Let's be fair about this...

BrokeEngineer · Mar 4, 2006

Re: Let's be fair about this-THE iBIQUITY SYSTEM IS DEFECTIVE.

> I don't know about you, but I'd definitely take clean,
> crisp, clear 24-hour-a-day, groundwave- AND
> skywave-compatible, local- and DX-capable analog 10 kHz
> C-Quam AM Stereo audio over Highly Distorted Radio's
> wishy-washy, artificial-sounding, highly-artifacted
> daytime-only, groundwave-only, local-only 15 kHz AM IBUZ
> audio.
>

I hope you were stating a point and not thinking I am supporting AM IBOC. I have not had the opportunity to hear good AM stereo. I have always listened to FM until I started working at this group that has an AM. We have all the gear still in the rack for AM stereo but our STL path needs addressed long before we even consider C-Quam.
My preference is 15k, lightly processed digital signal, that can run 24/7/365. Don't know what that system is but it ain't IBOC...

RadioEngineer · Mar 4, 2006

Re: Let's be fair about this-THE iBIQUITY SYSTEM IS DEFECTIVE.

>
>
> I hope you were stating a point and not thinking I am
> supporting AM IBOC. I have not had the opportunity to hear
> good AM stereo. I have always listened to FM until I started
> working at this group that has an AM. We have all the gear
> still in the rack for AM stereo but our STL path needs
> addressed long before we even consider C-Quam.
> My preference is 15k, lightly processed digital signal, that
> can run 24/7/365. Don't know what that system is but it
> ain't IBOC...
>
I had AM stereo on KSON in the late 80's, and on a Sony boombox (can't remember the model and it won't google) it sounded incredible. Not FM, but so good it was completely listenable. It was a music format standing on its own at the time. I was running a Kahn system with CRL processing. In the few cars where I could hear it, it was also very acceptable audio quality. I have also installed C-QUAM on another station, and it sounded equally as good.

We had a shot with AM stereo, but because of all the bickering and fighting it was doomed. It was poorly promoted, and though the technology of the time allowed for dual systems (Kahn/C-QUAM, the Sony boombox would do both)receiver manufacturers never got excited about getting it done.

It's kind of like deja vu all over again with HD, except that AM stereo did actually work well.

westlife · Mar 4, 2006

Re: Let's be fair about this-THE iBIQUITY SYSTEM IS DEFECTIVE.

> I had AM stereo on KSON in the late 80's, and on a Sony
> boombox (can't remember the model and it won't google) it
> sounded incredible.

If it was the big "ghetto-blaster" kind, then it was probably the Sony CFS-6000:

Or if it was much, much smaller, then it probably was the popular SRF-A100:

> It's kind of like deja vu all over again with HD, except
> that AM stereo did actually work well.

I couldn't have said it any better myself.
______________
It's a common mistake to not use punctuation in its proper form.
<a target="_blank" href=http://www.cgl.uwaterloo.ca/~csk/its.html>Be kind to your friend, the apostrophe.</a>

RadioEngineer · Mar 5, 2006

Re: Let's be fair about this-THE iBIQUITY SYSTEM IS DEFECTIVE.

> > I had AM stereo on KSON in the late 80's, and on a Sony
> > boombox (can't remember the model and it won't google) it
> > sounded incredible.
>
> If it was the big "ghetto-blaster" kind, then it was
> probably the Sony CFS-6000:
>
>
>
>
> Or if it was much, much smaller, then it probably was the
> popular SRF-A100:
>
>
>
>
> > It's kind of like deja vu all over again with HD, except
> > that AM stereo did actually work well.
>
> I couldn't have said it any better myself.
>
Yep. We had both, but the CFS-6000 was steller.

SuperSound · Mar 5, 2006

Re: THE iBIQUITY SYSTEM IS JUST FINE.-NOT!

In spite of all the too often repeated protestations, it is up to iBiquity to prove their new system is truely compatible and does not interfere with analog broadcasting and the current frequency allocations on AM and FM broadcast bands. So it is not necessary for me to prove that it does, or does not, the burden of proof is on iBiquity and HD Radio. iBiquity and their partners will be the ones held responsible for any damages, and lawsits with merit are already starting to be filed.
All of iBiquity's "proof" shows clearly that their proposed multi-channel digital system creates interference on the AM and FM broadcast bands. iBiquity admits that it does cause interference! The FCC agrees!
So even iBiquity and the FCC do not agree with you. Both the AM and FM HD Radio cause destructive interference to adjacent channel stations, and are problematic with the current allocation system for AM and FM stations.
iBiquity's attempt to claim mitigation, is that the benefits outweigh the interference caused to the existing AM and FM broadcast bands, and to the estimated 1 billion analog AM and FM radios in North America used by listeners, is minor compared to the profit to be made by selling a few expensive HD radios to a handful of people who are unhappy with the fidelity of the current system. This claim by iBiquity is spurious, since there are other ways to accomplish the same end without the interference to existing services.
For example: www.dreinc.com
iBiqity's claim of CD quality sound, went out the window when they decided on lower bitrates to accomadate multicasting. Now it's FM quality sound, which we already have, if no one interferes with it. If you have and FM radio, you already have FM quality sound. No new radio is necessary.
The iBiquity claims of "more choices" is also spurious, because the interference jams as many, or more, channels then it produces. Net gains are negative because everyone is supposed to run out and buy expensive new radios just to continue getting what they already have.
There are several other problems with the iBiquty HD Radio proposal as well, such as audio delay and coverage area. The existing indoor HD radios such as the Boston Acoustics, require external AM and FM antennas for HD Radio to be effective, and reliable. How many are likely to put up with that hassle?
If we use past experience as a guide, not many.
On balance, HD Radio requires harming the many for the benefit of a few, and therefore the iBiqity HD Radio experiment should be terminated, and another, more compatible system adopted.

"I found myself trying all kinds of various orientations for the wire to find a "sweet spot" where HD would lock on weaker stations, but discovered HD would not remain reliably stable. "
"The obvious solution in such compromised signal environments is to employ an outside antenna. That has always been an option for those who want to go the extra mile to improve reception for a favorite station of any kind. But I fear that the majority of consumers who buy this kind of radio will not work that hard to make marginal HD signals work well, especially if there are enough other choices on the dial that do perform adequately."
http://www.rwonline.com/reference-room/guywire/2006.02.22-Guy_Feb_22.shtml

> > Digital radio is fine, it is just the iBiquity AM and FM
> > systems that cause all the jamming and problems. Here is a
>
> > sane alternative for FM that sounds just as good as HD
> > Radio, and does not tresspass on your neighbors stations.
> > www.dreinc.com
> > As has been repeated very frequently by HD Radio
> supporters
> > on this site, if the FM digital iBiquity system known as
> HD
> > Radio, does not fit in the 200 kHz bandwidth allotted, HD
> > Radio should not get final approval from the FCC. (HD
> Radio
> > now only has interim FCC approval).
> > I AGREE! The FM digital HD Radio signal takes up over 400
> > kHz of bandwidth, and the FCC should not give HD FM (or
> AM)
> > final approval.
> > SEE, I AGREE!
> > So what's all the rancor and argument about?
>
>
> All we ask is that you prove what you say. You have not.
> Move on.
>
> When someone asks you to prove anything, you walk away.
>
> When you went and measured several representative stations
> to back up your claims, you did save copies of the scans,
> right?
>
> Yeah, that's what I thought.
>
> The FCC will approve IBOC.
>
Edited by SuperSound on 03/06/06 03:39 AM.

SuperSound · Mar 5, 2006

Re: Let's be fair about this-THE iBIQUITY SYSTEM IS DEFECTIVE.

If the digital HD signal is so low and insignificant as you say, then it could not provide more then insignificant coverage area.
Extending the coverage and reception beyond the noise floor would be difficult in any practial, mass produced, inexpensive home or automobile radio.

> > Digital radio is fine, it is just the iBiquity AM and FM
> > systems that cause all the jamming and problems. Here is a
>
> > sane alternative for FM that sounds just as good as HD
> > Radio, and does not tresspass on your neighbors stations.
> > www.dreinc.com
> > As has been repeated very frequently by HD Radio
> supporters
> > on this site, if the FM digital iBiquity system known as
> HD
> > Radio, does not fit in the 200 kHz bandwidth allotted, HD
> > Radio should not get final approval from the FCC. (HD
> Radio
> > now only has interim FCC approval).
> > I AGREE! The FM digital HD Radio signal takes up over 400
> > kHz of bandwidth, and the FCC should not give HD FM (or
> AM)
> > final approval.
> > SEE, I AGREE!
> > So what's all the rancor and argument about?
> >
> > > > > I realize that HD Radio isn't perfect. But we are in
>
> > the
> > >
> > > > > initial stage of a new technology. Think about HDTV
> > and
> > > > all
> > > > > that. Or Computers. They didn't start out perfect,
> but
> >
> > > as
> > > > > time went on they were made more better. HD Radio is
>
> > in
> > > a
> > > > > similar mode right now, it's just starting out, and
> > > > > hopefully the issues will be delt with as time goes
> > on,
> > > > > including the adjenct channel interference and the
> > > > inability
> > > > > to run AM HD at night because of issues there too.
> > > > >
> > > > > I mean, did you expect Radio to stay Analog? Then I
> > > guess
> > > > > you expected VCRs to remain. Or Typewriters. Or
> Audio
> > > > Tapes.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > NOTE: I am not a Cheerleader for the technology, nor
>
> > do
> > > I
> > > > > work for Ibiquity, any of the Alliance Broadcasters,
>
> > or
> > > > non
> > > > > Alliance broadcasters, or for Boston Acoustics,
> > > > Radiosophy,
> > > > > Polk, or anyone else making HD Radios. Just simply
> > > making
> > > > > observations.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Agreed! I think that is what a number of us
> > > "Cheerleaders"
> > > > have been trying to say.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I'm with you, k9ez and Radiogeek500. I can't wait to see
>
> > how
> > > improvements in this technology will be made.
> > >
> > Your argument is with the FCC mask....IBOC CLEARLY fits in
> the 200 KHZ channel. Go back to the post from RFRY. It shows
> the spectrum analyzer snap and the FCC mask. The energy in
> the 200-400 spectra is WAY, WAY down....almost to the noise
> floor.
> BUT....if you are in the 100 dbu circle of the station, you
> will hear noise on the adjacent channels. In an urban
> transmitter location, this could cause issues on thousands
> of radios. But without IBOC the adjacents are not usable
> either....this is probably receiver front end overload more
> than anything else. I accept there is energy in 200-400 Khz
> spectra BECAUSE RFRY has provided PROOF!But I would argue
> that this energy is so far below carrier that it is
> insignificant.(except, as stated above, if you are close to
> the transmitter)Futhermore, it is LEGAL, by FCC rules, and
> MINOR activity in the 200-400 khz spectra is not as uncommon
> as you might think in the analog world.
> Most RF devices have SOME energy out of band...that is why
> we filter the power amp outputs. And the filtering is only
> required to knock the out of band energy down aprox 80 db,
> maximum.
> Mr. Fry.....you are obviously a qualified RF design
> engineer. Could you comment, clarify, or correct, if needed?
>
Edited by SuperSound on 03/06/06 03:30 AM.

RadioDoc · Mar 5, 2006

Re: THE iBIQUITY SYSTEM IS JUST FINE.

> In spite of all the too often repeated protestations, it is
> up to iBiquity to prove their new system is truely
> compatible and does not interfere with analog broadcasting
> and the current frequency allocations on AM and FM broadcast
> bands. So it is not necessary for me to prove that it does,
> or does not, the burden of proof is on iBiquity and HD
> Radio. iBiquity and their partners will be the ones held
> responsible for any damages, and lawsits with merit are
> already starting to be filed.

Show me the lawsuits. I haven't seen any yet.

If you make these claims, the burden is on YOU to prove it.

That is all.______________

RadioDoc · Mar 5, 2006

Ignorance

> If the digital HD signal is so low and insignificant as you
> say, then it could not provide more then insignificant
> coverage area.
> Extending the coverage and reception beyond the noise floor
> would be difficult in any practial, mass produced,
> inexpensive home or automobile radio.
>

That post right there shines a bright light on the fact that you have no clue what you are talking about.

There is a huge difference in the strength of the signal needed to receive digital vs. analog information. It takes a digital signal 1/10 the power of analog to cover the same distance.

Ignorance is a dangerous thing.______________

SuperSound · Mar 5, 2006

Re: THE iBIQUITY SYSTEM IS JUST FINE.

The RIAA has filed protests with the congress and the FCC over the current codec and seeking a change of digital codec to add a copy flag.
This will obsolete the current HD radios.

"On Thursday, March 2, 2006, the Wall Street Journal was the first publication to disclose the fact that I, your loveable friend , and Kahn Communications, Inc. filed a suit in the prestigious Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York at Foley Square."

"The Defendants are: iBiquity Digital Corporation; Lucent Technologies Corporation; and Clear Channel Communications, Inc."

"Its Case Number is: 06 CV 1536."

http://www.wrathofkahn.org/

Please research your statements before continually attacking others for reporting the truth.

> > In spite of all the too often repeated protestations, it
> is
> > up to iBiquity to prove their new system is truely
> > compatible and does not interfere with analog broadcasting
>
> > and the current frequency allocations on AM and FM
> broadcast
> > bands. So it is not necessary for me to prove that it
> does,
> > or does not, the burden of proof is on iBiquity and HD
> > Radio. iBiquity and their partners will be the ones held
> > responsible for any damages, and lawsits with merit are
> > already starting to be filed.
>
> Show me the lawsuits. I haven't seen any yet.
>
> If you make these claims, the burden is on YOU to prove it.
>
> That is all.
>
Edited by SuperSound on 03/06/06 04:29 AM.

RadioDoc · Mar 5, 2006

Re: THE iBIQUITY SYSTEM IS JUST FINE.

> The RIAA has filed protests with the congress and the FCC
> over the current codec and seeking a change of digital codec
> to add a copy flag.
> This will obsolete the current HD radios.
>
> On Thursday, March 2, 2006, the Wall Street Journal was the
> first publication to disclose the fact that I, your loveable
> friend , and Kahn Communications, Inc. filed a suit in the
> prestigious Federal District Court for the Southern District
> of New York at Foley Square.
>
> The Defendants are: iBiquity Digital Corporation; Lucent
> Technologies Corporation; and Clear Channel Communications,
> Inc.
>
> Its Case Number is: 06 CV 1536.
>
> http://www.wrathofkahn.org/
>
> Please research your statements before continually attacking
> others for reporting the truth.
>
>

Funny...you mentioned lawsuits. As in more than one. And implied that it had to do with flawed technology. Not to mention that Leonard Kahn, though an excellent engineer/designer, has a bias as he has created a competing system.

I'm attacking you for distorting the truth to further your agenda, then hiding when asked to back it up.______________

SuperSound · Mar 6, 2006

Re: Ignorance-Certainly is a dangerous thing.

If the signal transmitted by the station is so very weak and just above the noise floor (as stated) how would the coverage be good?
The RF field of a digital RF signal is attenuated at the same rate as an analog RF signal. Reliable detection of a digital signal below the noise level would be unlikely.

> > If the digital HD signal is so low and insignificant as
> you
> > say, then it could not provide more then insignificant
> > coverage area.
> > Extending the coverage and reception beyond the noise
> floor
> > would be difficult in any practial, mass produced,
> > inexpensive home or automobile radio.
> >
>
> That post right there shines a bright light on the fact that
> you have no clue what you are talking about.
>
> There is a huge difference in the strength of the signal
> needed to receive digital vs. analog information. It takes
> a digital signal 1/10 the power of analog to cover the same
> distance.
>
> Ignorance is a dangerous thing.
>

SuperSound · Mar 6, 2006

Re: THE iBIQUITY SYSTEM IS JUST FINED!

And what, prey tell, do you imagine "my agenda" to be?
"lawsuits with merit are already starting to be filed."
Means some lawsuits are still being prepared, such as the one the RIAA said they are fileing, and those being prepared by other injured parties.
To quote the Yiddish, "What's not to understand?"

> > The RIAA has filed protests with the congress and the FCC
> > over the current codec and seeking a change of digital
> codec
> > to add a copy flag.
> > This will obsolete the current HD radios.
> >
> > On Thursday, March 2, 2006, the Wall Street Journal was
> the
> > first publication to disclose the fact that I, your
> loveable
> > friend , and Kahn Communications, Inc. filed a suit in the
>
> > prestigious Federal District Court for the Southern
> District
> > of New York at Foley Square.
> >
> > The Defendants are: iBiquity Digital Corporation; Lucent
> > Technologies Corporation; and Clear Channel
> Communications,
> > Inc.
> >
> > Its Case Number is: 06 CV 1536.
> >
> > http://www.wrathofkahn.org/
> >
> > Please research your statements before continually
> attacking
> > others for reporting the truth.
> >
> >
>
> Funny...you mentioned lawsuits. As in more than one. And
> implied that it had to do with flawed technology. Not to
> mention that Leonard Kahn, though an excellent
> engineer/designer, has a bias as he has created a competing
> system.
>
> I'm attacking you for distorting the truth to further your
> agenda, then hiding when asked to back it up.
>
Edited by SuperSound on 03/06/06 08:35 AM.

SuperSound · Mar 6, 2006

Re: Let's be fair about this-THE iBIQUITY SYSTEM IS DEFECTIVE.

WWW.DREINC.COM FMeXtra digital costs 9 grand. HD Radio costs many times more!
No extra transmitters, combiners, on going license fees or antenna modifications to install and maintain.
And no adjacent channel interference.

> > Here is a
> > sane alternative for FM that sounds just as good as HD
> > Radio, and does not tresspass on your neighbors stations.
> > www.dreinc.com
>
> NOOOOOOOO!! And here is why...DRE pulled out of, what is now
> Ibiquity but kept it's finaincial interest in it, so they
> have no incentive to follow thru to make sure that FMExtra
> prevails. In doing so, they want over 9 grand for their
> technology. Cost recovery is one thing but come on!
>
> > As has been repeated very frequently by HD Radio
> supporters
> > on this site, if the FM digital iBiquity system known as
> HD
> > Radio, does not fit in the 200 kHz bandwidth allotted, HD
> > Radio should not get final approval from the FCC. (HD
> Radio
> > now only has interim FCC approval).
>
> Yeah but any noise is on and un-used channel, not that that
> makes it right! How the hell Ibiquity is able to hold a
> monopoly on this is beyond me.
> A few points simply cause we are at the top of the page
> now...
> The biggest need is getting the least attention...AM. We are
> providing a solution to a problem that doesn't exist;
> digital delivery on FM is not a fix, it complicates the
> problem which is reduced TSL due to other mediums and we
> need to address the content.
> Why are we trying to reinvent the wheel? We have been
> shooting digital for years, from POTS codecs all the way up
> to sats. Now, because one company seems to have the FCC by
> the short hairs, we must adopt this flawed technology???
> WTF??? Again, we need to address AM first because it sounds
> the worst. I realize the AM stereo people are going to jump
> in here but be for real, 10k is 10k and whether it is stereo
> or not, you hear the difference in the audio. We need to
> come up with a viable solution to send digital full 15k
> audio via AM.
> FMExtra sounds real good but it too ignores th AM signal.
>

k9ez · Mar 6, 2006

Re: Ignorance-Certainly is a dangerous thing.

As Doc said, you ignorance and lack of understanding of how digital works shines herre.

Examples.... Your cell phone, more than likely digital. The analog system was using a 3 watt tranmsitter. The digital uses tesths of a watt to cover the same area. Digital is far more efficient than analog. It is that simple! If you understood how CDMA nd TDMA worked you would be amazed how they can pull a signal out of "the noise floor". You would be amazed how you can pull a digital signal out of multiplexed, corss talked digital signals as well!

Likewise with DTV. They have gone from MEGAWATTS to hundreds of thousands of watts. And when they went to digital, they can now multicast as well. Offering the public more programming. It may be programming that YOU dont like but someone out there does. (personally I can do without the shopping channels)

Digital signals can be pulled out of the noise floor. Ham radio is working on a system (and it works) that the human ear cannot detect a signal, but a receiver can and pull out data from under the noise floor.

Again, digital is far more efficient in the power use, and bandwidth use. That is why cell phone companies, fire and police departments, television stations and now radio stations are looking to utilize digital.

Bottom line Supersound, a number of us have TRIED and TRIED to tell you that you need to educate yourself more on this topic. It is quite glaring that you do not fully understand the topic of digital radio. THATS OK because a lot of people do not know or fully understand. Those of us that better understand digital are more than willing to help answer your questions. If we dont have a good answer for you that would give us the impetace to go find out about it!

As opposed to making unsupportable statements, ask questions. I am sure you will get a better response.

Though Doc and I have been called "Cheerleaders", we really are not. Both of us try to lay out the situation, both the good and the bad. We both see some good things in HD, and there are some bad (like the HD AM situation).

So I encourage you to ask questions! Let continue to educate each other on this topic!

> If the signal transmitted by the station is so very weak and
> just above the noise floor (as stated) how would the
> coverage be good?
> The RF field of a digital RF signal is attenuated at the
> same rate as an analog RF signal. Reliable detection of a
> digital signal below the noise level would be unlikely.
>
> > > If the digital HD signal is so low and insignificant as
> > you
> > > say, then it could not provide more then insignificant
> > > coverage area.
> > > Extending the coverage and reception beyond the noise
> > floor
> > > would be difficult in any practial, mass produced,
> > > inexpensive home or automobile radio.
> > >
> >
> > That post right there shines a bright light on the fact
> that
> > you have no clue what you are talking about.
> >
> > There is a huge difference in the strength of the signal
> > needed to receive digital vs. analog information. It
> takes
> > a digital signal 1/10 the power of analog to cover the
> same
> > distance.
> >
> > Ignorance is a dangerous thing.
> >
>

Let's be fair about this...

BrokeEngineer

Inactive

RadioEngineer

Guest

westlife

Guest

RadioEngineer

Guest

SuperSound

Inactive

SuperSound

Inactive

RadioDoc

Guest

RadioDoc

Guest

SuperSound

Inactive

RadioDoc

Guest

SuperSound

Inactive

SuperSound

Inactive

SuperSound

Inactive

k9ez

Guest