on all member stations, and to create time banks as incentives for major merchandisers to promote the availability of receivers. The objective is to use valuable inventory from each member to focus on one selling point at a time.

The Alliance was never intended to promote outside the medium, nor to lobby CE manufacturers. That job belongs to iBiquity, the owner of the patents and the product.

 

[LynnW]

Considering the "creativity" of those promotional spots that I've heard, the budget must be negative. Not that I've heard one recently. Changes to formats and programming in St. Louis have driven me off the FM band. Or any use of the radio execpt in the car and the only when driving in the St. Louis area. Not that I will be missed. I'm outside of the desired demographic. That is really ironic considering I have far more disposable income than ever before.

BTW, David, your website is astounding. Thanks for all the work making it.

 

[Carmine5]

I don't have a past issue of RW to check, but IIRC.....wasn't the HD Radio Scoreboard actually sponsored by BE.....? (And yes, regardless of whether the page was bought by iBiquity or Broadcast Electronics, it is indeed advertising. Extremely hyped and inaccurate advertising. Generally the totals claimed for operating and on-air HD stations were considerably inflated.)

I believe you're right. It is BE. Like I said, it's been a while since we've seen this scoreboard. Of course, if there has been little movement in station conversions, publishing the same figures month after month can get a little embarrassing.

There is one figure on the scoreboard we'll probably never see and that is the number of stations who installed HD, ran it for a while and then shut it down.

 

[Chuck]

BTW, David, your website is astounding. Thanks for all the work making it.

That is one thing we can all agree on. It is an amazing web site. Thanks David!

 

[davideduardo]

BTW, David, your website is astounding. Thanks for all the work making it.

That is one thing we can all agree on. It is an amazing web site. Thanks David!

You are both welcome!

 

[audioguy]

BTW, David, your website is astounding. Thanks for all the work making it.

It is a beautiful site. It needs only one thing; a "favicon" to show up in our bookmarks. If you want, I will make you one if you tell me what you would like it to look like.

 

[Randal Marshall]

Another "nay sayer" weighs in on AM IBOC:

http://www.engineeringradio.us/blog/2010/03/i-buzz/

 

[ve3jf]

It's true. When you run a trade magazine you walk a fine line between objectivity and slumming. Radio World has crossed it on the wrong side more than once and, as you observed, no doubt it is because of advertisers. I've noticed that RW's biggest clients are the transmitter manufacturers who offer a lot of HD gear in addition to amplifiers (at the other extreme, far be it from Ibiquity or the Alliance to ever spend a dime on advertising).

Yes, occasionally RW offers opposing views on HD, either in the form of a guest editorial or letters. But more often then not the HD opponents are marginalized and regarded as not facing up to the realities of a world gone digital.

c5

I can't really blame RW for being careful with this touchy subject - they do have an advertiser-supported business to run, and equipment suppliers are understandably gung ho about HD. Compared with the fawning coverage of HD you find in Radio mag, RW has been fairly open in airing opposing views. Watch for mine in an upcoming issue!

 

[Carmine5]

Watch for mine in an upcoming issue!

Look forward to it.