| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
WKMI sounds owful what's the problem?
Hello all.
I'd like to know what's wrong with WKMI 1360 here in Kalamazoo? I noticed during late October or early November that the sound on this station was very distorted. At first I thought it was my stereo equipment but when we purchased a new car and drove it home. We turned on 1360 to hear the Rush Limbaugh program while we were driving. At first I thought that the cars radio was defective but when I went into the house and switched on the stereo I got the same distorted sound. While driving back from a trip to Detroit we switched on WKMI between Battlecreek and Kalamazoo and yes the same problem occurs. I know that it must be a problem with KMI because if you compare the sound of the Rush program with WBCK 930 and WKMI 1360 the sound on 930 is much better. What's the problem? |
Just like the rest of the stations......It started when they fired the professional, licensed engineers that used to run the station in a professional, high-standards manner.....even if they had to do it behind managements' backs....(c; It's just awful what the FCC allows the big corporation radio moguls to get away with, now. On 15 Dec 2003 16:29:51 GMT, "Robert L. Herman" wrote: Hello all. I'd like to know what's wrong with WKMI 1360 here in Kalamazoo? I noticed during late October or early November that the sound on this station was very distorted. At first I thought it was my stereo equipment but when we purchased a new car and drove it home. We turned on 1360 to hear the Rush Limbaugh program while we were driving. At first I thought that the cars radio was defective but when I went into the house and switched on the stereo I got the same distorted sound. While driving back from a trip to Detroit we switched on WKMI between Battlecreek and Kalamazoo and yes the same problem occurs. I know that it must be a problem with KMI because if you compare the sound of the Rush program with WBCK 930 and WKMI 1360 the sound on 930 is much better. What's the problem? Larry W4CSC NNNN |
Robert L. Herman wrote:
Hello all. I'd like to know what's wrong with WKMI 1360 here in Kalamazoo? I noticed during late October or early November that the sound on this station was very distorted. At first I thought it was my stereo equipment but when we purchased a new car and drove it home. We turned on 1360 to hear the Rush Limbaugh program while we were driving. At first I thought that the cars radio was defective but when I went into the house and switched on the stereo I got the same distorted sound. While driving back from a trip to Detroit we switched on WKMI between Battlecreek and Kalamazoo and yes the same problem occurs. I know that it must be a problem with KMI because if you compare the sound of the Rush program with WBCK 930 and WKMI 1360 the sound on 930 is much better. Does this happen only at certain times of day? (and only if you're at some distance from Kalamazoo, maybe 30-50 miles) From mid-afternoon through mid-morning and overnight, sometimes a station's skywave signal interferes with its own groundwave signal. That's why Chicago stations will sometimes sound distorted when monitored 75-100 miles away. The distortion will change in nature over time (2-3 minutes) and will occasionally disappear altogether. Alternatively... does it happen only in certain areas, clearing up in other parts of town? Some stations have directional antennas that are too selective - more directional on 1360 than they are on 1359 and 1361. The result is that if you're in the "wrong" direction from the station - a direction in which they don't send most of their signal - you may receive "too much" audio by comparision to the "carrier" signal. This results in distortion. WKMI is only directional at night, so if this is the reason, the distortion should disappear during the day. Of course, it's also very possible the station is brokengrin! -- Doug Smith W9WI Pleasant View (Nashville), TN EM66 http://www.w9wi.com |
"Robert L. Herman" wrote in message ... To ansdwer your question. First of all it's an all day thing. It seems to be all over town. About a month ago I was riding out to a place where I play piano music for some older people at an assisted living place on the other side of town and the distorted sound never cleared up from my house to the other side of town. As I stated earlier the distortion was heard as far away as Battle Creek. To discribe the sound would bew like running a radio with batteries that are about to die. You know that raspy sound that a station makes when the batteries are about to die. It's definitely a problem at the station. Many AM stations these days are only on the air because if they aren't, the FCC will take the license. The way those owners operate them, I'm surprised they just don't give the license up anyway. It's poor maintenance and a lack of caring on the part of the person(s) who should care and fix the problem. |
"videonex" wrote in message ... "Robert L. Herman" wrote in message ... To ansdwer your question. First of all it's an all day thing. It seems to be all over town. About a month ago I was riding out to a place where I play piano music for some older people at an assisted living place on the other side of town and the distorted sound never cleared up from my house to the other side of town. As I stated earlier the distortion was heard as far away as Battle Creek. To discribe the sound would bew like running a radio with batteries that are about to die. You know that raspy sound that a station makes when the batteries are about to die. It's definitely a problem at the station. Many AM stations these days are only on the air because if they aren't, the FCC will take the license. The way those owners operate them, I'm surprised they just don't give the license up anyway. It's poor maintenance and a lack of caring on the part of the person(s) who should care and fix the problem. WKMI is the #4 rated station in its market, which is relatively small and ranked #182 nationally. I'd be surprised if a relatively successful station, albeit in a smaller market, is just ignoring a critical engineering issue. The first suggestion, if the station is one of interest, is to call it and make a polite inquiry of the manager or program director or operations manager. That said, I do take issue with a statement that most AM stations are on the air to hold the license. Most AM stations are on the air to make money. Not all do, but many are among America's top billing stations, and those AMs with decent signals that cover their markets are successful. And many smaller AMs that have limited coverage have found great success and profit by serving ethnic communities, minority groups or religious followings. In some cases, there are over-radioed markets where the FMs have better coverage and the AMs are inferior (Palm Springs leaps to mind) where the AMs are all pretty miserable and none even covers the entire market. However, even in those cases, there is generally someone who is willing to take the risk of buying the station to program their "better idea." |
On 17 Dec 2003 15:58:21 GMT, "videonex" wrote:
"Robert L. Herman" wrote in message ... To ansdwer your question. First of all it's an all day thing. It seems to be all over town. About a month ago I was riding out to a place where I play piano music for some older people at an assisted living place on the other side of town and the distorted sound never cleared up from my house to the other side of town. As I stated earlier the distortion was heard as far away as Battle Creek. To discribe the sound would bew like running a radio with batteries that are about to die. You know that raspy sound that a station makes when the batteries are about to die. It's definitely a problem at the station. Many AM stations these days are only on the air because if they aren't, the FCC will take the license. The way those owners operate them, I'm surprised they just don't give the license up anyway. It's poor maintenance and a lack of caring on the part of the person(s) who should care and fix the problem. I suspect you're right and it's a maintenance problem. One of the local TV stations here in town seems to be forever having audio problems when it runs network programs off of the satellite or the evening news from the station in the next nearby larger market. Some nights the sound is so bad as to be unintelligible. Yet, it goes on month after month this way. They just don't care enough to pay to fix it (or can't afford to). George |
"David Eduardo" wrote in message ... That said, I do take issue with a statement that most AM stations are on the air to hold the license. Most AM stations are on the air to make money. Not all do, but many are among America's top billing stations, and those AMs with decent signals that cover their markets are successful. And many smaller AMs that have limited coverage have found great success and profit by serving ethnic communities, minority groups or religious followings. David, I always value your opinions and find you one the most sane of the regulars here. But I did not say that "Most" AMs are only on the air to hold the license, I said "Many" are. There is a big diff and it is true. What you said about the successful AMs is also true. I just think that any station that let's it's quality get that bad is among the ones just holding the license. If I owned it, it would be in stereo and have the best audio quality available 24/7. If I couldn't afford to keep it going properly I would sell it or send the license back to the FCC. |
"videonex" wrote in message ... "David Eduardo" wrote in message ... That said, I do take issue with a statement that most AM stations are on the air to hold the license. Most AM stations are on the air to make money. Not all do, but many are among America's top billing stations, and those AMs with decent signals that cover their markets are successful. And many smaller AMs that have limited coverage have found great success and profit by serving ethnic communities, minority groups or religious followings. David, I always value your opinions and find you one the most sane of the regulars here. But I did not say that "Most" AMs are only on the air to hold the license, I said "Many" are. There is a big diff and it is true. What you said about the successful AMs is also true. I just think that any station that let's it's quality get that bad is among the ones just holding the license. If I owned it, it would be in stereo and have the best audio quality available 24/7. If I couldn't afford to keep it going properly I would sell it or send the license back to the FCC. Point taken on the "many" vs. "most" distinction. Since I am at the West Coast's first regularly operating IBOC AM station, I can attest to the potential of better quality. AM IBOC on the couple of receivers we have sounds better than some of the more squashed FMs in the LA market... However, there are a "scad" (to avoid having to say either "many" or "most") of AMs that do not deserve to exist, as they cover very little, or have miserable facilities and high-Q DAs and no intent to improve. I just wonder if IBOC may create a band cleansing in the process. |
In article , David Eduardo wrote: can
attest to the potential of better quality. AM IBOC on the couple of receivers we have sounds better than some of the more squashed FMs in Yeah but I bet its trashing the analog signal that people are listening to. WOR in New York sounds like a buzz-saw when its running IBOC. Not that it's any better at night anymore either. Music sounds all distorted and clipped. -- Sven Weil New York City, U.S.A. |
"Sven Franklyn Weil" wrote in message ... In article , David Eduardo wrote: can attest to the potential of better quality. AM IBOC on the couple of receivers we have sounds better than some of the more squashed FMs in Yeah but I bet its trashing the analog signal that people are listening to. WOR in New York sounds like a buzz-saw when its running IBOC. Not that it's any better at night anymore either. Music sounds all distorted and clipped. We bought a dozen or so average consumer radios, from a walkman to a boom box to a clock radio, and whatever is in between. On every one, the music in analog sounds as good as it did before, and switching the IBOC on and off produced during several days of testing no significant differences on average radios. The only thing that IBOC requires is a narrower analog bandwidth. The processing stays the same, and most radios sound identical as they have limited bandwidth to begin with. |
On 20 Dec 2003 06:38:10 GMT, "David Eduardo"
wrote: We bought a dozen or so average consumer radios, from a walkman to a boom box to a clock radio, and whatever is in between. On every one, the music in analog sounds as good as it did before, and switching the IBOC on and off produced during several days of testing no significant differences on average radios. Your experience is precisely the opposite of a 50kw (oldies) music station with which I am familiar. It turned off the IBOC because of unacceptable adjacent channel interference issues. To the great surprise of the PD, who believed as you do that no one would notice the difference in the analog bandwidth, he immediately began getting calls from listeners during his airshift saying the sound of the station had improved greatly, and praising the station for whatever it had done to make it sound so much better. AFAIK this station has no immediate plans to resume testing of IBOC. I personally have heard this station with IBOC operating and found the analog signal nearly unlistenable on a narrow-band standard GM car radio. Mark Howell |
David Eduardo had written:
| We bought a dozen or so average consumer radios, from a walkman to a boom | box to a clock radio, and whatever is in between. On every one, the music in | analog sounds as good as it did before, and switching the IBOC on and off | produced during several days of testing no significant differences on | average radios. Has anyone thought to test on car radios? It's my observation that the average car radio on AM has more sensitivity and (sometimes) wider bandwidth than the average home unit. That, to me, would seem to be the acid test. Most of the stuff you can get in a Target or Mall-Wart for home use is pretty junky. A Zenith Circle-of-Sound clock radio from the 1970s will run circles around anything for home use today. (I miss Zenith in a curious kind of way.) The best recent unit that I have is a Cambridge Sound Works Model 88 from 2001. It seems fully NSRC compliant. The two music stations on AM that I could stand to listen to for extended periods, KFRC (oldies) and KMZT (classical) sound reasonably good -- not quite FM, but better than almost any AM. It's a little weak as far as sensitivity goes, though. | The only thing that IBOC requires is a narrower analog bandwidth. The | processing stays the same, and most radios sound identical as they have | limited bandwidth to begin with. But then there is the interference. Electrical interference on AM is bad enough as it is. -- "Right here in Minnesota!" "Bullwinkle, that's Florida!" "Well, if they're gonna keep adding states all the time, they can't expect me to keep up!" -- Rocky & Bullwinkle, episode 5, 1960 |
In article , Mark Howell wrote:
Your experience is precisely the opposite of a 50kw (oldies) music station with which I am familiar. It turned off the IBOC because of unacceptable adjacent channel interference issues. To the great Two stations here in the New York City market (WPAT-AM 93 Paterson and WZRC-AM 1480 New York) were also trial-running IBOC, in addition to WOR-710. The test didn't last for even a month..... Maybe there's something to do with the processing or what. Who knows. All I know is, when I'm listening to WOR with IBOC going, there is also a hiss in the audio - almost like tape hiss. And this is on a medium quality digitally tuned walkman, so I know I have the station on the dot. However, on some realy really low-fi clock radios and pocket radios the station sounds 'OK' sort of...not including the hissing going down all the way to 68 and to 74 (where it's sort of overridden by the splatter from the stations at 66 WFAN and 77 WABC respectively. -- Sven Weil New York City, U.S.A. |
I had an opportunity to listen to WKMI today. My wife left me in her
car for a minute while she ran into a store to pick up something. The fact that the minute turned out to be an hour is immaterial to this discussion :) She has a 2002 car with a Bose audio system so it's capable of good quality. We were within the WKMI 2 mv/m contour in a quiet (RF wise) location in which I was able to listen to a 1 kw AM station about 20 miles away with a good signal. I listened to all the AM stations in the market and WKMI sounded to me like either something was being over driven or more likely the RF final (if they still have a plate modulated transmitter) is soft and they are pushing it hard to get power output. But then again (if it is plate modulated) it could be a really sick tube in the modulator section. Listening to adjacent channels I do not believe that they are running IBOC. I'm going to have to do some checking next week to figure this out. Unless they are waiting for parts I can't believe anyone would let this go like it is for long. Chuck Mark Roberts wrote: Has anyone thought to test on car radios? It's my observation that the average car radio on AM has more sensitivity and (sometimes) wider bandwidth than the average home unit. That, to me, would seem to be the acid test. Most of the stuff you can get in a Target or Mall-Wart for home use is pretty junky. A Zenith Circle-of-Sound clock radio from the 1970s will run circles around anything for home use today. (I miss Zenith in a curious kind of way.) The best recent unit that I have is a Cambridge Sound Works Model 88 from 2001. It seems fully NSRC compliant. The two music stations on AM that I could stand to listen to for extended periods, KFRC (oldies) and KMZT (classical) sound reasonably good -- not quite FM, but better than almost any AM. It's a little weak as far as sensitivity goes, though. | The only thing that IBOC requires is a narrower analog bandwidth. The | processing stays the same, and most radios sound identical as they have | limited bandwidth to begin with. But then there is the interference. Electrical interference on AM is bad enough as it is. |
"Mark Roberts" wrote in message ... David Eduardo had written: | We bought a dozen or so average consumer radios, from a walkman to a boom | box to a clock radio, and whatever is in between. On every one, the music in | analog sounds as good as it did before, and switching the IBOC on and off | produced during several days of testing no significant differences on | average radios. Has anyone thought to test on car radios? It's my observation that the average car radio on AM has more sensitivity and (sometimes) wider bandwidth than the average home unit. That, to me, would seem to be the acid test. All of us tested our own car radios, which, with two exceptions, are anoalog only. We noticed no difference. I probably had the acid test in my hands, as I had created the format and know the music to the point I can hear it without a radio. I noted no difference in any car radio, ranging from a $39.95 cheapie in a van to a $3,000 Bose system. Most of the stuff you can get in a Target or Mall-Wart for home use is pretty junky. But nearly 75% of all listening is in the home or office, not the car. A Zenith Circle-of-Sound clock radio from the 1970s will run circles around anything for home use today. (I miss Zenith in a curious kind of way.) The best recent unit that I have is a Cambridge Sound Works Model 88 from 2001. It seems fully NSRC compliant. The two music stations on AM that I could stand to listen to for extended periods, KFRC (oldies) and KMZT (classical) sound reasonably good -- not quite FM, but better than almost any AM. It's a little weak as far as sensitivity goes, though. I had a McKay-Dymek in the 70's and 80's and it was the radio that I used to do an initial set-up of audio chains. However, even then we did the same thing as today: purchase of radios typical of those used for 90% of listening. And adjustments were made to optimize the sound for the last 10 years or so of consumer gear. | The only thing that IBOC requires is a narrower analog bandwidth. The | processing stays the same, and most radios sound identical as they have | limited bandwidth to begin with. But then there is the interference. Electrical interference on AM is bad enough as it is. The interference to other stations takes place in areas where those other stations do not have listeners. the minor inconvenience of not being able to DX 1010 and 1030 in LA is nothing compared with the gain of eventual broad acceptance of digital AM. |
"David Eduardo" wrote in message
... Most of the stuff you can get in a Target or Mall-Wart for home use is pretty junky. But nearly 75% of all listening is in the home or office, not the car. For all bands of radio combined, perhaps. It can't possibly be true for AM. Jerome |
"Cooperstown.Net" wrote in message ... "David Eduardo" wrote in message ... Most of the stuff you can get in a Target or Mall-Wart for home use is pretty junky. But nearly 75% of all listening is in the home or office, not the car. For all bands of radio combined, perhaps. It can't possibly be true for AM. There are only 2 bands, AM and FM, that appear in ratings above minimum reporting standards. I ran audience by location for LA, the highest in-car location in the US. AM At Home 49% In Car 36% At work 14% FM At home 42% In Car 30% At work 25% There is a small AM advantage in car, a larger one in home, and a disadvantage at work. Nationally, a greater portion of listening is in home and at work, due to shorter commute times than LA. And the AM vs. FM in car distinction is smaller still due to that very same commute time reduction. In Chicago, for example, the difference in percentage of AM and FM listening in car is less than 2 percent, at just under 30% of listening time. In a market like El Paso, with significantly less commute distances, the AM and FM percentage that is in-car is about 25% for each band. |
"David Eduardo" wrote That said, I do take issue with a statement that most AM stations are on the air to hold the license. Most AM stations are on the air to make money. Not all do, but many are among America's top billing stations, and those AMs with decent signals that cover their markets are successful. Agreed. Case in point -- http://rronline.com/Subscribers/Ratings/Homepage.htm and select Milwaukee, WI. Number one rated station, and resoundingly so, is an AM. -- Dave |
True, though look at the rest of that list for Milwaukee. 80% of the
top-10 stations are FM. Only 53% of all radio stations (not counting non-commercial) in the Milwaukee market are FM. There's a lot of AM stations being left out. A similar situation exists in other markets. In many (14 of the top 35) markets, an AM station is #1. However, in 11 of the top 35 the top-ranked AM station is the ONLY AM in the top 10, and in no market are there more than three AMs in the top 10. (unless you count the AM side of an AM/FM simulcast) I guess the point is, an AM station can be successful but ONLY if it has the signal to fully cover the market. The vast majority don't. -- Doug Smith W9WI Pleasant View (Nashville), TN EM66 http://www.w9wi.com (it may also be instructive to note that of the 45 AM stations to make the top 10 in the 35 largest markets, ALL of them run news/talk formats..) |
"Doug Smith W9WI" wrote in message ... True, though look at the rest of that list for Milwaukee. 80% of the top-10 stations are FM. Only 53% of all radio stations (not counting non-commercial) in the Milwaukee market are FM. There's a lot of AM stations being left out. A similar situation exists in other markets. In many (14 of the top 35) markets, an AM station is #1. However, in 11 of the top 35 the top-ranked AM station is the ONLY AM in the top 10, and in no market are there more than three AMs in the top 10. (unless you count the AM side of an AM/FM simulcast) I guess the point is, an AM station can be successful but ONLY if it has the signal to fully cover the market. The vast majority don't. That is exactly the issue. There are markets where only one or two AMs fully cover the Arbitron survey area, others with none. Look at a few examples: Houston, maybe 2 AMs, 610 and 740 cover the whole market. Washington, DC: no AM fully covers metro. Cleveland: 3 AMs cover daytime, two at night. Miami/Ft Lauderdale... maybe 2 (560 and 610) cover day and night. On the other hand, markets like San Francisco have multiple good AM signals, and 3 to 4 AMs in the top 10 consistently. NY is similar, with WABC, WINS and WCBS among the top stations, and WFAN top or second highest biller. Pittsburgh: one AM has fullmarket coverage. Denver: 2, maybe 3 have full day and night coverage. Phoenix: 2 AMs truly cover the whole MSA. Dallas/Ft Worth... except for 1080, 570 and 820, no station covers the whole metro. It is all about the signal. |
On 23 Dec 2003 19:41:14 GMT, David Eduardo ("David") writes:
David Washington, DC: no AM fully covers metro. WMAL? |
"Sven Franklyn Weil" wrote in message ... P.S.: Why did Clear Channel flip AM 1260 from CNN-Radio News to Fox Sports? Now they have two all-sports statios with the same name: SportsTalk 1260 (WWRC) and SportsTalk 98 (WTEM). Both licenced to the same city and serving the same market with the same format. Way to dilute your brand guys!!! Or is there something I'm missing here? I'm convinced that Clear Channel has no idea what to do with 1260; they gobbled it up when they bought Chancellor, flipped it from nostalgia to business, then to CNN and now to Fox Sports. It's always near the bottom of the heap book after book after book regardless of the format - although much of that can be attributed to it's signal. I really think it's just part of the Clear Channel business philosophy - they don't run formats on their AM stations that serve a community interest, they run formats that are *easy to sell*. The key word in that sentence is *easy*. Sports sells (even with big honkin' zero's in the book) because it's geared to young men. Nostalgia doesn't sell because it's geared to an older demographic that advertisers just aren't targeting. Business and CNN were just place holder formats (sports may be as well) to keep from having a dead carrier. Clear Channel seems to understand how to invest dollars in the licensing and infrastructure of it's properties (their recent RDS bonanza as an example), but they don't seem willing to investing in the content of their properties (AM's most notably). If I were a cynical person, thinking from a purely business perspective, I'd think that they enjoy expending capitol on hardware/infrastructure because those capitol expenditures can be written off on taxes. Investing in content is undoubtedly considered by the accountants as an expense, and therefore ineligible for the tax write-offs. Wouldn't it be sad if the bean counters were really running the show after all... Now, excuse me while I go wait for the black helicopters. grin -Jeremy Powell |
"Jeremy Powell" wrote in message ... "Sven Franklyn Weil" wrote in message ... P.S.: Why did Clear Channel flip AM 1260 from CNN-Radio News to Fox Sports? Now they have two all-sports statios with the same name: SportsTalk 1260 (WWRC) and SportsTalk 98 (WTEM). Both licenced to the same city and serving the same market with the same format. Way to dilute your brand guys!!! Or is there something I'm missing here? I'm convinced that Clear Channel has no idea what to do with 1260; they gobbled it up when they bought Chancellor, flipped it from nostalgia to business, then to CNN and now to Fox Sports. Nobody knows what to do with it. It has miserable coverage. As far back as 1970, the baseball games had to be simulcast on WEZR to cover the VA suburbs, since e ven daytime, 1260 has no signal out there. |
In article , David Eduardo wrote:
Nobody knows what to do with it. It has miserable coverage. As far b Well you can always cash in by selling it to some leased-access broadcaster or someone with an agenda (like a church or IDT) thinking that they're going to get an influential "DC" station. That's cash in your hand and one less engineering and accounting headache. That's what I'd do if I were in charge of C.C. -- Sven Weil New York City, U.S.A. |
Jeremy Powell wrote:
Yeah - WTOP's AM pattern must have kept some engineer awake at night with worry. I can't recall who they protect to the west (perhaps an Ohio station, I can' recall), but the western suburbs really suffer. Bonneville did a good thing by adding WTOP-FM and WXTR to the "network". But, the AM comes in five over S9 here in Williamsburg. I always tune in before driving up to DC to check on the traffic... I keep the signal until north of Richmond for a while, then it picks up about an hour later and comes in well. It's fine on the eastern side of the beltway, but on the western side it disappears, and right near the confluence of 95 and 395 there is a Japanese language station on 1480 that causes severe second adjacent channel interference as you drive by. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
On 24 Dec 2003 21:07:36 GMT, David Eduardo ("David") writes:
David "Jeremy Powell" wrote in message David ... "Sven Franklyn Weil" wrote in message ... P.S.: Why did Clear Channel flip AM 1260 from CNN-Radio News to Fox Sports? Now they have two all-sports statios with the same name: SportsTalk David 1260 (WWRC) and SportsTalk 98 (WTEM). Both licenced to the same city and serving the same market with the same format. Way to dilute your brand guys!!! Or is there something I'm missing here? I'm convinced that Clear Channel has no idea what to do with 1260; they gobbled it up when they bought Chancellor, flipped it from nostalgia to business, then to CNN and now to Fox Sports. David Nobody knows what to do with it. It has miserable coverage. As far back as David 1970, the baseball games had to be simulcast on WEZR to cover the VA David suburbs, since e ven daytime, 1260 has no signal out there. "...Washington, is, someplace special!" |
|
We bought a dozen or so average consumer radios, from a walkman to a boom
box to a clock radio, and whatever is in between. On every one, the music in analog sounds as good as it did before, and switching the IBOC on and off produced during several days of testing no significant differences on average radios. Try it on a GE Superadio III. It's an "average" radio that you can buy for $49 at Sears. If you can't hear the difference in quality with the IBOC on, then a hearing check is in order. Mark my words... IBOC on AM will be a flop. In addition to the horrendous interference, degraded analog audio, and artifact-laden digital audio, who would spend $500+ for an "HD Radio" setup, just to hear the same local stations, when XM or Sirius costs less than half as much and delivers 100 channels of new, exciting, and often commercial-free programming? And when the radio stations realize that consumers aren't going for it, who would spend the $75,000 - $100,000 per station to convert to IBOC? Arthur Liu's Multicultural Broadcasting tried IBOC on 930 WPAT and 1480 WZRC in the NYC area. But they gave up on it after only a few weeks on the air, because of the degradation of audio and signal quality, and because none of these stations' listeners would ever care to own an IBOC receiver, even *if* they were available in stores. But it's funny -- you never hear about these kinds of negative experiences in Radio World or other publications that are rabidly pro-IBOC. And I know things are really strange when even _David Eduardo_ is speaking favorably of IBOC. What is the world coming to? |
"WBRW" wrote in message ... We bought a dozen or so average consumer radios, from a walkman to a boom box to a clock radio, and whatever is in between. On every one, the music in analog sounds as good as it did before, and switching the IBOC on and off produced during several days of testing no significant differences on average radios. Try it on a GE Superadio III. It's an "average" radio that you can buy for $49 at Sears. If you can't hear the difference in quality with the IBOC on, then a hearing check is in order. The number of such radios pales when comparred to the number represented by more typical devices. I'll bet that in LA, the case in point, there are less than 2,000 of those radios. Who would buy a very expensive portable radio that promotes high AM quality as its selling point? Answer: talk show addicts who have a hard time hearing a local station. Mark my words... IBOC on AM will be a flop. In addition to the horrendous interference, degraded analog audio, and artifact-laden digital audio, who would spend $500+ for an "HD Radio" setup, just to hear the same local stations, The receivers will be below $100 within 12 months, if not sooner. the prices will track CD players and DVD players in price declines. The fact that most radio listening is to local stations answers that question. 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. On 99% of AM receivers, there is no analog degradation because the receivers are not wide enough to detect the difference. when XM or Sirius costs less than half as much and delivers 100 channels of new, exciting, and often commercial-free programming? You forget that a full installation is not just the radio, but the installation and antenna. And then there is $10 to $13 a month in user fees, plus tax. And when the radio stations realize that consumers aren't going for it, who would spend the $75,000 - $100,000 per station to convert to IBOC? 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. Arthur Liu's Multicultural Broadcasting tried IBOC on 930 WPAT and 1480 WZRC in the NYC area. But they gave up on it after only a few weeks on the air, because of the degradation of audio and signal quality, and because none of these stations' listeners would ever care to own an IBOC receiver, even *if* they were available in stores. But it's funny -- you never hear about these kinds of negative experiences in Radio World or other publications that are rabidly pro-IBOC. And I know things are really strange when even _David Eduardo_ is speaking favorably of IBOC. What is the world coming to? 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. |
In article , David Eduardo wrote:
than 2,000 of those radios. Who would buy a very expensive portable radio Most of the AM radios I encounter are 10 dollar no-brand (or one shot brand) portables that you're lucky if they can pick up three of the stronger stations in your market all across the dial. Hell, I saw one in a store that was only able to pick up one station no matter how much I turned the tuning dial -- it was AM 66 WFAN all the way from 5.4 to 16 and nothing else. Yes I hear the hiss and crap on my Superadio and on a lot of other hi-fi radios I have in the house... but let's get real...who aside from us radio geeks listens to AM on something like that? Most people are just using a cheapie clock radio for news in the morning (if that) -- car radio for news on the commute and maybe the odd ball game. And before you think I like IBOC, I am actually gunning for its failure. I hate it. It makes my radios sound like garbage during the day. But if doesn't fail (and it won't)...hey guess what...that's why I have a little 100 milliwatt part 15 rig set up to re-lay the Music Choice channels on my cable TV for my apartment. -- Sven Weil New York City, U.S.A. |
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 13:56:02 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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:25 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com