WYSL: "WHY YOU DON’T NEED, OR WANT, 'HD-AM' RADIO"

[PocketRadio]

WYSL: "WHY YOU DON’T NEED, OR WANT, 'HD-AM' RADIO"

"So, let’s summarize: not much better audio, part-time stereo, part-time digital, daytime-only, makes live sports coverage impossible, destroys existing service, is incompatible with existing AM radios, requires new hardware for transmission and reception, and is expensive. How many do you want to buy today?"

http://www.wysl1040.com/?pg=nohd

I think that about sums-it-up !

 

[Len14043]

I suspect this is sour grapes on the part of WYSL. They are a rimshot to Rochester and probably cannot put a good HD signal into Rochester like the other stations. As far as their argument of having better frequency response, most AM radios are narrowband and can't take advantage of this "extended" frequency range. I listen to WLW ofter and didn't know they were using 5 khz audio until I read an article written by the station manager. Anti-IBOC people will try to confuse the issue by stating that IBOC stations lose half their frequency response, i.e. 10khz vs 5 khz. The truth is that frequency response is logarithmic and half the frequency translates to 1 musical octave. Then again, with the radios available today, it is impossible to enjoy that additional octave provided by 10 khz audio.

 

[dumber than a box of hair]

The overwhelming majority of AM radios in the hands of consumers today start to roll off around 2-3 kHz, so the entire frequency-response argument is a huge red herring. If we all had AM radios engineered as they were in the 1940s, it might be significant, but in response to noise and interference complaints, manufacturers started rolling off at lower frequencies some time in the 1950s. Most listeners won't know the difference now.

 

[davideduardo]

WYSL: "WHY YOU DON’T NEED, OR WANT, 'HD-AM' RADIO"

"So, let’s summarize: not much better audio, part-time stereo, part-time digital, daytime-only, makes live sports coverage impossible, destroys existing service, is incompatible with existing AM radios, requires new hardware for transmission and reception, and is expensive. How many do you want to buy today?"

I think that about sums-it-up !

Wow. WYSL is a "virtual" daytimer that bills $400 thousand a year in a $50 million dollar a year market where the leading station bills twenty times more. The real question is what purpose do stations like this, that are not viable, play in radio in the future.

Oh, did I mention the station does not even show up in the ratings and has not for the last 8 ratings books?

Sounds like sour grapes to me....

 

[mgpt6]

Tuners in home stereos on both AM and FM have taken a hit over the past 20 years. A 5 tube AM radio from the mid 60s would send better than the tuner section in any stereo receiver made today.

 

[PocketRadio]

Wow. WYSL is a "virtual" daytimer that bills $400 thousand a year in a $50 million dollar a year market where the leading station bills twenty times more. The real question is what purpose do stations like this, that are not viable, play in radio in the future.

Oh, did I mention the station does not even show up in the ratings and has not for the last 8 ratings books?

Sounds like sour grapes to me....

As usual, just attacking the source - just like your argument, that the only thing that matters is that a certain percentage of the market is coverd by HD/IBOC. Yea David, it doesn't matter that HD radios are not selling !

 

[davideduardo]

As usual, just attacking the source - just like your argument, that the only thing that matters is that a certain percentage of the market is coverd by HD/IBOC. Yea David, it doesn't matter that HD radios are not selling !

The station in question is quite obviously not viable in analog, digital or via smoke signals. It is licensed way outside the city of Rochester, and barely gets a 5 mv/m into part of the city itself.

To use such a station as the basis for a discussion of sales, programming or HD is a but questionable.

 

[clouseau]

Wow. WYSL is a "virtual" daytimer that bills $400 thousand a year in a $50 million dollar a year market where the leading station bills twenty times more. The real question is what purpose do stations like this, that are not viable, play in radio in the future.

Oh, did I mention the station does not even show up in the ratings and has not for the last 8 ratings books?

Sounds like sour grapes to me....

You know, David, to me it looks not so much that they are a Virtual Daytimer. Heck It looks to me like they throw a decent signal into Rochester even at night. As I look at what they are programming, it looks more like a case of just mediocre radio. They SHOULD be in the ratings according to their signal, but they AREN'T because of their programming decisions. Heck they're probably pulling down some serious (for them) coin doing the Minor League Baseball and the Soccer. Their lineup is pretty weak, though. This station COULD be much more than viable. Heck at $33K a month they could be getting by nicely.

Clouseau

 

[PocketRadio]

As usual, just attacking the source - just like your argument, that the only thing that matters is that a certain percentage of the market is coverd by HD/IBOC. Yea David, it doesn't matter that HD radios are not selling !

The station in question is quite obviously not viable in analog, digital or via smoke signals. It is licensed way outside the city of Rochester, and barely gets a 5 mv/m into part of the city itself.

To use such a station as the basis for a discussion of sales, programming or HD is a but questionable.

And, this has something to do with the qualifications of their broadcast engineers, who dare to speak out against HD/IBOC ?

 

[SignalSeeker]

I don't usually respond to you pocket radio. I read your posts and have to admit that some are quite amusing. Are you really that angry when you post? I imagine you hammering at the keyboard, cursing and swearing.

I am not in the business of radio. I am a radio hobbyist. I like to listen to quality sources. While analog FM radio in America is ok, pretty quiet, average frequency range. I would like to hear something better if someone can do it. After reading about HD, I purchased the Sangean HDT-1 back in December. I listened to it carefully. I decided that it was an improvement to current FM, so I have written about it. I shared my experience with others contemplating a purchase. I am aware that there are a lot of people just like me that enjoy an improvement to the technology. The sound, though not CD quality is better than standard FM. It has a unique sound, just like analog FM's unique sound.

analog AM has a unique sound too, and a pretty poor one, but one that is appreciated. I listen to AM for news, (hard to find any local news today) I listen to it for talk radio, (met Larry King there about 20 years ago) but music on AM is something I would rather not do. I grew up listening to music on AM, when FM was all classical or dentist chair instrumentals. But that was 40 years ago.

I thought that it is about time for something better. AM-HD has a better sound. However I understand your concern, no longer will you be able to listen to DX stations because you claim that the digital sideband is audible on tuneable (non-digital) radios. I don't think that you really heard this. You are just relating what we all are reading. I haven't heard it yet, but if it is true, I will miss DXing also. I speculate that some DXing will be cut out initially, but it certainly won't block out each and every station.

The decision by the FCC to allow HD AM was with a desire to allow a better sound, and the ability to stream digital text, for information and traffic alerts into the local market. I will bet you homeland security has something to do this this too. The FCC is siding with the local broadcasters who are trying to make money on AM. They really aren't concerned with us DXers. Their assumption is that we will listen to shortwave. Oh, did I forget to mention that there are several competing formats trying to turn that completley digital also.

I propose a compromise. Petition the FCC to allocate the part of the band occupied by the high power stations to remain HD free. And only allow HD on the band sectioned for local radio. There you have it. The best of both worlds, now wasn't that easy. I actually love DXing. I don't have much time for it. However when I come across a long distance station I love to tell people about it. Did I tell you that this is where I first heard Wolfman Jack, on CKLW in Chicago, a distance of 700 miles from me!

By the way, don't get your blood pressure up worrying about how many radios are sold. The market will decide that, always has and always will. The goal is to get that circuitry down so small and inexpensive that it will will be integrated into every radio circuit board made. Soon it will all fit on one IC, you watch and see. Then it will be in every radio. Thats the plan, the big boys know what they are doing. You certainly can't stop it, and neither can I.

 

[davideduardo]

As usual, just attacking the source - just like your argument, that the only thing that matters is that a certain percentage of the market is coverd by HD/IBOC. Yea David, it doesn't matter that HD radios are not selling !

The station in question is quite obviously not viable in analog, digital or via smoke signals. It is licensed way outside the city of Rochester, and barely gets a 5 mv/m into part of the city itself.

To use such a station as the basis for a discussion of sales, programming or HD is a but questionable.

I am guessing that they have absolutely zero experience with HD. They are just inventing reasons why the station will not be investing in new technology.

And, this has something to do with the qualifications of their broadcast engineers, who dare to speak out against HD/IBOC ?

 

[PhilJSmith67]

you claim that the digital sideband is audible on tuneable (non-digital) radios. I don't think that you really heard this. You are just relating what we all are reading. I haven't heard it yet, but if it is true

Oh it's most indeed true. Even people on this board who are arguably pro-HD don't dispute that the digital sidebands can be heard for AM HD. On every radio I own (from analog to digital+DSP), the first-adjacent channels of any HD Radio station sound like an open firehose.

 

[davideduardo]

you claim that the digital sideband is audible on tuneable (non-digital) radios. I don't think that you really heard this. You are just relating what we all are reading. I haven't heard it yet, but if it is true

Oh it's most indeed true. Even people on this board who are arguably pro-HD don't dispute that the digital sidebands can be heard for AM HD. On every radio I own (from analog to digital+DSP), the first-adjacent channels of any HD Radio station sound like an open firehose.

Absolutely. The sideband noise pretty well masks the two adjacent channels. Of course, there is no adjacent channel station that is licensed and protected to be listenable in the areas where the mask is dominant.

 

[wgliradio]

Oh it's most indeed true. Even people on this board who are arguably pro-HD don't dispute that the digital sidebands can be heard for AM HD. On every radio I own (from analog to digital+DSP), the first-adjacent channels of any HD Radio station sound like an open firehose.

And second and, in some cases, depending on location, power and signal conditions, even third.

 

[Play Freebird]

Bob Savage, owner of WYSL, has some legitimate concerns here. Keep in mind that WBZ dumps 2400 watts of digital hash on WYSL's channel, taking BZ's directional pattern into account and applying a digital sideband power factor of -16.2 dBc.
(see http://lists.radiolists.net/pipermail/broadcast/2006-April/030026.html)

The Rochester market is 350 miles west of Boston, where WBZ's predicted 10% skywave field at the WYSL site is predicted to exceed 2658 uV/m, so their digital sidebands on 1040 will exceed 411 uV/m ten percent of the time. That's some significant interference that WYSL must contend with, not only at night, but also during crtitical hours when power is cut back to protect WHO. Yet, Bob may not have any legal recourse. He is a local owner who just spent a lot of money upgrading his facility, and questions whether the benefits of AM IBOC outweigh what is sure to be the source of many listener complaints.

 

[davideduardo]

Bob Savage, owner of WYSL, has some legitimate concerns here. Keep in mind that WBZ dumps 2400 watts of digital hash on WYSL's channel, taking BZ's directional pattern into account and applying a digital sideband power factor of -16.2 dBc.
(see http://lists.radiolists.net/pipermail/broadcast/2006-April/030026.html)

The Rochester market is 350 miles west of Boston, where WBZ's predicted 10% skywave field at the WYSL site is predicted to exceed 2658 uV/m, so their digital sidebands on 1040 will exceed 411 uV/m ten percent of the time. That's some significant interference that WYSL must contend with, not only at night, but also during crtitical hours when power is cut back to protect WHO. Yet, Bob may not have any legal recourse. He is a local owner who just spent a lot of money upgrading his facility, and questions whether the benefits of AM IBOC outweigh what is sure to be the source of many listener complaints.

This is a case where a facilty that can not possibly have a future is trying to blame all kinds of other things on its inevitable demise. The station is too far out of the population center to really be viable daytime. It has a flea-power night authorization at a northern latitude, meaning it can not compete in most of the metro well into drive times in morning and afternoon. It is what anyone would consider a non-viable facility.

It is perhaps a bit cold to say that, whether local or not, the decision to try to make a go of that facility may not have been based in practicality. We have not only a deficient facility, but also the inability of all but the biggest AM signals to still compete _and_ the fact that AM audiences are ageing and advertisers are finding less and less reason to use them.

Another point is that in metros, where there are generally high noise levels from man made interference, there just are no significant diary returns for the ratings outside very strong contours... around 10 mv/m in noisier cities, and well above 5 mv/m in smaller metros. In LA, for example, the diary returns outside the 15 mv/m contours of AMs are minimal. So if the station is interfered with outside the really "usable" signal area, it is irrelevant as very few listeners will exist there anyway.

 

[OhioMediaWatch]

Bob Savage, WYSL's owner, is on this board, if I remember right. Maybe he'll pop in here and respond.

He just got a pretty significant daytime power upgrade. He's pushing 20KW from Avon directly at Rochester. Still a "rimshot", but a much more competitive signal than he had before. Is it the equivalent of 50KW of WHAM/1180? No, but it's probably similar to some of the lesser AMs in the city itself.

And his concern is justified. His night signal is still 500 watts, and it's a reach to hit Rochester with that. If WBZ's skywave IBOC carrier throws *anything* at Rochester, he loses even what part of a nighttime audience he may have on the southern fringes of that county. This is all theoretical, of course, because nighttime IBOC/HD isn't officially up yet on the AM band.

We're entering new territory, here.

 

[PocketRadio]

There was a WYSL thread going on here:

http://www.radio-info.com/smf/index.php/topic,60990.0.html

 

[Play Freebird]

This is a case where a facilty that can not possibly have a future is trying to blame all kinds of other things on its inevitable demise. The station is too far out of the population center to really be viable daytime. It has a flea-power night authorization at a northern latitude, meaning it can not compete in most of the metro well into drive times in morning and afternoon. It is what anyone would consider a non-viable facility.

Here's the plot of WYSL's 5 mV/m contour (scroll down), it appears to cover all of Rochester and many of the suburbs. The growth in that market has been towards the south (because Lake Ontario doesn't permit expansion to the north) so much of the suburban area is getting closer to 10 mV/m. I would say this signal is quite viable:

http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/cdbs/forms/prod/getattachment_exh.cgi?exhibit_id=260927

 

[Mike Walker]

Being an old fart, I just want to say that "PlayFreebird" is one of the best screen names I've seen in a while. I was around in the 70s when it wasn't unusual to get 30 calls a night on the request line saying "play Free Bird, Man!"