Where's the beef, or HD radio

[radioalogo]

OK, I fell for it I went out and bought an HD radio for my car (kenwood)I bought it off of the internet from Crutchfield and was expecting a Pittsburgh HD signal I thought it was supposed to be on by now. WLTJ or WRRK?

on my way to Maryland I heard an HD station in Morgantown WV 101.9fm it sounded really good I loved the static free + really clear quality, i'm not a 50cent fan but I listened to it because it was digital my only complaint was it jumped forward 5 or more seconds when it switched back to analog and it delayed 5 or more seconds when it went back to digital , it got kinda annoying like listening to DVE's morning show. I kid, I like the jokes they were funny 10 years ago they are just as funny today. love that "cat on crack" skit it gets funnier every time I hear it, sorry for the venting. and don't even get me started on that Battle & Ninnee/neenee/kniiknii/NeHi-di-ho-hum

back to HD

anybody know if Clear Channel is doing anything with HD? or Infinity? or Keymarket? hell, if even Renda? but for Renda "HD" stands for "Highly Distorted" sorry, I think 99.7 sounds like your listening to it through a kettle drum.

 

[Radio_Realist]

Well, Socrates will probably acuse me of pontificating, but it seems to me that songs that sounded crappy on regular radio will also sound crappy on HD radio. It strikes me that you can't polish a turd.

> OK, I fell for it I went out and bought an HD radio for my
> car (kenwood)I bought it off of the internet from
> Crutchfield and was expecting a Pittsburgh HD signal I
> thought it was supposed to be on by now. WLTJ or WRRK?
>
> on my way to Maryland I heard an HD station in Morgantown WV
> 101.9fm it sounded really good I loved the static free +
> really clear quality, i'm not a 50cent fan but I listened to
> it because it was digital my only complaint was it jumped
> forward 5 or more seconds when it switched back to analog
> and it delayed 5 or more seconds when it went back to
> digital , it got kinda annoying like listening to DVE's
> morning show. I kid, I like the jokes they were funny 10
> years ago they are just as funny today. love that "cat on
> crack" skit it gets funnier every time I hear it, sorry for
> the venting. and don't even get me started on that Battle &
> Ninnee/neenee/kniiknii/NeHi-di-ho-hum
>
> back to HD
>
> anybody know if Clear Channel is doing anything with HD? or
> Infinity? or Keymarket? hell, if even Renda? but for Renda
> "HD" stands for "Highly Distorted" sorry, I think 99.7
> sounds like your listening to it through a kettle drum.
>

 

[MadAirchecker]

> Well, Socrates will probably acuse me of pontificating, but
> it seems to me that songs that sounded crappy on regular
> radio will also sound crappy on HD radio. It strikes me that
> you can't polish a turd.
>

Are you working at being irrelevant or do you have a natural gift for it?

 

[Radio_Realist]

> > Well, Socrates will probably acuse me of pontificating,
> but
> > it seems to me that songs that sounded crappy on regular
> > radio will also sound crappy on HD radio. It strikes me
> that
> > you can't polish a turd.
> >
>
> Are you working at being irrelevant or do you have a natural
> gift for it?

I do not see how what I said is irrelevant. Commercial broadcast radio stations exist to attract listeners that they can sell to advertisers. They usually play music to attract the listeners. Stations seem to do quite well playing crappy sounding music over their current transmitters to the current generation of receivers. I don't see how some marginal improvement over the technical quality of the music being broadcast is going to make much difference when the music being recorded today sounds pretty much like crap, and the stations playing older music are playing newly made copies of old recordings.

In other words, I attempted to use only a few words to make the point that the promise of superior sound quality from HD radio won't make that much difference in the operations of commercial broadcast radio stations one way or the other.

 

[RadioEngnr]

>I thought it was supposed to be on by now. WLTJ or WRRK?

WLTJ is on schedule for HD + Multicasting. let me set a date mid July could be sooner or later. WRRK scheduled for early to mid Fall 2005, it might be sooner

>
> on my way to Maryland I heard an HD station in Morgantown WV
> 101.9fm it sounded really good I loved the static free +
> really clear quality, i'm not a 50cent fan but I listened to
> it because it was digital my only complaint was it jumped
> forward 5 or more seconds when it switched back to analog
> and it delayed 5 or more seconds when it went back to
> digital

This is due to the time sync thats needed between the analog and digital, since a digital signal has to be generated it creates a 7 second delay the analog has to be delayed to match the digital signal if you don't then what you heard on 101.9FM is the product, but we at WLTJ & WRRK will sync those 2 carriers so when you are driving in a fringe reception area when the digital signal is weak and it switches back to the analog there will be no gap/delay in time between the audio, and I'm sure the other Pittsburgh stations will do the same

again, thanks for the interest in HD radio.

Paul Carroll
Chief Engineer
Steel City Media
[email protected]

 

[techie]

> > > Well, Socrates will probably acuse me of pontificating,
> > but
> > > it seems to me that songs that sounded crappy on regular
>
> > > radio will also sound crappy on HD radio. It strikes me
> > that
> > > you can't polish a turd.
> > >
> >
> > Are you working at being irrelevant or do you have a
> natural
> > gift for it?
>
> I do not see how what I said is irrelevant. Commercial
> broadcast radio stations exist to attract listeners that
> they can sell to advertisers. They usually play music to
> attract the listeners. Stations seem to do quite well
> playing crappy sounding music over their current
> transmitters to the current generation of receivers. I don't
> see how some marginal improvement over the technical quality
> of the music being broadcast is going to make much
> difference when the music being recorded today sounds pretty
> much like crap, and the stations playing older music are
> playing newly made copies of old recordings.
>
> In other words, I attempted to use only a few words to make
> the point that the promise of superior sound quality from HD
> radio won't make that much difference in the operations of
> commercial broadcast radio stations one way or the other.
>

Just decreases the amount of competition since the adjacent channel interference from the "HD" digital carriers will block out rimshots and adjacent stations, particularly on AM.

 

[RadioEngnr]

> Just decreases the amount of competition since the adjacent
> channel interference from the "HD" digital carriers will
> block out rimshots and adjacent stations, particularly on
> AM.

Attention: 92.9 to 96.9% of you will find this boring

Most of the AM HD interference is being generated by the increase in the sustained sideband noise induced by the digital IBOC sideband carriers of an HD Radio station. While some of this energy is generated in the first adjacent channels in the form of secondary and tertiary sidebands, the primary digital sidebands generate the most, extending from 10 to 15 kHz from carrier into the bandpass of the second adjacent channel.

What many forget is that using this much bandwidth has always been permitted within the defined AM channel bandpass of FCC Rules and NRSC mask limits. Ibiquity is very much aware that the digital sidebands contain higher average energy than analog splatter and can become significant interference. Accordingly, it's been proposing more restrictive specifications for the HD Radio transmissions mask that afford much more protection for third adjacent channel stations than currently required under FCC Rule 73.44.

Because of the wider bandwidth of FM band stations the NRSC determined that the technology has “no meaningful impact” on a station’s existing analog signal and delivers digital coverage comparable to analog “even at 1% of analog FM power” (even in difficult reception markets such as Manhattan and San Francisco and very soon Pittsburgh).

 

[tpt]

Well, Ok, that's all very nice, but the emphasis on what the AM mask permits ignores the reality that an AM IBOC station is transmitting a new signal on the adjacent channels.

1. The AM mask was originally designed in response to the use of heavy preemphasis with older transmitter designs. E.G. 125 usec preemphasis used in the early Optimod 9000's.

2. In tight allocations--and there are a lot of them between regional stations, not such much for the Class A "Clears" that are now experimenting with IBOC, most directional systems fall apart when hit with these added adjacent channel signals. Hence first and second adjacent stations that are now adequately protected from intereference from the analog signal suffer destructive interference from the digital signal.

Indeed, Iniquity spokesmen have trumpeted this as a virture, citing IBOC's advantage in filling in nulls on tight patterns. E.G. presentation at the Morgantown meeting of the WVBA, re WWJ Detroit's signal in Toledo. Neglecting the destructive interference caused daytime to 1st adjacent 940 station in Lima.
Third adjacent intereference is not the problem.

3. I'll grant that IBOC does not seem to be a porblem on FM. Although read the well-researched article coming out in the next issue of Radio Guide which argues to the contrary.

 

[Radio_Realist]

OK, that's all well and good. But, what are the chances that the improvements in the technology of AM Radio will result in any changes that will have a significant impact on the average listener, like me? Are all of these changes going to do nothing more than the current boring programming on AM radio sound clearer, or will these changes prompt broadcasters to actually put better programming on their spiffy new digital stations?

To make a comparison everyone should understand, the song "They're Coming to Take Me Away" sounded like crap when it was first broadcast on static-ridden AM in manaural sound and received on a cheap transister radio with a 2 inch PM speaker. But if you listen to that song today on an FM Stereo station playing it from a CD compilation of "The Greatest Novelty Songs of the 60's" and your receiver is a modern, state-of-the-art home theatre system with surround speakers and a sub-woofer, it's STILL going to sound like crap, right?

So, does the new HD radio offer us listeners the promise of better programming, or just a slightly better sound quality on the crap that's on the radio now?

> Well, Ok, that's all very nice, but the emphasis on what the
> AM mask permits ignores the reality that an AM IBOC station
> is transmitting a new signal on the adjacent channels.
>
> 1. The AM mask was originally designed in response to the
> use of heavy preemphasis with older transmitter designs.
> E.G. 125 usec preemphasis used in the early Optimod 9000's.
>
> 2. In tight allocations--and there are a lot of them between
> regional stations, not such much for the Class A "Clears"
> that are now experimenting with IBOC, most directional
> systems fall apart when hit with these added adjacent
> channel signals. Hence first and second adjacent stations
> that are now adequately protected from intereference from
> the analog signal suffer destructive interference from the
> digital signal.
>
> Indeed, Iniquity spokesmen have trumpeted this as a virture,
> citing IBOC's advantage in filling in nulls on tight
> patterns. E.G. presentation at the Morgantown meeting of the
> WVBA, re WWJ Detroit's signal in Toledo. Neglecting the
> destructive interference caused daytime to 1st adjacent 940
> station in Lima.
> Third adjacent intereference is not the problem.
>
> 3. I'll grant that IBOC does not seem to be a porblem on
> FM. Although read the well-researched article coming out in
> the next issue of Radio Guide which argues to the contrary.
>

 

[RadioEngnr]

I tell people who ask what I do in radio? my reply has been and always shall be "I'm responsible for 2 of the 3 elements of radio
Carrier & Quality, not content

As for AM HD quality it will equal what the current analog FM sounds like. what does that mean for the Pickle format? who knows, but it will now be in stereo on the AM. without static or multipath. which if you ask me will breathe new life into the HD AM dial

I can see many "programming" changes in the next few years like moderen rock & CHR music returning to the digital AM along with the ratings. if the quality is there why not do it.

but, I am just an engineer. I just build them I don't program them