DRM in USA
 

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

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

"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.

I thought there was a mixed mode?

Az.

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

"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.

The idea of transmitting digital-mode signals
on the short-wave bands, with their characteristic
susceptibility to fading, noise, solar blackouts and
other natural and man-made noises is almost
**as laughable** as WBCQ's plan to utilize a single
wind powered generator to supply the electricity
for their 50KW transmitters.


(WBCQ's wind power idea is akin to what the
PRR Railroad Historical Club wanted to do in the
70's, when someone came up with the idea to
power a GG1 electric locomotive +via batteries+ for
a railfan run down the NE Corridor, since the PCB
filled Xfmrs in the Locomotive were banned from
Amtrak catenary power - they discovered that 10 boxcarloads
of submarine batteries could not power a single GG1 for
more than 10 miles....amazing how history repeats.)

On Fri, 21 May 2004 17:47:43 +0200, Ruud Poeze wrote:

"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.

Will the cost really double?
You certainly know DRM transmissions consume less power. Example: "our"
Radio Netherlands consumes "only" 40 kW of power for the daily 9815 kHz
DRM transmission (around 12:00 GMT).
Generally, with analogue broadcasts, 2 times the DRM transmission power
is consumed.
This brings up a question. Is hiring a DRM transmitter that expensive?

Whatever the answer to that question is, I can see one point: SW
broadcasting is considered expensive (some even say superfluous) these
days. In any case, cost increase is not exactly appreciated.


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.

hmm ... remember you only have one single 10 kHz channel at your
disposal. I think you're just asking too much, for this moment.
Who knows what future will bring.


This new system then can be used world-wide and on all AM bands! (SW,
MWorAM and LW in Europe and Asia).

If that new system becomes reality, yes (although I'm not sure whether
LW will survive - ugh those transmit antennas!).

--

mvg,
Giovanni.

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" schreef in bericht
...
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.

I understood this has something to do with the Q-factor of the aerial, is
that correct?
You actually need a bad aerial for IBOC :-)

gr, hwh

"hwh" wrote in message
...

"Frank Dresser" schreef in bericht
...
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.

I understood this has something to do with the Q-factor of the aerial, is
that correct?
You actually need a bad aerial for IBOC :-)

gr, hwh



There are ways of broadbanding an AM tower. One way is to add longwire
antennas in parallel to the main tower, stood off by a couple feet or so. I
helped install such a system in Portland, Oregon a few years ago.

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

I certainly wouldn't rule that out. A bit of "seed money" to get some
well-known examples on the air.

That won't bode well for eventual widespread adoption though. The big
stations they're starting with are the same ones with the ability to
raise the capital to pay full price. It's the little stations that will
have trouble paying for IBOC at subsidized prices, let alone full price.

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.

IIRC WIND is an Entravision-owned station. They seem to be an early
supporter. (several of their L.A. stations, for example, are using it)
But you could well be right that Ibiquity has given Entravision some
incentives...

WIND's directtional pattern is relatively "mild", I suspect there are
many arrays out there that will be a LOT harder to make work. WLMV-1480
in Madison, for example; when they were WISM they had bandwidth problems
with *analog*. [0]

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.

Or from stations in different markets.

You don't have to get very far fringe before you find people whose only
nighttime AM service is secondary. At my location, WSM is the only
primary nighttime service. My educated guess is the number of people
who would receive *no* nighttime AM service is in the hundreds of
thousands. In the state of Tennessee alone.

It's true that "This doesn't seem to bother the broadcasters."
However, these hundreds of thousands of people have Congressmen who
certainly can bother the broadcastersgrin!

I think the National Association of Broadcasters
is lobbying to get the nighttime ban on IBOC removed.

Yes, there's an official proceeding open before the FCC on this subject.
(among others related to IBOC)

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:

I do think it will go the way of AM stereo, and for many of the same
reasons.
--
Doug Smith W9WI
Pleasant View (Nashville), TN EM66
http://www.w9wi.com

[0] The regular-band side of WTDY-1670, this one was supposed to go away
by now like most of the other X-band movers...

hwh wrote:
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.

I understood this has something to do with the Q-factor of the aerial, is
that correct?
You actually need a bad aerial for IBOC :-)

G

though really, I would suggest a broadcasting antenna with a high Q
factor is *not* a good antenna... Either the matching network is poorly
designed, or the height of the antenna is such that the resulting
impedance is difficult to match with a reasonable network..
--
Doug Smith W9WI
Pleasant View (Nashville), TN EM66
http://www.w9wi.com

Brenda Ann Dyer wrote:
There are ways of broadbanding an AM tower. One way is to add longwire
antennas in parallel to the main tower, stood off by a couple feet or so. I
helped install such a system in Portland, Oregon a few years ago.

True, though in most cases I would think the narrowband problem is in
the matching network, (especially at highly-directional stations) not
the individual tower(s).
--
Doug Smith W9WI
Pleasant View (Nashville), TN EM66
http://www.w9wi.com

"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

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.

"hwh" wrote in message
...


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



Well, they process the sound anyway. They must think people like it. It
wasn't processed as much years ago, and I think it sounded better, but I
don't represent the typical listener.

Wonder why the lightly processed stations went by the wayside, years ago?

Frank Dresser

"Frank Dresser" schreef in bericht
...
Well, they process the sound anyway. They must think people like it. It
wasn't processed as much years ago, and I think it sounded better, but I
don't represent the typical listener.

Wonder why the lightly processed stations went by the wayside, years ago?

These days a station must be "the loudest". If only one station uses a
processor, nobody can stay behind.
Sad, but that's the way it is. And stations keep changing format, as they
allways have done.

gr, hwh

Frank Dresser schreef:

"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

And that is the whole point.
At this end of the ocean the DRM consortium people really believe in a
replacement of analogue AM broadcasting to digital within "a couple of
years".
AM to FM took almost 40 years, and AM is still on, the advantages to FM
over AM are more spectacular than DRM over AM in a world where also FM
is available and the most popular band.
Actualy DRM is ruining the AM band and I dont like the idea of one
broadcasting band with 2 incompatable modulation systems.
DRM only causes a lot of noise on your receiver and is already
irritating the audience.

ruud

"hwh" wrote in message
...


These days a station must be "the loudest". If only one station uses a
processor, nobody can stay behind.
Sad, but that's the way it is. And stations keep changing format, as they
allways have done.

gr, hwh



Yes, I think you've hit the nail on the head. Most radio listeners aren't
really listening, they are just using their radios for backround sound.
Much like the backround sound found in elevators and department stores.
Changes in the volume may be part of accurate musical reproduction, but they
are jarring when people are actually paying attention to something else.

Frank Dresser

"Frank Dresser" wrote:
| Life ain't fair. Howcum the shills get all the job security?
|
| Frank Dresser

I sure do wish I had my degree in Shillology 101.
I'll sell digital exciters and crossfield antennas, and
maybe find a way to replace radio altogether. How
does "laser" sound?

Nahh, come to think of it, wideband analog is the only
way to fly. Every time I hear REE on 11880 KHz (I
spelled kilohertz that way just to tick of the Limey),
I'm delighted with the quality of sound. Good old AM,
when propely executed, sounds better than that cellphone,
trashcan digital garbage.

Oh, yeah, the biggest "hoot" of all was Ibiquity's claim
that their codec was crap. I guess a looney public will
swallow anything the shills cough up, nowadays.

My idea of "High Definition Radio" is a 20-KHz-wide AM
signal, well - modulated.

(See, I spelled kilohertz incorrectly again. Limey Steve at
www.digitalradiotech.co.uk must be shaking with anger!)

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

"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote:

Wowzers, a paid shill for the cellphone audio crowd weighs
in on FM in the UK.

Who the hell cares, Steve - 2? The radio market in the UK
is nowhere near as big a business as it is in the US.

Now, why don't you go run along and play radio, Digital Boy?

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

"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.

No wonder Digitalboy claimed that most radio listeners in the UK
would migrate to FM if given the chance. 5 KHz must sound like
crap.

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

"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

"Frank Dresser" wrote:
| Well, they process the sound anyway. They must think people like it. It
| wasn't processed as much years ago, and I think it sounded better, but I
| don't represent the typical listener.
|
| Wonder why the lightly processed stations went by the wayside, years ago?
|
| Frank Dresser

You'd have to have iron eardrums to listen for very
long to any major - market FM. Overprocessed,
louder than hell, and just plain fatiguing to listen to.

What the heck happened to dynamic range and
headroom?

BTW, there are still a few lightly - processed
stations on FM. Cities 97 (KTCZ - 97.1) is
one such station. I can listen for hours - too bad
the music doesn't really suit me.

I do have to agree with you, though, inasmuch
as FM stations tend to sound like crap. I think
the final death - blow to good sound on FM was
the use of MP3 music, served up from a hard drive.

I still think we have a problem with program content,
and I'm not talking about Limey radio here, but specifically
about AM radio. I can listen to Art Bell and Rush Limbaugh
anywhere in the US. I'm surprised there aren't any nationally-
available alternatives.

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

"Ruud Poeze" wrote:
| And that is the whole point.
| At this end of the ocean the DRM consortium people really believe in a
| replacement of analogue AM broadcasting to digital within "a couple of
| years".
| AM to FM took almost 40 years, and AM is still on, the advantages to FM
| over AM are more spectacular than DRM over AM in a world where also FM
| is available and the most popular band.
| Actualy DRM is ruining the AM band and I dont like the idea of one
| broadcasting band with 2 incompatable modulation systems.
| DRM only causes a lot of noise on your receiver and is already
| irritating the audience.
|
| ruud

*very* interesting, Ruud - do you do any listening using
DRM yourself? I wonder how well DRM holds up
when propagation conditions are changing, or perhaps
during severe thunderstorms?

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

As to "DRM" in the US, let me ask, what on earth do the
letters stand for. If they stand for what I THINK they
stand for, there is no chance in HELL of it being widely
used here, except in secret (i.e. on SW).

Doug McDonald

Digital Radio Mondiale.

I believe Mondiale is Italian for World.

Hence, Digital World Radio.

I think.

At any rate, I don't yet own a decoder,
and, judging by the awful racket said digital
signal makes, I can imagine the cochannel
interference problems that might arise from
the use of DRM.

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)
"Doug McDonald" wrote in message
...
|
| As to "DRM" in the US, let me ask, what on earth do the
| letters stand for. If they stand for what I THINK they
| stand for, there is no chance in HELL of it being widely
| used here, except in secret (i.e. on SW).
|
| Doug McDonald


---
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 article ,
"Brenda Ann Dyer" wrote:

"hwh" wrote in message
...

"Frank Dresser" schreef in bericht
...
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.

I understood this has something to do with the Q-factor of the aerial, is
that correct?
You actually need a bad aerial for IBOC :-)

gr, hwh



There are ways of broadbanding an AM tower. One way is to add longwire
antennas in parallel to the main tower, stood off by a couple feet or so. I
helped install such a system in Portland, Oregon a few years ago.

What you did in effect with the parallel wires was to increase the
diameter of the tower relative to its length, which will broaden its
response. The towers response curve will have a lower and broader
peak.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

In article .net,
"Stephen M.H. Lawrence" wrote:


"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."

snip

DRM - Deception Radio Mondiale

Another lie is the system is open and contains no proprietary
intellectual property.

It won't be any better under the best of circumstances where you will
trade noise and interference for drop outs.

DRM is a lame scheme.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

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

"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?

I've got an old Popular Electronics magazine article around here somewhere
which claims the the 20 kHz max AM bandwidth. The author seemed
knowledgeable, but I also have a couple of textbooks which claim a 10 kHz
max AM bandwidth. I don't trust the textbooks, so I searched the FCC
website.

I came up with:

3. Sound Broadcasting

Sound broadcasting, double-sideband..

BINFn/INF=2M, M may vary between 4000 and 10000
depending on the quality desired

This defination was among a group above the FCC's formulas:

BINFn/INF = Necessary bandwidth in hertz

So, if I'm reading this correctly, the necessary bandwidth for standard AM
will be twice the audio bandwidth, which must be between a minimum audio
bandwidth of 4000 Hz and a maximum audio bandwidth of 10,000Hz.

This is from:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/get-cfr.cgi?TITLE=47&PART=2&SECTION=202&YEAR=2001&TYPE =TEXT



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


Yeah, I think few broadcasters get near the maximum. But, considering the
average AM radio, why bother?



Frank Dresser