CBS/Infinity and IBOC-AM?
Frank Dresser
other CBS/Infinity stations also turned off the IBOC noise?
WIND has dropped IBOC. Aside from the Clear Channel stations, it doesn't
seem like there's much commitment to IBOC-AM, at least in Chicago.
Frank Dresser
mi...@sushi.com
isn't always turned on. It's not like anyone is using the service. ;-)
Frank Dresser
<mi...@sushi.com> wrote in message
news:1135844535.6...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I'll check KCBS in the AM, but it has been my experience that that IBOC
> isn't always turned on. It's not like anyone is using the service. ;-)
>
>
the noise. IBOC started intermittently on the two CBS stations here, but
had run continously during the daytime for maybe a couple of months. I
don't think I've heard the sidbands on either station for about 3 weeks.
Clear Channel's AM stations in Chicago continue to use IBOC.
Some, not many but some, people should be using the service. There were a
few rather expensive IBOC receivers introduced this year. IBOC was supposed
to be building momentum now.
It seems curious that a couple of big time clears have turned off the IBOC
sidebands during the Christmas season.
Frank Dresser
Unknown
started some ads pushing the format so I don't think it is going over
very well. All news in HD....gotta have it!
Jim
jon
Pardon me for my ignorance but what is IBOC? I will never know without
asking. I appreciate in advance the response! Have a great week and a
wonderful New Year! Jon in South Carolina.
RHF
On FM KDFC in the SF Bay Area was running IBOC
http://www.kdfc.com/new/home_flash.cfm
http://www.ibiquity.com/press/pr/061903.htm
- Owned by Bonneville International Corp.
KDFC is proud to be the first station in the world broadcasting in (HD)
digital radio, with twice the fidelity of satellite radio.
- by Paul Black, KDFC Engineering Department
http://www.kdfc.com/new/hd.cfm
The HD Radio signal is called an "In Band, On Channel" (IBOC) signal.
To me IBOC makes Sound Sense and Good Business Cents
for FM Stereo Radio - But for AM Talk Radio ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
Long, winding road ahead for digital radio
More stations are broadcasting it,
but few listeners own receivers that can get better signal
- by Benny Evangelista
- Chronicle Staff Writer
- May 31, 2004
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/05/31/BUGO76TLFU1.DTL&type=printable
NOTE - IBiquity has the upper hand in getting stations to convert
because its investors include the biggest radio corporations, including
: Clear Channel Communications, Bonneville International Corp.,
Susquehanna Radio Corp., Viacom Inc. and ABC Inc.
IBOC Radio Station "On-the-Air"
http://ibiquity.com/hdradio/hdradio_hdstations.htm
just my two cents worth ~ RHF
.
.
. .
.
Brenda Ann
"jon" <jonre...@wmconnect.com> wrote in message
news:1135849347.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
IBOC is digital (sort of) compatible radio. It stands for In Band On
Channel. The system uses a digitally modulated carrier attached to the main
carrier of an AM or FM station. In theory, it allows the two signals to
co-exist on the same frequency. In practice, it fails miserably. One of the
biggest engineering problems with IBOC on the AM band is adjacent channel
interference from the digital signal. During the daytime, they just ignore
it (the attitude of the stations using it is that they don't care if their
digital sidebands interfere with the reception of a non-local station). It's
currently not allowed to run IBOC on AM at night due to severe interference
issues. FM IBOC is a headache as far as trying to receive rimshot stations
on first and second adjacent channels.
dxAce
Brenda Ann wrote:
It's just like DRM... It's QRM!
dxAce
Michigan
USA
Brenda Ann
"dxAce" <dx...@milestones.com> wrote in message
news:43B3D4A8...@milestones.com...
No arguments from me, Steve.. there goes the (DX) neighborhood.
Doug Smith W9WI
> Pardon me for my ignorance but what is IBOC? I will never know without
IBOC = "In Band On Channel". A system for transmitting digital radio
"on the same frequency" as the station's analog signal. Also known as
"HD Radio".
In quotes, because actually adjacent frequencies are used. For FM IBOC
the digital signal uses about half of each adjacent frequency. (for
example, if a station on 93.1MHz uses IBOC their digital signal
stretches down to about 92.95 and up to about 93.25, using half of the
92.9 and 93.3 channels.)
For AM IBOC it uses all of the first adjacent and half of the second.
WLAC-1510's IBOC stretches down to 1495 and up to 1525.
As you might imagine, severe interference results. On FM, the theory is
that this interference happens in areas beyond the "primary coverage" of
the station -- that *officially*, you can't get the station in places
where someone else's IBOC is interfering with it. The FCC's definition
of a station's coverage area is far too pessimistic for good radios
(like car radios). [0]
AM stations are currently allowed to operate IBOC only between 6am and
6pm, due to the severe interference that would be caused by running it
at night. IBOC proponents are suggesting that the FCC stop protecting
the nighttime skywave coverage areas of clear-channel AM stations. That
would allow stations to run their IBOC all night. It would also mean
that millions of Americans in less-heavily-populated areas would lose
all nighttime AM service. (if IBOC-AM were fully deployed, I would
receive *ONE* AM station at night - WSM. 100 miles west of here, the
count would be *ZERO*. West Tennessee may not be Manhattan, but it's
not an unpopulated empty desert either...)
IBOC is unique to the United States. The rest of the world - including
Canada - has adopted a system called "Eureka", which operates on its own
VHF/UHF frequencies and doesn't interfere with existing service.
Eureka offers every station in a city identical coverage. I'm pretty
sure IBOC was invented mostly to prevent the adoption of Eureka in the
U.S., and the resulting ability of low-power, AM, and daytime-only
stations to develop a full-fidelity, full-time signal able to compete
with the high-powered FMs.
--
Doug Smith W9WI
Pleasant View (Nashville), TN EM66
http://www.w9wi.com
[0] and too optimistic for cheap radios, like boom boxes & "Walkmen"...
Frank Dresser
<R.F. Collins> wrote in message
news:v3b7r1ph3q2fsun0o...@4ax.com...
> It looks like WWJ here in Detroit is still running it. They also
> started some ads pushing the format so I don't think it is going over
> very well. All news in HD....gotta have it!
>
> Jim
>
IBOC is again on at WSCR-670. It's still off at WBBM-780.
Both stations are talkers. WSCR is sport talk and WBBM is all news.
Frank Dresser
Frank Dresser
"Doug Smith W9WI" <w9...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:43B3F92B...@invalid.invalid...
[snip]
>
> Eureka offers every station in a city identical coverage. I'm pretty
> sure IBOC was invented mostly to prevent the adoption of Eureka in the
> U.S., and the resulting ability of low-power, AM, and daytime-only
> stations to develop a full-fidelity, full-time signal able to compete
> with the high-powered FMs.
My pet IBOC theory is that the push for it comes from the desire to
broadcast independent channels from the sidebands. Two or three programs
from the same license.
> --
> Doug Smith W9WI
> Pleasant View (Nashville), TN EM66
> http://www.w9wi.com
>
> [0] and too optimistic for cheap radios, like boom boxes & "Walkmen"...
>
My old 80s era Sony Walkman is actually a decent AM dxer. I normally will
pick up the all usual nighttime clear channel frequencies off the internal
ferrite antenna.
Frank Dresser
David
Don't they have to bandwidth-limit the analog when the HD's on?
David Eduardo
"Frank Dresser" <analo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:8bTsf.203261$qk4....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "Doug Smith W9WI" <w9...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:43B3F92B...@invalid.invalid...
>
> [snip]
>
>>
>> Eureka offers every station in a city identical coverage. I'm pretty
>> sure IBOC was invented mostly to prevent the adoption of Eureka in the
>> U.S., and the resulting ability of low-power, AM, and daytime-only
>> stations to develop a full-fidelity, full-time signal able to compete
>> with the high-powered FMs.
>
> My pet IBOC theory is that the push for it comes from the desire to
> broadcast independent channels from the sidebands. Two or three programs
> from the same license.
The current adaptation allows one analog and two digital signals, one of
which has the same content of the analog signal.
AM IBOC only allows one digital signal, in parallel withthe analog signal.
David Eduardo
"David" <ric...@knac.com> wrote in message
news:0b18r11q58h0v9p3r...@4ax.com...
Only on AM. On FM the analog system suffers no degradation.
cuh...@webtv.net
tuned in WSM Memphis,I know it used to come in pretty good here in
Jackson,Mississippi at night times.I live about 192 miles South of
Memphis,according to www.devilfinder.com Find Distance
Indo,Jackson Mississippi Memphis Tennessee,but I think Indo is mistaken
about that,I live over 200 miles South of Memphis.
cuhulin
David
I'll take that as a Yes.
Radio TexMex
Can you get any others from Memphis? WDIA, WHBQ, WMC79? I'm from there.
- Matt
cuh...@webtv.net
try those other stations tonight.
cuhulin
mi...@sushi.com
Incidentally, IBOC leads to lower conventional AM quality on the IBOC
station itself since they have to narrow the bandwidth of the analog
signal.
mike.e....@abc.com
written is very accurate. The IBOC technology as implemented in the
USA was developed by Ibiquity, Inc and is licensed under the name 'HD
Radio'. Hence, if you're interested in purchasing a receiver to decode
this technology, do a search for 'HD Radio'. To date, there are very
few receivers available, largely due to standards resolution, and the
long lead-time required by Detroit to implement new technologies into
US made automobiles.
My sense is that radio Broadcasters, feeling the heat of competition
from XM / Sirius / Ipods / Internet streams + WiFi, as well as the
Eureka 147 digital radio roll-out in Europe (whereby all radio services
emanate from a single point-source, and all have the same technical
capabilities) felt the need to "do something digital". It had to be on
the traditional AM/FM band because Broadcasters have paid a ton of
money for each of their properties; to simply abandon the AM/FM scheme
in order to implement 'digital' would have been financially devastating
to station owners.
As has been discussed, HD Radio is not currently authorized on AM
stations at night, ("night is *not* defined as 6 AM to 6 PM, but rather
varies with a station's geographic location and the time of year)
though a serious lobbying effort is on to change this. Hence, at this
point it does not seriously impact DX opportunities, since most
long-range reception is a nighttime phenomenon (when the IBOC signals
are off).
Here in Los Angeles, we've implemented HD Radio on AM 1110, Radio
Disney - a children's formatted music station. I would describe the
aural result as "startling" - 14 kHz stereo, very low noise, no
obviously noticable artifacts, no multi-path in an automotive
environment - in short, it's *very* hard to believe you're hearing an
AM station.
Compare this to a *typical* AM receiver (not necessarily a Drake R8B or
Eton E1/XM) with a mono 3.5 kHz response and loud buzzes evey time you
drive under a power line, and you can see the attractivness to the
Broadcasting community. "Here, finally is a way to compete with new
technologies" [programming issues aside!].
On the FM side, the aural improvement is much less noticeable. Since
no pre-emphasis is required in the IBOC signal path, the high-end
sounds more 'natural' and 'airy', but these are very subjective terms.
What is new is the ability to "split" the IBOC bandwidth, such that
station W*** - FM can now have 2 or 3 full fidelity "sister" or
"associated" stations. This will provide FM broadcasters with the
opportunity to explore new (and hopefully more creative) programming
opportunities.
Here in LA, about a half-dozen FM broadcasters have already implemented
this "multiple channel" broadcasting, and most of these new channels
are (for the time being) commercial free.
Too, there is a lot of talk about implementing 'surround' sound on IBOC
FM, which also might prove to be a 'startling' addition to our radio
experiences.
Again, my sense is that broadcasters are thinking that the analog
technology that served us well in the 20th Century has run its course,
and that to remain a viable medium a transition to digital *must* take
place. The trouble is that there are (probably) a half-billion analog
receivers in the USA alone capable of receiving analog AM / FM, and
these can't be abandoned overnight. The Station's around the country
are now in the first phase of implementing digital radio, in the form
of IBOC / HD Radio. And my bet is that it's *not* going to go away.
Mike Worrall
ABC Radio
Los Angeles
dxAce
mike.e....@abc.com wrote:
That's unfortunate in that it needs to die just like DRM needs to die.
dxAce
Michigan
USA
cuh...@webtv.net
can't them a...oles leave analog alone and leave well enough alone?
cuhulin
David
It's a fiendish plot to make you go crazy.
David
wrote:
>
>
>> Again, my sense is that broadcasters are thinking that the analog
>> technology that served us well in the 20th Century has run its course,
>> and that to remain a viable medium a transition to digital *must* take
>> place. The trouble is that there are (probably) a half-billion analog
>> receivers in the USA alone capable of receiving analog AM / FM, and
>> these can't be abandoned overnight. The Station's around the country
>> are now in the first phase of implementing digital radio, in the form
>> of IBOC / HD Radio. And my bet is that it's *not* going to go away.
>
>That's unfortunate in that it needs to die just like DRM needs to die.
>
>dxAce
>Michigan
>USA
>
>
The USA could have gone Eureka 147 but the NAB and Collins/Rockwell
blocked it. Now they have to deal with the consequences, XM and
Sirius.
m II
They've apparently been enjoying their success for quite some time now.
mike
cuh...@webtv.net
The Great Escape movie on tv,A Bridge Too Far movie has just now started
on tv.I am trying to figure if I am weird enough to stay awoke and watch
that movie tonight.Nahhh,soon as I finish this cigarette,I am cutting
the light and hitting the sack.
www.devilfinder.com The Real Great Escape
cuhulin
RHF
Some would say that 'you' are evidence if it's success ~ RHF
Frank Dresser
"David Eduardo" <amd...@pacbell.com> wrote in message
news:_8Usf.48275$6e1....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
> The current adaptation allows one analog and two digital signals, one of
> which has the same content of the analog signal.
>
> AM IBOC only allows one digital signal, in parallel withthe analog signal.
>
>
Yes, but we at rec.radio.shortwave celebrate conspiracy theories and Hidden
Knowledge. So, would it be impossible to develop a new generation of
IBOC-AM which would have independent programming on the digital sidebands?
Of course, the "new and improved" IBOC would require consumers to pay for
yet another Ibiquity patented radio.
Also, when the presumed analog phase-out is completed, will the channels be
restored to the old standard, or will the broadcasters have to find
something to do with all that redundant bandwidth?
Frank Dresser
Frank Dresser
Frank Dresser
[snip]
>
> Here in Los Angeles, we've implemented HD Radio on AM 1110, Radio
> Disney - a children's formatted music station. I would describe the
> aural result as "startling" - 14 kHz stereo, very low noise, no
> obviously noticable artifacts, no multi-path in an automotive
> environment - in short, it's *very* hard to believe you're hearing an
> AM station.
>
> Compare this to a *typical* AM receiver (not necessarily a Drake R8B or
> Eton E1/XM) with a mono 3.5 kHz response and loud buzzes evey time you
> drive under a power line, and you can see the attractivness to the
> Broadcasting community. "Here, finally is a way to compete with new
> technologies" [programming issues aside!].
>
[snip]
Yes, but as you suggest, higher priced analog -- or older, as in
boatanchor -- radio technology outperforms the newer analog radios. But
people seem more interested in a radio's price rather than quality. Sharper
skirted filters, low distortion detectors and real noise limiters could now
be mainstreamed into current radios, if people were willing to pay a little
extra.
And things might have changed, but most people don't seem to have even half
an audiophiles interest in good sound. FM took a generation to catch up
with AM. AM stereo faded away. People are moving from CD quality to MP3
quality.
Good enough is plenty good as long as it's cheaper and more convienient.
Frank Dresser
Ron Hardin
610 and 1230 in Central are noticeable IBOC splatterers.
I manage to null 1230 to hear WHIZ 1240 Zanesville.
--
Ron Hardin
rhha...@mindspring.com
On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.
Doug Smith W9WI
> As has been discussed, HD Radio is not currently authorized on AM
> stations at night, ("night is *not* defined as 6 AM to 6 PM, but rather
> varies with a station's geographic location and the time of year)
> though a serious lobbying effort is on to change this. Hence, at this
> point it does not seriously impact DX opportunities, since most
> long-range reception is a nighttime phenomenon (when the IBOC signals
> are off).
From FCC Public Notice DA-03-831:
(http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-03-831A1.pdf)
"Until further notice, AM stations must restrict IBOC operation to
daytime hours. An AM station with authority to operate between 6 a.m.
and local sunrise (pre-sunrise hours) and between local sunset and 6
p.m. (post-sunset hours) may operate its hybrid IBOC system during those
periods. "
As I read that, AM stations that are authorized to operate in analog
between the hours of 6am and 6pm are also authorized to operate IBOC
during those hours. Admittedly those two sentences could have been
worded a lot better!
That is indeed a different definition of "night" than the one the FCC
uses for determining whether a station should be on nighttime power
and/or antenna pattern. Mike's KDIS is required to reduce power from
50kw to 20kw at night, and that change is required to take place at
4:45pm. (for the next two days; it slips to 5pm on the 1st of January)
But as I read it, they can leave the IBOC on - on the lower power and
night directional pattern - until 6:00.
> Again, my sense is that broadcasters are thinking that the analog
> technology that served us well in the 20th Century has run its course,
> and that to remain a viable medium a transition to digital *must* take
> place. The trouble is that there are (probably) a half-billion analog
> receivers in the USA alone capable of receiving analog AM / FM, and
> these can't be abandoned overnight. The Station's around the country
> are now in the first phase of implementing digital radio, in the form
> of IBOC / HD Radio. And my bet is that it's *not* going to go away.
We are finding in TV just how slowly old receivers are being dropped.
In TV we have the advantage of cable and satellite operators doing the
downconversion for us in 85% of households - and the fact that a given
household has a relatively small number of TV receivers. Also, by using
an "in-band separate channel" conversion scheme, the new digital TV
signals result in little or no interference to existing analog service.
Even so it appears the transition will take more than ten years.
Radio doesn't have most of those advantages. Nobody will be
downconverting HD to analog for old receivers. Most households have
handfuls of radios - far more than they have TVs. For the millions of
us in outer suburbs (and the millions in lightly-populated and rural
areas), the interference will not be negligible. Especially on AM.
FM IBOC is certainly an upgrade for those who listen to mainstream
stations *and* live (and commute) in the core of the market. It is
likely to be a major unpleasant surprise for those who live in outer
suburbs and outlying towns.
cuh...@webtv.net
scroll down and click on,Audio Sites.Yes,I do own and use a Brickwall
surge filter,lifetime guarantee,you can't buy better than Brickwall,in
my opinion.
cuhulin
Mark Zenier
Doug Smith W9WI <w9...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>Eureka offers every station in a city identical coverage. I'm pretty
>sure IBOC was invented mostly to prevent the adoption of Eureka in the
>U.S., and the resulting ability of low-power, AM, and daytime-only
>stations to develop a full-fidelity, full-time signal able to compete
>with the high-powered FMs.
The local NPR station (KUOW) had an hour with their engineering staff
on one of their talk shows last summer when they started using IBOC.
One of them said, directly, that the National Association of Broadcasters
opposed other digitial radio systems because they doubled the number of
available channels.
Mark Zenier mze...@eskimo.com
Googleproofaddress(account:mzenier provider:eskimo domain:com)
Kristoff Bonne
Frank Dresser schreef:
>>The current adaptation allows one analog and two digital signals, one of
>>which has the same content of the analog signal.
>>AM IBOC only allows one digital signal, in parallel withthe analog signal.
> Yes, but we at rec.radio.shortwave celebrate conspiracy theories and Hidden
> Knowledge. So, would it be impossible to develop a new generation of
> IBOC-AM which would have independent programming on the digital sidebands?
AFAIK, the standards say that -when the signal-quality of the digital
signal drops to low- the radio should switch back to analog.
There seams to have done quite some effort to keep the analog and
digitale signals syncronous.
This means that the analog and digital audio-channels must be the same.
(this of course does not apply to any additional digital channel).
From what I understand, IBOC was developed because the US broadcasters
did not like DAB/eureka for a number of reasons; one of them being "it
did not fit the current business model"; so that why they opted for a
system that allowed for as less as possibe new content and where the
digital channel is contenwise the same as the analog channel, only with
better audio-quality; and -therefor- influence the current situation in
the radio-market as less as possible.
The funny thing is that -with nationwide satellite-radio and podcasting-
the radio-market is changing anyway.
> Also, when the presumed analog phase-out is completed, will the channels be
> restored to the old standard, or will the broadcasters have to find
> something to do with all that redundant bandwidth?
Depends on the legislation. If it has proven to have worked OK for I
don't know how many years (during the switch-over) why go back to the
old bandplan?
A fully-digital frequeny-slot in band II (400 Khz) does allow for -say-
3 to 4 radio-channels at as-good audioquality as current FM; why go back
to just one channel.
Radio-stations will probably be interested in these new channels to
compete with XM, sirius, podcasting, (perhaps) DVB-H, etc. etc.
> Frank Dresser
Cheerio! Kr. Bonne.
Kristoff Bonne
dxAce schreef:
>> ... FM IBOC is a headache as far as trying to receive rimshot stations
>>on first and second adjacent channels.
> It's just like DRM... It's QRM!
And the same argument applies as for DRM. What is radio-bandwidth for?
For people to listen to a radio-station or for DX-ers to receive some
far-away station?
Far more people are interested in better audio-quality or additional
stations then DXing.
As far as there is no conflict between these two groups of people, no
problem; but if -as is now the case- the gouvernement has to chose
between one or the other; the choise is pretty easy.
And you can post "DRM = QRM" or "'tart boy" as much as you like; this
will not change the situation.
> dxAce
Cheerio! Kr. Bonne.
dxAce
Kristoff Bonne wrote:
There's a new one... tart boy...
Think I'll use it.
Thanks,
dxAce
Michigan
USA
RHF
The same applies to the limited number of former High Powered
"Clear Channel" 50KW Radio Stations.
Many more Local 1KW, 5KW and 10KW Radios Stations serve more
People (Radio Listeners) and produce more Local Jobs and Revenue
plus Local Taxes that aggregate into a larger National Economy then
a Few Clear Channel Big Stations.
After all it is "The Broadcasting Business" and a Corporation with
a Hundred Local Radio Stations can make more Money; then a
Corporation with a Few High Powered Clear Channel Radio Stations.
jm2cw ~ RHF
mi...@sushi.com
the DRM demo on the net posted on this NG, and the audio sounded
"digital". The problem with these compression schemes is when the
feces hits the fan, the powers that be seem to vote for more
compression versus better sound quality.
dxAce
mi...@sushi.com wrote:
> While we all agree that DxArse's mantra is annoying, I gave a listen to
> the DRM demo on the net posted on this NG, and the audio sounded
> "digital". The problem with these compression schemes is when the
> feces hits the fan, the powers that be seem to vote for more
> compression versus better sound quality.
Well, the DRM promoter's mantra is annoying as well, 'tard boy!
IBOC and DRM = QRM
dxAce
Michigan
USA
cuh...@webtv.net
cuhulin
David
>www.krud.com
>cuhulin
>
www.kdil.com
Brenda Ann
"Kristoff Bonne" <compaq...@kristoff.bonne> wrote in message
news:43b56f6e$0$334$ba62...@news.skynet.be...
> Gegroet,
>
> dxAce schreef:
>>> ... FM IBOC is a headache as far as trying to receive rimshot stations
>>>on first and second adjacent channels.
>
>> It's just like DRM... It's QRM!
>
> And the same argument applies as for DRM. What is radio-bandwidth for? For
> people to listen to a radio-station or for DX-ers to receive some far-away
> station?
>
> Far more people are interested in better audio-quality or additional
> stations then DXing.
>
> As far as there is no conflict between these two groups of people, no
> problem; but if -as is now the case- the gouvernement has to chose between
> one or the other; the choise is pretty easy.
I can't speak for or against DRM, as I've never heard it. However, IBOC
*IS* a bad source of interference. And not just to DX'ers. Not everyone
lives in a big city, many (most?) live in suburbs or rural areas where there
is no 'local' radio station. These people of necessity must listen to what
are referred to as 'rimshots'. These are stations which are considered to
be on the far rim of a city's coverage area. Many of these are at only 400
KHz spacing from the stations in the cities, and are very prone to
interference from the IBOC digital signals from those second-adjacent
channels.
Even IN the cities, if someone likes to listen to a station in the next city
that has programming unavailable in their own city, this is now nearly
impossible.
As far as AM IBOC is concerned, it not only degrades reception of first and
second adjacent channels, it degrades reception of it's own analog on
channel signal, especially on radios designed with wider than 3 KHz IF
bandwidths (which includes most radios made in the 70's and before, of which
there are still tens of millions in use).
m II
> Just because I am weird doesn't mean I am crazy.I just finished watching
> The Great Escape movie on tv,A Bridge Too Far movie has just now started
> on tv.I am trying to figure if I am weird enough to stay awoke and watch
> that movie tonight.Nahhh,soon as I finish this cigarette,I am cutting
> the light and hitting the sack.
You should start smoking in bed. Think of the convenience!
mike
Telamon
mike.e....@abc.com wrote:
< Snip >
> Here in Los Angeles, we've implemented HD Radio on AM 1110, Radio
> Disney - a children's formatted music station. I would describe the
> aural result as "startling" - 14 kHz stereo, very low noise, no
> obviously noticable artifacts, no multi-path in an automotive
> environment - in short, it's *very* hard to believe you're hearing an
> AM station.
>
> Compare this to a *typical* AM receiver (not necessarily a Drake R8B or
> Eton E1/XM) with a mono 3.5 kHz response and loud buzzes evey time you
> drive under a power line, and you can see the attractivness to the
> Broadcasting community. "Here, finally is a way to compete with new
> technologies" [programming issues aside!].
< Snip >
This is my main contention that this digital technology does not sound
better. It is still way to low a bit rate for me to call it "good
sounding." Yes, you don't get the static and power line noise but the
trade off is low quality sound filled with digital artifacts. Basically
you trade background noise and interference where it exists and trade
it for low quality sound all the time. Other trades are drop outs
instead of selective fading for example. This is just a mixed bag of
good and bad at the cost of obsoleting all receivers made since radio
began. I can't think of a worse trade off and it is just plain stupid to
try and cram it down the general publics throat.
--
Telamon
Ventura, California
m II
Well, lookie here..the Ace as a teenager. It explains a lot.
http://www.kdil.com/Images/kick-me.jpg
mike
bajoh...@yahoo.com
up on HD radio anyways a couple of things:
First of all, if AM is mostly talk - as it is now -- what is the audio
difference offered by HD?
And secondly, if the stations are using parts of other band widths to
pull this off -- at least in populated markets - like LA, Chicago and
New York -- isn't HD going to be a nightmare for the FCC. It was bad
enough just trying to protect AM Clear Channel stations when the sun
goes down. How on earth will the FCC ever be able to govern all of
this - not mention the engineering nightmare it will cause?? But then
I'm not an engineer, maybe it's not as bad as it seems.
bajoh...@yahoo.com
actually get better AM reception wtih HD or IBOC then it would be a
great addition to AM radio. Personally, it seems somehow scareligous
to listen to XM or Sirius. I just miss the commercial aspect of radio.
So, anything to keep AM/FM viable would be great. Do you mean by
fidelity sister stations that they can actually run separate
programming -- we have a station near me that broadcasts on like 94.7
and then also has a second transmitter located nearby that broadcast on
94.9 - but they are the same programming sounds.
Thanks for your insight.
Kristoff Bonne
dxAce schreef:
>>And you can post "DRM = QRM" or "'tart boy" as much as you like; this
>>will not change the situation.
> There's a new one... tart boy...
Hey, english is my thirth language. Perhaps can we coninue this
discussion in dutch, french or german if you want.
> Think I'll use it.
Feel free.
But I have to tell you I plan to take a patent on it, so I hope you
don't mind paying my 1 euro every time you use it.
> dxAce
Cheerio! Kr. Bonne.
Frank Dresser
"Kristoff Bonne" <compaq...@kristoff.bonne> wrote in message
> Gegroet,
>
>
> Frank Dresser schreef:
>
> > Yes, but we at rec.radio.shortwave celebrate conspiracy theories and
Hidden
> > Knowledge. So, would it be impossible to develop a new generation of
> > IBOC-AM which would have independent programming on the digital
sidebands?
>
> AFAIK, the standards say that -when the signal-quality of the digital
> signal drops to low- the radio should switch back to analog.
> There seams to have done quite some effort to keep the analog and
> digitale signals syncronous.
>
> This means that the analog and digital audio-channels must be the same.
> (this of course does not apply to any additional digital channel).
Right. But I'm wondering what the technical limits of the IBOC scheme are.
Are the digital sidebands the same, and, if so, must they remain the same?
I'd assume a current IBOC radio would ignore digital sidebands differently
encoded and fall back into AM mode. So, I'd think independent programming,
even pay programming, isn't out of the question.
>
>
> From what I understand, IBOC was developed because the US broadcasters
> did not like DAB/eureka for a number of reasons; one of them being "it
> did not fit the current business model"; so that why they opted for a
> system that allowed for as less as possibe new content and where the
> digital channel is contenwise the same as the analog channel, only with
> better audio-quality; and -therefor- influence the current situation in
> the radio-market as less as possible.
>
> The funny thing is that -with nationwide satellite-radio and podcasting-
> the radio-market is changing anyway.
>
>
> > Also, when the presumed analog phase-out is completed, will the channels
be
> > restored to the old standard, or will the broadcasters have to find
> > something to do with all that redundant bandwidth?
> Depends on the legislation. If it has proven to have worked OK for I
> don't know how many years (during the switch-over) why go back to the
> old bandplan?
That is exactly what I'd expect.
>
> A fully-digital frequeny-slot in band II (400 Khz) does allow for -say-
> 3 to 4 radio-channels at as-good audioquality as current FM; why go back
> to just one channel.
> Radio-stations will probably be interested in these new channels to
> compete with XM, sirius, podcasting, (perhaps) DVB-H, etc. etc.
>
>
> > Frank Dresser
> Cheerio! Kr. Bonne.
I'm looking at the IBOC plans from a radio hobbyist's perspective. DXing is
degraded by the wider channel, especially since it's filled with digital
noise. And I have a hard time believing there's a great unfilled demand for
better sounding AM radios. If there were such a demand, the better radios
which are available right now would be better sellers. But people are happy
buying cheap AM radios with bad sound. I just don't believe that there's
some huge profitable market for better sounding AM radios, even if they work
with some fancy new modulation scheme.
More than that, there's little historical reason to think most people want
better sound. The Hi-Fi AM experiments of the late 30s and 40s didn't
trigger a large demand for great sounding radios. FM foundered from the
late forties to the seventies. AM stereo erupted with great fanfare and is
now almost entirely gone. People are actually trading their good quality
landline phones for Satan's garbley invention, the cellphone.
So, it might seem that the people who are actively promoting IBOC are either
risk-takers, stupid or have a hidden backup plan in the case that "HD radio"
somehow doesn't manage to open up enough wallets.
Frank Dresser
dxAce
Kristoff Bonne wrote:
> Gegroet,
>
> dxAce schreef:
> >>And you can post "DRM = QRM" or "'tart boy" as much as you like; this
> >>will not change the situation.
>
> > There's a new one... tart boy...
>
> Hey, english is my thirth language. Perhaps can we coninue this
> discussion in dutch, french or german if you want.
No matter what language, you'll still be talking out your ass.
Kristoff Bonne
dxAce schreef:
>>Hey, english is my thirth language. Perhaps can we continue this
>>discussion in dutch, french or german if you want.
> No matter what language, you'll still be talking out your ass.
> DRM = QRM
I'll translate that to "no, I don't speak any language other then
english and I'll just repeat my matra so to hide the fact I don't know
what else to say".
:-)
BTW. Happy new year!
> dxAce
Cheerio! Kr. Bonne.
Doug Smith W9WI
> First of all, if AM is mostly talk - as it is now -- what is the audio
> difference offered by HD?
Less noise, for the most part. We have three (3-1/2, if you count NPR)
FM talk stations here in the Nashville market, all of which are a lot
less fatuiging to listen to than WLAC-AM...
> And secondly, if the stations are using parts of other band widths to
> pull this off -- at least in populated markets - like LA, Chicago and
> New York -- isn't HD going to be a nightmare for the FCC. It was bad
> enough just trying to protect AM Clear Channel stations when the sun
> goes down. How on earth will the FCC ever be able to govern all of
> this - not mention the engineering nightmare it will cause?? But then
> I'm not an engineer, maybe it's not as bad as it seems.
Before HD is allowed on AM at night, the FCC will have to decide that
they *won't* protect AM clear-channel stations when the sun goes down.
That those stations will be protected within their "primary" coverage
areas (essentially, within their metropolitan areas) but not within the
skywave "secondary" coverage area.
I find it interesting that this decision has not yet been made. I'll
bet there have been some *interesting* discussions in Washington.
(engineers vs. lobbyists) Widespread deployment of AM IBOC will create
enormous "white areas" where no nighttime AM reception is possible.
Most of these areas will also be losing some (but by no means all)
existing FM service due to FM IBOC.
If you like listening to stations more than 20 miles away, I suppose
it's time to start looking at XM...
dxAce
Kristoff Bonne wrote:
> Gegroet,
>
> dxAce schreef:
> >>Hey, english is my thirth language. Perhaps can we continue this
> >>discussion in dutch, french or german if you want.
>
> > No matter what language, you'll still be talking out your ass.
> > DRM = QRM
>
> I'll translate that to "no, I don't speak any language other then
> english and I'll just repeat my matra so to hide the fact I don't know
> what else to say".
> :-)
QRM knows no language, 'tard boy. Get with the program.
Carter, K8VT
> No matter what language, you'll still be talking out your ass.
Kristoff Bonne wrote:
> I'll translate that to "no, I don't speak any language other then
> english and I'll just repeat my matra so to hide the fact I don't
> know what else to say".
Very perceptive observation...once he's gone through " 'tard boy",
"shitstain" and "dumb Canucky", he's pretty much exhausted his grasp of
the language...
Kristoff Bonne wrote:
>>> And you can post "DRM = QRM" or "'tart boy" as much as you like;
>>> this will not change the situation.
>> There's a new one... tart boy...
> Hey, english is my thirth language. Perhaps can we coninue this
> discussion in dutch, french or german if you want.
Well, I see you've met our village idiot...er, International Goodwill
Ambassador.
In the last few days, he's insulted people from at least four countries
(in addition to the U.S. of course)
He seems to ridicule those whose second (or third) language is
English and ridicule various foreign countries and yet his hobby is
supposedly listening to foreign countries.
LOL at the spectacular irony!
Whatta hypocrite!!
It's best to just let him get back to being a cry baby about DRM and
anyone whose views differ from his...
Happy New Year to all!!
Carter, K8VT
> And secondly, if the stations are using parts of other band widths to
> pull this off -- at least in populated markets - like LA, Chicago and
> New York -- isn't HD going to be a nightmare for the FCC. It was bad
> enough just trying to protect AM Clear Channel stations when the sun
> goes down. How on earth will the FCC ever be able to govern all of
> this - not mention the engineering nightmare it will cause??
Well, a very good observation. How indeed will the FCC govern this?
Sadly, the answer is that they probably won't, just as with BPL (if you
happen to have been following that debate). Engineering and enforcement
of technical standards seems to have taken a back seat to the wishes of
Big Business.
When I heard about BPL and the FCC blatantly dodging the technical
issues, my first thought was that the FCC had been "bought off". Then I
said, "Nah, that's too paranoid. They wouldn't do that".
A bit later I read a book about DuMont, the early TV pioneer, and his
battles with the FCC about VHF vs. UHF and which color TV system to
choose. Well, buried back in Appendix C was an *actual quote* by an FCC
Commissioner back in the 1950s who said "Yeah, we called those the
'Whorehouse years' because everything, including us, was for sale".
Now this from an actual FCC Commissioner back in the days of "Ozzie and
Harriet" and "Leave it to Beaver". If it happened back in those
"innocent" days, do you think it could happen today????
dxAce
"Carter, K8VT" wrote:
There's no cry baby better than you, Grabowski!
LMFAO at the stupid Liberal 'tard yet again.
dxAce
Michigan
USA
dxAce
"Carter, K8VT" wrote:
BPL = QRM
dxAce
Michigan
USA
Byung Myung Sying
RX-V4600). The "mutlicasting" on FM is actually pretty nice since it
allows commercially-untenable formats to be broadcast. Here in
Detroit, we have 9 stations broadcasting "second IBOC" channels. One
(94.7) uses its second IBOC channel to broadcast "deep album rock"
from the 1960's and 70's. Another (105.1) broadcasts classical "pops"
on its second IBOC channel. Another broadcasts "live rock concerts"
on it's second IBOC channel.
The audio quality on the FM IBOC channels is about as good as a 256K
MP3. An analogue FM transmission is capable of MUCH better sound
quality (although only a few stations such as WFMT in Chicago or WQXR
in New York actually broadcast uncompressed FM analogue sound).
The big problem, reception-quality-wise, is that FM IBOC is
unreceivable unless you are in a strong, local reception condition.
For example, there's an NPR station that broadcasts classical music in
Lansing, MI (about 80 miles from me) and I can't pick up their IBOC
signal, even with a yagi directional FM antenna. Their analogue
signal comes in just fine, and my receiver reverts to analogue since
the digital IBOC signal is unreceivable.
As far as AM IBOC goes, Detroit's 950 AM and 910 AM broadcast an IBOC
signal. 950's audio quality was HORRIBLE when it first started up,
with echoey, swishy, digital artifact sound. Now, Ibiquity seems to
have fixed something and 950's signal sounds okay with nice high
frequency reproduction. It sounds about as good as a 64K MP3. 910's
IBOC signal still sounds awful (although it's in stereo).
AM IBOC though does NOT in any way, shape, or form have "FM quality
sound" as Ibiquity's advertising trumpets.
There is an AM stereo station locally (CFCO in Chatham, ON) which
indeed DOES have "audio quality approaching FM" when listened to on a
good AM stereo receiver (I have an AM stereo tuner in my Ford Escape
Hybrid which has the best sound that I've ever heard out of an AM
radio).
As far as "IBOC vs DRM" for "high fidelity AM" broadcasts, since IBOC
"shares" the allotted bandwidth with an analogue signal, it requires
an extremely strong local signal in order to receive it. There is an
AM NPR station in Lansing, MI which is UNRECEIVABLE in IBOC mode from
70 miles away, even using a Kiwa Air Core Loop which brings in the
analogue AM signal 20 dB over S9. In contrast, since DRM does not
share it's bandwidth with an analogue signal, the ability to "DX DRM"
is much greater. I can receive DRM test transmissions with perfect
decoding from stations that are inaudible in analogue mode (Deutsche
Welle and Radio Nederland quite often "switch over" from analogue to
DRM in the midst of a broadcast).
As far as "Eureka DAB" goes, it's deader than a doornail in Canada.
The foppish bureaucrats who were trying to "act European and declare
their independence from the U.S." by implementing DAB in Canada failed
miserably and wasted millions of Canadian tax dollars in the process.
Since most Canadian stations (except the CBC) are dependent on U.S.
advertising, absolutely NONE of them were about to replace AM and FM
with DAB and lose all of the U.S. advertising dollars. I spoke with
an engineer at the local CBC station in Windsor, ON and he didn't even
KNOW that there was still a DAB transmitter operating in Windsor.
The Canadians quietly abandoned their ill-conceived DAB pork-barrel
and have allowed XM and Sirius to begin service in Canada.
The above comments are based on empiricle results from my own
listening and DX'ing experiences using analogue AM Stereo, IBOC, and
DRM receivers.
Fred E. - N8UC
Detroit, MI
mi...@sushi.com
through.
clifto
> Well, buried back in Appendix C was an *actual quote* by an FCC
> Commissioner back in the 1950s who said "Yeah, we called those the
> 'Whorehouse years' because everything, including us, was for sale".
>
> Now this from an actual FCC Commissioner back in the days of "Ozzie and
> Harriet" and "Leave it to Beaver". If it happened back in those
> "innocent" days, do you think it could happen today????
There's zero question it happens. A high position in the FCC is nothing more
than a holding position from which one can trade favors for the right job
offer.
--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.
clifto
> From FCC Public Notice DA-03-831:
> (http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-03-831A1.pdf)
>
> "Until further notice, AM stations must restrict IBOC operation to
> daytime hours. An AM station with authority to operate between 6 a.m.
> and local sunrise (pre-sunrise hours) and between local sunset and 6
> p.m. (post-sunset hours) may operate its hybrid IBOC system during those
> periods. "
And from FCC Private Notice DontTellNoOneYHear:
"To bring about further notice, deposit $10,000,000 in account number
604472849 at Banc Suissishe in Geneva. Alternately, to obtain an exclusive
one-year advance on competitors, deposit $100,000,000 plus an amount equal
to your eight-digit secret ID so that we can identify our benefactor."
clifto
> The trouble is that there are (probably) a half-billion analog
> receivers in the USA alone capable of receiving analog AM / FM, and
> these can't be abandoned overnight.
Funny, there are more television sets than people in the USA, yet they are
being abandoned virtually overnight. Or at least the chuckleheads in the
FCC think so. The cable and dish providers, and the public, know better.
mi...@sushi.com
cough) of cost to the poor.
Cable and dish are a big part of the market. It isn't clear to me if
the feds are going to mandate that HD be delivered over those services.
Even if they feds do mandate HD to subscribers, there is cash flow to
recover the cost of new set top boxes.
My preference would have been for a new broadcast band for terrestrial
digital audio services, rather than a retrofit that causes interference
to conventional users. I don't get too bent out of shape over FM IBOC,
since the capture ratio of the analog receiver will give the fringe
listener a fighting chance at decent reception. However, AM BCB is
another story. You can't reject the IBOC hash in AM.
Byung Myung Sying
>Perhaps the Kiwa is too narrow band to allow the IBOC sidebands to come
>through.
>
No, if I turn the "Regeneration" control all the way "open" it still
does not help. Only strong local signals can be heard in "IBOC mode".
mike.e....@abc.com
"The audio quality on the FM IBOC channels is about as good as a 256K
MP3. An analogue FM transmission is capable of MUCH better sound
quality (although only a few stations such as WFMT in Chicago or WQXR
in New York actually broadcast uncompressed FM analogue sound)."
Here we have to be careful about the term 'compression', especially in
tems of audio quality and digital audio through-put. 'Compression' in
the analog audio sense defines the process of 'squashing' an audio
signal - reducing its dynamic range - in an effort to make it of a more
consistent level. This is felt to be important by most radio
broadcasters for competitive reasons; the 'louder' stations are felt to
have more 'dial presence' and therefore are more able to capture
listeners scanning the dial. It is true that some high-powered
classical music stations employ very little compression, and yet analog
FM is always hampered by the 75 us audio pre-emphasis and the 10%
injection of the stereo sub-channel (which requires a hefty received
signal to get anywhere near a 60db S/N ratio - a pretty poor showing).
'Compression' as it relates to digital radio refers to the ammount of
(audio) data that is 'thrown away' due to the need to fit the signal
into the available bandwidth. The ubiquitous "MP3" at 128 kbps has
"thrown away" about 90% (ninety percent) of the material that was found
on the origianl (uncompressed) Compact Disc. The 'computer' programs
that perform this task are running a 'compression algorithim', and much
work is and has been done in this field. It is the basis of *ALL* of
the current crop of consumer / portable / personal music devices (Ipod
/ cell-phone audio / Internet Radio etc).
To illustrate: Fred E quantifies his IBOC FM experience as beig
similar to a 256 kbps MP3. In reality, FM IBOC stations are limited to
a total data through-put of 98 kbps, 2 kbps of which are reserved for
overhead and data. Hence, Fred E was listening to a 96 kbps signal.
Quite remarkable, really especially in a direct A-B comparisson between
most (uncompressed) source material and the recovered IBOC signal.
AM IBOC is limited to a bit rate of only 32 kbps (!) - about 95% of the
original data has been tossed overboard, and yet... Fred E and I will
have to disagree on the aural result, which has a lot to do with the
care the radio station has taken in their audio and RF infrastructure
(IBOC *mandates* a very flat antenna system, something most AM stations
have not historically had to consider. Hence, ones aural experiences,
especially in these young days of AM IBOC may vary). I too am a vetran
of C-Quam AM stereo, and IMHO IBOC has a much lower noise floor and
much better stereo separation.
Lastly, the "specifications" page of Fred E's Yamaha receiver (nice
unit!) :
http://www.yamaha.com/yec/products/receivers/RXV4600_specs.htm
completely ignores the AM section. Hummm... could this be the trouble
with your AM IBOC reception...?
Mike Worrall
Los Angeles
Brenda Ann
<mi...@sushi.com> wrote in message
news:1136068386.3...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> The feds are going to provide ATSC to NTSC converters free (cough
> cough) of cost to the poor.
>
> Cable and dish are a big part of the market. It isn't clear to me if
> the feds are going to mandate that HD be delivered over those services.
> Even if they feds do mandate HD to subscribers, there is cash flow to
> recover the cost of new set top boxes.
The feds are not even mandating HD on OTA stations. As far as I can see,
most programming on DTV stations is in low res format (720i?) And I'm not
impressed in the least, analog looks much better (we're stuck with digital
satellite feed for our US/English content, and it looks like total garbage).
Byung Myung Sying
Thanks for your comments. When I spoke of "compression" being
responsible for the horrid sound of many of today's analogue FM
stations, I was speaking of compression in the analogue sense, in
other words, dynamic compression where there are no soft passages and
no loud passages, everything is the same loud obnoxious level.
As far as your comments on FM IBOC being 96K, I was well aware of that
fact. The issue is that the digital compression algorithm that they
use is much better than "a 96K MP3" and appears to me to have the
audio quality of a 256K MP3 (some harshness due to the "Simpson's
Rule" effect, but good enough for automobile listening and background
music).
All of my statements were based on empirical listening tests comparing
the sound of IBOC in AM and FM mode to AM stereo and analogue FM on a
Marantz 10B tuner etc.
As far as your comments on the AM section of the Yamaha RX-V4600, I
think that it's a fair to midland AM DX tuner. If you read my
statement carefully about the Lansing MI station, I said that the
analogue signal comes in with excellent signal (20 to 40 dB over S9 in
ham radio terms), but the IBOC "subcarrier" is not detected.
Your comments on the audio quality of AM IBOC disagree with my
empirical listening tests though, I still think that the Canadian AM
Stereo station CFCO is far superior to any of the 3 IBOC stations that
I've heard locally.
In conclusion, I think that AM IBOC is not going to go anywhere and is
indeed really pesky in terms of the QRN that it spews out, but that FM
IBOC has the promise of success due to the "narrowcasting" that's
possible using the alternate channels. Luckily, we here in Detroit
are seeing the advantages of FM IBOC with very interesting and
appealing "second HD channel" broadcasting by 9 local stations.
Fred E.
m II
> scareligous
I think you're on to something there. That's a good description of the
televangelist scum who twist the Word for War/Profit.
mike
mi...@sushi.com
from 720p to 1080i isn't that much of a difference, though you notice
the difference in a side by side comparison.
Brenda Ann
<mi...@sushi.com> wrote in message
news:1136084130.9...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>I think 720p is a minimum and it's 4x the resolution of NTSC. Going
> from 720p to 1080i isn't that much of a difference, though you notice
> the difference in a side by side comparison.
May be 4x the resolution of a VHS VCR (but not even quite that, at SP speed
most get 270 lines), but not quite twice what regular broadcast NTSC
resolution is. And NTSC STILL looks better because there's no artifacting
in it, and no pixelization. Our satellite feed is so bad you can see
artifacts in it every time there is a rapid pan or sweep, and when you have
color gradients, you can see large amounts of pixelization in the
transitions. I'll keep my analog, thanks, even if that means never watching
OTA TV again.
m II
> Gegroet,
>
> dxAce schreef:
>>> Hey, english is my thirth language. Perhaps can we continue this
>>> discussion in dutch, french or german if you want.
>
>> No matter what language, you'll still be talking out your ass.
>> DRM = QRM
>
> I'll translate that to "no, I don't speak any language other then
> english and I'll just repeat my matra so to hide the fact I don't know
> what else to say".
He doesn't even speak English very well. Instead of having a second or
third language, he's still struggling at the 60 percent point of the
first one.
He DOES score 100 percent in rudeness, though.
mike
dxAce
m II wrote:
You're scoring 100 percent in dumbass Canucky.
LMFAO at the shortwave poseur behind the Maple Leaf Curtain.
dxAce
Michigan
USA
cuh...@webtv.net
faster dial up speeds for dial up computers.Not really faster,but
muddled images.
cuhulin
Mark Zenier
Telamon <telamon_s...@pacbell.net.is.invalid> wrote:
>This is my main contention that this digital technology does not sound
>better. It is still way to low a bit rate for me to call it "good
>sounding." Yes, you don't get the static and power line noise but the
>trade off is low quality sound filled with digital artifacts. Basically
>you trade background noise and interference where it exists and trade
>it for low quality sound all the time. Other trades are drop outs
>instead of selective fading for example. This is just a mixed bag of
>good and bad at the cost of obsoleting all receivers made since radio
>began. I can't think of a worse trade off and it is just plain stupid to
>try and cram it down the general publics throat.
One humorous thing I heard on the local station's discussion is
that the IBOC codec algorithms aren't very good for voice.
And that the receivers, mostly for cars, were in the $200-$300 range.
(If I'm forced to get a new receiver, I'd just go for XM where I'm a
subscriber with a financial arrangement with the provider, and thus
have some microscopic bit of leverage, not just a listener where,
despite how loyal you are to a station, the dreaded "format change"
can happen any time on a whim from the bean counters).
Mark Zenier mze...@eskimo.com
Googleproofaddress(account:mzenier provider:eskimo domain:com)
Telamon
"Brenda Ann" <bre...@shinbiro.com> wrote:
I think it is interesting that you bring up a similar point about
digital video that I have been expousing about radio digital audio.
It's all about trying to cram a digital signal bandwidth and digitized
signal resolution in an analog spectrum space. This not unlike trying to
put a square peg in a round hole. You can do it but the results are not
pretty.
--
Telamon
Ventura, California
bajoh...@yahoo.com
that will mess with coverage area maps - no doubt. And then just how
exactly will the advertising department sell evening drive time slots.
"We think on cloudy days you may reach this area, but on sunny days you
can only go so far. I suppose the FCC doesn't really want to deal with
all this which may be why they are doing the "whorehouse" thing. I
know I'm just an old fuddy duddy but it does seem that radio as we knew
it is going to be no longer. And I'm sure there will be great benefits
in the new system so to speak -- whatever that ends up being -- but for
now -- it's looking like " the good ole days" were really good.
RHF
The NAB is about "The Broadcasting Business" and a Corporation
with a Hundred Local Radio Stations can make more Money; then a
Corporation with a Few High Powered Clear Channel Radio Stations.
Thousands of Local 1KW, 5KW and 10KW AM Radios Stations
serve more People (Radio Listeners) and produce more Local Jobs
and Revenue plus Local Taxes that aggregate into a much larger
National Economy then a Few Clear Channel Big Stations.
The future of Free {Commercial} Broadcasting in the USA
is with IBOC - ? WHY ? - The NAB and the FCC Want It !
just my two cents worth ~ RHF
.
.
. .
.
clifto
I've been noticing all that on the "best-of" demos at Costco. Artifacts and
aliasing and moire and whatnot.
It was funny when local Channel 5 started with a digital STL. Their bit rate
was incredibly low, which made for *extremely* bad video to the point of
comedy. On one news shot they were shooting through a chain-link fence to
see someone on a schoolyard, when the person started running and the camera
panned the fence *disappeared*. Half the time the local anchor's glasses
would partially disappear, and they never ever stopped flashing artifacts.
norml
distances, sponsors had realized that advertising to anyone who lives more
than half a day's drive from the store is useless.
Norm
"RHF" <rhf-new...@pacbell.net> wrotf:
RHF
One Chevy Dealer on a Clear Channel Radio Station in Chicago
can not sell as many Cars and Trucks as a 100 Chevy Dealers
within the Signal Area of that Clear Channel Radio Station : Who
are using Local Radio Stations Day and Night to Sell many many
more Cars and Trucks - Then One Super-Dealer on a Mega-Station.
Free {Commercial} Broadcasting in the USA is all "ABOUT"
the Marketing and Sales of "HomeTown" [Local] Products and
Services via Local Radio Stations - That is the Basis of Our
National Economy -and- After all All Politics Are Local Too !
to my simple mind - that's the way it works ~ RHF
Steve Stone
"norml" <norm...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:bu2hr1d40ec3kk6hk...@4ax.com...
> Even when listeners were still hooked by the romance of reception over
> long
> distances, sponsors had realized that advertising to anyone who lives more
> than half a day's drive from the store is useless.
>
Doesn't apply any longer. Just go to their web site, place your order and
let FedEx do the rest
Brenda Ann
I disagree with RHF's part about producing more local jobs. In markets were
Infinity, ClearChannel and Entercom own most every station in the market,
there end up being far fewer jobs than if the stations were all owned by
different companies. In most markets these corporations have one or two
engineers to service all their stations, with only one office staff, and
often air personalities that pull duty at more than one outlet (all of which
are in the same building)
RHF
are away from Full {Maximum} Employment ~ RHF
That is why I think that all Clear Channel Radio Stations
should be required by Rule, Regulation and Law to have
Locally Originate Programming with Live-on-the-Air
Talent from 5AM to 10AM and from 5PM to Midnight
Daily. Create 100 Independent Voices Across America
to Listen to Each Day and Night.
.
. .
.
David
wrote:
Reagan saw to it that ''independent voices'' would disappear. The
last thing the Amerikkkan government wants is a wide spectrum of
ideas.
RHF
would disappear. The last thing the Amerikkkan government
wants is a wide spectrum of ideas. "
DaviD - this is 'your' basic problem posting to this newsgroup.
'you' take an honest discussion of Trends in Radio Broadcasting
and turn it into a Political Hit Piece about former US President
Ronald "W" Reagan.
DaviD Question - Did anything change under Eight Years
of former US President Bill Clinton ? {Answer - NO !}
DaviD - Do 'you' Have Any Respect for the Members
of this NewGroup ?
DaviD - 'you choose to Spell American with a "KKK" instead of a 'c'.
DaviD - Do 'you' Have Any Love of 'your' Own Country ?
david - in will pray for a healing in your life - amen ~ RHF .
.
.
Act of Freedom-and-Truth Number One - Change the HeadLine
{Subject Line} to Reflect the Truth About America as You-See-It
.
Act of Freedom-and-Truth Number Two - Present the Facts
{Message Text} to Reflect the All American Truths as You-See-It :
.
Act of Freedom-and-Truth Number Three - Promote the Good
and Positive Things that Make America Great as You-See-It :
.
READ - It-Is-The-American-Way - Each of Us Needs-to-Be a
Citizen Soldier of America in the Fight for of Freedom-and-Truth !
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/f9ca3d48b3ce223b
David
wrote:
KKKlinton was another POS fascist.
Kristoff Bonne
cuh...@webtv.net schreef:
> Compression,as in some of those ISP providers for computers that claim
> faster dial up speeds for dial up computers.Not really faster,but
> muddled images.
If you are talking about V42bis and the like (modem/serial line
compression), that is lossless compression bsystem!
Take care not to mix up the lossless with the lossy codecs!
> cuhulin
Cheerio! Kr. Bonne.
Kristoff Bonne
cuh...@webtv.net schreef:
> Compression,as in some of those ISP providers for computers that claim
> faster dial up speeds for dial up computers.Not really faster,but
> muddled images.
If you are talking about V42bis and the like (modem/serial line
Kristoff Bonne
dxAce schreef:
>>>>Hey, english is my thirth language. Perhaps can we continue this
>>>>discussion in dutch, french or german if you want.
>>>No matter what language, you'll still be talking out your ass.
>>>DRM = QRM
>>I'll translate that to "no, I don't speak any language other then
>>english and I'll just repeat my matra so to hide the fact I don't know
>>what else to say".
>>:-)
> QRM knows no language, 'tard boy. Get with the program.
[nl] Dit heeft niets te maken met QRM maar wel met het feit dat je
commentaar heeft op taalfouten van mensen die niet in hun moedertaal
schrijven, dat terwijl je zelfs geen enkele vreemde taal kent.
[fr] Ceçi n'as rien a faire apropos de QRM mais seulement que tu donne
du commentair au fautes de langue des personne qui n'écrivent pas en
leur langue natale mais que toi, tu ne connais pas d'autres langues que
l'anglais.
> dxAce
Cheerio! Kr. Bonne.
Kristoff Bonne
Brenda Ann schreef:
>>Far more people are interested in better audio-quality or additional
>>stations then DXing.
>>As far as there is no conflict between these two groups of people, no
>>problem; but if -as is now the case- the gouvernement has to chose between
>>one or the other; the choise is pretty easy.
> I can't speak for or against DRM, as I've never heard it. However, IBOC
> *IS* a bad source of interference. And not just to DX'ers. Not everyone
> lives in a big city, many (most?) live in suburbs or rural areas where there
> is no 'local' radio station. These people of necessity must listen to what
> are referred to as 'rimshots'. These are stations which are considered to
> be on the far rim of a city's coverage area. Many of these are at only 400
> KHz spacing from the stations in the cities, and are very prone to
> interference from the IBOC digital signals from those second-adjacent
> channels.
I understand, but I guess that you -as a listener- where not really
supposted to be listening to these stations anyway.
I'm not really an expert on the US broadcasting-industry but are people
on in these areas considered to be a 'target' for these radio-stations?
Do radio-stations carry ads for these audiences?
> Even IN the cities, if someone likes to listen to a station in the next city
> that has programming unavailable in their own city, this is now nearly
> impossible.
Well, it looks like you wheren't supposted to be listening to these
stations anyway. :-)
Don't get me wrong.
As I do not live in the US, I don't really have a say in how the
broadcasting-industry is done on your side; but -from an outsider-
IBOC/HDradio looks like a typical example of a standard which has been
designed by the industry to suit only the industry.
The wishes of what people or the listeners want seams to be of
secundairy interest.
Digital broadcasting can be used for a number of things: better
audio-quality, additional content, broadcasting power tuning, additional
data-services, stand-alone datacasting, etc.
IBOC looks like a standard which is aimed at one certain application
("better audio") and reduce as much as possible the other applications
(like "additional content") as this is the best for the industry.
-cfr. the "switchback to analog" rule in IBOC-.
It looks like being designed to reduce the risk of additional
competition for the radio-stations.
But, again, it's not my business to critise the decisions of other
contries. It's the responsability of your politicians to decide what
technical standards are adopted or not.
Cheerio! Kr. Bonne.
Kristoff Bonne
RHF schreef:
> KB,
>
> The same applies to the limited number of former High Powered
> "Clear Channel" 50KW Radio Stations.
>
> Many more Local 1KW, 5KW and 10KW Radios Stations serve more
> People (Radio Listeners) and produce more Local Jobs and Revenue
> plus Local Taxes that aggregate into a larger National Economy then
> a Few Clear Channel Big Stations.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not crisizing the way the US broadcasting
business has been organised and organised itself around that. I'm just
saying that -as an outsider- IBOC looks like a typical example of a
technical standard designed by the industry to suit the industry and
help itself control the "supply" side of the market.
I now it's easy to make remarkt afterwards, but if you look at the
competition the radio-industry is facing now (like the satellite
radio-systems, podcasting, radio-over-DVB-H, ...) the choice of IBOC
does look a bit 'ironic'.
> After all it is "The Broadcasting Business" and a Corporation with
> a Hundred Local Radio Stations can make more Money; then a
> Corporation with a Few High Powered Clear Channel Radio Stations.
OK, but If I hear that large broadcasting-companies (like CC) are taking
over the market anyway via their terrestial stations and via satellite;
and there is somebody overthere who's doing recording of "good morning
<city-X>", "good morning <city-Y>", ... just to create an impression of
"locality", I have kind of impression that the broadcasting-industry is
changing anyway.
Overhere, we already have the situation where radio-stations broadcast a
"national" program where local news and ads are inserted, digital
broadcasting allows this to go even further.
One of the satellite operators (IIRC it's sirius) have a patent on a
system to insert localised ads, news or traffic-rapports into a
"national" (satelite) stream based on the location where the receiver is
positioned. This means that there is no strick link anymore between the
transmission-medium and the what content the listener is hearing.
My impression is that we are heading to a situation where the "content
generation" will get seperated from the "distribution", i.e. where you
have companies who are specialised into the generation of local content
(local news, radio-shows about local talent, local ads, ...) -which can
be a local newspaper- but that the distribution will be done at a higher
(metropolian using DAB, DVB-H, ...) or "national" level (e.g. satellite).
From the broadcasting point of view, this is already possible (like MOT
datacasting over DVB, DAB or DRM) but the problem is that the current
generation of receivers are not intelligent enough nor do they have
sufficiant storage-capacity.
CC is active in both "local" broadcasting via terrestial stations and
"national" broadcasting via satellite.
So why not design a receiver which can receive both satellite-radio and
IBOC, use the latter to datacast local content, local news, local
traffic-bulletins, local ads to the receivers, store in overthere and
"insert" this information into a "national" stream from the satellite?
Digital broadcasting is not just about translating the current model of
analog broadcasting into a digital version of it. Digital broadcasting
can do a lot more then that (recording, datacasting, timeshifting, ...),
and it will affect broadcasting in a much stronger way then most people
expect.
> jm2cw ~ RHF
Cheerio! r. Bonne.
Kristoff Bonne
David schreef:
>>BAD - I would agree that the trends in Broadcasting
>>are away from Full {Maximum} Employment ~ RHF
>>That is why I think that all Clear Channel Radio Stations
>>should be required by Rule, Regulation and Law to have
>>Locally Originate Programming with Live-on-the-Air
>>Talent from 5AM to 10AM and from 5PM to Midnight
>>Daily. Create 100 Independent Voices Across America
>>to Listen to Each Day and Night.
> Reagan saw to it that ''independent voices'' would disappear. The
> last thing the Amerikkkan government wants is a wide spectrum of
> ideas.
I'm sorry but that does not make sence.
A gouvernement has much more to fear from a limited number of powerfull
mediacompanies -with the money, journalist staff, financial backing and
hence political support to back them- then from a large number of small
radio-stations.
"Divide et empirer"
Cheerio! Kr. Bonne.
David
<compaq...@kristoff.bonne> wrote:
>> Reagan saw to it that ''independent voices'' would disappear. The
>> last thing the Amerikkkan government wants is a wide spectrum of
>> ideas.
>
>I'm sorry but that does not make sence.
>A gouvernement has much more to fear from a limited number of powerfull
>mediacompanies -with the money, journalist staff, financial backing and
>hence political support to back them- then from a large number of small
>radio-stations.
>
>"Divide et empirer"
Not when the government and the corporations are one and the same.
The message is tailored to sustain the status quo.
I think y'all named it ''fascism'' back in the '30s.
cuh...@webtv.net
the Fact that we can,and do,get real unwashed News via Shortwave Radio
(the internet too) and alternative News Media before U.S.fed govt can
whitewash such news and cover their arses.
cuhulin
Kristoff Bonne
David schreef:
>>>Reagan saw to it that ''independent voices'' would disappear. The
>>>last thing the Amerikkkan government wants is a wide spectrum of
>>>ideas.
>>I'm sorry but that does not make sence.
>>A gouvernement has much more to fear from a limited number of powerfull
>>mediacompanies -with the money, journalist staff, financial backing and
>>hence political support to back them- then from a large number of small
>>radio-stations.
>>"Divide et empirer"
> Not when the government and the corporations are one and the same.
> The message is tailored to sustain the status quo.
True, but there is no garantee that the interest of the gouvernement are
the same as the interest of the mediacompanies.
In fact, if there are a number of media-companies, differences in
interests between them will automatically result in a different attitude
towards the gouvernement.
Anycase, look at the problems there has been between the BBC and the
British gouvernement and between the RAI and the Italian gouvernement.
The best garantee for a free press is a press which is sufficiant strong
media (in this case a public broadcaster) which is able to stand up
against the gouvernement when it is needed.
> I think y'all named it ''fascism'' back in the '30s.
In the 30s, there was no such thing as the internet.
The net has given the people the power to communicate between eachother
and organise themselfs which is good counterbalance against the power of
the gouvernement and the normal media.
There seams to be a tendency nowdays to use as strong as possible words
for almost anything people do not like. AMHO, that's sad as the real
meaning of these words become more and more eroded.
Cheerio! Kr. Bonne.
David
<compaq...@kristoff.bonne> wrote:
>
>> I think y'all named it ''fascism'' back in the '30s.
>In the 30s, there was no such thing as the internet.
>
>The net has given the people the power to communicate between eachother
>and organise themselfs which is good counterbalance against the power of
>the gouvernement and the normal media.
>
>There seams to be a tendency nowdays to use as strong as possible words
>for almost anything people do not like. AMHO, that's sad as the real
>meaning of these words become more and more eroded.
>
>
Don't whitewash it. These are as perilous times as there have ever
been. You should try to reason with a product of our mass media.
It's like arguing with a Moonie.