On Oct 2, 4:37 pm, SFTV_troy wrote:


My "smalltime" low-profit Christian station seems to be doing
alright. They happily embraced the new technology, streaming out 3
separate programs.

It's a shame they've never heard about audio streaming on the
internet. Could have saved them a bundle and prepared them for the
future.

I read once that AM radio in the US was allowed up to 15 KHz, but the NRSC standard, adopted
by the FCC, calls for a limit of 10 KHz. THat's only about a half octave from the 15 KHz
limit of FM, and sounds pretty OK, certainly better than rendered by most AM radios.

--
Regards from Virginia Beach,

Earl Kiosterud
www.smokeylake.com

Note: Top-posting has been the norm here.
Some folks prefer bottom-posting.
But if you bottom-post to a reply that's
already top-posted, the thread gets messy.
When in Rome...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"SFTV_troy" wrote in message
ups.com...

Earl Kiosterud wrote:

I think the USB to which Tom refers is upper sideband. Converting AM stations would mean
they'd transmit only one set of sidebands, the upper set, reducing the bandwidth to
almost
half. More stations could be licensed in the same band. ...


But still have the same poor AM sound. Digital offers an upgrade to
near-FM quality.

As a side issue, the loss of fidelity for which AM is notorious is largely in the
receivers,
with their narrow bandwidths, resulting in audio that is rolling off pretty fast around
the
5 KHz point. (AM stations actually transmit a fairly high-fidelity signal.)

How high? 0-10000 hertz? That's not as good as the 0-15000 possible
with AAC+SBR.

wrote:

SILENCE?

****WIT TROLL?

*PLONK*

In article .com,
SFTV_troy wrote:

Frank Dresser wrote:
wrote in message
Frank Dresser wrote:
And more expenses for the broadcaster.

They doesn't seem to be stopping them from adding second and third
channels Like WIYY in Baltimore, which has *voluntarily* added
Classic Rock and Indie Rock to their AOR primary station. Now
listeners of that style have three times as much content to enjoy.

But how is the extra programming being paid for?

Advertising of course.

Of course, how obvious.

Plus the money they save because Digital does not require as much
power.

Mr. Digital engineer should know better than to post this.

Plus: If a smaller station can't afford multiple program, then they
don't need to do anything. They can just limit themselves
to 1 high-quality channel (300 kbps).

Gee, maybe if some independant station can't afford multiple programming,
they'll have even have trouble justifying buying the IBOC hardware.

It's not that expensive. No more expensive than a mono to stereo
upgrade for an FM station.

Really. Just how expensive is it?

5.1 would be compromised in similar ways.

And then the listeners of that Classic Music station would complain,
and the manager would have to decide between (a) increasing
bitrate or (b) losing customers.

Yeah, there's a few stations in which true high fidelity
sound would matter. Not many.

Agreed. But the advantage of the HE-AAC codec is you don't need a
high bitrate to get FM quality. Only 24 is sufficient. At 64kbit/s
you get near-CD quality. It's a VERY efficient compression standard.

64kbit/s is only just starting to sound good, it's not high quality.
Just because you love pixilated, compressed, and distorted in a way you
love does not mean other people like it.

So a station could divide itself into 300 / 4 channels == 64-96 kbit/s
per channel, and still have quality ranging from near-CD to CD.

Radio is not a wire connection. I know it hard but think that over.

People in Canada, Japan, and Australia bought AM Stereo radio in
droves. Why? Because there was a single standard, not the 4-way mess
the FCC left behind. (It's similar to today's HD DVD versus Blu-ray
battle; most people are just waiting to see who wins.)

Oh? A great many radios sold in the US are the same as the radios
sold in other countries and AM stereo still pretty rare here.

Because by the time the U.S. fixed on a standard (circa 1990), the AM
Stereo stations had largely disappeared. Thus there's no impetus for
customers to upgrade.

In contrast, Japan and Canada and Australia had a fixed standard in
the early 80s, thus giving consumers confidence that they were not
wasting money the next Betamax.


I already agreed with you that HQ is not going to motivate people to
upgrade. It will be seeing their favorite FM stations split into 3 or
4 programs, thus tripling their options, that will motive people.


Are they carrying commercials [on secondary channels]?
And I'm sure a fellow as clever and imaginative as you are can figure
how they might try to make money even if there aren't enough listeners
to sell commercial advertising. Hint: They won't call it "HD radio"

I have no idea what you have in mind as an alternative to commercial-
support.

There are alternatives.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
Plus: If a smaller station can't afford multiple program, then they
don't need to do anything. They can just limit themselves
to 1 high-quality channel (300 kbps).

Gee, maybe if some independant station can't afford multiple
programming,
they'll have even have trouble justifying buying the IBOC hardware.

It's not that expensive. No more expensive than a mono to stereo
upgrade for an FM station.

Really. Just how expensive is it?

I'm pretty sure that the IBOC hardware (and the license to use it) costs
considerably more than the $1000 it takes to buy a stereo encoder for a
commercial FM station.. For that matter, a pretty good quality stereo
encoder can be bought for $200 from some of the companies that supply LPFM
and (gasp!) pirate operators. Going stereo on FM doesn't take any
modification to the transmitter itself, just a piece of outboard gear in the
audio chain. IBOC requires modifications to the transmitter (plus the
station loses all it's SCA's.. which are a good source of additional INCOME,
especially for small and/or public radio stations.)

THIS DISCUSSION IS OFF-TOPIC FOR REC.AUDIO.TECH
(AND REC.AUDIO.CAR, FOR THAT MATTER)
PLEASE DROP REC.AUDIO.TECH FROM THIS DISCUSSION

On Oct 3, 8:55 am, "Richard Crowley" wrote:
THIS DISCUSSION IS OFF-TOPIC FOR REC.AUDIO.TECH
(AND REC.AUDIO.CAR, FOR THAT MATTER)
PLEASE DROP REC.AUDIO.TECH FROM THIS DISCUSSION

Please drop rec.radio.shortwave as well.

"RHF" wrote in message
ps.com...
On Oct 3, 8:33 am, Stephanie Weil wrote:
On Oct 3, 11:12 am, "David Eduardo" wrote:

No, they don't. KLVE in LA has HD, HD-2, SCA and FM Extra.

Brenda I've explained this to you before.

We have stations in New York that are running two HD programs plus
audio SCA signals on BOTH 92 and 67 khz. And the SCA stations sound
just fine (for what they are).

WKTU 103 is one of those and ditto WNYC-FM 94. You don't lose your
subcarriers because you add HD.

Stephanie Weil
New York City, USA

-IF- You go to the Expense of maintaining two 'separate'
Broadcast Transmission Systems. ~ RHF

The expense, once installed, is minimal.

On Oct 3, 4:35 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"RHF" wrote in message

ps.com...





On Oct 3, 8:33 am, Stephanie Weil wrote:
On Oct 3, 11:12 am, "David Eduardo" wrote:

No, they don't. KLVE in LA has HD, HD-2, SCA and FM Extra.

Brenda I've explained this to you before.

We have stations in New York that are running two HD programs plus
audio SCA signals on BOTH 92 and 67 khz. And the SCA stations sound
just fine (for what they are).

WKTU 103 is one of those and ditto WNYC-FM 94. You don't lose your
subcarriers because you add HD.

Stephanie Weil
New York City, USA

-IF- You go to the Expense of maintaining two 'separate'
Broadcast Transmission Systems. ~ RHF

The expense, once installed, is minimal.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Vastly greater than the expense of streaming audio via the internet.

In article ,
says...



"SFTV_troy" blabbed:
... this new receiving technique would not improve the sound
(it would still be limited from 100-6000 hertz), but would only reduce
interference.

At least in the States, AM & FM broadcasting is limited to 50 Hz to 15KHz.

There is no low frequency limit for either AM or FM; 50 Hz was the minimum
performance standard that would meet the now long-deleted FCC Proof of
Performance measurements.

The effective HF limit on FM is about 18.5 kHz; this leaves a +/- 500 Hz guard
band for the stereo pilot tone. Again, 15 kHz was the minimum spec that would
pass a Proof of Performance, not a limit on bandwidth.

Currently, the legal FCC-mandated HF limit on AM in the US is a hair less than
10 kHz, which almost completely protects second-adjacent stations from
interference. This was changed around 1990 as a result of work done by the
National Radio Systems Committee (NRSC). More recent work by the NRSC has
indicated that 7 kHz is probably the optimum compromise between causing
interference and loss of audio quality on typical AM radios (which are down 3
dB at about 2.6 kHz). However, limiting bandwidth to 7 kHz is voluntary.