| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
How good is IBOC?
G'day from Downunder
IBOC has been going in the US for some time now. Is it as good as the people at iBiquity said it was? Does it sound any better than FM stereo or AM stereo? Are receivers easy to buy? How is AM stereo doing in the US? Ian Melbourne |
In article , Seagull wrote:
IBOC has been going in the US for some time now. Is it as good as the people at iBiquity said it was? Does it sound any better than FM stereo or AM stereo? IBOC FM is a mixed bag. It doesn't sound all that wonderful, but again I think most of the FM sound quality issues have to do with overprocessing more than anything else, and digital transmission doesn't do anything about that. IBOC AM sounds pretty awful to my ears. Much worse than good wideband AM transmission with a good receiver (which is something hardly anyone here will ever get a chance to hear, I am sorry to say). Are receivers easy to buy? No. Typical consumers don't even know they exist. How is AM stereo doing in the US? Do we have AM stereo here? --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... IBOC FM is a mixed bag. It doesn't sound all that wonderful, but again I think most of the FM sound quality issues have to do with overprocessing more than anything else, and digital transmission doesn't do anything about that. I am "in the building" with one of these, and on the available receivers, FM IBOC has definite advantages, one you realize you are hearing audio without the preemphasis curve we are used to hearing on FM. That done, it sounds better to everyone who has heard real-world music programming on it. IBOC AM sounds pretty awful to my ears. Much worse than good wideband AM transmission with a good receiver (which is something hardly anyone here will ever get a chance to hear, I am sorry to say). While it will take time to enter the market, the sound of AM IBOC now is very, very good. When running music on the one of these that is also in the building, it sounds better than some local FMs. |
... and creates significant adjacent channel interference
problems. For the latter reason, its use is forbidden at night. And likewise, it should be forbidden for daytime use also since important componants of the signal are outside of the defined bandwidth. If all stations go IBOC then the mutual interferance will severely reduce the coverage areas of all stations, even the 50KWs. IBOC = I.nterfering B.adly O.ff C.hannel Bob Radil A ?subject=NewsgroupRes ponse" E-Mail /A |
"Bob Radil" wrote in message ... ... and creates significant adjacent channel interference problems. For the latter reason, its use is forbidden at night. And likewise, it should be forbidden for daytime use also since important componants of the signal are outside of the defined bandwidth. If all stations go IBOC then the mutual interferance will severely reduce the coverage areas of all stations, even the 50KWs. Most stations don't care today about anything except their home metro groundwave coverage. Any damage in the secondary or skywave coverage areas is irrelevant. |
On 12 Jun 2004 16:30:53 GMT, "David Eduardo"
wrote: Most stations don't care today about anything except their home metro groundwave coverage. Any damage in the secondary or skywave coverage areas is irrelevant. As an employee of one of several AM station owners, including CCU and Disney, involved in a battle over interference from stations in Northern Mexico, I beg to differ. We care a lot, and have joined in legal action to protect our signal. There is also some evidence that IBOC interference can affect home metro groundwave coverage of adjacent channel stations. Mark Howell |
On 13 Jun 2004 22:49:37 GMT, Mark Howell wrote:
As an employee of one of several AM station owners, including CCU and Disney, involved in a battle over interference from stations in Northern Mexico, I beg to differ. We care a lot, and have joined in legal action to protect our signal. There is also some evidence that IBOC interference can affect home metro groundwave coverage of adjacent channel stations. Between the cubans and the mexicans, I can't get WLS reliably here in Charlotte at night. I also have trouble with a lot of the locals. (I don't know if they are flea power at night or what, but there is almost nothing on the band (other than WBT) that seems to come in clearly at night. sigh I dread seeing what IBOC will do to the local scene.. will get even worse. |
How's FM Quadrophonic doing?
|
"Mark Howell" wrote in message ... On 12 Jun 2004 16:30:53 GMT, "David Eduardo" wrote: Most stations don't care today about anything except their home metro groundwave coverage. Any damage in the secondary or skywave coverage areas is irrelevant. As an employee of one of several AM station owners, including CCU and Disney, involved in a battle over interference from stations in Northern Mexico, I beg to differ. We care a lot, and have joined in legal action to protect our signal. But you are concened about the damage to the local signal, not the abilty to hear an AM hundreds of miles form its city of license. There is also some evidence that IBOC interference can affect home metro groundwave coverage of adjacent channel stations. But not much. I can listen to the 1050 in the Riverside market within 10 miles of the KTNQ 50 kw IBOC site. |
David Eduardo wrote:
Most stations don't care today about anything except their home metro groundwave coverage. Any damage in the secondary or skywave coverage areas is irrelevant. Maybe not to the listeners who live in such areas? There are areas where all nighttime AM service is secondary - where no AM station provides primary service. My location is nearly one of them; the only station providing primary nighttime AM service is WSM. It is not difficult to find a place in Tennessee beyond WSM's primary coverage where there is *no* nighttime primary service - my guess is several hundred thousand people in Tennessee alone live in such areas. Certainly these people aren't a majority, but there are a *bunch* of them out there - and they have Congressmen. Will these people complain to their representatives when their AM service disappears? Or is AM so irrelevant to most listeners that they won't care - or even notice? -- Doug Smith W9WI Pleasant View (Nashville), TN EM66 http://www.w9wi.com |
"David Eduardo" wrote in message ... There is also some evidence that IBOC interference can affect home metro groundwave coverage of adjacent channel stations. But not much. I can listen to the 1050 in the Riverside market within 10 miles of the 1020 KTNQ 50 kw IBOC site. Yeah, but Riverside is in KTNQ's null - where their day pattern has the equivalent of about 6kW, NOT 50kW. The KTNQ day pattern runs 6kW or less over most of the ESE quadrant. They have far less toward Riverside at night. And Riverside is in the max of 1050's day pattern. Presumably the 1020 IBOC pattern is proportional to the main signal's pattern. 30 kHz spacing and 6 kW doesn't sound like a severe test to me. |
On 14 Jun 2004 04:22:21 GMT, "David Eduardo"
wrote: But you are concened about the damage to the local signal, not the abilty to hear an AM hundreds of miles form its city of license. With 5kw we're not expecting a usable signal hundreds of miles away from the COL. But we are concerned about more than our metro coverage area. There is also some evidence that IBOC interference can affect home metro groundwave coverage of adjacent channel stations. But not much. I can listen to the 1050 in the Riverside market within 10 miles of the KTNQ 50 kw IBOC site. I certainly hope so, since they are 30 kHz apart. But there is a real problem with first-adjacent channel interference. I reference a statement submitted by Clear Channel SVP/Engineering Jeff Littlejohn to the National Radio Systems Committee regarding a test involving WTOP, Washington (1500) and WARK, Hagerstown, MD (1490). Daytime interference from WTOP's digital signal was found to be "significant" at WARK's protected 0.50 mV/M contour, and "noticeable" at its 0.75 mV/M contour. The full report can be found at http://www.am-dx.com/clearchannelrprt.pdf Mark Howell |
David Eduardo wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... IBOC FM is a mixed bag. It doesn't sound all that wonderful, but again I think most of the FM sound quality issues have to do with overprocessing more than anything else, and digital transmission doesn't do anything about that. I am "in the building" with one of these, and on the available receivers, FM IBOC has definite advantages, one you realize you are hearing audio without the preemphasis curve we are used to hearing on FM. That done, it sounds better to everyone who has heard real-world music programming on it. Run that by me again? You shouldn't hear any pre-emphasis curve on normal FM. That's what de-emphasis is for. And anyway, typical station EQ is far more radical than the emphasis curve, I am sorry to say. The processing at typical stations is much more of a sonic limitation than the transmission process. IBOC AM sounds pretty awful to my ears. Much worse than good wideband AM transmission with a good receiver (which is something hardly anyone here will ever get a chance to hear, I am sorry to say). While it will take time to enter the market, the sound of AM IBOC now is very, very good. When running music on the one of these that is also in the building, it sounds better than some local FMs. Your local FMs must sound really dreadful. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
"Bill Blomgren" wrote in message ... On 13 Jun 2004 22:49:37 GMT, Mark Howell wrote: As an employee of one of several AM station owners, including CCU and Disney, involved in a battle over interference from stations in Northern Mexico, I beg to differ. We care a lot, and have joined in legal action to protect our signal. There is also some evidence that IBOC interference can affect home metro groundwave coverage of adjacent channel stations. Between the cubans and the mexicans, Believe it or not, other countries also have rights to use the radio spectrum. |
Remember that WARK is off the back of WTOP's pattern. WTOP has something
like 1.5V/m @ 1 km toward WARK, not the 4+V/m like the front of their pattern, or the 2.8V/m RMS of the pattern. The stations are about 54 miles apart. "Mark Howell" wrote in message ... I certainly hope so, since they are 30 kHz apart. But there is a real problem with first-adjacent channel interference. I reference a statement submitted by Clear Channel SVP/Engineering Jeff Littlejohn to the National Radio Systems Committee regarding a test involving WTOP, Washington (1500) and WARK, Hagerstown, MD (1490). Daytime interference from WTOP's digital signal was found to be "significant" at WARK's protected 0.50 mV/M contour, and "noticeable" at its 0.75 mV/M contour. The full report can be found at http://www.am-dx.com/clearchannelrprt.pdf Mark Howell |
"R J Carpenter" wrote in message ... "David Eduardo" wrote in message ... There is also some evidence that IBOC interference can affect home metro groundwave coverage of adjacent channel stations. But not much. I can listen to the 1050 in the Riverside market within 10 miles of the 1020 KTNQ 50 kw IBOC site. Yeah, but Riverside is in KTNQ's null - where their day pattern has the equivalent of about 6kW, NOT 50kW. The KTNQ day pattern runs 6kW or less over most of the ESE quadrant. They have far less toward Riverside at night. And Riverside is in the max of 1050's day pattern. I was talking about listinening in Monterrey Park, right in the main lobe. |
"Mark Howell" wrote in message ... On 14 Jun 2004 04:22:21 GMT, "David Eduardo" wrote: But you are concened about the damage to the local signal, not the abilty to hear an AM hundreds of miles form its city of license. With 5kw we're not expecting a usable signal hundreds of miles away from the COL. But we are concerned about more than our metro coverage area. There is also some evidence that IBOC interference can affect home metro groundwave coverage of adjacent channel stations. But not much. I can listen to the 1050 in the Riverside market within 10 miles of the KTNQ 50 kw IBOC site. I certainly hope so, since they are 30 kHz apart. But there is a real problem with first-adjacent channel interference. I reference a statement submitted by Clear Channel SVP/Engineering Jeff Littlejohn to the National Radio Systems Committee regarding a test involving WTOP, Washington (1500) and WARK, Hagerstown, MD (1490). Daytime interference from WTOP's digital signal was found to be "significant" at WARK's protected 0.50 mV/M contour, and "noticeable" at its 0.75 mV/M contour. Yet today, with noise and all, anything beyond the 5 mv/m contour is pretty useless. |
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... David Eduardo wrote: "Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... IBOC FM is a mixed bag. It doesn't sound all that wonderful, but again I think most of the FM sound quality issues have to do with overprocessing more than anything else, and digital transmission doesn't do anything about that. I am "in the building" with one of these, and on the available receivers, FM IBOC has definite advantages, one you realize you are hearing audio without the preemphasis curve we are used to hearing on FM. That done, it sounds better to everyone who has heard real-world music programming on it. Run that by me again? You shouldn't hear any pre-emphasis curve on normal FM. That's what de-emphasis is for. You hear the artifacts of it having been done, processed, and deemphasized. While it will take time to enter the market, the sound of AM IBOC now is very, very good. When running music on the one of these that is also in the building, it sounds better than some local FMs. Your local FMs must sound really dreadful. Los Angeles. |
There is also some evidence that IBOC interference can affect home
metro groundwave coverage of adjacent channel stations. But not much. I can listen to the 1050 in the Riverside market within 10 miles of the KTNQ 50 kw IBOC site. I have to laugh at that (nothing personal, DE). More of this selective "acceptable interference" while NAB Eddie and his thugs continue their audacious lies about third adjacent LPFM. LPFM is to Eddie what Weapons Of Mass Destruction are to George W. Carry on. |
"David Eduardo" wrote in message ... I was talking about listinening in Monterrey Park, right in the main lobe. My maps show Monterey Park to be off to the north of the KTNQ peak. I'd guess down to the half-power point on the pattern, or lower. Pattern peak direction abt 245 deg, direction to Monterey Park abt 290 deg. In any case, 30kHz spacing shouldn't be a severe test. |
"R J Carpenter" wrote in message ... "David Eduardo" wrote in message ... I was talking about listinening in Monterrey Park, right in the main lobe. My maps show Monterey Park to be off to the north of the KTNQ peak. Monterrey Park is right in the major lobe on the KTNQ pattern, about 8 miles W by NW of the Industry site; the ERP there is in the vicinity of 100 to 125 kw, depending on where in Monterrey Park you are. It may be less than towards Huntington Park, but far more than a non-DA 50 kw operation. I'd guess down to the half-power point on the pattern, or lower. Pattern peak direction abt 245 deg, direction to Monterey Park abt 290 deg. In any case, 30kHz spacing shouldn't be a severe test. With the IE station about 45 miles away, I'd say it is a decent test. In fact, 1050 in that area is usually a mix of XED and the IE station. |
How is AM stereo doing in the US?
Just about dead. Few receivers available except for some OEM car radios, fewer and fewer stations broadcasting it. But there are still more than 10 times as many AM Stereo stations as there are AM stations using IBOC. And as for "fewer and fewer stations broadcasting it", you could say that about IBOC -- within my listening range here in NJ, there are at least half a dozen stations which tested IBOC for a few weeks or months and then gave up on it. For example, iBiquity's web site lists 860 WWDB in Philly and 930 WPAT and 1480 WZRC in the NYC area as current IBOC signals, but all of these stations haven't transmitted IBOC in almost a year now. This kind of track record does not inspire much confidence in the future of IBOC, at least on the AM band. |
On 15 Jun 2004 05:42:55 GMT, Alan Freed wrote:
There is also some evidence that IBOC interference can affect home metro groundwave coverage of adjacent channel stations. But not much. I can listen to the 1050 in the Riverside market within 10 miles of the KTNQ 50 kw IBOC site. I have to laugh at that (nothing personal, DE). More of this selective "acceptable interference" while NAB Eddie and his thugs continue their audacious lies about third adjacent LPFM. LPFM is to Eddie what Weapons Of Mass Destruction are to George W. Carry on. You have a point. As far as I'm concerned the NAB is correct about LPFM, and dead wrong about IBOC, especially AM IBOC. But whichever side of the debate you take, they're being inconsistent. Mark Howell |
Daytime interference from WTOP's digital signal was found to be
"significant" at WARK's protected 0.50 mV/M contour, and "noticeable" at its 0.75 mV/M contour. Yet today, with noise and all, anything beyond the 5 mv/m contour is pretty useless. But what if you're in Nowheresville, Wyoming, and a few 5 mV/m AM signals are all you've got? Tough luck, I guess? The AM IBOC scheme is chronically myopic. Each station using it shall only be concerned with their own primary local coverage area. But what about when the skywaves kick in, and somebody else's "useless" secondary coverage area suddenly lands smack-dab in the middle of your primary coverage area? The middle of the band is a prime example. Here in NJ at night, there's 1000 from Chicago, 1010 from NYC, 1020 from Pittsburgh, 1030 from Boston, 1040 from Des Moines, 1050 from NYC, 1060 from Philly, 1080 from Hartford, 1090 from Baltimore, 1100 from Cleveland, 1110 from Charlotte, 1130 from NYC, 1140 from Richmond, 1170 from Wheeling, 1180 from Rochester, 1190 from NYC and/or Ft. Wayne, 1210 from Philly, and 1220 from Cleveland. Put IBOC on all of these stations at night, and the mutual destruction would be horrendous! Some have suggested that allowance of nighttime IBOC, if any, should be considered on the basis of whether two new AM broadcast signals, on either side of the IBOC station's carrier and with the same power level and signal pattern as the IBOC sidebands would have, would be allowed according to the current FCC allocation scheme. In other words, if WXYZ at 1000 kHz wanted to broadcast IBOC at night, it would be judged on the basis of whether it would be legal to create two new stations, 990 WXYZ-Lower and 1010 WXYZ-Upper, with the same power level and signal pattern as the IBOC sidebands of WXYZ would have. In most cases, the answer would be an emphatic NO. For a 50,000 watt station, the total power used by the IBOC sidebands is about 1500 watts. Split that in half, and that's about 750 watts on each sideband. So, could 710 WOR fire up a new 750-watt station on 700 kHz and another new 750-watt station on 720 kHz at night? Obviously, no -- the new 700 kHz "station" would violate the protection that is afforded to 700 WLW, and likewise the new 720 kHz "station" would walk all over 720 WGN. So, given the same parameters of operation, how could WOR's IBOC sidebands (which can hardly be called "In-Band, On-Channel") ever be allowed at night? iBiquity and the NRSC think they should be... but what's going to happen in the real world? Mark my words -- if there's one thing that's going to finally kill off AM radio entirely in North America, it's definitely going to be IBOC. |
"WBRW" wrote in message ... Daytime interference from WTOP's digital signal was found to be "significant" at WARK's protected 0.50 mV/M contour, and "noticeable" at its 0.75 mV/M contour. Mark my words -- if there's one thing that's going to finally kill off AM radio entirely in North America, it's definitely going to be IBOC. You're preaching to the choir (or at least the priest sitting in the back of the sanctuary). Your analysis is dead-on, excepting that the Canadians determined long ago that AM was dying, and more recently, that FM should follow it into the grave as soon as it's reasonably possible. The U-S's actions will only expedite the patient's demise. Living in Pittsburgh, and as you mention KDKA (I used to work for them, at that), I can tell you that there were some winter mornings where WBZ's sidebands would blow the doors off of even the metro-grade signal....I hate to think what's going to happen when/if WBZ turns IBOC on at night. Then again, I don't really care. I gave up AM pretty much when the noise floor went to -10 on most channels. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- There must always be the appearance of lawfulness....especially when the law's being broken. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- For direct replies, take out the contents between the hyphens. -Really!- |
"WBRW" wrote in message ... How is AM stereo doing in the US? Just about dead. Few receivers available except for some OEM car radios, fewer and fewer stations broadcasting it. But there are still more than 10 times as many AM Stereo stations as there are AM stations using IBOC. Let's say there are turly 200 AM stereo stations left... you are saying there are fewer than 20 AM IBOC staitons. Just the company I am with has 5, and there are already about 50 on the air and another roughly 200 ordered and in construction. Since IBOC does not coexist with AM stereo, it's over. The IBOC stations are in major markets, and the AM stereos are generally X-band or oddball stations with a penchant for suffering. And as for "fewer and fewer stations broadcasting it", you could say that about IBOC -- within my listening range here in NJ, there are at least half a dozen stations which tested IBOC for a few weeks or months and then gave up on it. And which would they be? I don't know of that many in the whole country, and the few that there are had problems with thier antenna system, not with IBOC per se. For example, iBiquity's web site lists 860 WWDB in Philly and 930 WPAT and 1480 WZRC in the NYC area as current IBOC signals, but all of these stations haven't transmitted IBOC in almost a year now. This kind of track record does not inspire much confidence in the future of IBOC, at least on the AM band. The two NY stations have horrible DA systems, neither being optimized for low-Q and bandwidth. And both are ethnic, not candidates for effective use of IBOC when brokers bring thier programs on home made cassettes or CDs. |
"WBRW" wrote in message ... Daytime interference from WTOP's digital signal was found to be "significant" at WARK's protected 0.50 mV/M contour, and "noticeable" at its 0.75 mV/M contour. Yet today, with noise and all, anything beyond the 5 mv/m contour is pretty useless. But what if you're in Nowheresville, Wyoming, and a few 5 mV/m AM signals are all you've got? Tough luck, I guess? Yep. Skywave AM is essentially dead. I have driven at night across Wyoming, from the NW down to the SE. There are FM signals everywhere. In the daytime, many areas have no AM signals, while you can get a minimum of several FMs. FM, especially after 80-90, has given nearly every part of the country multiple FM signals, including areas where there was no day AM coverage. Radio is essentially a local, single market medium. It is definitely treated that way by advertisers. |
Just the company I am with has 5, and there are already about 50 on the air
and another roughly 200 ordered and in construction. Don't make the mistake of equating the number of stations which have ordered or installed IBOC equipment with the number of stations which are actually _using_ IBOC. AM stations which have abandoned use of IBOC (even if they may still have the equipment installed) include WLW, WKDL, WSB, WWDB, KIXI, WPAT, WWJ, KABL, WZRC, and WTOP. As of March, the grand total number of AM stations actually transmitting an IBOC signal was around 20. Perhaps there are a few more today, but I haven't heard of AM IBOC use growing by leaps and bounds in the past few months. Also, KNX, WMTR, WWTR, and WCTC may have filed a Digital Notification with the FCC, but as of yet, none of these are actually transmitting IBOC -- in fact, WCTC is still proudly broadcasting in AM Stereo, and in a recent conversation with their Program Director in which I discussed AM Stereo, he did not mention IBOC at all. I think Greater Media has notified ALL of their stations (AM and FM) as IBOC with the FCC, regardless if each station has any plans to actually install and use it or not. The two NY stations have horrible DA systems, neither being optimized for low-Q and bandwidth. Excuses, excuses. MOST stations in the country are "sub-optimal" and are likely to have many of these same flaws which will seriously inhibit their success with IBOC, or even make it impossible. (Even WOR says "our upper sideband does not exist north of Paramus, NJ" -- how's that for a lousy DA?) So if/when IBOC is mandated, what will happen to these stations? Rather than spend $100,000+ on a complete overhaul, I bet many would just go off the air -- which is both good and bad. Good, because it would finally "clean up" the AM band and restore useable nighttime coverage area on Class B and C signals. Bad, because just as many "good" stations (in terms of programming, ratings, and listenership) will be forced off the air as "bad" stations, and those that are left will be forced to use IBOC -- even though the "de-cluttering" of the band would once again make hi-fi analog AM a reality. |
Mark Howell had written:
| On 15 Jun 2004 05:42:55 GMT, Alan Freed wrote: | | There is also some evidence that IBOC interference can affect home | metro groundwave coverage of adjacent channel stations. | | But not much. I can listen to the 1050 in the Riverside market within 10 | miles of the KTNQ 50 kw IBOC site. | | I have to laugh at that (nothing personal, DE). More of this | selective "acceptable interference" while NAB Eddie and his thugs | continue their audacious lies about third adjacent LPFM. | | LPFM is to Eddie what Weapons Of Mass Destruction are to George W. | | Carry on. | | You have a point. As far as I'm concerned the NAB is correct about | LPFM, and dead wrong about IBOC, especially AM IBOC. But whichever | side of the debate you take, they're being inconsistent. | They're being inconsistent from a technical and engineering point of view. From a protectionist point of view, they're being quite consistent. It's an "I got mine and I'm going to keep it" stance, pure and simple. -- Mark Roberts |"I've posted this so many times I ought to have a Oakland, Cal.| keyboard macro...." NO HTML MAIL | -- Scott Fybush, on a radio-info message board |
|
The Sunday, June 27, 2004, Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/
carried a 1/4-th page story on IBOC. It is on page F7 of the business section, written by Rob Pegoraro. You'll have to register to read it online. Pegoraro was lent a car by iBiquity with both AM and FM IBOC [Panasonic]. He drove it for three days, both in the extended Washington area listening to FM-IBOC and to Philadelphia to try the AM since there are no nearer AM-IBOC stations. To make this very short, he reported "MP3" quality audio and coverage problems on both FM and AM. Regarding FM-IBOC, "In general it functions only where analog broadcasts already work fine." Regarding AM-IBOC: "But digital AM's reception was even shakier than digital FM's. Driving underneath a cluster of electrical wires or a sufficiently long overpass - or simply going through some intersections in the center of Philadelphia - routinely cut out the crisp stereo sound and dumped me back into scratchy old AM." [Note - he was listening to WPEN 950, which has the equivalent of over 200 kW toward central Phily.] He also reported that WETA-FM's analog and digital were a few seconds out of sync, but that is certainly not inherent. I imagine that iBiquity isn't too happy with the story. Bob Carpenter |
CORRECTION?
I've been told that WPEN's 50 kW upgrade has never been built. Sorry. B. |
"R J Carpenter" wrote in message ... The Sunday, June 27, 2004, Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/ carried a 1/4-th page story on IBOC. It is on page F7 of the business section, written by Rob Pegoraro. You'll have to register to read it online. Pegoraro was lent a car by iBiquity with both AM and FM IBOC [Panasonic]. He drove it for three days, both in the extended Washington area listening to FM-IBOC and to Philadelphia to try the AM since there are no nearer AM-IBOC stations. To make this very short, he reported "MP3" quality audio and coverage problems on both FM and AM. Regarding FM-IBOC, "In general it functions only where analog broadcasts already work fine." Regarding AM-IBOC: "But digital AM's reception was even shakier than digital FM's. Driving underneath a cluster of electrical wires or a sufficiently long overpass - or simply going through some intersections in the center of Philadelphia - routinely cut out the crisp stereo sound and dumped me back into scratchy old AM." [Note - he was listening to WPEN 950, which has the equivalent of over 200 kW toward central Phily.] He also reported that WETA-FM's analog and digital were a few seconds out of sync, but that is certainly not inherent. I imagine that iBiquity isn't too happy with the story. Bob Carpenter The "NAB" is really pushing IBOC ever since the satellite radio providers started up with weather and local traffic. I say ******* THEM** and the lame horse they rode in on. IBOC will not hold a candle to XM or Siruis. I have listened to Siruis, I own several XM receivers and they both sound better than the AM IBOC and equal to (and better) than the FM version. Coverage on both systems beats the socks out of the test stations running IBOC. Lets see what people have to say at the next "CES" show in Las Vegas. |
"R J Carpenter" wrote in message ... The Sunday, June 27, 2004, Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/ carried a 1/4-th page story on IBOC. It is on page F7 of the business section, written by Rob Pegoraro. You'll have to register to read it online. Regarding FM-IBOC, "In general it functions only where analog broadcasts already work fine." He also reported that WETA-FM's analog and digital were a few seconds out of sync, but that is certainly not inherent. I imagine that iBiquity isn't too happy with the story. Two things come to mind from this article....the idea that I'd have to accept (when stations go to non-compatible digital mode) a less-than-acceptable audio signal (as I just can't stand MP3 quality, even at higher codecs raths), just so the station can claim it's "High Definition" is unacceptable. When I travel, I expect that I should be able to listen for at least a half-hour from city's center to where I'm going, and this system pretty clearly won't measure up. The second issue (although this goes away when stations go full-dgital) is why a station wouldn't do an analog delay to match the delay for the encode process on digital. Of course, this means station monitors couldn't be used by on-air talent....yet another obstacle to being able to monitor quality, particularly in combo operations. I'm glad I did a lifetime subscription to Sirius. It looks more and more like I'll be listening to this more as the days of traditional broadcasting comes to an end..... -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- There must always be the appearance of lawfulness....especially when the law's being broken. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- For direct replies, take out the contents between the hyphens. -Really!- |
Bob Haberkost had written:
| | | The second issue (although this goes away when stations go | full-dgital) is why a station wouldn't do an analog delay | to match the delay for the encode process on | digital. | In the San Francisco Bay Area, KFOG(FM) is apparently implementing a delay for its analog signal. You can tell by comparing what's on KFOG to what's on its Los Altos repeater, KFFG. Both are fairly easily received in much of the Peninsula and bayside East Bay. I don't know if KFOG's boosters are running IBOC, though. Apparently, KFFG isn't. -- Mark Roberts | "We're living in times of gangster capitalism, in which Oakland, Cal.| labor relations appear to be guided by the law of the jungle." NO HTML MAIL | -- Constantin Costa Gavras, in El País, 2004-06-18 |
"Bob Haberkost" wrote in message ... The second issue (although this goes away when stations go full-dgital) is why a station wouldn't do an analog delay to match the delay for the encode process on digital. Of course, this means station monitors couldn't be used by on-air talent....yet another obstacle to being able to monitor quality, particularly in combo operations. Very odd for WETA-FM to not match delay, since I'd guess they do very little combo operation. A lot of their schedule is from NPR (or originated for NPR). They used to have a first-rate chief engineer. He went to XM, IIRC. RDS went away when he did. I don't know anything about their current chief. |
"R J Carpenter" wrote in message
... CORRECTION? I've been told that WPEN's 50 kW upgrade has never been built. I think you're right, but I suspect the writer was saying that WPEN's main lobe is effectively 200kW. Sounds a bit high to me, though....this would mean, what, 16dB over isotropic? Nah, that's not right. Here's WPHT's coverage (http://www.radio-locator.com/cgi-bin...atus=L&hours=U) and here's WPEN's nighttime coverage (http://www.radio-locator.com/cgi-bin...atus=L&hours=N). WPEN's got a nice lobe over Philadelphia and points east, but it still doesn't match WPHT's 50kW-U coverage. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- If there's nothing that offends you in your community, then you know you're not living in a free society. Kim Campbell - ex-Canadian Prime Minister - 2004 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- For direct replies, take out the contents between the hyphens. -Really!- |
"Bob Haberkost" wrote in message ... "R J Carpenter" wrote in message ... CORRECTION? I've been told that WPEN's 50 kW upgrade has never been built. I think you're right, but I suspect the writer was saying that WPEN's main lobe is effectively 200kW. Sounds a bit high to me, though....this would mean, what, 16dB over isotropic? Nah, that's not right. I computed the 200 kW based on the 50 kW RMS field.... clearly not applicable to the 5 kW power level. R J C |
I've been told that WPEN's 50 kW upgrade has never been built. The liklihood of finding a site to erect six 200 degree towers (575 feet on 950) is exceedingly small. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:21 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com