Aggregator

The author is a senior development engineer at Wheatstone. He worked at Audion Labs helping Charlie Brown co-develop VoxPro. Audion Labs was purchased by Wheatstone in 2015.

I suppose that for all of us there are inflexion points in our lives where you meet someone or experience some new thing that changes your life thereafter. Charlie Brown was such a turning point for me. He was also my introduction to radio.

At the time we met, Charlie had been retired from a successful 33-year career in broadcasting where he had worked at Seattle’s top stations as a morning man, holding court and ruling the airwaves in a top 40 format. His love of radio and wanting to bring the best content to his listeners drove him to create the VoxPro DAW in 1992, bringing it to market in 1994 (as a Mac application). Replacing reel-to-reel machines with computer software was at the time a hard-sell, but his own and other early adapters’ use of the product made it a reality.

Charlie and I were brought together through two degrees of mutual friends — he was looking for a programmer to complete the rollout of VoxPro to the Windows platform, and I was freshly unemployed from my third dot-com implosion in a year.

It was the summer of 2001. The venue, Audion “Laboratories,” was a 12-foot x 20-foot cabin on the back of Charlie and Kimberly’s property on an island in Puget Sound. A 40-minute ferry ride involved in getting there. I thought, “How amazing, perhaps even impudent, to think that you can develop a new product with a skeleton crew and no budget and bring it to market.” I had been burned at several venture capitalist-funded start-ups but I was willing to take a chance with Charlie.

So Charlie led me through that process, and he introduced me to the radio family. He wasn’t technical, but he had excellent instincts about technology. He was unfailingly kind, generous, optimistic, and infinitely forgiving of my many shortcomings and missteps. We had a wonderful journey together at Audion (“Audion-and-on-and-on …”) for 14 years, during which time I got to see his idea, VoxPro, become the preeminent audio editor in radio. He was a model of the well-lived life, an example of what persistent hard work and the willingness to take a risk can bring. I will miss him greatly.

Charlie is remembered by a city that loved him in this Seattle Times article published on Friday, May 15.

 

The post Remembering Charlie Brown appeared first on Radio World.

Though impassioned letters were sent pressing the Federal Communications Commission to outright waive regulatory fees for media companies in 2020, the proposed regulatory fee schedule for the fiscal year 2020 has duly been released — although the door has been left open (thanks due apparently to the FCC chairman) for those wanting to express their thoughts on the proposed regulatory fees for FY 2020.

Those proposed fees were released as part of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that proposes to collect $339 million in FCC regulatory fees for fiscal year 2020 — the exact same amount that the commission proposed to collect in FY 2019.

Each year the commission is required by Congress to assess fees to cover direct costs, indirect costs and support costs. These regulatory fees also cover costs for entities that are exempt from paying regulatory fees (like amateur radio operators and noncommercial radio) and entities whose regulatory fees are waived.

But 2020 has been a year unlike any other.

Discussions about the FY2020 fee schedule have been in the headlines for months, with attorneys and state agencies pressing the commission to consider the impact of regulatory fees on media companies.

Radio stations can expect two key items when reviewing this year’s proposal. One is a familiar regulatory fee schedule where fees are broken down based on media classification and size of the population that the station serves. The other is that proposed fees for 2020 are either exactly the same or slightly higher than the fees collected in 2019, with some fee hikes only $25 higher year over year.

At one end of the spectrum are proposed fees for an AM Class C radio station that reaches less than 25,000 listeners. The proposed fee for that station type in 2020 is $620 — exactly the same amount as it was in fiscal year 2019.

At the higher end — specifically an FM station with certain Class B or Class C definitions that serves more than 6 million listeners — the proposed regulatory fees will be $21,375, which is $875 higher than the 2019 regulatory fee of $20,500.

(See the chart for the proposed fees for FY2020 for all classes of stations, which can also be found on page 42 of the NPRM).

[Read: Hayes Urges FCC Not to Collect Mass Media Regulatory Fees This Year]

Earlier this year, attorney Richard Hayes told Radio World that in his 37 years as a communications attorney he’d never witnessed anything like the “almost-total business shut-down occasioned by the coronavirus. This crisis is an existential one for many broadcasters.” Hayes pressed Congress to request that the FCC suspend the collection of the 2020 mass media regulatory fees outright to help stations struggling from complications related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Similar concerns were expressed by the New Jersey Broadcasters Association, which called on the commission to hold off on any regulatory fee increases. President and CEO Paul Rotella said that an increase in annual fees for broadcasters is not warranted. “[T]his is certainly not the appropriate time to put any further financial burdens on broadcasters,” he said in a letter to the commission.

[Read: “This Is Not the Time to Raise Fees”]

NAB President and CEO Gordon Smith was blunt about the struggles that broadcasters are facing — from taking out loans to make payroll to cutting staff — during the virtual opening of the 2020 National Association of Broadcasters Show on May 13.

In a subsequent online conversation with FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, even the chairman himself said the commission has been exploring regulatory relief for media companies, including changes to fee structures.

When the NPRM was released, FCC Commissioner Michael O’Rielly issued a statement saying that he sympathized with those who have filed comments opposing increased fees. He also thanked Chairman Pai for including questions in the FY2020 fee proposal to allow commenters to offer suggestions for mitigating the burden of regulatory fees during the pandemic.

“Determining regulatory fees is a somewhat delicate matter, with the need to balance statutory requirements and constraints with the realities of the marketplace, where increasingly higher fees continue to squeeze licensees,” he said. “At the same time, we need to do our part to meet the requirements set in place by Congress, while being mindful of how federal spending affects our licensees and seeking ways to keep costs down within our own operations.”

Comments on the FCC’s proposed regulatory fees can be left in the FCC electronic comment database using Docket 20-105. The comment deadline is June 12.

 

The post FCC Proposes Regulatory Fees for 2020 Amid Uncertain Media Marketplace appeared first on Radio World.

Legal, unlicensed broadcasts under Part 15 are a buzz topic right now about radio engineers.

Here’s what Larry Wilkins, director of engineering services for the Alabama Broadcasters Association, writes in his e-newsletter this week:

Broadcast engineers have been approached lately by churches and other organizations about setting up a low-power transmitter for use during COVID-19. The question of legal operation is covered in FCC Part 15.

The quick answer allowed coverage area is approximately 200 feet for an FM transmitter. The full answer is much more complicated than that: 250 µV/meter @ 3 meters (also measured as 48 dBuV/m). The same is true on the AM broadcast band, where devices are limited to an effective service range of approximately 200 feet (61 meters).

[Read: Part 15 Broadcasting Is Not Without Problems]

Although an operator does not have to obtain a license to use a Part 15 transmitter, the transmitter itself is required to have an FCC authorization before it can be legally marketed in the United States.

Be careful with the type of antenna used with the unit. The standards in Part 15 are not based solely on output power but also take into account the antenna characteristics. Thus, a low-power transmitter that complies with the technical standards in Part 15 with a particular antenna attached can exceed the Part 15 standards if a different antenna is attached.

Wilkins added to make sure you are on a vacant frequency in your area and verify the audio level feeding the transmitter is correct (not too high or too low).

Below are recent related articles from Radio World:

Look for FCC Certification When Choosing a Part 15 Transmitter

Low-Power Radio in the Parking Lot: What You Need to Know

Check Out These Unexpected Uses for Low-Power Radio

 

The post Low-Power Transmitter Guidance From Larry Wilkins appeared first on Radio World.

The author is chief engineer for KOZY(AM), KMFY(FM) and KBAJ(FM).

As has been addressed in previous articles in Radio World, many churches and other groups are starting to broadcast “drive-in church” services and other events.

As a local contract broadcast engineer I have received several inquiries about how to do this. As Radio World has pointed out in your recent articles, the only option is under the FCC Part 15 rules, which allow for low-power signals in the AM or FM band. After explaining rules and limitations, those I’ve talked to have instead opted for live streaming services.

[Read: Look for FCC Certification When Choosing a Part 15 FM Transmitter]

Clearly, most, however, don’t seek out advice of local radio professionals, and instead seem to simply be searching the internet for “Drive-in Church” etc. This is where the trouble lies, as this search brings up thousands of churches that are doing this, countless articles published in church and religious magazines and websites telling how easy it is, along with a raft of YouTube videos of pastors, ministers, church assistants, youth ministers and others showing how easy it is. Basically they tell you to order an FM transmitter from eBay, or Amazon, and plug it into the church’s audio board and you’re on!

One problem with this approach is the FCC’s lack of ability or desire to stop the sale of illegal FM transmitters in the USA via these sellers because so many of the transmitters being sold are illegal in the USA. Many use misleading advertising “Long Range FM Transmitters,” “No License Required,” “FCC Compliant,” “Perfect for Churches,” so forth and so on.

An FM Part 15 transmitter sold in the USA must be certified by the FCC. Most sold are not.

Over the years I have done testing on many of these transmitters and found that not only are they substantially over the legal limit (sometimes by a hundred times and more) but they also generate spurs and harmonics. This, of course, causes interference to other, licensed stations on the FM band, as well as into public service frequencies and most often into the aviation band causing interference with aircraft communications and navigation. In fact interference in the aviation band is one of the common ways these illegal transmissions are discovered and tagged by the FCC. Airport tower operators contact the FCC to complain!

I suggest that local engineers keep their eyes and ears open for churches and other organizations advertising drive-in broadcasts. We have a local arts center starting live broadcasts of concerts with no live audience in the theatre to an audience in cars in the parking lot.

If there are any, do a bit of legwork with a field intensity meter and spectrum analyzer and see if those broadcasts are legal. The Part 15 limit is 250 uV/m at 3 meters from the transmitting antenna. Basically if you can hear them more than 250–300 feet from the site they’re not legal.

Then look for harmonics, spurs and overmodulation. Usually these transmitters either have no modulation indicator, or it amounts to a blinking LED, and are horribly inaccurate. Operators with no experience tend to overmodulate substantially causing splatter to adjacent frequencies. Usually if they’re illegal it’s blatantly obvious. Then reach out politely and let them know they are violating FCC rules. If it’s in your ability and desire offer to help them make their broadcast legal.

Based on my observation there may be thousands of brand new illegal FM transmissions on the air over the past few weeks.

 

The post Part 15 Broadcasting Is Not Without Problems appeared first on Radio World.

I wrote a list of cyber best practices that appeared in a Radio World ebook in November, “Cybersecurity and Studio Disaster Recovery,” before the current global crisis. RW asked me to revisit and update it given that broadcasters have rushed to find new ways of doing business centered around remote operations and heavy use of the internet.

There are thousands of announcers, account managers, inventory and scheduling staff, programming and music directors, operations directors, engineering managers and other station personnel operating from their homes. How are we handling the IT security and defenses of our operations?

Many of us had to scramble to facilitate multiple work-at-home solutions. Safe practices may have been ignored because the priority was saving businesses or informing our communities.

[Read: Is Your EAS Equipment Secure?]

So now is a good time to assess and reassess. Remember, holes may exist now where they didn’t before, because of emergency actions you took to allow for outside access to systems in your building or transmitter site.

As I wrote in the original version of this article, cybersecurity is a top priority for businesses of all sizes; a lack of readiness and defenses can lead to serious financial and operational consequences. Cyber extortion (ransomware) is big business and is not going away anytime soon. The following questions and thoughts are a place to start in hardening your broadcast organization’s infrastructure and preparing for the worst case.

#1. 

Do you have a security-aware culture in your facility? In your organization? Be honest. Knowing that your IT staff or outside contractor installed a new firewall or virus program last year doesn’t mean you are fully prepared. It does not necessarily mean you have a constant security-aware culture that involves regular routines such as:

Backing up crucial data to both a local machine and the cloud and ensuring at least one of the backups is *not* connected to the network source it is backing up.

1. Updates and patches are run regularly on all devices such as firewalls, switches, PCs, IOT, etc. We say this all the time but so many facilities do not do it.
2. An ongoing awareness and training program for all existing and new employees across all departments. Many attacks arrive via a simple email. Educate everyone about what to look for.
3. Antivirus and antimalware software installed on every machine — sounds like Security 101, right? I find machines all the time that are not running both and/or not updated recently with the latest security databases.
4. Implemented security restrictions and locked all outside access except where needed. Don’t laugh. I find VPN and Remote Desktop active on machines often, and no one remembers who they were for or what the original purpose was.
5. Block all known malicious IP addresses and keep that list constantly updated.
6. Keep track of every employee or contractor to whom you gave outside access. Make sure you have a list of their names, systems given access to, and method (VPN, TeamViewer, VNC, public IP, etc.)

This is just a sample listing of key things a security-aware organization should be doing. There are many more. IT trained professionals in cybersecurity know what to do. There are also many excellent sites online with guidelines that dig deeper than we can here.

[Read: IP Security Considerations for Radio Broadcasters]

#2.

Along with #1 above, when was the last time you had a serious sit-down with your IT team, administrator or outside contractor to discuss cybersecurity? How often do you meet? In that meeting, did you know what specific questions to ask? If not, it is time to put together a list of questions. This article can help you get started.

Given the current COVID-19 situation and the fact that you’ve made changes internally to allow for remote access, now is the time for a video conference with the team to inform and discuss any weaknesses. As a team, you can decide what loopholes should be closed now — prioritize any risks should they exist.

#3.

Have you considered hiring a third-party outside security consultant to help with assessing your internal and external systems for their penetrability? Have you asked a trusted security expert to attempt to penetrate your network and systems to ensure you are defended properly?

I know several broadcast-related companies that send phishing emails with fake viruses and ransomware to employees to test their cyber training; see 1(C) above. If the employee clicks on the suspicious attachment, they are provided further training on how to spot these things. The email gateway still ranks as one of the top arrival vectors for attack, so it is critical that everyone have some training on how to spot that one email which can cause you untold hardships.

#4. 

Is your network segregated to minimize the damage if something should get through? I often find that networks within the station are combined, on purpose or by mistake. I’ve been in several facilities where they claim their networks are segregated, yet we find that’s not the case.

For example, a PC with a double-NIC (two network cards for separate networks) can be compromised and certain viruses can jump from one network to the other. So the machine that handles traffic but must connect to the automation system — and it is using two network cards — might not be as safe as you thought. Or that one PC that has Remote Desktop on it so someone can get into the network but only though that one “external” machine … well, it may not be the “firewall” you think it is.

There are ways to handle remote access properly and securely. Your trained IT staff or outside security contractor can help you with this.

During the COVID-19 crisis many stations have found themselves needing remote access to their automation playout systems. Normally, as a cyber best practice, these machines are locked down and disconnected from the public internet. If remote capability existed, it was usually through very secure login and VPN methods. I’ve seen many stations in the past month or so that did not have remote access set up allowing their client and server playout machines to be connected to the outside internet. This was done in a hurry and under emergency conditions; some buildings were cleared out almost overnight. If you are one of these facilities, follow #2 above. Make sure management is aware of these temporary weaknesses and address a plan to close the gaps looking forward. You may need this capability in the future, but now you’ll have time to prepare better with more secure access procedures.

#5.

Backup, backup, backup. I mentioned this, but it is so important to preventing disaster that it deserves its own reference. It is imperative that you regularly backup all critical files, and do so to locations that cannot be reached by the virus. There are several cases where ransomware found its way to a network backup and encrypted the very files that were supposed to protect the operation!

Do you backup every 24 hours? Do you maintain backups offsite? (That’s not only a good idea for protection against the virus but also for events such as fire, hurricanes, other things that could keep you from accessing the studio or transmitter location). With backups you can reinstall critical software and data and potentially alleviate the need to pay a ransom. Or it may simply be less costly in time and resources to restore a machine using a recent backup then using a decryption tool. Therefore, very regular backups are crucial.

If for example, you need to restore your music and spot commercial database and audio files quickly, you’ll want that backup to be very recent. Otherwise, you may lose the past several days or weeks of new material — and this could cost the station financially.

I often come across TOCs that supposedly are making backups but are not. The backup tape machine hasn’t worked in who knows how long, the NAS drive is full, the software that runs the backups hasn’t been running for weeks or months, or perhaps the directories selected for backup are not correct.

The takeaway here is that you should ask yourself or your IT administrator for proof that backups are being run, and run often, on a regular recurring basis.

#6.

If you are attacked, do you have the tools in place to quickly detect and determine its origination point within your facility? Do you have the tools (and instructions to staff) in place to isolate the virus or ransomware quickly? Do you use a security event manager? What is your “first 15 minutes” plan?

As mentioned, network segregation is critical in situations where you become infected. If the business network is infected, for example, do you have a way to prevent this attack from spreading to other business networks in your building or within the company (for larger networks or group operators)? Do you have different offices tied together using a WAN/MPLS or other means that might allow the virus to hop over and then start spreading again in an entirely different location?

If you believe a virus is crawling through your network, do you have a plan in place to stop it immediately from moving further along to the next server or PC? Do you know how to kill your network shares immediately? Do you have a plan to yank users and machines from the network in seconds?

What if an attack happens at 3 a.m. on Sunday morning? Do you have the technology or people in place to alert the proper team leaders? And do you have a response go-team on call including holidays?

This is not make-believe or a far-out fantasy. These attacks are happening regularly to small and large operators, and of course, in all industries.

#7.

If your data becomes encrypted, do you have a plan of action filed away so you know what to do? Have you thought about whether you would pay a ransom if presented with such a demand?

There are different schools of thought on whether to pay. Many have paid, and many have not. It is reported by Symantec that only 47% of those who pay the ransom to the bad guys get their data back. It is also claimed by several reputable security firms that if you do pay this time there is a chance you will be hit again because the data kidnappers know you will give in. (Of course, we all know you will be fully protected after the first successful ransom, right?).

Let’s say you don’t pay; better have your recent backups ready to go. Do you have a backup system that provides for restoral easily and quickly? Do you have a go-team put together who will be ready to restore systems and a chain of command to direct team members on what to do and when? (See #6).

If you decide to pay, most ransoms are paid with bitcoin; do you know how to purchase bitcoin? Do you know from where? It can take a few days to obtain bitcoin, depending on how you buy it. Major cities have bitcoin-capable ATMs that can speed this up. The average ransom ranges from a few thousand to much higher. Do you have a source for that kind of money in a hurry should you need it?

Now is the time to think about these things and have a plan written down. If you don’t, you may be scrambling at the last minute while your critical systems are down. That kind of delay can cost you money because your operations are down. If you work with an outside security expert or have such staff internally, and you are not sure what your plans are should you get attacked, ask for one. Do not be unprepared.

On a positive note: Did you know that some ransomware attacks use a software variant that has a free cure? There are free decryption tools out there that might work in your case. Something to check first.

#8.

Some ransomware attacks are widespread. We’ve all heard about them. You’ll see them on TV and on most credible news and IT websites quickly. In some cases, these large-scale attacks are shut down and decrypted within 24 to 48 hours by law enforcement or white hat hackers. If you are affected by one of these large-scale attacks, check with your security provider, consultant, vendor or IT staff to see if there is a fix before paying any ransom.

#9.

If you are in the United States, contact the nearest field office of the FBI or Secret Service and report your ransomware event and request assistance. They may be able to help you. If you are in Europe, go to the Europol website and it will direct you to the local agency in your country. If in Australia, report your event to the Australian Cyber Security Centre. Most countries have a governmental agency that wants to hear from you.

#10.

Ask for help. I say this often. Do not be afraid to ask for help. Whether you are a managing director or engineer and IT director, it is OK to ask for resources to assist you with cybersecurity. You have friends who know things. You have vendors who know things and who have internal resources to assist you with this. There are local IT firms with experts. Consultants. Lots of free advice on the internet. The United States and many other governments provide free information on ransomware, viruses and other forms of malware.

Now, more than ever, we are all coming together to help one another. I’ve seen hundreds of posts online (on the various broadcast-related social platforms) from broadcast engineers, offering advice and asking questions on every imaginable topic related to COVID-19. If you need help with setting up a SIP connection to a mobile phone, there are plenty of people who will help you. Do you need help with remote access to a specific playout system? Just reach out to your vendor or another engineer. Some vendors are offering free versions/use of their remote packages. Every manufacturer and engineer are working together to help one another. I’ve said this before: This is what we do every day; we help stations stay on the air. Even from home!

I walk into too many facilities that are not prepared defensively and that starts at the top. Go back to #1 above. Make sure you have a security-aware culture. Many stations have had to make tough decisions recently on what rules to relax and where the cost/benefit/risk balance lies. This is a decision that is unique to every facility. We are all having to do things differently now than before. Make sure you’ve kept track of what you’ve done so you can go back and close the loopholes. Prepare a list of necessary hardware/software that you can present for approval for things you may need to do this again but with additional security (if needed).

Gary Kline is a broadcast consultant who has held technical positions with several major broadcast organizations, most notably as senior VP of engineering at Cumulus Media. He has provided engineering support and consulting in the United States, Canada, China and several South American countries. He is a past recipient of the Radio World Excellence in Engineering Award.

 

The post 10 Cybersecurity Questions to Ask Yourself appeared first on Radio World.

GatesAir in cooperation with channel partner New-Tek, has signed a deal for the delivery and installation of Flexiva FAX transmitters to Bulgaria broadcast operator NURTS.

Part of the broadcaster’s continued FM modernization initiative, the upgrade consists of 11 transmission sites.

As per the accord, New-Tek will install Flexiva FAX air-cooled 5-kW and 10-kW FM radio transmitters in redundant 1+1 or 2+1 configurations, depending on the technical requirements of each site.

GatesAir says the Flexiva transmitters will deliver two national channels for Bulgarian National Radio, replacing tube transmitters in operation for more than 30 years.

New-Tek has already completed several site installations since the rollouts began in 2018, with installations continuing through 2020. The company specifies that all Flexiva transmitters in the network will share the same hot-swappable power supplies and amplifier modules.

GatesAir has been working with NEW-TEK and NURTS since 2003.

The post Bulgaria: NURTS Modernizes With GatesAir appeared first on Radio World.

Croatia has renewed its DAB+ trial for the third year.

Network operator OIV first launched the trial in November 2017 with public broadcaster HRT later joining the efforts.

Photo credit: United Nations Cartographic Section.

Confirmed at the end of 2019, the first phase of the expansion began in March with the launch of DAB+ transmitters on Mount Srd, near Dubrovnik and Psunj, in the east of the country.

A month later in April, the cooperation launched another transmitter on the island of Ugljan covering Zadar and the surrounding area.

There are currently 12 stations broadcasting in DAB+ as part of the trial, with outdoor coverage standing at 88% and indoor reception at 53%.

“OIV sees DAB+ as the main future platform for radio. Our goal is to build a quality future-proof network and to start commercial services as soon as possible,” said OIV CEO, Mate Botica.

“Future plans include expansions of the network and, depending on the interest of the broadcasters, we are considering the launch of a second multiplex.”

Radio continues to be an important medium in Croatia, with over 45% of people listening to the radio on a daily basis.

“The EECC Directive, which requires all new car radios in the EU to be capable of receiving digital terrestrial radio by the end of 2020, has encouraged DAB’s growth in Eastern,” said Bernie O’Neill, WorldDAB project director.

“In Czech Republic, population coverage stands at 85% and is set to reach 95% following the launch of several new DAB + transmitters later this year. Poland is also stepping up the expansion of its DAB+ network, with new multiplexes across a number of locations. DAB+ services have also recently launched in Slovenia, Serbia and Bulgaria.”

The post Croatia Expands DAB+ Network, Extends Trials appeared first on Radio World.

MONS, Belgium — RTBF officially opened new studios on Jan. 21 at its regional center in Mons.

RTBF’s in-house specialists designed, decorated and cabled Classic 21’s new studios. All photos courtesy of RTBF

With the existing radio studio infrastructure dating back from 2006, the broadcaster decided to construct and modernize its new broadcast studios with a view toward future visual radio operation.

“The project consists of four radio studios,” said Hélène Ronveaux, RTBF Radio project manager. “A first studio serves the VivaCité’s DAB+ channel Viva+. A second operates as production and interview studio for Classic 21. We finalized both studios in September last year. This allowed us to use the new Classic 21 studio as stand-in during the renovation of Classic 21’s main on-air landscape.”

Classic 21’s on-air studio has a strong brand identity.

In addition to the new Classic 21 on-air studio, the Mons site will also accommodate a brand new on-air studio for VivaCitéMons, expected to be operational this fall. 

THE CLASSIC 21 UNIVERSE

The first plans for Classic 21 were for a functional studio, but without the station’s identity. “So we started designing from scratch — we wanted a visitor to know that he or she enters the Classic 21 studio without seeing the logo or hearing the music,” said Etienne Dombret, editorial director of Classic 21.

“The input from our staff was essential, everybody had to feel well in the studio — some presenters have to work five consecutive hours in the same room. This studio was also the broadcaster’s first studio that was completely designed, assembled and cabled by RTBF’s design, integration and engineering specialists, both from radio and television.”

The hallway between the main “Laforge” studio and the production and interview studio is decorated with autographed pictures from artists who have visited Classic 21.

Classic 21’s radio team brought in record covers and instruments to decorate the studio walls, creating a cozy “bar” atmosphere, enhanced by a Chesterfield sofa.

“Our presenters and engineers also wanted to have windows looking out on the city of Mons from the main ‘Laforge’ (honoring the station’s morning drive presenter Eric Laforge who passed away Feb. 15) studio,” continued Dombret.

“In view of our visual radio plans, we installed sliding glass doors. Also, some walls were covered with brick strips over the existing acoustic elements like bass traps.”

The smaller production facility was equipped as an interview studio with room for a presenter and three guests.

“Both the studios and hallway between them breathe the same atmosphere — the hallway is decorated with photographs of artists that have visited us, like Joe Cocker or Aerosmith. Everything is part from the same universe,” Dombret said. “The whole is visually very attractive and, when COVID-19 is over, this studio landscape will offer us many more possibilities for visual radio content. Classic 21 has become very telegenic.”

IP CONNECTIVITY

The new radio infrastructure uses a DHD XC2 platform, a single backbone serving the four 52/MX consoles in the new studios with separate XC2 cores. An extra XC2 core is used for the functionalities in the master control room and the Dante connections with the production and editing cells.

Presenter Marie-Amélie Mastin is at work in the production studio.

“In 2016, with the renovation of the La Première radio studio, we issued a rulebook for technical installation,” explained Ronveaux.

“Based on these specifications, RTBF decided to invest in DHD radio systems. Today, we use the brand in various on-air studios and regional centers. The fact that we’ve implemented the same philosophy in all studios increases our technical staff’s mobility. They can work from different studios with an identical technical setup.” RTBF has continued to use the Netia AirDDO playout system.

Both the Viva+ and Classic 21 production facilities were designed as self-op studios, with 12-fader 52/MX desks, the (also self-op) Laforge studio has a 14 fader desk — every studio offers room for a presenter and three guests.

The Mons radio site is now directly connected over IP with the main RTBF broadcast center in Brussels using AES67/Ravenna technology.

Serge Van Haelewijn interviews singer Frédéric François on Viva+ in the new on-air DAB+ studio.

“This is really unique — in the past, we had four 2 Mbps links with Brussels, each for the equivalent of five mono sources or two stereo and one mono source. With AES67/Ravenna connectivity, and DHD’s XC2 AES67/Ravenna interface, we have drastically boosted our transmission capacity. Today we have 64 channels plus an extra 64 channels as backup,” said Ronveaux.

“Every console uses multiple channels. All signals from the four studio’s are routed to master control room in Brussels. It’s equipped with a Lawo AES67/MADI converter to connect  with our central Mandozzi IDEA audio router.” In the main matrix in Brussels, the Mons signal is mixed with advertising and time signal and aired on the RTBF transmitter park.

VISUAL RADIO OPTION

Serge Van Haelewijn presents from Viva+’s new DAB+ studio in Mons.

Bearing in mind the future visual radio option, RTBF paid a lot of attention to the imaging and decoration of its new on air studios.

“The studios were conceived as ‘visual ready,’ with video as part of the design. Pending the installation of fixed cabling and cameras, Classic 21 is using a handheld camera in the new studio landscape,” Ronveaux continued.

DHD distributor Amptec managed the installation and basic configuration of the DHD 52/MX system and the tailor-made studio furniture. “The challenge was, in close collaboration with the RTBF’s network and radio technology experts, to parameterize the DHD configuration for ease-of-use and stability, in a thorough and advanced IP-setup,” said Bart Lamberigts, Amptec project manager.

For the visual radio aspect, Amptec also supplied customized, visually attractive microphone arms and Yellowtec components. “Classic 21’s new studio is one of the most beautiful on-air facilities we’ve worked on,” Lamberigts continued. “RTBF is extremely strong in designing and building appealing studio environments with internal staff.”

Classic 21’s editorial director Etienne Dombret welcomed singer-songwriter Typh Barrow to the inauguration of Classic 21’s new studios.

Etienne Dombret is confident about the future. “Personally, I think consolidating our current market share is crucial. We have grown from 3.9% to an overwhelming 10.9% in 15 years — 2019 was a record year,” he said. “I’m happy to see that we have succeeded in winning over a new and younger audience. With an enthusiastic team in spacious, efficient and visually appealing studios and new technology, we are also devising new program concepts.”

At press time, the VivaCité on air studio was still under construction, and expected to be operational this fall.

During renovation, VivaCité is broadcasting from a provisional studio with a Studer setup.

The post RTBF Inaugurates New Studios in Mons appeared first on Radio World.

.

.

Media Bureau Dismisses without Prejudice the Montezuma, CO Market Modification Petition

.

.

.

Mother Nature is amazing. Vegetation will find a way to grow almost anywhere, including places at your transmitter site that can be problematic.

Fig. 1: One reason to inspect remote site equipment thoroughly.

You can bet the satellite signal from the dish in Fig. 1 gets even worse when the leaves come out. The problem gets worse the closer you get to the dish. We can see in Fig. 2 that the sections of the dish have actually been deformed by the vines.

Yet another reason why site inspections need to occur regularly.

***

We’ve gotten encouraging comments from engineers reading Frank Hertel’s and Bill Ruck’s suggestions on rodent control.

Fig. 2: A close-up shows that the vines are growing right up through the dish.

Bill pointed out that raptors provide “free” control, and offers this blog from the Cornell Lab of Ornithology to back up the claim: https://tinyurl.com/raptorfood. Here’s an excerpt (edited for style):

“Nonbreeding adults eat about a quarter-pound of food daily, or a tenth of their body mass — that’s about five small mammals. Nestlings start feeding themselves (swallowing lemmings whole) at about 16 days old. It’s estimated that a brood of two nestlings requires 26 pounds of food during the 40 days between hatching to fledging.”

[Read: It’s Time To Inspect That Air Conditioner]

Various vole and mouse species average about 1 ounce in weight (lemmings in the Arctic weigh a little more), so, if you do the math, every adult Roughie eats four to five small mammals every day (about 1,460 annually), and two nestlings consume roughly 278 rodents in only their first 40 days. Clutch size is usually three to five eggs, so the actual number of rodents consumed by nestlings is often much larger.

Red-tailed hawks are more common and are around all year long. They have about the same eating habits. Can anybody trap 1,500 mice a year using another method?

***

Among the many “take-aways” from the NAB Show each year are various useful promotional items that vendors offer attendees.

Fig. 3: Inovonics will send you a free Radio Hero Swag Bag (modeled here by Travis Tibbot of BGS). Just email sales@inovonicsbroadcast.com.

Since this year’s show was canceled, Inovonics Broadcast President and CEO Ben Barber is offering an Inovonics Radio Hero Swag Bag, pictured in Fig. 3, to broadcast engineers who request one by email to sales@inovonicsbroadcast.com. Just reference the swag bag mentioned in Workbench.

I won’t spoil the surprise, but you will find the contents useful.

***

With so many station voices operating from remote locations, Rob Atkinson, K5UJ, reports on an inexpensive equipment rack from, of all places, IKEA.

It’s called a Lack Rack. It’s a short table, the legs of which are placed at the perfect distance for mounting rack equipment. The flat table top provides a shelf top. It’s nothing fancy, but for 10 bucks, it might solve the question of how to mount several pieces of rack equipment for a temporary lash-up.

Find specifics at https://tinyurl.com/ikealackrack, and the IKEA product is here: https://tinyurl.com/ikearack.

***

James Potter owns Cutting Edge Engineering, which provides radio station technical service. James tried the free Paint.net software that we described in the March 4 issue. He writes, “Super-duper! Much more functionality than MS Paint, and — best of all — it’s free! Thanks!”

Thanks, James, for letting readers know. Dan Slentz, who told us about the free image and photo editing software for PCs, likes the innovative and intuitive user interface, which includes special effects. Glad the column could help.

***

In a previous Workbench column, I referred to transmission line “hot spots” detected by infrared camera inspection. Many of these hot spots occur at rigid line junctions, or 90-degree elbows where a bullet is overheating and ready to fail.

Fig. 4: Myat’s 3 1/8 bullet. The blue ring shown on one end of the bullet is Myat’s anti-split device.

I received a message from an engineer wanting to know more about this — specifically, what is a “bullet”?

For those who need an explanation, simply put, a bullet joins the two center conductors of transmission line together (see Fig. 4 to get a better idea). Because of its cylindrical shape, it looks like a big piece of ammunition, hence its name.

Each end of a bullet fits inside the corresponding center or “inner” piece of transmission line. Improper bullet installation, wide temperature swings or movement of the line over time can cause the bullet to weaken and not make a good tight connection. The result is heat buildup and eventual failure.

Keep in mind, there’s usually a lot of power passing through this center conductor. The whole point of periodically measuring the temperature of these junctions is to spot a potential failure before catastrophic damage occurs.

John Bisset has spent over 50 years in the broadcasting industry and is still learning. He handles western U.S. radio sales for the Telos Alliance. He holds CPBE certification with the Society of Broadcast Engineers and is a past recipient of the SBE’s Educator of the Year Award.

 

The post Mother Nature Can Both Hinder and Help Your Station appeared first on Radio World.

The House has passed the HEROES (Health and Economic Recovery Omnibus Emergency Solutions) Act, which would count individual TV and radio stations as small business in terms of forgivable loans ever if they are part of larger broadcast groups that, as a whole, would not qualify.

Broadcasters and newspapers have been pushing for that access to funds, but the victory is likely only symbolic since Republicans in the Senate have said it was DOA there, and the President has signaled he would likely veto it if the $3 trillion COVID-19 aid bill, of which the small business loans for media outlets is a tiny part, made it so his desk.

[Read: NAB Says C-Band Cost Structure Should Await Satellite Transition Details]

“NAB applauds House passage of the HEROES Act that includes expanded access to Payroll Protection Program loans for local media outlets,” said National Association of Broadcasters president Gordon Smith “As local radio and TV stations and hometown newspapers struggle with historic advertising losses, it is critically important they have access to resources to support lifesaving journalism that keep families and communities out of harm’s way.”

While the HEROES Act is unlikely to become law, separate, standalone bills that would create the expanded PPP access and that have bipartisan support, have been introduced in both the House and Senate.

 

The post NAB Applauds HEROES Act appeared first on Radio World.

You may have noticed that a lot of new audio coming from record companies and music services sounds heavily compressed, distorted or clipped. When you look at these audio files as a waveform, you can see the clipping, especially when comparing it to music from just 10 years ago, whether from the record company or a service like TM Century.

This article is about the quality of audio radio stations are receiving from music providers today.

To put this together, I spoke with numerous people in our industry, including three experts at well-known audio processing companies mentioned below, to get their take on what’s happening and how we can provide great audio to listeners.

What I found is that there is no single answer. But these experts agreed that it’s a problem and that quality is an issue.

Everyone has their own take on how to process audio that is (to put it plainly) either recorded too hot and clipped or processed out the wazoo to begin with.

Part of the problem with dealing with audio is not simply the fact that it’s frequently hot and clipped, but we are intermixing great audio with full dynamics (from older content) to our own studio material along with newer, highly processed content.

Where do you start and how do you set your processing when your source material is so inconsistent? If you process for new content, your old stuff could sound lifeless. If you process for old content, your new material may have no dynamic range (or feel processed out that wazoo).

Challenges

If we start at the beginning, we know that getting music for radio stations can be a challenge, unless you’re a major-market station with record companies still interested in getting that airplay.

Smaller stations may have to be creative in finding music including subscription services. This isn’t to say that music isn’t available all over the web, and there are some “non-paying” ways to acquire music (not recommended) from posted videos and download sites.

These are not necessarily legal ways to find music; they also may be compressed or have had multiple types of compression reducing the quality to that of a “personal MP3 player” … or even worse.

In the past, there were some great music providers that are no longer in the game (like the old TM Century), and record companies provided music with great dynamics and counted on the radio station to really do their processing on the playback end. Today, there are DJ music service and paid content download sites, but I believe most of us find these files highly processed or even clipped (see examples).

As a bit of an audiophile, I pay attention to quality. I truly want to see dynamic range and peaks that more resemble analog audio than a file with a minimal amount of dynamics and an apparent “flat lining” or clipping of the peaks.

For one thing, I always recommend staying true to “CD quality” with WAV-only files that come from CDs or uncompressed as original WAVs and never converting an MP3 to a WAV. As in life, you will not get something for nothing by turning an MP3 into a WAV. It’s still MP3-quality with just a different suffix to it.

In radio, we process (some more than others) for a multitude of reasons. First, since radio is often listened to while driving we want to overcome the background sounds or “road noise” by bringing up quiet passages without completely destroying the song’s dynamics. We also want our music to have “more punch” than other stations or other sources available to the listener.

Basically, many of us want bigger, brighter, louder and more punch. Considering FM’s own high-frequency limitation of 15 kHz, we have a slight disadvantage to the quality of a stream, but the advantage of something a little more “pure” or “real” in the fact that it’s not being “squashed” for streaming (plus the lesser chance of any “digital weirdness”).

We really could go back and forth on advantages (radio goes anywhere) and disadvantages (e.g., multipath) of radio, but paying attention to the quality of our files is a great starting point. It’s simply because we can never get any better than the quality of the original file.

Comparisons

Recently I’ve begun comparing audio files from TM Century’s old Gold Disc files versus a current music service. I’m shocked at what I found.

Let’s compare a few WAVs to show what I’m talking about. To do this, I’ve used Adobe’s Audition to open both files. No changes were made to any setting, and the screenshot is taken from unaltered editing images. All of these files are native WAV files, no conversion, no normalizing, nothing changed for what you’ll see.

First, a new song by Weezer called “Can’t Knock the Hustle,” followed by U2 and “Where the Streets Have No Name.” See Fig. 1.

 

Fig. 1: Weezer “Can’t Knock the Hustle” vs. U2 “Where the Streets Have No Name.”

You can see the difference, but what are we seeing? There appears to be so much processing on Weezer that there is very little left of the dynamics of the music. In other words, everything is loud! And what happens when we process it? The smallest amount of dynamics that were left are completely eliminated.

What does this translate to? Most program directors and consultants would likely say it will be loud on the radio but it will possibly be distorted or clipped, and that feeding this to a listener will likely result in “listener fatigue.” Simply put, our ears need those dynamics because they aid in providing an ear break.

More Songs

This is Panic at the Disco and Def Leppard (a generally “loud” group). Again, a very noticeable difference in processing and dynamics. See Fig. 2.

 

Fig. 2: Panic at the Disco “High Hopes” vs. Def Leppard “Pour Some Sugar On Me.”

Switching gears, another newer song (from 2016) was DNCE’s “Cake By the Ocean” and The Romantics’ “Talking in Your Sleep.” Again, heavily processed but with a little more dynamics versus what appears to me a more heavily processed older song. See Fig. 3.

 

Fig. 3: DNCE “Cake By the Ocean” vs. The Romantics “Talking in Your Sleep.”

What is our takeaway from all this? Though this is just three examples, I’m finding new music generally follows these two examples. What I’m seeing is very little in terms of dynamics, some aggressive processing (which includes clipping) and a much different sound.

I spoke with a producer at the company that distributed the first two newer examples and specifically asked if they are doing processing; his response was that they are doing nothing to the audio files and these are coming from the music companies this way.

This leaves us in a bit of a quandary. For a new music-based station (playing lots of current pieces but with older material as well), we might find that to “keep the playing field level,” we may need to preprocess the old song files prior to air (something I generally never do other than trim the front and back when needed), increase our mic processing and reduce our own overall main processing.

This also should make us aware of the potential impact on our listeners and their own “ear fatigue” with the content we air. If we are seeing shorter listening time and playing newer music, we might ask if the younger audience has a shorter attention span, or if we’re simply killing their ears with overprocessed material.

I spoke with three well-known radio audio processing gurus — Bob Orban of Orban Audio, Frank Foti of Omnia/Telos and Jeff Keith at Wheatstone. I heard a consistent theme: Audio is coming in much louder than it ever did. Ironically, this negatively affects the louder portions of the audio. The dynamic range is eliminated.

An additional lesson is that it’s a good idea to bring the overall audio levels of the new content down (the amount varies according to who you ask).

That is something we all know they would do, and that we can appreciate. I’d certainly like to tell you which one is right and which solution is best, but that would be like me telling you which color is best. A lot of this is subjective, and much of it can also be proven by test gear. But the results of the test gear also can be open to interpretation. So when it comes to the available products by our audio processing companies (any of them), a lot will be left up to the individual and also how that processor sounds in their own air chain.

Exploring

Consider exploring your audio files and weighing your processing vs. the content and the variation between the audio files. Be sure that all audio files you air are consistent in level. This, at least, is an excellent starting point. Depending on whom you ask, –2 dB down or even more may be the point where you want all your audio files to reside. Ultimately, the determination of whether you preprocess audio files prior to your on-air (or streaming) audio processor is a call you will need to make.

Fig. 4: The DeClipper control panel shows 1% tolerance.

By using audio editing software, it’s possible to dig into the waves to really see what’s happening. Using Adobe Audition, I first look at the properties of the file and scan it under “Diagnostics.” There are presets under “DeClipper,” but I found one that allows for some peak restoration. I start with reducing the file by –2 dB prior to running the Diagnostic DeClipper. After it indicates errors (newer audio files can have hundreds, while material like that from the old TMC Gold Discs usually have none), I run Repair.

At that point, I go with a percentage and “normalize” the audio to –1 dB down. This reduces everything equally so only the peaks hit –1 dB. By doing this, I know my processor (both on-air and streaming) will be seeing consistent levels. See Fig. 4.

Fig. 5: The Weeknd’s “Blinding Lights” as originally delivered, note lack of peaks leading to poor dynamic range.

A file may start out looking like this example. The following is a song “as delivered” by the music provider. You can see how extreme the level is. The song is “Blinding Lights” by The Weeknd. See Fig. 5.

Fig. 6: The Weeknd’s “Blinding Lights” reduced by –2 dB, note open headroom and available bottom.

The same song reduced by –2 dB (Fig. 6).

Fig. 7: Lower left pane shows errors detected in The Weeknd’s “Blinding Lights.”

Then the song is analyzed to find what Audition recognizes as clipped areas. Audition noted 333 errors (Fig. 7).

Fig. 8: The DeClipper add adds back in some of clipped peaks.

And finally, a –1 dB reduction overall and “the fix” is applied. This is how the resulting file looks  (Fig. 8).

It’s better than what it was, and audibly has a cleaner, “less crunched” feel to it.

Unfortunately, these highly processed audio files (intended for broadcast) seem to be the norm. This forces us to really consider all of our audio content and how to process it. It also requires us to think about our own recordings including commercial and PSA production audio files.

How does recently produced material stack up compared to old music audio files? What about in comparison to currently produced music? How we preprocess the audio we pass off to our audio processors needs to have consistency.

The manufacturers of our processing gear recognize what we are dealing with and they’re using their own magic to help us maintain great audio for our listeners as well. Just keep in mind that they all have slightly to greatly different ways of doing this, so your ears (and those of possibly the music director, program director, operations manager, general manager, et al) may want to weigh in on this.

And don’t forget that webstream audio will very likely differ from the air audio, so be aware that all your audio should be considered when it comes to processing and preprocessing.

Dan Slentz has been chief engineer at radio stations from Athens to Zanesville (Ohio), and Dallas to Denver. He is also an Air Force vet who worked with  Armed Forces Radio & TV from 1986–90 in Spain.

 

The post A Quality Audio Crisis in the Music Industry appeared first on Radio World.

IBC has announced the cancellation of this year’s edition due to the COVID-19 health crisis.

In a statement, IBC CEO Michael Crimp said that in the context of the pandemic “as governments announce the route forward, it has become clear that a return to (a new) normal is unlikely to be achieved by September,” he declared.

“Right now, despite the best work of the IBC team and our Dutch colleagues, there are still many unknowns. Therefore, we cannot guarantee we will be able to deliver a safe and valuable event to the quality expected of IBC.”

Crimp revealed plans to launch virtual IBC week. He added that the organization would continue to engage with the industry through its digital platform IBC365.

IBC2020 was scheduled to take place Sept. 11–14 at the RAI convention center in Amsterdam. Companies including Panasonic, Ross Video and Stirlitz Media had already announced that they wouldn’t be exhibiting at this year’s show.

The post Organizers Cancel IBC2020 appeared first on Radio World.

The author is membership program director of the National Federation of Community Broadcasters. NFCB commentaries are featured regularly at www.radioworld.com.

A social media giant’s decision about its workplace prompts questions of culture. It also has resonance with dialogs at community radio and college radio stations at this moment.

The Northern California-based Twitter announced that it would permit employees to work from home forever. It is one of the most stunning reactions among corporations, many of which have had to make major adjustments in the aftermath of the coronavirus outbreak. Many companies are choosing to have staggered returns or other models to protect employees. Twitter’s decision is a rarity, though it remains to be seen what “forever” really means.

Across the nation, community radio stations are having similar deliberations: when will a station return to normal operations, and what will normal be?

[Read: Community Broadcaster: Underwriting’s Murder Hornet]

As I wrote about in a previous column, there are a range of considerations for stations. They include understanding volunteers’ relationships with vulnerable communities and their own risk for illness; determining protocols for access to the public and in-studio guests; what live performances in a station look like during a pandemic; and how to keep a studio clean and safe. And, to be sure, plenty of organizations had to scramble mightily to come up with the means to continue to deliver programming and serve their audiences.

At several stations, there is intense internal pressure to have live DJs back in the studio immediately. At others, the approach is still very measured. Wherever your station falls in this spectrum, a step back to look at why we’re here — community service — is crucial.

Now that so many stations are slowly finding their programming groove, and the ability of volunteers and staff to deliver radio-quality content from home for pennies is easier than ever, maybe it is time to ask if this new normal is potentially beneficial to community radio stations and to volunteers.

There are, of course, tremendous benefits to having many people interacting in one place. Learning has long been proven to be much more impactful when it is done with others. Exchanges of ideas take place. And, for many volunteers, community radio is exemplified by live programming.

However, what Twitter and others have acknowledged is also true. You can be very effective and deliver excellent content outside of the building. So long as the quality and the effort are there, it can be a nice perk for volunteers to produce remotely. For staff members, especially those whose work may not require constant presence on the premises, remote work has its plusses too.

Staffing questions after an economic calamity abound for many community radio stations. Large public media organizations are looking to reduce pay and change up the workplace, as projected economic declines loom. Community media organizations seldom have the same financial reserves as the larger stations, and one might expect such reductions may happen among community radio stations, while possibly keeping work-from-home days to save staff commute time and giving them extra hours to spend with family.

No one wants to lose staff or the culture a station holds dear. There are no good guys or bad guys when everyone is concerned about stations’ future. Nevertheless, it is incumbent on every station to think about how they serve the listener most effectively. If the way things have always been done serves best, great. If this period has opened up new questions, now is the time to consider them as well.

 

The post Community Broadcaster: Remote Forever appeared first on Radio World.

Later this year we celebrate the 100th anniversary of radio broadcasting as we know it, which came into being with the transmission of U.S. presidential election returns in the fall of 1920 by station KDKA.

There are a number of documented attempts at broadcasting to the general public prior to this date; none of these other pioneering operations really caught on and captivated much attention, save for the amateur radio audience, which likely viewed them as just an experimental curiosity having some entertainment value.

Obviously, the KDKA project didn’t just happen. Its progenitor Frank Conrad didn’t stop by the stockroom of his employer Westinghouse Electric and requisition a pile of parts that, on a whim, he turned into a radiotelephone transmitter.

[Read: When Brute Force Transmitters Ruled the Air]

A lot more had to happen prior, and that is what this article is all about. It will also serve as a reference to articles you’ve been reading by John Schneider that are part of this “Radio at 100” series and are focusing on specific topics in more depth.

Roots of Radio

Most historians credit Guglielmo Giovanni Maria Marconi — inspired by reading about Heinrich Hertz and his work in demonstrating the existence of electromagnetic radiation — with having “invented” radio around 1895.

Truth be known, young Signor Marconi, barely 21, didn’t really invent anything new. He combined the inventions of several others (spark coil, detector, batteries, etc.) to create a wireless signaling system.

As he was the first to do this and promote his accomplishment (through his English mother’s connections), he got credit — and a share in the 1909 Nobel prize in physics — for putting together this rudimentary communications system. Later, claims to priority were made by or on behalf of others including Tesla, Popov, Lodge and Bose. But they were less well-connected and without the support and machinations of a doting mother.

None of these individuals invented broadcasting. Their concerns centered around investigations of electromagnetic radiation, detecting lightning discharges, remotely igniting gunpowder, wireless transmission of electrical power, or in the case of Marconi creating a means of wireless signaling and communication.

Broadcasting of speech and music to the masses wirelessly would be the provenance of others and would have to wait a decade or so.

False Starts

Most notable of these was Reginald Aubrey Fessenden who, early in the 20th century, was driven by an obsession of sorts to move radio away from the endless streams of “dits and dahs” being spewed out by gigantic high-voltage spark coils — really artificial lightning machines — and used more or less exclusively for communication between ships and corresponding land-based stations. (By that time, there was also a sizable community of amateurs of all ages who were interested in provoking the “luminiferous Ether” through which these “Hertzian waves” were thought to travel.)

Fessenden was the first to realize the requirement for a smoothly changing (sinusoidal) carrier wave upon which to impress speech and music, and also the potential for wirelessly transmitting such intelligence to the masses untrained in the art of copying Morse Code.

He succeeded well enough in his efforts in late 1906 to demonstrate “radiotelephony” to a handful of witnesses, including a couple of Associated Press reporters, late in the afternoon of Friday, Dec. 21, that year. (Fessenden would much later in his life claim to have put together a real “broadcast” a couple of days later to entertain shipboard and land station wireless operators, but this wonderful Christmas Eve event has never been substantiated.)

While Fessenden certainly had the dream — even providing a typed “handout” about the potential to transmit news and entertainment to large numbers of “listeners-in” to attendees at his Dec. 21 demonstration — he lacked the drive to follow through on this initiative, leaving it to others.

One of these, Lee de Forest — who invented the first really useful electronic amplifying device and would later assume the title of “father of radio” —  did follow through a few days after Fessenden’s demo by putting speech and music on the air in and around New York City in late December 1906, and carrying this work on into 1907 and beyond. De Forest even broadcast music created by a primitive keyboard synthesizer, the Telharmonium, and live performances from the stage of the New York Metropolitan Opera House.

In San Jose, Calif., and a bit later out of the gate, Charles “Doc” Herrold was smitten by the concept of providing entertainment wirelessly to the masses, first experimenting around 1909 with a system of wireless telephony similar to that used by de Forest and starting up a regular broadcasting initiative in 1912.

However, in both cases (and on both coasts), outside of the amateur radio community and a few members of the professional ship-to-shore users of radio, there wasn’t really much of a listening audience, and apparently neither de Forest nor Herrold was sufficiently interested in promoting their broadcasting efforts to achieve “buy-in” from the general public.

They preferred instead to focus on the creation of radio-related inventions and patents and, in the case of Herrold, operating a school to train prospective “radiomen” in the fundamentals of the art.

Truth be told, due to the rather poor audio fidelity that was achievable via the transmission and modulation technology used by de Forest and Herrold — they both employed transmitters driven by a hissing electric arc —  it is doubtful that even with a lot of money spent on promotion, the masses would have been attracted much beyond the initial novelty of the thing.

Inventing the Technology

So, assuming that Westinghouse’s Dr. Frank Conrad did possess the requisite technical savvy and imagination to envision and bring into being radio broadcasting, it’s obvious that several things had to happen to move from the high-frequency alternator of Fessenden and the “arcphone” technology employed by de Forest and Herrold.

The Marconi U.S. 1904 patent describing the use of tuned or resonant circuits in transmitter and receiver circuitry. It followed the issuance of the famous “four sevens” U.K. patent in England in 1901; however, this was challenged by former Marconi employee Oliver Lodge, and the U.S. patent was later ruled invalid, with the court citing the prior art of Nikola Tesla.

There was no quantum leap here. A number of principles had to be established, discoveries made and inventions perfected before a satisfactory means for transmitting speech and music burst upon the global scene in the early 1920s.

Foremost was the setting down of the fundamental equations and relationships governing all electromagnetic radiation by James Clerk Maxwell, and the experimentation and proof positive of the existence of this invisible energy a few years later by Hertz.

Both of these milestone events were necessary for radio of any sort to move forward; however, in themselves, they did not lead directly to a system for broadcasting.

One of the seminal inventions, or principles, was that of resonant, or tuned, circuits. For this, the Marconi company has to be given some amount of credit, as a rather famous British patent (No. 7,777 and referred to as “the four sevens”) was awarded to that firm in 1901.

This patent (“Improvements in Apparatus for Wireless Telegraphy”) and its U.S. counterpart no. 763,772, issued in 1904, describe the use of tuned circuitry and the transmitter and receiver to allow them to “syntonize” or operate on the same frequency.

This invention was driven by the need to reduce interference between spark radiotelegraph stations, which, prior to the introduction of such technology, radiated very broad signals (spread-spectrum?) with tuning set only by whatever stray capacitance to ground and antenna/transmission line inductance existed at a particular installation.

(Interestingly, Oliver Lodge, who had been employed by Marconi and experimented along these lines, challenged Marconi’s priority in making such a discovery. Also, the U.S. version of the patent was declared invalid in 1943, with credit being given to Tesla for prior art.)

Lee de Forest’s 1908 “audion” triode patent.

Regardless of who invented tuned circuity achieved through use of discrete components, it was a fundamental step on the path to broadcasting.

Another key component was something that Marconi and his company couldn’t provide: a means for generation of a continuous high-frequency oscillation to serve as a “carrier wave” for transmission of speech and music. (Marconi’s spark-driven wireless telegraphy operated in bursts of electromagnetic energy, referred to as a “damped wave” or an oscillation that trailed off in intensity over time.)

Fessenden appears to have been first to recognize the unsuitability of damped waves for transmission of speech and music, initially working to perfect a spark transmitter with an extremely fast “make-and-break” interval so as to try and ameliorate this shortcoming. He did build a working model and demonstrated it in late 1900, transmitting a raspy, but intelligible, representation of human speech for a distance of about a mile.

Fessenden quickly realized that spark was a dead-end technology for his application and experimented for a while with Poulsen’s arc-driven oscillator before moving on the concept of using a high-frequency AC generator (alternator) to create a continuous wave without the “sizzle” associated with arc.

Charles “Doc” Herrold (standing, center) at his San Jose, Calif., combination radio school and broadcast station. The turntable (phonograph) and microphone (telephone carbon “transmitter”) are clearly visible on the table at the left.

After several years, and a lot of pressure exerted on the General Electric Co. to develop a high-frequency alternator, he did publicly demonstrate successful transmission of speech and recorded music on the afternoon of Dec. 21, 1906.

However, there is a limit as to how fast an alternator’s armature can spin without flying apart. This limited operation of such mechanical sources of RF to very long wavelengths that aren’t really practical for general broadcasting purposes (VLF and LF portions of the spectrum).

Audio modulation is also very difficult to achieve with such rotating machine technology. (Fessenden simply inserted a specially designed carbon microphone in series with the transmission line feeding the antenna. The mic’s resistance varied with the audio reaching it, and this in turn varied the transmission line current, achieving amplitude modulation of a sort. He admitted at his Dec. 21 demo that this scheme provided a modulation depth of no more than about 5%.)

Despite this rather large advance in technology, practical broadcasting had hit another dead end of sorts, awaiting a more practical means for generation of a continuous wave.

This came almost by accident in late 1906, about the time that Fessenden was performing his public demo of speech and music, when de Forest hit upon the idea of an electronic amplifying device when trying to develop a detector that didn’t infringe on previous inventions. It was not long before de Forest and others discovered that his crude three-element vacuum tube could also function as an oscillator. This device, after a lot of refinement by licensees GE and AT&T, supplied another key ingredient essential for the birth of broadcasting.

Raymond Heising’s patent for achieving amplitude modulation. This development marked a quantum jump of sorts in methodology for effectively impressing audio on a carrier wave.

Aside from a practical radio detector — which now existed in several forms (electrolytic, crystal and vacuum tube) — the only other missing ingredient was a reasonably efficient methodology for modulating audio onto a carrier wave. This was supplied by a Western Electric engineer, Raymond A Heising, in the form of his “constant current modulation technique.”

While not perfect in terms of efficiency or modulation depth, it did provide a relatively simple way to impress audio intelligence onto a carrier, and was a quantum leap from the methodology employed by Fessenden and others in broadcasting’s “pre-history.”

While these elements — tuned circuitry, a practical source of continuous waves and an audio modulating scheme with reasonable efficiency — which were all available by the mid- or late-1910s, the world would still have to wait a little longer for the birth of broadcasting.

A major complicating factor had arisen: The Great War (1914–1918). With America’s entry into the fighting in the spring of 1917, much of the work on radio research and development was halted, and an executive order in April from Pres. Woodrow Wilson led to the dismantling of private transmitting and receiving equipment.

Radio went to war for the first time, and research in this area was basically limited to the production of practical apparatus for use in battlefield communication.

Broadcasting would have to wait a little longer.

NEXT: Radio broadcasting takes to the air.

 

The post They Set the Stage for the Birth of Radio appeared first on Radio World.