The number of such radios pales when comparred to the number represented by
more typical devices.

Allowing IBOC to take advantage of the weaknesses of "typical" AM
receivers in order to cover up its faults is akin to contructing a
waterfront building according to the parameters of a "typical"
hurricane. Or, it's like manufacturing a car whose lifespan is only
80,000 miles because the "typical" driver only keeps it that long.

For years, the complaints about AM radio have been interference and
poor audio quality. Now, IBOC comes along and in order to "solve"
these problems, it _purposely_ transmits additional interference and
_purposely_ degrades the audio quality even further. Where is the
sense in that!?

The receivers will be below $100 within 12 months, if not sooner. the prices
will track CD players and DVD players in price declines.

But the prices for IBOC receivers -- if they ever arrive -- will not
be competitive with that of analog radios... just like digital TVs
still cost a lot more than comparable analog sets, half a decade after
their introduction.

The fact that most radio listening is to local stations answers that
question.

Another hypocritical answer. For years, engineers like yourself have
complained about the loss of coverage area that FM Stereo and AM
Stereo allegedly cause. Many stations on both bands have discontinued
stereo broadcasts, just to squeak a few more miles out of their fringe
coverage. But now, suddenly that doesn't matter anymore? Now, with
IBOC, listeners outside the primary coverage area are suddenly of no
importance?

But you just wait... once mutual IBOC interference from an adjacent
station comes back to bite these stations in the butt, suddenly _then_
they will start complaining about it. It's like a guy who lets his
dog **** all over his neighbor's property and doesn't care about it --
but once somebody else's dog comes and ****s on his _own_ front lawn,
then he suddenly is concerned about it.

And I have heard AM IBOC and it sounds better than many highly compressed
FMs I A/B'd with. The new algorithm is excellent.

Yeah, if you like digital aliasing artifacts screeching in your ears.
The "spectrally replicated" treble response of AM IBOC is akin to
fingernails scratching a chalkboard. A few weeks ago, I listened to
XM for about 2 hours in a coworker's car, and the screechy fake treble
actually gave me a headache -- and that's with a bitrate nearly twice
as high as AM IBOC. The only way I could live with either IBOC or XM
is if I turned the treble control all the way down.

On 99% of AM receivers, there is no analog degradation because the receivers
are not wide enough to detect the difference.

Not quite... the NRSC tested four receivers which are supposed to be
the most representative of "typical" AM radios. Only one of the
radios (a Delphi car radio) was narrowband enough to not exhibit any
degradation. But the three others did have degraded audio with IBOC
in use, the worst being a Sony boombox. iBiquity's excuse for this
was that according to their testing, the degradation wasn't bad enough
that it would cause most listeners to change the station. But the
point is, according to the NRSC tests, 3/4ths of today's most popular
radios _will_ have degraded audio when AM IBOC is in use.

You are letting the cart get ahead of the horse. The CES is going to be
filled with IBOC equipment, and I believe some at much more affordable
prices.

Yeah, like B.E.'s IBOC exciter, with a list price of over $22,000...
that's a steal!

1480 and even 930 are miserable signals. Both also roabably have high-Q
antennas. On a good system, IBOC sounds good, and the analgo audio is
indistinguishable from the "way it was before."

Many stations, especially those doing block, brokered programming, will not
gain initially from IBOC. those with decent signals can gain a lot.

Ah, equality at its best... the big 50 kW stations can enjoy "digital"
reception for their local listeners, no matter how much they hash all
over the band, while the smaller stations get the short shrift, and
may not even be able to use IBOC at all.

Case in point... 1530 WSAI. When they're transmitting IBOC at night
(as they have been constantly), the "hash" to adjacent channels is so
bad, it can even be heard on the _studio monitor_ of a neighboring
station, 1520 WKWH in Shelbyville, IN.

"WBRW" wrote in message
...
The number of such radios pales when comparred to the number represented
by
more typical devices.

Allowing IBOC to take advantage of the weaknesses of "typical" AM
receivers in order to cover up its faults is akin to contructing a
waterfront building according to the parameters of a "typical"
hurricane. Or, it's like manufacturing a car whose lifespan is only
80,000 miles because the "typical" driver only keeps it that long.

The typical AM receiver can not tell the difference between the reduced
IBOC-mandated analog bandwidth and a full NRSC bandwidth. In fact, I fidn
that the reduced transmitted bandwidth sounds better on many radios than
wider bandwidth.

There are 700 million radios out there; most all of them have crummy AM
response.

IBOC offers a future improvement to AM and FM.

For years, the complaints about AM radio have been interference and
poor audio quality. Now, IBOC comes along and in order to "solve"
these problems, it _purposely_ transmits additional interference and
_purposely_ degrades the audio quality even further. Where is the
sense in that!?

It does not degrade analog FM at all; on AM I feel the degradation looks bad
on paper, but in reality it is insignificant and may be an improvment.

The receivers will be below $100 within 12 months, if not sooner. the
prices
will track CD players and DVD players in price declines.

But the prices for IBOC receivers -- if they ever arrive -- will not
be competitive with that of analog radios... just like digital TVs
still cost a lot more than comparable analog sets, half a decade after
their introduction.

The said the same thing about CD players, VHS players and DVD players. I
paid over $700 for my first VHS; $1200 for my first CD player. And the tapes
and CDs were very expensive to start.

The fact that most radio listening is to local stations answers that
question.

Another hypocritical answer. For years, engineers like yourself have
complained about the loss of coverage area that FM Stereo and AM
Stereo allegedly cause.

I don't. FM stero may cause more multipath in some areas, but very very few
FMs are mono. AM stereo sucks. There are reasons beyond coverage (which is
not generally affected per se) that doomed that system... most in the hands
of the FCC.

Many stations on both bands have discontinued
stereo broadcasts, just to squeak a few more miles out of their fringe
coverage.

In the case of FM, this is mostly with low powered stations and very few of
them.

In AM, it is because the system never took off, as AM was already dead for
music and fidelity when the FCC finally mandated one system.

But now, suddenly that doesn't matter anymore? Now, with
IBOC, listeners outside the primary coverage area are suddenly of no
importance?

Listeners outside the metro are do not afford most stations any opportunity
for extra revenue. I am with two Los Angeles stations that are generally in
the top 10 in Riverside, a separate market. That coverage and audience is of
no value at all; it gets no revenue,k it is too far away to become involved
with and not useful.

But you just wait... once mutual IBOC interference from an adjacent
station comes back to bite these stations in the butt, suddenly _then_
they will start complaining about it. It's like a guy who lets his
dog **** all over his neighbor's property and doesn't care about it --
but once somebody else's dog comes and ****s on his _own_ front lawn,
then he suddenly is concerned about it.

About 90% of FM listening is in the 70 dbu contour; in metros, the 10 mv/m
contour on AMs holds most of the listeners. Most Ams today don't put a 10
over the entire market, and are generally crippled from the start.

And I have heard AM IBOC and it sounds better than many highly
compressed
FMs I A/B'd with. The new algorithm is excellent.

Yeah, if you like digital aliasing artifacts screeching in your ears.
The "spectrally replicated" treble response of AM IBOC is akin to
fingernails scratching a chalkboard.

I am listening daily to an LA music AM in IBOC digital and the audio is
crisp, nice, clear, and very listenable. It is nothing like you say.

A few weeks ago, I listened to
XM for about 2 hours in a coworker's car, and the screechy fake treble
actually gave me a headache -- and that's with a bitrate nearly twice
as high as AM IBOC. The only way I could live with either IBOC or XM
is if I turned the treble control all the way down.

XM and IBOC have different systems.

On 99% of AM receivers, there is no analog degradation because the
receivers
are not wide enough to detect the difference.

Not quite... the NRSC tested four receivers which are supposed to be
the most representative of "typical" AM radios. Only one of the
radios (a Delphi car radio) was narrowband enough to not exhibit any
degradation. But the three others did have degraded audio with IBOC
in use, the worst being a Sony boombox. iBiquity's excuse for this
was that according to their testing, the degradation wasn't bad enough
that it would cause most listeners to change the station.

We tested with a bunch or receivers, rnging from clock radios to boom boxes
to walma n type devices. None of us could tell any significant difference in
A/B testing. By the way, the NRSC test you refer to was before the revised
IBOC algorithm and not necessarily on a station with a wide bandwidth
antenna system.

But the
point is, according to the NRSC tests, 3/4ths of today's most popular
radios _will_ have degraded audio when AM IBOC is in use.

Near 3 weeks of operation, not one listener comment on the analog signal.

You are letting the cart get ahead of the horse. The CES is going to be
filled with IBOC equipment, and I believe some at much more affordable
prices.

Yeah, like B.E.'s IBOC exciter, with a list price of over $22,000...
that's a steal!

That is actually pretty reasonable as broadcast gear goes. An Optimod or an
Omnia are in the 10 k range... good equipment is costly... our last morning
show boards cost around $80 thousand each.

Many stations, especially those doing block, brokered programming, will
not
gain initially from IBOC. those with decent signals can gain a lot.

Ah, equality at its best... the big 50 kW stations can enjoy "digital"
reception for their local listeners, no matter how much they hash all
over the band, while the smaller stations get the short shrift, and
may not even be able to use IBOC at all.

No, they may not. They are brokered or ethnic because they can not compete
on signal alone. So they specialize. No one asked them to file for
insufficient facilities, or not to upgrade in time as markets grew.

Case in point... 1530 WSAI. When they're transmitting IBOC at night
(as they have been constantly), the "hash" to adjacent channels is so
bad, it can even be heard on the _studio monitor_ of a neighboring
station, 1520 WKWH in Shelbyville, IN.

Does WKWH have its studio inside its interference free night contour? Many
AMs have studios in locations where the night signal is unlistenable. And
WSAI is direcitonal at night, protecting Sacramento. Of course, WKWH only
has 250 watts at night.

IBOC can only be run 6 AM to 6 PM or sunrise to sunset, whihever is greater.

Any experiments were to determne the insertion level for IBOC for porposed
night operation.

In article , David Eduardo wrote:

There are 700 million radios out there; most all of them have crummy AM
response.

Tell me about it. ALthough those of us with the occasional hi-fi AM radio
would like to hear something resembling hi-fi. And it wouldn't be all
that out of the way for the broadcaster to do.

I thought the whole idea was to put out the best audio quality you could
to make the crappy radios sound the best they can. I still don't see how
IBOC helps the ANALOG signal.

It's funny...that to listen to AM I now have to look for the crappiest
radio I have instead of the best radio so that I don't hear the hiss, the
clipping and the hash if the radio drifts out of tune...

--
Sven Weil
New York City, U.S.A.

The typical AM receiver can not tell the difference between the reduced
IBOC-mandated analog bandwidth and a full NRSC bandwidth. In fact, I fidn
that the reduced transmitted bandwidth sounds better on many radios than
wider bandwidth.

It depends on how strongly the station is pushing their audio
processing and pre-emphasis. With moderate processing, like a
European shortwave station, you only notice the lack of high
frequencies. But with "make-your-ears-bleed" processing and
pre-emphasis pushed to the max, like what 710 WOR uses, that
brick-wall filter at 5 kHz can cause some very nasty "ringing"
distortion which becomes audible on receivers of any bandwidth. For
example, take a listen to how bad WOR sounds on their own modulation
monitor -- their analog audio is filled with ringing distortion, and
that's it's been ever since they started using IBOC....

http://www.wor710.com/Engineering/iboc/wor_mod_mon.wav

There are 700 million radios out there; most all of them have crummy AM
response.

Yes, but if we always catered to the lowest common denominator, then
there would be no such thing as a sports car, McDonald's would be
considered fine dining, Emerson and Realistic would be the leading
brands of "high-end audio", and George W. Bush would be President (oh,
wait -- scratch that one).

It does not degrade analog FM at all; on AM I feel the degradation looks bad
on paper, but in reality it is insignificant and may be an improvment.

Well, imagine if all the Class C "graveyard channel" stations started
using IBOC -- would the mutually assured destruction caused by that be
"insignificant"?

The said the same thing about CD players, VHS players and DVD players. I
paid over $700 for my first VHS; $1200 for my first CD player. And the tapes
and CDs were very expensive to start.

But CDs still cost more than cassettes, even though they are far
cheaper to manufacture. And don't expect an HD Radio Walkman any time
soon -- the battery drain is far too high to useable on the typical
pair of AA cells.

Listeners outside the metro are do not afford most stations any opportunity
for extra revenue.

Many areas of the country rely upon fringe-area reception to have any
AM/FM radio at all. I'm very close to one such area -- central NJ,
which is halfway between NYC and Philly and thus almost every adjacent
FM channel is occupied with a signal that is "non-local" but is
listenable. Now that NYC's 102.7 WNEW has begun using IBOC, in some
areas all you hear on 102.5 and 102.9 is a constant white-noise hiss,
much to the consternation of any fringe-area listeners of Philly's
102.9 WMGK.

I am listening daily to an LA music AM in IBOC digital and the audio is
crisp, nice, clear, and very listenable. It is nothing like you say.

Well then, I invite you to listen to WOR's audio samples, made with
the new "HDC" codec -- spectrum analysis reveals that all audio above
5 kHz is artificially created using "spectral replication". Even
WOR's engineers admit that this sometimes causes the digital audio to
sound "shredded", due to the incorrectly reproduced treble
harmonics.....

http://www.wor710.com/Engineering/ib...io_samples.htm

XM and IBOC have different systems.

Both use AACplus with Spectral Band Replication. XM uses it at a
claimed average of 64 kbps for music channels, while IBOC-AM is 36
kbps for stereo mode and 20 kbps for mono mode, and IBOC-FM is at
either 64 or 96 kbps -- which is still far from the claimed
"CD-quality" sound.

We tested with a bunch or receivers, rnging from clock radios to boom boxes
to walma n type devices. None of us could tell any significant difference in
A/B testing.

Next time you are in NYC, switch between 710 WOR and 770 WABC, even on
the crappiest, most narrow-bandwidth AM radio you can find. WOR's
IBOC signal might sound "okay", but once you switch to WABC, the
difference in clarity is immediately noticeable. Due to their
maxed-out audio processing, WOR may be "louder", but WABC sounds a
whole lot cleaner.

Near 3 weeks of operation, not one listener comment on the analog signal.

WOR listeners have complained to the _electric company_, thinking that
the IBOC "hash" surrounding their signal was power line interference.
And most listeners never call a radio station for any reason. Many
times when a station is off the air, is transmitting dead air, or has
other obvious problems, nobody calls.

Any experiments were to determne the insertion level for IBOC for porposed
night operation.

Regardless of the purpose, WSAI shouldn't be transmitting IBOC at
night -- their STA to do so expired back in September, and the FCC
database shows no record of a renewal. WSAI is not properly marked in
the database as a hybrid digital station, either.

And good luck airing any New Year's celebration on an IBOC station --
unless you kill the analog delay, the count-down to midnight will be
about 8½ seconds late.

"Sven Franklyn Weil" wrote in message
...
In article , David Eduardo wrote:

There are 700 million radios out there; most all of them have crummy AM
response.

Tell me about it. ALthough those of us with the occasional hi-fi AM radio
would like to hear something resembling hi-fi. And it wouldn't be all
that out of the way for the broadcaster to do.

I thought the whole idea was to put out the best audio quality you could
to make the crappy radios sound the best they can. I still don't see how
IBOC helps the ANALOG signal.

It does not help. However, it does appear from observation that _reducing_
the bandwidth to the IBOC analog requirement makes the majority of the
narrowband AM receivers out there sound better. By not transmitting anything
outside the passband of the receivers or which is at the downslope region
may actually make the audio better. Otherwise, you are pushing bouleders
through a funnel.

It does not help. However, it does appear from observation that _reducing_
the bandwidth to the IBOC analog requirement makes the majority of the
narrowband AM receivers out there sound better.

"Sound better" by whose judgement? That of iBiquity supporters?
People who leave their radio's treble knob turned all the way down
(and yes, I've encountered numerous people who do that)?

The engineers at 710 WOR discovered that a 6 kHz audio cut-off sounds
far better than 5 kHz, even on narrowband receivers -- and the
experience of myself and many other listeners supports that as well.
But, iBiquity won't let them use it, because it doesn't meet the IBOC
system spec.

But WOR does switch their audio to 6 kHz at sunset when the IBOC
sidebands are turned off, and on the average cheap radio, the
difference is subtle, but unmistakable. If you try to process an
Optimod 9200 too heavily when its 5 kHz filter is in use, you get a
very nasty-sounding "ringing" distortion. But when you switch the
9200 to its 6 kHz filter (which actually has its cut-off at about 6.25
kHz), this problem disappears and that extra kHz's worth of audio
response provides a significant improvement in crispness and clarity.

If AM stations really think that nobody is listening to them with
hi-fi receivers, then I would accept a 6 kHz cut-off. That's what AM
stations in the U.K. are using, and while it's definitely not hi-fi or
even mid-fi, it does sound alright. But not 5 kHz -- on an Optimod
9200, the distortion is intolerable, and on other processors, you're
still left with very dull-sounding audio.

"WBRW" wrote in message
...
It does not help. However, it does appear from observation that
_reducing_
the bandwidth to the IBOC analog requirement makes the majority of the
narrowband AM receivers out there sound better.

"Sound better" by whose judgement? That of iBiquity supporters?
People who leave their radio's treble knob turned all the way down
(and yes, I've encountered numerous people who do that)?

No, actually. By a bunch of people who work at a station of different ages
and both men and women. Each listend to an a ssortment of typical analog
receivers as the IBOC and analog was A/B switched. We are talking about
average consumer radios. And there were as many who liked the narrower
bandwidth as those who like the NRSC bandwidth; most did nt hear any
difference.

The engineers at 710 WOR discovered that a 6 kHz audio cut-off sounds
far better than 5 kHz, even on narrowband receivers -- and the
experience of myself and many other listeners supports that as well.
But, iBiquity won't let them use it, because it doesn't meet the IBOC
system spec.

But WOR does switch their audio to 6 kHz at sunset when the IBOC
sidebands are turned off, and on the average cheap radio, the
difference is subtle, but unmistakable. If you try to process an
Optimod 9200 too heavily when its 5 kHz filter is in use, you get a
very nasty-sounding "ringing" distortion. But when you switch the
9200 to its 6 kHz filter (which actually has its cut-off at about 6.25
kHz), this problem disappears and that extra kHz's worth of audio
response provides a significant improvement in crispness and clarity.

Proving it pays to have a good engineer. Nothing else.

If AM stations really think that nobody is listening to them with
hi-fi receivers, then I would accept a 6 kHz cut-off. That's what AM
stations in the U.K. are using, and while it's definitely not hi-fi or
even mid-fi, it does sound alright. But not 5 kHz -- on an Optimod
9200, the distortion is intolerable, and on other processors, you're
still left with very dull-sounding audio.

It just takes different adjustments. And on most receivers, by test,
indistinguishable.

On 30 Dec 2003 13:56:00 GMT, (WBRW) wrote:

Well, imagine if all the Class C "graveyard channel" stations started
using IBOC -- would the mutually assured destruction caused by that be
"insignificant"?

That's when you'll see all hell break loose - when major market 50kw
stations find the 1kw stations stealing their salable near fringe
signals.

But CDs still cost more than cassettes, even though they are far
cheaper to manufacture. And don't expect an HD Radio Walkman any time
soon -- the battery drain is far too high to useable on the typical
pair of AA cells.

It's difficult enough to listen to a highly processed signal in
headsets. I can only imagine the torture we'd endure with IBOC.

And most listeners never call a radio station for any reason. Many
times when a station is off the air, is transmitting dead air, or has
other obvious problems, nobody calls.

Actually, the calls generally come from the owner who insists that the
station make an announcement that they're off the air.

Rich

On 30 Dec 2003 13:56:02 GMT, "David Eduardo"
wrote:

However, it does appear from observation that _reducing_
the bandwidth to the IBOC analog requirement makes the majority of the
narrowband AM receivers out there sound better.

Certainly not in my experience! The stations I've heard running IBOC
sound noticeably inferior to those not running it, even on a
narrowband receiver. It also seems to me that the interference
issues are not trivial, and interference from IBOC does affect the
primary service areas of adjacent channel stations, at least in some
cases. And the whole nighttime issue is a major problem.

Let's face it -- AM IBOC is a kludge. It's a very technically
impressive kludge, but a kludge nonetheless. It creates bigger
problems than it solves. If AM can't survive without this, then AM
probably can't survive. And maybe in the 21st century, it shouldn't.
Maybe we're trying to make a horse-and-buggy compete with the
automobile by putting the horse on steroids. It won't make the horse
fast enough, and it will be harmful to his health.

Next time I'm in L.A. I'll have to check out KTNQ. However, the Delco
AM stereo tuner in my car is not narrowband.

Mark Howell

All the IBOC in the world is not going to solve the problems of crappy
programming content.