"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

Frank Dresser wrote:

There's a cycle to the "better audio will save radio" arguement. FM
would replace AM in the fifties.


If all the AM stations could get on FM, AM would die in the UK.


It didn't. FM stereo would save FM
in the sixties.


The vast majority of people in the UK listen via FM, the only ones that
listen to AM stations are, as I said above, those that listen to AM
stations that can't get on FM.


It didn't. AM stereo would save AM in the eighties.
AM stereo is almost gone, now.


Who needs AM stereo when you've got high quality FM?


I don't know if this is a
generational amnesia thing,


Nah, I'd say you're just summarising things incorrectly.


or it's simply means nobody promotes this
stuff after the patents run out.


Err, nah.


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.


You've got a jet pack and you're flying to the moon? I'm impressed. But
why do you want a turbine car when you could use an electric car?


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?


cum?


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

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

"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
news:47Mrc.55$yw5.22@newsfe5-win...
Frank Dresser wrote:

There's a cycle to the "better audio will save radio" arguement. FM
would replace AM in the fifties.


If all the AM stations could get on FM, AM would die in the UK.


Cool. Then you'd have a better chance of hearing foreign stations.




It didn't. FM stereo would save FM
in the sixties.


The vast majority of people in the UK listen via FM, the only ones that
listen to AM stations are, as I said above, those that listen to AM
stations that can't get on FM.

Oh. Life is full o' surprises.




It didn't. AM stereo would save AM in the eighties.
AM stereo is almost gone, now.


Who needs AM stereo when you've got high quality FM?

The real needs of human beings are few. Little more than water, food and
shelter. By that standard, high quality FM is quite a luxury.




I don't know if this is a
generational amnesia thing,


Nah, I'd say you're just summarising things incorrectly.

Summarizing things incorrectly? Sorry, but it's something I need to do.



or it's simply means nobody promotes this
stuff after the patents run out.


Err, nah.

Are you suggesting I've erred, but you take it back with the "nah"?


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.


You've got a jet pack and you're flying to the moon? I'm impressed. But
why do you want a turbine car when you could use an electric car?


Duh. It uses the same fuel as my Pan Am jet.



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?


cum?


Nuna yer beeswax.


Frank Dresser

Frank Dresser wrote:

"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
news:47Mrc.55$yw5.22@newsfe5-win...

The vast majority of people in the UK listen via FM, the only ones that
listen to AM stations are, as I said above, those that listen to AM
stations that can't get on FM.

Oh. Life is full o' surprises.

Remember that we have 5.5kHz audio bandwidth AM (if that) for domestic
transmissions -- not the wide bandwidth/stereo services you're used to in
North America.

--
Now Playing: 005. Eamon - [I Don`t Want You Back #05] **** It (I Don`t Want
You Back) [192kbps m4a]

"nsj" wrote in message
...
Frank Dresser wrote:

Remember that we have 5.5kHz audio bandwidth AM (if that) for domestic
transmissions -- not the wide bandwidth/stereo services you're used to in
North America.


Currently, the FCC limits AM stations to a bandwidth of 20 kHz, or an audio
bandwidth of 10 kHz. Thirty years ago, there wasn't an explicit limit,
stations were required to limit their bandwidth to limit interference.
Given the normal channel spacing of at least 30 kHz in each market back
then, an AM station could go a full 30 kHz if they wanted to. I'm sure at
least a couple of the 50 kW stations here were doing just that, as I could
hear it when DXing stations 20 or 30 kHz away. These stations weren't
overmodulating, they were putting out an excellent signal.

I'm not so sure many stations even go to the maximum allowed bandwidth now.
They do seem to be pre-emphisizing the trebles, though. It sounds shrill on
a wide bandwidth radio, but it seems to be a good comprimise on a normal
radio with a typical IF roll off.

Many US AM MW stations are talkers now. Political talk, Sport talk or just
plain babble. Bandwidth isn't much of an issue. Big US cities will have
several ethnic stations which play music. In Chicago, there's a gospel
music station and a polka station which sound OK. But none of the current
stations sound as good as the stations did back in the musicradio days.

Actually, with the exception of a classical station here, FM radio falls
short of it's fidelity potential, as well. Most of it sounds over processed
and over compressed. It's OK for backround noise. CDs or records sound
better.

I suppose the broadcasters know what they're doing. I'm sure they could get
poor real fast if they took my advice on audio processing.

Frank Dresser

Frank Dresser

"Frank Dresser" schreef in bericht
...
snip
Many US AM MW stations are talkers now. Political talk, Sport talk or
just
plain babble. Bandwidth isn't much of an issue. Big US cities will have
several ethnic stations which play music. In Chicago, there's a gospel
music station and a polka station which sound OK. But none of the current
stations sound as good as the stations did back in the musicradio days.

yes, the processor guys have it their way now.

Actually, with the exception of a classical station here, FM radio falls
short of it's fidelity potential, as well. Most of it sounds over
processed
and over compressed. It's OK for backround noise. CDs or records sound
better.

yes, the processor guys have it their way now.

I suppose the broadcasters know what they're doing. I'm sure they could
get
poor real fast if they took my advice on audio processing.

Apart from limiters: none? And no. They would make the same amout of money,
if they all stopped "improving" their audio.

gr, hwh

"Frank Dresser" wrote:
| Currently, the FCC limits AM stations to a bandwidth of 20 kHz, or an
audio
| bandwidth of 10 kHz. Thirty years ago, there wasn't an explicit limit,
| stations were required to limit their bandwidth to limit interference.

I thought that the NRSC standard is 7.5 KHz?

At any rate, a practical bandwidth of 10 KHz would be
a nice improvement.

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

In message
nsj wrote:

Remember that we have 5.5kHz audio bandwidth AM (if that) for domestic
transmissions -- not the wide bandwidth/stereo services you're used to in
North America.

Is it really as narrow as that now, Nick? The last large MF
transmitter I visited (a good many years ago, admittedly) had a
brick-wall filter at 6.3kHz, which was considered unusually low
at the time -- but the main objective was to be out by 9kHz, so
as to be clear of carriers on the adjacent channels. Perhaps some
of that still applies.

--
Richard L.