ATSC 3.0 Radios in Vehicles

[vchimpanzee]

I think this subject has been gone over a lot in the HD Radio forum here, but it's a combination of factors, the first HD radios being a bit expensive being one of the factors, and online streaming kicking in when HD radios were being installed in more and more car soundsystems. The timing wasn't terrific. And the system was proprietary, which added to the cost of the radios, and I think stations had to pay for the HD tech as well.

When I used to listen to the local rock station's analog channel they never mentioned the metal music HD2. It was given some mention on their website, but not much. But that's just one station. I'm sure other stations promote their HD channels a lot more.

So, maybe promotion could have been better in some cases.

And then there's what happens when you lose the signal, which is you get sent back to the main channel.

 

[vchimpanzee]

Some of the 200 MHz spectrum was partially used by the military (I think above 220 MHz though), and a chunk was carved out by the FCC for ham radio use, sometime in the 1980s. Then they sold some of that spectrum to business or other interests.

So yeah, there obviously was some spectrum available, but even in the 1980s the idea of people buying new radios was a hard sell. And no one was calling for a "new AM band" anywhere.

Given how poorly Channels 2-6 have done with digital TV, it's too bad some of that spectrum couldn't have been used for translators or stations that were too close together.

 

[boombox4]

About 85% of all persons use radio weekly... down from around 94% in Y2K. What is way off is the amount of time... about 18 to 20% of persons using radio on average 6 AM to 12 MN in Y2K to about 5% today.

Very interesting. What is the source of those stats? Just curious. Looks like a pretty big drop on the second stat.

 

[davideduardo]

Very interesting. What is the source of those stats? Just curious. Looks like a pretty big drop on the second stat.

Nielsen / Arbitron data, averaged over multiple markets. Available to all subscribers.

A big part of the decline in PUR (Now PUMM) was the more precise introduction of the PPM, which brought every market's PUR down by 30% to 35%.

Last diary book, around 18 to 20 depending on market for PUR. After PPM, around 12.

 

[boombox4]

Nielsen / Arbitron data, averaged over multiple markets. Available to all subscribers.

A big part of the decline in PUR (Now PUMM) was the more precise introduction of the PPM, which brought every market's PUR down by 30% to 35%.

Last diary book, around 18 to 20 depending on market for PUR. After PPM, around 12.

So from the introduction of the PPM it went from 12% PUR to 5% PUR now? That is indeed quite a drop, in just under 20 years (the PPM was introduced in 2005 or 2006, wasn't it?).

Edit: I see now that the PPM was rolled out in 2007.

 

[landtuna]

And then there's what happens when you lose the signal, which is you get sent back to the main channel.

Which is what I call HD Hippity Hop (pure professional term don'cha know).

 

[cc333]

Another annoying aspect of HD radios is that the sound quality on AM is often worse sounding because of the strict 4.5 kHz cutoff to allow room for the digital stream.

On just about any other radio I listen to other than the HD radio in my newer car and my DX-398 (both of which sound quite dull and muddy to me), the sound is noticeably more crisp and easier to understand.

c

 

[Robert Douglas]

Another annoying aspect of HD radios is that the sound quality on AM is often worse sounding because of the strict 4.5 kHz cutoff to allow room for the digital stream.

On just about any other radio I listen to other than the HD radio in my newer car and my DX-398 (both of which sound quite dull and muddy to me), the sound is noticeably more crisp and easier to understand.

c

Thanks for finally explaining why newer cars have such terrible sound on AM. I had no idea. You literally cannot hear the letter 'S' sometimes.

 

[davideduardo]

Another annoying aspect of HD radios is that the sound quality on AM is often worse sounding because of the strict 4.5 kHz cutoff to allow room for the digital stream.

There are less than 100 AM HD stations now. That is out of nearly 4500 total AMs. It's not even worth discussion.

 

[davideduardo]

Thanks for finally explaining why newer cars have such terrible sound on AM. I had no idea. You literally cannot hear the letter 'S' sometimes.

Many AM radios in cars sound bad because the radios were designed on the cheap because nearly nobody listens to AM any more and nearly no station plays music anyway.

Only HD AM stations reduce audio bandwidth. And there are fewer than 100 of those left; most have figured out how to increase bandwidth to between 6 kHz and 7 kHz.

 

[cc333]

There are less than 100 AM HD stations now. That is out of nearly 4500 total AMs. It's not even worth discussion.

Agreed, but because....

Many AM radios in cars sound bad because the radios were designed on the cheap because nearly nobody listens to AM any more and nearly no station plays music anyway.

Most of them cut off at 4.5 kHz regardless of whether a station is in HD or not, so everything sounds worse than it should.

c

 

[Mark Roberts]

There are less than 100 AM HD stations now.

And five of them are in Denver. Five.

Yeah, I know: Crawford has four of them. KPOF is the other.

Even so, I haven't yet been motivated to take my Sangean HDT-1X out of its box.

 

[Mark Roberts]

Most of them cut off at 4.5 kHz regardless of whether a station is in HD or not, so everything sounds worse than it should.

4.5 if you're lucky. My NAD 4300 tuners have a cutoff at about that level but they manage to sound halfway decent, though it sure ain't FM.

In the old days, when Leonard Feldman was doing tuner and receiver reviews for Audio and similar magazines, he would measure the AM frequency response of tuners/receivers he was evaluating. The top for AM usually would come out between 3 and 4 kHz. Mind you, this was in the 1970s and 1980s. AM was an afterthought for those pieces of equipment.

The DSP-based travel portables that some in the DXing community have latched onto over the past decade have switchable bandwidths with 6 kHz being the typical maximum (though the Tecsun PL-320 and 330 can go up to 9). It does make a big difference, even if selectivity is reduced as a result.

 

[davideduardo]

So from the introduction of the PPM it went from 12% PUR to 5% PUR now? That is indeed quite a drop, in just under 20 years (the PPM was introduced in 2005 or 2006, wasn't it?).

2008 to 2009 rollout.

Edit: I see now that the PPM was rolled out in 2007.

Nope. 2007 was experimental and parallel in one market, Houston.

4.5 if you're lucky. My NAD 4300 tuners have a cutoff at about that level but they manage to sound halfway decent, though it sure ain't FM.

In the old days, when Leonard Feldman was doing tuner and receiver reviews for Audio and similar magazines, he would measure the AM frequency response of tuners/receivers he was evaluating. The top for AM usually would come out between 3 and 4 kHz. Mind you, this was in the 1970s and 1980s. AM was an afterthought for those pieces of equipment.

The DSP-based travel portables that some in the DXing community have latched onto over the past decade have switchable bandwidths with 6 kHz being the typical maximum (though the Tecsun PL-320 and 330 can go up to 9). It does make a big difference, even if selectivity is reduced as a result.

When HD was being introduced, at the NAB engineering conference held at the NAB annual conventions in the early 2000's, Bob Orban presented a study of the frequency response of an array of "typical" consumer radios bought at retail. I don't remember the exact data, but I think the paper is on some radio history website for perusal. I recall that Bob's conclusion was that the average radio had already rolled off almost "totally" before 5 kHz, and only one or two sets even got a tad above that.

 

[Mark Roberts]

When HD was being introduced, at the NAB engineering conference held at the NAB annual conventions in the early 2000's, Bob Orban presented a study of the frequency response of an array of "typical" consumer radios bought at retail. I don't remember the exact data, but I think the paper is on some radio history website for perusal. I recall that Bob's conclusion was that the average radio had already rolled off almost "totally" before 5 kHz, and only one or two sets even got a tad above that.

The original Optimod-AM had a switchable pre-emphasis curve intended to compensate in part for the roll-offs in consumer radios. The station I worked for in the early 1980s had an Optimod-AM...and one of the first Gates MW-1A solid-state transmitters, as well as a Sparta that was backup. The Gates did not react well to that pre-emphasis curve and the station eventually switched it off. It sounded just fine with the Sparta.

 

[Robert Douglas]

Many AM radios in cars sound bad because the radios were designed on the cheap because nearly nobody listens to AM any more and nearly no station plays music anyway.

Only HD AM stations reduce audio bandwidth. And there are fewer than 100 of those left; most have figured out how to increase bandwidth to between 6 kHz and 7 kHz.

"Nearly no station plays music anyway". Well, there are 10 AM music stations just here in San Antonio. That must mean a whole lot nation wide.

 

[davideduardo]

"Nearly no station plays music anyway". Well, there are 10 AM music stations just here in San Antonio. That must mean a whole lot nation wide.

Generally, the AM stations playing music are only on the air to allow for a translator on FM to operate; the AM gets nearly no listening. Were it possible to close the AM and keep the translator, I'll bet 90% or more of those combos would close the AM.

The remaining music AMs are generally ethnic or religions. Most don't even show up in the ratings.

 

[boombox4]

The two local stations with HD AM that I was able to listen to sounded good compared to the analog signal, they sounded like a decent stream, or a lot of FM stations (the sound of which can vary from radio to radio). Then they switched it off a couple months after I got my first HD radio.

 

[alok]

One of the requirements for FM stereo was the expiration of many of the Armstron patents and the introduction of AFC in consumer radios.

David you are correct on the patents for Armstrong . . . but I also heard that the introduction of STEREO records made the FM radio broadcaster want FM STEREO when the introduction of STEREO records came in the late 1950's . . . and it was left "totally" up to the FCC to pick the system and surprise we got FM STEREO in 1961.

No screwing around like later in the 70's.

To me it seems that RADIO broadcasting has stumbled in any tech innovation after the AM STEREO thing in the 70's. You guys give your reasons but look where AM radio, especially, is at today, next FM?
If radio only kept up, maybe the new technologies of today would not be so much in a position to possibly knock radio out the game all together.
You say listeners don't want radio to be sound better, they don't care . . . sure, they don't care when radio gives up on itself not telling the listener what is happening, like "hey we are in AM STEREO", I can see why listeners don't care.
FM promoted the heck out of STEREO in the NYC area when I was a kid, in the NYC area they were doing it into the late 60's early 70's.
When AM tried STEREO only occasionally, did I hear an AM station that was STEREO say, WE ARE IN STEREO.
Maybe that is why radios are no longer made as much as the past . . . because radio manufactures saw two things . . . 1) people not buying radios and 2) radio stations not trying to better themselves given a reason to buy a new radio.

Attached is the story about why FM went STEREO, it is from Radioworld.

How FM Stereo Came to Life

Hope everyone had a great Christmas.

 

[Kelly A]

David you are correct on the patents for Armstrong . . . but I also heard that the introduction of STEREO records made the FM radio broadcaster want FM STEREO when the introduction of STEREO records came in the late 1950's . . . and it was left "totally" up to the FCC to pick the system and surprise we got FM STEREO in 1961.

No screwing around like later in the 70's.

Screwing around how? Because the Commission chose the Magnavox AM stereo system then Leonard Kahn started suing everyone?

If radio only kept up, maybe the new technologies of today would not be so much in a position to possibly knock radio out the game all together.

Kept up with what? Smartphones? Smartphones do so much more than just a phone or texting. How was broadcast radio ever supposed to do anything about that?

You say listeners don't want radio to be sound better, they don't care . . . sure, they don't care when radio gives up on itself not telling the listener what is happening, like "hey we are in AM STEREO", I can see why listeners don't care.

98% of listeners don't know what stereo is. Stereo sounds a certain way, but they don't care why.

FM promoted the heck out of STEREO in the NYC area when I was a kid, in the NYC area they were doing it into the late 60's early 70's.
When AM tried STEREO only occasionally, did I hear an AM station that was STEREO say, WE ARE IN STEREO.

Again, the majority of listeners don't care about terms like that.

Maybe that is why radios are no longer made as much as the past . . . because radio manufactures saw two things . . . 1) people not buying radios and 2) radio stations not trying to better themselves given a reason to buy a new radio.

No, it's because people don't buy radios anymore. Everything they need and want is all inside that little smartphone. And unlike one-way radio, smartphones allow for two way communication, including social media.