Oh, I didn't know that. I thought all HD capable radios could receive hybrid or all digital.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
When the HD signal goes down ... off the air.
- Thread starter landtuna
- Start date
Oh, I didn't know that. I thought all HD capable radios could receive hybrid or all digital.
Even if they could, we're still talking a very small percentage of available radios.
True, but AM stations with translators seen to have the vast majority of listeners on FM, so it doesn't really matter who can hear the AM side.
And again, that's not "saving AM" any more than the BBC distributing its World Service to US public radio stations and satellite radio was "saving shortwave." The difference is that the BBC didn't even pretend to be saving shortwave. It shut down all of its English-language shortwave service to the Americas shortly after those FM and satellite deals got done. Our commercial broadcasters are stuck with this expensive medium wave commitment when the audience they're trying to reach is on VHF.
One more attempt to insert programming into the discussion: If the AM band is cleaned up, will broadcasters with access to FM translators put currently viable musical formats on their AM stations -- hot and standard AC, rhythmic and pop CHR, contemporary country, classic rock, classic hits. hip-hop/urban -- in addition to, or in place of, the less desirable formats that now populate the band -- talk, news, oldies, classic country? And would anyone go back to listening to music on AM if this were to happen, or would AM still be dead in all but name?
We're also ignoring the quality of the receivers. Even if the FCC does it's job, the radio manufacturers have dropped the ball on AM receiver quality. Only a handful of audiophile radios have AM in them. The majority of AM receivers are equal to the quality of the transmission, which is terrible. There's a long way to go before music can be heard on AM. But in my opinion, right now, even TALK is unlistenable on AM.
And the longer they wait, the worse it all gets. The problem we have took 40 years to create. It won't be solved in a day.
Actually any radio with HD radio capability, will receive an all digital AM or FM carrier. We've tested all digital AM with existing factory or aftermarket HD radios. Problem is, there isn't enough of them to make the crossover from analog without losing 90% of your aging audience (speaking for AM)
It wasn't just the audiophiles -- classical and jazz listeners, for the most part -- who turned to FM for music once receivers became cheap and plentiful (and standard equipment in cars). It was the Top 40 pop and rock fans as well. In the mid-'70s, WRKO Boston's Top 40 crown slipped in the face of FM competition from WVBF. In Hartford, WDRC and WPOP's Top 40 days were numbered once WTIC-FM went after their audience. And on and on it went, across the country. Music on FM just sounded better than music on AM, even back in the "good old days." Talk "unlistenable" on AM? Poppycock. Talk's core audience is still listening to it on AM and understanding every word; it's shrinking because the top end of the demo is becoming worm food, not because it's found better sound quality on FM. FM talk -- non-sports, that is -- still has the same problem it had on AM: a shrinking pool of living, breathing potential listeners.
Even to the non-audiophile ear, the lowest-quality FM stereo music station sounds better than the highest-quality AM monaural music station. Clean up the hash and clicks and buzzes on AM AND bring back AM stereo, perhaps? Nope, same problem with lack of compatible equipment and a population uninterested in spending any more money on radio receivers.
Try listening at night. In between all the static and interference, there may be a voice. But it's only slightly better than short wave or CB.
I was referring to the radios in cars -- where most of the new ones (from what I've been reading on these forums here at RD) seem to have HD capability. And I thought that HD AM radios could receive all-digital as well as IBOC. I might have been mistaken.
And those "thousands of stations on their mobile device" will vastly diminish to the tens or hundreds as geo-blocking expands, right?
I've already seen the results of increased geo-blocking on TuneIn since I loaded it onto my tablet computer a year ago.
RE: your last point: perhaps power increases could overcome that problem. Although the other problems mentioned here -- switching power supplies, etc. -- is something that even power increases might not combat.
Last edited:
Nope. In another thread, an article put the figure at 35% of new cars. That doesn't include older existing cars.
Absolutely untrue, good wideband AM through a good AM receiver (very rare if non-existent today) sounds better than low quality FM stereo stations.
The average age of cars in the US is just under 11 years. So even if we had 35% installing HD now, it would take nearly a decade to have 17% penetration in all vehicles on the road.
Obviously, if the percentage of cars with HD increases, the penetration will increase.
Maybe to your ears, but it's technically impossible. The difference was even noticeable 70 years ago. That's why audiophiles preferred FM to AM.
We are going completely off-topic here but I will respond to TheBigA .....
It is not technically impossible for AM to pass a wide frequency response.
The analog color TV video was AM.
The L-R audio on all stereo FM stations is AM.
The problem with medium wave AM is the noise. There is no modulation scheme which can overcome the impulse noise on the medium wave band.
It is not technically impossible for AM to pass a wide frequency response.
The analog color TV video was AM.
The L-R audio on all stereo FM stations is AM.
The problem with medium wave AM is the noise. There is no modulation scheme which can overcome the impulse noise on the medium wave band.
Before NRSC, many AM's had proof of performance measurements that showed them +/- 2 to 3 db from about 80 to 100 Hz to 15,000 Hz. That is about the same as FM, which we know also cuts off at 15k. AM falls off a bit at the high end, but many transmitters spec out that way. If the ATU does not narrow bandwidth with very high-Q tuning circuits (such as older directionals often had) it can pass that audio. The rest is up to the receiver.
In a previous post, I said that there are no currently available medium wave radios which can receive digital-only broadcasts.
DavidEduardo has corrected me. I apologize for my error.
"I made some calls. Receivers made after about 2005 can “hear” pure HD without the AM signal. That’s how they tested last year. The very early receivers locked on the AM carrier, but very few of those, like the Kenwood, exist now. The rule is that any HD capable receiver that can not get HD-2, HD-3 and beyond on FM can not get a pure digital AM HD signal either. Otherwise, the radios can “get” AM stations in pure HD perfectly and the quality, given better bandwidth, is much better."
DavidEduardo has corrected me. I apologize for my error.
"I made some calls. Receivers made after about 2005 can “hear” pure HD without the AM signal. That’s how they tested last year. The very early receivers locked on the AM carrier, but very few of those, like the Kenwood, exist now. The rule is that any HD capable receiver that can not get HD-2, HD-3 and beyond on FM can not get a pure digital AM HD signal either. Otherwise, the radios can “get” AM stations in pure HD perfectly and the quality, given better bandwidth, is much better."
I was responding to a post that said AM can "sound better" than FM. I disagreed. Noise is a big factor in why AM does NOT "sound better" than FM.
What KB10KL posted is "Good wideband AM through a good AM receiver (very rare if non-existent today) sounds better than low quality FM stereo stations."
Low quality FM stereo stations. Not all FM stereo stations.
I've heard some pretty nasty-sounding FM stations .... and some REALLY nasty-sounding AM stations.
As I've stated before, the method of modulation is not the issue. It's all about the operating frequencies.
Low quality FM stereo stations. Not all FM stereo stations.
I've heard some pretty nasty-sounding FM stations .... and some REALLY nasty-sounding AM stations.
As I've stated before, the method of modulation is not the issue. It's all about the operating frequencies.
- Status