• 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

Wheatstone Baseband Interface

satech said:
Isn't this just moving the digital-to-analog conversion from the audio processor to the transmitter? Harris tried doing that on AM a decade ago with their 3DX series, and I've never heard anyone say that it actually sounds better than feeding the transmitter with analog audio. I'd rather trust the DAC to a company whose entire business is audio processing, rather than to a transmitter manufacturer whose main concern is RF, not audio.

Actually, it removes such conversions rather than moving them around.

The idea is that the audio data making up the digital baseband signal *directly* feeds the FM exciter's digital modulator. The only conversion then is between the AES-formatted data coming in at 192kHz and whatever the exciter's digital modulator wants to see. This is strictly a 'bit-swapping' exercise, so nothing gained and nothing lost.

This interface also permits audio frequency response down to DC which keeps low frequency clipped waveform fidelity and phase behavior in the 'awesome' category (bass never sounded so good!).

The 192kHz sample rate allows multiplex-domain signals up to 96kHz to be represented. Our implementation is different than most, however. Our FM processor's analog subcarrier inputs are moved up into the digital domain where they are added to the stereo multiplex signal while it too is in the digital domain which allows RDS and SCA subcarriers to get a free ride to the transmitter over our baseband192 interface.

My contact info is below, and please feel free to contact me with any questions about our technology.

Jeff Keith, CPBE, NCE
Senior Product Development Engineer
Wheatstone Corporation
(252) 638-7000
www.wheatstone.com
[email protected]
 
If you feed analog baseband into one of these exciters with the digital modulator, is it actually re-sampling the audio back into digital?

The ultimate FM MPX signal on the air is analog nonetheless, so it still needs to go through some form of a DAC to get from your studio to the listener's radio. :)
 
Orban will shortly have a retrofit for 8600s that will implement digital composite, even though, to a certain extent, we've always thought that digital composite was a solution looking for a problem, given the high performance that current analog composite connections provide. Our system is a superset of existing system, and works as follows:

This describes a method of digitizing the entire 99 kHz Composite MPX Baseband signal using a 192 kHz AES3 link.

In early 2013, Nautel introduced an AES3 Composite MPX implementation that uses only the left channel of a 192 kHz AES3 link. This implementation does not allow the entire 99 kHz composite MPX signal to be digitized into a single bitstream. The Nyquist frequency of 192 kHz is 96 kHz, and practical anti-aliasing filters limit the flat passband to a frequency significantly lower than Nyquist. Hence, any subcarriers above about 80 kHz (in particular, 92 kHz SCAs) must be injected and digitized separately.

The Orban implementation uses both the left and right channels to extend the frequency response beyond 99 kHz while maintaining backward compatibility with the left-channel-only implementation. We recommend that exciter manufacturers implement the full AES3 left and right channel implementation because it allows digitization of the entire FM baseband in a straightforward way.

Details:

We extend the original Nautel system by sampling at 384 kHz and multiplexing samples in an even-odd sequence between the left and right channels of a 192 kHz AES3 link. This is equivalent to quadrature sampling at 192 kHz (i.e. sampling a given channel twice at 192 kHz, but with the clock phase shifted by 90 degrees for the sampler that produces the quadrature output). This produces "I" (in-phase) and "Q" (quadrature) signals on the left and right AES3 channels respectively at 192 kHz sample rate. This system has sufficient bandwidth to pass the entire FM baseband (up to 99 kHz) without aliasing

If the input spectrum is limited to 96 kHz or less, either the I or Q channels can be used alone to reconstruct the signal. This makes the system backward compatible with a system that uses only the I signal, like the current Nautel. If there is energy above 96 kHz, reconstructing the original 384 kHz signal’s odd and even samples from the left and right channels will cancel aliasing.

We do not specify any special treatment of AES status bits or user bits. The link uses straightforward 192 kHz stereo AES hardware.

The only unusual requirement is that the frequency response of the left and right channels of the link (including sample rate conversion) must remain flat to Nyquist (96 kHz) if the system is required to carry 92 kHz SCAs. Assuming energy up to 99 kHz in the original baseband, alias energy appears between 93 and 96 kHz in the left and right channels of the link, but the phase relationship of the aliases in the two channels is such that quadrature resampling at the receiver reconstructs any energy above 96 kHz in the baseband and cancels the 93-96 kHz aliases.

This system is unlikely to be used to digitize analog composite. However, for completeness, we need to state that a 384 kHz A/D converter must have a flat passband to 99 kHz. If a given A/D was originally designed for digital audio, it may have a gentle anti-aliasing filter that is only flat to 20 kHz and rolls off gently thereafter, trading ultrasonic frequency response for low ringing in the time domain. So a designer must make sure to choose a digitizer with a “wideband” mode.

What about sample rate conversion in this system? If we sample-rate-convert the I and Q signals with two identical SRCs, phase-locked together, we do not change either the magnitude or phase of the baseband spectra of the I and Q channels, and these remain locked together in time, although both are delayed an equal amount by the filters in the SRCs. This means that the original baseband (with energy above 96 kHz) can be reconstructed by quadrature resampling after a second sample rate conversion at the receiver that restores the original 192 kHz sample rate. However, the intermediate sample rate must not add further aliasing to the signal and must not truncate energy below 96 kHz. In practice, this means that only upsampling is practical. Moreover, the original sample rate must be restored exactly in order to cancel the aliases after quadrature resampling. Hence, sample rate conversion must be done with considerable care and must be synchronous. For upward conversion, the anti-imaging filter that follows the SRC must be flat to 96 kHz. These requirements preclude use of commercial asynchronous SRC chips designed for digital audio. Instead, a synchronous SRC should be implemented in DSP so that the designer can ensure that the bandwidth criteria are satisfied. If a polyphase structure is used in the SRC (as is customary because of its computational efficiency), it should be designed to be flat to 96 kHz.

Because of the complications involved in sample rate conversion, we recommend that the audio path remain at 192 kHz with no sample rate converters inline. The only condition where inline asynchronous SRC is acceptable is if the system is being used in its “downward compatible” mode, where the baseband frequencies must be limited to 96 kHz or less and only the left channel is used. In this case, no aliasing cancellation is required at the receiver, so asynchronous SRC is acceptable.
 
Let me see if I have this correct: ???

Omnia direct MPX- only partial baseband (<80 kHz) is included in the "left only" 192 kHz AES data.

Wheatstone Baseband 192- full baseband (<99 kHz) is included in the L - R 192 kHz AES data.

Orban digital composite- full baseband (<99 kHz) is included in the L - R 192 kHz AES data.

Some in the thread were discussing who was first with this idea and implementation. I do recall a time when Frank Foti was proposing a DCET (digital composite) connection between his original Omnia processors, and the two digital exciters on the market at the time. Circa 1998 or so. Many, including yours truly, were very dissatisfied with the Digit offering from Harris. The DCET idea never really caught on with the exciter manufacturers. Harris stuck to their guns on the 32 kHz base sample rate in the audio section of the Digit. A wideband input chip was later released by Harris as a band aid approach to the Digit overshoot problems. Digital composite made more sense to me, but maybe 15 years ago the technical implementation was too difficult to achieve. Anyway, I'm just bringing up the fact that Frank Foti was working on this many years before it became a hot topic. An agreed upon standard for digital composite would make a lot of sense.
 
I really wish everyone wouldn't go about this differently. I'm glad the Orban is backwards compatible with the Omnia/Nautel... However, given this is in its infancy, why not just agree on a standard and make it easy?
 
fm-engineer said:
Let me see if I have this correct: ???

Some in the thread were discussing who was first with this idea and implementation. I do recall a time when Frank Foti was proposing a DCET (digital composite) connection between his original Omnia processors, and the two digital exciters on the market at the time. Circa 1998 or so. Many, including yours truly, were very dissatisfied with the Digit offering from Harris. The DCET idea never really caught on with the exciter manufacturers. Harris stuck to their guns on the 32 kHz base sample rate in the audio section of the Digit. A wideband input chip was later released by Harris as a band aid approach to the Digit overshoot problems. Digital composite made more sense to me, but maybe 15 years ago the technical implementation was too difficult to achieve. Anyway, I'm just bringing up the fact that Frank Foti was working on this many years before it became a hot topic. An agreed upon standard for digital composite would make a lot of sense.

Digital composite has a very long history. There was an NRSC working group at least 20 years ago that discussed digital composite, and Harris was strongly involved with this. The proposed standard used a high-speed serializer chipset to move the composite on a single coaxial cable. I forget the name of the chipset involved and I don't know if its successors are still available. In any event, the whole thing sort of petered out due to the fact that the existing analog composite connections were/are simple and perform well enough that it is very unlikely that anyone could tell an audible difference between an analog and digital connection in a double-blind test, assuming that the analog signal path is well designed, as most are today.

In 2013, it makes sense to move the composite using AES3, given that hardware is readily available and is not likely to go away. The main potential advantages of a digital composite connection using AES3 are convenience and increased RFI immunity. However, I would examine any marketing claims of subjective superiority very carefully. Games are likely to be played here.

Bob Orban
 
fm-engineer said:
Let me see if I have this correct: ???

Omnia direct MPX- only partial baseband (<80 kHz) is included in the "left only" 192 kHz AES data.

Wheatstone Baseband 192- full baseband (<99 kHz) is included in the L - R 192 kHz AES data.

Orban digital composite- full baseband (<99 kHz) is included in the L - R 192 kHz AES data.

Some in the thread were discussing who was first with this idea and implementation. I do recall a time when Frank Foti was proposing a DCET (digital composite) connection between his original Omnia processors, and the two digital exciters on the market at the time. Circa 1998 or so. Many, including yours truly, were very dissatisfied with the Digit offering from Harris. The DCET idea never really caught on with the exciter manufacturers. Harris stuck to their guns on the 32 kHz base sample rate in the audio section of the Digit. A wideband input chip was later released by Harris as a band aid approach to the Digit overshoot problems. Digital composite made more sense to me, but maybe 15 years ago the technical implementation was too difficult to achieve. Anyway, I'm just bringing up the fact that Frank Foti was working on this many years before it became a hot topic. An agreed upon standard for digital composite would make a lot of sense.

OmniaDirect will support the same MPX bandwidth as the others.

I have to say this is a sad microcosm of our society. Reason being, is both Nautel and our company eagerly made it aware and available to *anyone* who was interested. Now, we've got folks making wild claims about all of this, when the *intended* goal is to offer a method that's better for broadcasting, and it's universal. This is not much different than what we do in the MPX 'analog' world using a RG-58 cable with BNC connectors on it.

I have no doubt the other guys - both processing and transmitter folks - have implemented something that works. To that I say congrats. But for a group to carry on and lament about this topic as to who did it first, or "my dog is better than your dog because he eats Canal Ration" is a bit absurd. For the record, we've been on-air with this tech, but never saw a need to make marketing noise about it because the goal - once again - is to better the broadcast landscape. The early adopters claim this is another step forward for FM transmission.

Had neither Nautel or Omnia got together over dinner in Madison, Wisconsin last fall and opened this discussion, this topic in all probability never happens. So, if you have interest in MPX over AES, and you like to use a processor or exciter of your choice, guess what, you can connect the MPX via AES, and it works. Contact your respective vendor for details.

Like any new tech, I'm sure there will be tweaks and variances, which will make the overall results better, but let's move on from this, and allow it to completely deploy and let the marketplace decide.

-Frank Foti

PS: Thanks to Bob Orban for his well written detail about their implementation. Nice work!! :)
 
rorban said:
In 2013, it makes sense to move the composite using AES3, given that hardware is readily available and is not likely to go away. The main potential advantages of a digital composite connection using AES3 are convenience and increased RFI immunity. However, I would examine any marketing claims of subjective superiority very carefully. Games are likely to be played here.

Bob Orban

I could not agree more!

-Frank Foti
 
I find it interesing that just as some European countires are getting ready to abandon it, all of the recent technological advances in broadcast audio engineering have gone into analog FM. Remember when 5.1 surround sound over HD Radio was supposed to be the next big thing? Not anymore! :) (Did that ever even get implemented into the HD standard? I've never heard of a radio supporting it.)
 
satech said:
I find it interesing that just as some European countires are getting ready to abandon it, all of the recent technological advances in broadcast audio engineering have gone into analog FM. Remember when 5.1 surround sound over HD Radio was supposed to be the next big thing? Not anymore! :) (Did that ever even get implemented into the HD standard? I've never heard of a radio supporting it.)

Interesting that you bring up 5.1 Surround on FM. Actually, what happened was Steve Church and I, after pushing on this topic for HD, for five-plus years, decided to go off and design new products. (Sadly, Steve didn't choose for that dastardly disease to invade his life.) But, while the concept of transmitting discrete 5.1 Surround was configured for HD Radio, the concept *could* work via conventional FM. Thus, the idea isn't totally dead, more-so like very dormant. :)

-Frank Foti
 
True indeed. Steve and Frank and I did abandon this idea after some years of trying to promote it. We really thought surround would be a great way to breathe new life into radio. We even built surround capability into the Axia Element.

http://axiaaudio.com/surround

I think there were two or three consoles out of thousands that actually used the feature. It's a shame really. If you got the chance to hear the in-car demos we did at NAB, it was a great audio experience.

Mike Dosch, aka Catfish
 
netcaster said:
True indeed. Steve and Frank and I did abandon this idea after some years of trying to promote it. We really thought surround would be a great way to breathe new life into radio.

The marketplace failure of SACD and DVD-Audio effectively sealed the fate of surround sound on the radio. MP3 Surround never caught on either, and iTunes only supports surround sound for movies, not music.

The only surround sound I've heard on the radio lately are those Madonna QSound remixes. :)
 
satech said:
I find it interesing that just as some European countires are getting ready to abandon it, all of the recent technological advances in broadcast audio engineering have gone into analog FM.

Really? Which countries do you speak of?

AFAIK, UK is the only one debating analog FM switch off and that debate has been going on for years, with the only result being the possible switch off pushed back and back. In 2009 it was 2013, then they moved it to 2015 and the latest report puts this between 2017 and 2022. I don't know of any other country in Europe even debating analog FM switch off...


Regards,
Goran Tomas
 
I think IBOC sounds like utter crap. I can't stand to listen to Sirius XM because of compression and I hear it in every IBOC I've ever heard. Regular FM sounds far better to me than the underwater codec that is multichannel IBOC. I can stand it if ALL the bits go to the single channel, but the greed of US Radio dictates that every channel will have a subchannel.
 
Goran Tomas said:
satech said:
I find it interesing that just as some European countires are getting ready to abandon it, all of the recent technological advances in broadcast audio engineering have gone into analog FM.

Really? Which countries do you speak of?

AFAIK, UK is the only one debating analog FM switch off and that debate has been going on for years, with the only result being the possible switch off pushed back and back. In 2009 it was 2013, then they moved it to 2015 and the latest report puts this between 2017 and 2022. I don't know of any other country in Europe even debating analog FM switch off...


Regards,
Goran Tomas

What the Government did in the Netherlands is renew all FM licenses for free till 2017 with one exception and that is that all stations of which their FM license was renewed would invest in DAB. And prepare their network for DAB. Most stations are now on DAB too (no one is listening DAB though). But there isn't a real deadline on FM broadcast. I believe UK and Norway are the closest on total FM shutdown between now and 2020 or so?
 
The F Mister said:
I believe UK and Norway are the closest on total FM shutdown between now and 2020 or so?
Not a total shutdown. IIRC, the UK's plan was to move existing FM stations to DAB only, and then move LW and MW stations to FM (although I doubt the LW stations would want to give up their massive coverage area for anything less than a large network of FM transmitters).
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom