A POST FOR BOTH THOSE WHO LIKE HD RADIO AND THOSE WHO DON'T.

[radiotower40]

I found this article from the LA Times, it was written in August, 2009. Many of you may have already seen this
article, I had not seen it yet. It was written by the writer of the Tech Trends column in The LA Times, David Colker.

www.http://articles.latimes.com/aug/2009/08/business/fi-hd-radio8

I found this to be a very straight forward article about the realities of HD radio. I thought this was an especially
important article for listeners out there, who may be thinking of buying a portable HD radio, for activities such
as jogging or working out in a club. This piece comes from someone who tried an HD radio, and found it was not very
useful for the people it is being marketed too. In other words, like many of us has said time and again, HD does
not, in most cases, perform as promised. It also goes to show that it will probably sour people on radio in general,
defeating the purpose of attracting younger people back to the radio. In reality, a lot of young people are already
ignoring traditional traditional radio, in favor of I-pods and mp3 players. This type of experience will only help
to cement that reality even further.

I also felt it important to post this due to the fact that myself, as well as, many of the other critics of HD Radio,
on this board, have been told that we are being negative about HD Radio. I will be the first to admit that I have.

This was not always the case. When HD Radio was first being looked into, I was very excited at the claims being
made. Things such as AM sounding like FM, FM sounding like CD quality. FM stations being able to multicast, so I
started doing the research, talking to people who knew more than me about HD radio, and found that most I
spoke too were rather hopeful about HD, from what they had been told.

Unfortunately, just like myself, when we learned that what they promised was not reality, we were very disappointed.
When HD hit the air, there was hissing all over the AM band, FM reception on second adjacent was noticeably weaker
than before, if I could even hear said channel comfortably through all the white noise.

My point in this post is to show that we are not saying negative things about HD radio, because we enjoy doing so,
but because we were mislead about HD radio, and would like to let anyone out there who is considering purchasing
an HD radio to have the facts about it.

I kind of look at it as someone who reviews movies, would you want them to tell you that the movie has great 3D
effects, great sound effects and will make every other movie you've seen pail in comparison? Then you go to see
the movie, only to find out that you have to wear 10 Lb. 3D glasses and a big bulky hearing aid to experience the
movie as it was promised? You would probably walk out of the theatre before the movie ends demanding your
money back for just having to see Avitar in black and white, and having to read the sound on the screen, like an
old silent movie, because the sound wouldn't lock in?

I hope this post will help anyone that works in, or listens to the radio understand why most of what you here on
this board about HD radio is not positive.

 

[radiotower40]

I apologize that the link I provided is no longer working. I will try and find another way to link to the article.

In the meantime if you wish you can do a Google search for David Colker, and HD radio and you should be
able to find the article. That is how I originally found the article. I'm sorry for the problem.

 

[HowardMBurgers]

It also goes to show that it will probably sour people on radio in general,
defeating the purpose of attracting younger people back to the radio. In reality, a lot of young people are already
ignoring traditional traditional radio, in favor of I-pods and mp3 players. This type of experience will only help
to cement that reality even further.

I don't believe this is the case at all. Those who own IPods have reduced their dependence on radio for music and information already. Many 25+ may listen to radio as well, but I don't think that someone would completely stop listening to all radio, especially in their car, if their experience with a portable HD capable receiver doesn't meet expectations. These consumers already know analog FM radio is there and available. Sure there may be some dissapointment about not being able to listen to alternate programming, but to think that would sour them away from radio completely, is again in my view a stretch.

I hope this post will help anyone that works in, or listens to the radio understand why most of what you here on
this board about HD radio is not positive.

Speaking for myself, I would never diminish anyone's personal opinion about some consumer device or experience. That experience is yours and you have a right to express an opinion. What troubles me, is the seemingly constant repetition of saying the same thing over and over by a few individuals as if one is effectively ramming an opinion down the throat of another who's maybe on the fence, or interested in HD radio. Should someone post a positive experience, its only a matter of seconds before the labeling and denigration fires up to the point where it is no longer relaying personal experience, but some not-so-subtle attempt to taint a discussion.

It seems to me that most who visit or participate in the Radio-Info discussion boards are either radio-centric hobbyests, or career folks who are either currently working in, or retired from the industry. To think that posting the same repetitive negative comments over and over by the same group of people in the interest of detouring either the radio industry or consumers away from HD radio, is a complete waste of time and space.

If you feel so passionate against HD radio, then go to your local Clear Channel or Entercom station and picket outside. If you want to reach consumers, go picket outside your local Best Buy, Radio Shack or BMW dealership. Better yet, spend the time you spend here getting all fired up writing rebuttals to someone with a alternate opinion, by writing your Congressperson about the ills of HD radio.

 

[davideduardo]

In reality, a lot of young people are already
ignoring traditional traditional radio, in favor of I-pods and mp3 players. This type of experience will only help
to cement that reality even further.

You seem to ignore the 95% of all 12-34's who listen to radio. Building an argument on a false premise invalidates the entire argument.

 

[K4WRF]

In reality, a lot of young people are already
ignoring traditional traditional radio, in favor of I-pods and mp3 players. This type of experience will only help
to cement that reality even further.

You seem to ignore the 95% of all 12-34's who listen to radio. Building an argument on a false premise invalidates the entire argument.

That 95% over the range of 12 to 34 who listen to OTA radio, which way is that TSL trend going over say the past five years?

 

[davideduardo]

That 95% over the range of 12 to 34 who listen to OTA radio, which way is that TSL trend going over say the past five years?

Actually, in the last few years the trend has not been anywhere as severe as it was in the 1988-1998 period... before satellite, streaming, iPods and whatever. The analysis had to do with better measurement, less leisure time, more alternatives (the portable CD hit $100 around 1988) and even things like gaming...

All those things considered, radio has done quite well within the obvious scenario of ongoing fragmentation.

 

[radiotower40]

In reality, a lot of young people are already
ignoring traditional traditional radio, in favor of I-pods and mp3 players. This type of experience will only help
to cement that reality even further.

You seem to ignore the 95% of all 12-34's who listen to radio. Building an argument on a false premise invalidates the entire argument.

It also invalidates an argument when you state a figure, yet you don't tell the entire story behind that figure.

You stated that 95% of all 12-34's listen to the radio, that is based on Arbitron findings, I have read these facts.
You once again, have taken a truthful statistic, and used it to manipulate and invalidate, every other statement I made
in my post. You have done this time and time again. You are once again doing so. It is very deceptive to just say that
95% of 12-34's listen to the radio, without giving the whole story behind that figure.

That figure of 95% is based on people in that age group, who listen to the radio, once a week. That could be as little
as 15 minutes in any given week. It does NOT mean that 95% of people 12-34, are listening to the radio consistently,
the way you stated that fact was very idiomatic.

I was NOT building an argument on a false premise, in fact that was not even the reason for my post. You are not
a moderator on this board, therefore you are not in a position to tell anyone on this board that their post or opinion
is invalid, and disrupt the flow of a thread, with no other intention than too derail it off the topic.

I started this post in response to an earlier thread on the HD board, about people being negative about HD Radio. My
purpose was to be respectful to people on both sides of the issue, and explain in a rational way, why people on the
board believe that HD radio is flawed.

The spirit of my post, was not to be negative or to repeat the same things about HD, that have been talked about
often. I also did not post this to diminish anyone's personal choice of listening device's, or infer that their opinion is less
important than mine. That is exactly what I was trying NOT to do. If I came across that way, I apologize.

Howard, I do not wish to force my opinion down anyone's throat, although I can understand at times it does seem that
way. On the other hand, if I was coming to this board, as someone who didn't know much about HD Radio, and how it
works, I would rather hear the bad and the good and then make my decision if a certain device was the right fit for
my needs. This is the HD radio board, and I agree with you that most people that discuss issues on this forum, are
either people in the business, or people who enjoy radio as hobby. There are people here that read the opinions and
and don't ever post. I must ask you however, should we no longer post a negative comment about HD Radio, on an
HD radio board? I don't mean that to sound sarcastic, but, that is what this board was designed for.

No one is being told that they can't come here and post their positive experience with HD. I have seen a few
people here post what they like about the system. I do not try to tell them their opinions are invalid, or that they
should not express their opinion here. Just like I stated before, I was trying to put into perspective why people
here are for the most part, not in favor of this system. I was not the one who turned this into an angry post.

I also do not need anyone telling me how I should spend my time, you don't know me. You don't know whom I've
talked to written to or spoken to about HD Radio. If you don't like my opinions on this subject, don't read them!

I do like your idea of picketing outside of a Best Buy store though. I had never thought of that! I guess that's
because no one at my local Best Buy, neither customer or an employee knows what HD radio is. I was there
before Christmas to take a look at the new Insignia portable, and I could not find one. I looked through the
entire section of portable devices, they had portable CD players, mp3's and even a Sony AM/FM/cassette player.
I asked an employee if they had them somewhere else in the store. He didn't know what they were, but he told
me they have HD TV's. I'm not knocking the kid, he was working hard, he even offered to get a manager for me.
I politely said no, and went to look at the net books, which the employees knew a lot about.

 

[davideduardo]

You stated that 95% of all 12-34's listen to the radio, that is based on Arbitron findings, I have read these facts. You once again, have taken a truthful statistic, and used it to manipulate and invalidate, every other statement I made in my post. You have done this time and time again. You are once again doing so. It is very deceptive to just say that 95% of 12-34's listen to the radio, without giving the whole story behind that figure. That figure of 95% is based on people in that age group, who listen to the radio, once a week. That could be as little as 15 minutes in any given week. It does NOT mean that 95% of people 12-34, are listening to the radio consistently,the way you stated that fact was very idiomatic.

That's the way cume (the total number of different people reached by an electronic medium) is determined. Cume, based on "listening at least once for even an incredibly small amount of time" is the basis of reach and frequency, the "other" common metric of radio beyond CPP or CPM. There is not anything unusual or "idiomatic" about stating that fact.

My point is similarly simple: teens and young adults have not abandoned radio. Sure, they use it less. Nearly ever group based on age, income, gender, ethnicity, language dominance, etc., has been using less radio since the TSL peak in 1988.

You are not a moderator on this board, therefore you are not in a position to tell anyone on this board that their post or opinion is invalid, and disrupt the flow of a thread, with no other intention than too derail it off the topic.

You introduced the issue of listening in certain demographics as what I would label an illustration of your premise that HD would not attract people "back to radio." Your conclusion may be totally accurate, but the facts about listening you posted are totally inaccurate, simplistic and one sided.

As to "thread police" related issues, neither you nor I are restricted by other than the moderator for taking a discussion in any direction we want, sidebars and such notwithstanding. (Topics that wander too far off can be TIO'ed or moved to a different forum.)

 

[dwtpa97]

Does "Cume" mean that even while surfing across the channels, a momentary stop on a channel will register as significant, even though you don't remain on that channel?

 

[KB1OKL]

Picket outside best buy? Why give a hopeless flop publicity? It has been, is now and will continue to be a dead man walking. My local Best Buy has lines at the cell phone kiosk which do just about everything nowadays. HD radio? Last time I looked I couldn't find any ANYWHERE. The only people who care about it are the poor suckers who invested good money in it to find that they totally wasted their dough, those and the other poor suckers who's livelihoods are impacted negatively by this noisy scam. The vast majority of listeners don't know why their band has gotten noisier and noisier over the past few years, they just go buy other types of mediums with which to listen to music.

 

[davideduardo]

Does "Cume" mean that even while surfing across the channels, a momentary stop on a channel will register as significant, even though you don't remain on that channel?

No, it means getting credit for at least one quarter hour. For that, it requires listening detections during at least 5 discreet minutes in a specific quarter hour.

Since most "surfing" (called "scanning" in radio) occurs in cars, and in-car is only about 30% to 33% of radio listening in most markets, that is really not that big a factor.

 

[TVradioguru]

The vast majority of listeners don't know why their band has gotten noisier and noisier over the past few years, they just go buy other types of mediums with which to listen to music.

Really! So you're going to type with a straight face, that radio listeners are buying MP3 players because of HD radio? Dude, you need a new hobby or at least real-world information. That's the most bizarre statement I've ever read on these boards.

But okay I'll bite.. Where did you come up with figures that "the vast majority" of listeners give a rats arse about HD radio, or notice what noise is on the band. You can't be serious..tell me you're joking please!

Aside from a tiny percentage of DX Geeks left in the U.S., listeners 60+ who happen to be the only ones left listening to AM, could care less about stupid HD radio. There aren't enough stations running HD-AM on the air to make much of an impact anyway.

Wow, I'm still stunned by that comment. Hilarious!

 

[Tom Wells]

The vast majority of listeners don't know why their band has gotten noisier and noisier over the past few years, they just go buy other types of mediums with which to listen to music.

Really! So you're going to type with a straight face, that radio listeners are buying MP3 players because of HD radio? Dude, you need a new hobby or at least real-world information. That's the most bizarre statement I've ever read on these boards.

But okay I'll bite.. Where did you come up with figures that "the vast majority" of listeners give a rats arse about HD radio, or notice what noise is on the band. You can't be serious..tell me you're joking please!

Aside from a tiny percentage of DX Geeks left in the U.S., listeners 60+ who happen to be the only ones left listening to AM, could care less about stupid HD radio. There aren't enough stations running HD-AM on the air to make much of an impact anyway.

Wow, I'm still stunned by that comment. Hilarious!

I doubt KB10KL is referring to the IBOC problem alone, which is only the icing on the cake of a mess the FCC created out of
RF noise generated by every sort of new device produced since SCR and TRIAC designs became feasible.
At one time none of these things would have been permitted. Now any old buzz-saw seems a just another drop in the bucket.
The bucket's 75% full of noise, and that leaves only 25% of "room" for your modulation to exist, and it'd better be dense on AM these days.

The vast majority of listeners are now past the age where they ever had a wideband yet high selectivity receiver.
Accidents do occur with that premise, cheap clock radios in strong signals, Chrysler auto radios, the wideband analog portable, etc.
They may have heard AMs that exceed 10khz and know AM doesn't necessarily mean inferior audio in any way.
They have heard every sort of degradation, incrementally, over the past 40 years, and they are leaving, incrementally.
I'll list what's been added over the years to degrade the viability of MW over my lifetime.

Color TV chroma 3.58 Mhz whines once upon a time, long gone as a complaint now...
more currently,
SCRs and TRIACs not properly RF bypased in industrial, commercial and consumer designs.
LED lighting in "pulsed" mode as used in traffic signals to be "brighter", but not RF bypassed.
Flourescent fixtures not RF bypassed at socket.
Contact closures of all types not RF bypassed when over 24v AC or DC. (yes, even the aquarium heater)
Outdoor HID lighting not RF bypassed.
Utility lines and equipment with surface leakage arcing, uncorrected for long periods.
Broadband over AC
Automatic utility metering 900 mhz, data modulated so artifacts hit the AM band as a "constant rate spark plug noise",
when not approved for continuous transmit mode, which was used as a kludge when the receiver had so much local receiver RF noise it couldn't hear the truck outside "polling" the meter.
All RF modulated coax cable systems. Twisted pair networks are way better than cable regarding noise in or out.

But why has the FCC decided that all these things were pt 15 compliant, when they have accumulated into a such
a horrific mess? It has to be one or the other. I see them as non-compliant. I'm not calling for anyone to stop using more efficient technolgies, I'm calling for them to stop exploiting their efficiency upon the public resource of radio.
There is a way to produce products that do not kick nose back into the line, it just costs a bit more.

That's why radio listeners are buying mp3 players. Ever more of them get computers, and it seems to be something new to try.

 

[ddsparxx]

Picket outside best buy? Why give a hopeless flop publicity? It has been, is now and will continue to be a dead man walking. My local Best Buy has lines at the cell phone kiosk which do just about everything nowadays. HD radio? Last time I looked I couldn't find any ANYWHERE. The only people who care about it are the poor suckers who invested good money in it to find that they totally wasted their dough, those and the other poor suckers who's livelihoods are impacted negatively by this noisy scam. The vast majority of listeners don't know why their band has gotten noisier and noisier over the past few years, they just go buy other types of mediums with which to listen to music.

My local Best Buy also has people standing in the line at the cell phone department and at the same time, no one is looking at Insignia's HD Radio tuners in the home audio section.

 

[ddsparxx]

Perhaps I may want to add this to Tom's list...blenders used in the kitchen and high speed internet; in one house with high speed I had to deal with loud noises and I once went outdoors with a GE Superadio II.

 

[TVradioguru]

I doubt KB10KL is referring to the IBOC problem alone, which is only the icing on the cake of a mess the FCC created out of
RF noise generated by every sort of new device produced since SCR and TRIAC designs became feasible.
At one time none of these things would have been permitted. Now any old buzz-saw seems a just another drop in the bucket.
The bucket's 75% full of noise, and that leaves only 25% of "room" for your modulation to exist, and it'd better be dense on AM these days.

Perhaps, but the fact remains with the world of FM stereo and MP3 players, the public under 50 have spoken. AM is irrelevant to them, period. The audio is awful, for whatever the reason you choose to believe and the only thing on there is lo-fi sports and right wing talk shows. If you own or work for an AM station, time to start looking at a career change or retirement.

The vast majority of listeners are now past the age where they ever had a wideband yet high selectivity receiver.
Accidents do occur with that premise, cheap clock radios in strong signals, Chrysler auto radios, the wideband analog portable, etc.
They may have heard AMs that exceed 10khz and know AM doesn't necessarily mean inferior audio in any way.
They have heard every sort of degradation, incrementally, over the past 40 years, and they are leaving, incrementally.
I'll list what's been added over the years to degrade the viability of MW over my lifetime.

Color TV chroma 3.58 Mhz whines once upon a time, long gone as a complaint now...
more currently,
SCRs and TRIACs not properly RF bypased in industrial, commercial and consumer designs.
LED lighting in "pulsed" mode as used in traffic signals to be "brighter", but not RF bypassed.
Flourescent fixtures not RF bypassed at socket.
Contact closures of all types not RF bypassed when over 24v AC or DC. (yes, even the aquarium heater)
Outdoor HID lighting not RF bypassed.
Utility lines and equipment with surface leakage arcing, uncorrected for long periods.
Broadband over AC
Automatic utility metering 900 mhz, data modulated so artifacts hit the AM band as a "constant rate spark plug noise",
when not approved for continuous transmit mode, which was used as a kludge when the receiver had so much local receiver RF noise it couldn't hear the truck outside "polling" the meter.
All RF modulated coax cable systems. Twisted pair networks are way better than cable regarding noise in or out.

But why has the FCC decided that all these things were pt 15 compliant, when they have accumulated into a such
a horrific mess? It has to be one or the other. I see them as non-compliant. I'm not calling for anyone to stop using more efficient technolgies, I'm calling for them to stop exploiting their efficiency upon the public resource of radio.
There is a way to produce products that do not kick nose back into the line, it just costs a bit more.

That's why radio listeners are buying mp3 players. Ever more of them get computers, and it seems to be something new to try.

I have no idea what you mean with all the electro-babble. I'm in broadcast corporate management.
It's silly to blame noise from whatever source on the demise of AM radio. AM sounds bad, always has really. And why would one choose to listen to distorted, muffled, noisy right-wing talk hash, when you can buy an IPod and program what ever music or spoken word content you want in very high quality?

You old radio fogies are pretty amazing. The facts and truth are right in front of you, yet you persist on blaming the government for the replacement of the 'buggy whip'. Time to join the 21st Century Rip Van Winkle, already in progress.

 

[davideduardo]

It's silly to blame noise from whatever source on the demise of AM radio. AM sounds bad, always has really. And why would one choose to listen to distorted, muffled, noisy right-wing talk hash, when you can buy an IPod and program what ever music or spoken word content you want in very high quality?

The sound of AM on today's radios is much worse than it was on the radios of 20 years ago or more. When we see station after station move conservative talk formats and sports formats from AM to FM (totally or in simulcast) and then experience huge 25-54 growth, we know the issue is entirely the problems of the AM band. Whether the issue is noise, fidelity, signal coverage, or any other one, real or perceived, the fact is that people stay away from AM in droves.

 

[audioguy]

The sound of AM on today's radios is much worse than it was on the radios of 20 years ago or more. When we see station after station move conservative talk formats and sports formats from AM to FM (totally or in simulcast) and then experience huge 25-54 growth, we know the issue is entirely the problems of the AM band. Whether the issue is noise, fidelity, signal coverage, or any other one, real or perceived, the fact is that people stay away from AM in droves.

That is an overly broad generalization. There are a number of receivers on the market that offer excellent AM reception. I have tabletop receivers from KLH, Tivoli, Sony, and Sangean that have great audio performance. There are portable radios from Sony, Panasonic, and GE that also offer good sound quality. Likewise, there are many receivers that sound awful-- even on FM.

 

[davideduardo]

There are a number of receivers on the market that offer excellent AM reception. I have tabletop receivers from KLH, Tivoli, Sony, and Sangean that have great audio performance. There are portable radios from Sony, Panasonic, and GE that also offer good sound quality. Likewise, there are many receivers that sound awful-- even on FM.

But while there are a few models that sound better than the average unit, I don't think that a few of them are significant comared to the millions that sound terrible. Few people even buy a "radio" today... they buy appliances that include radios along with alarms, iPhone chargers, etc. And on most of those, if AM is even included, it's hardly a priority... and thus done at the lowest cost possible.

 

[davideduardo]

The sound of AM on today's radios is much worse than it was on the radios of 20 years ago or more. When we see station after station move conservative talk formats and sports formats from AM to FM (totally or in simulcast) and then experience huge 25-54 growth, we know the issue is entirely the problems of the AM band. Whether the issue is noise, fidelity, signal coverage, or any other one, real or perceived, the fact is that people stay away from AM in droves.

That is an overly broad generalization. There are a number of receivers on the market that offer excellent AM reception. I have tabletop receivers from KLH, Tivoli, Sony, and Sangean that have great audio performance. There are portable radios from Sony, Panasonic, and GE that also offer good sound quality. Likewise, there are many receivers that sound awful-- even on FM.