IBOC Technology
IBOC Technology
IBOC Technology
IBOC TECHNOLOGY
Bachelor of Technology
In
Computer Science Engineering
Submitted by
V.VANDANA
(20H51A05M4)
(Batch: 2020-2024)
2022 - 2023
CMR COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING& TECHNOLOGY
KANDLAKOYA, MEDCHAL ROAD, HYDERABAD – 501401
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the technical seminar report entitled “IBOC TECHNOLOGY"
being submitted by V VANDANA (20H51A05M4) in partial fulfilment for the award of
Bachelor of Technology in COMPUTER SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING is a record
of bonafide work carried out his/her under my guidance and supervision.
The results embodied in this technical seminar report have not been submitted to any
other University or Institute for the award of any Degree
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I would like to thank the Teaching & Non- teaching staff of Department of
Information Technology for their co-operation
V VANDANA
20H51A05M4
lOMoARcPSD|24870217
ABSTRACT
Page #
Report Summary
1. Introduction 1
9. Disadvantages of DAB 2
5
1. Introduction
The Digital Radio Co-ordinating Group (DRCG) has prepared this report in order to
provide Canada’s broadcasters and regulators with objective advice on the technical
and implementation issues associated with In-Band On-Channel (IBOC) digital
radio broadcasting (DRB) in the FM band (88-108 MHz).
The DRCG was created in the early 1990s, when broadcaster interest in digital
radio was first stimulated by exciting new technology developments in Europe.
The group’s purpose is to carry out investigative projects and research, providing
decision-makers in industry and government with the technical information they
require to plan future digital radio broadcasting (DRB) services. Members are
drawn from the ranks of senior engineering personnel employed by private
broadcasting companies, the CAB, the CBC, the Communications Research Centre
(CRC), private engineering consulting firms, Industry Canada and the CRTC.1
While it functions in the manner of a joint government/industry consultative
committee, the DRCG does not operate under the auspices of any specific
government department or industry organization. Moreover, while representatives
of government departments and agencies sit on this committee, their primary role is
to provide advice and consultation on technical issues of common interest. It
should not be inferred that positions or recommendations adopted by the DRCG
necessarily have prior agreement and consent from these departments and agencies.
In 1995, Industry Canada created a national channel allotment plan for L-Band
DRB, based on the use of the Eureka 147/DAB transmission standard, and the
CRTC issued a “transitional” licensing framework.3 This policy generally allowed
each existing AM and FM licensee to apply to simulcast its analog programming
service, using up to one-fifth of the multiplex capacity of an L-Band DRB channel
allotted to the community of licence. Up to five local radio services could therefore
share a DRB transmitter, allowing lower implementation costs for each broadcaster
in the multiplex.
1
2
3
In its 2006 Radio Policy Review, the CRTC outlined a number of reasons why the
implementation of L-Band DRB has stalled in Canada.4 Chief among these is the
limited availability and high cost of receivers. Coupled with this is a lack of
contiguous DRB coverage between major urban centres, which has meant that the
North American automobile industry has so far supported digital satellite radio
subscription services rather than free local terrestrial DRB services. The
Commission also noted that a surge in DRB popularity enjoyed in other countries,
especially the UK, may be attributable to the fact that their stations often provide
unique programming, available only on DRB platforms. It also suggests that
subscription satellite radio and audio streaming on the internet are being used
increasingly by Canadians to acquire a greater variety in radio programming and
that this may be affecting consumers’ interest in DRB.
Finally, the CRTC Public Notice comments on the decision by the FCC not to
provide a new band for local, terrestrial DRB services in the USA. Instead, US
broadcasters have been encouraged to develop technologies enabling the
implementation of digital services within the existing AM and FM bands. The
CRTC suggests that this may have precluded certain economies of scale in the
provision of DRB receivers in Canada, which might have occurred had the US
agreed to domestic use of the world-wide L-Band DRB allocation.
The DRCG decided to prepare this report because Canadian FM broadcasters need
to know whether IBOC DRB might be used, either on a stand-alone basis or in
conjunction with LBand Eureka-147/DAB (Eureka) services, as part of a long-term
strategy to transition their industry to an all-digital environment. Since iBiquity’s
HD Radio IBOC technology is being used extensively in the US, and is being
considered for use elsewhere in the world, this was the system chosen for the
present Canadian evaluation.
The DRCG’s project has been made possible largely through the co-operation of
the CBC, which had been intending to undertake such studies in roughly the same
time-frame. The DRCG assumed a co-ordinating role among the CBC, the CRC,
private broadcasters and Industry Canada, to ensure that the data that was generated
would serve the information needs of all interested parties. This report blends
Canadian information with data collected from other reports and studies, for the
most part conducted in the US.
The fact that these evaluations are underway in Canada at this time is especially
significant in light of the CRTC’s 2006 digital radio policy revision announcement.
In its Public Notice, the Commission indicates that it would be prepared to license
IBOC DRB in both the AM and FM bands in Canada, provided that that certain
technical issues can first be resolved.5 Among these are:
4
5
2
• possible degradation of the “host” analog services by the digital hybrid
signals;
• IBOC’s ability to replicate analog service areas; and
• potential IBOC interference to other stations, both digital and analog.
The Commission has indicated that it is willing to set up a licensing frame-work for
IBOC once these technical issues are examined, the results are known and Industry
Canada has adopted suitable transmission standards. The CRTC’s decision states
that it is prepared to give consideration to in-band DRB services employing either
the iBiquity HD Radio system or competing Digital Radio Mondiale (DRM)
technology.6
The DRCG’s technical investigative work was carried out by employing field
observations as well as lab and theoretical analyses. Field observations involved
both objective measurements using test vans and subjective observations using
passenger vehicles equipped with HD Radio receivers. Planning for the tests was
conducted by an ad-hoc DRCG subcommittee. Equipment was provided by the
CBC, Industry Canada, the CRC and Digital Radio Roll-out Inc (DRRI). Field and
lab work was undertaken primarily by CBC Technology engineering staff;
however, CRC personnel also conducted a limited field assessment, primarily to
validate coverage and interference prediction techniques.
3
indeed “in-band” (i.e. in the FM band). However, they are not really “on-channel”,
since their primary energy is transmitted in channels that are immediately above
and below the channel on which the analog signal is being transmitted. The main
element of commonality between the analog and digital emissions for any given
HD Radio station is that they are transmitted from exactly the same site, usually via
the same antenna but not always using the same transmitter.
There are two key theoretical reasons why such a system can work: the first is that
stations on 1st-adjacent channels cannot be assigned to the same market; therefore,
their protected analog service areas should not overlap. Secondly, the digital
carriers emitted on adjacent channels are set to such a low power level that, in
theory at least, they should not cause interference to analog receivers tuned to
stations operating on these frequencies. On the other hand, HD Radio digital
receivers will ignore the adjacent analog FM signals and decode only the desired
digital signals. Later sections of this report describe how all this actually works in
the real world.
The digital signal transmitted by an HD Radio station has a reliable data capability
of about 96 kbits/sec. As with Eureka, this available data stream can be carved up
so that multiple programs can be broadcast using the same transmitter. Most HD
Radio broadcasters would probably want to use the predominant portion of this
capacity, say 64 kbits/sec, to provide stereophonic digital versions of their analog
programming. This is generally referred to as the “HD1” signal. The remainder of
the data stream (32 kbits/sec) can then be used for a second “multicast” program
service (HD2). Alternatively, two additional programs (HD2 and HD3) with 16
kbits/sec each might be provided.
HD Radio receivers are designed so that they can be instructed by users to revert
automatically to the main analog audio service upon failure of the digital signal.
This feature, called “blending”, can only be invoked when the HD1 and analog
programming content are absolutely identical. The switching occurs seamlessly
and without intervention by the listener if the receiver’s blending function has been
activated. The principal impact of blending is that the main audio reverts to “FM-
quality” and the signal once more becomes prone to FM analog artifacts, such as
multipath distortion. Nevertheless, the listener does not lose the program. When
the digital signal returns, the receiver switches back automatically to the superior
digital signal.
For a variety of reasons relating to the time requirements for digital signal
processing, it takes 8-10 seconds for the digital audio signals to be heard when an
HD Radio receiver is first tuned to a transmission. Likewise, it can take equally
long to restore digital quality when the signal fails and then returns again. A
secondary consequence of this processing delay is that programming fed to the
analog FM transmitter must be delayed by 8-10 seconds whenever the blending
feature is being utilized. This ensures that content is not lost when the receiver
4
switches back to analog mode during a digital signal failure. Stations using this
technology may need to implement certain internal operational changes to
accommodate the fact that off-air listeners will experience delays of up to 10
seconds with both the analog and digital versions of their programming.
5
3. Comparison of HD Radio and Eureka Technologies
Many Canadian broadcasters already have knowledge of, and experience with, the
Eureka system that has been implemented in this country using L-band frequencies.
In this section, the principal differences between the Eureka system and the FM-
band version of HD Radio are outlined, so that the capabilities of the latter
technology can be compared with its more well-known counterpart.
• Audio Quality: Proponents of both HD Radio and Eureka claim that the audio
delivered by their system is “CD-quality” (which is not actually defined). In
fact, for both systems, audio quality is a trade-off against the number of
individual programs delivered by a given transmitter and whether these are
stereophonic or monophonic. Each system can be viewed simply as a “digital
pipeline’ through which a finite number of data bits can be delivered to
listeners. How this data stream is shared by all the audio programs that must be
carried is generally left to individual operators to decide.
• Ancillary Services: Both the HD Radio and Eureka systems have the ability to
deliver program-associated data (PAD), such as text streams containing the
name of the station, the program name, artists’ names, etc. Due to its much
higher data capacity, the Eureka system can also carry other ancillary services,
such as Digital Multimedia Broadcasting (DMB) or Internet Protocol (IP) data.
6
• Multipath Immunity: Both HD Radio and Eureka utilize a transmission
method known as Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM),
where the digital data is spread over many carriers. As a result, both systems
are largely immune to the multipath problems that plague FM analog
transmissions. Because of its wider bandwidth, the Eureka system benefits
more from OFDM than does HD Radio.
7
Canadian experience with L-Band Eureka receivers operating indoors has also
been spotty. Due to the shorter wavelengths, L-Band signals experience even
greater through-the-wall signal attenuation than do FM and HD Radio signals.
On the other hand, where even small windows and other openings exist, the
shorter-wavelength signals are much better able to creep inside HD Radio
Assessments
Audio Performance
Assessment of the general quality of the audio received by HD Radio receivers was
not part of the field and lab studies conducted by the DRCG. However, a
substantial amount of work on this issue was conducted by the NRSC prior to
making its recommendation to the FCC to adopt the HD Radio standard. iBiquity
stressed throughout its technology development process that the objective was to
produce an in-band DRB system that provides listeners with enhanced audio, often
referred to as “CD quality”. This term is subjective; however, it is generally
understood to mean stereophonic audio having an extended frequency response,
low noise and very low distortion.
Multipath Performance
Because HD Radio makes use of multiple digital carriers, which are duplicated at
the top and bottom ends of the radiofrequency channel, its ability to resist multipath
distortion is much superior to that of FM analog. In fact, one of the key benefits of
8
implementing HD Radio in major metropolitan areas would be its ability to correct
for multipath reflections from buildings and other infrastructure, as well as terrain.
In its test report, the CBC shows the results of lab tests conducted with a “channel
simulator” that adds signal distortions typical of urban multipath environments.
Subjective evaluations of HD Radio’s multipath resistance were also made during
the field tests in Toronto. The report’s conclusions state:
“In the course of this trial, the main upside that was found about HD Radio is
that it has the potential to drastically reduce the multipath reception problems
due to the many high-rise buildings of downtown areas, such as Toronto.
Especially for a stereo station,
The offsetting benefit is that one or two additional, separate audio programs can
then be carried. Each of these will be of lesser quality than the HD1 service and
will also be subject to abrupt outages wherever the HD Radio digital signals fail.
The HD1 simulcast audio, on the other hand, will continue to be heard because
receivers will revert to analog FM reception at the digital failure point. Whether
HD2/3 services are stereophonic or monophonic will depend on the fraction of the
overall 96 kbits/sec data availability assigned to them.
9
4. Coverage Duplication Issues
Digital radio, on the other hand, retains its original audio quality until the signal is
so weak that it can no longer be decoded. Near the failure point, receivers
sometimes produce burbling or squawking audio for a few seconds and then the
program disappears completely, as the receiver mutes to prevent further listener
annoyance. This is sometimes called the “cliff effect” and it can occur in all types
of digital radiocommunication transmission, including TV, satellite and wireless
telephony.
As noted in Section 4, the HD Radio system was designed for the US FM radio
environment, which often ensures reliable analog service only to the 1 mV/m
10
contour. This is called the “protected contour”, since beyond this, FM signals are
not protected against interference from other analog stations. Canada’s FM stations
are generally protected to the 0.5 mV/m contour, which falls further away from the
transmitter site. This recognizes the more geographically disperse nature of radio
audiences in Canada, as well as the fact that urban agglomerations are often more
widely spaced. Table 1 in Section 4 gives typical coverage radii and areas for FM
radio’s 1 mV/m and 0.5 mV/m contours, according to station class.
While it is often possible under favourable conditions to receive both analog and
digital signals outside protected contours, broadcasters have no assurance that this
can continue indefinitely. Normal growth in stations in near-by markets will often
erode service that may have been available previously in non-protected areas.
Usually this is manifested by increasing levels of co-channel and/or adjacent-
channel interference.
The referenced Figure F-7209 identifies the (HD1) blending contour as falling
approximately in the same location as the analog FM station’s 1 mV/m contour,
whereas the (HD2) digital-only contour falls in approximately the same location
as the FM station’s 3 mV/m contour.
11
Theoretical analyses of coverage duplication will be provided to the DRCG upon
completion of the CRC laboratory tests and analyses.
In its lab and field testing, the CBC evaluated the impact, on the “host” analog FM
signal, of adding hybrid HD Radio carriers. The purpose was to determine if
listeners using analog receivers would be likely to observe signal impairments due
to the addition of the low-level digital carriers. Lab testing was carried out at
various signal strengths, for both monophonic and stereophonic reception. Mobile
reception in real-world conditions was simulated by employing a device that adds
fading and multipath characteristics to the test signals (i.e. a channel simulator).
Field observation of both CBLA-FM and CJBC-FM augmented data obtained in the
lab.
With respect to lab results, and acknowledging that the number of test receivers was
limited, the CBC report states that:
Taken together, these results suggest that, in a quiet lab environment, HD Radio
signals may degrade analog reception in a discernible way, but primarily where
stereo services are concerned. Any negative impact is not as likely to be noticed by
actual listeners, so long as the analog signals are being received reasonably well
within the station’s 0.5 mV/m protected service area.
As described in Section 2, HD Radio digital carriers are added just outside the
upper and lower outer edges of the radio channels occupied by the host analog FM
station. Figure 2 of the CBC report illustrates the frequency overlap that occurs
between two stations occupying 1st-adjacent channels.9 The digital signals of the
undesired HD Radio station fall within that portion of the desired analog station’s
spectrum to which ordinary FM radios will be tuned, thus presenting a potential for
9
12
harmful interference. Unlike interference from another analog FM station, which
usually will be heard as distorted audio in the background of the desired signal,
digital interference will produce an audio “hash” in affected receivers.
In theory, the digital interference impact is mitigated by two factors: the power
level of the digital signal is quite low and any two stations occupying 1st-adjacent
channels are never allocated to the same market. This latter factor means that the
interfering signal is most likely to be a problem in the outlying portions of the
desired station’s coverage area, where the latter’s signal will be weaker.
The CBC report assesses the matter of interference to existing analog FM services
due to the presence of HD Radio signals on a 1st-adjacent station, as well as the
converse situation. While receivers were evaluated in the lab with respect to
susceptibility to 1st-adjacent interference, the main effort was devoted to field work
involving the HD Radio test station (CJBC-FM Toronto 90.3 MHz) and an analog-
only station on 90.5 MHz (CBLA-FM-1 Crystal Beach ON).
Concerning the issue of interference to the desired HD Radio digital service (CJBC-
FM) from an adjacent analog-only interferer (CBLA-FM-1), the CBC report states
that its tests in the Toronto area
13
protect operating analog stations” if HD Radio digital carriers were to be added to
analog stations.10
Broadcasters may also take guidance on this matter from iBiquity Digital
Corporation whose President and CEO, Robert Struble, is quoted as saying,
14
replacement of the existing FM antenna with a new model that has FM and DRB
radiating elements intertwined within the same tower space.
While the “separate antennas” methodology is the most efficient way of introducing
HD Radio, it may require additional capital investment in antennas and/or upgrades
to the supporting towers. Moreover, it is necessary to ensure that the azimuth and
elevation radiation patterns of the digital and analog antennas are very similar;
otherwise, the station may not be able to guarantee that the required 1:100 power
ratio between the digital signal and the analog signal is maintained at all receiving
locations within the service area. Should this requirement not be met, the result
could be interference to other stations or to the host FM station.
It is also a fact that many Canadian FM stations, especially those in the major
markets, operate using shared transmitter buildings, towers and antennas. Complex
shared antenna systems, such as those implemented at the CN Tower in Toronto
and Camp Fortune in Ottawa, generally employ narrow-band combiners. It would
present great technical challenges if all the FM stations sharing the facility were to
decide that they each must add a digital signal to their present analog systems.
15
Related Regulatory and Other Issues
IC Authorization:
As with any broadcast technology that involves the use of radio spectrum, Industry
Canada would need to develop a transmission standard for any form of in-band
DRB that might be selected for use in this country. The process would likely be
similar to that followed when the Eureka 147/DAB standard was selected.
Broadcasters would first make representations to Industry Canada recommending
adoption of the selected standard. Assuming the Department finds the proposal
acceptable from the point of view of spectrum utilization, it would prepare
appropriate documents describing the selected standard, any required operating
rules, as well as the necessary application procedures. These would then be
published for public comments, perhaps simultaneously with them being brought
into force on a provisional basis.
CRTC Authorizations
In its revised digital radio licensing policy, the CRTC says with respect to in-band
services:
12
16
While the Commission promises an “expedited process”, broadcasters should
probably not assume that this would mean blanket permission by the CRTC to
implement in-band DRB.
It remains unclear from the Commission’s Public Notice how it would deal with
proposals to implement additional multicast programming services within an HD
Radio multiplex (i.e. HD2/HD3). Some guidance may be taken from the section
dealing with new nonsimulcast services added to L-Band multiplexes, where the
CRTC says “Each L-band service will require its own licence”.13 The CRTC could
also decide to apply its current SCMO authorization framework to the operation of
multicast HD Radio services. Presumably this and other issues would be addressed
at a future date, since the policy announcement.
Section 2, which describes the iBiquity HD Radio system, notes that this
technology has certain associated proprietary rights. If broadcasters were to select
HD Radio as the industry’s chosen in-band technology, it would mean designating
a national broadcasting standard that is not fully described technically. The main
consequence of this is that iBiquity retains control over who can produce receiving
and transmitting equipment that carries the HD Radio trademark and makes use of
its software. This issue may have to be considered by Industry Canada should it
decide to move ahead with standardization, since it may be the first time that such
an arrangement would be applied to a broadcasting standard in this country.
Nevertheless, it may not be found to be a significant obstacle, so long as other in-
band systems (e.g. DRM) are also eligible for consideration as standards and none
are designated as mandatory.
The payment of licensing fees to iBiquity for the right to transmit HD Radio is
another factor for consideration.14 US broadcasters implementing HD1 (simulcast)
services are obliged to pay a one-time royalty fee directly to iBiquity. This fee is
set at $US10,000 if paid before 30 June 2007 and reaches $US25,000 if paid after
30 June 2008.15 For ancillary audio channels (HD2/HD3), the licence fee is set at
3% of annual net revenues derived from each such service or $US1,000, whichever
is the larger. Auxiliary data services pay a fee of 3% of net revenue, calculated
quarterly.
Non-US broadcasters have been advised that they will be charged the one-time
royalty fee for implementing simulcast (HD1) services; however, these fees will not
be remitted directly to iBiquity. Rather, they will be built into the equipment prices
charged by manufacturers for products shipped to non-US stations. Likewise, no
recurring fees will be charged for implementing HD2/HD3 ancillary services
13
14
15.
17
because the additional “importer” equipment required to generate these multicast
signals will also be priced to include a built-in royalty fee. As for ancillary data
services, iBiquity has advised non-US broadcasters that additional fees may be
charged in the future for “advanced applications programs and specialized data
services”, which have yet to be developed.16
What this means is that all broadcasters will pay the one-time royalty to iBiquity for
the implementation of simulcast digital services. In the US, the recurring fee for
multicast audio channels will be paid only when stations make money from these
services, since the rate is set at a percentage of net revenue. However, non-US
stations will pay an up-front one-time royalty, whether their ancillary audio
services ever make money or not.
Adding an IBOC signal to any host station may sounds like a trivial exercise, however
the spectral proximity of both signals prohibits the use of tuned combiners, which would
be an efficient signal injection vehicle.
18
two 1 kW transmitters combined together would each receive 2.5 watts of reflected
power). With IBOC, a 1 kW FM signal would be combined with a 10W IBOC signal. With
the same 26 dB isolation the 10 W IBOC transmitter would receive 2.5W of reflected
power from the FM host, so an isolation figure in the 40 dB range would be required for
such applications.
Existing FM Antenna
L
FM Exciter
R
FM Transmitter
IBOC Modulator
As IBOC adds about 1 % to the total channel power, its power contribution is negligible
so the power rating of the antenna is normally not an issue, However IBOC requires
about 400 kHz more bandwidth than conventional FM, so antenna system frequency
response may become problematic, especially in transmitter sites using narrow-tuned
combiners.
High Level combining is based on the use of distinct power amplifiers for the Host FM
and the IBOC signals.
19
Fig. 2: High level combining option
Existing FM Antenna
L 1 3
FM Exciter FM Transmitter
R VPC
(10/1)
IBOC Transmitter
IBOC Modulator 2 4
Dummy Load
Both signals are combined together at the amplifier outputs before hitting the antenna,
This technique uses an IBOC Power injector which is basically an inverted directional
coupler, Not being a broadband device, it is not frequency selective at the FM band
scale, However its power ratio is selected to minimize the loss on the host path, (port 1
to 3) typically 0.5 dB (this is chosen so the host can still keep its original FM coverage
using the existing transmitter). However such an injector offers a loss of about 10 dB on
the IBOC path (port 2 to 3). This process means that 90 % of the IBOC power gets
dissipated in Port 4 that is connected to a dummy load. Due to the fact that the IBOC
injection level is 1%, the PA required for the IBOC remains much smaller than the
analog host, since 10 times 1% is still only 10%.
Split level combining is a technique that uses only a part of the power amplifier to carry
IBOC, using common mode amplification. Most of the modules are fed with the FM Host
signal at full rated power while a few modules are carrying both IBOC & FM with a
substantial power back-off. Therefore the resulting composite back-off of the entire
transmitter is mitigated by the fact that most of the modules are running at full power.
This is usually the most efficient scheme; however, most of the time it requires a new
transmitter. and is therefore best done when the FM transmitter is being replaced
anyway.
20
Fig. 3: Split level combining option
FM
FM Signal
Comb
iner
Combiner
FM +
IBOC
Comb
iner
IBOC Signal
Separate antennas
L
New IBOC Antenna
FM Exciter FM Transmitter
R
IBOC Transmitter
IBOC Modulator
The IBOC antenna generally is located in the same aperture as the FM antenna,
(interleaved antenna) which probably means that this technique is viable for antennas
implemented in full wavelength spacing, The isolation between the antennas is achieved
by arranging for the IBOC antenna to operate in the opposite polarization.
A separate antenna is a viable alternative in the specific case where the tower has the
necessary spare aperture, spare wind load and spare weight capacity. From the
energy consumption standpoint it is the most efficient technique.
21
1
As both units were existing transmitters, high-level combining was the only viable combining
strategy.
FM IBOC injectors from Shively Labs were chosen for this project, the latter features an
insertion loss of 0.35 dB in the FM port and of 10 dB in the digital port.
In order to meet the recommended injection level of 1 % of the FM Host power, the following
IBOC power had to be used:
-.5 dB
Toronto Studio (English IBOC
CBLA Transmitter (20 kw) Power
radio) Network 3 1/8" Injector 3 1/8"
-.10 dB
Sira Combiner
500 w dummy
load
1 5/8"
-.5 dB
1 5/8" IBOC
Toronto Studio (French radio) Network CJBC Transmitter (200w) Power
Injector
1 5/8 to -.10 dB
3 1/8"
adaptor
1 5 /8 “ 7/8 Cable
Tx 1 Nautel 2 kw IBOC Line Tx 2 BE 200 W IBOC TX
TX (from Industry Canada)
The reception quality during the early stage of deployment of DAB was poor even for people
who live well within the coverage area. The reason for this is that DAB uses weak error
correction coding, so that when there are a lot of errors with the received data not enough of the
errors can be corrected and a "bubbling mud" sound occurs. In some cases, a complete loss of
signal can happen. This situation has been improved upon in the newer DAB+ version that uses
stronger error correction and as additional transmitters are built. As with other digital systems,
when the signal is weak or suffers severe interference, it will not work at all. DAB reception may
also be a problem for receivers when the wanted signal is adjacent to a stronger one
• Minimizing the bit-rate, to the lowest level of sound quality that listeners are willing to
tolerate, such as 112 Kbit/s for stereo and even 48 Kbit/s for mono speech radio (LBC
1152 and the Voice of Russia are examples). Having few digital channels broadcasting
in stereo.
The nature of a single-frequency network (SFN) is such that the transmitters in a network
must broadcast the same signal at the same time. To achieve synchronization, the broadcaster
must counter any differences in propagation time incurred by the different methods and distances
involved in carrying the signal from the multiplexer to the different transmitters. This is done by
applying a delay to the incoming signal at the transmitter based on a timestamp generated at the
multiplexer, created taking into account the maximum likely propagation time, with a generous
added margin for safety. Delays in the audio encoder and the receiver due to digital processing
(e.g. deinterleaving) add to the overall delay perceived by the listener. The signal is delayed,
usually by around 1 to 4 seconds and can be considerably longer for DAB+. This has
disadvantages:
• DAB radios are out of step with live events, so the experience of listening to live
commentaries on events being watched is impaired;
• Listeners using a combination of analogue (AM or FM) and DAB radios (e.g. in different
rooms of a house) will hear a mixture when both receivers are within earshot.
Time signals, on the contrary, are not a problem in a well defined network with a fixed delay.
The DAB multiplexer adds the proper offset to the distributed time information. The time
information is also independent from the (possibly varying) audio decoding delay in receivers
since the time is not embedded inside the audio frames. This means that built in clocks in
receivers can be precisely correct.
2
10. Conclusions and Recommendations
In this report, the DRCG provides an initial technical assessment of the functional strengths
and weaknesses of iBiquity’s HD Radio IBOC DRB system, as it applies to FM band
operations. Specifically, an effort has been made to provide broadcasters with guidance
about what to expect in the way of performance in the event that this technology were to be
introduced into the Canadian broadcasting system.
The principal sources of information for this report have been the CBCs’ 2006 field/lab
tests and technology trials, as well as the technical studies undertaken by the NRSC in
2003-2004. While there were significant similarities in the test results obtained by the
CBC and the NRSC in some cases, there is also some divergence in the way these results
have been interpreted. This is not unreasonable, since the FM band operating
environments in Canada and the USA, while quite similar on the surface, have certain
important differences that need to be taken into account.
Specifically, US broadcasters have taken the view that, while in-band DRB may degrade
existing FM analog services, such impact would be tolerable. This is because FM services
in most large US markets are already interference-limited to a greater extent than currently
occurs in Canada. Moreover, they say, the long-term benefit of introducing digital services
in the FM band outweighs the near-term negative impact.
Duplication of analog service areas: Canadian test results indicate that broadcasters
should not expect HD Radio listeners to be able to receive reliable digital services
beyond the official 1 mV/m F1.5- 2 m. above ground. Although not specifically
evaluated in the CBC tests, reliable indoor reception is believed to be even more limited,
unless an outdoor antenna is used.
3
Considering all of the evidence presented in this report, the DRCG makes the
following recommendations with respect to the Canadian FM-band environment:
(1) As announced in its revised radio policy, the CRTC should refrain from
licensing permanent HD Radio or other in-band DRB operations until
Industry Canada has established appropriate technical rules.
In concluding this report, the DRCG wishes to thank all those who have contributed to
planning and carrying out this evaluation project. Special thanks are due to the CBC,
which early on expressed a willingness to share with the DRCG the results of its planned
HD Radio evaluations, and to the CRC. Both of these organizations provided considerable
personnel and financial resources over the past 12 months. Thanks also go to DRRI, which
provided a financial contribution to offset some of the costs associated with this work and
to Industry Canada, which authorized the special transmissions required to carry out the
field work.
4
LIST OF CBC REPORT REFERENCES
1. F. O. Gauthier, P.Eng, P. Marcoux, P. Eng and C. Rousseau, Jr. Eng. “IBOC Field and Lab Trial
Results from Toronto, ON”, Report ER-0605, Delivery Systems and Spectrum Engineering,
Strategy and Planning, CBC Technologies, CBC/Radio-Canada, Montréal, March 2007.
ftp://spdssepub:[email protected]/strat&plan/DSSE/Public/
CBC_ER0605_IBOC_Field_and_lab_trial/
2. G. Bouchard, A. Caruso, P.Eng, and F. Conway, P.Eng; “HD Radio Technology Trial Project
Report”; New Broadcast Technologies, Strategy & Planning; CBC Technologies, CBC/Radio-
Canada, Montréal, April 4, 2007.
ftp://cbcspp:[email protected]/strat&plan/nbt/Public/HD_radio_report/HD Radio
Technology Trial Report_FINAL VERSION.doc