WBZ "Buzz-O-Matic" was off last night

[spunker88]

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?

Sorry but for me and others HD on AM sounds terrible, especially with talk programs. Digital artifacts are present in voices. The slight amount of background noise in an analog signal gives a more calming effect then the dead silent background noise that some HD stations have which makes it sound like the program is being held in an empty warehouse.

Digital talk radio can be done right, most station's online streams sound just fine. But I just can't see digital being done on the AM band correctly. Even within its city grade signal area, HD will drop out during a thunderstorm due to lightning discharge interference. There are multiple videos on youtube showing this. Imagine trying to get EAS information from a local AM-HD signal during severe weather, assuming this is sometime in the future when analog has been turned off.

Then there is skywave which causes all sorts of problems because stations leave it on at night. This time of the year skywave can be pretty strong at night and the HD signal of 780 WBBM is strong enough that it starts interfering with my local 790 WTNY since they only run 1kw. I know nobody cares about DXers anymore on AM, but why should a local station have to deal with interference from a 50kw CC hundreds of miles away. Add to this list 1040 WYSL, 870 WHCU and others.

 

[Geographer]

Digital talk radio can be done right, most station's online streams sound just fine. But I just can't see digital being done on the AM band correctly. Even within its city grade signal area, HD will drop out during a thunderstorm due to lightning discharge interference. There are multiple videos on youtube showing this. Imagine trying to get EAS information from a local AM-HD signal during severe weather, assuming this is sometime in the future when analog has been turned off.

When I bought a JVC HD radio several years ago, I was excited when I was able to hear WLW in HD over 200 miles from their tower. However, I soon realized that any static or electrical noise will cause the digital signal to fail. Last summer during a severe electrical storm which is common in these parts, I couldn't get a lock at 6 miles from WLW's tower because the lightning was frequent, and by the time the digital signal recovered, another lightning discharge would kill the signal. I'll admit the analog signal was severely degraded under the continuous barrage of lightning, but the digital signal was completely destroyed, and didn't recover until the storm moved out of the area. Unless there is a digital system that is impervious to electrical noise, digital broadcasting is probably incompatible with AM broadcasting-even in the full-digital mode. I hope I am wrong though.

 

[Savage]

You aren't wrong, Geo. HD-AM is not a real-world answer to whatever problems anyone feels AM radio has. It's a cobbled system which was concocted by computer nerds when the perpetrators of Project Acorn (digital audio broadcasting) were told by experienced AM engineers COFDM would never work on AM. They cited the known characteristics of AM: widely varying propagation conditions, poor immunity from noise and - for digital - laughably small available bandwidth.

That didn't fly with the elites in broadcasting and government. They were all moist about the wonderfulness of digital. It won't work?? they demanded. Make it work, they said. (It's not unlike the Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac meltdowns when government experts - who had no real-world experience - said bad mortgages could be bundled with good mortgages and sold with the expectation that the whole mess would perform like good mortgages. IOW, an offense to logic and common sense.)

It didn't fly five years ago. It's stiffing now. Once a disaster, always a disaster...

 

[Geographer]

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.

Savage, after I posted that massage lamenting the degradation of the AM band since the 70's, it occurred to me that you have a station on 1040 khz, which was probably the interfering station to WHO in western PA and northern OH. I apologize, feel embarrassed and didn't mean to say that your station was crap. I'm sure it's a well run operation and you were just playing by the rules when you signed onto the air. I was merely expressing frustration at the state of the AM band since the 70's due to stations that were allowed to occupy clear channels, IBOC, and the large number of stations south of the border. Again, please accept my apology.

 

[iyiyi]

Few things some people misunderstand about digital broadcasting and radio in general.

1). GIGO. Garbage In, Garbage Out. No knowledgeable audio person would ever try to assess the quality of an audio chain with telephone talk. You may try like a puppy to equalize talk to mask it's poor quality but... GIGO.

2) Of course telephone talk on HD will sound shrill and difficult to listen to. See #1. That's why it has been successful so many years on AM. All the drawbacks of AM receivers actually mask the flaws of telephone audio. I know some news stations have made a successful move to FM. I can't of think of any telephone talkers that have kicked any ass moving to FM.

3) A great deal of people seem to be excellent judges evaluating $(6 digit) audio and Rf equipment with a $99 radio. I wish I had that ability! I'm embarassed at how long it has taken me to get my first null (more than once) using an OIB-3.

4) Look at the block diagram of the Silicon Labs Si476x HD Radio tuner/receiver chip. Notice that they kick FM down to 10.7 Mhz IF. Notice that the AM is kicked UP to 10.7 Mhz IF. There may actually be someone out there that understands AM AND FM HD are decoded and DSP'ed with the very same PLL and DSP circuitry! So what is all this B.S. about half assed receiver manufacturers?

5) Don't worry. I ain't finished yet. Later...


-

 

[davideduardo]

Few things some people misunderstand about digital broadcasting and radio in general.
I know some news stations have made a successful move to FM. I can't of think of any telephone talkers that have kicked any ass moving to FM.

WSB, KSL, KTAR, KIRO, WOKV, WWL, KFBK, WGY, WXYT and a long, long list from Charleston, SC, to San Diego.

Major sales demo ass kicking in most cases. Under-55's don't use AM, and agencies don't want over-55''s-

Most of the trades are calling this year the year of the mass move of talk to FM, based on the success of so many of the first wave of conversions.

In places like Mexico City, talk moved to FM a decade or so ago, and decimated the AM stations. And there are perhaps 7 or 8 FM talkers there in that 65 station market... with quite a few in the top 20 stations. And even more in the top 5 billers.

 

[Savage]

Geo, no worries...I didn't take your comment that way, wasn't offended, but thanks for your gracious apology - not necessary. It's highly doubtful WYSL was interfering with WHO in Western PA or Eastern Ohio. Our limit on the 235 degree bearing is 1.56 mv. In that direction the signal is so suppressed on DA-N I can look at our code beacon from a point less than 1.0 sm from the site and listen to WHO on my car radio, interference-free from WYSL.

iy, the reference isn't to telephone audio. It's the human voice AM-HD has a problem with - particularly studio-quality, not telephone quality. There is a weird chorusing effect and sibilants are highly exaggerated. The codec is just not good with the harmonic-rich content of speech. As mentioned by others the noise floor is a good thing, but it's far outweighed by the other fatiguing effects.

Then there are the problems of "cascading codecs" from satellite receivers and agency spots delivered by e-mail and DropBox. It's artifact city. I'd much rather put up with the familiar analog AM issues as long as it's a well-maintained signal.

 

[spunker88]

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.

I wasn't around during the glory days of AM sadly, but some stations still sound pretty decent. This is Zoomer 740 via okay skywave (I've had better and forgot to record) on a Rotel receiver from around the late 70s / early 80s I think. I applied a 10khz notch filter in Audacity, even with the skywave fades it still sounds better than anything I've heard in HD. The XDR-F1HD will get a cleaner signal, but theres something more nostalgic sounding about the analog tuning and processing of the Rotel.

http://www.mediafire.com/?5k53c6dr4jg7ml0

 

[spt87]

I don't have any recordings of WBZ in HD yet as I've just recently been playing around with the JVC HD add on radio I acquired for $17. I can confirm the previous comments about digital artifacts and it is certainly more noticable with talk - not so noticable with music. The artifacts decrease as the signal strength increases. I'm not as offended by the digital artifacts as listening to XM radio may have gotten me used to it.

For reliability I find the HD to be better than what many have experienced and don't have a huge problem with it dropping out unless I get in a fringe part of the signal (areas where in analog only noise is noticable or I have to increase the volume).

Radio Disney 1260 sounds pretty darn good with their music format - better than the Radio Disney on XM in my opinion.

 

[spt87]

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'll disagree with that. While I'm keeping an open mind to HD and see some potential if it ever gains traction, during WBZ's analog C-Quam days they were pumping out audio that was undeniably able to compete with any broadcast technology. As a distant listener and later a Boston resident with wideband AM Stereo receivers in my house and car, I spent of lot of time listening to WBZ in that era (1990's to early 2000's).

Here is about 45 minutes, unscoped of WBZ in wideband AM Stereo from Christmas Eve 1993. This was taped in a basement apartment 480 miles from Hull, MA using some much less than studio grade equipment. The most offensive thing I find in this is that there is a "break" to announce sponsers of the program aired a couple times with some pretty significant 60Hz hum present. It seems whichever studio this break was recorded in had some issue as the rest of the program doesn't have it.

https://skydrive.live.com/redir.aspx?cid=fe8228656db4c2d1&resid=FE8228656DB4C2D1!142&parid=FE8228656DB4C2D1!117

 

[rbrucecarter5]

I don't have any recordings of WBZ in HD yet as I've just recently been playing around with the JVC HD add on radio I acquired for $17. I can confirm the previous comments about digital artifacts and it is certainly more noticable with talk - not so noticable with music. The artifacts decrease as the signal strength increases. I'm not as offended by the digital artifacts as listening to XM radio may have gotten me used to it.

For reliability I find the HD to be better than what many have experienced and don't have a huge problem with it dropping out unless I get in a fringe part of the signal (areas where in analog only noise is noticable or I have to increase the volume).

Radio Disney 1260 sounds pretty darn good with their music format - better than the Radio Disney on XM in my opinion.

You should have heard Radio Disney in the days of C-Quam. C-Quam separation was good, audio response was wide. Their former flagship station KMKI was running it, and you could get static free stereo for almost 300 miles out West. They did remotes in Abilene, almost 200 miles away because they had so many listeners there. Post conversion to HD, high frequency instruments such as cymbals were curiously distorted and shifted down in frequency. I definitely cannot say that HD sounds better than satellite. There is some compression, but the high frequency instruments are not distorted on satellite.

HD range of KMKI was about 35 miles tops in mono, less than 20 in stereo. C-Quam static free stereo range was close to 300 miles in some directions.

 

[JohnnyElectron]

Is there somewhere I can post an audio file of CFCO-AM for your listening pleasure?

 

[spunker88]

Here is about 45 minutes, unscoped of WBZ in wideband AM Stereo from Christmas Eve 1993. This was taped in a basement apartment 480 miles from Hull, MA using some much less than studio grade equipment. The most offensive thing I find in this is that there is a "break" to announce sponsers of the program aired a couple times with some pretty significant 60Hz hum present. It seems whichever studio this break was recorded in had some issue as the rest of the program doesn't have it.

https://skydrive.live.com/redir.aspx?cid=fe8228656db4c2d1&resid=FE8228656DB4C2D1!142&parid=FE8228656DB4C2D1!117

Wow that sounds great, just as good as FM. From analyzing the spectrum in Audacity the audio definitely goes up to higher frequencies than today's AM stations would, due to wideband I believe. The 60Hz hum could have been caused by the cassette tape assuming that is what this was recorded on. But I know FMs that have 60Hz hums as well. The stereo audio also helps.

I can't believe how far backwards we've went in the last 20 years. Its no wonder AM radio is dying. If they are going to allow HD stations to spew crap onto adjacent channels, they should at least allow wideband analog AM. My old Rotel radio has the AM bandwidth so wide that on HD stations you can never get rid of the noise on the analog signal. I notice newer radios have the bandwidth pretty narrow to fix this issue, but it has the effect of making all stations sound bad.

 

[chrish]

I have yet to hear a good sounding Radio Disney, WMKI and WQEW both sound like they have some odd bandwidth restriced audio coming down from their satellite feed. Both stations in former format days were pretty decent sounding

 

[rbrucecarter5]

I have yet to hear a good sounding Radio Disney, WMKI and WQEW both sound like they have some odd bandwidth restriced audio coming down from their satellite feed. Both stations in former format days were pretty decent sounding

Yeah - that's the bandwidth restriction for IBOC. It is a shame to hobble the analog like that for a kludged up digital system that barely works.

 

[chrish]

Not all the problem, I heard local spots and Boston information which must be downloaded into the WMKI automation computer, this audio sounded OK
though tonight WQEW Disney audio was no where near as bad as the network feed on WMKI

 

[L. DeForest]

I don't listen to WBZ anymore. They lost something when they went hybrid digital. Where I'm at the AM signal doesn't sound that good anymore. The digital one is even worse, aside from the fact that keeping it locked even with their strong signal is problematic. The sound of low bit rate digital audio is a chore to listen to.

 

[KB1OKL]

I don't listen to WBZ anymore. They lost something when they went hybrid digital. Where I'm at the AM signal doesn't sound that good anymore. The digital one is even worse, aside from the fact that keeping it locked even with their strong signal is problematic. The sound of low bit rate digital audio is a chore to listen to.

The audio is very distorted and hard to listen to.