|
|
Post by thelegacy on Mar 27, 2019 2:34:43 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by End80 on Mar 27, 2019 5:02:32 GMT
If it comes to pass?.. I think you're really jumping the gun there. The article reports a broadcasting group (only one) filed a petition to give existing AM stations the option to upgrade their equipment and begin transmitting in digital if they should wish to. No one has jumped onboard the petition yet, nor has it even reached a point to be considered for review on if it will even go up for vote. The article says the FCC "had not received any proposals for widespread approval or adoption of all-digital AM broadcasts", other than Bryan.
Even if it should reach a point of being voted on actually passes, it won't have any drastic affect anytime soon, at least not for a couple of decades, and even then only in select areas. Existing AM stations will then have the OPTION to broadcast digital, and if a station desires to do so will need to acquire new equipment and learn to properly operate it (in other words forget their present engineering experience and learn something new), but the biggest hindrance will probably be the cost involved.. I get the impression most AM stations don't exactly have money to throw around. The article also points out a great many of existing stations will have no incentive to change anyway.
If it reaches the point of a passing vote, then give it about thirty years before you beginning to actually notice the AM airwaves going all digital. But even then, I lay odds analog AM will still maintain a presence. |
|
|
|
Post by Boomer on Mar 27, 2019 7:12:38 GMT
It makes a good headline
I wonder how successful WWFD has been, testing full digital in Frederick Maryland? I look it up occasionally and see very little, assuming they're gathering information for reports.
Bryan Broadcasting is saying that going digital will allow the clear audio to sail through to the receiver, where the analog is burdened by noise, a cure for bad reception due to impulse noise from the car, really? That conflicts with what others have said, where normal AM interference causes the digital signal to break up or drop out, and there is no audio.
Here's a video, hard to tell what the audio quality really is though, and more of the time is taken to acquire the signal, though it's probably better to be safe in the car rather than filming.
youtube.com/watch?v=T50YCp58jDY
Hard to tell what the real sound quality is without direct line input. There are a few other videos too, but the ones I've seen have been mic to speaker, not allowing the real fidelity to be analyzed.
My feelings so far is that I haven't found the HD radio formats to be an advancement in sound quality or reception. I'm thinking mostly of FM here. It seems broadcasters don't want to do it for reception or fidelity improvement, but to add 2 or 3 extra channels on one transmitter.
The local classical station probably has the best HD sound in my area, it's on par with their FM. I haven't truly compared it with separate tuners, but with the music's dynamic range and frequency profile, and that the station uses only HD1 and HD2 channels, it seems good.
Now the commercial stations playing pop, rock, country, those have constantly maximized sound over a wide audio bandwidth, and run up to 4 digital streams, reducing the bandwidth for each one. That's where it's not ready for prime time and headache-causing and I want the radio far away from my ears. The problem is, people are sort of immune to that sound these days, through listening to low bit streams on line and have had their body's auditory system and brain trained to accept it.
I have to agree with End80's points, it could be a long time to come for digital. It seems like desperate station owners wanting to try something, anything, and maybe with stars in their eyes over HD radio too. As consumers we're pushed to new technology and to forget about the old, and anything with the word 'digital' on it is seen as the future, even after 40 years of it already.
AM stereo was to be the savior of AM radio in the 1980s, but it was in discussion for so long, I think people forgot about it by the time it was a firm part of the rules, and the buzz over it had already passed. It had problems of expense, and would take lots of engineering to get on to many directional antennas that might have to be redesigned. That created the same 'have and have not' issues we have with HD today.
I'm not down on digital or HD that much, some might like it, I just think radio broadcasting has different problems than what it's looking to solve with HD.
Boomer
|
|
|
|
Post by End80 on Mar 27, 2019 15:43:26 GMT
Whenever I hear about OTA digital radio the first thing that comes to my mind is televisions transition to digital.. So now there are numerous TV stations I can no longer get which I could easily tune in before. Yes, I can still tine them in if I decide to pay monthly cable bills, but that extra reoccurring cost is not worth it to me. Digital is unquestionably higher quality, but there's no such thing as receiving weaker signals with it.. you either get pristine or nothing. I prefer to listen or watch stations that entertain or interest me even if it has some interference - with digital you don't have that option. To me, that makes digital broadcast a big drawback.
|
|
|
|
Post by mark on Mar 27, 2019 18:21:59 GMT
Whenever I hear about OTA digital radio the first thing that comes to my mind is televisions transition to digital.. So now there are numerous TV stations I can no longer get which I could easily tune in before. Yes, I can still tine them in if I decide to pay monthly cable bills, but that extra reoccurring cost is not worth it to me. Digital is unquestionably higher quality, but there's no such thing as receiving weaker signals with it.. you either get pristine or nothing. I prefer to listen or watch stations that entertain or interest me even if it has some interference - with digital you don't have that option. To me, that makes digital broadcast a big drawback. All true. TV went all digital but people could get a converter and still use their regular TV and the majority of people were with cable anyway. Radio is not the same. And I have mentioned in past posts about the reception range reduction. Most importantly, if mandated our hobby goes up in smoke, as I keep saying because we have to oppose digital for this important reason. |
|
|
|
Post by End80 on Mar 27, 2019 19:31:25 GMT
I disagree.. Even if mandated - Again; even if the switching to all digital does become an option as Brian Broadcasting request, that in no way equates to mean that analog AM comes to an end, nor our hobby, or for that matter even remotely suggest that most existing licensed AM stations will wish to take advantage of that option, in fact it seems likely the ones who do opt for it will be in the minority. There's nothing in the linked article which I find threatening to our 15.219 hobby. Analog AM still remains.
|
|
|
|
Post by mark on Mar 27, 2019 22:02:47 GMT
What you are thinking is what would be if NOT mandated but if it is that means the band goes dark and after a certain date no analog broadcasting, and then the band could be made for something else and no regular radios would be made anymore.
But that's what if, nothing is in the plan yet. I'm just worried about crossing a bridge when I haven't come to it yet.
But I think that if radio went digital it wouldn't just be the AM band, it would be all radio including FM too. That's the threat to our hobby.
|
|
|
|
Post by End80 on Mar 27, 2019 23:32:43 GMT
Mark, I'm not really sure what you're saying, but I don't think you see what I'm saying either.. I'm just going by what the article says. Here's a breakdown of it:
• There is one AM station in the country that broadcast in all-digital, that's in Maryland, it's operating under an experimental license.
• Bryan Broadcasting Corp who owns 4 AM stations in Texas want's to be allowed to do it too, but with a full license.
• The FCC says that there are no other AM stations in the US who say they want it.
• So Bryan Broadcasting says why not just make it optional? (that's his proposal) That way all AM stations can just go along their merry way broadcasting the way they always have in analog, but his own 4 stations in Texas can go digital.
So.. even if they mandate what Bryan Broadcasting is proposing, it really changes nothing at all. It's just an option for a few stations who opt to go through the expense and risk of trying something new (digital).. It's not likely the majority would decide do that.
• There's nothing there about eliminating analog AM.
|
|
|
|
Post by mark on Mar 28, 2019 4:06:21 GMT
Well, that's reassuring! I'm just going further than that article on the digital subject and speaking generally that IF radio went the same way TV did(mandated) our hobby would be lost.
Worse case scenerio.
That's why any mention of the sun setting on analog radio gets me worried, why I don't know as I won't live long enough to see it happen.
Isn't there a couple of European countries already moving toward this?
|
|
|
|
Post by thelegacy on Mar 28, 2019 5:06:01 GMT
Maybe I'm Wrong but I think in the beginning when All Digital TV broadcast first came out stations had the option to broadcast and digital or continue analog or do both as many stations did in Michigan and in Virginia.
Then it became mandatory that stations broadcast digital along with analog. After that the rest is history and we now have an all-digital TV format over the air.
Now looking at the radio situation am is a dying band as far as listenership goes due to the interference problems. Many radio stations are using the IBOC digital mode to broadcast along with the analog signal. As we've seen there is issues with trying to pull in stations more than 40 miles away from the transmitter. Fast forward to today now you have another digital method known as MA3. There seems to be some confusion rather or not this format is an advanced form of IBOC and rather or not its ownership is from the same company in which the licensing for this technology is going to be tight meaning one is going to pay through the nose to have this technology on the radio station.
I like Mark see a big worry when it comes to any mentioning of Digital radio and the fact that the article seems to lean towards the fact that many people have HD radios already which I have not seen that many HD radios for the home other than the ones made by SPARC, Sangean, Radiosophy, some Sony high priced tuners in which you have to buy online on places like eBay and even when you find those on eBay they are very scarce. Yet the same folks slam C-Quam AM stereo for the same reason. More and more proof shows that HD radio is a flop but yet when one mentions the resurrection of C-Quam AM stereo it definitely throws a red flag for a few people. There seems to be something behind the scenes that allows this to take place.
|
|
