"iBiquity lied"

[SUPERCASTER]

"The initial appeal to the consumer was to be improved quality of sound. But, frankly, the difference between a high quality analog signal, such as WCLV’s classical music programming, and the HD signal is minimal. …We were also told that the HD would lessen interference with adjacent channel signals. That also appears not to be the case.This is really very discouraging and is leading us to wonder why we should bother to promote HD. When Conrad says, “We were also told…” one might better read it as, “Ibiquity lied to us when they said HD would lessen interference with adjacent channel signals.” HERE IS THE LINK:http://www.mediageek.net/?p=1420

[autopaint-1]

"The initial appeal to the consumer was to be improved quality of sound. But, frankly, the difference between a high quality analog signal, such as WCLV’s classical music programming, and the HD signal is minimal. …We were also told that the HD would lessen interference with adjacent channel signals. That also appears not to be the case.This is really very discouraging and is leading us to wonder why we should bother to promote HD. When Conrad says, “We were also told…” one might better read it as, “Ibiquity lied to us when they said HD would lessen interference with adjacent channel signals.” HERE IS THE LINK:http://www.mediageek.net/?p=1420"Yep, just got back from retuning my HD radio. I think a public hanging is in order.

[1q2w3e]

"The initial appeal to the consumer was to be improved quality of sound. But, frankly, the difference between a high quality analog signal, such as WCLV’s classical music programming, and the HD signal is minimal. …We were also told that the HD would lessen interference with adjacent channel signals. That also appears not to be the case.This is really very discouraging and is leading us to wonder why we should bother to promote HD. When Conrad says, “We were also told…” one might better read it as, “Ibiquity lied to us when they said HD would lessen interference with adjacent channel signals.” HERE IS THE LINK:http://www.mediageek.net/?p=1420"Yep, just got back from retuning my HD radio. I think a public hanging is in order.

INDEED!  Love my HD radio!  Even my non technical wife enjoys the additional channels.  HUH Supercaster didnt mention the additional channels.  Bet iBiquity lied about that as well.Super, it is getting REALLLLLLLY old.  May I suggest that you find another topic.  You have beaten this one to death.  And if you were to promote HD, I certainly would not want you on my team!BTW where the hell is WCLV?  Never heard of it.  Have a nice day!  I am off to tune in my HD RADIO!

[autopaint-1]

WCLV-FM 104.9 MHzLorain, Ohio"Northeast Ohio's Classical Music Station"  It covers part of Cleavland home to the Mistake On The Lake. But wait, I'm a New yorker so my opinions don't count because others in the country have declared that while NY is an OK city (especially when our buildings are bombed), some of it's citizens should drop dead because they aren't sympathetic to owners of small market rural stations who might lose that audience (both of them) in their .5 mv countour

[billybee]

Nobody's talking about the fact that Ibiquity will get ROYALTIES from the IBOC secondary channels! (These are the channels which can only sound like bad satellite-delivered AM audio with a decent low-end, and when you give them more bandwidth, the main channel gets even worse!)When the dust settles, broadcasters will figure out that the theory we learned years ago was correct after all, and you can only throw away so much data before the decoder at the other end runs out of ways to fool the ear.As broadcasters, we've spent years eliminating bit-rate-reduction schemes, complaining about the quality of the compressed audio from the satellite receivers, and the terrible compression algorithms on our hard drive systems, and the horrors of sending mp3 spots to radio stations, and dueling algorithms, and converting from compressed digital STLs to UNCOMPRESSED STLs, etc. (all very pertinent), and we then turn around and accept the low bit rates that Ibiquity and the IBOC scheme have to offer.  We not only accept them, we convince ourselves that it can sound really great, if we can only fine-tune the audio processing.  It isn't the audio processing, folks!  It's the result of throwing away meaningful data from a complex musical waveform.I suppose the only saving grace is that XM and Sirius use lossy compression as well.But it isn't CD quality... not even close.  If you think it is, you do not understand the technical realities.And then, when somebody with a real understanding of the limitations of the IBOC scheme dares to discuss its limitations, we cry blasphemy.

[autopaint-1]

"Nobody's talking about the fact that Ibiquity will get ROYALTIES from the IBOC secondary channels! (These are the channels which can only sound like bad satellite-delivered AM audio with a decent low-end, and when you give them more bandwidth, the main channel gets even worse!)"The "Royalties" you speak of is a one time (lifetime of the owner) fee a station pays to broadcast in IBOC. While I agree it should not be a cost incurred by a broadcaster once the exciter has been purchased, your comment makes it sound like this is a continuing payment, like a annual fee. It's the cost of doing business, like a license renewal fee the station pays to the FCC for the right to broadcast."When the dust settles, broadcasters will figure out that the theory we learned years ago was correct after all, and you can only throw away so much data before the decoder at the other end runs out of ways to fool the ear."We have one station in NYC, WPLJ running music on three channels currently. There are no digital artifacts apparent on any of the steams. This technology is in it's infacy and tweaking is constantly going on. I am going to record and will make a recording of the NY digital broadcasts and provide a file of the HD 2 & 3 channels for people to hear as soon as I have the time so that they can hear what is actually being broadcast, as opposed to what some neysayers say is on the air."As broadcasters, we've spent years eliminating bit-rate-reduction schemes, complaining about the quality of the compressed audio from the satellite receivers, and the terrible compression algorithms on our hard drive systems, and the horrors of sending mp3 spots to radio stations, and dueling algorithms, and converting from compressed digital STLs to UNCOMPRESSED STLs, etc. (all very pertinent), and we then turn around and accept the low bit rates that Ibiquity and the IBOC scheme have to offer.  We not only accept them, we convince ourselves that it can sound really great, if we can only fine-tune the audio processing.  It isn't the audio processing, folks!  It's the result of throwing away meaningful data from a complex musical waveform."And as someone who has worked for one of the major a network/syndicators for nearly 30 years and has seen the move from 5K telco distribution (long before bit rate was a concern) to current C-Dat distribution (Starguide) I can tell you that at the network level we are starting to move from compressed T1's to higher bandwidth distribution (usng a single T for a single feed or upping the bit rate) so that the effects of recompression aren't as noticeable. For instence we are moving from MP2 coding on our servers to storing programs as wav files for retransmission.  Bit schemes have improved significantly over the past 5 years and just the move from MP3 to AAC has shown that accuracy in compresion schemes is an evolving thing. Until a year or two or so ago, WKCR had been using a Telos X-Stream set at MP3 56/32 as their STL.(The T1 hadn't been installed at Conde Nast yet) I can't say that you could tell that they were running a compressed feed on the air and to the best of my knowledge no one complained about it and they broadcast both classical and jazz most of the day.Look how popular the I-Pod is and it defaults at 128  AAC. In MP3 mode 128 would contain loads of artifacts but in the more advanced AAC there are none heard by the vast majority of listeners. Compression schemes have come a long way and like it or not, all of the available digital systems (Radio Mondial, IBOC as 2 examples) use some form of compression in their delivery. To the average listener the audio is very acceptable and while I haven't done a lot of listening to the audio on XM or Sirrius (I have friends and have fed broadcasts to both from our facility), I've been told that IBOC audio is better and contains fewer artifacts that either of those two broadcasters. "I suppose the only saving grace is that XM and Sirius use lossy compression as well.But it isn't CD quality... not even close.  If you think it is, you do not understand the technical realities.And then, when somebody with a real understanding of the limitations of the IBOC scheme dares to discuss its limitations, we cry blasphemy."IBOC is an advancement in the technology of broadcasting. Over time it will improve and believe me I heard it years ago when testing first started and they've come many miles improving the digital codecs. While you can hear occassional artifacts on AM IBOC (usually due to weak signal conditions or interference beyond the receivers error correction capabilities) the difference in the quality of audio on that band between analogue and digital is like switching between a acoustic 78 and a live feed of the same material. It may not be perfect but it's a vast improvement over current broadcast methods and relatively speaking it is compatible with current modes allowing it to be broadcast on the same channel with the analogue component.

[SUPERCASTER]

I'm not aware of any 128 kbps HD Radio signals. Most stations use part of the bandwith for HD2, 3, 4 etc.
AM fidelity could be doubled to 10 khz just by removing the 5khz brick wall filter required by HD AM.
HD AM uses adjacent channels, not the "same channel with the analogue component."
HD is not compatible with current "modes," radios or many AM channel assignments. WDAS 1480 causes very noticeable interference within parts of WBCB 1490's 1 mv/meter coverage.
A directional antenna system designed for 1480 does not necessareily have the same null at 1490 or 1470 where the digital HD buzz is transmitted.
The Federal Trade Commision is aware of HD Radio's illegal advertising misrepresentations.

[1q2w3e]

I'm not aware of any 128 kbps HD Radio signals. Most stations use part of the bandwith for HD2, 3, 4 etc.
AM fidelity could be doubled to 10 khz just by removing the 5khz brick wall filter required by HD AM.
HD AM uses adjacent channels, not the "same channel with the analogue component."
HD is not compatible with current "modes," radios or many AM channel assignments. WDAS 1480 causes very noticeable interference within parts of WBCB 1490's 1 mv/meter coverage.
A directional antenna system designed for 1480 does not necessareily have the same null at 1490 or 1470 where the digital HD buzz is transmitted.
The Federal Trade Commision is aware of HD Radio's illegal advertising misrepresentations.

Annnnd once again your ignorance of the HD system shines!  There is a setting on AM HD to go either 5 or 8 kHz for analog.   Anyways what radio would be able to actually give you the 8kHz audio?

[ai4i]

Anyways what radio would be able to actually give you the 8kHz audio?

When my AM radio no longer does, I first check the vacuum tubes, then the power supply capacitors.
BTW...WCLV.

[Chuck]

 Anyways what radio would be able to actually give you the 8kHz audio?

I have quite a lot of them that can do that.  I admit that I am not typical, since I actually collect vintage radios, but lots of old radios are still around, and working fine.  If you want something newer, you can get a GE Super Radio at most good consumer electronic stores.  I've purchased them for less than $40.00 from www.buy.com.  It's a great radio for the money.  My (analog only version) Boston Acoustics receptor sounds very good on some AM stations.  It was $149.95 at Best Buy a couple of years ago. They still stock it in my market.   I haven't run a frequency response check on it, but I'd wager that it is fairly decent.  I'm also amazed at how many Bose radios are out there. They are certainly not cheap, but they do sound very pleasant.  There are lots of other good choices as well.

While it is true, that most AM radios sold in the last 20 years are so are pieces of crap, they don't need to be, nor do they need to be prohibitively expensive.  A lowly crystal radio made as a Boy Scout project sounds remarkable when connected up to a decent amplifier and loudspeaker.