WJR hits the fan with iBiquity??

[JohnnyElectron]

All Cris Alexander needs to do it to drive up to his little station on 560 in Monroe, Michigan.
Case and point: I can't get a consistant HD lock on my tuner within the city of license during THE DAY.
Point 2: as low-powered as his station is, it throws a ton on noise onto a really decent music station on 580 in Windsor, Ontario. Sad. Don't know what can be done to make this situation any better either.

 

[Tom Wells]

Well Tom my guess is the digital audio sounded better if you were able to hear it. Analog AM is dead for music anyway, so the argument about a good sounding AM broadcast station is like eating dog food. Sure, you could eat it, but with other choices, why would you??. Received AM analog specifications: 50hZ-3.5kHz frequency response, 40%IMD, and -25dB s/n vs. digital: 20-15kHz and .05% IMD. Gee that's a tough one.

I HAVE heard the results of digital HD AM reception IN DIGITAL, and guess what? It sounds worse than than the analog hissing muffled version!
At least the analog is not granular, crunchy and garbled. The digital has a chorus effect that is a far worse than the number specs suggest.
Where is the spec number to describe time relevance, where one sound equals "one sound", not "two sounds"? Oh, that's right, they don't even begin to measure whether the output is chorused. In printing two images where you want only one is a DEFECT, caused by bad register or slurring.
It indicates a PROBLEM, and is not something we should all get accustomed to as the new expectation of "good quality."
If you can't hear that the HD is worse than even bad analog, I am flabbergasted.

There are some real problems with any AM analog signal as bad as your numbers describe, and if an engineer can't make an AM sound better than that,
they should go into computers, or something that does not require skill and understanding in such delicate things as Amplitude Modulation.

Oh, you said "received". Well, receivers are the users' choice. If someone wants to buy and use cruddy equipment, whose fault is that?
There is no excuse for lowering performance and quality because of sloppiness and ignorance of others.
Standards are meant to be looked at as STANDARDS, not dropped just because it's too hard to do things the correct way.
What I hear is excuses for lowering standards. I do not lower my standards, I continously raise them. I learned this in radio engineerinng school.
I understand your expediencies must have caused you to disregard these formerly golden standards.
I'd love to hear about the things that cause you to think an AM must sound so bad.
I would much rather ANY day listen to a song on AM, because it actually sounds better on good radios.

AM's not dead for music, it's just discounted by the likes of y'all.
I again propose a rulemaking petition to the FCC to begin enforcing the pt 15 unintentional radiator rules, particularly those impacting MW AM BC.
Heavy fines to manufacturers of traffic signal systems, industrial controls, etc, would finance the cleaning up of spectrum.
Where is the FCC on this issue? Can anyone cite any action the FCC has ever taken to enforce the pt 15 unintentional radiator rules?

 

[Kelly]

"Greater expense with HD."
Perhaps, but it's my choice as to spend the capital to implement it on my stations if I want.

"No extra "stations between the stations" with AM HD."
If you shut off the bad sounding analog and used more spectrum, you could run multiple streams.

"Virtually no additional listeners with HD."
Perhaps, but you do get extended coverage with AM-HD at night, so the potential is there.

"Smaller coverage area with HD."
For AM, not true. Digital modulated sidebands have better coverage in the fringe area than analog only.

"More analog interference and noise with HD."
Other than some old timers who want to listen out of market?

"Half the analog fidelity with HD."
I don't know what you consider "Fidelity". Is that one of those words like Hi-Fi? The argument that analog AM sounds better than audio from an I-Pod is just silly. Lower s/n, much lower distortion, and far better frequency response means better sound, not worse. If you're harkening back to the days of hearing your favorite songs via a DAP and a Modulimiter, gee that's swell Wally. Welcome to the 21st Century, already in progress.

"Almost total lack of listener interest in HD. (See the second quote above)."
Wow, you said almost! I'm impressed!

"The opportunity to drive away your listeners with HD."
No listeners have been driven away by stations running it. Younger listeners are not listening to AM, nor FM in many cases.

"Long delay and rebuffering with HD."
So, a listener doesn't care about that.

"More phasey analog selective fadeing and noisy incoherent digital adjacent channel saddlebags with HD."
If you're still one of the 50+ listeners.

"Poor HD building penetration."
Gee, I think they call that physics! The analog doesn't do so well either.

"Poor HD noise immunity causing annoying analog/digital rollbacks and rebuffering."
Is that anything like the price rollbacks at your local WallMart?

"HD radio digital self noise further limiting reception."
I can tell you're trying to make your list longer by making up terminology.

"Necessity of frequently adjusting annoying, problematic, inconvenient, unsightly, (sometimes) elaborate and expensive external antennas for HD."
Well Skippy, I sure answer a lot of E-mail from analog AM listeners at home, that because of terrestrial noise requiring a external antenna to get over all the noise.

"No portable or pocket HD."
Ooo that's a big one

"Etc., etc."
Yes that one says volumes.

 

[Tom Wells]

"HD radio digital self noise further limiting reception."
I can tell you're trying to make your list longer by making up terminology.

AM radios with square-wave generating circuits inside, whether used for a power supply, a display timing signal, or
frequency sythesis all get an " F" for ignorance of the laws of physics and modulation.
Two to three times as much design, shielding, and bypassing are necessary to shield such a radio, greatly increasing costs, just to
make one as good as a totally analog design.

Square wave detection is always noisier than mixing the desired signal with a SINE wave.
And then manufacturers tried to get around the radio hearing its own noise by reducing sensitivity.
I laugh at such feckless engineering. What diploma mill did these 'engineers' come from?

 

[Savage]

Tom - the objectionable "chorusing" effect you hear on the human voice is due to the fact that everything other than the first 4.5 khz of audio in HD-AM is "replicated" by the IBOC codec. Given the processing present on typical radio programming these days, the codec can't keep up with the "replication" necessary to make it sound real to an actual human ear.

Plus, you have multiple levels of digital-analog conversion going on with Starguide network receivers, mp3 files of commercials downloaded from agency websites, and so forth. So the artifacting piles on artifacting, and the unpleasant audio final product is the result.

"Replicated" is HD-speak for...."fake." Or, if you prefer, 'electronically reprocessed to simulate actual audio.'

(We pause here for IBOC fans to blame the receivers for not being "latest generation" enough, or the listener for "not listening under appropriate conditions," or the broadcasters for "overly aggressive audio processing" or using "overprocessed commercials" (as if, in THE REAL WORLD, stations have control over the audio quality of spots sent by agencies and studios - anybody out there in sales??) or - I am not making this up - "board operators not properly controlling levels."

Given the apparently very narrow tolerance for operating conditions necessary for IBOC-AM it's small wonder somewhere between 1 and 2 percent of AM stations are using it at night.

 

[Kelly]

I agree with you Tom, but the chances of consumer electronics engineers putting any effort into improving the quality of AM analog receivers is like wishing for the return of fifty cent per gallon gas. It just isn't going to happen. Besides, the NRSC pretty much killed the possibility of competitive audio quality on the Medium Wave band many moons ago.

Several years ago, a good friend of mine Bob Carver, and I spent a great deal of time with designing a high quality AM stereo tuner. The two main factors that limited the interest and performance were terrestrial noise, and the quality of the audio out of the station combined with poor performing transmission systems, especially with C-Quam AM stereo on. Finally the project was abandoned, but you can still find one of the tuners on E-bay if you look hard enough. Bob felt the project was the total waste of a year in R&D.

When the station ran asymmeterical modulation, we consistently measured IMD in excess of 40%. Stereo separation suffered dramatically as well to the point where it wasn't worth bothering with stereo, and the square waves via the high levels of audio processing caused filter ring, and yet more distortion. The other problem we faced was the poorly designed interface of the AM stereo exciters to the transmitters.

In my view, it's time to allow station groups still with AM stations, the option to just turn off the analog modulation, and go full digital, or to allow them a 1kW, non-D digital only channel in the "expanded band". It's the only way to save the AM band from it's ultimate demise.

 

[SUPERCASTER]

Your statements do not refute anything on my "list".
HD supporters mantra = "Belittle, minimize, dodge, reinterpret, ridicule, deceive and obfuscate."

"Greater expense with HD."
Perhaps, but it's my choice as to spend the capital to implement it on my stations if I want.

A- So you admit this statement is TRUE. What you want has nothing to do with HD radio in general, or my statement.

"No extra "stations between the stations" with AM HD."
If you shut off the bad sounding analog and used more spectrum, you could run multiple streams.

A- It is HD radio that is making analog sound much worse, and multiple streams on AM HD are at best decades away from reality.

"Virtually no additional listeners with HD."
Perhaps, but you do get extended coverage with AM-HD at night, so the potential is there.

A- You agree with the statement then hypothesize extended night coverage with AM-HD might be possible. Because of interference with/from other stations on the overcrowded AM band and inability of HD to maintain necessary digital coherence of the HD digital sidebands that is unlikely except in rare cases.

"Smaller coverage area with HD."
For AM, not true. Digital modulated sidebands have better coverage in the fringe area than analog only.

A- Your statement is false. The analog AM signal reception far outdistances the digital. Even most avid HD supporters report hearing the HD dropout long before a clear analog signal. Only the HD generated noise and interference goes long distances, and the digital coherence becomes so distorted that HD radios can no longer decode the digital signals.

"More analog interference and noise with HD."
Other than some old timers who want to listen out of market?

A- No there is much more channel spread noise and interference the CLOSER you get to an HD station, as well as interfering with distant reception. I challenge you to prove your statement about interference and noise only being heard by "some old timers who want to listen out of market".

"Half the analog fidelity with HD."
I don't know what you consider "Fidelity". Is that one of those words like Hi-Fi? The argument that analog AM sounds better than audio from an I-Pod is just silly. Lower s/n, much lower distortion, and far better frequency response means better sound, not worse. If you're harkening back to the days of hearing your favorite songs via a DAP and a Modulimiter, gee that's swell Wally. Welcome to the 21st Century, already in progress.

A- If you don't understand the words "fidelity" or "Hi-Fi" you shouldn't be badmouthing those who do. My statement did not mention iPods, only yours, and it was "silly". Reducing analog AM frequency response from 10 kHz to 5 kHz and then adding loud hiss to the analog noise floor and adjacent channels is certainly cutting the analog fidelity in half. I am not "harkening back" to anywhere, and my name is not "Wally". It is much clearer then HD radio that I am much more knowledgeable about 21st century progress then you are when you support an obsolete, problematic, inferior, defective audio delivery system such as HD radio.

"Almost total lack of listener interest in HD. (See the second quote above)."
Wow, you said almost! I'm impressed!

A- Thanks for your compliment and acknowledgement.

"The opportunity to drive away your listeners with HD."
No listeners have been driven away by stations running it. Younger listeners are not listening to AM, nor FM in many cases.

A- Many listeners are being driven away by HD radio. You can read many complaints about HD from young and old right on this board. Oops, I forgot, iBiquity and the HD cartel have mandated that there "are no complaints".

"Long delay and rebuffering with HD."
So, a listener doesn't care about that.

A- Many HD listeners complain and post that they very much do "care about that".

"More phasey analog selective fadeing and noisy incoherent digital adjacent channel saddlebags with HD."
If you're still one of the 50+ listeners.

A- You agree and then make a weak attempt to minimize by fabricating a number.

"Poor HD building penetration."
Gee, I think they call that physics! The analog doesn't do so well either.

"Poor HD noise immunity causing annoying analog/digital rollbacks and rebuffering."
Is that anything like the price rollbacks at your local WallMart?

"HD radio digital self noise further limiting reception."
I can tell you're trying to make your list longer by making up terminology.

"Necessity of frequently adjusting annoying, problematic, inconvenient, unsightly, (sometimes) elaborate and expensive external antennas for HD."
Well Skippy, I sure answer a lot of E-mail from analog AM listeners at home, that because of terrestrial noise requiring a external antenna to get over all the noise.

"No portable or pocket HD."
Ooo that's a big one

A- Since much listening is on portable and pocket radios, it certainly is a "big one".

"Etc., etc."
Yes that one says volumes.

A- Yes, there are indeed volumes to be said.

 

[PhilGalasso]

In my view, it's time to allow station groups still with AM stations, the option to just turn off the analog modulation, and go full digital, or to allow them a 1kW, non-D digital only channel in the "expanded band". It's the only way to save the AM band from it's ultimate demise.

Or, better yet, get rid of the zillions of translators (especially the satellite-fed "satellators" run by the Bible hucksters) that clutter the FM band and apply the Canadian Solution, moving those smaller AM stations to the FM band, possibly as Class A's on second-adjacent channels. That spacing does work. It has existed in the noncommercial part of the FM band in the New York area for decades.

If AM did go "full digital", I would suggest the DRM system used in Europe. iBiquity's system is yet another example of the United States selecting the wrong standard.

 

[calstymes]

Tom Wells reported:

WGN still sounds dull, lifeless, hissy and muffly. The phone-answerer at WGN said the engineers were installing upgrades. How come it still sounds awful?

Now THAT is very funny. What other thing might you expect the phone-answerer to say at a large market AM radio station? Here is one possibility:

"We're sorry for the lousy sound but this is the price of 'improvement' we all have to pay. This will also save our station from the bad programming we currently have on the air. We suggest that you turn off your old trusty wide band AM radio and purchase one of these new fangled digital ones that can receive this new IBOC thing. Things will sound better then."

 

[SUPERCASTER]

Your statements do not refute anything on my "list".
HD supporters mantra = "Belittle, minimize, dodge, reinterpret, ridicule, deceive and obfuscate."

"Greater expense with HD."
Perhaps, but it's my choice as to spend the capital to implement it on my stations if I want.

A- So you admit this statement is TRUE. What you want has nothing to do with HD radio in general, or my statement.

"No extra "stations between the stations" with AM HD."
If you shut off the bad sounding analog and used more spectrum, you could run multiple streams.

A- It is HD radio that is making analog sound much worse, and multiple streams on AM HD are at best decades away from reality.

"Virtually no additional listeners with HD."
Perhaps, but you do get extended coverage with AM-HD at night, so the potential is there.

A- You agree with the statement then hypothesize extended night coverage with AM-HD might be possible. Because of interference with/from other stations on the overcrowded AM band and inability of HD to maintain necessary digital coherence of the HD digital sidebands that is unlikely except in rare cases.

"Smaller coverage area with HD."
For AM, not true. Digital modulated sidebands have better coverage in the fringe area than analog only.

A- Your statement is false. The analog AM signal reception far outdistances the digital. Even most avid HD supporters report hearing the HD dropout long before a clear analog signal. Only the HD generated noise and interference goes long distances, and the digital coherence becomes so distorted that HD radios can no longer decode the digital signals.

"More analog interference and noise with HD."
Other than some old timers who want to listen out of market?

A- No there is much more channel spread noise and interference the CLOSER you get to an HD station, as well as interfering with distant reception. I challenge you to prove your statement about interference and noise only being heard by "some old timers who want to listen out of market".

"Half the analog fidelity with HD."
I don't know what you consider "Fidelity". Is that one of those words like Hi-Fi? The argument that analog AM sounds better than audio from an I-Pod is just silly. Lower s/n, much lower distortion, and far better frequency response means better sound, not worse. If you're harkening back to the days of hearing your favorite songs via a DAP and a Modulimiter, gee that's swell Wally. Welcome to the 21st Century, already in progress.

A- If you don't understand the words "fidelity" or "Hi-Fi" you shouldn't be badmouthing those who do. My statement did not mention iPods, only yours, and it was "silly". Reducing analog AM frequency response from 10 kHz to 5 kHz and then adding loud hiss to the analog noise floor and adjacent channels is certainly cutting the analog fidelity in half. I am not "harkening back" to anywhere, and my name is not "Wally". It is much clearer then HD radio that I am much more knowledgeable about 21st century progress then you are when you support an obsolete, problematic, inferior, defective audio delivery system such as HD radio.

"Almost total lack of listener interest in HD. (See the second quote above)."
Wow, you said almost! I'm impressed!

A- Thanks for your compliment and acknowledgement.

"The opportunity to drive away your listeners with HD."
No listeners have been driven away by stations running it. Younger listeners are not listening to AM, nor FM in many cases.

A- Many listeners are being driven away by HD radio. You can read many complaints about HD from young and old right on this board. Oops, I forgot, iBiquity and the HD cartel have mandated that there "are no complaints".

"Long delay and rebuffering with HD."
So, a listener doesn't care about that.

A- Many HD listeners complain and post that they very much do "care about that".

"More phasey analog selective fadeing and noisy incoherent digital adjacent channel saddlebags with HD."
If you're still one of the 50+ listeners.

A- You agree and then make a weak attempt to minimize by fabricating a number.

"Poor HD building penetration."
Gee, I think they call that physics! The analog doesn't do so well either.

A- But HD is much worse.

"Poor HD noise immunity causing annoying analog/digital rollbacks and rebuffering."
Is that anything like the price rollbacks at your local WallMart?

A- I can see why you would think so.

"HD radio digital self noise further limiting reception."
I can tell you're trying to make your list longer by making up terminology.

A- Sorry to confuse you so much with engineering terms like "self noise".

"Necessity of frequently adjusting annoying, problematic, inconvenient, unsightly, (sometimes) elaborate and expensive external antennas for HD."
Well Skippy, I sure answer a lot of E-mail from analog AM listeners at home, that because of terrestrial noise requiring a external antenna to get over all the noise.

"No portable or pocket HD."
Ooo that's a big one

A- Since much listening is on portable and pocket radios, it certainly is a "big one".

"Etc., etc."
Yes that one says volumes.

A- Yes, there are indeed volumes to be said.

Addendum:

"Necessity of frequently adjusting annoying, problematic, inconvenient, unsightly, (sometimes) elaborate and expensive external antennas for HD."
Well Skippy, I sure answer a lot of E-mail from analog AM listeners at home, that because of terrestrial noise requiring a external antenna to get over all the noise.

A- My name is not "Skippy" or "Wally" you must be thinking about a couple of your fellow HD supporters. Your e-mails don't impress me, neither do your friends "Skippy" and "Wally". Few listeners buy, install, adjust, or attach elaborate AM and FM antennas just for primary coverage listening, as is often necessary with HD radio.

 

[davideduardo]

I was not "lying." I was told - from a West Coast CCU management person - that, irrespective of KFI's tower problems, that they had attempted HD-AM and had turned it off because of something like "lackluster performance, limited benefit and reports of significant interference," or something like that, to quote Martin Stabbert.

The HD was on when the plane hit the tower, so that is not true.

Obviously since I'm 3000 miles from the coast I have no means of independently verifying this. If it would make Mr. Gleason happier, I retract the mention of KFI which has prompted this angry, personally-directed overreaction. I will concede this point to avoid providing ammo for abuse, however inadvertent it was.

The point here is, and was: many major AMs are turning off HD-AM because of the aforementioned glaring, incurable faults.

Which major AMs have turned it off daytime? I do not know of any. Keyword: major. That means a full market signal and ratings in my interpretation.

 

[JohnnyElectron]

Listeners WILL play with an antenna - BUT, ONLY if it gets them a program or format that they want.

Case 1: Before XM got on the air with all the MLB games, I helped a guy rig-up his GE Superadio with a loop so he could listen at night to his baseball team on their distant 50KW station.

Case 2: People WILL mess around with the 'antenna unit' for the XM radio as it gets them the programming not available on regular radio (beautiful music, etc...).

In other words, IF the ends justify the means, people will work to get their radio station; however, my two HD radios are a waste just to hear more of the same, or less of the same as the case may be (because of adjacent channel interference).

NOTE: One of my HD radios does do a better job of filtering out the HD-AM buzz 20KHz above below the HD station, whereas my (apparently wideband) Chrysler AM radio has destructive buzz/hiss +/- 20KHz.

Kelly: please PM me.

 

[Savage]

Whatever. I already conceded the point about KFI. I reported their situation in good faith as it was related to me by someone on the West Coast who was in a position to know. If that's incorrect, so what?

I'm not playing the "will THIS qualify for David Gleason semantics argument" game with you. I already listed the stations which have turned IBOC off day and night. If you want to dismiss the COX AMs and WHAT as "not major enough" just as you typically do WSM and WYSL, be my guest.

Contortions of logic and bickering about semantics don't make HD-AM any more successful. Any reasonable interpretation of IBOC produces an inescapable conclusion: HD-AM is an engineering disaster, growing in irrelevance every day. It doesn't make any difference how many stations are on or off, day or night, as of October 11, 2007. What matters is: HD-AM will be discarded as a junk-engineering curiosity within two years. I know it, and you know it.

Keep dancing at your lonely "denial party," Mr. Gleason.

 

[Tom Wells]

The HD was on when the plane hit the tower, .......

Maybe the HD hash is capable of confusing avionics or control circuits. What was the reported reason for the collision? Pilot inattention?

 

[Savage]

It would be fun to blame the collision on IBOC, but I don't think we can actually do that.

I always liked the AOPA accident reports in PILOT mag and elsewhere: the dry catch-all phrase is "pilot error" and a crash is termed "premature arrival."

 

[Tom Wells]

It would be fun to blame the collision on IBOC, but I don't think we can actually do that.

I always liked the AOPA accident reports in PILOT mag and elsewhere: the dry catch-all phrase is "pilot error" and a crash is termed "premature arrival."

True, we can't. I can however, relate that commercial jets DO radiate enough RF on approach to trigger digital inputs.
Three diffrerent times on two different laptops, I have had the computer in my briefcase in standby.
A jet passing directly overhead on landing approach to O'hare turned on the laptop from standby.
One instance was 9 miles east of the airport, at home, directly under the east approach.
The other 2 times were directly under runway paths at customers' locations, one instance at 1 mile, another at 2 miles.

 

[davideduardo]

If you want to dismiss the COX AMs and WHAT as "not major enough" just as you typically do WSM and WYSL, be my guest.

WHAT is a class IV station in a huge, multi-county MSA. That station is not major. It is not even minor. It is microscopic. The never should have given Class IV's in larger metros.

Bob Niel of Cox is a noted contrarian... while that is a good thing in general, it means he often simply waits till the last moment... as he did with the PPM. And, out of 80 stations, Cox has only 14 AMs, most of which are not ggood facilities. Even WSB barely covers the Atlanta metro, and is a good case of where many FMs cover more than an AM, even a so-called big one. WSM is a disaster, with no billing and low ratings. It's the worst performing 1A clear by far, and an examle of why skywave is not needed. WYSL should not be discussed in a threads about major stations. .Unviable signal, nearly no ratings, your basic rimshot AM that can not long be viable.

Contortions of logic and bickering about semantics don't make HD-AM any more successful. Any reasonable interpretation of IBOC produces an inescapable conclusion: HD-AM is an engineering disaster, growing in irrelevance every day.

I have always said HD may be too little or too late to save AM. With some major markets now with less than 12% AM listening, and many small ones even below 8%, it may already be over except for the wake.

It doesn't make any difference how many stations are on or off, day or night, as of October 11, 2007. What matters is: HD-AM will be discarded as a junk-engineering curiosity within two years. I know it, and you know it.

What I know is that AM, without some kind of boost, is now a band for 55+ and its mainstay formats are more and more rapidly moving to FM. RIP.

 

[Savage]

Fine. So since you've written off AM, give us one valid reason why we should pay attention to you. Why don't you go save some other broadcast service that's more worthy of your insights?

 

[Kelly]

Addendum:

"Necessity of frequently adjusting annoying, problematic, inconvenient, unsightly, (sometimes) elaborate and expensive external antennas for HD."
Well Skippy, I sure answer a lot of E-mail from analog AM listeners at home, that because of terrestrial noise requiring a external antenna to get over all the noise.

A- My name is not "Skippy" or "Wally" you must be thinking about a couple of your fellow HD supporters. Your e-mails don't impress me, neither do your friends "Skippy" and "Wally". Few listeners buy, install, adjust, or attach elaborate AM and FM antennas just for primary coverage listening, as is often necessary with HD radio.

[/quote]

Okay there Sport. You should really learn to settle down, and maybe while you're at it, get off your computer, go outside and get some exercise. I'll bet the FCC decision to allow night IBOC operation on the Medium Wave band damn near put you in the hospital! You could really use a hug!!

Clearly from what you post, you haven't been involved in much actual testing of IBOC in its infancy, but choose to dominate a small discussion board of other IBOC detractors with your "expert opinions". I do have to give you props for having a hobby,(bashing some innocuous modulation standard), a strange one perhaps, but a hobby none the less.

Yours Truly

Kelly

 

[RadioFixerCLE]

With some major markets now with less than 12% AM listening, and many small ones even below 8%, it may already be over except for the wake.

My God. I used to remember when AM listening was about 20 percent. That was in the early/mid 90s. Amazing how things change in a span of over 10 years.