How is IBOC destroying AM DX?

[rbrucecarter5]

No, sounding like AM is what killed AM. 

Finally - you make a statement I can agree with.  But you seem oblivious to the fact that HD makes AM sound TERRIBLE on all but HD receivers.  Given the market penetration of HD - and consumer apathy to HD - it make no sense to make AM sound even worse in the interim while the issue of consumer acceptance is open.

I do realize there is a "chicken and the egg" scenario here.  But most consumers are probably buying HD for FM HD-2 channels - at least that seems to be the big selling point on commercials I have heard.  If I were going to roll this thing out, I would be much more cautious on AM roll out.  A bit of a white lie in the interim - widening AM bandwidth and better equalization - so AM sounds incredibly good "in digital".  Then when market penetration of HD radios reaches 50% (or some carefully selected threshold), then cut the bandwidth on analog, kick in the sidebands.  Call it an "enhancement" to digital AM, and handle the few complaints at that point with free HD radios which should be dirt cheap by that time. 

But no - the HD folks jumped the gun - put the system on the air leaving 99.9% of the audience with horrible sounding AM radios, and advertised how HD makes "AM sound like FM" - and the uninformed consumer who doesn't know how HD works says "yeah right, it sounds like _____".

If you are right, and this is to save the AM band - the quick appearance of reduced bandwidth and loud sideband interference did not enhance the position of the HD advocates.  Unless, that is, the ultimate goal was NEVER better sound, only jamming small operators out of existance.

I will say this - I had an opportunity to do a bit of nighttime skywave DX the other night.  Only one station was operating IBOC illegally - a local 1700.  They have been reported to the FCC for illegal nightime operation of IBOC, by the way.  But IBOC was not the problem.  While some skywave is possible on stations up to 700 or 800 miles away, it was only a handful.  Anything much over that, and a good number of closer 50 kW stations are already jammed.  I had no idea the magnitude of the problem - but there has been allocation glut.  New stations crammed on just about every frequency that was formerly clear.  Even on the 50 kW powerhouses, other stations could be heard in the background mixing with them.  Mexico, Cuba, and Central America are problems.  From my Dallas location, Spanish language stations crammed the dial - every other frequency was dominated by something in Spanish.  Maybe they are operating legally.  Maybe they are American stations broadcasting in Spanish.  I don't know.  But it seems that they are flooding the dial.  My conclusion is - nighttime IBOC is probably not going to do any more damage than has already been done to the band.  I remember a band dominated by Chicago clears, even from Midland.  All 5 or 6 of them - buried under new allocations, Spanish or other interfering signals.  Same with WSB, WSM, WJR, KSL, all the other stations between 800 and 1200 miles away.  New York City, Los Angeles, San Francisco - there is not even a realistic chance of hearing them from Texas any more.  Nighttime skywave is already dead for all intents and purposes.  IBOC will merely nail the coffin lid shut.  The fault:  the FCC, which is not following its original mandate of preventing interference on the band.  Their actions from the last few decades seem intent on generating interference, not preventing it.

[DavidEduardo]

KSL SLC tried simulcasting on FM, but eventually the ratings fell back to where there were, before.

This is a lie. This is totally unbased in fact. Why do you continue to insist on poting things that just are not true, and which can easily be disproven by anyone with access to the data... something you obviously do not have.

KSL AM & FM are reported as a simulcast (single line reporting) and the 25-54 listenership has increased. Today, KSL has more 25-54 than they did before, and the ratings in overall 12+ are up also.

The last three books are 3 of the four highest 12+ numbers of the last 6 years (The simulcast began before Spring of 2006), and the station has not had a sequence of such high numbers ever in the last decade... all of this is caused by having a better quality FM KSL to attract sales demos.

In contrast, the last two books prior to adding the FM simulcast were fully two points below the current Winter 2007 shares.

[PocketRadio]

KSL SLC tried simulcasting on FM, but eventually the ratings fell back to where there were, before.

This is a lie. This is totally unbased in fact. Why do you continue to insist on poting things that just are not true, and which can easily be disproven by anyone with access to the data... something you obviously do not have.

"KSL still No. 1 in ratings, but lead is dwindling"

"Remember the huge lead KSL (AM-1160/FM-102.7) had after simulcasting on FM? That's gone, and although the station holds No. 1 firmly, its outrageous advantage has vanished."

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20060127/ai_n16039849

Radio is in such a sad-state, that simulcasting/streaming AM on FM makes no difference.

[DavidEduardo]

"KSL still No. 1 in ratings, but lead is dwindling"

That does not mean KSL is down in share of audience. In fact, as I mentioned, it is up about 25% on the average since it started simulcasting on FM when compared with the share it had prior to starting the simulcast.

You are misinterpreting a pretty basic statement. KSL leads, and has grown. But a "narrowed lead" would mean that other staitons have increased, narrowing the difference between #1 and #2. The fact actually is that the #2 station is further behind KSL than it ever was, so the lead has not narrowed at all.

It sounds like your quote is very old, and has nothing to do with the current ratings in Salt Lake, where KSL is more than 50% ahead of the #2 station.

"Remember the huge lead KSL (AM-1160/FM-102.7) had after simulcasting on FM? That's gone, and although the station holds No. 1 firmly, its outrageous advantage has vanished."

That is untrue. KSL has an 8.7 in the last book, and #2 has a 5.7 and #3 has a 5.1. THis is the biggest lead they have had, in terms of percentage, in maybe a decade.

You are linking to data that is no longer correct, as it is 7 to 9 months old (October to December of 2006) and shows a very good book for the AC station which played all Christmas music in the last phase of the book, a known booster of ratings. My data is from the most recent book, not ancient history.

Radio is in such a sad-state, that simulcasting/streaming AM on FM makes no difference.

Unsupported statement. Untrue, too. KSL, in this case, has increased its 25-54 significantly by adding the FM simulcast, and that increases their revenue potential enormously as the AM audience was getting very old.

[PocketRadio]

Your post reminds me of an earlier one (3/29/05) on Jay Rosen's Pressthink:

"Laying the Newspaper Gently Down to Die"

"But an industry that won’t move until it is certain of days as good as its golden past is effectively dead, from a strategic point of view. Besides, there is an alternative if you don’t have the faith or will or courage needed to accept reality and deal. The alternative is to drive the property to a profitable demise."

http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2005/03/29/nwsp_dwn.html

Might this be what's happening in "broadcasting" ?

[FredRichards]

The problem I have with IBOC?

While I can get analog stations miles away, IBOC stations don't decode as far away and as consistent.  Case in point, a regional station in my area runs it.  I was snookered into buying a receiver for the car.  I can get the station on analog 47 miles away.  When I was listening in IBOC, it dropped at 6 miles from their TX.

I hate the switching back and forth as the digital is compromised, and I can hear the coding artifacts when they do music.  In fairness, they are suppose to increase the bitrate after analog goes away, but still it sounds like a marginal MP3 to me.

Having played with CAM-D and IBOC, I have to say that technically the CAM-D works the best.  Yeah, Leonard is "unique", but I have to admit his system in spot on.

I have to side with a couple of guys who said that the wiser decision would have been to leave AM alone, and put all the IBOC in a channel cluster in the TV band of Ch-14 to Ch-17.  Since 90% of the broadcasters only carry about their metro, why spew out sidebands 250 miles or more?  A 1kw UHF TX would cover a metro, and think how many stations you could put into 24 megahertz of spectrum, and the ease of spacing.  It people want digital, AM would die due to the migration from the band.

The one thing that bothers me is how much the 'suits' I place into IBOC as being the savior of AM.  I hate to break their bubble, but the public is not discontented with the platform, they are in search of good content.  Rush is Rush no matter if it's analog or digital.

A good listen on the technical merits is the National Radio Club's "All Radio" article on digital from last year.  Barry McLarnon really nailed some of the issues, and he's a well respected engineer from Canada.  Quoting.....

All Radio #3 (This was ouriginally sold on a CD. Each cut is a track of a CD)

"Digital Radio, Friend or Foe" (Technical Talk) Fred Vobbe talks with engineer and author Barry McLarnon about digital radio, IBOC, and show examples of the adjacent channel interference that many DX’ers have talked about. This informative interview goes in depth with great detail about IBOC from the DX’ers stand point. (57 minutes for all three tracks)

01: http://www.e-dxn.com/news/audio/ARIII1OO6/AllRadio_03-A.mp3

02: http://www.e-dxn.com/news/audio/ARIII1OO6/AllRadio_03-B.mp3

03: http://www.e-dxn.com/news/audio/ARIII1OO6/AllRadio_03-C.mp3

[The Dude]

IBOC is garbage fair and square!

[Zach]

I don't have any problems with HD on FM in its current implementation.  It's AM that is a problem, and it's one that broadcasters, engineers, listeners and the 14 DXers left in America are all in agreement with. 

It is my opinion that iBiquity went through a lot of trouble to develop a system that does not add value to AM radio stations, and is a difficult way of trying to save an entire band.  It is also my opinion that a real way the band can be saved will be even more difficult and costly to some stations: a total restructuring of the AM band.

Heck, we did it once, we can do it again, right? 

I'm not sure if opening up the bandwidth to 10-15 kHz is a good idea in today's electronic-noise-filled world, so I will defer to other's opinions.  BUT, we really need to do something about the nighttime graveyards, find a way to maximize regional daytime coverage and maybe even reinstate some nighttime clear channels "for safety reasons" (heh).  And for heaven's sake, give DRM a shot, or something other than noisy HD!

OR -- as a comprimise with the HD purveyors, at least set aside part of the AM band for hybrid broadcasting and a portion for analoge-only.  Perhaps reserve the low-end (540-910) for regional high power wide-band stereo analogue, the middle (930-1170) for local lower power mixed-bandwidth band stereo analogue and the upper part (1190-1700) for regional and local HD broadcasting.  50 kW maximum in the low and high/HD bands, 5 kW maximum in the middle band.

Sure, some stations may be forced to go dark, consolidate, relocate and/or purchase new equipment, but it will probably spare more stations than the 1-2 punch of new interference and upgrade costs of HD.  At least this way, the characteristics of the band will be working to listeners, owners and even DXers interests...

Wha ch'all think? 

[Philip J. Smith]

Wha ch'all think? 

In my opinion, there is not much that can be done to save the AM (MW) band, based on the demands of today's consumer base, regardless of the modulation scheme.  The AM band gets more interference than ever before, and signal penetration into modern buildings is poor.  Analog, HD Radio, DRM, CAM-D, etc., are all affected by the same laws of physics.  While I think segmenting the band would solve station-to-station interference, it won't overcome the more significant obstacles of RFI and penetration, which is an attribute of being between 540 and 1700 kHz.  Then, there are the many local stations that can't broadcast at night, drastically reduce signal at dusk, or simply get overrun with co-channel inteference after dark.  We live in a 24/7 world, and having audio streams missing between sundown and sun-up is an antique concept.

I also agree with the point that although iBiquity went through a lot of trouble to develop their IBOC solution for AM, it does not add enough overall value to AM radio stations.  People who are currently getting strong AM signals don't get any significant benefit from HD Radio, and people at greater distances (where noise reduction would be a plus) don't get reliable HD Radio reception.

Yes, there is an argument that "HD Radio makes AM sound better," but this is a straw house:

1.  Analog AM has low fidelity.  But, poor fidelity has been artificially foisted upon analog-AM in order to support HD Radio.  Take away HD Radio, and the original audio bandwidth can be restored on the AM signal.

2.  HD Radio cleans up the noise on AM.  Yes.  If the noise is very minimal, or is VERY short in duration.  Anything more causes an HD Radio receiver to revert to analog, revealing the noise which is thwarting reception of HD Radio.

3.  People can now overcome the poor fidelity on AM by buying an HD Radio.  This is a funny point, because people could always get better fidelity on AM by simply buying a better analog radio.  Yet, people haven't.  If cleaner audio on AM hasn't been important for the past 3 decades, HD Radio on AM is not going to change that sentiment.  This sort of negates #1 (low fidelity) as being a "problem" with AM.


IMHO, the only remote benefit HD Radio provides for AM is the ability for AM stations to be carried on FM HD2 and HD3 streams.  Manufacturing better buggy whips won't revive the horsebuggy market, and HD isn't going to bail out the Medium Wave band.

This doesn't mean it's all gloom and doom for AM listeners.  Just as you can still buy buggies and buggy whips today, I'm sure the AM band will be around for many more years, HD or not.

[Chuck]

Case 1:  KKLF 1700 interferes with local TIS station on 1680 from DFW airport, making it difficult for airport travellers to get gate information.

Are you kidding me? How many people actually use that? I'll bet slim to none. Further more I have friends of all ages from my age (25) all the  way up to people in their 60s and none listen to those T.I.S. stations that are on the highways to announce where construction zone/accidents are. Most of them will use the traffic reports from their favorite radio stations. A ver small percentage don't care about traffic conditions.

Have you ever driven into DFW Airport?  I'll bet not.  American Airlines occupies four separate terminals.   They use the TIS to give gate information.  It used to work quite well.  Now you need to have American Airlines on the speed dial on your cell phone to figure out which terminal you need to drive to.