WREK gets funded for new 25kW HD xmtr

[ssnake]

This week, the Ga. Tech student government authorized $180k in capital funding for WREK to install a new 25kW FM+HD transmitter, including equipment/licensing for an HD subchannel.

We'll be installing the new transmitter alongside the current BE FM-10A, so for the first time in many years, WREK will have a full-power backup (rather than just a spare exciter).

The 25kW will allow us to build a 100kW ERP authorization with moderate antenna gain.

http://nique.net/issues/2007-11-30/news/6

 

[taylorengineer]

Congrats Tom and to everyone else at WREK!
Hope the new HD channels will be worth the wait....

 

[kyscott]

This week, the Ga. Tech student government authorized $180k in capital funding for WREK to install a new 25kW FM+HD transmitter, including equipment/licensing for an HD subchannel.

Why bother with HD? In 10 years the importers and exciters will be sitting in the back room with the CQUAM exciters and Kahn Powerside equipment.

 

[ssnake]

Why bother with HD? In 10 years the importers and exciters will be sitting in the back room with the CQUAM exciters and Kahn Powerside equipment.

If you read the article... WREK apparently will be compensated at $25k/year for additional Ga. Tech sports broadcasts on the subchannel. That is a good reason enough itself, eh?

Plus, we'll get a transmitter capable of making 100kW ERP with our wacky directional setup.

 

[ssnake]

Congrats Tom and to everyone else at WREK!
Hope the new HD channels will be worth the wait....

Thanks! We're going to start with roughly a 12-hour delayed version of the main channel, with some variations. But we're configuring a separate automation system and new mini-studio along with this. Immediately, we could run live or prerecorded regularly scheduled programming on the subchannel during sports events. And we could simulcast sports programming that we don't ordinarily air, or that conflicts with the main channel.

Maybe WREK would be willing to broadcast some of WUOG's "syndicated" programming...

Along with the HD broadcast, the second channel will be streamed online with a two-week archive.

 

[kyscott]

Why bother with HD? In 10 years the importers and exciters will be sitting in the back room with the CQUAM exciters and Kahn Powerside equipment.

If you read the article... WREK apparently will be compensated at $25k/year for additional Ga. Tech sports broadcasts on the subchannel. That is a good reason enough itself, eh?

Yes. Too bad nobody will be able to hear it.

 

[MRFLASHPORT]

This week, the Ga. Tech student government authorized $180k in capital funding for WREK to install a new 25kW FM+HD transmitter, including equipment/licensing for an HD subchannel.

Why bother with HD? In 10 years the importers and exciters will be sitting in the back room with the CQUAM exciters and Kahn Powerside equipment.

so true!

 

[grmf]

All of you that feel HD will die, have you ever hears it? It sounds better that any other broadcast radio, including satellite.

 

[al_atl]

All of you that feel HD will die, have you ever hears it? It sounds better that any other broadcast radio, including satellite.

Yes, I have heard it. As the radio in the store kept switching back and forth between the analog and the digital signal, I could hear that the digital indeed sounds better. But the radio's inability to lock onto the digital signal for more than a second or two at a time before switching back to analog was most annoying. I will also note that it only managed to receive a digital signal from WKLS 96.1, it didn't even detect digital on any of the other stations. Return trips to the store on two different occasions resulted in the same. This despite being in the Atlanta area, and the radio being able to receive perfectly clear stereo analog on all of the 100kw Atlanta signals, and even a few of the rimshots. Pitiful, pathetic. DOA.

 

[grmf]

Well right now it's only at 10% of the power of the main signal. 10K not 100K. That is why building penetration is not on par. If stations didn't keep trying to be the "loudest" on the dial they could sound a whole lot better. Also the stores don't care, so they make no effort for it to work. They have to use expensive antennas and run wires to the roof for the XM & Sirius radios to work.

 

[kyscott]

All of you that feel HD will die, have you ever hears it? It sounds better that any other broadcast radio, including satellite.

Yes, I have "hears" it. I have three FM clients broadcasting in "HD". When it blends from FM to "HD", you cannot tell the difference. There is no benefit to the listener, so why should a listener go out and buy a new radio? For the subchannels? Hardly. It do that, you need to program the subchannels better than the main channels. I'm not a Tech fan (How 'Bout them Dawgs), but even if I were, I'd be hard pressed to buy a new radio to hear the other sports broadcasts. It does sound better on AM, however AM sounds just fine to me right now. That's not what is going to do in IBOC, the fact that you need your upper and lower adjcent channels to broadcast AM "HD" is going to kill it. There are reports of independent owners gathering the information they need to file a lawsuit against the FCC because these big 50,000 clear channel stations are effecting their coverage area because of the digital hash on the AM band. There are some group owners that have gone and turned AM IBOC off at night, and some stations like WSB-AM that have turned it off all together.

 

[taylorengineer]

Well....actually it is 1000 watts power on the digital carrier for a 100,000 watt FM station.
If, and this is a BIG "IF," HD does survive and thrive, the analog will be cut off and power/coverage will increase. And....stations will be able to multicast up to 8 different channels of programming.
The digital compression techniques improve every day.(Compression is a technique to strip unnecessary or redundant digital information out of the data stream so less bandwith is needed. Sometimes this compression is audible....usually it is not.) In several years we may have 10 channels (or more) of decent sounding HD radio for each station.
What is immediately noticable about digital radio is the CD like "quiet" that music has. Even in strong signal areas analog FM has noise and multipath "swishing around" in the background. Turn your radio up real loud sometime.....you will hear what I'm talking about. When radio is all digital you may see a "quality contest" break out. Engineers will strive to make their station the best sounding station....not the loudest. Multicasting is going to produce niche programming for us oddballs who would like a blues channel....or a bluegrass channel.
DAVE FM has just put up Americana on it's HD2. It's called DAVE ROOTS and it is really good! I finaaly have a real reason to buy a HD radio!

 

[grmf]

Yes, I have "hears" it.

It was a typo kind of like "adjcent" from your reply. If you can't hear the difference you have a crappy radio. The stereo separation alone is obvious. The sound gets much brighter on most of the stations. And everything Taylorengineer said, he would know better than I.

 

[kyscott]

Yes, I have "hears" it.

It was a typo kind of like "adjcent" from your reply. If you can't hear the difference you have a crappy radio. The stereo separation alone is obvious. The sound gets much brighter on most of the stations. And everything Taylorengineer said, he would know better than I.

If you do hear the difference, perhaps the radio station you are listening to hasn't got their processing set up right. I have three clients all running Optimod 8500 processors. One is a classical, another is a AAA and the third is an NPR affiliate. People I have talked to agree that all three analog signals sound good. I have two "HD" receivers. A Boston Acoustics Recepter and another Radiosophy HD100. When both radios blend to "HD", there is no notable difference. Now, there is a difference on AM when it blends.

I don't know about Taylorengineer, but I strive to make all of my clients sound good now....in analog. However we will never get rid of the loudness wars. The problem is that it will sound worse because in digital, when you run out of bits, that's it. PDs will always want to sound louder than the next guy. I also don't forsee the average consumer running out to buy an "HD" radio simply because the quiet passages are quieter in "HD" than analog. The average consumer isn't as demanding as us engineers. Look at the compression that music in ipods use. If the current "HD" radio scheme is still around in 10 years, I'll be surprised.

 

[grmf]

The Boston Acoustics Recepter is crap. Haven't hear the Radiosophy HD100. Every station I've heard, even ones with a single 8500, still widen out and in HD. Most sound noticeably better.
I agree, very few people are going to run out and buy a HD radio. Until they come standard in a Honda Civic analog will dominate. Heres the thing, the stations have to be first. The were radio stations before there were radios. There were TV stations before there were TVs. The satellites were up and on before the receivers were in the stores. The broadcasters have to be first. iBiquity may not be the best but they won.

 

[MRFLASHPORT]

yeah, and I've heard better frequency response and lower THD from some of my 20 year old cassette tapes of LP's made on my old Pioneer CT-F800. I am not impressed, analog FM not overdriven and over processed (ie, WABE-FM 90) runs circles around this low bandwidth MPEG crap. Certainly not worth the outrageous price HD radios cost...my 1980 GE Superradio II has a front end and sound quality to die for compared to HD.

sorry, it will go the way of C-QUAM, Kahn, Dolby FM and other "vast wasteland" technologies of the recent past. Just isn't worth it...besides, why waste the money? I wonder if the future of radio is spelled "LTE"? Verizon and at&t both are planning their 4G systems around the GSM Alliance migration path- and one of the benefits of LTE is broadband streaming...radios days are numbered, as is XM and Sirius. It's IP guys, wireless IP at that...."can you hear me now?" so said the VZW guy...

 

[kyscott]

The Boston Acoustics Recepter is crap. Haven't hear the Radiosophy HD100. Every station I've heard, even ones with a single 8500, still widen out and in HD. Most sound noticeably better.

So if the Recepter is crap and you haven't heard the Radiosophy, what receiver are you using?

I agree, very few people are going to run out and buy a HD radio. Until they come standard in a Honda Civic analog will dominate. Heres the thing, the stations have to be first. The were radio stations before there were radios. There were TV stations before there were TVs. The satellites were up and on before the receivers were in the stores. The broadcasters have to be first. iBiquity may not be the best but they won.

Stations have to be first, Wal Mart has to sell them, and they need to be honest with the consumers. WHAS up here in Louisville is running promos for HD radio. First, at the top of the hour with the ID, they say they are broadcasting in "high definition". They never tell you that you have to purchase a different radio to actually hear it. So the average person listening to the analog signal thinks they are now listening in "HD". Their analog signal now sounds like dog squeeze thanks to the digital hash. Second, they are running promos stating that there are "hundreds of new channels" in "HD". I have counted four stations in this market broadcasting an HD-2 audio service. And they REALLY sound like crap. Unprocessed; low, muffled audio. If I had run out to buy a new "HD" radio and found this, I'd take it back and get an XM receiver. There really are 100's of channels of programming on there. And it sounds better than some of the secondary services I have heard.

I agree with Flashport on this one. Broadcasters have been handed some nice technology, however they are blowing it due to the programming. Does not matter how it sounds if it's not worth listening to. The mp3 compression scheme has shown that people are willing to listen to less than perfect quality recordings if it's something they really want to listen to.

 

[taylorengineer]

You must remember that "loudness wars" started in the era of manual tuned radios. The idea was that it was easier to tune if the modulation was dense.
Also, in analog, limiting dynamic range is helpful if the noise floor is high. Before "really" quiet automobiles, road and cabin noise levels also made keeping the audio loud more important.
Most people DID notice the difference when CDs appeared. Maybe they could not "qualify" what they noticed....but they did notice the lack of noise. If you think the noise floor of a cassette tape compares with a CD then I invite you to look at some measurements....it's night and day. And quite noticeable even to a casual listener.
I agree that HD radio is a very compromised technology - as was FM stereo and color television. To maintain compatibility with existing technology required limitations. Radio would have been much better off if both AM and FM had been migrated to new frequencies and a different system i.e. Eureka (as used in Europe) But Hell No, the NAB, and other broadcaster influenced groups, would not hear of leveling the players field....they wanted to keep the status quo.
I also agree that wireless internet will replace broadcasting as we know it today -look for our wonderful government to soon start to meddle in internet affairs. And....corporate America WILL figure out how to control it and make money with it!

 

[grmf]

So if the Recepter is crap and you haven't heard the Radiosophy, what receiver are you using?

Kenwood, Sangean & Directed personally. I've also heard the JVC.

Their analog signal now sounds like dog squeeze thanks to the digital hash.

They probably have other problems. I've never hear the HD interfere. It is a long way away.

I have counted four stations in this market broadcasting an HD-2 audio service. And they REALLY sound like crap. Unprocessed; low, muffled audio. If I had run out to buy a new "HD" radio and found this, I'd take it back and get an XM receiver. There really are 100's of channels of programming on there. And it sounds better than some of the secondary services I have heard.

Again the stations problem not technology's.

Let it go away I don't care, I have no real money invested (just a few radios). Once there is a lot more cheap bandwidth or some type or pure internet broadcast technology, I see how that could easily take over.

 

[tcsnrayp]

I have the Cambridge SoundWorks. It is a dream machine.