No HD flashing Wednesday night from WBZ, so, I wonder, are they on their backup transmitter (with sweet-sounding 10KHz CQUAM Stereo), or simply have their sidebands on bedrest? I'll have to tune them in tonight in the Chrysler or on the Delco UX1 to see/hear what's up?
-
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.
WBZ "Buzz-O-Matic" was off last night
- Thread starter JohnnyElectron
- Start date
R
rbrucecarter5
Guest
I'll have to try them again from Texas. Before the conversion, they were a regular catch here when you null Casper WY and Mexican chatter. After HD conversion - nothing. It would be nice to have them back again.
The buzz is back...yesterday (1/19/12) late morning.
Oh well...it was nice while it lasted...
Oh well...it was nice while it lasted...
dumber than a box of hair said:The buzz is back...yesterday (1/19/12) late morning.
Oh well...it was nice while it lasted...
WBZ was sounding a lot brighter during the IBOC outage. But as soon as the IBOC was turned back on, it sounded like before, very limited bandwidth on the analog side (at the most about 5 kHz). The digital sidebands were back with the same white noise bleeding into the main carrier. It was nice hearing KDKA for a few days as well as 1010/WINS with no WBZ splatter. I remember when WBZ really sounded good (pre-IBOC and NRSC). When they were running Stereo (either Kahn or C-QUAM, wideband setting), they really sounded as good as the best FM station. I guess this is what they call "progress". Yuh.
I too remember when I thought AM sounded pretty good, but I’m beginning to wonder if I have “selective memory.” Or maybe I just hadn’t been exposed to anything better. That is a distinct possibility. I’m sure that the added noise floor from a plethora of devices spewing RF has a lot to do with AM’s current problems. That didn’t exist 40 years ago. But I’m beginning to wonder if the good sound quality I remembered actually existed.
Recently a friend sent me some old electronics catalogs from the early 1960’s. I remember a lot of the equipment when it was new and even owned some of it. As I was reading, I noticed that most AM tuners of the era from people like Eico, Sherwood, Lafayette Radio and others, rated their frequency response as 50 to about 8,000 Hz, sometimes even less. Usually they claimed to be down about 6 db at 8 KHz. That’s hardly high fidelity. A few upper end tuners such as McIntosh, Scott and Marantz bragged of much wider frequency response but touted a 10 KHz “whistle filter” to eliminate beat notes from adjacent channel stations. So now, I’m questioning my memory. I’m sure it sounded “pleasant,” but probably never really “Hi-Fi” nor as good as most FM stations. Still it was better than what I’ve heard recently, especially when IBOC is applied.
Recently a friend sent me some old electronics catalogs from the early 1960’s. I remember a lot of the equipment when it was new and even owned some of it. As I was reading, I noticed that most AM tuners of the era from people like Eico, Sherwood, Lafayette Radio and others, rated their frequency response as 50 to about 8,000 Hz, sometimes even less. Usually they claimed to be down about 6 db at 8 KHz. That’s hardly high fidelity. A few upper end tuners such as McIntosh, Scott and Marantz bragged of much wider frequency response but touted a 10 KHz “whistle filter” to eliminate beat notes from adjacent channel stations. So now, I’m questioning my memory. I’m sure it sounded “pleasant,” but probably never really “Hi-Fi” nor as good as most FM stations. Still it was better than what I’ve heard recently, especially when IBOC is applied.
No, Chuck, your memory is correct. It was not uncommon for AM stations to (pre-NRSC) occupy out to 14 kHz on AM. My 25kw Nautel's factory proof is +/- 3dB to 13.9 kHz (of course it's throttled back for compliance since, of course, we don't transmit HD.) I've got high quality reel-to-reel airchecks from the late 60s and early 70s from tube transmitters and processors....AM used to sound fantastic, and far less fatiguing than today's digitally processed and compressed FMs.
The noise floor is another issue, and it is indeed vexing these days. As an industry we need to demand improved enforcement. That's way more productive than constantly pounding this HD stiff.
The noise floor is another issue, and it is indeed vexing these days. As an industry we need to demand improved enforcement. That's way more productive than constantly pounding this HD stiff.
Has any individual who heard WBZ in their best stereo and/or mono analog days ever bothered to listen to them on an IBOC receiver lately? I am speaking of a normal Bostonian who lives and works within WBZ's "city grade" signal?
There is no comparison. WBZ 1030 HD sounds so superior to any of it's analog incarnations! Why care about any analog issues when you can hear them in crystal clear HD?
-
There is no comparison. WBZ 1030 HD sounds so superior to any of it's analog incarnations! Why care about any analog issues when you can hear them in crystal clear HD?
-
Based on my local 5KW News/Talk that was Kahn/Cquam and is now HD, the HD has a better noise floor, but has very nasty timbre for phone calls and is almost painful to listen to phone callers; the on air guy has a nice bass level, but no mid or high range, and that's where it's very muffled. They were much better sounding in their 10KHz analog stereo days, and even had 2 music programs on during the weekends that sounded fantastic. I actually prefer the chopped-off analog version of that station.
Now my graveyard 1KW station had fantastic analog audio processing - and the HD for the brokered music programs only makes it sound "less full" and more 'digital' - the noise is down slightly, but it doesn't have that 'wide' analog quality to it, if you know what I mean?
Is there a "Files" section on this board where I can load an MP3 file for you to listen to what I'm talking about or a suggested host where I could drop the file?
Now my graveyard 1KW station had fantastic analog audio processing - and the HD for the brokered music programs only makes it sound "less full" and more 'digital' - the noise is down slightly, but it doesn't have that 'wide' analog quality to it, if you know what I mean?
Is there a "Files" section on this board where I can load an MP3 file for you to listen to what I'm talking about or a suggested host where I could drop the file?
iyiyi said:Has any individual who heard WBZ in their best stereo and/or mono analog days ever bothered to listen to them on an IBOC receiver lately? I am speaking of a normal Bostonian who lives and works within WBZ's "city grade" signal?
There is no comparison. WBZ 1030 HD sounds so superior to any of it's analog incarnations! Why care about any analog issues when you can hear them in crystal clear HD?
-
Yes, it is very artificial sounding, the highs grate on my ears so much I shut it off after less than a minute.
In answer to your question.....yes, as a matter of fact I HAVE heard AM in "HD". I've owned an HD receiver for over 7 years. I find that practically all AM's with IBOC (including WBZ "HD") sound tinny and the high end frequency response sounds artificial (forced highs), not the natural sound of FM or high-fidelity AM. Oh it's "Stereo" alright but the HD signals have a hard time getting the signal through their own "backyard", and I live about 20 miles from Hull (WBZ's transmitter site). In terms of the "normal" Bostonian, you'd be hard pressed to find one with an HD Radio. And even if you do find one, you'll find that most receivers with AM IBOC barely have enough capability for a "full quality" HD signal to decode. AM IBOC was an afterthought. It's digital for the sake of being "digital". It's not the magic bullet to stop FM's erosion of AM's listenership, and so on. It's not dependable and it frankly clutters up the AM band with digital carriers that interfere with other stations, especially at night. Just ask the people in the Pittsburgh area who want to listen to KDKA/1020, who are (at times) being clobbered by WBZ's potent HD carriers every night, hundreds of miles away. No question, 'BZ is a fine operation with some of the best tech support around, no question about it. But I don't think that AM IBOC (as a technology) is not helping matters much. It's like trying to put a square peg into a round hole. The AM band was never meant to handle the bandwidth of an IBOC signal. It simply does not work!iyiyi said:Has any individual who heard WBZ in their best stereo and/or mono analog days ever bothered to listen to them on an IBOC receiver lately? I am speaking of a normal Bostonian who lives and works within WBZ's "city grade" signal?
There is no comparison. WBZ 1030 HD sounds so superior to any of it's analog incarnations! Why care about any analog issues when you can hear them in crystal clear HD?
-
iyiyi said:Has any individual who heard WBZ in their best stereo and/or mono analog days ever bothered to listen to them on an IBOC receiver lately? I am speaking of a normal Bostonian who lives and works within WBZ's "city grade" signal?
There is no comparison. WBZ 1030 HD sounds so superior to any of it's analog incarnations! Why care about any analog issues when you can hear them in crystal clear HD?
-
You're probably the only one able to hear WBZ in HD. It's back to analog every time you drive under a power line or overpass, and every time lightning strikes within 50 miles.
I have never heard WBZ in HD, but I visited Boston last spring and noticed that their analog signal did not sound very good on my rented Nissan's car radio. The friend I was visiting lives in Foxboro and commutes to Downtown Boston every day. He's a TV guy and asked me (a radio guy) why WBZ's signal was a mere shadow of its former self. - I did not start that conversation. He brought it up. - The only answer I could give him was it might be due to their conversion to HD and the lowered analog frequency response that requires.
At best, it’s anecdotal evidence, but it seems that he and a lot of his friends have noticed. Since 99.9% of WBZ’s audience is still listening to one of the billions of existing analog radios, this seems like a classic case of shooting yourself in the foot.
At best, it’s anecdotal evidence, but it seems that he and a lot of his friends have noticed. Since 99.9% of WBZ’s audience is still listening to one of the billions of existing analog radios, this seems like a classic case of shooting yourself in the foot.
iyiyi said:Has any individual who heard WBZ in their best stereo and/or mono analog days ever bothered to listen to them on an IBOC receiver lately? I am speaking of a normal Bostonian who lives and works within WBZ's "city grade" signal?
There is no comparison. WBZ 1030 HD sounds so superior to any of it's analog incarnations! Why care about any analog issues when you can hear them in crystal clear HD?
I'd love to hear WBZ in "crystal clear HD". What they're transmitting only resembles "crystal clear" if you have tin ears and love high-frequency distortion that could shatter glass.
I've worked at AM stations that could pass an FM audio proof. Stations running HD on AM would be hard-pressed to pass an AM proof.
While I also am saddened to the current state of AM radio. You can't pin all of AM's current woes on HD. There are many factors, such as a much higher noise floor, lower regulatory standards over the last few decades, and IMHO, the real early culprit, as popular music formats began shifting to FM in the early '70's, the widespread introduction of inferior AM sections in most consumer stereo receivers, and, eventually, in OEM car radios. Even when AM transmitters were capable of, and DID, provide wide band signals - you couldn't tell the difference on a lousy AM front end! A few good AM Stereo tuners can on the scene in the mid '80's and early '90's, but, as most of you know, that was short lived. We've had AM analog transmission for almost 100 years, hopefully some form of a workable digital technology will emerge. Since I've always enjoyed the long range of AM at night, I hope it's not too late for AM, HD or not! ;D
The damage started on the AM band well before IBOC. It use to be possible to receive stations like KFI, WLW, WLS, WHO, KSL, WHAM and WCAU coast-to-coast at night. Now that the FCC allowed lower powered stations onto the formally clear channels such as 640, 700, 890, 1040, 1180 and many others, these formerly clear channels now sound like regional channels at best, and like graveyard channels at worst. At first, a low powered station was allowed to occupy a clear channel during the day when the damage could be contained, to get their foot in the door. Later, some of these stations petitioned the FCC to be allowed to operate at night, as long as there was a null in the direction of the original station on the frequency. Now, some of these "clear channel" stations are interfered with in their own primary service area such as CFZM Toronto, WLS, WHAM, WHAS, WHO and many others. Today, the clearest clears are probably KSL and WLW. WLW is probably the clearest, but they are now degraded due to stations on at night in Utah and Texas. Even though these new stations were engineered to throw nulls toward the main stations, it doesn't prevent the damage. It used to be easy to receive WHO in western PA and northern OH, but they are at times cluttered by other crap on the frequency.
D
Darth_vader
Guest
@JohnnyElectron--
Well, for starters I wouldn't suggest going with Megaupload at this point in time.....
Well, for starters I wouldn't suggest going with Megaupload at this point in time.....
- Status
- This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.