-
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
AM HD TURNOFF PACE ACCELERATES
- Thread starter Savage
- Start date
I would think that there are a lot more people who know what a direct to disc recording is than know what HD radio is, direct to disc was actually a successful venture as compared to HD which as we all know has been a dismal failure. I don't have any of those but own several half speed masters which sound great.
iyiyi said:
I couldn't disagree more. It may make more sense to convert the analog sound waves we hear into digital form for transporting over broad data pipes like the internet, or encoding onto massive data structures like Blu-Ray or 4k digital projection units for movie houses. But for listening on the go, in the car, or in the office or on a portable, analog radio is still our best option.
In its current guises with FM stereo and AM limited to 10 kHz it may lack the wide dynamic range and quiet noise floor of a digital audio signal, but it manages to convey the analog sounds we hear with our analog ears well enough for most casual users. It's true that digital CAN improve this, and no doubt if we could have allocated an FM-like band to all-digital broadcasting with a sufficiently robust system we might be turning a page in history at this point.
But we didn't.
Radio insisted on keeping its valuable spectrum by not wanting to dilute things with "another band". That's a technical limitation that has forced us into this kludgy IBOC system we have, that, frankly, is impressive that it almost works at all.
So what's the lesson here? Yes, digital can do better. But only with sufficient bandwidth, which the FM & AM bands lack, which is why HD sounds so poor compared to the audio we get from movies and TV shows and even some internet streams these days. If only the 700 MHz spectrum was available a decade ago, radio could have had a great place to 'relocate' with sufficient spectrum to allow for us to migrate FM and AM together to equal footing on non-multiplexed/shared systems just like we have now. But who would actually support this? No one wants the added competition of equality…
The other lesson is that radio really screwed this one up. HD radio, as much as I want to love it, has been an evolutionary cul-de-sac for the industry. Because they were too afraid of having a "new digital" band to possibly compete with (one that, in all reality, could probably never be easily allocated with the spectrum resources of the 90s anyway) they wound up losing control of the battle completely, ceding the future to internet delivery via smartphones which mostly don't have radios in them at all in the US. By being protectionist and anti-competitive, radio has managed to lose the position as the controlling source of easy to obtain free music and information. It's now just another button on the virtual display in your dash board.
As it stands, analog FM and AM radio are our best bets for the medium. The so-called innovations of HD could be done in the analog domain, anyway: PAD data, tagging songs, improved fidelity through better processing at the studio & transmitter.
Zach said:
Huh? Radio companies don't own their frequencies, so they don't have control of them either. That's part of the problem. Being a licensee doesn't put you in control. Radio companies are always basically piggy-backing on someone else's distribution. So if it's AM/FM or the internet or wireless, it's all the same to them.
TheBigA said:
Well yeah, for all intents and purposes they do. Licenses can be revoked but it's very, very rare. They have the license and own the transmitter, studio and music library plus personnel, so they basically "own" their space on the dial for as long as they can handle it.
My point was that radio was the place to go to hear new music, familiar favorites and also informational programming. They were the ones with the dominant position for entertainment on the go. But they were scared that opening a new band for all-digital broadcasting would increase competition, so they balked at the idea. I've heard this story told to me countless times. If the Feds had the spectrum and had offered it to radio for free they probably still would have turned it down because there's too much value in their existing dial positions. FM more or less doesn't even really compete with AM anymore; but what if AM and FM sounded the same and were on the same "dial"? That's competition the FM stations would rather not have. But they could have figured out an all-digital solution that could have existed side-by-side with existing allocations and staved off some of the desire people have to seek programming elsewhere. Why would you go online or to satellite if every city an extra 20 formats on the air?
So now the medium is slowly becoming irrelevant and radio is just a feature on someone else's device. It would have happened eventually, but the pace might've slowed a bit if radio remained more relevant to more people by offering more compelling formats on a new band.
Ironically enough FM is still facing new competition on the same band thanks to the recent translator craze of rebroadcasting HDs and AMs in market. So the FM moneymakers not only lost the chance to remain the #1 go to for aural entertainment, they lost the battle against having more "radio" competition on their band.
Zach said:
They have no control over a lot of it. And the FCC is out to lunch. So nothing gets done. That's been the MO for 15 years. If the radio companies owned those frequencies, the way Telecom now owns the spectrum, things would be very different.
Zach said:
I've heard Mother Goose countless times. That doesn't mean it's true. The FCC was very clear when it announced digital TV that there would be no similar mandate for radio. So there was nothing to worry about. Clear Channel and CBS were already investing in digital transmission systems, so they weren't "scared" of anything.
Zach said:
You understand that the same companies that own FM stations also own AM? So it's not a competition between bands. Most companies own both. They would have loved a way to create parity between AM and FM. I don't know where you get your information.
Zach said:
Radio has been on "someone else's device" for 25 years. Ever since the radio companies got out of manufacturing, they've been dependent on electronics manufacturers for building and marketing devices for their content. And for the past 25 years, the relationship between radio and Consumer Electronics has deteriorated. That's why you don't see any exciting new radios like Walkmen or Boom boxes any more.
Zach said:
More compelling formats? Really? I have a friend who works at Sirius. They offer 100 formats. He tells me the ones that get the most listenership are the exact same ones available on OTA radio. So you can talk yourself into thinking bluegrass or jazz is more compelling. But the audience loves Justin Beiber and Taylor Swift. What happened in the last 25 years is that music splintered into lots of sub-genres, most of which are so small that they don't move the meters. People want music their way, and don't want to sit through other people's favorites. We've become intolerant of other people's tastes and opinions. That's why Congress can't get anything done, and that's why radio is having trouble building a large enough audience base.
It has nothing to do with "offering more compelling formats." They tried that on HD, and no one cared. Had there been a new digital band, as you suggest, it would have faced the same exact uphill battle, because the public isn't motivated to buy new radios (regardless of the word "digital") and because they can get the same content from devices they already own.
D
diymedia
Guest
Actually, the NAB was prepared to license Eureka 147 to its membership until the Pentagon stepped in and announced it wouldn't relinquish the spectrum on which to do it. NPR even tried to get Congress to force a spectrum set-aside, but it went nowhere. Thus the FCC effectively separated terrestrial from its original digital radio rulemaking, from which Sirius XM was born.
The IBOC effort has been a retrenchment exercise, wholly designed to protect the incumbency of existing broadcasters, making do with what they had back after trying first for a spectrum set-aside. (Yes, Project Acorn was launched while the whole new-spectrum idea was in play...but first more as a "science experiment" than as insurance.) And the constitutive decisions of what IBOC would/could be were made back then broadcasters conceived of their primary future threat as satellite. But when the Telecom Act passed, radio focused on consolidation, for the most part completely unaware of the convergence phenomenon that the Act would also precipitate. DTV's transition was mandated by Congress as a part of the Act; there was no similar provision for radio, and iBiquity's proprietary nature was the primary reason given by the FCC for "letting the marketplace decide" the pace of radio's digital transition.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that the reality of the situation is not as simple as the declarations made here...though everyone is also right to a degree.
The IBOC effort has been a retrenchment exercise, wholly designed to protect the incumbency of existing broadcasters, making do with what they had back after trying first for a spectrum set-aside. (Yes, Project Acorn was launched while the whole new-spectrum idea was in play...but first more as a "science experiment" than as insurance.) And the constitutive decisions of what IBOC would/could be were made back then broadcasters conceived of their primary future threat as satellite. But when the Telecom Act passed, radio focused on consolidation, for the most part completely unaware of the convergence phenomenon that the Act would also precipitate. DTV's transition was mandated by Congress as a part of the Act; there was no similar provision for radio, and iBiquity's proprietary nature was the primary reason given by the FCC for "letting the marketplace decide" the pace of radio's digital transition.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that the reality of the situation is not as simple as the declarations made here...though everyone is also right to a degree.
diymedia said:
It depends on who you mean by "radio." If you mean a small handful of companies and 15% of the stations, OK. But the vast majority of radio was largely unaffected by the 96 Act. The same handful of companies you say were focused on consolidation were also investing in XM and various other digital technologies, including IBOC during this time. Companies can do different things. Sure their financial people were consolidating. But their engineering staffs were all thinking seriously about various digital platforms, especially when it was clear there'd be no co-operation from the FCC. I clearly remember CBS launching a new series of digital platforms like MarketWatch and HealthWatch in 1997. Other companies were slower to adapt to the new realities. But radio didn't act as a monolyth in this process.
D
diymedia
Guest
TheBigA said:
You're absolutely right, and that is also part of the problem. Those conglomerates, plus NPR (who control the majority of industry revenue, though far from the majority of stations) were the ones pushing IBOC the hardest. The FCC, enamored with economic metrics over all else, looked at the coalition behind HD and said, "well, if those who 'control' the industry are in agreement, then it must be good for everyone...especially since the 'largest' commercial and noncommercial broadcasters seem to agree."
That was a big mistake - on the part of IBOC proponents, for not taking into consideration the ~80% of stations they don't own, and on the part of the FCC, who abdicated any proactive role in considering/examining the technology.
diymedia said:
Of course that was more than 10 years ago. The major radio companies haven't been actively promoting IBOC lately (thus this thread), and Clear Channel's Chairman Bob Pittman never mentions it when talking about their digital plan. It's basically been the manufacturer taking the lead here, and the radio stations, even those owned by the Alliance, seem to be free to do what they want.
I wish digital had gotten its own spectrum like it did in Canada, Australia & Europe. It would then be allowed to flourish or wither on its own accord like F.M. had been and would be open to new owners, which is one reason why it wasn't adopted (the L-band being military frequencies in this country didn't help either). But this hybrid plan doesn't work well. Imagine if F.M. had been allowed to piggyback on A.M.'s frequencies back in the '40s & '50s.
N1WVQ said:
Just going by memory, weren't the L-band military frequencies basically just "reserved" not even being actively used?
Anyway DAB finally died in Canada. Not that it was ever truly alive. Could have been a different story if the USA had been on board though. Manufacturers make products for the North American market (read USA) not just the much smaller Canadian market, so it was doomed as soon as the U.S. opted out.
Theater of My Mind said:
I doubt it. Consumers decided a while ago that they were not going to buy new radios. They aren't buying radios with satellite, HD, or internet only either. So creating a new band that required consumers to buy new digital radios would be DOA. The ONLY chance for success would be a federal mandate, and the government refused. You can see how difficult it is to get the CEA to simply activate FM chips in phones. They aren't doing anything that benefits OTA radio. Period.
D
diymedia
Guest
Theater of My Mind said:
Yep. Pretty sporadic use in only particular areas.
TheBigA said:
EIA/CEMA was pretty gung-ho about adopting an alternate-band system, going so far as to do its own comparative analyses of Eureka to IBOC during the '90s...for which they were roundly and publicly disparaged by broadcasters. Consumer electronics manufacturers made their peace in 1998, when they went on the record one last time favoring alternate-band DAB, and pledged not to formally advocate for any specific system going forward. From that point forward they've adopted a position of nonparticipation. And who can blame them?
Then, in 2010, the NAB tried to co-opt the music industry into pushing for a "Radio Chip Mandate" in Congress, as a part of its negotiations over performance royalty fees. That just cheesed off manufacturers even more.
Again, the only reason the FCC opted against a mandate or timetable for radio's digital transition was the proprietary nature of the iBiquity system. Were that to go away, I wonder if the Audio Division would be any more engaged...probably not, but 2002 was a looooong time ago.
diymedia said:
Regardless, as we've seen thanks to benefit of hindsight, even if billions of cool radios had been offered with the new digital radio bands, they likely would have been as popular as the the XM Stiletto. Unless they were combined with phones or other devices. The lesson of the last ten years is that regardless of how you sell them, consumers aren't motivated to buy new radios.
One great idea, also from XM, was combining a digital radio with the ability to record music. That's when the RIAA had a hissy fit and sued XM. From that point on, unless your radio got people to BUY music, you were in trouble.
D
diymedia
Guest
You may be right; hindsight is always 20/20. But the "what if" question, even with the benefit of hindsight, is still compelling. In Europe, they've had to push back their analog/digital "switchoffs"...but haven't completely precluded them from happening.
We live in interesting times.
We live in interesting times.
TheBigA said:
And they do buy radios, because how else are satellite radios in millions of cars and homes? Satellite radio got themselves into the devices people were using. HD (and radio in general) is not really doing that.
You don't need a Federal mandate if something is popular and desirable. The only reason they enforced one for DTV was so they could quickly (relatively speaking, this is the government we're talking about) reclaim some spectrum to sell, er, auction off to the highest bidders. If not for them falling for the completely manufactured and untrue "spectrum crunch" we'd probably not have seen a mandate for TV at all.
Zach said:
People buy things with radios in them. Satellite radio has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to get into cars. iBiquity simply doesn't have that kind of money. But none of that changes the fact that people aren't buying satellite radios. And only a fraction of the people who have access to the radios actually subscribe.
Zach said:
As I said, people are not buying ANY radios in any large numbers. So truthfully, NO radio, by itself, is popular or desirable.
The important thing to consider here is that AM & FM are the people's airwaves. It is the job of the government to do what it can to preserve and protect the people's property. And the only reason they use a mandate is so they can reclaim spectrum to sell it to telecom companies. But they won't do anything to grow or improve AM & FM. How noble is that?
- Status