-
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
A Plan for Migrating Listeners from FM to HD-1
- Thread starter JRZFM100
- Start date
That was tried on AM when they cut the analog bandwidth to under 5 kHz. I believe that was instigated by Ibiquity. It was a total flop. Most stations have reverted to normal bandwidth rather than lose their listeners.
HD radio has multiple problems; lousy fidelity is just one of them. It simply doesn't work reliably for most people.
HD radio has multiple problems; lousy fidelity is just one of them. It simply doesn't work reliably for most people.
That idea is somewhere between genius and insane (definitely a reference to Pinky & The Brain)...
But seriously folks, there must be some way to inflate and thereby create artificial value for the listener as to encourage migration to HD Radio.
Without forcing HD to have more value as compared to analog FM, HD Radio is merely an incremental improvement versus analogue FM. Thus the absence of motive for anyone to want to move to HD.
But seriously folks, there must be some way to inflate and thereby create artificial value for the listener as to encourage migration to HD Radio.
Without forcing HD to have more value as compared to analog FM, HD Radio is merely an incremental improvement versus analogue FM. Thus the absence of motive for anyone to want to move to HD.
Yes, I know. It's just so hard to accept... there is no hope for HD Radio.
And when the day comes, I shall miss my bulky Kenwood external HD receiver/tuner plug in box and all of his flawed and very limited and moronic capabilities.
I had so much hope for him... He was a disappointing child.
I shall never forget his potential. When growing up we called him USADR and project acorn back in infancy. We had so much so much hope for his brite future...
tear
I think iBiquity already "sours the milk" on the HD receivers. My JVC HD adapter noticably limits frequency response on both analog FM and AM so when it flips to HD you hear an improvement on both bands. On my stock Ford sound system (non-HD) the bandwidth is much better on both bands than the adapter doing analog.
Also the adapter does not support RDS, another way of "souring" things. There is really no difference in the data display on stations running both HD and RDS as they generally appear mirror the same info on both.
Frankly, I wonder if FM processed on the older gear would actually sound better and more natural than what we have today.
Also the adapter does not support RDS, another way of "souring" things. There is really no difference in the data display on stations running both HD and RDS as they generally appear mirror the same info on both.
Frankly, I wonder if FM processed on the older gear would actually sound better and more natural than what we have today.
Interesting about JVC equipment. I use a Kenwood Excelon series with the optional, external HD receiver. Using the external HD receiver replaces both the HD and analogue sections, so it serves as a front end and tuner for both.
With this 'first generation' HD receiver, there is no observable degradation to the aural quality of the analog FM versus say the quality of my Alpine analogue only unit.
And, this radio in this configuration provides a menu option to defeat HD, thus forcing the receiver into analog only and allowing via menu selection an A-B comparison of analogue vs digital.
In fact, as you would guess, the analogue quality sounds better than most HD-1's in the market (DFW) due to the absence of digital artifacts clearly audible on many HD-1's. I don't listen to HD; and when the receiver actually slips into HD mode accidentally, I notice immediately and kill the HD to restore the fidelity and eliminate digi artifacts.
So, I've not heard or experienced any noticeable degradation of analogue FM quality. I wonder if that is a manufacture (JVC) specific issue?
That's is a great question. Pinpointing a time in the technology timeline, as not to compare CBS Labs and older stuff to modern DSP, I'd think the comparison would have to be state of the art pre-DSP analogue, perhaps Optimod 8100A + XT 2 or Unity 2000 as analogue benchmarks. Personally, I'd use the Vigilante with all the associated pre-processors to do that test.
But I think the only true benchmark that could be quantitatively measured and agreed upon for comparison would be loudness measured via an SPL meter. It would seem that all else would be totally subjective.
With this 'first generation' HD receiver, there is no observable degradation to the aural quality of the analog FM versus say the quality of my Alpine analogue only unit.
And, this radio in this configuration provides a menu option to defeat HD, thus forcing the receiver into analog only and allowing via menu selection an A-B comparison of analogue vs digital.
In fact, as you would guess, the analogue quality sounds better than most HD-1's in the market (DFW) due to the absence of digital artifacts clearly audible on many HD-1's. I don't listen to HD; and when the receiver actually slips into HD mode accidentally, I notice immediately and kill the HD to restore the fidelity and eliminate digi artifacts.
So, I've not heard or experienced any noticeable degradation of analogue FM quality. I wonder if that is a manufacture (JVC) specific issue?
That's is a great question. Pinpointing a time in the technology timeline, as not to compare CBS Labs and older stuff to modern DSP, I'd think the comparison would have to be state of the art pre-DSP analogue, perhaps Optimod 8100A + XT 2 or Unity 2000 as analogue benchmarks. Personally, I'd use the Vigilante with all the associated pre-processors to do that test.
But I think the only true benchmark that could be quantitatively measured and agreed upon for comparison would be loudness measured via an SPL meter. It would seem that all else would be totally subjective.
You're thinking of a tube-type AGC amplifier, really Gates Radio's competitor for the CBS Audimax. It was called the "Sta-Level." These amplifiers are so highly sought today in the surplus market, a company called Retro is marketing very pricey repro versions, complete with the same tube complement. I'm told commercial recording studios which sport restored Sta-Levels are highly thought of.
Gates made a gated version called the "Level Devil," but it wasn't as popular as the Sta-Level.
Gates made a gated version called the "Level Devil," but it wasn't as popular as the Sta-Level.
As long as it is not pushed too far, switching to an Optimod 8000 would actually be a massive improvement in the sound of most major-market commercial FM stations. I'd take a little bit of HF ducking any day over the hyper-compressed, clipped, and distorted sound that I hear on FM radio these days.
There are some direct audio samples from an Optimod 8000 beginning at 5:47 in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brlg_JTvH0Y
There are some direct audio samples from an Optimod 8000 beginning at 5:47 in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brlg_JTvH0Y
Ahhh, thx. Hope I didn't let the cat out of the bag. I'll have to get my moniker STAY-MAX trademarked before the pharmaceuticals get a hold of it.
They'll make for great ads though, "Now you can have loudness and distortion together...
and in the small print: Loudness and Distortion lasting for more than 4 hours is a medical emergency and requires immediate medical attention"
Ok, I am confused. Is analog being stiff I mean loud good or bad? I think if you sour the analog people will just tune away or off. The only way to get people to listen to HD is by force. Sorry, by the end of 2014 you will no longer get analog FM and you need a new radio. Hmmm, will they buy a new radio or just stream from internet? One thing is for sure, HD2 and HD3 content is very necessary otherwise what is the real advantage of FM HD anyway? Ok, maybe the artist experience that shows pretty logos or album pics but is anyone doing that? Where can I get a radio like that? Walmart? Sears? Best buy? I'm guessing that is going to be tough to find.
I got it, maybe all the radio stations should give HD radios away or at a reduced price. I don't mean 3 I mean like hundreds or thousands. Just think of the promo budget now!!!! Just have engineering on standby for all the questions like why does the HD2 cut out. Why can't I receive your station, it had a little static before but now it is just silent?
I don't see analog ever going away unless a more solid digital system is deployed. I see the future of broadcasting going to multiple digital lower power transmitters serving an area, getting away from 1 high power transmitter. This allows for better overall coverage and higher bit rates for better audio quality.
I got it, maybe all the radio stations should give HD radios away or at a reduced price. I don't mean 3 I mean like hundreds or thousands. Just think of the promo budget now!!!! Just have engineering on standby for all the questions like why does the HD2 cut out. Why can't I receive your station, it had a little static before but now it is just silent?
I don't see analog ever going away unless a more solid digital system is deployed. I see the future of broadcasting going to multiple digital lower power transmitters serving an area, getting away from 1 high power transmitter. This allows for better overall coverage and higher bit rates for better audio quality.
There is a huge problem with HD as a blind person. its on, or off. i have no way of knowing when its gonna come on or go off. this is the same problem with satelite. the static you can clear up on anolog cause you can hear it and rotate the antenna or move the unit depending on what kind of equipment you are using.
I'm in The Villages right now. I turned on 105.9. i switched to the HD2. it was rock solid, but the antenna got moved and it didn't come in. when i moved the antenna around it didn't come in, but when i walked away the audio came back. there is no way to Discern the signal via sound. audio RDS would be nice, but the station always identifies itself. and you can look up info on say radio-locator to see what is available in each market. song info can be gotten via a stream on the web.
I'm in The Villages right now. I turned on 105.9. i switched to the HD2. it was rock solid, but the antenna got moved and it didn't come in. when i moved the antenna around it didn't come in, but when i walked away the audio came back. there is no way to Discern the signal via sound. audio RDS would be nice, but the station always identifies itself. and you can look up info on say radio-locator to see what is available in each market. song info can be gotten via a stream on the web.
My comments there were totally facetious. I was recalling many early processors from days gone by and couldn't remember the one called STAY LEVEL. I knew there was something like that, but had forgotten the exact name. So I asked the board if it was called STAY MAX, a name that suggests it has the effect of a PDE 5 inhibitor, the medication used for E. D. (such as the Viargra name brand).
When a reply was received with the correct name, STAY LEVEL, I convoluted my suggestion of the name STAY MAX with a typical 1980's discussion direct from the Orban sales literature concerning loudness versus distortion by suggestion an audio processor called STAY MAX could offer a broadcaster new capabilities of simultaneous loudness with distortion upon demand. And then spun the warning message attached to the pharm industry by ending my comment with "loudness and distortion is a medical emergency."
In effect, I convoluted audio processing terminology with pharmaceutical lingo and carried the BAD metaphor forward to the extreme.
The tumescense or stiffness of loud analog audio is neither good nor bad... this is a very subjective question when discussing audio and transmission processing.
We agree in principal, the only way to get people to listen and use HD IS by force. I was suggesting a more gentle approach, again being facetious, by suggesting that everyone revert to 1977 standards for FM Stereo, thereby gently forcing the audience to adapt. Turing analog OFF would indeed have the same effect - make HD have value that it does not innately possess iteself without creating artificial value through coercion of the listener.
JRZFM100 said:
Let me guess: You have never owned a station before. Believe me, it shows.
A radio station that is off the air (and that's what turning off the analog would effectively do) has no listeners, no value to its owners except that of its physical facilities and no value to its advertisers. It's dead. It's non-existent. Given the number of people who couldn't give less of a bleep about HD if they tried (i.e., the overwhelming majority of users of radio), turning off analog audio in favor of HD would just hasten the total demise of the AM band. They would turn on their radios, hear nothing but digital hash, and figure that the station just went away. Those who would bother to call the station and be told to buy an HD radio would likely react: "Why should I have to do that? My radio was working just fine until you broke your station!"
As we've been saying on this board for years: HD is an answer to a question that was never asked in the first place.
Nope. I'm simply looking at this from the paradigm of value creation and the value proposition - that is the question of where the value resides. From the discussion beginning it was established that users migrated from AM to FM because of the giant order of magnitude gained in FM quality. Thus, to the end user, FM inherently possessed more innate value as opposed to the alternative medium, AM - the value of FM versus AM was recognized by listener migration (also more generically called a change in user behavior).
Unlike FM versus AM and broadcasters' historical experience with listener migration from a lower to higher value medium, HD-1 versus FM analog DOES NOT possess any value add - the listener doesn't see the value of HD-1 because it is scant compared to FM analog.
So, hypothetically speaking, blue sky thinking, broadcast licensee's have only one option to induce listeners to migrate to HD-1 (and thus HD's>1), is to impair the quality of FM analog. Turning off FM analog would be the extreme case, and neither the muddying FM option or complete shutdown is viable in the real world of revenue generation.
The mere fact that listeners don't / won't migrate from FM to HD-1 is a case study in itself of the failure of HD Radio due to the lack of value added by HD Radio.
You didn't take me at biblical-literal did you?
Particularly since not only is this hypothetical FM to HD motivation suggestion completely ridiculous, but also my claim that loudness and distortion lasting more than hours is an actual medical emergency is a highly moronic, dim whited thought at best, intended as entertainment only.
Please don't attempt this at home!
If you look back at the pre FCC deregulation days circa 1989, there was a legitimate need for HD Radio.
(1) The state of FM audio quality was significantly impaired as compared to the CD medium due to the state of development of analog Audio Processing and broad use of magnetic tape, cart machines, etc.
[the mitigation of inferior FM audio via DSP based, multiband audio processing and hard drive based audio filled the very perceptual gap between FM and CD]
(2) When the ownership rules limited a broadcast licensee only (2) stations per market, one AM and one FM, broadcasters would have been overjoyed to have the full three channel FM capability, as it would have automatically expanded a licensee's revenue stream from 1 to 3.
From this point, developing HD-2 / HD-3 as a real alternative to competitors would have been attractive; competition between single FM licensee's would have been driven actively in pursuit of listeners and thus revenue.
[When you can own 3 or more analog FM signals in any give market, a broadcaster no longer needs to develop HD's>1 to add revenue streams; the market is saturated and it's overkill. Thus, HD subchannels loose their value in the deregulated marketplace of multiple ownership. Thank the FCC and deregulation for hampering the value of FM multicasting]
D
diymedia
Guest
JRZFM100 said:
In 1989, Project Acorn was just being founded...and the entire effort (for several years) was simply to prove that analog and digital signals could coexist. Long story short, HD's impetus was as a proof-of-concept, once described by iBiquity's Bob Struble as "a big science project...it wasn't really a whole hog effort."
That's a long way from being the product of any deep thinking about qualitative improvement of the broadcast bands from a fidelity or content perspective.
- Status