I can appreciate how IBOC is not on channel, in that it slops over to the next but how is it not in band?
-
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
Should I bother with cQuam AM Stereo?
- Thread starter Jimmy Backrow
- Start date
i call it "inherently bad off channel:
Many refer to it as IBAC,
with the A standing for adjacent.
People do still want radio station content, but they want it on their phones.
I still remember the excitement I felt when my parents bought me my first very own vacuum tube AM radio.
I figured out how to align all the IF cans and the tuning cap with zero documentation at a very young age...
and I lived to tell about it.
Adjacent? Before they turned it off, a 50,000 watt station that was nearby I-77 that I drove on every once in a while,would splatter across the whole radio dial from low end to the high end. It would start about 5 miles away from it till I was close by the tower and finally fade away once I was about 5 miles past it. Forget about listening to any other AM station if you lived by that noisemaker.
Jimmy-
Best wishes and sending good vibes to you and your colleagues at the station. You are to be commended for thinking of ways to improve the audience listening experience.
As I understand it, you are thinking about using a C-QAM exciter to drive the AM transmitter. Station will be broadcasting analog, and not HD Radio IBOC. Your idea is many HD Radio receiver AM sections will decode C-QAM stereo, and this opens up the audio high frequency response of the receiver. This will make the station sound better when heard on HD Radio receivers even though the station is not broadcasting an HD Radio IBOC signal.
I don't remember the technical details of C-QAM and not inclined to research it now. Posting because your might consider these points, some of which have already been touched on by The Big A and others:
1. Are there side effects of C-QAM encoding that could negatively impact audio for analog AM listeners? For example does it limit negative going modulation to a value some might consider a drawback? Does it apply high pass filtering to L-R audio? If you will broadcast mono audio yet encoded with C-QAM pilot, will the encoder do things to the mono audio? If you broadcast mono source material now (mostly) and this motivates you to use stereo source material more often, what are the music audience implications? Especially if you play '60s music. Playing the "right version" can be subjective. However if you start playing tacky re-makes and uninspiring remixes of hits to be in stereo, this may not be helpful.
2. Know your audience and your available audience. It is a demographic thing, and could be both are fine with a good sounding analog AM station. If they would like better audio, they might be more inclined to seek FM.
3. May not be as many HD Radio receivers that decode C-QAM in the hands of your audience and available audience as you might suppose. Sometimes radio folks get in a bubble.
4. Consider best way to spend money with goal of improving audience experience for the largest percentage of audience and available audience. You might get more bang for the buck with improvements to the analog audio processing, studio to transmitter link, and transmitter-antenna, especially if it is a directional antenna. Those are big ticket items, and the best answer may be to pass on them (even though you want to go for it) and do your best to acquire an FM translator. FM translator is giant cost of course , but it could resonate with audience hugely. I get what you said about translator coverage though, your audience may be dispersed over three counties and given incoming interference one translator is not likely to serve all of them.
5. Best money spent may not be on engineering. Since you are asking a nuanced audio oriented question about C-QAM and HD Radio receivers, would not be surprised if your station already sounds better than most other AM stations. Might instead increase time spent helping programming and on-air folks to the extent they want you to, and part of this is guiding money spent to things that help them.
So, you've got a lot to consider. Above all keep focusing on the audience experience and being financially wise.
Take care
Best wishes and sending good vibes to you and your colleagues at the station. You are to be commended for thinking of ways to improve the audience listening experience.
As I understand it, you are thinking about using a C-QAM exciter to drive the AM transmitter. Station will be broadcasting analog, and not HD Radio IBOC. Your idea is many HD Radio receiver AM sections will decode C-QAM stereo, and this opens up the audio high frequency response of the receiver. This will make the station sound better when heard on HD Radio receivers even though the station is not broadcasting an HD Radio IBOC signal.
I don't remember the technical details of C-QAM and not inclined to research it now. Posting because your might consider these points, some of which have already been touched on by The Big A and others:
1. Are there side effects of C-QAM encoding that could negatively impact audio for analog AM listeners? For example does it limit negative going modulation to a value some might consider a drawback? Does it apply high pass filtering to L-R audio? If you will broadcast mono audio yet encoded with C-QAM pilot, will the encoder do things to the mono audio? If you broadcast mono source material now (mostly) and this motivates you to use stereo source material more often, what are the music audience implications? Especially if you play '60s music. Playing the "right version" can be subjective. However if you start playing tacky re-makes and uninspiring remixes of hits to be in stereo, this may not be helpful.
2. Know your audience and your available audience. It is a demographic thing, and could be both are fine with a good sounding analog AM station. If they would like better audio, they might be more inclined to seek FM.
3. May not be as many HD Radio receivers that decode C-QAM in the hands of your audience and available audience as you might suppose. Sometimes radio folks get in a bubble.
4. Consider best way to spend money with goal of improving audience experience for the largest percentage of audience and available audience. You might get more bang for the buck with improvements to the analog audio processing, studio to transmitter link, and transmitter-antenna, especially if it is a directional antenna. Those are big ticket items, and the best answer may be to pass on them (even though you want to go for it) and do your best to acquire an FM translator. FM translator is giant cost of course , but it could resonate with audience hugely. I get what you said about translator coverage though, your audience may be dispersed over three counties and given incoming interference one translator is not likely to serve all of them.
5. Best money spent may not be on engineering. Since you are asking a nuanced audio oriented question about C-QAM and HD Radio receivers, would not be surprised if your station already sounds better than most other AM stations. Might instead increase time spent helping programming and on-air folks to the extent they want you to, and part of this is guiding money spent to things that help them.
So, you've got a lot to consider. Above all keep focusing on the audience experience and being financially wise.
Take care
Last edited:
G
Groove1670
Guest
I'm in radio and this is way over my head. How do expect the consumer to figure it out?
Want to improve your AM at this time? Buy or lease a translator. Find one within 250 miles and ask your attorney about the possibilty of a "Matoon Waiver". It is a long shot, but hey you never know. If one isn't available take that IOBC CQAM money and put it in your online listening offerings.
Want to improve your AM at this time? Buy or lease a translator. Find one within 250 miles and ask your attorney about the possibilty of a "Matoon Waiver". It is a long shot, but hey you never know. If one isn't available take that IOBC CQAM money and put it in your online listening offerings.
It sounds like there was something drastically wrong with their equipment! I live about a mile from KEX and never experienced anything like that, when they were running IBOC.
That's a good thing as the bit rate is so low that the audio quality is outright horrid. "HD" AM actually sounds much worse than standard AM though your average run of the mill AM tuner or radio.
Ah, the ever so refreshing bite of an old AA5 chassis. It'll wake you up for sure.
LMAO
Thank you. No, there's no negative side effect.
A translator is simply not going to happen. IBOC and cQuam are two different things. I'd rather outright turn the transmitter off than go IBOC.
Online we sound about as good as a stream can sound.
Thank you for the input.
That's encouraging and discouraging at the same time.
On one hand; that says that people still want content.
On the other hand; it says that people no longer care about audio quality.
I know that makes me sound like some kind of audiophile snob, and I understand that sounding like that while worried about the audio quality of an AM station makes me sound like I'm nuts..but to think of all of the effort I've put in to having the best possible sounding radio station only to have smartphones be the standard is....oooof.
Sorry to be Mr Negative.
I am one who believes, if the technology is available, use it.
Don't worry about the lack of receivers. That will come if it is worth it to the manufacturers.
However, I understand the shutdown of iBoc and C-QuAM.
The technologies were inherently flawed for the listener experience.
The listener experience should be the deciding factor without question.
My rule of thumb, "if I can't stand it, nobody can!"
Jeff in Sa-ra-so-ta!
Don't worry about the lack of receivers. That will come if it is worth it to the manufacturers.
However, I understand the shutdown of iBoc and C-QuAM.
The technologies were inherently flawed for the listener experience.
The listener experience should be the deciding factor without question.
My rule of thumb, "if I can't stand it, nobody can!"
Jeff in Sa-ra-so-ta!
That may not be universally true. I was in NYC last year and got to listen to 1010 WINS on AM HD and it was very impressive. Of course it's a news format so I can't vouch for how music sounds, but I find it hard to believe that it would be "horrid"' unless the station was doing something wrong.
I got to listen to an AM HD station running a music format in Denver. It sounded great - until sunset and I wasn't in the nighttime pattern.
I don't have a prejudice against HD radio, I just wouldn't put my money into either AM IBOC or CQUAM because it's not a good ROI. If I owned an AM, I'd spend my money keeping the antenna system in top shape which will help every listener no matter what kind of radio they own, a translator if it were available, and on a good streaming experience.
- Status