Thanks for the info.
It's about time they got away from this IBOC garbage.


"Mike Terry" wrote in message
...
May 19 2004

SHORTWAVE BROADCASTERS TO PROMOTE DRM IN U.S.
Shortwave broadcasters in the United States want to promote Digital Radio
Mondiale, a digital transmission technology for shortwave, medium-wave/AM
and longwave.
http://www.rwonline.com/dailynews/one.php?id=5237

"Dr. Who" schreef:

Thanks for the info.
It's about time they got away from this IBOC garbage.

But with DRM you loose your analogue audience, since it is digital only.
So for a long period of time you need 2 frequencies and 2 transmitters
at least per channel! Impossible on AM, and SW broadcasters will have a
hard time with these "double costs" for a long time.

What should be done is developing a system wich can simulcast analogue
and digital on one channel, without the disadvantages of the present
IBOC system. DRM could form the base for this.
This new system then can be used world-wide and on all AM bands! (SW,
MWorAM and LW in Europe and Asia).

Ruud


"Mike Terry" wrote in message
...
May 19 2004

SHORTWAVE BROADCASTERS TO PROMOTE DRM IN U.S.
Shortwave broadcasters in the United States want to promote Digital Radio
Mondiale, a digital transmission technology for shortwave, medium-wave/AM
and longwave.
http://www.rwonline.com/dailynews/one.php?id=5237

"Ruud Poeze" wrote in message
...
"Dr. Who" schreef:

Thanks for the info.
It's about time they got away from this IBOC garbage.

But with DRM you loose your analogue audience, since it is digital only.
So for a long period of time you need 2 frequencies and 2 transmitters
at least per channel! Impossible on AM, and SW broadcasters will have a
hard time with these "double costs" for a long time.

What should be done is developing a system wich can simulcast analogue
and digital on one channel, without the disadvantages of the present
IBOC system. DRM could form the base for this.
This new system then can be used world-wide and on all AM bands! (SW,
MWorAM and LW in Europe and Asia).

Ruud


The current hybrid AM/digital IBOC system is supposed to be transitional.
The IBOC receivers are supposed to be capable of demodulating the hybrid
modulation and a full digital modulation standard. Of course, the
transition to full digital won't happen until the broadcasters think there's
a high enough percentage of IBOC receivers in the marketplace. That won't
happen anytime soon, if ever.

I can't see why any US MW broadcaster would have any interest in DRM, even
if the FCC allows it.

Frank Dresser

Frank Dresser wrote:
"Ruud Poeze" wrote in message
But with DRM you loose your analogue audience, since it is digital only.
So for a long period of time you need 2 frequencies and 2 transmitters
at least per channel! Impossible on AM, and SW broadcasters will have a
I can't see why any US MW broadcaster would have any interest in DRM, even
if the FCC allows it.

On the other hand, we do now have "duopoly" in the U.S. - it's now legal
for the same company to own more than one AM station in the same city.

WLAC could, for example, buy WAMB-1160. Convert WAMB to DRM, and use it
to carry the same program (but in digital mode) as WLAC. Once (if!) the
majority of listeners have DRM radios, they could swap stations for a
few years. (converting WLAC to DRM and WAMB back to analog) When the
number of analog radios in use becomes negligible, either shut off WAMB,
sell it to someone else, or start a second DRM station.

Most group owners are still far enough short of the limit for the number
of AM stations they're permitted to own in most major markets, and there
are generally enough "also-ran" small AM stations available to buy. The
coverage of the DRM stations would be less than that of the existing
analog outlets, but if the IBOC adjacent-channel interference from other
stations isn't there then the actual coverage with DRM might well be
*better*.

Of course, the *right* answer (for the listener, not for the DXer!) is
Eureka on VHF/UHF.
--
Doug Smith W9WI
Pleasant View (Nashville), TN EM66
http://www.w9wi.com

"Doug Smith W9WI" wrote in message
...

On the other hand, we do now have "duopoly" in the U.S. - it's now legal
for the same company to own more than one AM station in the same city.

WLAC could, for example, buy WAMB-1160. Convert WAMB to DRM, and use it
to carry the same program (but in digital mode) as WLAC. Once (if!) the
majority of listeners have DRM radios, they could swap stations for a
few years. (converting WLAC to DRM and WAMB back to analog) When the
number of analog radios in use becomes negligible, either shut off WAMB,
sell it to someone else, or start a second DRM station.

Most group owners are still far enough short of the limit for the number
of AM stations they're permitted to own in most major markets, and there
are generally enough "also-ran" small AM stations available to buy. The
coverage of the DRM stations would be less than that of the existing
analog outlets, but if the IBOC adjacent-channel interference from other
stations isn't there then the actual coverage with DRM might well be
*better*.

Yes, but if the second station doesn't increase revenues by increasing
audience, the money is wasted. Not that broadcasters haven't wasted money
like that before, they used to simulcast their AM programming on FM. But
the FCC didn't like simulcasting, and pretty much stopped it.

AM IBOC has been around for a year or two, and it's still something of a
novelty. It doesn't seem to be taking off as quickly as AM Stereo, and
there aren't many receivers available, yet.

I also don't know if there's much of a market for digital radios which
receive the same old stuff that any old cheap radio receives. Maybe if all
the radios were the same price, but IBOC hopes to make money on licensing
fees.

I don't know the bandwidth of full digital IBOC, but if the full digital
bandwidth is the same as DRM, it seems the IBOC has an advantage with the
transitional hybrid system.



Of course, the *right* answer (for the listener, not for the DXer!) is
Eureka on VHF/UHF.
--
Doug Smith W9WI
Pleasant View (Nashville), TN EM66
http://www.w9wi.com


If we ever manage how to figure out how to put satellites up reliably and
economically, the networks will probably put up high-power, non-subscription
direct broadcast satellites.


Frank Dresser

Frank Dresser wrote:
Yes, but if the second station doesn't increase revenues by increasing
audience, the money is wasted. Not that broadcasters haven't wasted money
like that before, they used to simulcast their AM programming on FM. But
the FCC didn't like simulcasting, and pretty much stopped it.

True, though then again is that different from IBOC? (admittedly IBOC
is probably cheaper, though again if IBOC is accomplished at the expense
of massive interference, will that really help the bottom line?)

AM IBOC has been around for a year or two, and it's still something of a
novelty. It doesn't seem to be taking off as quickly as AM Stereo, and
there aren't many receivers available, yet.

True.

I also don't know if there's much of a market for digital radios which
receive the same old stuff that any old cheap radio receives. Maybe if all
the radios were the same price, but IBOC hopes to make money on licensing
fees.

And again true.


--
Doug Smith W9WI
Pleasant View (Nashville), TN EM66
http://www.w9wi.com

"Doug Smith W9WI" wrote in message
...
Frank Dresser wrote:
Yes, but if the second station doesn't increase revenues by increasing
audience, the money is wasted. Not that broadcasters haven't wasted
money
like that before, they used to simulcast their AM programming on FM.
But
the FCC didn't like simulcasting, and pretty much stopped it.

True, though then again is that different from IBOC?

That would depend on IBOC's costs. It's possible that Ibiquity is
subsidizing the early adopters.

Chicago's WIND is a curious case. They went to IBOC a couple of months ago.
I'd think a station like WIND would be just about the last station to adopt
IBOC, because it's at the low end of the dial - 560 kHz, and uses a
directional antenna to broadcast from Northwestern Indiana to Chicago.
Getting the necessary 45 kHz bandwidth on a directional antenna at the low
end of the dial seems to be an engineering worst case scenerio. But they're
doing it, and they're doing it before there's any significant number of AM
IBOC receivers. I'm just guessing, but I think they wouldn't bother unless
they were getting some breaks on the deal from Ibiquity.


(admittedly IBOC
is probably cheaper, though again if IBOC is accomplished at the expense
of massive interference, will that really help the bottom line?)



There should be enough seperation between stations in any market to avoid
interference. The interference problem will happen in the fringe areas
where adjacent channels can also be received well. This doesn't seem to
bother the broadcasters. I think the National Association of Broadcasters
is lobbying to get the nighttime ban on IBOC removed.

Luckily for the radio hobbyist, AM IBOC doesn't seem to be gathering
momentum, for whatever reason. That's remarkable, given the number of
networks investing in Ibiquity:

http://www.ibiquity.com/about/invest_radio.htm

Frank Dresser

"Frank Dresser" wrote
| AM IBOC has been around for a year or two, and it's still something of a
| novelty. It doesn't seem to be taking off as quickly as AM Stereo, and
| there aren't many receivers available, yet.

I've read the "pro and con" editorials in Radio World and some of the
other trade rags, but every single editorialist misses the following point:

Sound quality is not the problem. PROGRAMMING is the problem.
We probably shouldn't rely on anecdotal evidence, but everyone I know
will put up with natural and manmade noise to hear their favorite shows.

Come to think of it, there's no evidence that DRM or IBOC have anything
close to a robust noise - fighting system. I imagine a good thunderstorm
will cause dropped packets and receiver muting.

Another problem is multiple layering of compression and expansion
codec schemes. Has anyone listened to a (usually) decent - quality
AM plant that is transmitting supercompressed talk show audio
at a bandwidth of 5 KHZ with a low, low, low bitrate? Something
along the lines of 8 to 16 KHz bitrate? That fact alone puts the lie
to the digital pushers' rants about "Audio quality."

To an extent, the mediumwave band's physical attributes will play
a role - groundwave and skywave mixing at night, phase shifting,
etc., and FWIW, I don't think the "Crossed-Field Antenna" will
fix a damned thing. I am good friends with a Kansas broadcast
engineer who thought up a crossed field antenna concept in college
back in the Fifties. In his own words, "I discarded the idea as
sophomoric, fantastic, and unworkable." The search for a high -
tech whizbang, bells-and-whistles cure will not yield the hoped-for
results.

So, what should be done with AM? Roll back NRSC. Give us
10 KHz - wide audio (at least), and get rid of the aerobeacons on
longwave, and turn the longwave band over to broadcasting. Just
a thought, anyway...that would certainly ield better coverage area.

The comparison to AM Stereo is, at any rate, right on the mark, and the
NAB is making the same mistake in their enthusiasm for sound quality
that they made in the Eighties, namely, that sound quality is a secondary
or tertiary consideration, and sound quality does take a backseat to
program content every time. Until that issue is addressed, the change
that the digital vendors lust for will never happen.

Speaking of "change," I think that's the primary motivation for the
hype.

Oh, well, at least the B.S. marketing type$ (aka "Liars") will have
something to shill for.

73,

Steve Lawrence
KAØPMD
Burnsville, Minnesota

(NOTE: My email address has only one "dot."
You'll have to edit out the one between the "7"
and the "3" in my email address if you wish to
reply via email)


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.688 / Virus Database: 449 - Release Date: 5/18/04

Stephen M.H. Lawrence wrote:

Sound quality is not the problem. PROGRAMMING is the problem.

snip

Another problem is multiple layering of compression and expansion
codec schemes. Has anyone listened to a (usually) decent - quality
AM plant that is transmitting supercompressed talk show audio
at a bandwidth of 5 KHZ with a low, low, low bitrate? Something
along the lines of 8 to 16 KHz bitrate? That fact alone puts the lie
to the digital pushers' rants about "Audio quality."


So sound quality is not the problem, but audio quality is a problem?
Right.

BTW, kilohertz is kHz, not KHz or KHZ. 'K' means 1024, 'k' means 1000,
and cycles per second are always Hz.

Also, bit rate is not measured in Hz, it's measured in bits per second,
bps or bits/s or bit/s, so thousands of will be kbps, kbits/s or kbit/s.

But I agree that low bit rates sound ****.


--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

DAB sounds worse than FM, Freeview, digital satellite, cable and
broadband internet radio

"Stephen M.H. Lawrence" wrote in message
link.net...



[snip]


So, what should be done with AM? Roll back NRSC. Give us
10 KHz - wide audio (at least), and get rid of the aerobeacons on
longwave, and turn the longwave band over to broadcasting. Just
a thought, anyway...that would certainly ield better coverage area.


I say -- allow wideband audio, and let the stations who can't compete go
dark. There's too many radio stations, anyway.



The comparison to AM Stereo is, at any rate, right on the mark, and the
NAB is making the same mistake in their enthusiasm for sound quality
that they made in the Eighties, namely, that sound quality is a secondary
or tertiary consideration, and sound quality does take a backseat to
program content every time. Until that issue is addressed, the change
that the digital vendors lust for will never happen.


There's a cycle to the "better audio will save radio" arguement. FM would
replace AM in the fifties. It didn't. FM stereo would save FM in the
sixties. It didn't. AM stereo would save AM in the eighties. AM stereo is
almost gone, now. I don't know if this is a generational amnesia thing, or
it's simply means nobody promotes this stuff after the patents run out.


Speaking of "change," I think that's the primary motivation for the
hype.

Ibiquity's website is amusing. Their view of the future is quite clear.
Soon, although the exact dates are undisclosed, we will all be listening to
perfect "High Defination" radio. It will be everywhere!! No doubt I'll be
listening to IBOC radio as I drive my turbine car or as I fly my jet pack or
while I'm relaxing on my next Pan Am flight to the moon.



Oh, well, at least the B.S. marketing type$ (aka "Liars") will have
something to shill for.


Life ain't fair. Howcum the shills get all the job security?

Frank Dresser