IBOC Article and bandwidth
 

Thank you for explaining the mysteries of modulation byproducts and
bandwidth in a way that makes the truth clear for people who may not
have had radio schooling. Instead of making it sound harder than it
really is..

The saddest part of it all is that MOST of the digihash flamethrower
noise is describing to the demodulator that no modulation is present
for most audio frequencies.
Even if NO audio is present, the IBOC signal is still 45khz wide,
describing each and every one of the possible audio passband
frequencies as 0% modulation. Instead of just letting there BE no
modulation, they've decided it's much better to have all these little
subcarriers elaborately screaming "NO MODULATION AT 1200HZ!" "NO
MODULATION AT 1201 HZ!", etc. It's like having a thousand people in a
room screaming about nothing. In proper engineering, like with good
manners, if you have nothing to say, you keep your mouth shut.

Telamon wrote:
In article ,
"Frank Dresser" wrote:

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
. com...

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
. net...

wrote in message
oups.com...
You realize if they ever turn on HD at night, DXing will be
history.

And the couple of hundred AM DXers left, most of whom are
anti-radio
and
luddites, will just be SOL.



I'm not aware of any anti-radio luddites, but if I ever meet one,
I'll
be
sure to remind him to get rid of both his radios and his internet
connection.

As to DXers, I find that most today are very opposed to changes in
radio, whether formatically or technically, and are very negative
towards the way stations operate. I have disassociate myself form
DX organisaions as they almost all seem to be out to change radio
to the detriment of those of us who work in the field.

OK, but couldn't much the same be said of building preservationists?
They don't like the changes and want to keep some things the way they
love, despite the fact they have no ownership interest. I wouldn't
call building preservationists anti-architecture, however.



Since essentially no radio listening, in terms of percentage, is
skywave night listening, the other poings are moot.

However, to an Alex Jones SWL-type distrustful paranoid,
Ibiquity's IBOC looks hidden adgenda-ish. It's not about "CD
quality sound" it's about multicasting.

It is about all of this. It is about giving radio the digital
buzzword,
more
channels, and improved AM quality.

Well, it's only my opinion, but the digital buzzword will soon be
worth about as much as the shopworn "turbo" buzzword of a few years
ago. Already, digital is being associated with pixellated video and
cellphone audio. By the time affordable IBOC recievers become
available, the term digital may be a negative.

If there is really much demand for improved AM quality, there would
be more demand for improved AM radios. Better skirt selectivity,
lower distortion dectectors and real noise blankers would be
installed in everyday radios. Such things are available in hobbyist
radios. Most people don't want to pay even a little extra money for
a radio.

I think the multichannel capability might attract the most consumer
interest, if such interest develops.



So, if I've got it wrong, please tell me. Is it impossible for
the IBOC-AM scheme to be used for multicasting?

Pretty much so. Not enough bandwidth unless analog is dropped and
all the signal is devoted to digital.



Yes, but ibiquity anticipates digital radio will replace analog.
Then what? Will the former analog channel be replaced with digital
channels?

And might some of these replacement digital channels be pay channels?

Paranoid minds want to know!

This is a simple concept that many people don't seem to get.
Information rate directly correlates to bandwidth in this way, higher
rate and more detail means larger bandwidth. Analog or digital is just
a method of encoding information. Narrow filtered analog is similar to
low rate digital. It does not matter what digital method you use you
can't get around the fact that a better picture or audio means you need
to use more bandwidth.

There is more then one way to encode the analog world into digital and
back and some methods are more efficient then others but there is no
magic digital encoding system comprised of one or a combination of
encoding methods that will magically stuff more information into the
same bandwidth.

The DRM controversy has gone on for a long time where the claim that
DRM sounds better then analog in the same bandwidth. This is a bunch of
BS. Not only does this violate the laws of physics it further makes
less sense from the standpoint of conversion of analog to digital at
the transmit end and then digital back to analog at the receive end.
Technically changing from analog to digital and back introduces
conversion errors so DRM in the same bandwidth has to sound worse than
analog. The only way DRM can sound better is to use more bandwidth than
analog.

So there are are two basic concepts for anyone reading the news group.
DRM and IBOC claims are a bunch of BS. Analog or any digital system
will sound better the more bandwidth you use.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

IBOC Article
 

I'm in northern Ca and have stations on my car's presets that would
hardly pop up on the auto mode. Namely KDWN, KNX, and KFI. These
signals are stronger than many local stations at night.

Of course, IBOC will eventually make them unlistenable.

David Eduardo wrote:
"Eric F. Richards" wrote in message
...
"David Eduardo" wrote:


"Eric F. Richards" wrote in message
...
"Brenda Ann" wrote:


"David Eduardo" wrote in message
et...
Only those stations, like KOA, will be fully
competitive because they cover the market. the rest willhave to
figure
out
niche or brokered options to survive.


Just as an aside, when I was 19 and living in Casper, WY, there was no
local
station that I could stand to listen to for more than a few minutes at
a
time. I worked for the local CATV company as an installer. Their
trucks
had
no radios in them, so I was stuck with bringing my own. What I could
afford
was an old off brand 6 transistor pocket radio that I could leave on
the
dashboard as I drove around. My station of choice as I went about my
workday? KOA. Loud and clear. Great daytime coverage, that.



Doesn't matter -- David says you don't exist. :-)

That is not skywave coverage, as Brenda Ann mentioned.

She mentions that no where. She just mentions her location, which is
out of your mytical world of coverage areas.

She says, "great daytime coverag, that." There is no normal and regular
daytime AM skywave. Therefore, she was listeing to groundwave.

Today, with computer
noise, ignition noise, dimmers, and all manner of other items, the
daytime
coverage that was useful in the 60's is significantly reduced by RFI.

So you honestly believe that no one can get a clean signal in Casper
from KOA? Hell, I'll do a trip and record an air-check to shoot that
myth down!

My point is, "why?" The nose on a fringe AM vs. the same programming on the
local AM news talker (which has the same owner) makes the deep fringe
daytime signal irrelevant as there are nearly a dozen choices in Casper,a ll
local, that sound better than KOA.

I can get KDWN from Las Vegas in Glendale, CA. A bit noisy, and I can hear
my neighbor's aquarium heater go on and off, among other things. I can get
it, but I would not want to listen to it. Heck, I can get Kota Kinabalu on
1475 nearly every morning... but I do not listen to it... I hear it.

Today, if the seek button does not stop on a signal, people do not listen to
it.

--
Eric F. Richards

"This book reads like a headache on paper."
http://www.cnn.com/2001/CAREER/readi...one/index.html

Know your listener/market
 

I think here in Jackson,Me see see pee pee eye,(Mississippi) (emma comes
first joke,google that) there is a pretty good listener
market.Elsewise,why do them radio stations around here stay on the air?
www.google.com Radio Stations Mississippi

Thank God we aren't crazy around here. www.us963.com
Jacksonnnnnnnn,,,,,,, where God isn't dead.
cuhulin

IBOC Article and bandwidth
 

Tom Wells wrote:
Thank you for explaining the mysteries of modulation byproducts and
bandwidth in a way that makes the truth clear for people who may not
have had radio schooling. Instead of making it sound harder than it
really is..

The saddest part of it all is that MOST of the digihash flamethrower
noise is describing to the demodulator that no modulation is present
for most audio frequencies.
Even if NO audio is present, the IBOC signal is still 45khz wide,

The bandwidth used by IBOC is 30 kHz, not 45.


describing each and every one of the possible audio passband
frequencies as 0% modulation. Instead of just letting there BE no
modulation, they've decided it's much better to have all these little
subcarriers elaborately screaming "NO MODULATION AT 1200HZ!" "NO
MODULATION AT 1201 HZ!", etc. It's like having a thousand people in a

There is not a carrier for each discrete frequency.

room screaming about nothing. In proper engineering, like with good
manners, if you have nothing to say, you keep your mouth shut.


You need to better understand the modulation method and how digital
decoders work.

Telamon wrote:

snip


This is a simple concept that many people don't seem to get.
Information rate directly correlates to bandwidth in this way, higher
rate and more detail means larger bandwidth. Analog or digital is just
a method of encoding information. Narrow filtered analog is similar to
low rate digital. It does not matter what digital method you use you
can't get around the fact that a better picture or audio means you need
to use more bandwidth.

Oh, but it does matter. The choice if digital modulation and compression
change things.

For a given modulation method and compression scheme, what you say is
valid. More content means more mandwidth.

However, different modulation methods and compressions schemes result in
differing bandwidth requirements for the same amount of content.

If this isn't true, then PC modems would still be running at 1200 baud.


There is more then one way to encode the analog world into digital and
back and some methods are more efficient then others but there is no
magic digital encoding system comprised of one or a combination of
encoding methods that will magically stuff more information into the
same bandwidth.

The DRM controversy has gone on for a long time where the claim that
DRM sounds better then analog in the same bandwidth. This is a bunch of
BS. Not only does this violate the laws of physics it further makes
less sense from the standpoint of conversion of analog to digital at
the transmit end and then digital back to analog at the receive end.
Technically changing from analog to digital and back introduces
conversion errors so DRM in the same bandwidth has to sound worse than
analog. The only way DRM can sound better is to use more bandwidth than
analog.

You are completely ingoring compression and modulation methods.

Yes, converting analog to digital then back to analog will degrade the
analog signal. A straight wire is always better. However AM, radio is
not a straight wire. With AM radio, an analog signal is compressed, band
width limited, converted to electromagnetic waves, mixed with any other
waves on the same frequency between transmitter and receiver, converted
to an electrical signal, passed through an IF that further bandwidth
limits the signal, and then run through a detector that usually adds at
least 1% distortion.




So there are are two basic concepts for anyone reading the news group.
DRM and IBOC claims are a bunch of BS. Analog or any digital system
will sound better the more bandwidth you use.

I can compress audio to a 64 kbps data rate for an iPod. This sounds
better than _any_ AM broadcast I have ever heard. Better signal to
noise, lower distortion, better audio bandwidth and stereo.

I've also heard FM band IBOC, and I will say that it did sound better
than the analog channel. However this may have been due to significant
amounts of signal processing at one end of the chain or the other.





--
Telamon
Ventura, California



(And no, I have no desire for IBOC on the AM broadcast band. I think
there are too many associated issues, the primary one being the
consumption of 30 kHz bandwidth. IBOC on FM may work and be viable in
the long run.

I am in favor of DRM.)

craigm

IBOC Article
 

www.google.com Loretta Lynn Songs Standing Room Only

ziplo,crank your puter bolume wideeeeee open and get your ears near the
speakers,, just do it!
cuhulin

IBOC Article and bandwidth
 

OK, I admit that yes, there aren't separate sideband carriers for each
frequency, and I do know better. IF you are listening to AM BC on a
high fidelity wideband receiver, the IBOC splatter is 45kHz wide, even
though the bands only extend 30 Khz. But compression and Fourier
transform equations mathematically proving audio response to any given
frequency response glosses over the fact that you are no longer sending
the *whole* waveform, and only plotting points on the curve. Taking
the simple CD audio example, if we sample at a 44 khz rate, we can only
measure a 22 khz sinewave twice per cycle. Is the intended waveform to
be reproduced a sine wave, sawtooth, or what? We can't tell anymore,
because we have not measured enough points on the wavefrom. Did we
measure the wave at maximum peak, somewhere in the middle, or as it was
crossing the zero line? We have to assume if it's audio that it's a
sinewave, but this ignores the non-sinusoidal characteristics of
real-life audio. This is why CDs (assuming the original audio exceeded
22 khz) end up sounding like they all got recorded through one
particular make and model of microphone. A very good microphone, but
one that added its own characteristics to the result. Just the same as
taking a large-format negative photograph which could be blown up to
billboard size with good resolution loses all that resolution when
reproduced in a magazine with an 80, 135 or 175 line screen
reproduction. All those dots, small as they may be, don't add up to as
much information as there was with the billions of little silver halide
grains in the original negative. I was trained as a radio engineer,
and decided NOT to work in the business back in 1982, as I saw this
train wreck coming. Not to mention the removal of variety from
programming, limited playlists, etc. The real reason radio must be
digitized is that radio is an ART, and art is not understood by
accountants. Art always cost money, so it must be turned into a
commodity to turn a profit. Too many people could not grasp the art,
tune the antenna, calculate complex impedances on a Smith chart, etc.
They should have gotten out of the business if they could not
understand RF. The same thing happened with cars. For all the
digitalization of engine controls, what we got was technicians who
plug in a computer to tell them what's wrong. In the 70's and 80's its
equivalent was mechanics who sprayed new parts at a problem until it
went away, perhaps never knowing or caring where the true problem had
been. Before that, you had mechanics who UNDERSTOOD how it all worked,
what made it work, and why it was founded in the laws of physics. If
you have current flowing in the primary circuit, and the points opened,
and the condenser was good, you would have a collapsing magnetic field
within the coil, and the secondary circuit would have a SPARK! It was
necessary for a distributor to point to the right wire, etc for the
engine to run , among other things, but the laws of physics always
worked.
It was comforting to know the parts did what they did inherently,
without a central processor.
I have a lot more faith in the laws of physics than I have in
computers, and analogy of making a silk purse out of a pig's ear is
very apt for IBOC. Noisiest ol' pig's ear I've ever heard. Sure as
heck ain't radio.

IBOC Article and bandwidth
 

On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 17:25:39 -0600, craigm
wrote:


Yes, converting analog to digital then back to analog will degrade the
analog signal. A straight wire is always better. However AM, radio is
not a straight wire. With AM radio, an analog signal is compressed, band
width limited, converted to electromagnetic waves, mixed with any other
waves on the same frequency between transmitter and receiver, converted
to an electrical signal, passed through an IF that further bandwidth
limits the signal, and then run through a detector that usually adds at
least 1% distortion.

Almost all MW and HF AM broadcast transmitters built in the last 30
years have used an analog to digital conversion in the modulator
stage.

Know your listener/market
 

You can HAVE Seattle.
Hey,,, I have an old Seattle little plastic Space Needle thingy here
that I bought at a Goodwill store a bunch of years ago.It is sitting on
a shelf in my kichen.I wonder if it is worth anything? It isn't for sale
anyway.

Dang it,I have to babysit that little girl that lives next door to me
tonight.
cuhulin

IBOC Article and bandwidth
 

Telamon wrote:
In article , craigm
wrote:


Tom Wells wrote:

Thank you for explaining the mysteries of modulation byproducts and
bandwidth in a way that makes the truth clear for people who may not
have had radio schooling. Instead of making it sound harder than it
really is..

The saddest part of it all is that MOST of the digihash flamethrower
noise is describing to the demodulator that no modulation is present
for most audio frequencies.
Even if NO audio is present, the IBOC signal is still 45khz wide,

The bandwidth used by IBOC is 30 kHz, not 45.



describing each and every one of the possible audio passband
frequencies as 0% modulation. Instead of just letting there BE no
modulation, they've decided it's much better to have all these little
subcarriers elaborately screaming "NO MODULATION AT 1200HZ!" "NO
MODULATION AT 1201 HZ!", etc. It's like having a thousand people in a

There is not a carrier for each discrete frequency.


room screaming about nothing. In proper engineering, like with good
manners, if you have nothing to say, you keep your mouth shut.


You need to better understand the modulation method and how digital
decoders work.


Telamon wrote:

snip

This is a simple concept that many people don't seem to get.
Information rate directly correlates to bandwidth in this way, higher
rate and more detail means larger bandwidth. Analog or digital is just
a method of encoding information. Narrow filtered analog is similar to
low rate digital. It does not matter what digital method you use you
can't get around the fact that a better picture or audio means you need
to use more bandwidth.

Oh, but it does matter. The choice if digital modulation and compression
change things.

For a given modulation method and compression scheme, what you say is
valid. More content means more mandwidth.

However, different modulation methods and compressions schemes result in
differing bandwidth requirements for the same amount of content.

If this isn't true, then PC modems would still be running at 1200 baud.


One reason newer PC modems have higher baud rate it that they use more
bandwidth than the old ones did.


PC modems are limited by the bandwidth of the phone line.



I'm sorry but there is a direct correlation between bandwidth and
information that can not be changed. Compression methods are not some
kind of black magic that can stuff more information in the same number
of bits. Compression methods can cause a digitized description of analog
information to be more efficient and some methods are better than others
but that is it. An example would be a picture of a checker board could
be described with fewer bits because there is not that much information
but change that to a wide view of scenery where every bit is more random
and it can't be compressed to any extent. Compression can not cause a
better "digital description" using the same bandwidth to occur as analog
representation of the same.

To be abundantly clear here my point is that DRM can not sound better
than analog in the same bandwidth.


There is more then one way to encode the analog world into digital and
back and some methods are more efficient then others but there is no
magic digital encoding system comprised of one or a combination of
encoding methods that will magically stuff more information into the
same bandwidth.

The DRM controversy has gone on for a long time where the claim that
DRM sounds better then analog in the same bandwidth. This is a bunch of
BS. Not only does this violate the laws of physics it further makes
less sense from the standpoint of conversion of analog to digital at
the transmit end and then digital back to analog at the receive end.
Technically changing from analog to digital and back introduces
conversion errors so DRM in the same bandwidth has to sound worse than
analog. The only way DRM can sound better is to use more bandwidth than
analog.

You are completely ingoring compression and modulation methods.


Yeah, it is not germane to what I wrote.


Yes, converting analog to digital then back to analog will degrade the
analog signal. A straight wire is always better. However AM, radio is
not a straight wire.


This is all a given.


With AM radio, an analog signal is compressed, band width limited,
converted to electromagnetic waves, mixed with any other waves on the
same frequency between transmitter and receiver, converted to an
electrical signal, passed through an IF that further bandwidth limits
the signal, and then run through a detector that usually adds at
least 1% distortion.


Now you are bring other issues into the picture. I want to ignore these
issues also.


So there are are two basic concepts for anyone reading the news group.
DRM and IBOC claims are a bunch of BS. Analog or any digital system
will sound better the more bandwidth you use.

I can compress audio to a 64 kbps data rate for an iPod. This sounds
better than _any_ AM broadcast I have ever heard. Better signal to
noise, lower distortion, better audio bandwidth and stereo.

I've also heard FM band IBOC, and I will say that it did sound better
than the analog channel. However this may have been due to significant
amounts of signal processing at one end of the chain or the other.


Music from an Ipod is not short wave analog or DRM.

The point of my post is to dispel the notion that DRM can sound better
in the same bandwidth space as an analog signal and the basic theory
behind the reasoning, it can not regardless of the compression
algorithms and modulation scheme.


The encoding method for iPod and DRM and both forms of AAC.

My point is that it is possible for DRM to be an improvement.


(And no, I have no desire for IBOC on the AM broadcast band. I think
there are too many associated issues, the primary one being the
consumption of 30 kHz bandwidth. IBOC on FM may work and be viable in
the long run.


I'm not either. At the least they should split the existing band between
IBOC and better would be another band.


I am in favor of DRM.)


I'm not.

IBOC Article and bandwidth
 

Tom Wells wrote:
OK, I admit that yes, there aren't separate sideband carriers for each
frequency, and I do know better. IF you are listening to AM BC on a
high fidelity wideband receiver, the IBOC splatter is 45kHz wide, even
though the bands only extend 30 Khz.

By your method, an unmodulated AM carrier would be 15 kHz wide. By your
method, using a tuner with a narrower bandwidth would result in a
narrower signal.

If your choice of measuring tool can give different results something is
wrong. The receiver cannot change the amount of spectrum a signal
occupies, that is determined at the transmitting end.

IBOC uses 30 kHz, using your radio, you only perceive 45 kHz.


But compression and Fourier
transform equations mathematically proving audio response to any given
frequency response glosses over the fact that you are no longer sending
the *whole* waveform, and only plotting points on the curve. Taking
the simple CD audio example, if we sample at a 44 khz rate, we can only
measure a 22 khz sinewave twice per cycle. Is the intended waveform to
be reproduced a sine wave, sawtooth, or what? We can't tell anymore,
because we have not measured enough points on the wavefrom. Did we
measure the wave at maximum peak, somewhere in the middle, or as it was
crossing the zero line? We have to assume if it's audio that it's a
sinewave, but this ignores the non-sinusoidal characteristics of
real-life audio. This is why CDs (assuming the original audio exceeded
22 khz) end up sounding like they all got recorded through one
particular make and model of microphone. A very good microphone, but
one that added its own characteristics to the result. Just the same as
taking a large-format negative photograph which could be blown up to
billboard size with good resolution loses all that resolution when
reproduced in a magazine with an 80, 135 or 175 line screen
reproduction. All those dots, small as they may be, don't add up to as
much information as there was with the billions of little silver halide
grains in the original negative. I was trained as a radio engineer,
and decided NOT to work in the business back in 1982, as I saw this
train wreck coming. Not to mention the removal of variety from
programming, limited playlists, etc. The real reason radio must be
digitized is that radio is an ART, and art is not understood by
accountants. Art always cost money, so it must be turned into a
commodity to turn a profit. Too many people could not grasp the art,
tune the antenna, calculate complex impedances on a Smith chart, etc.
They should have gotten out of the business if they could not
understand RF. The same thing happened with cars. For all the
digitalization of engine controls, what we got was technicians who
plug in a computer to tell them what's wrong. In the 70's and 80's its
equivalent was mechanics who sprayed new parts at a problem until it
went away, perhaps never knowing or caring where the true problem had
been. Before that, you had mechanics who UNDERSTOOD how it all worked,
what made it work, and why it was founded in the laws of physics. If
you have current flowing in the primary circuit, and the points opened,
and the condenser was good, you would have a collapsing magnetic field
within the coil, and the secondary circuit would have a SPARK! It was
necessary for a distributor to point to the right wire, etc for the
engine to run , among other things, but the laws of physics always
worked.
It was comforting to know the parts did what they did inherently,
without a central processor.
I have a lot more faith in the laws of physics than I have in
computers, and analogy of making a silk purse out of a pig's ear is
very apt for IBOC. Noisiest ol' pig's ear I've ever heard. Sure as
heck ain't radio.