‘Could analog just be fine with the folks?

[hipporadio]

I recently concluded a lunch with an audio retailer... We enjoyed our big burgers and “adult beverages” and had a discussion on broadcast audio. This is a guy who proudly sells turntables in his place of business--but NO HD-Radio. The lunch discussion was interesting, but then—we took it outside... To his well-equiped car.

In the seat of that auto, his turn of the ignition switch revealed local 105.5 FM airing the 1999 Carlos Santana song “Smooth” in awesome fidelity in his Lexus. He looked over and said “So why do you folks need digital? You’d be better served by paying attention to your programming”. A query of his car-auto super-system revealed NO HD-FMs on a preset.

Analog FM has indeed progressed... I miss count of the number of contemporary stations that sound VERY GOOD on their plain ole broadcast assignments, because very good engineers labor to advance "sound" while they watch meters. Many (but not enough) AM stations pay particular attention to the quality of their audio, and it appears that IBOC is their enemy--not their friend. Many at lower powers do not find HD Radio plausible within their technical parameters and market.

In 2006, broadcasters have all the tools to present a compelling (and satisfying) analog performance on both bands, yet they conveniently blame XM and iPod popularity on their lack of in-band digital service. They do not need IBOC? I believe not! ...And your comments?

Could the general consumer public have “issues” with what is on radio as opposed to how it’s transmitted?

 

[ElCheapo]

I recently concluded a lunch with an audio retailer... We enjoyed our big burgers and “adult beverages” and had a discussion on broadcast audio. This is a guy who proudly sells turntables in his place of business--but NO HD-Radio. The lunch discussion was interesting, but then—we took it outside... To his well-equiped car.

In the seat of that auto, his turn of the ignition switch revealed local 105.5 FM airing the 1999 Carlos Santana song “Smooth” in awesome fidelity in his Lexus. He looked over and said “So why do you folks need digital? You’d be better served by paying attention to your programming”. A query of his car-auto super-system revealed NO HD-FMs on a preset.

Analog FM has indeed progressed... I miss count of the number of contemporary stations that sound VERY GOOD on their plain ole broadcast assignments, because very good engineers labor to advance "sound" while they watch meters. Many (but not enough) AM stations pay particular attention to the quality of their audio, and it appears that IBOC is their enemy--not their friend. Many at lower powers do not find HD Radio plausible within their technical parameters and market.

In 2006, broadcasters have all the tools to present a compelling (and satisfying) analog performance on both bands, yet they conveniently blame XM and iPod popularity on their lack of in-band digital service. They do not need IBOC? I believe not! ...And your comments?

Could the general consumer public have “issues” with what is on radio as opposed to how it’s transmitted?

My analog signals sound awesome, and to be 100% truthful - I prefer them to the digital ones. An ideal implementation of IBOC as far as I'm concerned would be to dump the simulcast of the main analog component and use all of the HD bandwidth for transmitting a 2nd program. For me, IBOC is all about multicasting.

The public perception problem with analog radio was created by the satcasters - period. "Radio plays too many commercials." What else would you expect them to say? That's their unique selling proposition. "Radio offers limited choice of the same stuff over and over." Again, what else would they say?

If not for the advent of satellite - and particularly the way it's marketed - HD would be totally unnecessary.

The truth is radio is doing fine competing with satellite today - the problem is public perception. Ten years ago, I'd venture to say most people were totally happy with radio and what it offered. Now, they're not so sure. They want radio to stop airing ads, but they also don't want to pay for it (as demonstrated by satellite's limited adoption) so HD is the industry's way of combating XM and Sirius marketing.

Whether HD ultimately catches on or not isn't what's really important. What's important is re-framing the public perception of radio - getting the public back to the pre-XM perception of radio.

So to answer your question - there's nothing wrong with radio. Unfortunately, there's nothing that can be done from the programming side to combat XM's marketing campaign. Radio must be commercialized or there's no way to pay the bills. The overwhelming majority of people are apparently happy enough with the job radio is doing, or satellite would have 50 million subscribers by now.

Could radio do some things better? Absolutely - starting with more live talent - but basically, HD is there to combat the battle for the minds and hearts of the public that the satcasters started.

 

[700WLW]

I recently concluded a lunch with an audio retailer... We enjoyed our big burgers and “adult beverages” and had a discussion on broadcast audio. This is a guy who proudly sells turntables in his place of business--but NO HD-Radio. The lunch discussion was interesting, but then—we took it outside... To his well-equiped car.

In the seat of that auto, his turn of the ignition switch revealed local 105.5 FM airing the 1999 Carlos Santana song “Smooth” in awesome fidelity in his Lexus. He looked over and said “So why do you folks need digital? You’d be better served by paying attention to your programming”. A query of his car-auto super-system revealed NO HD-FMs on a preset.

Analog FM has indeed progressed... I miss count of the number of contemporary stations that sound VERY GOOD on their plain ole broadcast assignments, because very good engineers labor to advance "sound" while they watch meters. Many (but not enough) AM stations pay particular attention to the quality of their audio, and it appears that IBOC is their enemy--not their friend. Many at lower powers do not find HD Radio plausible within their technical parameters and market.

In 2006, broadcasters have all the tools to present a compelling (and satisfying) analog performance on both bands, yet they conveniently blame XM and iPod popularity on their lack of in-band digital service. They do not need IBOC? I believe not! ...And your comments?

Could the general consumer public have “issues” with what is on radio as opposed to how it’s transmitted?

With HD radios not selling, and with 100 million analog radios continued to be sold every year, there's my simple answer. I believe, that terrestrial radio is listened to because it is a convenience in cars - I bet not many come home in the evening and turn on the radio, except mainly for Dx'ers and talk show listeners. Obviously, TV, gaming systems, CDs, iPods/MP3s, and Internet related activites constitute the bulk of the entertainment. The problem with HD multicasting is that the market is already saturated with 13,500 stations and more choices will not be compelling - this also according to Mark Ramsey.

 

[OldGringo]

With HD radios not selling, and with 100 million analog radios continued to be sold every year, there's my simple answer. I believe, that terrestrial radio is listened to because it is a convenience in cars - I bet not many come home in the evening and turn on the radio, except mainly for Dx'ers and talk show listeners. Obviously, TV, gaming systems, CDs, iPods/MP3s, and Internet related activites constitute the bulk of the entertainment. The problem with HD multicasting is that the market is already saturated with 13,500 stations and more choices will not be compelling - this also according to Mark Ramsey.

Less than 30% of radio listening is in the car, so most listening is done at work and in the home. It's been that way for about 50 years, although it will apparently be a surprise to you.

No individual has access to more than 60 to 70 good signals in the place where they live, with the average in the top 100 markets being lesshtan half of that. So adding 7 to 12 HD-2 choices in at least the top 100 markets really makes a difference... adding about a third more real choices in each market.

 

[700WLW]

With HD radios not selling, and with 100 million analog radios continued to be sold every year, there's my simple answer. I believe, that terrestrial radio is listened to because it is a convenience in cars - I bet not many come home in the evening and turn on the radio, except mainly for Dx'ers and talk show listeners. Obviously, TV, gaming systems, CDs, iPods/MP3s, and Internet related activites constitute the bulk of the entertainment. The problem with HD multicasting is that the market is already saturated with 13,500 stations and more choices will not be compelling - this also according to Mark Ramsey.

Less than 30% of radio listening is in the car, so most listening is done at work and in the home. It's been that way for about 50 years, although it will apparently be a surprise to you.

No individual has access to more than 60 to 70 good signals in the place where they live, with the average in the top 100 markets being lesshtan half of that. So adding 7 to 12 HD-2 choices in at least the top 100 markets really makes a difference... adding about a third more real choices in each market.

"What time of day do you listen to the radio?"

Early morning before 9:00 AM 66 (9.81%)
After 9:00 AM 18 (2.67%)
Noon 7 (1.04%)
Afternoons 40 (5.94%)
Evenings before 6:00 PM 15 (2.23%)
After 6:00 PM 69 (10.25%)
After 10:00 PM 19 (2.82%)
Various, but mostly drive-time 171 (25.41%)
Various, but mostly in the day 142 (21.10%)
Various, but mostly at night 126 (18.72%)

http://kyrs.org/pollbooth.php?qid=time&aid=-1

But, many people can't even get the few HD channels !

 

[rbrucecarter5]

Analog FM has indeed progressed... I miss count of the number of contemporary stations that sound VERY GOOD on their plain ole broadcast assignments, because very good engineers labor to advance "sound" while they watch meters. Many (but not enough) AM stations pay particular attention to the quality of their audio, and it appears that IBOC is their enemy--not their friend. Many at lower powers do not find HD Radio plausible within their technical parameters and market.

You said a mouthful! Most of the sonic advantages for FM can be accomplished through proper analog audio processing (or lack thereof in the case of some stations). A station that has a lousy processed analog audio chain will sound just as bad if that same audio chain is pushed through the HD sidebands digitally - it will take a long process of de-education to convince station owners they don't have to be "loudest" in the market.

A diversity antenna / receiver front end can eliminate most multipath problems without having to resort to jamming adjacents with digital hash.

AM C-Quam stereo actually sounds more pleasing that FM stereo, if done right - there are numerous testimonials from listeners AND station engineers to that effect. And NOBODY will ever convince me that digital AM can recover a usable data stream under extreme interference conditions that also wipes out the analog. Except that the transition is going to be abrupt and could distract drivers.

 

[700WLW]

With HD radios not selling, and with 100 million analog radios continued to be sold every year, there's my simple answer. I believe, that terrestrial radio is listened to because it is a convenience in cars - I bet not many come home in the evening and turn on the radio, except mainly for Dx'ers and talk show listeners. Obviously, TV, gaming systems, CDs, iPods/MP3s, and Internet related activites constitute the bulk of the entertainment. The problem with HD multicasting is that the market is already saturated with 13,500 stations and more choices will not be compelling - this also according to Mark Ramsey.

Less than 30% of radio listening is in the car, so most listening is done at work and in the home. It's been that way for about 50 years, although it will apparently be a surprise to you.

No individual has access to more than 60 to 70 good signals in the place where they live, with the average in the top 100 markets being lesshtan half of that. So adding 7 to 12 HD-2 choices in at least the top 100 markets really makes a difference... adding about a third more real choices in each market.

Well David, according to you a good portion of listening is done at work - let's see, IBOC has poor penetration, especially into building structures, so I guess they aren't listening with HD radios !

 

[Chuck]

El Cheapo noted that the real reason for HD radio is to combat satellite radio. I think that is an interesting observation.

If he is right (and he may be) then this whole thing is a waste of time. Satellite isn't that big a threat. There are about 10 million subscribers. That's just a handful when you consider that we are a country of 300 million people. Also consider that a lot of those “subscribers” are listening for free because it was included with their new car. I’m currently listening to XM a bit because I wanted leather seats in my car. You couldn’t get the seats without the radio. It is uncertain how many of those people will renew.

Will satellite grow? Sure, but probably not at any exponential rate. Recent studies say that it has actually flattened out. In fact, if you factor out the Howard Stern Effect, it is highly likely that a good percentage of those subscribing to satellite had stopped listening to terrestrial radio a long time ago. They weren't radio listeners anyway. They are really no great loss.

If El Cheapo is right, then I suspect that Ibiquity is selling snake oil to people in radio who are having a knee jerk reaction to the "satellite" buzz word. Satellite TV did not kill terrestrial TV. Satellite radio (and other new technologies) won't kill radio, unless radio has recently developed a death wish. I don't think it has, but this is close. Compromising what you have for a very uncertain and distant future seems to me like a formula for disaster.

Instead of brooding about "we want additional channels," the radio industry should look at these technologies as opportunities and learn how to work with them and prosper. Traditional broadcasters should be pretty good at doing that.

So why aren't they?

 

[OldGringo]

"What time of day do you listen to the radio?"

Early morning before 9:00 AM 66 (9.81%)
After 9:00 AM 18 (2.67%)
Noon 7 (1.04%)
Afternoons 40 (5.94%)
Evenings before 6:00 PM 15 (2.23%)
After 6:00 PM 69 (10.25%)
After 10:00 PM 19 (2.82%)
Various, but mostly drive-time 171 (25.41%)
Various, but mostly in the day 142 (21.10%)
Various, but mostly at night 126 (18.72%)

http://kyrs.org/pollbooth.php?qid=time&aid=-1

But, many people can't even get the few HD channels !

That survey is totally bogus. 673 total responses.

Persons 18-54 Arbitron average of 5 top 10 markets (over 20,000 diaries).
Listening morning drive: 85.1% of all persons
Listening mid-days: 77.8%
Listening PM Drive: 82.1%
Listening evenings: 56.5%
Listening weekends: 77.7%

 

[OldGringo]

With HD radios not selling, and with 100 million analog radios continued to be sold every year, there's my simple answer. I believe, that terrestrial radio is listened to because it is a convenience in cars - I bet not many come home in the evening and turn on the radio, except mainly for Dx'ers and talk show listeners. Obviously, TV, gaming systems, CDs, iPods/MP3s, and Internet related activites constitute the bulk of the entertainment. The problem with HD multicasting is that the market is already saturated with 13,500 stations and more choices will not be compelling - this also according to Mark Ramsey.

Less than 30% of radio listening is in the car, so most listening is done at work and in the home. It's been that way for about 50 years, although it will apparently be a surprise to you.

No individual has access to more than 60 to 70 good signals in the place where they live, with the average in the top 100 markets being lesshtan half of that. So adding 7 to 12 HD-2 choices in at least the top 100 markets really makes a difference... adding about a third more real choices in each market.

Well David, according to you a good portion of listening is done at work - let's see, IBOC has poor penetration, especially into building structures, so I guess they aren't listening with HD radios !

Most buildings are in the highly built up areas in cities, not the fringe areas. And most viable stations have good signals in these locations.

 

[hipporadio]

My analog signals sound awesome, and to be 100% truthful - I prefer them to the digital ones. An ideal implementation of IBOC as far as I'm concerned would be to dump the simulcast of the main analog component and use all of the HD bandwidth for transmitting a 2nd program. For me, IBOC is all about multicasting.

The FCC will NOT approve those motives. They are hell-bent on "backward-compatibility". I know that's a bummer--but it's a fact--and an understandable one at that!

Radio's problem with the public is NOT audio quality or even the number of options that radiate from a stick... But that's a disscussion for a different "room" here.

Interesting, so we're going to stake digital radio's future on losey low-bitrate secondary signals that effectively transform the coverage of a Class B to that of it's demure Class A cousin. And how is the public to perceive these signals (assuming their low-performance radios can even present them)... They ARE what they are advertised--lossey low-bitrate SECONDARY streams that rival RealAudio from the late 90s. They're non-commercial now--I suspect they will be the same several years down the pike 'cause very few can listen.

 

[Tom Wells]

Analog was, is, and continues to be quite satisfying for my radio enjoyment.
I settled in an area where there are 3 very good college stations well-known for their diverse programming.
It is one of the major reasons why I live there. So my tuner/ stereo has never been off for more than a few times since 1993.
I very seldom turn the FM dial up into the commercial allocations, I already know what I will hear.
I listen before I leave the house, in the car, on the way to customers, on the way back home, and again when back at home.
I do not have the TV habit, so my listening doesn't end when I am home.
Before, I lived 50 miles away and listened to 2 of these stations regularly. One is 100 watts, the other 7kw. I did not consider this to be DX, as I was "IN" the Chi market.
There was no problem with the analog reception. Not then, and not now. I now have "airplane" flutter multipath, as I live 10 mi due east of O'hare airport, directly under a flight path. But I do not have a "problem" with it, I know what it is, how to minimize it, etc.
I wonder if the sharp "flut- flut- flut" of airplane multipath gives FM IBOC problems?

Why couldn't the BA in Schaumburg, IL pick up more than 1 station (in analog) on FM? One must crawl before one can run.
I will be off now to Circuit City in Fenton, Missouri to see if I can hear some FM IBOC.
I hope they have some, and that their building is all wood, with no flourescent gas-ionization discharge lighting systems.
Digital data is easily confused with "normal" products from such discontinuous-current devices.

 

[Chuck]

Most buildings are in the highly built up areas in cities, not the fringe areas. And most viable stations have good signals in these locations.

Maybe Dallas or Ft. Worth are big exceptions, but a lot of suburban listeners in those cities live 50-60 miles from most of the area's transmitting antennas. In Dallas, for instance, most stations are located at Cedar Hill. If you live in Plano or McKinney you are in the fringe area of many of these stations analog signals. If HD is only good to the 64 dbu contour, I appears to me that getting any HD radio to work inside your home will be next to impossible.

I doubt that this is an unusual situation. Lots of people commute an hour or more just to go to work. Do you just blow them off as "insignificant?"

 

[700WLW]

With HD radios not selling, and with 100 million analog radios continued to be sold every year, there's my simple answer. I believe, that terrestrial radio is listened to because it is a convenience in cars - I bet not many come home in the evening and turn on the radio, except mainly for Dx'ers and talk show listeners. Obviously, TV, gaming systems, CDs, iPods/MP3s, and Internet related activites constitute the bulk of the entertainment. The problem with HD multicasting is that the market is already saturated with 13,500 stations and more choices will not be compelling - this also according to Mark Ramsey.

Less than 30% of radio listening is in the car, so most listening is done at work and in the home. It's been that way for about 50 years, although it will apparently be a surprise to you.

No individual has access to more than 60 to 70 good signals in the place where they live, with the average in the top 100 markets being lesshtan half of that. So adding 7 to 12 HD-2 choices in at least the top 100 markets really makes a difference... adding about a third more real choices in each market.

Well David, according to you a good portion of listening is done at work - let's see, IBOC has poor penetration, especially into building structures, so I guess they aren't listening with HD radios !

Most buildings are in the highly built up areas in cities, not the fringe areas. And most viable stations have good signals in these locations.

From the 2006 CPB NAB presentation:

"Since the power of the IBOC is so small compared to typical analog power, building penetration is a real issue. Unless very close to the stations, IBOC receivers usually do not work inside commercial buildings on today’s IBOC table model sets using the supplied antennas."

 

[ElCheapo]

From the 2006 CPB NAB presentation:

"Since the power of the IBOC is so small compared to typical analog power, building penetration is a real issue. Unless very close to the stations, IBOC receivers usually do not work inside commercial buildings on today’s IBOC table model sets using the supplied antennas."

It's not a direct correlation - HD power vs. analog power. HD has better reach and penetration with lower power levels - ask a TV guy about HDTV and how well it gets out at substantially lower power than its analog counterpart.

Granted, HD Radio's low power compared to analog isn't quite the same, but it isn't as bad as you think.

Here's some info on the technology - from an IBM site of all places.

http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/library/wi-roam46/index.html

 

[RadioEngner]

I been a radio engineer for over 20 years, and I have to say Analog FM can sound great, as long as you don't have a CD player playing the same song right next to it, to compare.

I have a JVC HD radio in my car, does it have top of the line quality. no, but since I'm broadcasting in HD1,2 &3 its a tool of the trade. my car has been in the shop for over a week and the car I was driving wasn't HD so I got to listen to analog FM and after a few days the stations I was listening to was sounding better and better quality wise, not content. my ears got used to analog...

When my car was returned and I was able to recieve my HD2 I was again put in reality of what 48kbps of bandwidth + the right sound processor can blow away analog radio.

And now for something completely different.......

I was at a radio shack about 30 miles from my transmitter site and they have on display their tabletop HD radio, actually not bad for the price. Corporate sent them this radio by mistake. It wasn't supposed to be in Pittsburgh until November 2007, but they sold 12 of them so far so radio shack is stocking them. But the only HD station it could pick up was mine. they are using the dipole wire antenna mounted right behind the radio and I was actually impressed that it did indeed pick up my station, it did not pick up any other Pittsburgh station in HD. Now there are 2 other towers with FM's broadcasting in HD within a mile of my tower and one of those FM's equal my HAAT and ERP, I wonder why? well here's what I think. I'm in Pittsburgh PA and I know for a fact I am the only radio station thats broadcasting HD with no combiners either low or high level. maybe this is why my signal penetrates since I am broadcasting with a HD transmitter to HD antenna, Analog transmitter to Analog antenna. this radio shack was picking up all 3 of my HD's with full signal strength. I believe that if your using either a low or high level combiner you should be able to raise your TPO an extra 25 or 50 watts that might equal the playing field. I'm open for any thoughts on this

 

[700WLW]

From the 2006 CPB NAB presentation:

"Since the power of the IBOC is so small compared to typical analog power, building penetration is a real issue. Unless very close to the stations, IBOC receivers usually do not work inside commercial buildings on today’s IBOC table model sets using the supplied antennas."

It's not a direct correlation - HD power vs. analog power. HD has better reach and penetration with lower power levels - ask a TV guy about HDTV and how well it gets out at substantially lower power than its analog counterpart.

Granted, HD Radio's low power compared to analog isn't quite the same, but it isn't as bad as you think.

Here's some info on the technology - from an IBM site of all places.

http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/library/wi-roam46/index.html

Simply, there is no reason to believe you, or David, over the CPB tests. There many cases of poor reception, as in the "HD Radio Receiver Sensitivity" thread; it would not be dificult to search Blogger to come up with a ton of examples. Well, why do you think these HD radios are being shipped with dipole antennas - why is this being debated over-and-over again ?

 

[rbrucecarter5]

Maybe Dallas or Ft. Worth are big exceptions, but a lot of suburban listeners in those cities live 50-60 miles from most of the area's transmitting antennas. In Dallas, for instance, most stations are located at Cedar Hill. If you live in Plano or McKinney you are in the fringe area of many of these stations analog signals. If HD is only good to the 64 dbu contour, I appears to me that getting any HD radio to work inside your home will be next to impossible.

I doubt that this is an unusual situation. Lots of people commute an hour or more just to go to work. Do you just blow them off as "insignificant?"

Houston, Los Angeles, Denver, St Louis, Chicago, Detroit, Atlanta all come to mind as locations with suburbs on the fringes. The only place I can think of where the population is dense near the towers is New York City. But come to think of it - what about those suburbs way out on Long Island, or way up the Hudson, or way down in NJ, up in CT? There are plenty of people in the fringes there, too. Very affluent listeners - NOT served by HD, unless they become DX'ers.

 

[Chuck]

I am broadcasting with a HD transmitter to HD antenna, Analog transmitter to Analog antenna. this radio shack was picking up all 3 of my HD's with full signal strength. I believe that if your using either a low or high level combiner you should be able to raise your TPO an extra 25 or 50 watts that might equal the playing field. I'm open for any thoughts on this

The digital signal is supposed to be 20db below the analog signal's ERP, not its transmitter power output level. That's 1/100 the effective radiated power. For instance, a 10,000 watt ERP analog signal gets a 100 watt ERP digital signal. There are a lot of variables in calculating ERP, but 100 watts ERP is 100 watts ERP regardless of how you do it.

Maybe these other stations aren't actually putting out what they are supposed to? Do all the stations in question have exactly the same analog ERP? I suspect that there is a power level threshold where this just doesn't work very well. At flea power levels, which the HD signal is, a few watts can make a big difference. Let’s not forget about antenna height and location. Those are very big factors that influence coverage in a dramatic fashion, frequently more than ERP. Power is useful for penetration, but height usually gives you a larger coverage area, albeit at low signal levels.

But let's look at your idea of increasing TPO to "level the playing field." In your case, using a separate antenna system, you'd calculate your TPO by taking into account antenna gain (or lack of it) and feed line loss. You'd also calculate in any losses from additional devices like lightning arrestors, filters, connectors, etc. To get our theoretical 100 watts ERP using a single bay antenna, you probably need a TPO in the range of 225-250 watts to compensate for the losses. YMMV, depending on components chosen as well as feed line length and type.

If you chose to use a combiner to utilize an existing antenna, you’d have a similar equation, but you would have to compensate for the loss of the combiner as well. Keep in mind that the existing antenna probably has some gain to it, and the feed line is probably more efficient. In any case, all those variables are relatively easy to calculate to give you the required TPO that yields exactly the same ERP for the digital signal.

Maybe the combiners are not as efficient as the manufacturers think they are? Could there be some effect that causes losses when the signals are combined that nobody has noticed? Maybe, but I doubt it. Combining signals into the same antenna is not exactly new technology. It has been done for years rather successfully.

It is interesting that you find your non-combined signal to be more robust than those stations who use other means. Maybe they have done some bad engineering? Or is their analog signal lower power than your stations? What about antenna height, HAAT, and terrain? Those factors would explain a lot. There are a lot of variable in this equation that would explain why your station is working at Radio Shack and others aren’t. The number one reason is probably because the radio is beyond the other stations 64 dbu contour, and it is still within yours.

I think the real bottom line is 20 db down is just too small of a signal to be much use. I have little doubt that at higher power levels, say 10 db down, this turkey would fly, but that's not in the cards right now. The low power level was chosen to keep the interference levels in check (barely). If you raise the power level sufficiently to have good coverage, I’m very sure the interference would REALLY be intolerable. As I see it, that is the big defect of this system, especially for lower powered stations. At very best, IBOC in its current form is a compromise.

 

[SUPERCASTER]

With HD radios not selling, and with 100 million analog radios continued to be sold every year, there's my simple answer. I believe, that terrestrial radio is listened to because it is a convenience in cars - I bet not many come home in the evening and turn on the radio, except mainly for Dx'ers and talk show listeners. Obviously, TV, gaming systems, CDs, iPods/MP3s, and Internet related activites constitute the bulk of the entertainment. The problem with HD multicasting is that the market is already saturated with 13,500 stations and more choices will not be compelling - this also according to Mark Ramsey.

Less than 30% of radio listening is in the car, so most listening is done at work and in the home. It's been that way for about 50 years, although it will apparently be a surprise to you.

No individual has access to more than 60 to 70 good signals in the place where they live, with the average in the top 100 markets being lesshtan half of that. So adding 7 to 12 HD-2 choices in at least the top 100 markets really makes a difference... adding about a third more real choices in each market.

Not really.
People are not buying HD Radios, so what you claim, does not reflect reality.
The "hundreds of extra new stations between the stations" that HD radio claims to provide, only cover a few miles from the HD transmitter site, and jam the existing analog stations between the stations.
The solution is to scrap the defective, incompatible, problematic, expensive, short range, fraudulent iBiquity HD Radio system, and go with something that makes sense. FMeXtra. www.dreinc.com
The big "HD Radio rollout" has been rescheduled again until 2010. Until then HD Radio should BUZZ OFF. Preferably forever.