STOP IBOC ALLIANCE HAS SIGNED UP OVER 100 MEMBERS SO FAR

[KB1OKL]

May I invite you to listen to this most recent example of high-fidelity AM. There is no reason for AM to sound bad.
I DO agree there needs to be a solution for NYC and other dense steel areas. But HD on AM won't do it, and is ruining it for those who use AM.

http://thomasjwells.podOmatic.com/entry/2007-11-17T22_54_40-08_00

This is exactly what I'm talking about. I have receivers which will open up to 16Khz and if the stations broadcast in wideband they sound great, just as good if not better than FM.

 

[Radioman100]

This is exactly what I'm talking about. I have receivers which will open up to 16Khz and if the stations broadcast in wideband they sound great, just as good if not better than FM.

Yeah, now if we could just get all the radio companies to modify their transmission. And if you broadcast the left channel on one AM station and the right channel on another AM station, get two identical radios and put them on either side of your head, you could experience some serious high fidelity!

Of course, you'll first need to make sure you're not near any power lines, computers, dimmers or other electrical appliances, and make sure there aren't any clouds in the sky because lightning tends to compromise the whole AM Hi-Fi experience. You'll also need to make sure you're not in a big metal office building, because unless your two stations are diplexed into a single tower next door, you're probably not going to receive anything in one.

But other than that, WOW! Just think of the sound!

 

[calstymes]

Radioman100 quipped (in response to KB1OKL's thoughtful posts about high-fidelity AM):

Yeah, now if we could just get all the radio companies to modify their transmission. And if you broadcast the left channel on one AM station and the right channel on another AM station, get two identical radios and put them on either side of your head, you could experience some serious high fidelity!

Of course, you'll first need to make sure you're not near any power lines, computers, dimmers or other electrical appliances, and make sure there aren't any clouds in the sky because lightning tends to compromise the whole AM Hi-Fi experience. You'll also need to make sure you're not in a big metal office building, because unless your two stations are diplexed into a single tower next door, you're probably not going to receive anything in one.

But other than that, WOW! Just think of the sound!

In your effort to be glib, no doubt you have not attempted to decode AM HD yourself when you were "near any power lines, computers, dimmers or other electrical appliances" that make noise which arrives at your receiver at an annoying high level in comparison to the signal strength of the station itself. I have. And it doesn't work very well if at all.

Good grief! Where do these kinds of attitudes come from??

 

[Radioman100]

In your effort to be glib, no doubt you have not attempted to decode AM HD yourself when you were "near any power lines, computers, dimmers or other electrical appliances" that make noise which arrives at your receiver at an annoying high level in comparison to the signal strength of the station itself. I have. And it doesn't work very well if at all.

Good grief! Where do these kinds of attitudes come from??

I have no interest in HD AM. I've tried it, and my experience with it is nowhere near as bad as most anti-HD posters would lead you to believe, but I also really don't get the point of doing it.

That said, I think all the "solutions" presented here for AM are even more laughable. If only we'd stop limiting their bandwidth, AM would sound swell on MY radio! Nobody else's, but it would sound great on MINE!

The people posting on this board aren't going to fix the AM receiver problem. You're not going to force the consumer electronics industry to start making quality AM radios in any number. You're not going to get them to start making better radios for cars. It's just not going to happen. AM radio quality has been on the decline for decades now, and you're not going to reverse that trend.

It doesn't matter what bandwidth the stations transmit at. Actually, it does. Narrow bandwidth audio, densely modulated goes farther and penetrates better. Why would any AM want to effectively reduce its coverage just so one or two listeners can listen with full fidelity? That makes about as much sense as broadcasting using AM HD.

 

[rbrucecarter5]

I have no interest in HD AM. I've tried it, and my experience with it is nowhere near as bad as most anti-HD posters would lead you to believe, but I also really don't get the point of doing it.

We totally agree on this! The one bright spot of hope I see for AM is an accident - caused by cost cutting. You make an AM section as cheap as possible, with a single cheap ceramic filter that is barely any filter at all - and - quite unintentionally - you have a wide bandwidth receiver! This means that any AM station with decent bandwidth in its audio chain is going to sound great - provided the radio has a decent speaker in it. Mono - niche format music. Talk that isn't muffled. Sports events with clear, crisp highs. AM is never going to make much money, but sounding great on these new design radios will help.

The one thing that is endangering the trend is - HD. With wide bandwidth receivers comes enough bandwidth to cover the 10 to 15 kHz IBOC stuff, and if you thought 10 kHz heterodynes were annoying, just wait until you hear IBOC! And - those really cheap ceramic filters are nowhere near symmetrical. So the 5 to 10 kHz IBOC that are supposed to be unhearable because of phase modulation - they punch right through with varying level. Plus the mechanical lash on the radio tuning mechanism makes it darn near impossible to tune the things anyway. I find myself tuning for least IBOC hash on IBOC stations. It does NOT go away completely.

I would call WOAI interference on 1190 - in its protected contours at night - a worst case scenario. How bad does it have to get before it raises alarms in your mind?

 

[Savage]

Hallelujah! I finally find myself in agreement with Radioman!

"Why would any AM want to reduce its coverage just so one or two listeners can listen in full fidelity? That makes about as much sense as broadcasting using AM HD."

Precisely.

In fact, this is a concise statement of the argument against AM-HD.

This weekend I had the experience of being forced to listen to an AM for many hours as I ran measurement radials for a new AM station on 1220. The subject station, formerly owned by CBS, is a graveyarder licensed to suburban Buffalo. You know, Buffalo, where the weather is such a lifestyle factor it's practically legendary? I listened to this station on 1230 for over 12 hours. Format was satellite-delivered classic country. Not only was there zero local content - none, zip, nada - no mention of the Bills/Pats game that was going to pack Ralph Wilson Stadium that night - there was NO WEATHER FORECAST, all weekend. In BUFFALO!!?!!

BUT!! The station was broadcasting in AM-HD.

And this is my point about "priorities" when it comes to attracting an audience.

 

[KB1OKL]

The people posting on this board aren't going to fix the AM receiver problem. You're not going to force the consumer electronics industry to start making quality AM radios in any number. You're not going to get them to start making better radios for cars. It's just not going to happen. AM radio quality has been on the decline for decades now, and you're not going to reverse that trend.

It doesn't matter what bandwidth the stations transmit at. Actually, it does. Narrow bandwidth audio, densely modulated goes farther and penetrates better.

Well when the whole radio business is on the ground gasping for breath perhaps they will change their mind, AND they make IBOC receivers don't they, now that whole concept is a little drastic isn't it, changing how radio is broadcast? If they can make an iBlock receiver and charge 200-500.00 for it (although no one is buying them) don't you think they could make a decent radio with good fidelity a little cheaper than the Huge Disaster radios cost?

Narrow bandwidth audio, densely modulated goes farther and penetrates better.
But.... it sounds terrible, it's like listening to radio over a telephone, that's really good for attracting listeners isn't it? Over-modulated radio is very grating on the ears. I wonder if this whole mess AM radio is in now is of their own making:

1. lousy, homogenized programming
2. lousy, overly compressed 200-2000 Khz audio
3. lousy, cheap, tinny sounding AM sections in receivers.

 

[Radioman100]

Well when the whole radio business is on the ground gasping for breath perhaps they will change their mind, AND they make IBOC receivers don't they, now that whole concept is a little drastic isn't it, changing how radio is broadcast? If they can make an iBlock receiver and charge 200-500.00 for it (although no one is buying them) don't you think they could make a decent radio with good fidelity a little cheaper than the Huge Disaster radios cost?

Narrow bandwidth audio, densely modulated goes farther and penetrates better.
But.... it sounds terrible, it's like listening to radio over a telephone, that's really good for attracting listeners isn't it? Over-modulated radio is very grating on the ears. I wonder if this whole mess AM radio is in now is of their own making:

1. lousy, homogenized programming
2. lousy, overly compressed 200-2000 Khz audio
3. lousy, cheap, tinny sounding AM sections in receivers.

The radio industry doesn't make radios anymore. Maybe that's part of the problem. We can't control what the Chinese factories crank out.

Narrow bandwidth audio sounds fine for AM talk stations in my opinion. There's no reason to transmit audio above 5kHz because most radios can't reproduce it. This is just my opinion, but if I had Rush Limbaugh on the air, I'd rather broadcast him with 5kHz audio. The feed from Premiere isn't significantly better than that anyway, and if you can improve your listenability under adverse conditions, like fringe areas and in buildings, why not? Dense, bandwidth limited audio penetrates on AM.

If the Chinese give you lemons, you might as well try to make lemonade.

 

[Play Freebird]

You're not going to force the consumer electronics industry to start making quality AM radios in any number. You're not going to get them to start making better radios for cars. It's just not going to happen. AM radio quality has been on the decline for decades now, and you're not going to reverse that trend.

But you still feel confident that HD will soon become a standard feature on all radios?

It makes no sense that the consumer electronics industry refuses to employ today's DSP technology to improve AM receivers, yet somehow they are ready to jump on the AM IBOC "bandwagon", which is more complicated and expensive and doesn't perform as well in the real world.

 

[Radioman100]

But you still feel confident that HD will soon become a standard feature on all radios?

It makes no sense that the consumer electronics industry refuses to employ today's DSP technology to improve AM receivers, yet somehow they are ready to jump on the AM IBOC "bandwagon", which is more complicated and expensive and doesn't perform as well in the real world.

It's already happening. Software defined radios are the future. Several big manufacturers are already making HD Radio chipsets, and not all of them are ending up in HD Radios. Supposedly, Pioneer is already using them in their non-HD car stereos.

If iBiquity ever gets real about the licensing fees they're charging manufacturers, I think we'll see a lot more of those chipsets put to use receiving HD Radio.

 

[Savage]

I don't get the "we have to accept whatever receivers the Chinese build for us" argument. Receiver standards are federally regulated for TV and FM (all-channel tuners, FM deemphasis parameters) so why not for AM?

Actually, the Chinese are simply building receivers which they are confident will sell in the American market. If minimum bandwidth and de-emphasis standards are imposed as an entrance requirement for the market, that's what they'll build. The only Chinese standards imposed are price points dictated by consumer acceptance.

The FCC can mandate receiver standards. It just has chosen to "never again" do so after the 5-way AM Stereo debacle. If the political horsepower behind HD had been applied to enact AMax and AM receiver standards, HD wouldn't have been necessary. In fact, iBiquity probably learned this lesson from regulatory history - likely that's why we are where we are today.

 

[Mike Walker]

Not only CAN the FCC regulate/mandate/enforce technical standards, but other than licensing stations and operators, perhaps the FCC should have NO OTHER FUNCTION. The courts are deciding as we speak whether their oppressive "indecency" regulations run counter to free speech (imho, they do). I submit that the cause of freedom is damaged far more by frightening broadcasters into presenting only dumbed-down, mainstream, child-friendly fare, than by a brief glimps of a nipple, just like the one from which we all suckled once upon a time!

 

[Chuck]

Not only CAN the FCC regulate/mandate/enforce technical standards, but other than licensing stations and operators, perhaps the FCC should have NO OTHER FUNCTION. The courts are deciding as we speak whether their oppressive "indecency" regulations run counter to free speech (imho, they do). I submit that the cause of freedom is damaged far more by frightening broadcasters into presenting only dumbed-down, mainstream, child-friendly fare, than by a brief glimps of a nipple, just like the one from which we all suckled once upon a time!

I, for one wouldn't be offended if the FCC's job was engineering based. At one time it was, but it seems these days they are more influenced by political whims and whatever Congress wants to put in the limelight.

For better or worse, there is a lot of politics involved. Am I the only one who has noticed that every time we go on a witch hunt over anything from "Costume Malfunction's" to Howard Stern's potty mouth, or even the Fairness Doctrine, our elected officials seem to be busy doing much bigger things that we don't seem to hear about until it is way too late?

Such are the times that we live in.

 

[Savage]

I love this! "Tonight at 8: TALKIN' NIPPLES with Mike Walker! Get set to call 1-866-THE-TEAT...and make a boob out of yourself....." (Repeat shows would, of course, be "The BREAST of Mike Walker.")

The big news story of the coming decade is government intrusiveness into our lives - and Mike & Chuck, the Fairness Doctrine and wardrobe malfunctions are only the most obvious examples. You can't talk on the cellphone and drive in New York - but you can legally juggle a cheeseburger, fries and Coke behind the wheel. San Fransisco just made it a crime - a CRIME, mind you - to pack groceries in a plastic bag. NYC and other municipalities are regulating how much fat we're allowed to eat. And so forth.

Yep, I know, far afield from HD Radio, so here's the whiparound:

...and the damn government is giving SOME stations permission to LEGALLY JAM OTHERS!! Regulatory elitism!

 

[rbrucecarter5]

Narrow bandwidth audio sounds fine for AM talk stations in my opinion. There's no reason to transmit audio above 5kHz because most radios can't reproduce it.

If the Chinese give you lemons, you might as well try to make lemonade.

UH - Radioman - didn't you read my technical report above? Given the lousy design of single IC AM radios, you are lucky if your AM bandwidth is 50 kHz in the cheap stuff China is cranking out. Absolutely GREAT for audio quality, but that sure wasn't the intention. Some guy on here even found AM radios where they bypass the IF with a capacitor - no ceramic filter at all. That radio isn't even a superhet any more in my opinion. It gets all of its selectivity from the Q of the antenna and oscillator coil. Two and three local stations mix together if you are in a metro area with that piece of garbage.

Next, the Chinese will discover crystal radio architecture and have ferrite bar, single section tuning cap, diode, and audio amp for AM. Everybody will be happy, because the AM tuner won't even drain the battery!

Problem is - AM stations broadcasting IBOC have loud hiss in those cheap designs, and cheap designs will only increase in the coming years as AM is increasingly irrelevant.

And - I'll extend your Rush Limbaugh argument to ALL talk AND sports radio. None of it needs fidelity, so why bother at all? Yet the talk and sports stations are the ones installing HD. Ridiculous. They don't need it.

 

[Mike Walker]

So fidelity isn't "needed" for talk and sports radio? Spoken like some of the, er I was going to include an anatomical reference but I refrained, PEOPLE who say "don't worry about audio quality on that spot, it's for the AM". "Back in the day" they said "use the good carts for FM, those cheap ones will do for AM. Well QUALITY IS QUALITY, and ALL programming benefits from fidelity. Compare (the audio quality of) talk on NPR with your typical AM talk outlet, particularly if it's rolling off highs at 5khz. No comparison. And no wonder FM talk has taken off, and NPR has so damn many listeners! Rich, college educated listeners that may be tuned to those AM talkers, if they didn't assume their listeners were stupid, and didn't care about quality! Didn't "need" fidelity!

 

[SUPERCASTER]

May I invite you to listen to this most recent example of high-fidelity AM. There is no reason for AM to sound bad.
I DO agree there needs to be a solution for NYC and other dense steel areas. But HD on AM won't do it, and is ruining it for those who use AM.

http://thomasjwells.podOmatic.com/entry/2007-11-17T22_54_40-08_00

This is exactly what I'm talking about. I have receivers which will open up to 16Khz and if the stations broadcast in wideband they sound great, just as good if not better than FM.

My GE SuperRadio 3 does not quite open up to 16 kHz on AM, but on local non-HD stations in wideband it sounds great! Much better then the AM HD I listened to on the new Sony HD, which had AM HD encoding artifacts and loud, reoccurring annoying high frequency resonance that sounded like a torn tweeter.

 

[clouseau]

My GE SuperRadio 3 does not quite open up to 16 kHz on AM, but on local non-HD stations in wideband it sounds great! Much better then the AM HD I listened to on the new Sony HD, which had AM HD encoding artifacts and loud, reoccurring annoying high frequency resonance that sounded like a torn tweeter.

You got a heck of a radio. Too bad you don't have a heck of a radio STANDARD to go with it.

Perhaps a neighbor with a part 15 could help you out.

The rest of the world has been rolling off at 9KHZ forever. More like 4 KHz now. If you have a station doing 16 khz (Which I doubt) they're as illegal as the "100 watts is the minimum allowed so my 99 watts is legal" FM crowd.

Enjoy it before the NAL shuts them down...

Clouseau

 

[Chuck]

and Mike & Chuck, the Fairness Doctrine and wardrobe malfunctions are only the most obvious examples.

They are very minor compared to what is really happening....

 

[Tom Wells]

Narrow bandwidth audio sounds fine for AM talk stations in my opinion. There's no reason to transmit audio above 5kHz because most radios can't reproduce it.

If the Chinese give you lemons, you might as well try to make lemonade.

UH - Radioman - didn't you read my technical report above? Given the lousy design of single IC AM radios, you are lucky if your AM bandwidth is 50 kHz in the cheap stuff China is cranking out. Absolutely GREAT for audio quality, but that sure wasn't the intention. Some guy on here even found AM radios where they bypass the IF with a capacitor - no ceramic filter at all. That radio isn't even a superhet any more in my opinion. It gets all of its selectivity from the Q of the antenna and oscillator coil. Two and three local stations mix together if you are in a metro area with that piece of garbage.

Next, the Chinese will discover crystal radio architecture and have ferrite bar, single section tuning cap, diode, and audio amp for AM. Everybody will be happy, because the AM tuner won't even drain the battery!

Problem is - AM stations broadcasting IBOC have loud hiss in those cheap designs, and cheap designs will only increase in the coming years as AM is increasingly irrelevant.

And - I'll extend your Rush Limbaugh argument to ALL talk AND sports radio. None of it needs fidelity, so why bother at all? Yet the talk and sports stations are the ones installing HD. Ridiculous. They don't need it.

These are properly known as autodynes, when all the conversion happens in the (one or more untuned) stage.
They bring us back to 1930 in terms of selectivity and sensitivity.

If they bring back crystal designs, we'd have 6 stations at once in metro areas.

My GE SuperRadio 3 does not quite open up to 16 kHz on AM, but on local non-HD stations in wideband it sounds great! Much better then the AM HD I listened to on the new Sony HD, which had AM HD encoding artifacts and loud, reoccurring annoying high frequency resonance that sounded like a torn tweeter.

You got a heck of a radio. Too bad you don't have a heck of a radio STANDARD to go with it.

Perhaps a neighbor with a part 15 could help you out.

The rest of the world has been rolling off at 9KHZ forever. More like 4 KHz now. If you have a station doing 16 khz (Which I doubt) they're as illegal as the "100 watts is the minimum allowed so my 99 watts is legal" FM crowd.

Enjoy it before the NAL shuts them down...

Clouseau

Why must those who do not appreciate high standards insist on dragging down the rest of the world into degraded expectations?

Many others beside me know what a debacle and sham this is engineering-wise (AM), and the NAB was ... just sold a bill of goods.

I am sick of hearing what kind of **** is acceptable elsewhere. As we invented the high standard, I really don't care just how bad is accepted elsewhere.

At least by adopting iBOC, stations improve the quality of their competetion by slashing their own.
In other words, even dull, flat standard AM modulation usually sounds better than the best of the AM HD analogs.

In every other area of choice, we are free to buy as good a piece of equipment as we wish to achieve our desired outcome,
but now, in radio we find our finest equipment's finest abilities (our $$) ruined to support a mode to supposedly to achieve what we always were free to pursue by buying a better radio, remote antennas, diversity deception, etc.

I reject the idea that my radios must broken to a new, lower, trashy "standard" which is ignorant of efficient spectrum usage.

When did the last AM guy leave the FCC? The guys who "visited" my apartment in 1991 acted like they didn't really even recognize the transmitter when it was spread out in all its open-breadboard vacuum tube and hand-wound coils glory right there on the long coffee table.

Experienced AM engineers, please:

Tell us about the proofs you did a long time ago, and why these high standards don't matter for squat now.
After that, tell us why the AM HD drops out so often at even a sudden light breeze.
And...
Do you need new low-Q coils in your ATU to get the bandwidth for HD? Isn't there something just WRONG about lowering the Q to get bandwidth...
Just what was it about efficiency.... hmmmm L/R is inversely proportional to wasted energy, isn't it?