Something that actually WORKS on AM

[Wimmmex]

HD is not a priority to anyone. It's just an added feature that gives more functionality to your radio. It's not the end of the world.

Making my point. So much for "the stations between the stations".

No, I'm not making your point at all. I'm putting a dose of reality into it. Do you expect broadcasters to make HD streams a PRIORITY?

The priority is where the most listeners are...and that's analog. You expect a different priority?

They aren't stations to broadcasters, who don't take them seriously. Since this is about the only advantage of HD, and it is being sacrificed by short sighted station management.

I don't know where Bruce works...but every station I am involved with them treats them as real programming....and every platform of the programming is treated seriously. Where you see "short-sightedness is beyond me. Most broadcasters have kept their HD2 streams commercial free (or close to it) to preserve their value. Short-sightedness would have been to sell out their HD2 channels at a dollar-a-hollar..which I don't see anyone really doing.

HD acceptance would have taken dedication to reliability on the part of broadcasters, that obviously never happened.

HD Radio acceptance...and any changes to radio listening would have taken a lonnnng time and is an uphill battles, because people don't change their habits quickly, and most people don't think about radio, except that it's there. So, "acceptance" overnight was never going to happen, and the pros in the industry knew that. No one was expecting it. They knew it was going to take a long time.

But FM HD is now part of the infrastructure of broadcasting in the USA (FM HD anyway, AM in general is a different story).

It's not going away.

 

[tomservo]

Coordination sure didn't do squat for my radio dial. All I have are two copies of the same smooth jazz format, a commercial free top 40 that plays the same stuff as the two analog top 40s here and one subchannel repeating an AM talk station.

So much for the stations between the stations.

 

[Wimmmex]

Coordination sure didn't do squat for my radio dial.

Where IS your radio dial? City/State?

All I have are two copies of the same smooth jazz format,

Coordination should have prevented that. WHat two stations are those?

a commercial free top 40 that plays the same stuff as the two analog top 40s here

But it's commercial free...as was much of the appeal of FM Top 40....than the news and spot laden AM Top 40's...especially in the days of spotify, Pandora, etc.

and one subchannel repeating an AM talk station.

What station? Is it a limited signal AM station? If so, that's a plus.

So much for the stations between the stations.

Here in Boston for HD2's we have some great variety in "stations between the stations".

88.9 - Broadway/Show Tunes
89.7 - Classical New England bringing Classical to areas that are not served by the format.
91.9 - Folk
92.9 - Local Bands
94.5- Bloomberg
96.9 - Irish music
98.5 - WBCN The Rock of Boston lives on!
100.7 - Blues
100.7 - Free form AOR (HD3!)
102.5 - Classic Country
103.3 - Oldies
103.3 - Soft upper-demo AC (HD3!)
104.1 - 80's
104.1 - Christian Contemporary (HD3!)
105.7 - Classic Rock
106.7 - Smooth Jazz
107.9 - EDM


So much for coordination!

 

[davideduardo]

But it's commercial free...as was much of the appeal of FM Top 40....than the news and spot laden AM Top 40's...especially in the days of spotify, Pandora, etc.

When Top 40 hit FM, it was hardly commercial free. In fact, some of the first FM Top 40's like WPGC, brought the AM commercials from daytimer 1580 right over to FM.

The first major FM Top`40's were ones like WDRQ, KSLQ and WMYQ. They came on and had loads of commercials very quickly. The difference is that many FM music stations of the very late 60's and early 70's decided to limit commercials more than AM did. Fewer minutes, yes. But commercial-free? not at all. By the time the General Cinema stations went top 40, a bit later in the 70's, it was the AMs that had fewer spots because they had lost ratings to the FMs.

 

[davideduardo]

... a commercial free top 40 that plays the same stuff as the two analog top 40s here...

Why would the top 40 songs in a market be any different whether on a commercial-free or commercialized signal? A hit is a hit is a hit.

 

[davideduardo]

Considering how well the "AM Stereo" marketplace approach went...

The marketplace approach was the reaction to Leonard Kahn's legal actions which delayed AM stereo beyond its window of opportunity and, essentially, killed any chances of AM surviving as a music medium.

Actually the "coordination" helped bring about the best variety of formats to HD without any overlapping. There weren't 3 urbans...or 2 jazz formats...and no oldies, etc. The coordination was a benefit to users because it brought them the best variety of "stations between the stations" possible.

And the coordination actually helped innovation and risk...as broadcasters were more willing to take risks if they knew that the formats were not going to be picked willy-nilly with a lot of repeating formats. Boston decided to try an "Irish format...as well as Contemporary Christian format.

The coordination broke down in the first year or so, as some companies feared it could be attacked as collusion and others did not want to pay the large membership fees for the industry committee to create those horrendous "stations between the stations" ads with.

In my (very) short time on the coordination committees in several markets, I found that the bigger groups took the "better formats" and there was not much thought given to niche or inventive formats.

 

[Wimmmex]

The marketplace approach was the reaction to Leonard Kahn's legal actions which delayed AM stereo beyond its window of opportunity and, essentially, killed any chances of AM surviving as a music medium.

Exactly my point.

When Top 40 hit FM, it was hardly commercial free.

Not quite commercial free...but an emphasis on "less talk/more music". with "commercial free music flights" etc. That kind of thing.

Many became automated music boxes...esp after they had to have seperate programming. Spot loads on FM tended to be lower...for a lot of reasons...one was that they were harder to sell. ;-)

In my (very) short time on the coordination committees in several markets, I found that the bigger groups took the "better formats" and there was not much thought given to niche or inventive formats.

What were the markets....and what were considered the "better formats"?

Which "bigger groups" were the bullies? I mentioned earlier in this thread that here in Boston we have quite the variety.

88.9 - Broadway/Show Tunes
89.7 - Classical New England bringing Classical to areas that are not served by the format.
91.9 - Folk
92.9 - Local Bands
94.5- Bloomberg
96.9 - Irish music
98.5 - WBCN The Rock of Boston lives on!
100.7 - Blues
100.7 - Free form AOR (HD3!)
102.5 - Classic Country
103.3 - Oldies
103.3 - Soft upper-demo AC (HD3!)
104.1 - 80's
104.1 - Christian Contemporary (HD3!)
105.7 - Classic Rock
106.7 - Smooth Jazz
107.9 - EDM

 

[mimo]

In Canada until the 1980's there were regulations for commercials that differed on both bands. FM was allowed 200 a week, AM was allowed 400 minutes a week. In the mid 80's the the 400 minute rule was dropped on AM and FM was allowed an extra 50 minutes a week. People were worried that the amount of ads on AM would soar to the point it was almost all ads, but the opposite happened. Fewer ads ran and AM stations started running as much as 2 hours of commercial free music, with only dj's between the songs. It appears that not only was there a limit of 400 minutes a week, they had to actually RUN 400 a week. The stations just started charging more for the ads, knowing they had the audience and let the music run a bit longer. During drive times the ad time didn't change much but you noticed longer music sets in mid days, weekends and evenings, when it was only teens listening. I'll never forget that time in 1987 I was listening to LG 73 in Vancouver one weekend afternoon, the dj said after the commercial break they'd be starting up 120 minutes of non-stop commercial free music.

 

[davideduardo]

Exactly my point.

But the FCC's original plan, to select one system in 1977, would have been timely and possibly effective. The outcome was artificially flavored by sour grapes.

Not quite commercial free...but an emphasis on "less talk/more music". with "commercial free music flights" etc. That kind of thing.

Actually, except for the simulcasts with AM daytimers such as the one I mentioned, Top 40 did not come to FM until about 5 years after the general 1/1/67 FM "no simulcast" dictate. The three Bartell "Q" FMs in St Louis, Detroit and Miami were pretty much the first independents, and happened in early '72. Within that year, there were quite a few additional Top 40's (the one I programmed in Birmingham being one of them). But, while there were some "free music hours" most of us got sold out rather fast as the ratings snapped very quickly.

Many became automated music boxes...esp after they had to have seperate programming. Spot loads on FM tended to be lower...for a lot of reasons...one was that they were harder to sell. ;-)

Because I was programming one of the early ('72) Top 40's I followed the others closely... via Gavin, Hamilton, even Billboard. I don't recall any significant market automated Top 40's (not to be confused with gold / recurrent heavy "Hit Parade" from Drake and similar tape-delivered formats). I am talking about WPGC, KUPD, WMYQ, WHYI, WPEZ and the like... all personality Top 40's with big ratings, high rates and full lineups of personality jocks.

Once the first few shot to the top tier in the ratings, knocking off the AM Top 40's rather rapidly in most places, it was the heritage AM top 40's that had light commercial loads... like KXOL in Ft Worth and KLIF in Dallas after KNUZ, with better coverage, came on.

What were the markets....and what were considered the "better formats"?

6 of the top 10, 9 of the top 20. Better formats were things like Urban AC where none existed, alternative rock where there was no main channel, etc.

Which "bigger groups" were the bullies?

By virtue of having more signals the larger operators got more "draft picks". Niche specialists were discouraged from going outside the niche.

I mentioned earlier in this thread that here in Boston we have quite the variety.

But the "guidance" or coordination of formats by the HD Alliance ended in the first year or so of operation, with the Alliance being mostly an effort to get in-store HD presence (such as tagging "Stations between the stations" ads with a Best Buy liner).

 

[Wimmmex]

But the FCC's original plan, to select one system in 1977, would have been timely and possibly effective. The outcome was artificially flavored by sour grapes.

Doesn't matter how or why....the "outcome" of a marketplace approach didn't work out well for AM....it caused delay, as you said, and time ran out.

But the "guidance" or coordination of formats by the HD Alliance ended in the first year or so of operation, .

Doesn't matter. The guidance was a good starting point....and did a lot to kick off a good variety of formats.

 

[semoochie]

But the FCC's original plan, to select one system in 1977, would have been timely and possibly effective. The outcome was artificially flavored by sour grapes.



Actually, except for the simulcasts with AM daytimers such as the one I mentioned, Top 40 did not come to FM until about 5 years after the general 1/1/67 FM "no simulcast" dictate. The three Bartell "Q" FMs in St Louis, Detroit and Miami were pretty much the first independents, and happened in early '72. Within that year, there were quite a few additional Top 40's (the one I programmed in Birmingham being one of them). But, while there were some "free music hours" most of us got sold out rather fast as the ratings snapped very quickly.




Because I was programming one of the early ('72) Top 40's I followed the others closely... via Gavin, Hamilton, even Billboard. I don't recall any significant market automated Top 40's (not to be confused with gold / recurrent heavy "Hit Parade" from Drake and similar tape-delivered formats). I am talking about WPGC, KUPD, WMYQ, WHYI, WPEZ and the like... all personality Top 40's with big ratings, high rates and full lineups of personality jocks.

Once the first few shot to the top tier in the ratings, knocking off the AM Top 40's rather rapidly in most places, it was the heritage AM top 40's that had light commercial loads... like KXOL in Ft Worth and KLIF in Dallas after KNUZ, with better coverage, came on.




6 of the top 10, 9 of the top 20. Better formats were things like Urban AC where none existed, alternative rock where there was no main channel, etc.



By virtue of having more signals the larger operators got more "draft picks". Niche specialists were discouraged from going outside the niche.




But the "guidance" or coordination of formats by the HD Alliance ended in the first year or so of operation, with the Alliance being mostly an effort to get in-store HD presence (such as tagging "Stations between the stations" ads with a Best Buy liner).

In Portland, KPAM(daytimer)/KPFM switched to Top 40 in 1969 a few months before KGW. It was live and local during all hours from the beginning. I don't know how they did initially but they had to be second by default. A few years later, with the AM, a distant memory, the FM was second and KISN was in third!

 

[rbrucecarter5]

No, I'm not making your point at all. I'm putting a dose of reality into it. Do you expect broadcasters to make HD streams a PRIORITY?

The priority is where the most listeners are...and that's analog. You expect a different priority?

I don't know where Bruce works...but every station I am involved with them treats them as real programming.

Another hall of shamer in Houston. KRBE HD-2. Gone for WEEKs now. Not a station between the stations, not a priority, not taken seriously, not reliable - take your pick. HD is just a sideline joke to these stations. The only hope I see is renting out the HD subchannel to feed a translator. Here in Houston they even get that wrong. For the microscopic number of people that have an HD radio and know how to use it - the HD-3 on 102.1 is very low in volume, obviously mono (the translator it supposedly drives is stereo), it is just there to skirt FCC rules about originating local content. But the revenue to 102.1 is the same, about the only way the HD subchannel can get revenue. 104.1 sold commercials on HD-2, obviously that money dried up, so why bother? They might as well switch back to the old antenna bays that gave them extremely good range for their analog signal, and penetrate buildings again.

 

[Kelly A]

They might as well switch back to the old antenna bays that gave them extremely good range for their analog signal, and penetrate buildings again.

Once again you're spreading misinformation Bruce.. FM-HD (IBOC) signals don't effect the coverage nor field strength or building penetration of the associated FM analog carrier. Please stop reporting it, because you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

 

[rbrucecarter5]

Once again you're spreading misinformation Bruce.. FM-HD (IBOC) signals don't effect the coverage nor field strength or building penetration of the associated FM analog carrier. Please stop reporting it, because you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

I think - in an adversarial sort of way - we established it was new antenna bays that limit the analog coverage. Whatever they changed to is not nearly as good as they used prior to HD. It is certainly more plausible to me that a wideband antenna bay causes the problem - because obviously Bob-FM doesn't have coverage issues. If it weren't for the new Cypress radio, it would punch through with a reliable signal on the West side of Houston. Why is their analog coverage so good, while Houston stations barely make it past Huntsville? It has to be something they are doing different, because both Bob-FM and the Houston stations are broadcasting HD. This is a complex technical issue, but the decreased coverage on Houston - and Dallas FM stations is undeniable and repeatable (as 107.5 proves when they went back and forth ten years ago). Also, the recent outage on 106.9 - I notice better coverage on the West side of Houston, people way up in NE Texas report them. Now - back to the same as before. 106.9 was a full outage - back to no HD at all, analog only. I make observations, so do others. Something is up with HD vs. coverage. A new type of antenna bay is as plausible as something confusing the AGC of radios. Since I don't have access to the Agilent spectrum analyzer any more, and the nice building where I can wheel the thing down the hall, and I can't order HD stations to shut off and turn on at will - I can't prove with test equipment measurements. For that I apologize. But it is undeniable that something is up when the coverage without HD goes way up. Maybe it is receiver AGC, maybe it is antenna bays on some stations - something. I don't care if you believe me - and other people report the same thing. I know what I have observed. Stations ignore coverage issues at their peril. If I were a station engineer at KRBE, and read things about KHPT shutting off HD entirely and all dropouts over Houston disappeared, I would sit up and take notice - because for the foreseeable future, analog is the revenue driver for FM, and anything that is hurting the analog signal - included HD - isn't worth it. So insult me and ignore me all you want, it doesn't change the facts about HD vs. coverage and building penetration. I have two theories now - AGC and bad antenna bays. But I don't really know what is causing it - just the phenomenon.

 

[tomservo]

I don't doubt that you're experiencing some sort of problem with the coverage of HD-enabled stations, but I sure can't seem to reproduce it.

I'm on the 60 dBu edge (according to Radio-Dislocator) for WUWF, the pubcaster for Pensacola. Their tower is way off in Navarre on the east side of town and I'm 35 miles west of Pensacola. They run the full 6% or whatever it is for HD. When they take the HD off for regular maintenance, it does not affect the signal level here in my home one iota. I'm exactly 41 miles from their tower, with an antenna height of 614 ft HAAT. 100 kW. This is the land of the HD dropouts on good radios and scratchy analog stereo. So if there was a difference, this is where I'd notice it. But there doesn't seem to be any difference.

Furthermore I don't observe any coverage issues with the more local class C stations that run HD versus the ones that don't. I'm only ~12 and ~18 miles away from the two main TX sites and the bulk of the stations here run 100 kW or equivalent. The HAATs vary from 1552' to 1755' or somewhere in that ballpark, and the only real differences in coverage seem to come from the height differences, not HD sidebands. Even in my car, where the amplified stubby antenna is disconnected, I don't have any dropouts or other issues with the big analog signals in this town, even at 30 miles out.

The issues I do have with HD are equally mysterious, though. Two of the iHeart Media stations that share a common antenna (the one at the 1755' mark) have terrible HD coverage, even though I'm told they use a combiner to feed that antenna HD instead of using one lower on the tower. They drop out constantly and the main (HD1) channel drops out randomly even with sufficient signal strength on some (but not all) of my HD radios. The iHeart Media stations at the other tower site, as well as the Cumulus stations running HD, do not do this. I've chalked it up to either poor quality encoders or an antenna issue.

 

[rbrucecarter5]

I don't doubt that you're experiencing some sort of problem with the coverage of HD-enabled stations, but I sure can't seem to reproduce it.

I'm on the 60 dBu edge (according to Radio-Dislocator) for WUWF, the pubcaster for Pensacola. Their tower is way off in Navarre on the east side of town and I'm 35 miles west of Pensacola. They run the full 6% or whatever it is for HD. When they take the HD off for regular maintenance, it does not affect the signal level here in my home one iota. I'm exactly 41 miles from their tower, with an antenna height of 614 ft HAAT. 100 kW. This is the land of the HD dropouts on good radios and scratchy analog stereo. So if there was a difference, this is where I'd notice it. But there doesn't seem to be any difference.

Furthermore I don't observe any coverage issues with the more local class C stations that run HD versus the ones that don't. I'm only ~12 and ~18 miles away from the two main TX sites and the bulk of the stations here run 100 kW or equivalent. The HAATs vary from 1552' to 1755' or somewhere in that ballpark, and the only real differences in coverage seem to come from the height differences, not HD sidebands. Even in my car, where the amplified stubby antenna is disconnected, I don't have any dropouts or other issues with the big analog signals in this town, even at 30 miles out.

The issues I do have with HD are equally mysterious, though. Two of the iHeart Media stations that share a common antenna (the one at the 1755' mark) have terrible HD coverage, even though I'm told they use a combiner to feed that antenna HD instead of using one lower on the tower. They drop out constantly and the main (HD1) channel drops out randomly even with sufficient signal strength on some (but not all) of my HD radios. The iHeart Media stations at the other tower site, as well as the Cumulus stations running HD, do not do this. I've chalked it up to either poor quality encoders or an antenna issue.

Its a real head-scratcher, that's for sure. I don't doubt your observations, mainly because I get the same effect with 103.5 in San Marcos. Not a thing in the world wrong with their coverage, and they run HD. When you live in Houston and can set a preset for a station 150 miles away, they are getting out. I think this is tending to support the antenna bay theory. Just by chance - the 103.5 in San Marcos, and your local stations, didn't swap out bays when they did the conversion. The last civil conversation I had with somebody in the know - I think they mention ERI bays. It makes sense to me that if you want to broadcast HD, you need a wider tuned bay. But that means the gain goes down proportionally. Stations need to take that into account and have more bays to make up the difference. That might also explain the difference I heard on 107.5 in Houston - one trip it makes it to Centerville, the next barely Huntsville. Back and forth for months. They had TWO antennas perhaps, and swapped back and forth while they were optimizing HD? Eventually - all Houston HD stations barely make it to Huntsville, and the same decrease in range with Dallas stations. Prior to HD they would hang in to Seymour and beyond, some making it to Guthrie. After HD, barely to Jacksboro. Either a lot of stations switched to a different bay, or something else is going on. The thing that would concern me if I was a station owner - you lose that much range you also lose building penetration in the local market. I had a hint of that last year when 106.9 HD was off for a couple of weeks. The pesky brown outs, especially under I-10 overpasses, was gone - replaced with a powerful analog signal. No dropouts anywhere - I could almost make a map of them. That dropout on Elrod road - you KNOW that 50 houses in the subdivision right next to it don't get 106.9. Add up all the potential audience losses in brownout spots all over town, and it would be significant. When HD was off - all those brownouts and dropouts - GONE. And somebody posted they had 106.9 way up in East Texas for the first time in years. Something is up - and it should have been discovered by the creators of this system - and corrected - prior to roll-out! BAD engineering.

 

[Kelly A]

I I think they mention ERI bays. It makes sense to me that if you want to broadcast HD, you need a wider tuned bay. But that means the gain goes down proportionally.

Time for some more FM radio transmission 101 class: Antenna gain (in this example toward the horizon) is determined by the number of stacked antenna elements (bays), not by the brand of antenna. Now some panel antennas do have different characteristics when single or stacked by their individual directional patterns, but most FM broadcast transmit antennas are traditional stacked dipole-style antennas side mounted to a pole or tower leg. The efficiency of the antenna at a particular frequency depends on the design. For example, some antennas are tuned for multiple station use, so besides the components being made to carry more input power, the antenna may be slightly less efficient from the center. Most manufacturers tune broader-band antennas to 100Mhz center, so the further away down the band, the efficiency is slightly reduced. In instance where the efficiency is less, the licensed station Transmitter Power Output (TPO) is adjusted accordingly to make up the difference, meeting the station license parameters.

Stations need to take that into account and have more bays to make up the difference.

Adding more elements isn't usually the answer. First, the station is licensed with a certain amount of gain to the horizon. You can't just decide to adjust something like a station's antenna gain. Second, with an average of ten feet between each antenna element, FM broadcast antennas with more gain take up a lot of tower real estate. Real estate that may not be available. Third, more antenna gain, or increasing gain along the horizon, means a lower field strength closer in. As has been talked about many times on these boards, the number one priority of broadcasters, is to cover their market, not sacrificing their market for fringe listening that brings in no revenue.

Add up all the potential audience losses in brownout spots all over town, and it would be significant. When HD was off - all those brownouts and dropouts - GONE. And somebody posted they had 106.9 way up in East Texas for the first time in years. Something is up - and it should have been discovered by the creators of this system - and corrected - prior to roll-out! BAD engineering.

I suspect what you've been experiencing is the result of a poor quality receiver, or a problem with perception, not anything wrong with the transmission.

 

[rbrucecarter5]

I suspect what you've been experiencing is the result of a poor quality receiver, or a problem with perception, not anything wrong with the transmission.

Nope, very good, well maintained Pioneer late model aftermarket car radio, working properly on all frequencies. As an engineer, I know how to employ the scientific method. Coverage difference was REAL. And unexplained to this point. And observations without a current explanation. But I am not the only one that noticed better analog coverage. Multiple observers noticing the same thing. Something is different.

I believe there would be a very real correlation between range and local building penetration - both are functions of signal strength. If your downrange is compromised, it is a safe bet you are down in power - somehow. NObody cares about DX'ers. But everybody cares about penetrating local buildings.

 

[Kelly A]

I know how to employ the scientific method. Coverage difference was REAL.

Care to disclose what your "scientific method" is? Because, in case you haven't heard, evaluating something with a Pioneer car radio isn't exactly a scientific methodology.

I believe there would be a very real correlation between range and local building penetration - both are functions of signal strength. If your downrange is compromised, it is a safe bet you are down in power - somehow. NObody cares about DX'ers. But everybody cares about penetrating local buildings.

"Your downrange compromised"? What is that supposed to mean? Do you mean fringe coverage outside a 60dBu contour?

 

[Wimmmex]

Another hall of shamer in Houston. KRBE HD-2. Gone for WEEKs now. Not a station between the stations, not a priority, not taken seriously, not reliable - take your pick. HD is just a sideline joke to these stations.

I will reiterate my previous comment...Do you expect broadcasters to make HD streams a PRIORITY?

The priority is where the most listeners are...and that's analog. You expect a different priority?

But the revenue to 102.1 is the same, about the only way the HD subchannel can get revenue. 104.1 sold commercials on HD-2, obviously that money dried up, so why bother? They might as well switch back to the old antenna bays that gave them extremely good range for their analog signal, and penetrate buildings again.

If you were involved with radio on a day to day basis you would recognize the terms "added-value" and "digital buys" that go into pitching a client. Think of the HD2 like the web site. Does the web site generate revenue? It is simply adding another dimension to the radio station

And where would we be if we made your same arguments when FM was coming of age?

"No one is really listening"? "There are no spots on the FM". "Buyers don't want to buy the FM". "The FM Automation screwed up again last night". "FM is harder to pick up" I can't pick up KXXX-FM at work"., etc., etc.

Why bother? HD is just an added feature that brings some extra functionality to your radio. It is not the end of the world, and is not a priority. But it is here to stay.

Once again you're spreading misinformation Bruce.. FM-HD (IBOC) signals don't effect the coverage nor field strength or building penetration of the associated FM analog carrier. Please stop reporting it, because you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

No matter what responses he gets...he keeps repeating the same tired arguments (and misinformation).