• 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

Another HD radio post

J

JohnW

Guest
A visit to an HD radio blog, http://digital-am-fm.com/, prompted a slew of questions. The blogger cites articles lamenting the fact that there are too few reasonably priced HD radios available to consumers, such as table radios. How could HD possibly sound any different than analog comng out of a 3" or 4" full-range speaker? The same goes for car audio - very few factory systems are what you would call true high fidelity. A bad accoustic environnment is a bad accoustic environment. And on a component system, if the FM sounds a good as a CD, and some stations do, how could HD be different? Additional material on the HD channels that I'm not able to hear? My analog stuff has a tuning knob. Another station will be playing the same thing in analog. Oh yes, and AM - hearing Michael Savage rants all the way out to 15 Khz - wow. If someone wants to develop an audio system with a frequency response that's flat from DC to light, I'll consider that as an upgrade.
 
Anotner HD Radio Rant

The central idea of HD programming is to:

1) Allow AM to sound as good as FM, allowing music back on the AM band.

2) Allow FM stations to provide additional program streams with "acceptable" fidelity.

In truth, HD actually reduces the fidelity of the analog for either AM or FM. It's really about more efficient usage of the available bandwidth so broadcasters can provide more programming choices.

Broadcasting, like virtually every other form of communication, is moving from an analog to digital world to allow more efficient use of bandwidth. Unlike cell phones, the telephone system, and other forms of telecommunication, AM/FM/TV are doing it directly in the public eye.

Your cell phone from 1997 probably doesn't work with your current provider anymore. Since you get a new cell phone every few years when you renew your contract, or change providers, you don't care. People still expect a 10 year old TV and radio to work reliably.

TV actually followed a more reasonable way of introducing digital service. For technical reasons, they essentially will abandon the lower VHF channels in 2009. UHF channels were allocated to the broadcasters occupying those channels, and that's where their HD signals live now. In 2009, analog TV broadcasting will cease to exist. Since cable and satellite penetration is so high, and people already have a converter box, most people won't notice much difference. The minority of people who receive OTA TV signals will need to invest in a D/A converter box if they want to keep that old Philco running.

I think that radio should have simply allocated some of the recovered bandwidth from TV for digital audio broadcasting. New receivers that got AM/FM/Digital could have gone into production, and 10 years down the road, most of the AM band would likely have been abandoned anyway, and could be recovered for an expansion of digital broadcasting.
 
Rox - I understand your response. Yes, there is a reason for a broadcaster to invest in HD, but there seems to be very few reasons for the consumer to spend the money. There has to be a perceived value, and I don't think many people see it.
 
As far as I can see, AM-HD is a lost cause, at least for now.

I do see a broadcaster/listener benefit for HD-FM however. Once the public is given enough FM-HD 2,3,etc program options to peak their interest, they will look into it. Especially if the manufacturers find a way to make radios that are more mobile than table models and car radios (IPod size), and make them affordable.

At the moment most stations are just piping their main channel into the second channel.

On the other hand, WBFO is using the second channel to program an entirely new and different format. WNED-AM is using 94.5 (flame thrower) to program the NPR & local news format and fill in the areas that their bizarre AM signal pattern won't reach. I know one other station is programming a blues format.

When enough radio stations use their 2nd and maybe their 3rd channels in creative ways, and shout about it, people will think about a new techlology like this.

And if it doesn't fly........well, we lived through AM stereo, Beta, Kahotek, Y2K, Bird Flu & The Cuban Missile Crisis.

But I think it has possibilities. (my 2 cents)
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom