Let's have a look at this...
http://www.am-dx.com/iboc_power.htm
See what the chief at Clear Channel says about IBUZZ
http://www.am-dx.com/iboc_power.htm
See what the chief at Clear Channel says about IBUZZ
-
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
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
to all fellow engineers....
- Thread starter jim8230
- Start date
R
RadioDoc
Guest
It's IBOC
> Let's have a look at this...
>
> http://www.am-dx.com/iboc_power.htm
>
> See what the chief at Clear Channel says about IBUZZ
>
Do not go down the "IBUZ" path.
If you wish to post such articles, fine. Using the phrase IBUZ is inflammitory, and will most likely result in an edit or deletion that will cause your posts to be viewed by a grand total of nobody.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
> Let's have a look at this...
>
> http://www.am-dx.com/iboc_power.htm
>
> See what the chief at Clear Channel says about IBUZZ
>
Do not go down the "IBUZ" path.
If you wish to post such articles, fine. Using the phrase IBUZ is inflammitory, and will most likely result in an edit or deletion that will cause your posts to be viewed by a grand total of nobody.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
R
rbrucecarter
Guest
Re: It's IBOC
One thing that is REALLY offensive to me is how the observations of LISTENERS are marginalized and only the opinions of station owners and broadcast engineers are respected. When it comes to discerning the performance of a station, it is the listeners who have the overwhelming majority of observational data. Daily drives to work - along the same routes, with the same equipment being used day in, day out, under various meteorological conditions - come a lot closer to be controlled experiments than a single drive around the fringes by a broadcast engineer, no matter how much expensive gear he might have. Also - a broadcast engineer or owner is completely biased towards their own station / stations and completely uninterested in how their station might affect adjacents.
Listeners all over the country are coming up with decreased coverage for FM stations running IBOC, as much as 60 miles. Listeners are hearing massive IBOC interference from AM stations running IBOC - hearing the sidebands over 300 miles away in some cases! Yet all of these accounts are marginalized, made fun of, sluffed off by arrogant "its your radio" comments. That - or "I've got the credentials you don't" or "I made field strength measurements that showed no difference", etc. Yet, in spite of arrogance, the body of evidence for FM coverage decreases and AM interference builds. These problems will not go away because station owners, Ibiquity, and broadcast engineers wish them to go away. Unless they happen to be named Harry Potter and can wave a magic wand to alter the laws of Physics at will. Ignore these problems and marginalize people who report them if you want - but time will prove the listeners correct as they abandon radio for XM, Sirius, and iPods. Coverage and interference are issues you dare not ignore, because they affect the listening experience.
One thing that is REALLY offensive to me is how the observations of LISTENERS are marginalized and only the opinions of station owners and broadcast engineers are respected. When it comes to discerning the performance of a station, it is the listeners who have the overwhelming majority of observational data. Daily drives to work - along the same routes, with the same equipment being used day in, day out, under various meteorological conditions - come a lot closer to be controlled experiments than a single drive around the fringes by a broadcast engineer, no matter how much expensive gear he might have. Also - a broadcast engineer or owner is completely biased towards their own station / stations and completely uninterested in how their station might affect adjacents.
Listeners all over the country are coming up with decreased coverage for FM stations running IBOC, as much as 60 miles. Listeners are hearing massive IBOC interference from AM stations running IBOC - hearing the sidebands over 300 miles away in some cases! Yet all of these accounts are marginalized, made fun of, sluffed off by arrogant "its your radio" comments. That - or "I've got the credentials you don't" or "I made field strength measurements that showed no difference", etc. Yet, in spite of arrogance, the body of evidence for FM coverage decreases and AM interference builds. These problems will not go away because station owners, Ibiquity, and broadcast engineers wish them to go away. Unless they happen to be named Harry Potter and can wave a magic wand to alter the laws of Physics at will. Ignore these problems and marginalize people who report them if you want - but time will prove the listeners correct as they abandon radio for XM, Sirius, and iPods. Coverage and interference are issues you dare not ignore, because they affect the listening experience.
Re: It's IBOC
It's not IBOC, it's IBAC... but I've said that before... I have to commend Clear Channels upper management for their honesty. I respect the technical staff of Clear Channel more each day. They are honest and above board, almost to a fault. Good for them. Now for the person that posted that note, why not credit where you really got it from????
> > Let's have a look at this...
> >
> > http://www.am-dx.com/iboc_power.htm
> >
> > See what the chief at Clear Channel says about IBUZZ
> >
>
> Do not go down the "IBUZ" path.
>
> If you wish to post such articles, fine. Using the phrase
> IBUZ is inflammitory, and will most likely result in an edit
> or deletion that will cause your posts to be viewed by a
> grand total of nobody.
>
It's not IBOC, it's IBAC... but I've said that before... I have to commend Clear Channels upper management for their honesty. I respect the technical staff of Clear Channel more each day. They are honest and above board, almost to a fault. Good for them. Now for the person that posted that note, why not credit where you really got it from????
> > Let's have a look at this...
> >
> > http://www.am-dx.com/iboc_power.htm
> >
> > See what the chief at Clear Channel says about IBUZZ
> >
>
> Do not go down the "IBUZ" path.
>
> If you wish to post such articles, fine. Using the phrase
> IBUZ is inflammitory, and will most likely result in an edit
> or deletion that will cause your posts to be viewed by a
> grand total of nobody.
>
Re: It's IBOC
The true voters of this technology will be the listening public. If the noise, or reduced range etc cause problems, then stations will have reduced ratings, or fewer advertisers etc. It will show eventually if there is a problem. I say light them all up now 24/7/365 and see where the chips fall. My bet is that it wont be the FCC or the public that decides all this, it will be the courts. Kahn who is a brillian engineer but somewhat of a crackpot has fired the first volley. There wont be anymore until a final report and order comes from the FCC.
> One thing that is REALLY offensive to me is how the
> observations of LISTENERS are marginalized and only the
> opinions of station owners and broadcast engineers are
> respected. When it comes to discerning the performance of a
> station, it is the listeners who have the overwhelming
> majority of observational data. Daily drives to work -
> along the same routes, with the same equipment being used
> day in, day out, under various meteorological conditions -
> come a lot closer to be controlled experiments than a single
> drive around the fringes by a broadcast engineer, no matter
> how much expensive gear he might have. Also - a broadcast
> engineer or owner is completely biased towards their own
> station / stations and completely uninterested in how their
> station might affect adjacents.
>
> Listeners all over the country are coming up with decreased
> coverage for FM stations running IBOC, as much as 60 miles.
> Listeners are hearing massive IBOC interference from AM
> stations running IBOC - hearing the sidebands over 300 miles
> away in some cases! Yet all of these accounts are
> marginalized, made fun of, sluffed off by arrogant "its your
> radio" comments. That - or "I've got the credentials you
> don't" or "I made field strength measurements that showed no
> difference", etc. Yet, in spite of arrogance, the body of
> evidence for FM coverage decreases and AM interference
> builds. These problems will not go away because station
> owners, Ibiquity, and broadcast engineers wish them to go
> away. Unless they happen to be named Harry Potter and can
> wave a magic wand to alter the laws of Physics at will.
> Ignore these problems and marginalize people who report them
> if you want - but time will prove the listeners correct as
> they abandon radio for XM, Sirius, and iPods. Coverage and
> interference are issues you dare not ignore, because they
> affect the listening experience.
>
The true voters of this technology will be the listening public. If the noise, or reduced range etc cause problems, then stations will have reduced ratings, or fewer advertisers etc. It will show eventually if there is a problem. I say light them all up now 24/7/365 and see where the chips fall. My bet is that it wont be the FCC or the public that decides all this, it will be the courts. Kahn who is a brillian engineer but somewhat of a crackpot has fired the first volley. There wont be anymore until a final report and order comes from the FCC.
> One thing that is REALLY offensive to me is how the
> observations of LISTENERS are marginalized and only the
> opinions of station owners and broadcast engineers are
> respected. When it comes to discerning the performance of a
> station, it is the listeners who have the overwhelming
> majority of observational data. Daily drives to work -
> along the same routes, with the same equipment being used
> day in, day out, under various meteorological conditions -
> come a lot closer to be controlled experiments than a single
> drive around the fringes by a broadcast engineer, no matter
> how much expensive gear he might have. Also - a broadcast
> engineer or owner is completely biased towards their own
> station / stations and completely uninterested in how their
> station might affect adjacents.
>
> Listeners all over the country are coming up with decreased
> coverage for FM stations running IBOC, as much as 60 miles.
> Listeners are hearing massive IBOC interference from AM
> stations running IBOC - hearing the sidebands over 300 miles
> away in some cases! Yet all of these accounts are
> marginalized, made fun of, sluffed off by arrogant "its your
> radio" comments. That - or "I've got the credentials you
> don't" or "I made field strength measurements that showed no
> difference", etc. Yet, in spite of arrogance, the body of
> evidence for FM coverage decreases and AM interference
> builds. These problems will not go away because station
> owners, Ibiquity, and broadcast engineers wish them to go
> away. Unless they happen to be named Harry Potter and can
> wave a magic wand to alter the laws of Physics at will.
> Ignore these problems and marginalize people who report them
> if you want - but time will prove the listeners correct as
> they abandon radio for XM, Sirius, and iPods. Coverage and
> interference are issues you dare not ignore, because they
> affect the listening experience.
>
R
rbrucecarter
Guest
Re: It's IBOC
> The true voters of this technology will be the listening
> public. If the noise, or reduced range etc cause problems,
> then stations will have reduced ratings, or fewer
> advertisers etc. It will show eventually if there is a
> problem. I say light them all up now 24/7/365 and see where
> the chips fall. My bet is that it wont be the FCC or the
> public that decides all this, it will be the courts. Kahn
> who is a brillian engineer but somewhat of a crackpot has
> fired the first volley. There wont be anymore until a final
> report and order comes from the FCC.
I agree. Let the whole thing implode. Let's put thousands of legal jammers on the AM band, and see if anybody can hear anything at night. And let's see what other countries think. Same on FM - lets jam all first adjacents, cut down coverage, and see how many people defect to satellite.
> The true voters of this technology will be the listening
> public. If the noise, or reduced range etc cause problems,
> then stations will have reduced ratings, or fewer
> advertisers etc. It will show eventually if there is a
> problem. I say light them all up now 24/7/365 and see where
> the chips fall. My bet is that it wont be the FCC or the
> public that decides all this, it will be the courts. Kahn
> who is a brillian engineer but somewhat of a crackpot has
> fired the first volley. There wont be anymore until a final
> report and order comes from the FCC.
I agree. Let the whole thing implode. Let's put thousands of legal jammers on the AM band, and see if anybody can hear anything at night. And let's see what other countries think. Same on FM - lets jam all first adjacents, cut down coverage, and see how many people defect to satellite.
T
TXengineer
Guest
Re: It's IBOC
You are incorrect about the decreased coverage for FM stations. An FM station transmitting IBOC, is merely transmitting side bands on the main RF carrier. The main carrier remains the same at the same level. There is no decrease in the coverage area of the FM station's main signal. If you mean listeners loosing out of market distant signals. Well I can tell you that most listeners I know don't want to listen to staticy out of market signals anyways. They want clean sounding local signals. Its only you guys who are upset because IBOC is killing your DXing that seem to have the most concern about it, and that you come up with all this.
> One thing that is REALLY offensive to me is how the
> observations of LISTENERS are marginalized and only the
> opinions of station owners and broadcast engineers are
> respected. When it comes to discerning the performance of a
> station, it is the listeners who have the overwhelming
> majority of observational data. Daily drives to work -
> along the same routes, with the same equipment being used
> day in, day out, under various meteorological conditions -
> come a lot closer to be controlled experiments than a single
> drive around the fringes by a broadcast engineer, no matter
> how much expensive gear he might have. Also - a broadcast
> engineer or owner is completely biased towards their own
> station / stations and completely uninterested in how their
> station might affect adjacents.
>
> Listeners all over the country are coming up with decreased
> coverage for FM stations running IBOC, as much as 60 miles.
> Listeners are hearing massive IBOC interference from AM
> stations running IBOC - hearing the sidebands over 300 miles
> away in some cases! Yet all of these accounts are
> marginalized, made fun of, sluffed off by arrogant "its your
> radio" comments. That - or "I've got the credentials you
> don't" or "I made field strength measurements that showed no
> difference", etc. Yet, in spite of arrogance, the body of
> evidence for FM coverage decreases and AM interference
> builds. These problems will not go away because station
> owners, Ibiquity, and broadcast engineers wish them to go
> away. Unless they happen to be named Harry Potter and can
> wave a magic wand to alter the laws of Physics at will.
> Ignore these problems and marginalize people who report them
> if you want - but time will prove the listeners correct as
> they abandon radio for XM, Sirius, and iPods. Coverage and
> interference are issues you dare not ignore, because they
> affect the listening experience.
>
You are incorrect about the decreased coverage for FM stations. An FM station transmitting IBOC, is merely transmitting side bands on the main RF carrier. The main carrier remains the same at the same level. There is no decrease in the coverage area of the FM station's main signal. If you mean listeners loosing out of market distant signals. Well I can tell you that most listeners I know don't want to listen to staticy out of market signals anyways. They want clean sounding local signals. Its only you guys who are upset because IBOC is killing your DXing that seem to have the most concern about it, and that you come up with all this.
> One thing that is REALLY offensive to me is how the
> observations of LISTENERS are marginalized and only the
> opinions of station owners and broadcast engineers are
> respected. When it comes to discerning the performance of a
> station, it is the listeners who have the overwhelming
> majority of observational data. Daily drives to work -
> along the same routes, with the same equipment being used
> day in, day out, under various meteorological conditions -
> come a lot closer to be controlled experiments than a single
> drive around the fringes by a broadcast engineer, no matter
> how much expensive gear he might have. Also - a broadcast
> engineer or owner is completely biased towards their own
> station / stations and completely uninterested in how their
> station might affect adjacents.
>
> Listeners all over the country are coming up with decreased
> coverage for FM stations running IBOC, as much as 60 miles.
> Listeners are hearing massive IBOC interference from AM
> stations running IBOC - hearing the sidebands over 300 miles
> away in some cases! Yet all of these accounts are
> marginalized, made fun of, sluffed off by arrogant "its your
> radio" comments. That - or "I've got the credentials you
> don't" or "I made field strength measurements that showed no
> difference", etc. Yet, in spite of arrogance, the body of
> evidence for FM coverage decreases and AM interference
> builds. These problems will not go away because station
> owners, Ibiquity, and broadcast engineers wish them to go
> away. Unless they happen to be named Harry Potter and can
> wave a magic wand to alter the laws of Physics at will.
> Ignore these problems and marginalize people who report them
> if you want - but time will prove the listeners correct as
> they abandon radio for XM, Sirius, and iPods. Coverage and
> interference are issues you dare not ignore, because they
> affect the listening experience.
>
W
whosyourcat
Guest
Re: It's IBOC
I'm not in radio, though I used to be. I'm also not an engineer. I can tell you for certain that adding IBOC does NOT in any way decrease an FM station's coverage in and of itself. The only way that might be observed is if an adjacent station in a nearby market is also running IBOC. Then, the IBOC from the adjacent station might cut into the original station's coverage area.
I can appreciate the differences of opinion as to the success or failure of IBOC. I have an HD radio just to see how it works and if I'll like it. Ultimately, consumers will decide. I see pluses and minuses with it so far.
> One thing that is REALLY offensive to me is how the
> observations of LISTENERS are marginalized and only the
> opinions of station owners and broadcast engineers are
> respected. When it comes to discerning the performance of a
> station, it is the listeners who have the overwhelming
> majority of observational data. Daily drives to work -
> along the same routes, with the same equipment being used
> day in, day out, under various meteorological conditions -
> come a lot closer to be controlled experiments than a single
> drive around the fringes by a broadcast engineer, no matter
> how much expensive gear he might have. Also - a broadcast
> engineer or owner is completely biased towards their own
> station / stations and completely uninterested in how their
> station might affect adjacents.
>
> Listeners all over the country are coming up with decreased
> coverage for FM stations running IBOC, as much as 60 miles.
> Listeners are hearing massive IBOC interference from AM
> stations running IBOC - hearing the sidebands over 300 miles
> away in some cases! Yet all of these accounts are
> marginalized, made fun of, sluffed off by arrogant "its your
> radio" comments. That - or "I've got the credentials you
> don't" or "I made field strength measurements that showed no
> difference", etc. Yet, in spite of arrogance, the body of
> evidence for FM coverage decreases and AM interference
> builds. These problems will not go away because station
> owners, Ibiquity, and broadcast engineers wish them to go
> away. Unless they happen to be named Harry Potter and can
> wave a magic wand to alter the laws of Physics at will.
> Ignore these problems and marginalize people who report them
> if you want - but time will prove the listeners correct as
> they abandon radio for XM, Sirius, and iPods. Coverage and
> interference are issues you dare not ignore, because they
> affect the listening experience.
>
I'm not in radio, though I used to be. I'm also not an engineer. I can tell you for certain that adding IBOC does NOT in any way decrease an FM station's coverage in and of itself. The only way that might be observed is if an adjacent station in a nearby market is also running IBOC. Then, the IBOC from the adjacent station might cut into the original station's coverage area.
I can appreciate the differences of opinion as to the success or failure of IBOC. I have an HD radio just to see how it works and if I'll like it. Ultimately, consumers will decide. I see pluses and minuses with it so far.
> One thing that is REALLY offensive to me is how the
> observations of LISTENERS are marginalized and only the
> opinions of station owners and broadcast engineers are
> respected. When it comes to discerning the performance of a
> station, it is the listeners who have the overwhelming
> majority of observational data. Daily drives to work -
> along the same routes, with the same equipment being used
> day in, day out, under various meteorological conditions -
> come a lot closer to be controlled experiments than a single
> drive around the fringes by a broadcast engineer, no matter
> how much expensive gear he might have. Also - a broadcast
> engineer or owner is completely biased towards their own
> station / stations and completely uninterested in how their
> station might affect adjacents.
>
> Listeners all over the country are coming up with decreased
> coverage for FM stations running IBOC, as much as 60 miles.
> Listeners are hearing massive IBOC interference from AM
> stations running IBOC - hearing the sidebands over 300 miles
> away in some cases! Yet all of these accounts are
> marginalized, made fun of, sluffed off by arrogant "its your
> radio" comments. That - or "I've got the credentials you
> don't" or "I made field strength measurements that showed no
> difference", etc. Yet, in spite of arrogance, the body of
> evidence for FM coverage decreases and AM interference
> builds. These problems will not go away because station
> owners, Ibiquity, and broadcast engineers wish them to go
> away. Unless they happen to be named Harry Potter and can
> wave a magic wand to alter the laws of Physics at will.
> Ignore these problems and marginalize people who report them
> if you want - but time will prove the listeners correct as
> they abandon radio for XM, Sirius, and iPods. Coverage and
> interference are issues you dare not ignore, because they
> affect the listening experience.
>
R
RadioDoc
Guest
Re: It's IBOC
> One thing that is REALLY offensive to me is how the
> observations of LISTENERS are marginalized and only the
> opinions of station owners and broadcast engineers are
> respected. When it comes to discerning the performance of a
> station, it is the listeners who have the overwhelming
> majority of observational data. Daily drives to work -
> along the same routes, with the same equipment being used
> day in, day out, under various meteorological conditions -
> come a lot closer to be controlled experiments than a single
> drive around the fringes by a broadcast engineer, no matter
> how much expensive gear he might have. Also - a broadcast
> engineer or owner is completely biased towards their own
> station / stations and completely uninterested in how their
> station might affect adjacents.
>
> Listeners all over the country are coming up with decreased
> coverage for FM stations running IBOC, as much as 60 miles.
> Listeners are hearing massive IBOC interference from AM
> stations running IBOC - hearing the sidebands over 300 miles
> away in some cases! Yet all of these accounts are
> marginalized, made fun of, sluffed off by arrogant "its your
> radio" comments. That - or "I've got the credentials you
> don't" or "I made field strength measurements that showed no
> difference", etc. Yet, in spite of arrogance, the body of
> evidence for FM coverage decreases and AM interference
> builds. These problems will not go away because station
> owners, Ibiquity, and broadcast engineers wish them to go
> away. Unless they happen to be named Harry Potter and can
> wave a magic wand to alter the laws of Physics at will.
> Ignore these problems and marginalize people who report them
> if you want - but time will prove the listeners correct as
> they abandon radio for XM, Sirius, and iPods. Coverage and
> interference are issues you dare not ignore, because they
> affect the listening experience.
>
First of all, please define "LISTENERS all over the country are complaining of..." I"ve turned on several HD transmitters and have not gotten one complaint. Show me these throngs of people that you are talking about, because me and my peers certainly haven't heard from any of them.
Hey, I'm all for discussion, good or bad, about the technology. I think that we've all agreed on certain aspects.
I think where the LISTENERS are attacked is when they come on to this board and say things like "IBOC sucks - it's the end of radio" or "IBOC decreases a station's signal by xx%!" These people aren't here to discuss anything. They're here to push an agenda.
IBOC has not been, to my knowledge, proven to reduce the coverage of an FM station, period. Time and time again we have offered to prove that the signal does not change, and have asked those who disagree to prove the same. Nobody has stepped forward with proof yet, other than anecdotal. Heck I offered to take a camcorder out to a remote area and turn my HD transmitter on and off to prove it!
So yes, we will argue with facts around here, and will listen to anyone who takes issue with IBOC, as long as they do it in a mature manner.
People don't need to use phrases like "IBUZ" or chant the party line of the AM Stereo folks. We know their talking points, and we know they will never be convinced. To argue that again and again is pointless.
What steams me is when a LISTENER comes here looking for advice on an HD radio, and are bombarded with "RUN AWAY FROM IBUZ" or "YOU BOUGHT A PAPERWEIGHT!"
We're here to talk about IBOC, good and bad. But it's pointless to rehash the same old arguments here, unless there is new information.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
> One thing that is REALLY offensive to me is how the
> observations of LISTENERS are marginalized and only the
> opinions of station owners and broadcast engineers are
> respected. When it comes to discerning the performance of a
> station, it is the listeners who have the overwhelming
> majority of observational data. Daily drives to work -
> along the same routes, with the same equipment being used
> day in, day out, under various meteorological conditions -
> come a lot closer to be controlled experiments than a single
> drive around the fringes by a broadcast engineer, no matter
> how much expensive gear he might have. Also - a broadcast
> engineer or owner is completely biased towards their own
> station / stations and completely uninterested in how their
> station might affect adjacents.
>
> Listeners all over the country are coming up with decreased
> coverage for FM stations running IBOC, as much as 60 miles.
> Listeners are hearing massive IBOC interference from AM
> stations running IBOC - hearing the sidebands over 300 miles
> away in some cases! Yet all of these accounts are
> marginalized, made fun of, sluffed off by arrogant "its your
> radio" comments. That - or "I've got the credentials you
> don't" or "I made field strength measurements that showed no
> difference", etc. Yet, in spite of arrogance, the body of
> evidence for FM coverage decreases and AM interference
> builds. These problems will not go away because station
> owners, Ibiquity, and broadcast engineers wish them to go
> away. Unless they happen to be named Harry Potter and can
> wave a magic wand to alter the laws of Physics at will.
> Ignore these problems and marginalize people who report them
> if you want - but time will prove the listeners correct as
> they abandon radio for XM, Sirius, and iPods. Coverage and
> interference are issues you dare not ignore, because they
> affect the listening experience.
>
First of all, please define "LISTENERS all over the country are complaining of..." I"ve turned on several HD transmitters and have not gotten one complaint. Show me these throngs of people that you are talking about, because me and my peers certainly haven't heard from any of them.
Hey, I'm all for discussion, good or bad, about the technology. I think that we've all agreed on certain aspects.
I think where the LISTENERS are attacked is when they come on to this board and say things like "IBOC sucks - it's the end of radio" or "IBOC decreases a station's signal by xx%!" These people aren't here to discuss anything. They're here to push an agenda.
IBOC has not been, to my knowledge, proven to reduce the coverage of an FM station, period. Time and time again we have offered to prove that the signal does not change, and have asked those who disagree to prove the same. Nobody has stepped forward with proof yet, other than anecdotal. Heck I offered to take a camcorder out to a remote area and turn my HD transmitter on and off to prove it!
So yes, we will argue with facts around here, and will listen to anyone who takes issue with IBOC, as long as they do it in a mature manner.
People don't need to use phrases like "IBUZ" or chant the party line of the AM Stereo folks. We know their talking points, and we know they will never be convinced. To argue that again and again is pointless.
What steams me is when a LISTENER comes here looking for advice on an HD radio, and are bombarded with "RUN AWAY FROM IBUZ" or "YOU BOUGHT A PAPERWEIGHT!"
We're here to talk about IBOC, good and bad. But it's pointless to rehash the same old arguments here, unless there is new information.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
Re: It's IBOC
> You are incorrect about the decreased coverage for FM
> stations. An FM station transmitting IBOC, is merely
> transmitting side bands on the main RF carrier. The main
> carrier remains the same at the same level. There is no
> decrease in the coverage area of the FM station's main
> signal......
WHAT? Are you the only person on the planet that does not know this to be the case? C'mon man, you're joking right?
If you mean listeners loosing out of market distant
> signals. Well I can tell you that most listeners I know
> don't want to listen to staticy out of market signals
> anyways.
Aren't you the the guy, who several posts ago, berated someone for being a DX'er? So listening to something better that happens to be out of your immediate market is suddenly taboo? We should not have that option anymore? You and your corporate friends are telling me I can't listen to what I want because you are selling a new technology???? Wait a minute....let's look at the response to digital T. V. The government is considering buying everyone a converter because not enough lemmings are buying the "digital thing".
> They want clean sounding local signals.
We have them now....it's called analog.
> Its only you guys who are upset because IBOC is killing your DXing
> that seem to have the most concern about it, and that you
> come up with all this.
Please, stop using the word DX'er as an insult. However one chooses to listen to the radio they have a right to do it. Are you next going to sing the praises of BPL?????
> You are incorrect about the decreased coverage for FM
> stations. An FM station transmitting IBOC, is merely
> transmitting side bands on the main RF carrier. The main
> carrier remains the same at the same level. There is no
> decrease in the coverage area of the FM station's main
> signal......
WHAT? Are you the only person on the planet that does not know this to be the case? C'mon man, you're joking right?
If you mean listeners loosing out of market distant
> signals. Well I can tell you that most listeners I know
> don't want to listen to staticy out of market signals
> anyways.
Aren't you the the guy, who several posts ago, berated someone for being a DX'er? So listening to something better that happens to be out of your immediate market is suddenly taboo? We should not have that option anymore? You and your corporate friends are telling me I can't listen to what I want because you are selling a new technology???? Wait a minute....let's look at the response to digital T. V. The government is considering buying everyone a converter because not enough lemmings are buying the "digital thing".
> They want clean sounding local signals.
We have them now....it's called analog.
> Its only you guys who are upset because IBOC is killing your DXing
> that seem to have the most concern about it, and that you
> come up with all this.
Please, stop using the word DX'er as an insult. However one chooses to listen to the radio they have a right to do it. Are you next going to sing the praises of BPL?????
R
RadioDoc
Guest
Re: It's IBOC
> > You are incorrect about the decreased coverage for FM
> > stations. An FM station transmitting IBOC, is merely
> > transmitting side bands on the main RF carrier. The main
> > carrier remains the same at the same level. There is no
> > decrease in the coverage area of the FM station's main
> > signal......
>
> WHAT? Are you the only person on the planet that does not
> know this to be the case? C'mon man, you're joking right?
>
He's right. Can you offer any scientific proof otherwise? Saying "people said..." does not count. Offer hard proof that it does, and I will offer proof that it doesn't.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
> > You are incorrect about the decreased coverage for FM
> > stations. An FM station transmitting IBOC, is merely
> > transmitting side bands on the main RF carrier. The main
> > carrier remains the same at the same level. There is no
> > decrease in the coverage area of the FM station's main
> > signal......
>
> WHAT? Are you the only person on the planet that does not
> know this to be the case? C'mon man, you're joking right?
>
He's right. Can you offer any scientific proof otherwise? Saying "people said..." does not count. Offer hard proof that it does, and I will offer proof that it doesn't.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
Re: It's IBOC
> He's right. Can you offer any scientific proof otherwise?
> Saying "people said..." does not count. Offer hard proof
l offer proof that it doesn't.
Let's start here...or just go read the comments on the docket for IBOC on the FCC website....Only corporate slugs are for it.
http://www.radio-info.com/mods/board?Post=662194&Board=hd
> He's right. Can you offer any scientific proof otherwise?
> Saying "people said..." does not count. Offer hard proof
l offer proof that it doesn't.
Let's start here...or just go read the comments on the docket for IBOC on the FCC website....Only corporate slugs are for it.
http://www.radio-info.com/mods/board?Post=662194&Board=hd
Re: It's IBOC
Remember back when PD's complained about the addition of SCA's on FM stations? Well, those IBOC carriers are at a much higher level and are throughout the entire 200khz passband. It would just be plain logically to conclude that IBOC might have some affect on the analog signal, causing additional multipath, etc. Call me crazy, but I haven't seen ANY published data testing for this. Just as with SCA's, it was suggested to be highly variable depending on model of car radio.
> Let's start here...or just go read the comments on the
> docket for IBOC on the FCC website....Only corporate slugs
> are for it.
> http://www.radio-info.com/mods/board?Post=662194&Board=hd
>
<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by Ray22 on 04/20/06 07:12 AM.</FONT></P>
Remember back when PD's complained about the addition of SCA's on FM stations? Well, those IBOC carriers are at a much higher level and are throughout the entire 200khz passband. It would just be plain logically to conclude that IBOC might have some affect on the analog signal, causing additional multipath, etc. Call me crazy, but I haven't seen ANY published data testing for this. Just as with SCA's, it was suggested to be highly variable depending on model of car radio.
> Let's start here...or just go read the comments on the
> docket for IBOC on the FCC website....Only corporate slugs
> are for it.
> http://www.radio-info.com/mods/board?Post=662194&Board=hd
>
<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by Ray22 on 04/20/06 07:12 AM.</FONT></P>
K
k9ez
Guest
Re: It's IBOC
> > He's right. Can you offer any scientific proof otherwise?
>
> > Saying "people said..." does not count. Offer hard proof
> l offer proof that it doesn't.
>
>
> Let's start here...or just go read the comments on the
> docket for IBOC on the FCC website....Only corporate slugs
> are for it.
> http://www.radio-info.com/mods/board?Post=662194&Board=hd
>
Jim,
Having put a few HD stations on the air (as well as Doc), it is painfully obvious that you do not know how HD is transmitted. If you understood how it worked you would realize that there is NO WAY that an HD signal could shorten the range of an analog signal. Even the post you provide is talking about the robustness of the HD signal, not the analog.
Engineers are still working on increasing the robustness of the HD signal. We as engineers have a lot to learn here!
And if you think that "only the corporate slugs are for it" I suggest you do a little reading. Yes a few of us "corporate slugs" like some of what HD can do, most of us have concerns for the AM side of HD. This is rehashing stuff that we have gone over and over again.
You seem to forget that us "corporate slugs" are people too. You just seem to want to dehumanize us. Most of us have been completely upfront about the HD Radio situation. It is when we see comments like yours that contain a bunch of mis-information that gets the hair on the back of our necks to rise.
Do you even have an HD Radio? Can you provide us with data and examples of your problems? Or are you just spewing mis information provided by others.
It is OK to be wrong, but have the where-with-all to want to learn and have an open mind. I suggest aht you come into this with an open mind.
As others can attest, when HD first came out I was totally opposed to it. Now that I have had a chence to not only work with it, but to install and set up HD Stations. I have better knowlege. I can now see how this would work, and I can also see the problems that may arrise. I suggest that you open your mind and educate yourself more. Do that by asking questions as opposed to making accusations.
That being said, I for one am glad you are here to discuss HD Radio!
> > He's right. Can you offer any scientific proof otherwise?
>
> > Saying "people said..." does not count. Offer hard proof
> l offer proof that it doesn't.
>
>
> Let's start here...or just go read the comments on the
> docket for IBOC on the FCC website....Only corporate slugs
> are for it.
> http://www.radio-info.com/mods/board?Post=662194&Board=hd
>
Jim,
Having put a few HD stations on the air (as well as Doc), it is painfully obvious that you do not know how HD is transmitted. If you understood how it worked you would realize that there is NO WAY that an HD signal could shorten the range of an analog signal. Even the post you provide is talking about the robustness of the HD signal, not the analog.
Engineers are still working on increasing the robustness of the HD signal. We as engineers have a lot to learn here!
And if you think that "only the corporate slugs are for it" I suggest you do a little reading. Yes a few of us "corporate slugs" like some of what HD can do, most of us have concerns for the AM side of HD. This is rehashing stuff that we have gone over and over again.
You seem to forget that us "corporate slugs" are people too. You just seem to want to dehumanize us. Most of us have been completely upfront about the HD Radio situation. It is when we see comments like yours that contain a bunch of mis-information that gets the hair on the back of our necks to rise.
Do you even have an HD Radio? Can you provide us with data and examples of your problems? Or are you just spewing mis information provided by others.
It is OK to be wrong, but have the where-with-all to want to learn and have an open mind. I suggest aht you come into this with an open mind.
As others can attest, when HD first came out I was totally opposed to it. Now that I have had a chence to not only work with it, but to install and set up HD Stations. I have better knowlege. I can now see how this would work, and I can also see the problems that may arrise. I suggest that you open your mind and educate yourself more. Do that by asking questions as opposed to making accusations.
That being said, I for one am glad you are here to discuss HD Radio!
K
k9ez
Guest
The mis information continues...
> > The true voters of this technology will be the listening
> > public. If the noise, or reduced range etc cause
> problems,
> > then stations will have reduced ratings, or fewer
> > advertisers etc. It will show eventually if there is a
> > problem. I say light them all up now 24/7/365 and see
> where
> > the chips fall. My bet is that it wont be the FCC or the
> > public that decides all this, it will be the courts. Kahn
>
> > who is a brillian engineer but somewhat of a crackpot has
> > fired the first volley. There wont be anymore until a
> final
> > report and order comes from the FCC.
>
> I agree. Let the whole thing implode. Let's put thousands
> of legal jammers on the AM band, and see if anybody can hear
> anything at night. And let's see what other countries
> think. Same on FM - lets jam all first adjacents, cut down
> coverage, and see how many people defect to satellite.
>
Bruce, this is getting real old with you.
A number of us have provided CONCRETE info in regards to the FM band and HD Radio. Yet you continue to ramble with the same old stuff.
THERE IS NO CUT DOWN ON ANALOG COVERAGE - plain and simple
I have given you examples of first adjacents and how (and it surprised me even) well they play together.
We have asked for proof, yet evey time you do not answer. A number of engineers here have provided you with quite conceret information.
Bruce you have some great information regarding AM antennas and DXing on your web site. Keep up the great work in that area, but you need to better educate your self on this HD Radio situation.
> > The true voters of this technology will be the listening
> > public. If the noise, or reduced range etc cause
> problems,
> > then stations will have reduced ratings, or fewer
> > advertisers etc. It will show eventually if there is a
> > problem. I say light them all up now 24/7/365 and see
> where
> > the chips fall. My bet is that it wont be the FCC or the
> > public that decides all this, it will be the courts. Kahn
>
> > who is a brillian engineer but somewhat of a crackpot has
> > fired the first volley. There wont be anymore until a
> final
> > report and order comes from the FCC.
>
> I agree. Let the whole thing implode. Let's put thousands
> of legal jammers on the AM band, and see if anybody can hear
> anything at night. And let's see what other countries
> think. Same on FM - lets jam all first adjacents, cut down
> coverage, and see how many people defect to satellite.
>
Bruce, this is getting real old with you.
A number of us have provided CONCRETE info in regards to the FM band and HD Radio. Yet you continue to ramble with the same old stuff.
THERE IS NO CUT DOWN ON ANALOG COVERAGE - plain and simple
I have given you examples of first adjacents and how (and it surprised me even) well they play together.
We have asked for proof, yet evey time you do not answer. A number of engineers here have provided you with quite conceret information.
Bruce you have some great information regarding AM antennas and DXing on your web site. Keep up the great work in that area, but you need to better educate your self on this HD Radio situation.
R
RadioEngineer
Guest
Re: It's IBOC
> Remember back when PD's complained about the addition of
> SCA's on FM stations? Well, those IBOC carriers are at a
> much higher level and are throughout the entire 200khz
> passband. It would just be plain logically to conclude that
> IBOC might have some affect on the analog signal, causing
> additional multipath, etc. Call me crazy, but I haven't
> seen ANY published data testing for this. Just as with
> SCA's, it was suggested to be highly variable depending on
> model of car radio.
Not the same dealio at all. PD's objected to SCA's because you had to trade off main program channel modulation. The loudness guys didn't want to give up a single squashed percent of modulation. The SCA is also contained within the bandwidth of the analog signal, and there are issues of crosstalk into the main channel, usually solveable.
The digital is riding on the outer bands of the analog carrier and won't impact the analog via loss of modulation or crosstalk if the system is tuned properly.
And I'm not an Ibiquity supporter, just stating the facts ma'am.
> Remember back when PD's complained about the addition of
> SCA's on FM stations? Well, those IBOC carriers are at a
> much higher level and are throughout the entire 200khz
> passband. It would just be plain logically to conclude that
> IBOC might have some affect on the analog signal, causing
> additional multipath, etc. Call me crazy, but I haven't
> seen ANY published data testing for this. Just as with
> SCA's, it was suggested to be highly variable depending on
> model of car radio.
Not the same dealio at all. PD's objected to SCA's because you had to trade off main program channel modulation. The loudness guys didn't want to give up a single squashed percent of modulation. The SCA is also contained within the bandwidth of the analog signal, and there are issues of crosstalk into the main channel, usually solveable.
The digital is riding on the outer bands of the analog carrier and won't impact the analog via loss of modulation or crosstalk if the system is tuned properly.
And I'm not an Ibiquity supporter, just stating the facts ma'am.
R
rbrucecarter
Guest
Re: The arrogance continues...
>> Bruce you have some great information regarding AM antennas
> and DXing on your web site. Keep up the great work in that
> area, but you need to better educate your self on this HD
> Radio situation.
Thank you for your compliments on my web site.
As far as FM coverage - WHO has more data on coverage? Listeners or Engineers? A disciplined, experienced DX'er who travels the same exact routes day in / day out is going to notice any difference in the received signals of radio stations in their area. Time and time again, I have given the example of KLDE Houston, adding coverage information in other directions to the growing body of evidence something BAD is up with their coverage. Now, I'm noticing it on stations in the Dallas area as well. Low spots that were solid before, now dropping out. Coverage to the West that is now GONE. I present solid data, carefully taken, repeated many times to make sure there were no tropos or other atmospherics involved - and what do I get for my trouble? Posts about KLDE DELETED from the Houston board, in spite of the fact other listeners are also complaining. Their posts are deleted as well - how dare anybody suggest something is wrong with KLDE now that they have implemented the wonderous savior of radio - IBOC. And I get this post from you - I'm just a lowly listener / DX'er (never mind I have decades of experience at this) - how dare I challenge the measurements made (probably once, close in) of station engineers who are biased strongly towards their own station at the expense of all others, and who would be in for a sound disciplinary action by the owners if any hint of coverage problems surfaced. Yeah - I can really respect that! Talk about the fox guarding the hen house.
There has been a discussion of this on another forum - where the discussion is obviously more objective. The conclusion? A possible link between stations utilizing separate antennas for HD and analog. If we can correlate analog coverage losses to this single factor, it would be a very valuable piece of information to stations trying to implement HD - warning them NOT to take an easy way out or they could lose much of their fringe audience. I think that is the spirit we should adopt here - not to marginalize, delete posts, ignore listeners. Instead, realize there really IS a problem, find out what it is, find a fix, publish articles, and GET IT SOLVED before it becomes a prime factor in the early demise of a promising technology. In other words - do Ibiquity's stinkin' job for them, and do it RIGHT this time!
This would not be the first time, nor will it be the last, that I have picked up the pieces of somebody else's engineering mistakes - and not the first time, nor will it be the last, that I get the blame because I am the messenger with objective facts and measurements that challenge some 3 piece suited manager's little fifedom. I remind you of bad engineering done because of intimidation, peer pressure, and denial of facts in the space program! Only there - lives were lost instead of analog coverage.
The engineering on IBOC is NOT done - let's all put our noses to the grindstone, find the problem and FIX this puppy before it goes DOWN in FLAMES.
>> Bruce you have some great information regarding AM antennas
> and DXing on your web site. Keep up the great work in that
> area, but you need to better educate your self on this HD
> Radio situation.
Thank you for your compliments on my web site.
As far as FM coverage - WHO has more data on coverage? Listeners or Engineers? A disciplined, experienced DX'er who travels the same exact routes day in / day out is going to notice any difference in the received signals of radio stations in their area. Time and time again, I have given the example of KLDE Houston, adding coverage information in other directions to the growing body of evidence something BAD is up with their coverage. Now, I'm noticing it on stations in the Dallas area as well. Low spots that were solid before, now dropping out. Coverage to the West that is now GONE. I present solid data, carefully taken, repeated many times to make sure there were no tropos or other atmospherics involved - and what do I get for my trouble? Posts about KLDE DELETED from the Houston board, in spite of the fact other listeners are also complaining. Their posts are deleted as well - how dare anybody suggest something is wrong with KLDE now that they have implemented the wonderous savior of radio - IBOC. And I get this post from you - I'm just a lowly listener / DX'er (never mind I have decades of experience at this) - how dare I challenge the measurements made (probably once, close in) of station engineers who are biased strongly towards their own station at the expense of all others, and who would be in for a sound disciplinary action by the owners if any hint of coverage problems surfaced. Yeah - I can really respect that! Talk about the fox guarding the hen house.
There has been a discussion of this on another forum - where the discussion is obviously more objective. The conclusion? A possible link between stations utilizing separate antennas for HD and analog. If we can correlate analog coverage losses to this single factor, it would be a very valuable piece of information to stations trying to implement HD - warning them NOT to take an easy way out or they could lose much of their fringe audience. I think that is the spirit we should adopt here - not to marginalize, delete posts, ignore listeners. Instead, realize there really IS a problem, find out what it is, find a fix, publish articles, and GET IT SOLVED before it becomes a prime factor in the early demise of a promising technology. In other words - do Ibiquity's stinkin' job for them, and do it RIGHT this time!
This would not be the first time, nor will it be the last, that I have picked up the pieces of somebody else's engineering mistakes - and not the first time, nor will it be the last, that I get the blame because I am the messenger with objective facts and measurements that challenge some 3 piece suited manager's little fifedom. I remind you of bad engineering done because of intimidation, peer pressure, and denial of facts in the space program! Only there - lives were lost instead of analog coverage.
The engineering on IBOC is NOT done - let's all put our noses to the grindstone, find the problem and FIX this puppy before it goes DOWN in FLAMES.
R
rbrucecarter
Guest
About those mis-placed accusations
I've been accused of having an agenda. So I thought I would post my agenda so there will be no further accusations.
(1) AM IBOC is unworkable at night due to interference. If all domestic stations go IBOC at night, I believe the AM band will be unusable in the Northern half of the Western hemisphere if not beyond, due to the digital sideband powers adding together through the root sum squared law to the background noise. Reception may only be possible a mile or two from the towers of even high power stations.
(2) Daytime AM IBOC is wasted on talk and sports stations. The human voice, even with harmonics, is easily accomdated by the old analog system. Stereo musical beds and commercials on talk and sports stations did not spur sales of C-Quam radios, nor will they spur sales of IBOC radios.
(3) Daytime IBOC on music stations requires such drastic bandwidth reductions that the music is almost unlistenable, due to group delay distortion. All discussions of radio bandwidth are irrelevant to group delay distortion, because even a low bandwidth radio will receive the harmonics of the audio at skewed times.
(4) The lost of first adjacents on FM affects listeners primarily in the heavily populated East. They will protest the loss of first adjacents vigorously. First adjacents are less of an issue in the West.
(5) The addition of HD2 and 3 channels increases diversity in programming, and is a good trade-off for the loss of first adjacents.
(6) Surround sound is also intriguing, and a possible benefit of IBOC.
(7) ALL benefits of FM IBOC disappear if the range is not good. Posts like the Boston Acoustics thread worry me - most suburban listeners are probably in or beyond the 30 mile range he is describing. If HD2 and 3, and Surround are only usable within 20 to 30 miles of the towers, over relatively flat terrain like Indianapolis - it is a stunning disappointment. I hear that one company shipping IBOC radios had to upgrade the antennas they were providing. Coverage (HD, not analog) may be a major concern!
(8) Yes - I am an AM stereo advocate. If the FCC had mandated AMAX standards on all radios above $50 like they mandated teletext for the deaf on TV's - AM music formats would be flourishing right now without the wait for consumers to adopt IBOC. The FCC could still act to mandate AMAX / C-Quam, and because the technology and supply channels are mature, it could be implemented and have market penetration in months instead of the years projected for IBOC. There are no nighttime issues, and coverage is supurb as well as the sound.
(9) Compared to C-Quam - Ibiquity's own audio samples of IBOC AM sound like crap. Phase distortion similar to medium bandwidth streaming audio. If THIS is what we can look forward to on AM IBOC compared to C-Quam, give me C-Quam any time, it just plain sounds better. Don't take my word for it, go to Ibiquity's web site and hear the samples for yourself! I've heard better sounding SHORTWAVE.
(10) Back to FM - there was NO reason to splatter adjacent channels with digital information. Existing services above 53 kHz could have been displaced by the digital sidebands, reducing the channel width required for IBOC. WHY were they not displaced? IBOC has data and auxiliary channel capability enough to replace it all. Could somebody have possibly been unsure about IBOC's success?
There you go - that's my agenda. Challenge / insult me based on my true agenda - don't lump me with others.
I've been accused of having an agenda. So I thought I would post my agenda so there will be no further accusations.
(1) AM IBOC is unworkable at night due to interference. If all domestic stations go IBOC at night, I believe the AM band will be unusable in the Northern half of the Western hemisphere if not beyond, due to the digital sideband powers adding together through the root sum squared law to the background noise. Reception may only be possible a mile or two from the towers of even high power stations.
(2) Daytime AM IBOC is wasted on talk and sports stations. The human voice, even with harmonics, is easily accomdated by the old analog system. Stereo musical beds and commercials on talk and sports stations did not spur sales of C-Quam radios, nor will they spur sales of IBOC radios.
(3) Daytime IBOC on music stations requires such drastic bandwidth reductions that the music is almost unlistenable, due to group delay distortion. All discussions of radio bandwidth are irrelevant to group delay distortion, because even a low bandwidth radio will receive the harmonics of the audio at skewed times.
(4) The lost of first adjacents on FM affects listeners primarily in the heavily populated East. They will protest the loss of first adjacents vigorously. First adjacents are less of an issue in the West.
(5) The addition of HD2 and 3 channels increases diversity in programming, and is a good trade-off for the loss of first adjacents.
(6) Surround sound is also intriguing, and a possible benefit of IBOC.
(7) ALL benefits of FM IBOC disappear if the range is not good. Posts like the Boston Acoustics thread worry me - most suburban listeners are probably in or beyond the 30 mile range he is describing. If HD2 and 3, and Surround are only usable within 20 to 30 miles of the towers, over relatively flat terrain like Indianapolis - it is a stunning disappointment. I hear that one company shipping IBOC radios had to upgrade the antennas they were providing. Coverage (HD, not analog) may be a major concern!
(8) Yes - I am an AM stereo advocate. If the FCC had mandated AMAX standards on all radios above $50 like they mandated teletext for the deaf on TV's - AM music formats would be flourishing right now without the wait for consumers to adopt IBOC. The FCC could still act to mandate AMAX / C-Quam, and because the technology and supply channels are mature, it could be implemented and have market penetration in months instead of the years projected for IBOC. There are no nighttime issues, and coverage is supurb as well as the sound.
(9) Compared to C-Quam - Ibiquity's own audio samples of IBOC AM sound like crap. Phase distortion similar to medium bandwidth streaming audio. If THIS is what we can look forward to on AM IBOC compared to C-Quam, give me C-Quam any time, it just plain sounds better. Don't take my word for it, go to Ibiquity's web site and hear the samples for yourself! I've heard better sounding SHORTWAVE.
(10) Back to FM - there was NO reason to splatter adjacent channels with digital information. Existing services above 53 kHz could have been displaced by the digital sidebands, reducing the channel width required for IBOC. WHY were they not displaced? IBOC has data and auxiliary channel capability enough to replace it all. Could somebody have possibly been unsure about IBOC's success?
There you go - that's my agenda. Challenge / insult me based on my true agenda - don't lump me with others.
- Status
- This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.