[BC] A bit disappointed.

[Robert Meuser]

WFIFeng at aol.com wrote:

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

I think the frequency change had little to do with this. After the 
change you are still talking almost 30 years. FM evolved when it was 
forced to generate new content.


>  
>
>  
>
>> 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.)
>  
>

Sounds like you were thinking of DRE's system which I do think was at 
one point also called 'FM extra'.
Everything I have seen which include the NAB presentation looks good. 
Like everything else it takes real world field testing to flush out any 
possible bugs. IBOC is no different in this respect.

>  
>
>> 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.
>  
>

Today you could do it with DSP but that would not solve the problem that 
it can't pass through a real world receiver properly. Look at it this 
way Kahn and Motorola both attempted to be fully compatible with 
existing receivers but this just does not happen when you look at the 
bandwidth of real receivers. Kahn's penalty for this attempted 
compatibility is mono distortion and loss of loudness. Motorola's 
penalty is stereo distortion.

Generating ISB requires the Hilbert transform. This only works in the 
DSP world, any analog implementation has a negative impact on processed 
audio. In either case it is another block in the path that other systems 
do not have. There is no question that Magnavox was the simplest system 
and it did work. Just bad political savvy on the part of those promoting 
the system to broadcasters.



>  
>
>>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"?
>  
>

even if you didn't it was not a big deal. More like how you wanted your 
station to sound on a typical radio. This is more like tuning an FM 
station for minimum synchronous AM.


>  
>
>  
>
>>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! <:(
>
>  
>
Not really, it is just a reality.  If you processed for a typical radio 
and then listened on a wide band radio it was unlistenable. We all hear 
this every time you listen off a mod monitor.

>> 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 old content thing is one reason. Turns out L band receivers don't 
hear all that well and the system was never full implemented, primarily 
due to the first two reasons.


>  
>
>> 
>>
>
>  
>
>> 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.
>  
>
That TV channel thing will never fly.  The AM problem can be solved in 
band but with lowered but still satisfactory expectations.

>  
>
>> 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. 
>  
>
You are still thinking old school traditional radio. Aime higher.


R