Just a sanity check...are the only two Rochester-area AM stations transmitting IBOC WHAM 1180 and WRCI 990? Those are the only two I can get on my car radio, and www.HDRadio.com lists WHTK as having IBOC but after extensive listening (All Star game) I didn't get even a flicker of carriers. Of course, that site still lists 990 at WLGZ.
-
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
Stations in AM IBOC
- Thread starter aaronread
- Start date
The new slogan for HD radio should be:
"HD Radio! Just for radio geeks!"
Becase they are quite literally the ONLY people who care and/or aware that it even exists---even with the storm of advertising.
In an age where radio resources are slim, they keep spending money on this. Unreal.
I heard someone say a while back that TV execs are evil, but smart. Radio execs, on the other hand, are evil, but stupid.
Rings a bell.
"HD Radio! Just for radio geeks!"
Becase they are quite literally the ONLY people who care and/or aware that it even exists---even with the storm of advertising.
In an age where radio resources are slim, they keep spending money on this. Unreal.
I heard someone say a while back that TV execs are evil, but smart. Radio execs, on the other hand, are evil, but stupid.
Rings a bell.
Steven: you left out "lazy." 
Don't worry about all the "money" spent on HD Radio promotion. It's all Monopoly money anyway. The system is being promoted with "unsold inventory" meaning the actual cash cost of the HD campaign is precisely zero.
Proving once again: you get what you pay for. Unless we're talking about an iBiquity exciter here.
Point to ponder: is it a malaprop to call anything associated with HD an "exciter??"
Don't worry about all the "money" spent on HD Radio promotion. It's all Monopoly money anyway. The system is being promoted with "unsold inventory" meaning the actual cash cost of the HD campaign is precisely zero.
Proving once again: you get what you pay for. Unless we're talking about an iBiquity exciter here.
Point to ponder: is it a malaprop to call anything associated with HD an "exciter??"
I have really had it with everyone picking on AM IBOC. I think it's a wonderful system and it might even work if I lived within 5 miles of all the transmitter sites, well maybe... ;D
What's that noise? Sounds like someone's frying bacon?
What's that noise? Sounds like someone's frying bacon?
You want slogans?
"I-Biquity - it's everywhere in Execu-land"
"I-Biquity - it's NOT about YOU"
"I-Biquity - it's everywhere in Execu-land"
"I-Biquity - it's NOT about YOU"
I think Vermont Public Radio and WUSF in Tampa might take issue with those statements, just to name two. HD Radio is working quite well for them. 22 million NPR listeners every weekday morning can't be wrong. ;D
OTOH, NPR Labs just announced the results of their wide-reaching HD coverage analysis and prediction model. They say their new propagation model is about 90% accurate and it's delinated for car radios, home radios, and portable radios (predicted). The results are, to put it mildly, depressing. Car radios get about 85% coverage of analog for their HD...but home and portable are much, much worse (like below 30 or 40%). :'( Certainly puts the talk of increasing the IBOC injection levels to -10dB in a new light.
B
Bob1370
Guest
The jury's out on AM HD, simply because there are a lot of issues with adjacent-channel splatter as the system now stands, and the receiver base is so small it seems to have little or no impact on the listenership levels of stations either using it or not using it.
These issues don't seem to be so severe with FM, where at least the grade B contours of FM stations' analog signals appear to be protected from HD-generated interference from first and second adjacent channel stations. Tune the FM band on a car radio and you'll find little or no objectionable HD-generated interference getting in the way even of the rimshot or distant signals you're used to hearing. HD radios for the FM band certainly are not plentiful but there seem to be enough of them out there, and enough being sold, that we're close to the threshold of an audience large enough to be worth the programming effort of providing multiple services, over and above simulcasting your analog station.
There's talk of letting stations boost the ERP of their HD signals, maybe even to match the analog numbers, and if that happens, you may start to see more problems. But with current standards and power levels it doesn't seem to be a big issue on FM.
These issues don't seem to be so severe with FM, where at least the grade B contours of FM stations' analog signals appear to be protected from HD-generated interference from first and second adjacent channel stations. Tune the FM band on a car radio and you'll find little or no objectionable HD-generated interference getting in the way even of the rimshot or distant signals you're used to hearing. HD radios for the FM band certainly are not plentiful but there seem to be enough of them out there, and enough being sold, that we're close to the threshold of an audience large enough to be worth the programming effort of providing multiple services, over and above simulcasting your analog station.
There's talk of letting stations boost the ERP of their HD signals, maybe even to match the analog numbers, and if that happens, you may start to see more problems. But with current standards and power levels it doesn't seem to be a big issue on FM.
S
scooterodell
Guest
Scott Fybush said:
I get it, but then again, I'm a proud graduate of the Fybush Academy of Broadcasting History.
Bob 1370, there are already first- and second-adjacent problems with HD-FM. Talk to any broker.
The tenfold power increase proposed for digital injection is interesting, because IBOC proponents stubbornly took the public stance for years that "essentially" the digital coverage in HD-FM is equivalent to the analog. When the outcry became too loud for iBiquity and The Alliance to ignore, they suddenly reversed their position and started lobbying for the 10db injection level. A large contingent of knowledgeable industry types agree it's not a feasible plan. Not only will cases of destructive co- and adjacent-channel interference increase sharply, the conversion costs are unjustifiable. In many installations the replacement of entire transmitting plants will be required, to the tune of a million dollars or more. Plus permanently increased fixed costs such as vastly higher utility consumption, rent, property taxes and on and on. And there remains a body of opinion which says that even a tenfold digital increase won't effect the dramatic improvement in building penetration and coverage claimed by IBOC proponents. Field experience has shown HD is notoriously non-robust.
Multicasting is a two-edged sword. The more demands made on the digital strea, the more bandwidth suffers. It's ironic to see your NPR colleagues programming classical music on HD-2 or HD-3 channels, with AM-like frequency response - sometimes only in mono!
Not quite sure how to read aaron's observations about the NPR study, but one conclusion drawn is that 10db digital is going to create serious interference issues especially in mobile listening.
The tenfold power increase proposed for digital injection is interesting, because IBOC proponents stubbornly took the public stance for years that "essentially" the digital coverage in HD-FM is equivalent to the analog. When the outcry became too loud for iBiquity and The Alliance to ignore, they suddenly reversed their position and started lobbying for the 10db injection level. A large contingent of knowledgeable industry types agree it's not a feasible plan. Not only will cases of destructive co- and adjacent-channel interference increase sharply, the conversion costs are unjustifiable. In many installations the replacement of entire transmitting plants will be required, to the tune of a million dollars or more. Plus permanently increased fixed costs such as vastly higher utility consumption, rent, property taxes and on and on. And there remains a body of opinion which says that even a tenfold digital increase won't effect the dramatic improvement in building penetration and coverage claimed by IBOC proponents. Field experience has shown HD is notoriously non-robust.
Multicasting is a two-edged sword. The more demands made on the digital strea, the more bandwidth suffers. It's ironic to see your NPR colleagues programming classical music on HD-2 or HD-3 channels, with AM-like frequency response - sometimes only in mono!
Not quite sure how to read aaron's observations about the NPR study, but one conclusion drawn is that 10db digital is going to create serious interference issues especially in mobile listening.
I talked to John Kean of NPR and Doug Vernier of VSoft, as well the guys at Nautel and Harris, quite a bit at NAB2008 in regards to the -10dB vs -20dB IBOC injection issue. It has direct implications for WEOS because we're in the process of moving our frequency and increasing our ERP. Or trying to, anyways...damn third-adjacent rules :-\ ...and I don't want to drop $70k on a new IBOC transmitter today only to learn next year that I've got to drop another $50k to upgrade its power capacity to handle more ERP on the IBOC. Remember, it's not as simple as cranking up the IBOC watts; unless you're doing a separate IBOC transmitter/antenna (which, as far as I'm concerned, introduces at least as many problems as it solves) there's a mathematical relationship between how much analog ERP you have to sacrifice in order to achieve more IBOC ERP and it's substantial penalty. Like 50% level of penalty.
So one must be cautions when one makes transmitter purchases.The word around the campfire...now largely confirmed by this NPR Labs study...is that simply allowing all stations to increase IBOC injection to -10dB will cause significant interference. BUT, it won't be universal...some regions will have a lot of problems, others won't have any. And it will largely be station-by-station, too. OTOH, allowing IBOC injection levels to remain where they are will likely make FM IBOC a non-starter for portable radio listening, and it's pretty bad for home radio already. Rock and a hard place, to say the least. It probably can be fixed by careful detail to each situation but that'll make allocations so complex it'll be nightmare. OTOH, it makes a strong argument for two things I think should've happened in the first place: a mandatory switchover date (like DTV) and re-allocation of TV Ch.6 to the FM band to move these "shoehorned" allocations into (like the expanded AM band). Of course, the politics of either of those moves are equally nightmarish. :-[
The biggest question I haven't seen answered yet (and I haven't read of the NPR Labs study) is whether or not increasing the injection to, say, -17dB or -14dB will have a substantial enough benefit. I'm sort of gambling that it will...since the Finger Lakes NCE band is waaaaay too crowded to allow for -10dB injections; that much I feel safe stating.
J
JustPastBuffalo
Guest
Good discussion here regarding IBOC, from the visceral to the technical. I understand the one constant in radio is change, especially as it relates to technology and business. From my admittedly jaded and prejudiced perspective, IBOC is a waste of valuable resources, primarily money and time.
I've been an observer-chronicler by nature for most of my life. When FM was coming of age, there was a palpable sensation and understanding that FM was the future. If you worked on AM and FM, as I did, you knew that FM had advantages over AM (better sound quality, stereo and no static during thunderstorms.) Listeners were actively gravitating to FM, whether it was your parents who listened to WBNY-WJYE, WADV and WEZO, or you and your friends who listened to WYSL-FM/WPHD, WBLK and WGRQ or WCMF.
When AM stereo was in development, there was a feeling that one or two platforms actually had potential and if there was concensus amoung broadcasters AND had the FCC chosen a standrad as it did with FM stereo, AM stereo had potential. Time was of the essence and the longer it took to establish a standard, the less listeners would care about AM stereo. As it turned out, there was no decision by the FCC and the entire AM stereo issue splintered. Time, the enemy, won. AM broadcasters lost.
With IBOC, there is no palpable sensation. None. There's no "I gotta have it." Our parents are content with FM and AM as it is. Our kids are not clamoring for IBOC. They're listening to iPods and MP3 players or their cell phones' built in MP3 player. We, quite frankly, like FM, enjoy iPods and think Pandora is quite cool. And CDs are still in the mix as well, because we know how to select twenty songs and burn them onto CD.
IBOC, in my estimation, is DOA. A fraud. A sham. The engineers that have installed it have done so not at their own choosing, but because corporate has mandated it. IBOC only adds to their labors and distracts them from their mandated tasks: RF, audio maintenance and I-T.
Stations that choose to invest in IBOC are wasting valuable assets: Engineering time and company money. Given the state of slumping share prices, you'd think corporations and broadcasters would delegate resources toward improving and promoting the product that that's on their main channel, the channel that 98% of their listeners (consumers) choose.
Am I wrong or woefully prejudiced?
I've been an observer-chronicler by nature for most of my life. When FM was coming of age, there was a palpable sensation and understanding that FM was the future. If you worked on AM and FM, as I did, you knew that FM had advantages over AM (better sound quality, stereo and no static during thunderstorms.) Listeners were actively gravitating to FM, whether it was your parents who listened to WBNY-WJYE, WADV and WEZO, or you and your friends who listened to WYSL-FM/WPHD, WBLK and WGRQ or WCMF.
When AM stereo was in development, there was a feeling that one or two platforms actually had potential and if there was concensus amoung broadcasters AND had the FCC chosen a standrad as it did with FM stereo, AM stereo had potential. Time was of the essence and the longer it took to establish a standard, the less listeners would care about AM stereo. As it turned out, there was no decision by the FCC and the entire AM stereo issue splintered. Time, the enemy, won. AM broadcasters lost.
With IBOC, there is no palpable sensation. None. There's no "I gotta have it." Our parents are content with FM and AM as it is. Our kids are not clamoring for IBOC. They're listening to iPods and MP3 players or their cell phones' built in MP3 player. We, quite frankly, like FM, enjoy iPods and think Pandora is quite cool. And CDs are still in the mix as well, because we know how to select twenty songs and burn them onto CD.
IBOC, in my estimation, is DOA. A fraud. A sham. The engineers that have installed it have done so not at their own choosing, but because corporate has mandated it. IBOC only adds to their labors and distracts them from their mandated tasks: RF, audio maintenance and I-T.
Stations that choose to invest in IBOC are wasting valuable assets: Engineering time and company money. Given the state of slumping share prices, you'd think corporations and broadcasters would delegate resources toward improving and promoting the product that that's on their main channel, the channel that 98% of their listeners (consumers) choose.
Am I wrong or woefully prejudiced?
Sorry JPB, you're hopelessly prejudiced. ;D
FM Broadcasting was first invented in 1933, yet did not reach the mainstream until the mid-1960's, and didn't really get big until the 1970's. So to say that "When FM was coming of age, there was a palpable sensation and understanding that FM was the future" is laughable when comparing to today's IBOC. The timelines are nowhere near the same.
IBOC was invented in the late 1980's/early 1990's, and wasn't released as a broadcast product until 2002, and - frankly - still isn't quite a finished product yet, although the release of non-computer-based HD Exporters and Importers this spring was a big step forward. If you apply a similar timeline for FM to HD Radio, then HD Radio shouldn't be "coming into its own" until 2020 or so. Applying the conventional wisdom of today's IBOC is like the conventional wisdom of FM in the early 1950's...back when its success was anything but assured and most FM stations were just simulcasts of their co-owned AM stations.
Ordinarily I would say that's a perfectly reasonable timeline but the steadily-growing availability of wireless internet on cellphones, iPod's, etc pose a gigantic threat to radio's dominance in the car, where the real money is still made. By 2020 I think there's a real chance that AM & FM could be relegated to "second banana" status in the car in terms of technology. If "radio" is still around, it'll probably be more of content provider rather than a transmission medium.
FM Broadcasting was first invented in 1933, yet did not reach the mainstream until the mid-1960's, and didn't really get big until the 1970's. So to say that "When FM was coming of age, there was a palpable sensation and understanding that FM was the future" is laughable when comparing to today's IBOC. The timelines are nowhere near the same.
IBOC was invented in the late 1980's/early 1990's, and wasn't released as a broadcast product until 2002, and - frankly - still isn't quite a finished product yet, although the release of non-computer-based HD Exporters and Importers this spring was a big step forward. If you apply a similar timeline for FM to HD Radio, then HD Radio shouldn't be "coming into its own" until 2020 or so. Applying the conventional wisdom of today's IBOC is like the conventional wisdom of FM in the early 1950's...back when its success was anything but assured and most FM stations were just simulcasts of their co-owned AM stations.
Ordinarily I would say that's a perfectly reasonable timeline but the steadily-growing availability of wireless internet on cellphones, iPod's, etc pose a gigantic threat to radio's dominance in the car, where the real money is still made. By 2020 I think there's a real chance that AM & FM could be relegated to "second banana" status in the car in terms of technology. If "radio" is still around, it'll probably be more of content provider rather than a transmission medium.
On this board and elsewhere I have read the endless comparisons of HD Radio (and its troubled rollout) with FM radio. With FM Stereo. With Color TV. With fine-groove phono records at 33 and 45 rpm which replaced 78s in the late 1940s. With stereo records and tape. With CDs. With VCRs. And on and on and on.
The comparisons are invalid.
All the earlier technologies were made widely available without egregious licensing requirements. They were made available with equanimity in a manner that didn't create an elite class of first-adopters. They weren't harmful to the status quo or impose economic hardship on non-elites. They offered tangible benefits instantly appreciated by even less-discerning consumers in the general marketplace. And finally: they WORKED WELL and reliably. HD fails to attain any of these benchmarks.
The worst thing about HD is how the system is allowed to create interference which would never be tolerated from analog stations. And how the FCC refuses to stop harmful interference to existing service. It's pitting broadcasters against one another at a time in our industry when unity is most important.
For these reasons I predict that HD will ultimately fail. It will hang around like a bad respiratory infection, spewing its signature noise and generating yawns from the public for several years. But it's destined for the trash heap of failed engineering curiosities. And that's precisely where this junk-engineering belongs.
The comparisons are invalid.
All the earlier technologies were made widely available without egregious licensing requirements. They were made available with equanimity in a manner that didn't create an elite class of first-adopters. They weren't harmful to the status quo or impose economic hardship on non-elites. They offered tangible benefits instantly appreciated by even less-discerning consumers in the general marketplace. And finally: they WORKED WELL and reliably. HD fails to attain any of these benchmarks.
The worst thing about HD is how the system is allowed to create interference which would never be tolerated from analog stations. And how the FCC refuses to stop harmful interference to existing service. It's pitting broadcasters against one another at a time in our industry when unity is most important.
For these reasons I predict that HD will ultimately fail. It will hang around like a bad respiratory infection, spewing its signature noise and generating yawns from the public for several years. But it's destined for the trash heap of failed engineering curiosities. And that's precisely where this junk-engineering belongs.
Savage said:
Sounds like my career in broadcasting.
Mark_Giardina said:
Mine too! Hey Mark want to be my newsman? I'll be the jock and step on all the record intros ;D
There was a time in the 50s and early 60s when operators turned in their FM CPs and FM licenses, thinking they were of little value. Lockport's WUSJ first operated on 99.3 MHz (c. 1949) before the Union Sun & Journal secured a 250 Watt AM station on 1340 kHz. A few years later, the company shut off the FM and turned in the license. One can only wonder.
- Status