What is Glynn Walden smoking?

[JH_Radio]

I dont see all digital being a good thing in its current form.
I'm only a listener. coverage doesn't cut it. nighttime AM listening over digital? how exactly is that suppose to work? powerdown and you get silence because its either on or off? slightly off topic but WPVI TV switched to digital. in Bensalem, you're lucky if you can get it with an indoor antenna and converter. I believe in radio and that they can make it sound good. Hell, i've heard it live. good qualety in analog receivers helps. i dont know how you would overcome the issue of nighttime reception issues, all the interpherence from power lines, and mother natures storms. Whatever the system used, there have to be some way for it to work amung less than perfect conditions. Analog has that going for it. Digital? not so much. I'm 65 miles or so away from some of the transmitter's in Orlando. analog works, HD doesn't. I understand it isn't broadcasting as much power as there analog counterparts... but that's gonna be a problem. I have the antenna for my HD insignia hanging out the window. analog reception isn't there in steroeo for the ones that broadcast in HD, yet with a telascoping antenna on a boombox, i can get much better reception. Hell even on a walkman, i can get better reception. I haven't even bothered to try the AM. digital AM from this far away from any station broadcasting HD is a lost cause. I thought I might get WOCLHD2, WXXLhd2, or WMGFHD2 from the villages. even with the antenna outside, no dice. not relyably, and even if i can pull in the Hd2 the radio stays silent more often than not. or the signal will go on and off. you can't listen to that for long. not with talk and with music? its highly anoying. at least with analog its just some static below the music or talk, or you can swich to mono on some things.
I like to DX and collect airchecks, but believe the way HD is currently implamented leaves a lot to be desired.
Jukebox formats. bad reception. I'll have to let you guys know how it works when i get back to PA near philly.

 

[radioboy]

I was a long-time holdout as an AM listener, having worked at AM stations during the 1979-2004 time period. When my last radio gig ended in 2004 due to an impending format change, what little radio listening I still did ended as well.

Tallahassee has what may be one of the worst AM markets in the U.S. Poor soil conductivity along with years if neglect at transmitter sites equal poor signals - and the content, is..well, just not drawing listeners. Roughly 98 percent of the market doesn't listen to AM.

I have done as poster Savage suggested, and wrote a letter to Commissioner Pai. I am anti- AM HD and sunsetting the analog AM system.

In addition I made the suggestion that perhaps small community AM stations with technical facilities similar to TIS/HAR might be a way to bring some listeners back to the band. These would likely need to be assigned to frequencies specifically designed for them, and the license process would be kept simple. If I get a response from Pai I will elaborate more later.

I am not for pirates, but the heavy-handedness of the FCC in going after some of these little Part 15 stations that are not interfering with licensed stations borders on insanity and is a waste of taxpayer dollars. Most of these Part 15 folks just want a way to provide a service to a small area, so why not make a provision for them to legally do this? Our licensed AM stations could go off the air - sometimes they are off for days before anyone notices - so how is that serving the public interest? MOST Part 15 operators I know are doing their best to comply, but with rules that are treated inconsistently. One agent in the Northwest seems to thrive on harassing Part 15ers.

My letter was pretty blunt, but some things need to be said. I hope other AM folks will write him.

 

[tomservo]

I don't recall ever seeing an AM pirate busted, only FM pirates. And only then because they're often interfering with aircraft communications or leaking onto CATV systems or some other "third party interference" issue.

 

[audioguy]

Zach, there has been a significant uptick in actions against Part 15 AM operators as well as FM. Check here for fines: http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Headlines.html and here for the field enforcement actions: http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/

There is a resident agent in the Pacific NW who has, for the past year or two, been going after Part 15 AM stations that appear to have been operating in compliance with FCC Part 15 rules. But so far, nobody appears to have the resources to challenge these actions. I don't blame them; I would be very intimidated if the FCC EB showed up at my station.

Yet, the FCC turns a blind eye to the huge amount of interference pumped out every day by 50 kW HD AM stations that are interfering with adjacent channels over thousands of miles. They are jamming the broadcasts of their neighbors and yet they are allowed to get away with it.

 

[tomservo]

He who has the money, writes the rules and has the power, I guess. Sad.

I checked through both those links from beginning to end and only found a few AM violators. Certainly not as many as on FM, and probably the number in Miami on FM along dwarfs the entire country's AM violations!

 

[diymedia]

I actually keep an online database of FCC enforcement actions against unlicensed broadcasters: http://diymedia.net/fccwatch/ead.htm

From 1997-present, 3.6% of all total known unlicensed broadcast enforcement actions have involved AM or HF. The latest NOUO recipient is an HF op. But you're absolutely right: FM unlicensed operation dwarfs AM, Part 15 or otherwise. For FM, the two "hot-spots" are NYC (specifically Brooklyn and the Bronx) and south Florida.

 

[spt87]

Not saying I'm throwing a vote in favor of AM-HD - but does running full HD with no analog nullify the artifact and coverage concerns?

Maybe there is more bandwidth available in this mode so the encoding can use more bits to reduce artifacts. Also, on the coverage and noise/lightening resiliance - I assume the HD power level is reduced in hybrid mode to keep the self interference to the analog signal down. What if the digital signal ran with full power? Also with the extra bandwidth maybe better sound quality and more error correction to make it more robust?

If CBS wants to really try something, pick a weekend night and run WBZ in native digital mode. Run music for an hour, run talk for an hour. Would you get HD consistent HD lock in Worcester? How about Springfield, MA; NH and Ohio? What about in local weak areas for 1030 like Cape Cod and some of the south eastern MA?

 

[KB1OKL]

Not saying I'm throwing a vote in favor of AM-HD - but does running full HD with no analog nullify the artifact and coverage concerns?

Maybe there is more bandwidth available in this mode so the encoding can use more bits to reduce artifacts. Also, on the coverage and noise/lightening resiliance - I assume the HD power level is reduced in hybrid mode to keep the self interference to the analog signal down. What if the digital signal ran with full power? Also with the extra bandwidth maybe better sound quality and more error correction to make it more robust?

If CBS wants to really try something, pick a weekend night and run WBZ in native digital mode. Run music for an hour, run talk for an hour. Would you get HD consistent HD lock in Worcester? How about Springfield, MA; NH and Ohio? What about in local weak areas for 1030 like Cape Cod and some of the south eastern MA?

First of all ever hear WBZ in glorious iBlock? Sounds like krap and second of all what you are proposing would make EVERY AM broadcast receiver in the US obsolete. I also doubt very much it would have anywhere near the coverage it does now and it's coverage now is compromised because of it's hashmaker which no one listens to. WBZ is not real strong in Worcester since it turned on the hash.

 

[dumber than a box of hair]

Maybe there is more bandwidth available in this mode so the encoding can use more bits to reduce artifacts. Also, on the coverage and noise/lightening resiliance - I assume the HD power level is reduced in hybrid mode to keep the self interference to the analog signal down. What if the digital signal ran with full power? Also with the extra bandwidth maybe better sound quality and more error correction to make it more robust?

You're applying the realities of the analog-AM world to digital, and it doesn't work that way. The audio bandwidth, sampling rate and error correction are what they are. They must hew to iBiquity's standards or they can't be broadcast, per the FCC, and AFAIK those specs don't change if the signal becomes full digital.

If CBS wants to really try something, pick a weekend night and run WBZ in native digital mode. Run music for an hour, run talk for an hour. Would you get HD consistent HD lock in Worcester? How about Springfield, MA; NH and Ohio? What about in local weak areas for 1030 like Cape Cod and some of the south eastern MA?

We have plenty of empirical evidence that the digital signal is subject to the same variances at night that the analog signal is, with the added dimension of skywave distortion, interference and noise causing receivers to lose HD lock. Without an analog signal losing lock means losing the signal altogether...IOW, silence.

Besides, there's another thread farther down about CBS trying all-digital on some AM on the east coast. Don't know what became of that, however.

 

[rbrucecarter5]

Besides, there's another thread farther down about CBS trying all-digital on some AM on the east coast. Don't know what became of that, however.

I think they tried it - with no independent observers, by the way - closed test, pre-determined results that - big surprise - lauded the all digital system as the future of AM radio, the thing that will save it from becoming obsolete.

Mindless talk, brain dead sports, foreign language babble, and an FCC that refuses to regulate interference and licenses too many stations on the band - THOSE are the things that are killing AM and have for years.

 

[dumber than a box of hair]

I think they tried it - with no independent observers, by the way - closed test, pre-determined results that - big surprise - lauded the all digital system as the future of AM radio, the thing that will save it from becoming obsolete.

...if the listener can stand those digital artifacts from the HD-AM codec for more than ten seconds without his/her ears falling off.

It shouldn't be any surprise to anyone at this point that iBiquity insists on closed tests. Holding that system up to actual scientific scrutiny would punch enough holes in it to look like a No Trespassing sign at a rifle range.

 

[KB1OKL]

Besides, there's another thread farther down about CBS trying all-digital on some AM on the east coast. Don't know what became of that, however.

I think they tried it - with no independent observers, by the way - closed test, pre-determined results that - big surprise - lauded the all digital system as the future of AM radio, the thing that will save it from becoming obsolete.

The call letters were WBCN, I can't remember where it was but I do remember the call letters well as they were from a very well known station from Boston that got shuttered a few years ago, kind of ironic that they would test full time hash with very well known station call letters, kind of like kicking the dead or dancing on a grave.

 

[tomservo]

I think the station was in the Charlotte area.

I would hope that dedicating the entire allocated spectrum to digital would clear up the artifacting and harshness that plagues AM HD in hybrid mode. And shouldn't the extra space vacated by the analog signal allow for a more robust error correction?

All digital AM would be the end of skywave listening, but it might actually be better than some here are willing to give it credit for.

 

[dumber than a box of hair]

I would hope that dedicating the entire allocated spectrum to digital would clear up the artifacting and harshness that plagues AM HD in hybrid mode. And shouldn't the extra space vacated by the analog signal allow for a more robust error correction?

As far as I'm aware the iBiquity spec doesn't change if analog is shut off, so the artifacts and error correction remain the same.

 

[bossbill]

Well, I've tried to read every post; is everyone missing the main point?

BANDWIDTH

10 kHz vs 200 kHz

The entire AM band is the width of FIVE FM channels
a
FM surpassed AM because of bandwidth and relative immunity from nighttime skywave. And there's much less real estate involved/

 

[KB1OKL]

Well, I've tried to read every post; is everyone missing the main point?

BANDWIDTH

10 kHz vs 200 kHz

The entire AM band is the width of FIVE FM channels
a
FM surpassed AM because of bandwidth and relative immunity from nighttime skywave. And there's much less real estate involved/

Right now the bandwidth of an AM IBOC station is 30 kHz. How could the FCC have allowed such a travesty to happen?

 

[Tom Wells]

Well, I've tried to read every post; is everyone missing the main point?

BANDWIDTH

10 kHz vs 200 kHz

The entire AM band is the width of FIVE FM channels
a
FM surpassed AM because of bandwidth and relative immunity from nighttime skywave. And there's much less real estate involved/

It sounds like you are making a very good case for FM being too wasteful of bandwidth!

We could easily find a way to "spread" an AM modulated signal over a wider bandwidth, then squash it back into a 20-20,000 hz audilo
in demodulation.


I'm not sure why is it considered wise to use 200 khz to transmit 15 khz of audio, when AM modualtion requires only 30 khz of bandwidth for 15 khz of audio.
You'd think if the FCC wanted to really "help" FM the way they did AM, they would immediately reduce the
frequency deviation to something like 75-100 khz.

That way, FM would achieve "parity" with AM in terms of noise from naturally occuring and man-made sources.

The idea that FM is better because it is unable to take advantage of skywave is like the comparision being made regarding fully
electric cars. Consumers who buy them now realize they are worthless for vacations, and the manufacturers have responded
with rental/loaner programs for when folks need a "real" car, as defined in such obsolete concepts as having enough range to just go and go, with enough trunk space to carry luggage.

Before it was radio, it was wireless.
And the name of the game, and the thrill of the art was in distance and achieving ever more distance.
Anyone could have set up a wired network of some point over the copper pairs set up for phones or telegraphs going way back.
But that did not excite anyone, and no one would have paid up for the infrastructure.

Not until a few talented people learned how to make the most of electromagnetic behavior did we have
the ability to send or receive a telegram aboard a ship, or listen to one's hometown radio station over half a continent.

As we devalue the things that radio "is", selectively, we turn it back into the wired network which, as I said earlier, could have
been anytime someone got off their duff to create the internet, which I'm using over now a telephone copper pair.

The problem is, none of the other neat inventions using electronics would have have come into existence if radio hadn't happened.

The real issue we're having a problem with in radio-land is that AM MW is too elegant yet simple, and requires more care
than commerce will permit.

It requires more care in design to not create the horrific racket our modern "engineering" methods have.
It requires meaningful FCC attention (fines) to manufacturers who do not begin designing AND building the proper noise suppression
circuits into products. Or we can just keeping making more noise and wait for more and more people to give up on FM, too.
It once work(ed) even better in weak signals than it does today.
The noise level is coming up in all wavelengths, and where I live FM these days is a spitting and flitting listen.
For me, it's airplanes, driving and iboc that make FM too noisy to listen to.

I get far less noise on AM, even considering the 2 or 3 places where there's severe radiation of industrial noise on power wires.

"Any fool can make things more complicated, it takes a bit of genius to go the other way."

Modern engineering in electronics has sunken to a level that would be simliar to medicine going back to
the use of mercury compounds in first-aid treatment for cuts.

We ought to know better, but it so simple and cheap to not care, and we just HAVE to have that new toy or clothes washer.
Who cares if we can never use the radio again after we've got our ( insert new gadget or home appliance here)?

 

[JohnW]

Modern engineering in electronics has sunken to a level that would be simliar to medicine going back to
the use of mercury compounds in first-aid treatment for cuts.

No, Tom,

It's the equivalent of using leeches as a cureall.

 

[davideduardo]

I think the station was in the Charlotte area.

WBCN 1660 in the Charlotte market. The test was publicly announce and reported in many of the technically oriented trades.

 

[davideduardo]

I'm not sure why is it considered wise to use 200 khz to transmit 15 khz of audio, when AM modualtion requires only 30 khz of bandwidth for 15 khz of audio.
You'd think if the FCC wanted to really "help" FM the way they did AM, they would immediately reduce the
frequency deviation to something like 75-100 khz.

The obvious issue here is that bandwidth on FM is related to modulation level; +/- 75 kHz was established as 100% modulation many decades ago. "Overmodulation" on FM is essentially creating greater bandwidth, while on AM overmodulation occurs when you have carrier suppression.

In loudness wars in some countries where I have worked, stations went to about 130% modulation based on the standard, and only stopped there because they were pushing the bandwidth of many receivers.

Changing a standard that affects over 5 billion radios worldwide is simply not going to happen.

Changing AM, which has been abandoned in some countries, is being minimized by our two biggest neighbors and which, as a band, accounts for less than 15% of all radio listening, is much easier to think of. In some senses, it constitutes "heroic measures" to try to save a moribund patient.