Re: [IRCA] IBOC status

["Bob Young" <youngbob53@xxxxxxx>]

All I want to know is where can I get this? So, You want an All-Lithuanian 
Funeral Marches format
stream? Seriously, was a well thought out piece.

Bob Young
Analog, Ma


>From: "Craig Healy" <bubba@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Reply-To: Mailing list for the International Radio Club of 
>America<irca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>To: "Mailing list for the International Radio Club of 
>America"<irca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: [IRCA] IBOC status
>Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 23:31:28 -0500
>
> > I don't think the price of IBAC is the problem, what price can be put on
> > slowly ruining the AM band (or quickly when and if night time IBAC is
> > allowed by this rubber stamp FCC?).
>
>OK, It's February.  Time for my once a month post on IBOC..
>
>Station costs are an issue, though not for the big boys.  Most larger
>stations have the money to implement HD Radio.  Especially those who have
>made that decision at the top of the corporate ladder.  Personally, I
>thought there was a recurring yearly license fee.  Be that as it may..
>Smaller station owners may not have the finances to do HD Radio.  I do know
>most of my clients are loath to spend the money.
>
>Here are the issues as I see them right now..
>
>1.  HD Radio coverage is about half that or less of a good, listenable
>analog signal.  I have a client in Providence that is Arbitron rated #1 
>12+.
>Their transmitter is 30 miles away.  The HD Radio coverage would not reach
>their intended market.  HD2 signals drop out and there's no analog upon
>which to fall.  Gone.  I have had two HD Radio rigs so far, and am quite
>underwhelmed by quality and content.  The value isn't there.  It seems Joe
>Average is of like mind.
>
>2.  AM stations that run directional antennas may well have trouble.  Two
>examples.  WDDZ-550 has a close spaced two tower array.  The overall
>bandwidth - even after a consultant maximized bandwidth - looks too narrow
>and uneven to pass the signal.  Even the daytime non-directional impedence
>is not really good enough.  Mostly due to the short towers.  The second
>example is WPMZ-1110.  The common point bandwidth of that station is good
>out to 30KHz either side.  This is before optimization.  It would likely
>work fine.  The overall result is still not good.  If not every station can
>use HD Radio, then that is a problem on many fronts.  As a third thought, I
>would not want to think of the expense required to get the six tower 50KW
>monster on 990 compliant.
>
>3.  Radios are not selling.  I have maybe a dozen stations in my client
>list.  Not one call has been received at any of them inquiring about the
>lack of HD Radio. However, we get call after call asking about the internet
>streams.  This tells me that streaming, and eventual universal mobile WiFi
>access is where it's at.  Rhode Island is well on it's way to becoming a
>border to border WiFi state.  Yeah, it's small.  But it will be wireless
>soon.  Add a WiFi enabled iPod that can get a stream, and suddenly
>transmitters aren't too important any more.  Streaming is where I'm 
>advising
>my clients to put their effort and money.  Already streams can have a 
>better
>data rate than any HD Radio signal, and are much easier to upgrade.  AAC
>Plus Plus Ultra (imaginary) comes out, and you add a codec.  Try that with
>HD Radio, and you have to replace the box.  Now consider that the HD Radio
>receiver is a one trick pony, while an iPod does a whole bunch of things.
>Where's the value?  And, as one station owner said to me.  "Show me the
>radios".  Can't..
>
>4.  HD Radio has two channels.  Streaming can be literally unlimited
>formats.  So, You want an All-Lithuanian Funeral Marches format stream?
>Plug 'er in, git 'er done.  Try stuffing a third format on HD Radio.  
>Bzzzt!
>
>5.  It's all about the content.  Quality really isn't the issue.  I've been
>in radio over 35 years.  In all that time, I've had a small handful of
>complaints about quality of sound.  And *every* one of those has been when
>there has been a real problem.  A buzz, a flipped stereo channel, a
>satellite receiver that's dropping out.  Some tangible and repairable 
>issue.
>Never a complaint when everything was up to par.  HD Radio is a solution to
>a non-problem.  If people don't want to listen to you in analog, they 
>aren't
>going to want to listen to you in digital, either.
>
>6.  AM Night HD Radio will be a nightmare.  We've already seen that on the
>sunset/sunrise signals.  If we take 710 as an example, the 700 and 720
>signals at sunrise must have a nasty effect.  I do know that the close-in
>skywave/groundwave interference on WBZ-1030 makes their HD Radio unuseable
>around here, and I'm not all that far away.  I have even found localized
>interference from power lines and traffic lights kills the decoding.  It
>takes a *lot* of signal strength to beat that.  Even the strongest local HD
>Radio signal of WPRO-630 is affected in places.
>
>7.  They say HD Radio will add diversity.  I see it doing the opposite, by
>interfering with further signals that can provide variety.  Locally on FM,
>the HD Radio signal on 93.3 has blocked 97.2 from Martha's Vineyard and
>their eclectic format.  The signal wasn't great before, but I could hear 
>it.
>Now all I get is hiss.  The station engineer claims 93.3 fits the mask,
>but...
>
>I'm sorry, but I see no great stampede toward HD Radio.  All I see is a
>great big collective yawn.  And a lot of time and money that could be much
>better spent on something else.  This was my position a year ago, and I 
>have
>seen nothing that would change it.
>
>Local AMs are WPRO-630 and WHJJ-920.  Add WBZ-1030 and some other Boston
>stations..
>
>I'll shut up until March.  Should anyone wish to follow up with me, I'll
>reply off list.
>
>Craig Healy
>Providence, RI
>
>_______________________________________________
>IRCA mailing list
>IRCA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>http://montreal.kotalampi.com/mailman/listinfo/irca
>
>Opinions expressed in messages on this mailing list are those of the 
>original contributors and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the 
>IRCA, its editors, publishing staff, or officers
>
>For more information: http://www.ircaonline.org
>
>To Post a message: irca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>


_______________________________________________
IRCA mailing list
IRCA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://montreal.kotalampi.com/mailman/listinfo/irca

Opinions expressed in messages on this mailing list are those of the original contributors and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the IRCA, its editors, publishing staff, or officers

For more information: http://www.ircaonline.org

To Post a message: irca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx