AM IBOC AT NIGHT: SHOULD GET INTERESTING!

[N0WVA]

Well, HD radio on FM is more or less a flop, I heard all advertising for it will be pulled off the air come January. Doesnt surprise me, the major auto mfgrs also dont want to mess with it when they got satellitte radio. How many people do you know have went out and purchased a "HD radio"? None that I know. I suspect this IBOC AM thing will be an even bigger flop, hopefully it wont totally trash AM.

[k4kyv]

Just like AM stereo.

Actually the AM stereo debacle was due to the FCC's indecision about establishing a standardised system.

With a good receiver, analogue FM sounds as good as or better than CD quality, particularly during live performances.  Even with a crappy receiver, most members of the public would not be able to tell the difference, unless they were "told" that the quality was better (like the audiophools with their oxygen-free copper and wooden control knobs).  So most people are not going to spend hundreds of dollars for something that makes no difference to their ears, and few new car purchasers will be very interested in the alternative radio channels and the text displays on the receiver that IBOC is supposed to offer.

The main use for IBOC radio would be in automobiles.  The driver is supposed to keep his or her eyes on the road, not on a LCD display on the radio.  The things could be a greater hazard than cell phones, with drivers distracted from watching the road while looking to see the name of the artist playing on the radio.

What would be the point of running digital audio on AM with its telephone-quality talk radio format?  Lush Windbag fans are not going to abandon their favourite propaganda artist just because "FM quality" music is suddenly available elsewhere on the AM band.  If that's what they wanted to listen to, they would already be listening to FM.  If anything, some of Lush's listeners will be lost because the station he is transmitting on will be jammed by adjacent channel IBOC hash.

What bothers me the most about IBOC is that a proprietary system is given a monopoly by the FCC.  Not only does the broadcast station have to invest in an expensive IBOC generator, they must pay a perpetual annual licence fee to Ibiquity for permission to use it.  I understand receiver manufacturers have to pay a licence fee as well, which jacks up the retail price per unit. There has even been talk that the Commission might eventually make it mandatory for all stations to go digital, forcing every FCC-licensed station to participate in Ibiquity's licence-fee scheme.

The term "HD Radio" grates on my nerves, kind of like hearing someone scratch a blackboard with their fingernail.  What does "High-Definition" have to do with audio quality or a digital streaming audio?

I say let IBOC die the natural death it deserves.  IMO it's a hairbrained scheme in the same league with the ARRL regulation-by-bandwidth proposal.

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

Analog FM is nowhere near CD quality. The SNR on most stereo broadcasts are horrendous. Further, the stereo separation is poor.

Some people get their propaganda from telephone quality voice broadcasts on FM now. It's called NPR. There is no logic in arguing against using AM IBOC in the future based on the programming in place at present.

[k4kyv]

I sometime notice a gurgling sound on FM stereo.  It sounds like a very unstable heterodyne in the background, almost like Tim's SBE rig.  It goes away when I switch the radio to mono.  I hear it on all the receivers in the house, but I don't hear it on the car radio.  Anyone else hear it?  Most people I try to demonstrate it to don't seem to notice it even when it is clearly audible, but to me it sticks out like a sore thumb.

The telephone quality news/talk NPR station here is on 1430 kHz AM.  The ones that play music in hi-fi stereo are at the bottom end of the FM band.

About all I listen to on broadcast radio is any one of the three audible NPR stations on FM, one independent university station on FM, and the NPR AM station.  I can't stand the rubbish on the commercial stations, and there is very little that interests me on shortwave any more.

But when I get a good FM signal, the music sounds pretty close to CD quality, with little background noise.  I do notice that the dynamic range is better on a CD. 

I'll believe IBOC sounds substantially better when I actually hear it.  So far, I have never laid eyes on an IBOC receiver.  None of the audio or electronic stores around here have them in stock or on display.  But from the tech data I have read regarding IBOC, the digital stream rate is lower than what I can get with my computer, and streaming audio over the computer never sounds as good to me as over-the-air FM.

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

There's no doubt, a well set up FM station can sound very good. Seems there a less and less of those these days. The killer to my ears is the SNR hit FMs take when running stereo. This is probably the area where IBOC could help the most. It's not that noticeable on most heavily processed pop type music, but screams at you during quieter passages of music with actual dynamics. On my first listen to IBOC, this was the most impressive change - no noise! The second was much improved stereo separation.

Rad Shack was selling an IBOC radio. I think it has been discontinued, so you may be able to get one cheap now.

[k4kyv]

I wonder how the signals will hold up under less than ideal condx. 

Some of our local TV stations are now transmitting digital signals (in TV, "digital" and "HD" are separate issues - you can have digital with standard definition).  At the demonstration I saw, I was amazed that with over-the-air reception using a rooftop antenna, the analogue signal was barely viewable - snowy and full of sparklies from line noise and other electrical interference.  The same station, using the same antenna and receiver, when reception was switched to digital, was perfectly clear, cable quality.  But the drawback was that the signal periodically dropped out and the screen sometimes went completely black and at other times the image became unviewable due to the tiling effect.  With digital you either have it or you don't.  Somewhat comparable to the capture effect of FM.

It will be interesting to see how well IBOC AM will hold up under skywave propagation, or FM inside cities with multipath from the tall buildings.  If the signal frequently drops out, listeners will either turn to XM and SIRIUS, or just stay with analogue.  If IBOC does really sound better and generate a reliable signal, listeners will slowly convert as old radios wear out, kind of like the changeover from AM to FM.  Took years.  Didn't occur overnight.

I can't see the public rushing out to replace existing BC receivers with new IBOC ones.  And if something is not done about the quality and variety of programming, IBOC will go the way of AM stereo.

[2ZE]

The one big benefit everyone seems to miss here is FM IBOC makes provisions for 2nd or even 3 rd channel of programming. Even AM IBOC has enough bandwidth to provide text and data stream info. I know what the people who have thier minds made up are going to say: "why have a 2nd channel when the 1st channel is garbage anyway?". If you read the R&O, it specifically says that broadcasters cannot run advertising. The only thing broadcasters can do to make money on these channels is to lease them out to other interests which would only diversify programming more.
While what HUZ says about SNR and quality is true, its not the main selling point: The main selling point is CONTENT. Stuff people have been pissing and moaning about on this board for years.
Also, someone made reference that "they" were pulling all HD radio ads off by January. HUH? All the ads are paid for by iBiquity digital and the HD Radio alliance (who are the broadcasters themselves).
Another myth: NPR wont do this. WRONG: NPR is a proponent of HD Radio, and currently lead in installs across the nation.
Die a natural death, possibly; but alot of the big broadacsters have a TON of moolah already invested. The reverse can be said for AM stereo. Many receivers were out before broadcasters started transmitting in AM stereo. The big broadcasters also are continuing to invest, and manufacturer's continue to develop the product.
Another myth: many small broadcasters wont invest in HD Radio. WRONG: in a report in Inside Radio, BE reports that many mid to smaller markets are starting to buy HD products when they are doing transmitter replcements. Licensing for smaller broadcasters is becoming more affordable, and is bundled in when a small market owner finances his/her upgrade.
Point is, alot of these arguements don't hold alot of weight, and are made by many who simply are just resisting change. Just my opine.

Mike 2ZE

[k4kyv]

Our local NPR station runs promotionals for HD throughout the day. They even list a number where you can call in to buy a receiver.  I think they are one of the leading proponents of FB-IBOC since I don't hear the promotions on the commercial channels (but I don't listen to them that much).

The biggest gripe I have with IBOC in general is the proprietary licensing fee, and particularly with AM IBOC, is the digital hash on either side of the signal.  I can already hear some hash here, although it hasn't really bothered my personally, because AM radio has turned into such a vast wasteland that nothing I would choose to listen to is being jammed.

But I would hate to lose the option of listening to distant AM stations via skywave at night.

[2ZE]

But I would hate to lose the option of listening to distant AM stations via skywave at night.

Sad, but true. Broadcasters are not concerned about it however. So long as it doesn't interfere with thier .5mV contour. Many small market stations use it as a battle cry against AM IBOC. They say they will lose alot of nighttime coverage, but who are they foolin'. Many stations run such a low power at night, and unless you're one of these big Class A1 stations, these low power signals are so garbled up by co-channel interference, you can't listen to it anyway.
Being in the biz so to speak, its actually really sad to see how many station owners who really don't care too much about thier license anyway. Letting station facilities run into ruin, poorly kept public files, lack of business hour staff, and sometimes just a flagrant disregard for the regulations. The one's who really care, are more likely to buy IBOC equipment because they are upgrading thier facilities either because of a sale or because they actually care.
As far as a fee is concerned; this is still a capitalist society and iBiquity holds the patent. Its only fair, because they indeed are afforded patent protection. When the patent runs out, trust me, there will be new companies coming along to duplicate or introduce something different. But if you look around the world, IBOC is starting to gain traction. The reason, its very definition, IN BAND ON CHANNEL. The failure of Eureka 147 is getting the attention of the CRTC in Canada, and many countires are starting to favor IBOC vs. DRM because you do not need to completely scrap an analog receiver, you can still receive analog broadcasts in the IBOC system, not true with DRM.

[N0WVA]

Also, someone made reference that "they" were pulling all HD radio ads off by January. HUH? All the ads are paid for by iBiquity digital and the HD Radio alliance (who are the broadcasters themselves).
 


Mike 2ZE

http://www.hear2.com/2007/07/hd-radio-market.html#comments

[N0WVA]

What this whole thing boils down to is money and control. Has nothing to do with quality, has nothing to do with content. In the event that there will be something worth listening to, there will be a subscription fee implemented. And you will still get the advertisements. Thats what this whole digital crap is about. Dont try to fool yourselves that it has to do with anything else. There is absolutely no reason to trash what we have now.

Then we have these ibiquity jerks in bed with the FCC to foist thier plan on the unsuspecting public. They all get thier cut out of OUR airwaves, and the system is worse than when it started. I dont know about you, but Im all for more freedom in broadcasting, and this digital crap will probably make a lot of small stations pull the switch.

As far as coverage, digital wont cut it in rural areas. I can just hear my "hd radio" dropping out every two seconds now. Just lovely. Not everyone lives in a city where you can see the broadcasting tower from your back yard.

[2ZE]

I just love these guys that are "in the know". What news report is this based on?

iBiquity and the FCC in bed? Man, get your fact rights.

Have you even listened to an HD Radio? I can recieve digital from Syracuse and Rochester from my folks place 60 miles away. Also, the blend is seamless from digital to analog.

Subscription service? Commercials? Did you even read the R&O?

As much as I would love to continue this discussion, I'll hit the eject button before my blood pressure boils over from simmer. As soon as you stop seeing the black helicopters flying around, maybe this discussion can be continued.

Mike, 2ZE

[WA3VJB]

I don't know about seamless.

We've got a digital tuner here at work.

There's a huge time discrepancy in the switchover among FM stations around DC.
On the other hand, it's cool that a pissweak little analog FM college station north of Baltimore is sending their stream to a 50Kw FM iN DC on one of the digital sub-channels.

Gets me my new music fix quite strappingly.

[Todd, KA1KAQ]

Will they be making a converter box that interfaces with (straps onto) my Zenith shutterdial?   

"The last thing you need is another radio!"

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

For most stations, the ENTIRE rest of the audio/transmission chain after the mic is digital. It doesn't make much sense for the air link to remain analog. By remaining analog, broadcaster will soon find themselves shut out and cut off from the rest of the telecommunications world which has most gone digital years ago.

Broadcasters still aren't fully exploiting the Web for delivery and they are even further behind in taking advantage of wireless outlets (WIMAX, cell, etc). It is these outlets that are far more likely to "kill" broadcasting than IBOC. If most people can get their music/news and such on their cell phone, why would they bother with a standard radio, IBOC or otherwise?

The train has left the station. Broadcasters better hitch a ride before they become irrelevant.

[2ZE]

For most stations, the ENTIRE rest of the audio/transmission chain after the mic is digital

True, True..

The train has left the station. Broadcasters better hitch a ride before they become irrelevant.

Word!

[N0WVA]

I just love these guys that are "in the know". What news report is this based on?

iBiquity and the FCC in bed? Man, get your fact rights.

Have you even listened to an HD Radio? I can recieve digital from Syracuse and Rochester from my folks place 60 miles away. Also, the blend is seamless from digital to analog.

Subscription service? Commercials? Did you even read the R&O?

As much as I would love to continue this discussion, I'll hit the eject button before my blood pressure boils over from simmer. As soon as you stop seeing the black helicopters flying around, maybe this discussion can be continued.

Mike, 2ZE

Is there any wording that prevents the broadcasters fron charging a fee?

If experience is any indicator, Id say they wait till about 50% of the audience has digital capability, then they will start with monthly fees on the "prime" channels first.

Im sure there were many just like you when C-band was all the rage....then look what happened, everybody that had any kind of programming started scrambling the signals....and that was before there was digital. Now with digital, even radio can be easily made into subscription.

Can we learn from history, or ask to get screwed again?

[WA3VJB]

The impact is pretty bad for in-band, on channel digital transmission on the AM band.

I cannot see how the FCC has justified dramatically increased adjacent channel interference, changing from the traditional, additional coverage area a station might market to, and instead having a minimum guaranteed contour against interference.

The shift or the addition of digital signals on the AM band is not mandated by the government, as with the TV conversion, but appears to be more of a marketing strategy.

[2ZE]

The shift or the addition of digital signals on the AM band is not mandated by the government, as with the TV conversion, but appears to be more of a marketing strategy.

precisely, it is a marketing strategy. However, at some point it will either be mandated, or scrapped.

I cannot see how the FCC has justified dramatically increased adjacent channel interference, changing from the traditional, additional coverage area a station might market to, and instead having a minimum guaranteed contour against interference.

I agree on this point, but the FCC in its R&O does provide protection to the .5 mV contour. As far as additional coverage, many broadcasters are not going to market (ie. sell ad time) thier station in different cities because thier night time coverage increases.

[WA3VJB]

Mike when it comes to adjacent channel interference, I am wondering about the fate of analog AM stations on the edge of a metro area. For example, I started at a kilowatt daytimer situated right between Baltimore and Washington. Over the years, they tried a "Talk of the Capital" format targeting DC listeners 20-30 miles away, before talk radio had really caught on, and then tried to pull from the bedroom communities again within about a 30 mile radius of the three-tower directional array.

The station, already a marginal money maker at best, would have been ruined during its daytime hours of broadcast had they been on a frequency within the digital splashover of any of the big city, high-powered stations.

They counted on and successfully peddled airtime to areas beyond their 0.5 uv contour.

And this was in the days of having a full 10kc of bandwidth to work with (pre-9Kc NRSC). Some of the old airchecks of the "progressive" and "album oriented rock" formats where I was doing the news still sound pretty damn good.

A fairly simple audio chain, a trio of dbx160 and a Crown splitter on a CCA AM1000D, or else a BL40 UREI ModuLimiter into a Gates BC1-H

[2ZE]

These stations will fall victim to intereference beyond that contour. A tough situation, but in the eyes of the FCC, beyond the .5 mV is not providing a reliabe service. The station was licensed for a particular community, and to service that community, not skirt the fringes of greater D.C. for as much advertising dough as possible. The owner of the station might not see it that way, but the FeeCee's does.
 There was an article written about a year ago in Radio World about AM IBOC in the "Guy Wire" section (an annonymous writer for RW for those who don't read RW). He suggested that maybe it was time to start "thinning out the herd" as far as AM station licensee's. While I agree that there are station licensee's who don't give a rat's ass about thier stations; taking away licenses for the sake of IBOC would just be wrong IMO. Many small town operators actually do care what happens in thier communities and provide a valuable service.