Re: IBOC


"SWL_is_for_losers_!" <madballa5365@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1152148912.923753.175650@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

David Eduardo wrote:

Using one of the car radios, we have shown that KTNQ in LA has a more
robust
digital (HD) signal than the analog AM signal, being listenable where the
analog signal is already getting noisy. This quality of HD, in the larger
metros, of eliminating man made interference, is one of the biggest
benefits
of HD.

That list is hopelessly out of date. More than half the HD stations in
the
company I work for are missing.

I do not know of one station that quit HD due to listener complaints,
especially since nearly no listeners have receivers yet.

A couple have turned it off because their antenna sisytems are not
broadband
enough to run HD. Or KFI, which had their tower fall and is on AUX
facilities.

Will you stop posting the same lame links over and over? One is from a
person who does not even know most stations already have delay, and the
other is a list that is painfully dated and wrong.


Everyone else is full of ***, but you, even all the articles that I
have read concerning interference and poor quality.

The sound quality of HD is not bad. The FM is cleaner and has more dynamic
range, and is not encumbered by the preemphasis curve on analog FM.

Oh, yes. the stuff you have posted is full of it. You have not posted a
single thing today by an expert... all are by clueless wannabe critics with
obviously no radio or engineering background.

Here, for the second time, is what Bob Orban says about FM HD:

"I'm a major booster of FM IBOC. I have serious reservations about
nighttime operation of AM IBOC, although I _do_ believe that, absent
proactive changes in the technical quality of the audio delivered in the
AM band, that its audience will literally die off because it is skewing
older and older."

Sorry bud, but
these articles are not bogus, HD/IBOC will fail, especially, for
nighttine AM !

Since so little radio listening is at night (less than a third of the
daytime dayparts), if nigh HD is not implemented, we can live with it. I
suspect it will be implemented and that it will work ok, perhaps at more
than 20 db down, though.

With over 1000 HD stations on, it is difficult to say this has failed, since
we are at the very beginning of receiver marketing.

HD/IBOC does not play well with the AM band ! You
obvioulsy know the subject matter, but that does not discount the
countless articles that show major problems of implementing HD/IBOC
over the AM band.

What problems would these be? Some staitons with old high-Q directionals
need to do extensive antenna broadbanding. Most metro AMs do not even cover
the whole market today, so that is definitely an issue... but one that
affects analog, too. Otherwise, there are no problems implementing HD. There
is a decision to be made about night HD, but that is not an implementation
problem but a regulatory one.


"I was an early supporter of IBOC for both AM and FM, but after
carefully reflecting on how the AM rollout has faltered I am now
convinced the proposed standard for AM during the hybrid transition
period is not the best it could be. I am joined by many other engineers
who see the possibility of a colossal train wreck coming, when and if
AM IBOC is opened up for full-time operations by all stations."

First, HD is in use daytime only on AM. This writer is way ahead of the
current situation.

Second, the rollout is just beginning. The first steps were to get stations
on and HD 2 content activated. That is being done now. The rollout isw on
schedule.

"While AM IBOC still holds great promise for its ability to deliver
dramatic improvement over its analog host with 15 kHz stereo reception,
it only appears to be able to do that reliably inside the protected
primary and NIF coverage contours. Even then there are problems with
analog degradation on various models of existing receivers."

There are no problems with analog degradation. the bandwidth is more
limited, but that is not a problem, just a condition of doing HD. 95% of
existing AM receivers sound as good and sometimes better with more limited
bandwidth due to receiver design. This may be a very good thing.

Most stations don't give a hoot about coverage outside the primary contours,
so that point is dumb and ill-informed. This is obviously a "reader letter"
and not by one of the editors. RW prints all kinds of kook letters, and even
lets the Killer of AM, Leonard Kahn, write pieces.

"A number of stations are finding it difficult to suppress the
"bacon-frying" noise produced in all analog receivers because of
nonlinear performing transmission chains, including the null regions of
many directional antennas. The necessity of having to rebuild antenna
systems will place an expensive burden on numerous stations, many of
which are the least able to afford it."

If the station has a narrow antenna system already, they should have fixed
this decades ago. the technology exists, and any staiton that did not do it
shot themselves in the foot. Getting stations to fix crummy antenna designs
is a good thing.

"Most AM station owners understand the risks of investing in the
Ibiquity standard and are postponing plans to add IBOC until more of
the lingering questions receive answers."

In the larger markets, the good signals are nearly all moving to HD.

"According to one resource as of this writing, there are 77 stations on
the air with daytime AM IBOC. At least five Class A 50 kW blowtorches
and a few other stations have turned it off, mostly because of
interference caused to their own analog listeners or to their
adjacent-channel neighbors."

That is just not true. What we have are cases like KFI, with a damaged
antenna, waiting to rebuild to activate HD again. Clear Channel, America's
AM leader in content and ratings, is putting HD on every viable AM they own.

The crap about interference in areas where protection is not mandated is
silly, so I snipped it. No station gets a free ride outside their protected
contour. In any case, scant little listening takes place there anyway.


.

Quantcast