May 1, 2019 at 6:35 pm #41606stevewaParticipant
Clearly these people have no concept of just how many analog-only AM (and FM) receivers are deployed nationally?May 1, 2019 at 7:10 pm #41607
The same could have been said for analog TVs not so long ago. Gotta move forward at some point.May 1, 2019 at 11:55 pm #41612Andy BrownParticipant
The difference was that tv was in good financial shape at the time the transition planning began. Transitioning AM to all digital now would be just another attempt at life support and unless it is subsidized, the AM licensees would not be in favor of laying out a whole bunch of money. That doesn’t even bring in the notion of rendering all of those AM analog receivers obsolete and not subsidizing consumers in some way.
It’s not going to happen that way. They will just let it wither until it’s so dead that shutting off OR going all digital with no financial help from the government for licensees and no remediation of any sort for the consuming public won’t make a difference. The remaining licensees will groan and grunt but they’ll all be big corporations by that point and the simple majority of cars won’t have analog only radios.
Another 10 years or so is my guess.May 2, 2019 at 7:44 am #41616
If I’m reading the referenced articles correctly, the applicants are petitioning the FCC to allow AM stations to voluntarily convert to all-digital. The stations would be assuming 100% of the risk by doing so. No?May 2, 2019 at 8:17 am #41617ScreamerParticipant
Lastday, that is my understanding as well. Under this proposal, if the AM stations wanted to voluntarily go digital, the owners would be taking that risk on themselves.May 3, 2019 at 10:31 am #41621BroadwayParticipant
New interesting proposal…
https://www.radioworld.com/columns-and-views/guest-commentaries/drm-solution-am-problem?utm_source=Selligent&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=3609&utm_content=RW_Newsbytes_BOW_eNews_5%2F3%2F19+&utm_term=&m_i=aZVaoH647fVMx5kDrKZWZbb_KfwdU%2BVolQ6v5bhnIV21I0db9_HVRYXE46eBF4ssva8dgZsY5ZgQ9uPVcw%2BQOxhVEQPfqhFaas&M_BT=593179954062May 3, 2019 at 10:57 am #41622jr_techParticipant
Almost the same frequency that Armstrong started with. 🙂May 3, 2019 at 6:54 pm #41624semoochieParticipant
From what I understand, there isn’t much difference between DRM and All Digital IBOC. Both systems are slightly better in some areas and not in others. IBOC has the advantage of what must be now, millions of receivers already out there!May 3, 2019 at 7:43 pm #41625
The DRM proposal seems a little ridiculous.
Anyone know if IBOC AM in full digital mode sounds any better than in hybrid mode?May 3, 2019 at 8:12 pm #41626paulwalkerParticipant
From the non-technical side, it is sad that the AM band is being phased out. Those of us of a certain age grew up with great AM stations. Stations that could be DX’d from great distances.
For me, in Seattle’s northend, it was DX’ing Portland stations (KGW, KEX), and from San Francisco (KFRC, KNBR, and of course the all-powerful KGO), and from Los Angeles, (KFI and KNX). For flavor, add in CFUN out of Vancouver BC, a terrific top40 station in the 70’s. All these were a great radio experience for radio fans, and likely encourage many, like me, to enter the business.
In the midwest, you could always catch WLS 890 from about 18 states.
Unfortunately, those days are gone. While some of these signals can be DX’d today, the programming is lacking, as most only offer syndicated talk show programs.
The “magic” of radio is gone. Too bad.May 3, 2019 at 9:57 pm #41627nosignalallnoiseParticipant
That same link minus all the tracking data (everything to the right of the “?”):
First you KNOW all the hammies are going to scream bloody murder about a broadcasting band (and a digital one at that!) being so close to the virtually unused 6-meter band and piss and moan over all the end-of-world “interference” that’s absolutely guaranteed to happen whether it actually does or not. The Newington Yankees will see to it that this proposal gets killed. Count on it.
Than you have the whole problem of DRM being “unsuitable” for the American airwaves because it’s an open system and there’s no big money backing it. Nobody’s sucking off the FCC’s dicks to get it put in place. IBAC is here because it’s a proprietary closed system backed by Big Tech greed and political blowjobbing. Same reason we keep getting stuck with variations of shitty proprietary ATSC in a world of open COFDM DVB-T.
Nice idea, but way too forward-thinking to gain any traction in this regressive gummitt.May 3, 2019 at 11:45 pm #41628stevewaParticipant
Those “Newington Yankees” couldn’t even get legislation through a supposedly receptive Congress to deal with HOA restrictions on even modest antenna systems, and you think they will be able to get their way at today’s FCC?
I would expect most Amateurs to welcome implementation of an open digital standard for broadcast. A modern specification with proper spurious signal suppression will leave 6m far more usable than it was when analog TV was polluting the neighborhood.May 4, 2019 at 1:02 am #41629semoochieParticipant
“The DRM proposal seems a little ridiculous.
Anyone know if IBOC AM in full digital mode sounds any better than in hybrid mode?” As someone who heard KRKO testing in all digital mode, I can tell you it was sharp and clear in Portland, which compared with near nonexistence in analog, is pretty impressive!May 4, 2019 at 8:00 am #41632
I was able to pick up that KRKO digital test broadcast in Eugene using a simple $10 loop antenna. I don’t recall if the audio quality was different from hybrid IBOC AM though.May 4, 2019 at 4:29 pm #41633
Everyone hates on IBOC and iBiquity and its successors, for some valid reasons. But love it or hate it, the market is seeded with millions of mobile IBOC receivers. Hundreds (maybe thousands) of new mobile HD receivers are sold daily. If AM stations want to roll the dice on full digital IBOC, and the FCC has no other definite plans for that space, why not allow broadcasters to go for it, voluntarily?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.