Suggestions for a better digital system

[EricStein]

It seems that this board has been taken over by the anti-HD/IBOC (or "IBUZ", or whatever someone wants to call it today) crowd over the past couple weeks. Now that we know what side everyone's on (I'm still leaning neutral despite being a new owner of an HD tuner). Here's what I've gotten so far from the discussions on this board:

-AM IBOC is a technical disaster.
-FM IBOC is somewhat better, but does cause major interference to adjacent channels.
-iBiquity has been/is being deceptive on its claims of "CD quality" sound.
-Radios are still too expensive, and the companies that are developing/marketing them are having issues therefore leading toward delays.
-iBiquity is asking too much for licensing of the technology to stations, therefore leaving out smaller broadcasters.

My question is, with all these problems that seem to plague HD Radio, does anyone have any better ideas for broadcast radio to transition to digital? Eureka 147 is out of the picture since the U.S. Military is using that frequency band. Or, is it just that people are satisfied with analog that they don't want to see any digital system? All suggestions/comments are welcome, however, I don't want this to turn into a flame war.

Thanks!

 

[JasonW]

I'm one of those who see no reason why AM and FM radio should go digital at all. Analog AM can be High Fidelity, as WLW proved in the 1950s. Many other AM music stations also strove to put out the best-sounding signals that they could, which was one of the main reasons why FM struggled in its early days--it didn't sound very much better than AM! Better band management and mandating higher AM receiver standards would solve the problem. Analog FM sounds great as long as the audio isn't over-processed.

I would, however, like to posit the notion of another, not-yet-existent form of digital radio. Instead of struggling to cram a river's worth of audio bandwidth into a creek's worth of digital audio bandwidth in real-time and trying to make it sound good, why not broadcast music (and news, if desired) at its full audio bandwidth but at a lower data rate to an iPod-type receiver for slightly delayed playback? This would be analogous to the way deep-space probes transmit full-color images (and sometimes audio, from planetary landers) over billions of miles of space using low power, small antennas, and rather low data rates. The data packets are error-corrected before the image (or audio stream) is displayed (or played) later. In other words, this "iPod radio" would "download" songs and other audio files over the air instead of over the internet. This type of broadcasting could use the Long Wave band, which is little used in North America except by a decreasing number of aviation Non-Directional Beacons (NDBs). Such an "iPod receiver" would permit true CD-quality audio. -- JasonW

 

[nd2023]

No IBUZ

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The problem with radio is the programming, not the formats. I love the sound of analog FM radio, and see no reason how HD radio will improve the sound quality. HD2 stations are the only good thing that could come out of this. If a station runs bad programming, would anyone want to hear that station on a 300 dollar HD radio? If the HD2 station streams on the Internet, would there be a point to buy an HD radio just to hear that in the car. Its possible that in a few years, car radios can get Internet streams, so there would be no reason to get an HD radio. The IBUZ hash makes first adjacent stations unlistenable, and even wipes out second adjacents within a few miles of the tower. I used to be able to pick up K104.7 in New York City, but now that Q104.3 and Power 105.1 both have IBFASAC (In band, firast and second adjacent channel), 104.7 is a mess of IBUZ. If FM signals skipped at night, the FCC would not authorize FM IBUZ at night.

How about a different system for digital radio: put the digital signal on the subcarriers above 19 kilohertz, and get rid of FM stereo. I can currently get the stereo signal further than I get the IBUZ hash, so the digital signal would go as far as the stereo signal goes currently.<P ID="signature">______________
17-year-old radio geek
Location: Princeton Junction, NJ
AIM: KewlDude471
WWPH 107.9 FM: http://wwph1079fm.no-ip.org</P>

 

[Ai4i]

> Eureka 147 is out of the
> picture since the U.S. Military is using that frequency
> band.

Not all countries use the same frequencies. The UK (and I think South Korea) use Band-3, high VHF, while most other countries are in the L band at 1.4 GHz, but there is room for variety here.
Japan uses a system called Integrated Services Digital Broadcasting, or ISDB-Tsb.
here:

MYTH: “The L-Band is not for broadcasting in the U.S.”

FACT: The L-Band (1452-1492 MHz) is ASSIGNED WORLDWIDE to digital audio broadcasting. The current occupants of the L-Band in the United States, the Department of Defense, is in violation of international regulations by using this band for non-broadcast purposes. This is the most appropriate place for digital audio broadcasting in the United States. The FCC can (and MUST) find higher frequencies for the DoD to use.

<P ID="signature">______________
Proud 2 B a pioneering satellite radio subs¢riber
Ai4i is always on the trailing edge of technology
______________</P>

 

[SuperSound]

Re: No IBUZ-Digital FM does not have to interfere with analog FM!

Here is a link to a compatible digital FM system using exisisting SCA subcarier frequiencies that is entirely on channel and does not jam other FM stations. This digital system should transmit farther then the current SCA transmissions, (which have good range) but without the digital interference to other stations.

www.dreinc.com

All this digital jamming by the iBiquity system is entirely unnecessary and should be illegal. The FCC was established to prevent stations from jamming each other, not encourage it.

iBiquity HD Radio is a defective system, for quite a number of reasons.

A digital AM system that does not interfere and is able to broadcast at night is under development.

http://worldsupercaster.blogspot.com


> If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The problem with radio is
> the programming, not the formats. I love the sound of
> analog FM radio, and see no reason how HD radio will improve
> the sound quality. HD2 stations are the only good thing
> that could come out of this. If a station runs bad
> programming, would anyone want to hear that station on a 300
> dollar HD radio? If the HD2 station streams on the
> Internet, would there be a point to buy an HD radio just to
> hear that in the car. Its possible that in a few years, car
> radios can get Internet streams, so there would be no reason
> to get an HD radio. The IBUZ hash makes first adjacent
> stations unlistenable, and even wipes out second adjacents
> within a few miles of the tower. I used to be able to pick
> up K104.7 in New York City, but now that Q104.3 and Power
> 105.1 both have IBFASAC (In band, firast and second adjacent
> channel), 104.7 is a mess of IBUZ. If FM signals skipped at
> night, the FCC would not authorize FM IBUZ at night.
>
> How about a different system for digital radio: put the
> digital signal on the subcarriers above 19 kilohertz, and
> get rid of FM stereo. I can currently get the stereo signal
> further than I get the IBUZ hash, so the digital signal
> would go as far as the stereo signal goes currently.
>
<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by SuperSound on 02/27/06 04:41 PM.</FONT></P>

 

[k9ez]

Re: No IBUZ-Digital FM does not have to interfere with analog FM!

SCAs do not have good range. Trust me I tried them.

What do you suggest stations do if they have SCA now then? Just dump them? Are you aware that stations do utilize SCAs?

There is no "Jamming" going on.

Taking a look at my spectrum analyzer if I were to put DRE on I would lose a ton of bandwidth for my analog signal. This would degrade my analog audio to a point that people would object to. What is your solution to that?

I dont expect an answer because every time someone has asked you to support your drivel, you go silent.

Have a nice day.

> Here is a link to a compatible digital FM system using
> exisisting SCA subcarier frequiencies that is entirely on
> channel and does not jam other FM stations. This digital
> system should transmit farther then the current SCA
> transmissions, (which have good range) but without the
> digital interference to other stations.
>
> www.dreinc.com
>
> All this digital jamming by the iBiquity system is entirely
> unnecessary and should be illegal. The FCC was established
> to prevent stations from jamming each other, not encourage
> it.
>
> iBiquity HD Radio is a defective system, for quite a number
> of reasons.
>
> A digital AM system that does not interfere and is able to
> broadcast at night is under development.
>
> http://worldsupercaster.blogspot.com
>
>
> > If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The problem with radio
> is
> > the programming, not the formats. I love the sound of
> > analog FM radio, and see no reason how HD radio will
> improve
> > the sound quality. HD2 stations are the only good thing
> > that could come out of this. If a station runs bad
> > programming, would anyone want to hear that station on a
> 300
> > dollar HD radio? If the HD2 station streams on the
> > Internet, would there be a point to buy an HD radio just
> to
> > hear that in the car. Its possible that in a few years,
> car
> > radios can get Internet streams, so there would be no
> reason
> > to get an HD radio. The IBUZ hash makes first adjacent
> > stations unlistenable, and even wipes out second adjacents
>
> > within a few miles of the tower. I used to be able to
> pick
> > up K104.7 in New York City, but now that Q104.3 and Power
> > 105.1 both have IBFASAC (In band, firast and second
> adjacent
> > channel), 104.7 is a mess of IBUZ. If FM signals skipped
> at
> > night, the FCC would not authorize FM IBUZ at night.
> >
> > How about a different system for digital radio: put the
> > digital signal on the subcarriers above 19 kilohertz, and
> > get rid of FM stereo. I can currently get the stereo
> signal
> > further than I get the IBUZ hash, so the digital signal
> > would go as far as the stereo signal goes currently.
> >
>

 

[k9ez]

> > Eureka 147 is out of the
> > picture since the U.S. Military is using that frequency
> > band.
>
> Not all countries use the same frequencies. The UK (and I
> think South Korea) use Band-3, high VHF, while most other
> countries are in the L band at 1.4 GHz, but there is room
> for variety here.
> Japan uses a system called Integrated Services Digital
> Broadcasting, or ISDB-Tsb.
> DRM is the world standard for digital broadcasting in the
> long wave, medium wave, and short wave AM bands.
> Another system for terrestrial digital broadcasting in the
> US is called something like CAM-D. That is not the actual
> name because my web search comes up with nothing.
>
> The following may or may not be true, but I found it here:
>
> MYTH: “The L-Band is not for broadcasting in the U.S.”
>
> FACT: The L-Band (1452-1492 MHz) is ASSIGNED WORLDWIDE to
> digital audio broadcasting. The current occupants of the
> L-Band in the United States, the Department of Defense, is
> in violation of international regulations by using this band
> for non-broadcast purposes. This is the most appropriate
> place for digital audio broadcasting in the United States.
> The FCC can (and MUST) find higher frequencies for the DoD
> to use.
>


CAM-D by Leonard Kahn, has a web site http://www.wrathofkahn.org/

I have personally talked to Leonard about his system. So far it appears to be smoke and mirrors. That is just my opinion. Ask to see a working receiver of CAM-D.

 

[taylorengineer]

> > > Eureka 147 is out of the
> > > picture since the U.S. Military is using that frequency
> > > band.
> >
> > Not all countries use the same frequencies. The UK (and I
>
> > think South Korea) use Band-3, high VHF, while most other
> > countries are in the L band at 1.4 GHz, but there is room
> > for variety here.
> > Japan uses a system called Integrated Services Digital
> > Broadcasting, or ISDB-Tsb.
> > DRM is the world standard for digital broadcasting in the
> > long wave, medium wave, and short wave AM bands.
> > Another system for terrestrial digital broadcasting in the
>
> > US is called something like CAM-D. That is not the actual
> > name because my web search comes up with nothing.
> >
> > The following may or may not be true, but I found it here:
>
> >
> > MYTH: “The L-Band is not for broadcasting in the U.S.”
> >
> > FACT: The L-Band (1452-1492 MHz) is ASSIGNED WORLDWIDE to
> > digital audio broadcasting. The current occupants of the
> > L-Band in the United States, the Department of Defense, is
>
> > in violation of international regulations by using this
> band
> > for non-broadcast purposes. This is the most appropriate
> > place for digital audio broadcasting in the United States.
>
> > The FCC can (and MUST) find higher frequencies for the DoD
>
> > to use.
> >
>
>
> CAM-D by Leonard Kahn, has a web site
> http://www.wrathofkahn.org/
>
> I have personally talked to Leonard about his system. So
> far it appears to be smoke and mirrors. That is just my
> opinion. Ask to see a working receiver of CAM-D.
>
Just read the website....I gotta say that Leonard is more right than wrong about radio in general. I have to respect a man who can really do the math. I would like to see/hear more about CAM-D.

 

[k9ez]

> > > > Eureka 147 is out of the
> > > > picture since the U.S. Military is using that
> frequency
> > > > band.
> > >
> > > Not all countries use the same frequencies. The UK (and
> I
> >
> > > think South Korea) use Band-3, high VHF, while most
> other
> > > countries are in the L band at 1.4 GHz, but there is
> room
> > > for variety here.
> > > Japan uses a system called Integrated Services Digital
> > > Broadcasting, or ISDB-Tsb.
> > > DRM is the world standard for digital broadcasting in
> the
> > > long wave, medium wave, and short wave AM bands.
> > > Another system for terrestrial digital broadcasting in
> the
> >
> > > US is called something like CAM-D. That is not the
> actual
> > > name because my web search comes up with nothing.
> > >
> > > The following may or may not be true, but I found it
> here:
> >
> > >
> > > MYTH: “The L-Band is not for broadcasting in the U.S.”
> > >
> > > FACT: The L-Band (1452-1492 MHz) is ASSIGNED WORLDWIDE
> to
> > > digital audio broadcasting. The current occupants of the
>
> > > L-Band in the United States, the Department of Defense,
> is
> >
> > > in violation of international regulations by using this
> > band
> > > for non-broadcast purposes. This is the most appropriate
>
> > > place for digital audio broadcasting in the United
> States.
> >
> > > The FCC can (and MUST) find higher frequencies for the
> DoD
> >
> > > to use.
> > >
> >
> >
> > CAM-D by Leonard Kahn, has a web site
> > http://www.wrathofkahn.org/
> >
> > I have personally talked to Leonard about his system. So
> > far it appears to be smoke and mirrors. That is just my
> > opinion. Ask to see a working receiver of CAM-D.
> >
> Just read the website....I gotta say that Leonard is more
> right than wrong about radio in general. I have to respect a
> man who can really do the math. I would like to see/hear
> more about CAM-D.
>

I would too, hence the reason I spoke directly with Leonard. But the information was pretty sparse. I have yet to see anything that can receive CAM-D.

 

[SuperSound]

Re: No IBUZ-Digital FM does not have to interfere with analog FM!

The analog stereo signal is a subcarrier. So far no one has reported a serious problems with it, and it covers more area then iBUZZ. There is every reason to believe that a digital subcarrier on a full powered FM station, (instead of reduced power iBUZZ) would go at least as far as the current analog stereo subcarrier.

If there is no jamming going on, then why are all these listeners reporting serious problems trying to receive favorite stations they used to get, now jammed by iBUZZ?
Do you really think they are imagining it, or making it up?
If iBUZZ is so wonderful, they would jump for joy!

HD Radio already degrades your analog stereo signal to noise ratio. www.dreinc.com
could not do worse, and probably better!
http://worldsupercaster.blogspot.com



> SCAs do not have good range. Trust me I tried them.
>
> What do you suggest stations do if they have SCA now then?
> Just dump them? Are you aware that stations do utilize
> SCAs?
>
> There is no "Jamming" going on.
>
> Taking a look at my spectrum analyzer if I were to put DRE
> on I would lose a ton of bandwidth for my analog signal.
> This would degrade my analog audio to a point that people
> would object to. What is your solution to that?
>
> I dont expect an answer because every time someone has asked
> you to support your drivel, you go silent.
>
> Have a nice day.
>
> > Here is a link to a compatible digital FM system using
> > exisisting SCA subcarier frequiencies that is entirely on
> > channel and does not jam other FM stations. This digital
> > system should transmit farther then the current SCA
> > transmissions, (which have good range) but without the
> > digital interference to other stations.
> >
> > www.dreinc.com
> >
> > All this digital jamming by the iBiquity system is
> entirely
> > unnecessary and should be illegal. The FCC was established
>
> > to prevent stations from jamming each other, not encourage
>
> > it.
> >
> > iBiquity HD Radio is a defective system, for quite a
> number
> > of reasons.
> >
> > A digital AM system that does not interfere and is able to
>
> > broadcast at night is under development.
> >
> > http://worldsupercaster.blogspot.com
> >
> >
> > > If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The problem with radio
>
> > is
> > > the programming, not the formats. I love the sound of
> > > analog FM radio, and see no reason how HD radio will
> > improve
> > > the sound quality. HD2 stations are the only good thing
>
> > > that could come out of this. If a station runs bad
> > > programming, would anyone want to hear that station on a
>
> > 300
> > > dollar HD radio? If the HD2 station streams on the
> > > Internet, would there be a point to buy an HD radio just
>
> > to
> > > hear that in the car. Its possible that in a few years,
>
> > car
> > > radios can get Internet streams, so there would be no
> > reason
> > > to get an HD radio. The IBUZ hash makes first adjacent
> > > stations unlistenable, and even wipes out second
> adjacents
> >
> > > within a few miles of the tower. I used to be able to
> > pick
> > > up K104.7 in New York City, but now that Q104.3 and
> Power
> > > 105.1 both have IBFASAC (In band, firast and second
> > adjacent
> > > channel), 104.7 is a mess of IBUZ. If FM signals
> skipped
> > at
> > > night, the FCC would not authorize FM IBUZ at night.
> > >
> > > How about a different system for digital radio: put the
> > > digital signal on the subcarriers above 19 kilohertz,
> and
> > > get rid of FM stereo. I can currently get the stereo
> > signal
> > > further than I get the IBUZ hash, so the digital signal
> > > would go as far as the stereo signal goes currently.
> > >
> >
>

 

[k9ez]

Re: No IBUZ-Digital FM does not have to interfere with analog FM!

If you notice on your DRE the digital sub carriers are at a lower power than the analog SCA. Therefore your reasoning does not work AGAIN.



> The analog stereo signal is a subcarrier. So far no one has
> reported a serious problems with it, and it covers more area
> then iBUZZ. There is every reason to believe that a digital
> subcarrier on a full powered FM station, (instead of reduced
> power iBUZZ) would go at least as far as the current analog
> stereo subcarrier.
>
> If there is no jamming going on, then why are all these
> listeners reporting serious problems trying to receive
> favorite stations they used to get, now jammed by iBUZZ?
> Do you really think they are imagining it, or making it up?
> If iBUZZ is so wonderful, they would jump for joy!
>
> HD Radio already degrades your analog stereo signal to noise
> ratio. www.dreinc.com
> could not do worse, and probably better!
> http://worldsupercaster.blogspot.com
>
>
>

 

[Ai4i]

> I'm one of those who see no reason why AM and FM radio
> should go digital at all. Analog AM can be High Fidelity,
> as WLW proved in the 1950s. Many other AM music stations
> also strove to put out the best-sounding signals that they
> could, which was one of the main reasons why FM struggled in
> its early days--it didn't sound very much better than AM!
> Better band management and mandating higher AM receiver
> standards would solve the problem. Analog FM sounds great
> as long as the audio isn't over-processed.
>

The main advantages of FM over AM were and are:
1) The range of listenable signal to interfering signal is much closer, so stations are packed much more densely with regard to co-channel issues.
2) The capture effect.
3) Rejection of manmade noise within the full quieting area.
4) AM channels should be more than 10KHz apart (or full carrier SSB)

Thus far, we have been agreeing on a lot, but I am pro-digital for the following two reasons:
1) Digital is an efficient way to multistream. Sirius and XM each have all their hundreds of channels within a 1.8MHz bandwidth (repeated five times for reliability).
2) The S/N ratio is infinite. One can crank the volume to maximum and hear absolutely nothing under the audio stream (excluding internally generated noise).<P ID="signature">______________
Proud 2 B a pioneering satellite radio subs¢riber
Ai4i is always on the trailing edge of technology
______________</P>

 

[RichWood]

> My question is, with all these problems that seem to plague
> HD Radio, does anyone have any better ideas for broadcast
> radio to transition to digital?

First, the hype has to go. It isn't CD Quality and there's no "HD Revolution" going on. Shut down the HD Dominion web site and get rid of the deception.

For AM we have to allow IBUZ 24/7 right now to enable whatever facilities changes that might be needed to handled as they arise. Part-time operation for AM won't work from a programming standpoint if there are ever enough receivers to allow listeners to notice the dramatic quality drop at 6pm.

For FM, stations have to bite the bullet and actually make their secondaries real radio stations rather than voicetracked jukeboxes. Otherwise there's no incentive for a listener to spend money (however much) for uninspiring programming. This is a chicken and egg proposition. Until there's content worth paying for (a new receiver) there won't be receiver sales. No receiver sales means there's no reason to program secondaries. Remember that the satellite services had 100+ channels up and running before the first receiver was sold. We're asking people to buy very expensive receivers (no iPod sized ones) well before there's compelling programming to justify it.

Probably most important, we have to find a way for IBUZ listeners to identify the actual channel they're listening to. Since the receiver displays the main channel call with HD1 or HD2 appended, the credit for secondary listening will go to the main channel. If you've ever done a physical analysis of your diaries at Arbitron it's easy to understand how little attention listeners pay to our stations.

For the first two years for HD Dominion members the secondaries will be non-commercial. How will we be able to assure advertising agencies that what listeners are reporting is the channel their commercials are running on. The only reliable way of doing that is with the ARB People Meter. It doesn't require listener recall. It hears the code and registers the source, so non-commercial listeners won't be mixed with commercial ones.

Unfortunately, there are more than technical issues in this "revolution."

Rich

 

[joshleblanc]

Re: No IBUZ-Digital FM does not have to interfere with analog FM!

The DRE system CAN work with IBOC, so in theory DRE could allow for 2 More decent quality streams, allowing a station to run four Stereo programs at once. My understanding is that stations have to back off the modulation a little with DRE which in effect would give the station more dynamic range, therefore better sound.

Sample Line-up
Main Channel/HD1
HD2
DRE1
DRE2