WABC Saturday oldies 7-12-08 IBOC aircheck

[JJS]

Go talk to the Europeans and Canadians about the viability of sustaining an out-of-band service today.

Lino, if the consumer has to obtain a new digital receiver anyway, why would he care whether the audio service was delivered inside or outside the traditional analog bands? That seems like "inside baseball" to me.

I'd be much more interested in programming variety, regional availability, sound quality, signal robustness, and cost. Those are considerations which might make digital radio a worthy value proposition. But I don't see why the consumer cares which band the signal lives in. So is there a problem on the delivery side? Which issues in Canadian and European out-of-band digital do you believe would be addressed by an in-band approach?

 

[LinoNYC]

I'd be much more interested in programming variety, regional availability, sound quality, signal robustness, and cost. Those are considerations which might make digital radio a worthy value proposition. But I don't see why the consumer cares which band the signal lives in. So is there a problem on the delivery side? Which issues in Canadian and European out-of-band digital do you believe would be addressed by an in-band approach?

I was hoping some else might chime in with a more authoritative response but I guess it's mine.

the problems with the European/Canadian system are:

-Too ambitious: Many channels per "pod" requiring programming all of which caters to an audience that after 12 years is still mostly in the low single digits.

-Non upgradeable obsolete codec ca. 1992 There is really nothing that can be done without junking the existing receivers.

-Vastly changed media landscape. I first heard of this system via BBC in 1989, radio was still king for music and information so logic followed that more radio=better service. Even a casual observer can discern the changes since then.

-Major underestimation of the transition time for an all-digital listenership.

Advantages of an IBOC system:

-Clean start with newer tech and far better and upgradeable software.

-More realistic scale in programming. radio today is more a commodity ie background listening. People now have technology that readily enables them to hear exactly what they want so there will be much less brand identity with stations.

-IBOC allows people to continue to tune to familiar frequencies even once they get a new HD radio. If you talk to average people you'll know how important this is.

Finally, the concept of a "new band" in the VHF spectrum would require action by politicians. AM radio broadcasters have spent the last 20 years profiting from the slandering of those who now must decide this matter. TFB.

Lino

 

[Savage]

"If IBOC fares the same, then I can call it a failure?"

No, actually, thanks but I'm calling it a failure right now. Most in the industry agree. That's why a tiny fraction of operating stations, particularly AM, are using IBOC, with that situation unlikely to change - ever.

Thanks, LBJ. How right you are. There isn't a day that goes by that I don't get e-mails or calls from people telling us to keep up the fight against HD Radio. It's an engineering debacle, and everyone with any sense knows it.

 

[LinoNYC]

"If IBOC fares the same, then I can call it a failure?"

No, actually, thanks but I'm calling it a failure right now. Most in the industry agree. That's why a tiny fraction of operating stations, particularly AM, are using IBOC, with that situation unlikely to change - ever.

Thanks, LBJ. How right you are. There isn't a day that goes by that I don't get e-mails or calls from people telling us to keep up the fight against HD Radio. It's an engineering debacle, and everyone with any sense knows it.

Well, thanks for quoting me but, please refrain from your Rovian tricks. The original was:

"If iboc fares the same, you can then call it a failure."

No, actually, thanks but I'm calling it a failure right now.

You can call it a "hot fudge sundae" for all it matters.

It's an engineering debacle, and everyone with any sense knows it.

The debacle is AM radio in the 21st century. It's the same all over the world.

At least you are glib enough that if/when your operation fizzles you can consider a career on the Rubber Chicken Circuit as an M.C. ...might even give Mark Simone a run for the money.

Lino

 

[Savage]

No worries, Lee-know! Our "fizzling" AM is on-track to have another record billing year, beating several FMs in the market. Our internet audience has quadupled in the last year. We just signed up a group of four AMs and two FMs in our regional syndication of our WYSL-originated afternoon talk show, bringing our little network in Rochester, the Finger Lakes and Southern Tier to seven stations. You ought to check out the Bill Nojay Show, 2pm weekdays (also streamed.) It's a good, pro-American conservative talk program with a real Upstate New York focus, so the program should be especially appealing to you!

Meanwhile: iBiquity's anti-XM/Sirius merger public tantrum ("make them include us in their receivers!!") is going down in flames. The 10db FM lie-du-jour is in serious trouble. Radio Shack has removed HD Radio from its retail stores with the Accurian imminently disco'ed. Six months after RW published an editorial, "Is HD-AM Radio In Trouble?" a whopping total of fifteen new HD-AM installs have hit the air. In the WORLD. And every single one, without exception, is a station owned by an HD Alliance member. Trade pubs report that major groups are negotiating with iBiquity to cancel their HD-AM licenses.

Bottom line: I'll choose our bill of health over that of HD Radio any day. But thanks anyway for the nice tidings in your post.

Thanks also for the "debacle" retort. It shows that you actually just hate AM radio, period. Which nicely illuminates your agenda regarding HD-AM for all to see.

 

[Play Freebird]

So, you still think an out of band solution is viable?

Go talk to the Europeans and Canadians about the viability of sustaining an out-of-band service today.

It sounded like a good idea in the early 1990's D.O.A. today.

They are all looking at in-band now.

Out of band worked for digital TV. Most VHF stations went to UHF, while some Us went to V, and some stayed. It was a PITA for a lot of broadcasters, but they ended up with a system that has true potential. Think of what could you do with 19 megabits/second!

The lack of enthusiasm for Eureka-147 in Europe has little to do with its "out-of-band" approach. Instead, consumers seem content with analog FM and don't perceive enough difference in MPEG-2 digital sound quality to run out and buy new receivers. Pretty much the same thing that's going on here.

"Sustainability" of out-of-band in Europe really isn't an issue, because most tower sites are controlled by public agencies, so it's not a big deal to install a new transmitter and antenna for a different band. What's the advantage to in-band in situations like that? Yes, I realize that one commercial broadcaster in Heidelberg and another in Luzern have tested HD, but has there been widespread adoption? (At least these tests have given some iBiquity guys an opportunity to visit a scenic part of the world on the company's dime, which is fine with me)

Another nice thing about an out-of-band approach vs. hybrid digital is that it supports single frequency networks without a need to protect the analog. If you have a dead spot behind a mountain, or you want better building penetration downtown, just add a booster.

http://www.nprlabs.org/publications/reports/20060401_SingleFrequencyNetworks_AM-JCK.pdf

 

[Savage]

Yeah, we've heard you bray here about Europeans "looking at in-band hybrid digital" for months now.

Looking....looking.....looking....? The Canadians have been "looking at" HD for four years. And have shelved it, waiting to see if their border stations are competitively impacted by the wonderfulness of nearby US HD stations.

So far there have been only crickets chirping from the Great White North.

If HD is such a swell concept, where's the utilization outside of the US? (By that I mean the WIDESPREAD utilization, not two or three test stations in Mexico and Brazil.)

 

[KB1OKL]

Advantages of an IBOC system:

-Clean start with newer tech and far better and upgradeable software.

Can they be constantly upgraded over time?

-More realistic scale in programming. radio today is more a commodity ie background listening. People now have technology that readily enables them to hear exactly what they want so there will be much less brand identity with stations.

Yeah maybe it would be good in a dentist office playing the Ray Conniff singers sing Lawrence Welk's greatest polkas while the Lennon sisters hum.

-IBOC allows people to continue to tune to familiar frequencies even once they get a new HD radio. If you talk to average people you'll know how important this is.

That is if they can still RECEIVE their old familiar stations

Finally, the concept of a "new band" in the VHF spectrum would require action by politicians. AM radio broadcasters have spent the last 20 years profiting from the slandering of those who now must decide this matter. TFB.

A new day in politics may be coming

Lino

OK equal time: Disadvantages of IBOC:

- Severely reduced range on both FM and AM

(incidentally Lino did you actually write to that guy who got WABC HD at approx. 350 miles? He was using a Terk ferrite tunable loop antenna and was 1300 ft above sea level way up in an apartment building about 200 ft above ground, he now says since he moved back down to earth he only gets one HD AM from his own city with the same set up and is about to give up DXing HD, now says it is only good for cars, multipath etc.).

- The receivers are expensive

- IBOC, especially on AM wipes out it's neighbors on both sides of the station that is broadcasting the noi, er.. I mean digital information with it's sidebands

- The sound is only marginally better and that only if you consider artificial highs a good thing.

- Expensive fees to ibquity

- Dearth of receivers

- Complete public apathy toward IBOC

- Overwhelming apathy and antipathy amongst radio professionals except of course for a certain subset

- FM IBOC is so weak it can't penetrate walls

- Is very complicated for the average consumer who just wants something plug and play

-

I left the last open for anyone to add anything I forgot.

Bob-MA

 

[LinoNYC]

No worries, Lee-know! Our "fizzling" AM is on-track to have another record billing year, beating several FMs in the market.

Well, I guess that blows your contention that mean 'ol WBZ's iboc would cost you that $100.000.

Our internet audience has quadupled in the last year.

-As usual no figures attached to a claim of yours. Sort of like "we're the fastest growing station in the market" Mad Ave Newspeak.

our WYSL-originated afternoon talk show, bringing our little network in Rochester, the Finger Lakes and Southern Tier to seven stations. You ought to check out the Bill Nojay Show, 2pm weekdays (also streamed.) It's a good, pro-American conservative talk program with a real Upstate New York focus, so the program should be especially appealing to you!

I'll have to check it out. Sometime.

BTW: With what is about to happen up there re; Republicans there will be alot of guys looking for something to do. You may have hit on an idea call it "Voices From The Hinterlands" Am is just perfect for them.

Trade pubs report that major groups are negotiating with iBiquity to cancel their HD-AM licenses.

Am I right that you can provide at least some proof here?

Thanks also for the "debacle" retort. It shows that you actually just hate AM radio, period. Which nicely illuminates your agenda regarding HD-AM for all to see.

Wrong again. AM is what I mostly listen to, specificly WNYC-am You have heard of them (right?) they are the am-fm non comms that bring in almost 12 million dollars more in operating budget than WABC's total billings. Don't even ask about WOR. They (WNYC) now have the newest and best studio facilities in the market.

WABC and WOR each rent out around a quarter of their weekend air to everyone's favorite "Colon Cleanser".

We also have a fine news station WCBS-am stifled with commercials but it does no whoring. Neither does WINS. All of which are IBOC BTW.

There are also stations here that follow your model, the once mighty WMCA and a place you once graced; WWDJ. Both carry a mixture of right wing talk, religion and snakeoil. They bill a few million and have no listeners. Sound familiar?



Lino

 

[LinoNYC]

Out of band worked for digital TV. Most VHF stations went to UHF, while some Us went to V, and some stayed. It was a PITA for a lot of broadcasters, but they ended up with a system that has true potential. Think of what could you do with 19 megabits/second!

I'am not entirely clear as to what you are saying but, UHF was a major flop even after it got the "all channel rule" it was an also-ran until catv gave it a degree of parity.
When all of this happened there were far fewer TV's than there are radios today, not to mention the relative importance people place on them.

There really isn't much room for comparison here.

The lack of enthusiasm for Eureka-147 in Europe has little to do with its "out-of-band" approach. Instead, consumers seem content with analog FM and don't perceive enough difference in MPEG-2 digital sound quality to run out and buy new receivers. Pretty much the same thing that's going on here.

That is kind of what I was saying. As to "content" it may more be a case of "so what" -especially among the youngest listeners. Even in Southeast Asian cities such as Bangkok Ipod and knock-off MP3 players have replaced radios just in the two years I have been going there.

"Sustainability" of out-of-band in Europe really isn't an issue, because most tower sites are controlled by public agencies, so it's not a big deal to install a new transmitter and antenna for a different band. What's the advantage to in-band in situations like that?

None except that if the goal is to transition to all digital (or expect continued public support) you need to phase it in where the public is.

Yes, I realize that one commercial broadcaster in Heidelberg and another in Luzern have tested HD, but has there been widespread adoption? (At least these tests have given some iBiquity guys an opportunity to visit a scenic part of the world on the company's dime, which is fine with me)

Europe is working on their own brand of iboc, it probably won't be ibiquity although in Asia it might be.

Another nice thing about an out-of-band approach vs. hybrid digital is that it supports single frequency networks without a need to protect the analog. If you have a dead spot behind a mountain, or you want better building penetration downtown, just add a booster.

Understood. There are always going to be better solutions available with a clean start, but if you are talking about a mature market in today's environment iboc makes the most sense.

Lino

 

[Savage]

Okay, Lino, let's posit a hypothetical here (reference your snide comment about how, since WYSL is having a record revenue year, it's impossible for IBOC from WBZ to have hurt us.)

Let's just say that last year 500,000 tourists visited Bangkok. INTERPOL arrests 10,000 of these tourists because they are suspected of connections to NAMBLA (since after all, Bangkok is the unofficial offshore HQ of this vile organization.) So we have a net of 490,000 non-NAMBLA visitors cavorting in your favourite Southeast Asia destination. Okay?

Now, THIS year, 700,000 cosmopolitan, savvy, HD Radio-loving tourists land in Bangkok, but it's a REALLY bad year for NAMBLA, because 50,000 tourists are arrested for nefarious activities. Net-net this year: 650,000 tourists versus last year's 490,000. So even though NAMBLA has hurt tourism in Bangkok five times worse this year than last, those wacky Thai are still having a banner year.

See? ARITHMETIC. There's addition. Then there's subtraction. They're kinda similar. But NOT THE SAME.

 

[LinoNYC]

Okay, Lino, let's posit a hypothetical here (reference your snide comment about how, since WYSL is having a record revenue year, it's impossible for IBOC from WBZ to have hurt us.)

Let's just say that last year 500,000 tourists visited Bangkok. INTERPOL arrests 10,000 of these tourists because they are suspected of connections to NAMBLA (since after all, Bangkok is the unofficial offshore HQ of this vile organization.) So we have a net of 490,000 non-NAMBLA visitors cavorting in your favourite Southeast Asia destination. Okay?

Now, THIS year, 700,000 cosmopolitan, savvy, HD Radio-loving tourists land in Bangkok, but it's a REALLY bad year for NAMBLA, because 50,000 tourists are arrested for nefarious activities. Net-net this year: 650,000 tourists versus last year's 490,000. So even though NAMBLA has hurt tourism in Bangkok five times worse this year than last, those wacky Thai are still having a banner year.

See? ARITHMETIC. There's addition. Then there's subtraction. They're kinda similar. But NOT THE SAME.

Ahh what might have been...........but for iboc.

At least you spelled Bangkok correctly. You really must visit sometime. Bring Bruno too.

Lino

 

[KB1OKL]

I'm familiar with WNYC I can hear it whoosh all the way here in MA SOME NIGHTS FROM IT'S 1 kw TRANSMITTER. That's some jammer ibquity thought up. It and WGY blend rather nicely up here at night in MA, a harmony of buzz and whoosh.

 

[LinoNYC]

I'm familiar with WNYC I can hear it whoosh all the way here in MA SOME NIGHTS FROM IT'S 1 kw TRANSMITTER. That's some jammer ibquity thought up. It and WGY blend rather nicely up here at night in MA, a harmony of buzz and whoosh.

Well beavis you have some imagination, WNYC -am does not run iboc at night.

Would it be asking too much that you do a little thinking before posting.

Lino

 

[Savage]

Aha! Another "digital daytimer!" With 3 towers and a thumping 1kw at night. In all likelihood, even in full 10kw flower in the day, with digital coverage rivalling that kid with his thumb on the Archer Space Patrol.

Now THAT'S the answer to AM radio's "ills.' :

 

[LinoNYC]

Aha! Another "digital daytimer!" With 3 towers and a thumping 1kw at night. In all likelihood, even in full 10kw flower in the day, with digital coverage rivalling that kid with his thumb on the Archer Space Patrol.

Now THAT'S the answer to AM radio's "ills.' :

Yep, the 10K put a fullscale iboc right into the heart of market #1.

BTW: Still roasting the chipmunks with that 500W flamethrower of yours?

Lino

 

[R.F. Burns]

Aha! Another "digital daytimer!" With 3 towers and a thumping 1kw at night. In all likelihood, even in full 10kw flower in the day, with digital coverage rivalling that kid with his thumb on the Archer Space Patrol.

Now THAT'S the answer to AM radio's "ills.' :

WNYC AM doesn't run IBOC at night. I'm sure there are antenna/combiner issues. They share a site with WMCA. As to daytime IBOC coverage, I can receive WNYC's daytime IBOC without any problems at my home. In the end who cares? If you have a HD radio, WNYC FM runs WNYC AM 24/7 on their HD 3 channel. I'd say turn off the AM and save the electricity. By the way Bob, If WNYC's 1 K night signal on 820 Khz is "Thumping" as you say, how about your 500 watt nighttime signal on 1040 Khz. This comment isn't meant as a personal insult. Lets just call it an observation.

 

[Mike Walker]

IMHO calling HD Radio's codec "lousy, fake sounding" is completely wrong. NO CODEC SOUNDS VERY GOOD AT SUCH LOW BITRATES, while simultaneously being asked to offer extended high frequency response, and wide stereo. Something's gotta' give.

I KNOW there are good sounding 32kbps examples out there. They're streams that make reasonable compromises...iimiting high frequency content above, say 8-10khz, allowing the narrowing of the stereo image, etc. You really can't put a gallon (full fidelity stereo) in a pint jar (32kbps or lower bitrate). But if the right compromises are made (including proper pre-conditioning, some moderation in the amount of processing, etc.), you can come darn close.

Is 32kbps (or 20kbps) too low for listenable audio? Not if it's done correctly. But is it too low to actually sound better than broadband, analog AM, particularly if that analog is in C-Quam AM Stereo (ALSO an "official standard", and one that today's HD radios decode)? THAT is the question, and it's a much murkier one.

By the way, while I'm an HD Radio fan on FM, and receive it for hours per day with almost no reception issues (NO radio reception is 100 percent trouble-free!), FM stations should be VERY careful about "offering" so many multicast channels that the audio on each is actually worse than analog FM stereo...which after all can sound damn good!

 

[Savage]

Well, the HD-AM codec either sounds acceptable to the average listener or it does not. Consumers don't care about the reasons. If the system doesn't meet their expectations it will be rejected. I would argue that's what's happened with HD-AM (along with a healthy dose of ennui. Nobody but industry insiders and techie-types are concerned about hearing the news, weather, ballgames and Rush in higher fidelity. Sure, if somebody came up with a workable system to improve AM, music formats would benefit. But I don't think HD-AM is anything resembling a valid answer. Many apparently agree.)

"How about my 500 watts at night" isn't meant as an insult, RF? Really? Then what is it meant as? I made an observation about WNYC being a "digital daytimer" in response to a glowing post about the wonderfulness of this station, how it outpaces commercial facilities, from a poster who stubbornly - and generally with a large dollop of nastiness - promotes HD as the cure-all for AM's ills. This particular poster's response was a gratuituous insult aimed at my station, which has nothing to do with this thread. Looks like you're chosen to join his little put-down party.

In answer to your query, the TPO is 500 watts but the 4-tower DA sends the equivalent of a 3800-watt NDA signal into the center of the metro population. Believe it or not it did a fine job at night in most areas of the City until WBZ turned IBOC on at night. Now it's unlistenable on some nights four miles from the transmitter. We'd be just fine with 500 watts if HD went away. As for WNYC's trying to cover 16 million people with 1kw, I would say that's a tall order, analog, digital or "undecided" (a frequent mode of operation for HD Radios in the field, from my experience.)

 

[Mike Walker]

My only point Savage is that there is no "AM Codec" or "FM Codec". The codec is the same (although there are varying bitrates on AM, and a fallback to a lower-fidelity mono mode when signal conditions are poor on AM).

And frankly I'm tired of the "who cares about sound quality for talk, ballgames, weather reports, etc." I FREAKIN' DO! The human voice is the MOST IMPORTANT SOUND IN OUR LIVES! Our hearing apparatus is tuned to be super-sensitive at voice frequencies. This is why we hear coding problems from low bitrate streams far sooner with spoken word material than more complex music. We freakin' KNOW what the human voice should sound like.

No self-respecting BBC, or NPR listener would dare claim that fidelity doesn't matter when it comes to reproducing voice. In the UK (and often in Canada and other places), MOST talk (or as they call them "speech") shows are in stereo, and sound just stunning...like the people are in the room. Good audio is the difference between listening to an event, and (seemingly) BEING THERE.

Regardless of whether it's talk, music, sports, or whatever, radio is an AUDIO MEDIUM! Audio is the ONLY THING WE HAVE TO OFFER! Should we make our ONLY PRODUCT sound as good as possible, so that it's not the only noisy, low-fi choice available to listeners in ANY medium? I think the answer is obvious. And no, it doesn't necessarily have to be HD within the AM band. It could be that the bandwidth is just to narrow for good analog audio AND (marginal at best, come-on, admit it!) digital. Hey, it's not as if there aren't other ways for AM stations to distribute their audio digitally with higher fidelity (webcasting, leasing an HD2 or HD3 channel from an FM, etc.) Keep the analog audio clean, wideband, and hell...STEREO! Why the hell would we even debate whether our freakin' product should sound good????