[BC] A bit disappointed.

[WFIFeng@aol.com]

In a message dated 01/14/2006 10:44:23 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
Robertm at broadcast.net writes:

> Willie:
>  
>  I think it is way too premature to judge digital. The broadcast industry 
is 
>  doing an unprecedented roll out.  Think about it - AM radio and 
broadcasting 
> as a whole was sort of an accident. A few hams fooling with a new 
technology 
> that caught on with the public was the beginning of radio.

This is very true... in those days, it was a "curiosity"- all of a sudden, 
one person could be talking and an entire city could (potentially) listen at the 
same time, and all without wires. Because nothing like it existed, before, 
there was a keen interest. It had tremendous potential, and everyone could see 
that. It wasn't long before that potential was being realized, and Radio 
blossomed.

>  FM radio was more of a developed system but it took close to 30 years 
before 
> it was widely accepted.

Only because AM was already so well established, and because the early FM 
system was very expensive... and because they changed bands during it's infancy. 
Suddenly, people's "old" FM radios were quite useless. When AM added the 
expanded band, most analog radios could be "tweaked" to receive it (sacrificing 
dial accuracy at the top end.) The old FM radios could not be tweaked to twice 
their original frequency.

>  Quad didn't evolve at the time because not many people wanted 4 bulky 
> speakers 
>  in their living room. Fast forward to today and 5.1 is doing well thanks 
to 
> more modern technology and much more sophisticated speakers.

Maybe "Quad" was a technology that was ahead of the times? I do remember all 
the hype, and the fizzle.

>  FMX was not the superior system you suggest. It had several serious 
problems-
>  one was increased multipath and the other was that as the signal 
propagated, 
> the FMX component did not always stay in quadrature with the main L-R.

I was led to believe that the FMX was a digital signal in the SCA subcarrier 
region. Perhaps I'm confusing technologies, then. The system I was thinking of 
uses that subcarrier spectrum to carry a digital data stream which would give 
vastly superior audio quality than the current analog SCA systems can. This 
would be a better route for "HD2", IMHO. It won't obliterate the signals on the 
1'st adjacents, and it doesn't require a major reworking of the stations' 
transmission systems. IMHO, these are significant issues that make it "superior": 
Simplicity (one box) and dramatically lower cost. (Plus, no ongoing license 
fees.)

>  Kahn AM stereo was not a better system and it was certainly the most 
>  complicated.

Perhaps Mr Kahn's implemenetation was more complex than necessary- how 
difficult is it, really, to generate independent sideband/AM? With today's 
technology, it would be much easier than it was 20-plus years ago.

> Maxnavox was the most simple system and it sounded and worked 
>  great. The best system was Harris if older radios were allowed to not be 
> fully 
>  compatible with stereo transmission.

Obviously, incompatibility with the vast number of existing radios was not an 
option back then. Not so with today's IBUZ, unfortunately.

> The incompatibility was fairly subtle 
> if  you did the right things.

How many could truly be relied upon, though, to "do the right things"?

> Am stereo would have succeeded IF the industry was 
> not divided over 4 different systems. If the FCC had stuck with their 
original 
>  decision, it could have been a whole different story. 

I think we have unanimous agreement on this front... if the FCC picked a 
system and stuck with it, perhaps there'd be no need for AM IBUZ, today. We'd most 
likely have >90% AM Stereo penetration by now. Instead, it's less than... 
what, 2%? (And falling)

> Another problem was 
> that wideband radios sounded horrible when introduced at a CES show and 
turned 
> off some of the major players.

Somebody majorly goofed on that one! <:(

>  Broadcasters have learned from the stereo experience in varying ways. The 
> Eureka 
>  roll out in Canada had broadcasters there saying it would not be another 
AM 
> stereo.

Didn't I read somewhere that Eureka is turning out to be a failure? 
Lackluster response from consumers?

>  The roll out is being done in a systematic way. There are still a 
> lot of minor bugs being worked out,

The signal-destroying hash on AM is certainly more than "minor". I don't know 
how bad it is on FM, but I would imagine that a lot of "rimshot" stations 
will suddenly be finding themselves losing significant numbers of listeners when 
the "big" stations start lighting up their IBUZ all around them. Of course, 
their *local* listeners might benefit when such stations go belly-up, because 
maybe the new owners will commit to serving those local markets, again.

>  finding these bugs, sharing the information and getting fixes from the 
> hardware suppliers. There is a lot going on that I can not share but 
something big 
> will happen soon.

Can you at least say how soon? I'll certainly be watching this space for 
bulletins. ;)

> Bugs are being found in receivers as well. 

Like Tom B's dead HD Radio? <g>

>  better to have a few receivers in the hands of people who understand the 
> system 
>  a report back to the manufacturers. This is probably the first time in 
> broadcast 
>  history that there is such a coordinated roll out.

Hmmm... well, perhaps my view is far more jaded than necessary... but from 
everything I have seen here, and what little I can determine based on signals I 
have listened to myself, it looks like a big mess.

>  The only ugly part is the AM portion, which in my opinion is technically 
>  attempting to meet too high expectations. I personally think that there 
are 
> much  better ways to deal with the AM issue, maybe one day it will come to 
pass.

This needs to go down as the best understatement of the New Year. <g>

The best (and most unlikely) solution would be to migrate all of the 
"smaller" AM's to a new FM band (TV channels 5 & 6) and reserve the AM band for what 
it does best- serve large coverage areas. First canditates to move should be 
the "graveyard" stations, Daytimers, and stations with flea-power night siganls.

>  I think that in the end, there will be a lot to sell to the public and it 
will 
>  be much more than competing with Satellite radio. Rich's old programming 
> models will become radically changed moving forward.

I fully understand and relate to his skepticism, though... if so many 
stations cannot even be bothered to live-staff their main channel, how many are going 
to want to invest in live staff for the HD2 signals with virtually no 
listeners? The gentleman who posted about the "HD Alliance" raised some good points. 
I think they have a good concept going, there, where they are going to try and 
coordinate what formats/programming occupies the HD2 channels in each market. 
Trying to reduce the duplication of cookie-cutter formats would be a good 
thing, IMHO. Now, if only we could see something like it on the main channels... 
Sigh.

Thanks, Robert, for taking the time to explain this as you have. I appreciate 
it. It's an opportunity to learn, and I never want to pass that up.

Thank you.

Willie...