ATSC 3.0 Radios in Vehicles

[alok]

What technical improvements for radio would have changed consumer habits of smartphones and streaming? People buy consumer products for content and convenience. Not just because it's different.

The slow downfall of radio began long before Smartphones, the Internet and Streaming.

As I said before -

let's start with AM STEREO . . . it went nowhere . . . and broadcasters just sat around never taking it into their own hands to make it happen, that all started in the 1970's and went thru at least the 80's. Broadcasters could have told the FCC we will form a group and settle this all.

FCC was at fault, letting the marketplace decide the fate of AM STEREO. . . broadcasters again set around, again, they could have set up a group, to decide this, I don't think they ever did.

Later broadcasters did get involved in this . . . it was about time . . . I think one was Westinghouse, they came up with an idea, IBOC, but stations did not like it, due to interference issues to adjacent frequencies, etc. . . . so it fell flat on its face.

Now we have this digital thing for AM & FM . . . again, going nowhere.

Now were into the 1990's/early 2000's . . . now talk Smartphones, the Internet, Streaming, etc. because now it's too late for radio . . . remember, again this all started back in the 1970's.

I read when we discussed radio going digital awhile back here, a radio-discussion group member posted that listeners to a radio station could not tell if a show was stereo or mono . . . WHAT!!! Maybe we had knowledgeable TV viewers where I worked - but they knew . . . maybe radio listeners don't care but TV viewers do.

I remember somebody here in the group had mentioned that the only reason we got DTV was because the feds wanted TV channels for wireless . . . as I said before if that was the reason who cares . . . the public got DTV and it looks great and TV got away from analog.

Someone here awhile back said the only thing DTV brought was better resolution pictures . . . what!!! The number one thing we all look for with TV is the picture, next sound.
At least the average people I know, always talk picture. And the broadcaster I was with when we went digital, the viewers were very excited about the move.
High end video / audio buffs and average viewers . . . they all loved the new DTV.

How does radio control what automakers do, let alone considering manufacturers are just following consumer trends? Radio stations don't make radios, no more than TV stations make TV's.

Auto makers, APPLE, GOOGLE, etc want to now control the in-dash experience, no more, free spot for broadcast radio, that is what I mean.
Now they want to charge to use the features.
If they could dump free broadcast radio, they will, because they can't make money off it.

Again, you keep saying that, but have nothing to back it up. Just because you repeat the same vague rant over and over, doesn't mean somehow it will become true.

I gave you the reasons, again, above . . . this has nothing to do with Smartphones because it all started long before Smartphones, the Internet and Streaming.

Again, radio messed up in my opinion, as I stated before.
I love radio but it let itself down over the years, I hope it survives because I feel it has a place even today with a Smartphone and Streaming.

Back in the early 1960's we got FM Stereo . . . it's a good thing it happened back then . . . if it was to happen today FM would still be mono.

Kelly A, you & your family and everyone else in the group have a Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays!!!

 

[Cold Coffee]

Why, so you could in theory listen to the same audio as over existing radio stations? That makes zero sense.

Let's see how this could work. You might get the UHF ATSC 3 signal in your car with a small antenna for about 25 miles before dropouts occur. After 25 miles you need a high gain directional UHF antenna pointed at the station to listen up to 35 miles. After that distance you need a 30 foot pole with the high gain antenna attached to your car for up to 40 miles reception.

A Class A FM can do better than that.

 

[Kelly A]

The slow downfall of radio began long before Smartphones, the Internet and Streaming.

As I said before -

let's start with AM STEREO . . . it went nowhere . . . and broadcasters just sat around never taking it into their own hands to make it happen, that all started in the 1970's and went thru at least the 80's. Broadcasters could have told the FCC we will form a group and settle this all.

AM stereo was never able to compete with FM on many fronts, including the fact that FM already had a huge headstart when it came to music listeners making the transition. Their favorite music was already on FM, so anything AM would have done likely wouldn't have mattered.

FCC was at fault, letting the marketplace decide the fate of AM STEREO. . . broadcasters again set around, again, they could have set up a group, to decide this, I don't think they ever did.

Your accounting for the timeline is askew. The Commission picked Magnavox as the chosen AM stereo system until Leonard Kahn started suing everyone involved. All the legal costs and lack of consumer interest drove the lack of interest in AM stereo, not delay by broadcasters.

Later broadcasters did get involved in this . . . it was about time . . . I think one was Westinghouse, they came up with an idea, IBOC, but stations did not like it, due to interference issues to adjacent frequencies, etc. . . . so it fell flat on its face.

I think history has shown that consumers don't embrace or move to some form of modulation or technology unless there's popular content involved. That's why smartphones are so popular. Just look at all they can do. By comparison, how many things can broadcast radio do?

Now we have this digital thing for AM & FM . . . again, going nowhere.

The first thing we agree on. People want quality content, not what band it comes from. Now to that point; AM is technically inferior from a quality standpoint, so it naturally isn't of interest for those who enjoy listening to music.

I read when we discussed radio going digital awhile back here, a radio-discussion group member posted that listeners to a radio station could not tell if a show was stereo or mono . . . WHAT!!! Maybe we had knowledgeable TV viewers where I worked - but they knew . . . maybe radio listeners don't care but TV viewers do.

Again you don't seem to understand. Content and convenience is what's important to the average consumer. If grandma can tell her mono smart-speaker to play a certain type of music or program, that's all she cares about. It's pretty simple really.

I remember somebody here in the group had mentioned that the only reason we got DTV was because the feds wanted TV channels for wireless . . . as I said before if that was the reason who cares . . . the public got DTV and it looks great and TV got away from analog.

Again, consumers don't care about things like analog or digital. What is the convenience or quality? How many different things can I use the device for? That's what matters to consumers.

Someone here awhile back said the only thing DTV brought was better resolution pictures . . . what!!! The number one thing we all look for with TV is the picture, next sound.

One of the benefits of DTV is better picture quality, but that's not the only driving factor in consumers embracing DTV. They didn't have a choice. Besides, back at the digital transition in 2009, it was estimated that 20% of the TV OTA watchers didn't make the transition. Some just watched cable or satellite rather than be bothered with having to purchase a new TV.

At least the average people I know, always talk picture. And the broadcaster I was with when we went digital, the viewers were very excited about the move.
High end video / audio buffs and average viewers . . . they all loved the new DTV.

That's a very tiny percentage of consumers who believe that way. Nobody would stay in business if they just catered to self-proclaimed audiophiles or nerds.

Auto makers, APPLE, GOOGLE, etc want to now control the in-dash experience, no more, free spot for broadcast radio, that is what I mean.

That's because their devices are popular with consumers. You know, the people who matter?

You & your family and everyone else in the group have a Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays!!!

Thanks! Hope you and yours have the same.

 

[Kelly A]

Let's see how this could work. You might get the UHF ATSC 3 signal in your car with a small antenna for about 25 miles before dropouts occur. After 25 miles you need a high gain directional UHF antenna pointed at the station to listen up to 35 miles. After that distance you need a 30 foot pole with the high gain antenna attached to your car for up to 40 miles reception.

A Class A FM can do better than that.

You're right. DTV signals, ATSC 1 or 3 were never designed for mobile use. Enough multipath from moving down the road will kill chances of hearing what can already be heard on conventional radio.

 

[kfbkfb]

IIRC, ATSC 3.0 has broadcaster selectable (forward) error correction for each data stream (could be an audio only [and immersive audio at that] data stream), so more error correction could be used for data streams intended for mobile reception.


Kirk Bayne

 

[Kelly A]

IIRC, ATSC 3.0 has broadcaster selectable (forward) error correction for each data stream (could be an audio only [and immersive audio at that] data stream), so more error correction could be used for data streams intended for mobile reception.

Doesn't matter. Most DTV stations use horizontal, or elliptical polarized transmit antennas. Utilizing a vertical vehicle receive antenna with mostly horizontally polarized transmission signal means chances for multipath reflections are that much higher. When enough data packets are missing due to multipath cancelations, it doesn't matter how much buffer or BER is being used. Once the packets run out in the receiver buffer, the audio stops.

 

[vchimpanzee]

Someone here awhile back said the only thing DTV brought was better resolution pictures . . . what!!! The number one thing we all look for with TV is the picture, next sound.
At least the average people I know, always talk picture. And the broadcaster I was with when we went digital, the viewers were very excited about the move.
High end video / audio buffs and average viewers . . . they all loved the new DTV.

I thought the reason was subchannels, so more channels could be offered, and some of the existing channels could be dropped by making them subchannels.

 

[inari]

I may set up (in my car) my 12VDC->~110VAC converter, my ATSC 3.0 stb+flat antenna, HDMI->AV converter, RF modulator and Sony Watchman (screen turned away from me) and drive around and listen to how the 2 KC ATSC 3.0 signals are received while in motion.

I would be interested to hear your results but I don't think it will be good.

 

[speer360]

ATSC 3.0 Audio Services: The How and Why - Radio World

One of the most interesting applications of ATSC 3.0, the new global standard for broadcasting, has been its use not only for television services but also for pure audio (radio) services.

www.radioworld.com

 

[davideduardo]

let's start with AM STEREO . . . it went nowhere . . . and broadcasters just sat around never taking it into their own hands to make it happen, that all started in the 1970's and went thru at least the 80's. Broadcasters could have told the FCC we will form a group and settle this all.

You are missing the point: Most AM stations do not cover their full market day and night. Out of all the AM stations in the top 100 radio markets, only 180 cover at least 80% of the market day and night with a 5 mv/m signal (and that is not enough in most places for good indoor reception).

FCC was at fault, letting the marketplace decide the fate of AM STEREO. . . broadcasters again set around, again, they could have set up a group, to decide this, I don't think they ever did.

The FCC picked a system in 1968/9 but got sued by the maker of one of the other systems. Finally, after years of litigation, the FCC said "let the market decide" and by then almost all music listening was to FM stations!

Later broadcasters did get involved in this . . . it was about time . . . I think one was Westinghouse, they came up with an idea, IBOC, but stations did not like it, due to interference issues to adjacent frequencies, etc. . . . so it fell flat on its face.

HD radio IS IBOC with a different name. In Band On Channel.

I read when we discussed radio going digital awhile back here, a radio-discussion group member posted that listeners to a radio station could not tell if a show was stereo or mono . . . WHAT!!! Maybe we had knowledgeable TV viewers where I worked - but they knew . . . maybe radio listeners don't care but TV viewers do.

Analog FM is fully capable of sounding as good as most listeners care about.

I remember somebody here in the group had mentioned that the only reason we got DTV was because the feds wanted TV channels for wireless . . . as I said before if that was the reason who cares . . . the public got DTV and it looks great and TV got away from analog.

Only because going to HD required use of different channels. AM and FM have the limitation of too many stations and not enough bandwidth.

Someone here awhile back said the only thing DTV brought was better resolution pictures . . . what!!! The number one thing we all look for with TV is the picture, next sound.

Yet most buyers of "big" screen (48" and larger) don't even buy sound bars. What we mostly look at in a TV is which channels, services and streams we get, not the quality of the picture and sound.

At least the average people I know, always talk picture. And the broadcaster I was with when we went digital, the viewers were very excited about the move.

Yet only a tiny percentage of people buy OLED TVs that cost 3 to 4 times as much as the least expensive models. What people want is as much screen as they can get for the Superbowl, even if slightly lower quality comes with a bigger screen.

High end video / audio buffs and average viewers . . . they all loved the new DTV.

The improvements were huge, while nothing you can do to FM can result in a marked and notable improvement.

If they could dump free broadcast radio, they will, because they can't make money off it.

And that has nothing to do with quality.

Back in the early 1960's we got FM Stereo . . . it's a good thing it happened back then . . . if it was to happen today FM would still be mono.

One of the requirements for FM stereo was the expiration of many of the Armstron patents and the introduction of AFC in consumer radios.

 

[AMRocks]

ATSC 3.0 NextGen TV, Could Also Make Radio Even Better | Cord Cutters News

ATSC 3.0, the new global broadcasting standard primarily used to deliver over-the-air NextGen TV, could also power radio to reach more people. Liam Power, One Media’s senior systems engineer, and Skip Flenniken, Sinclair’s vice president of technology business development, break down in a TV...

cordcuttersnews.com

^^^
...relies on vehicles having ATSC 3.0 tuners in them, but we have reasons to be optimistic on that front...


This looks like the solution to all of the problems in Radio (no need for AM,FM,HD,DAB,DRM) and this system can easily provide social media links related to the songs as a datacast.


Kirk Bayne

Would this mean that the "owners" of the radio stations would be the TV station? So would the current radio owners be SOL?

If current AM owners could somehow control an ATSC 3.0 station, that would be a big plus.

 

[Mark Roberts]

Analog FM is fully capable of sounding as good as most listeners care about.

I was so hoping that someone would mention the quadrophonic hype of the 1970s but I guess I'm going to have to do it. It was the classic example of a technological innovation driven mostly by the need to sell something new. Most such innovations have that as their core driver. Sometimes they stick with the public, sometimes they don't. It depends on circumstances and whether what came before was considered good enough or whether the new thing really is a substantial improvement.

It feels like ATSC 3.0 generally is being driven by the desire of broadcasters to exploit its DRM features as a solution to some of their problems. This is kind of like treating a headache with a suppository. It doesn't work and is annoying.

Audio over ATSC 3.0 is a neat party trick at most. Radio broadcasters have more important things to work out: how to participate meaningfully in a world of streaming and on-demand audio and how to make money from it.

 

[michael hagerty]

3D

I was so hoping that someone would mention the quadrophonic hype of the 1970s but I guess I'm going to have to do it. It was the classic example of a technological innovation driven mostly by the need to sell something new. Most such innovations have that as their core driver. Sometimes they stick with the public, sometimes they don't. It depends on circumstances and whether what came before was considered good enough or whether the new thing really is a substantial improvement.

And the beat goes on...





\

 

[anotherguyTN]

If current AM owners could somehow control an ATSC 3.0 station, that would be a big plus.

Not if it's the same far Right news talk stations like are on AM now.

 

[Greg Goodfellow]

It feels like ATSC 3.0 generally is being driven by the desire of broadcasters to exploit its DRM features as a solution to some of their problems. This is kind of like treating a headache with a suppository. It doesn't work and is annoying.

Winner of “Quote of the Day”

 

[Mikey Radio]

I was so hoping that someone would mention the quadrophonic hype of the 1970s but I guess I'm going to have to do it. It was the classic example of a technological innovation driven mostly by the need to sell something new.

Point well taken, but the difference, of course, is that quadraphonic sound came along at a time when many people were sinking $$ into quality home stereo systems. Back then, my parents prided themselves in their setup that had an "Aux Speakers" button which, when pressed, activated ceiling speakers in the basement so they could play the radio or a nice thick stack of LPs at parties and the same "soundtrack" could be heard both upstairs and down! Quadraphonic came along in about that same era.

ATSC 3.0, in contrast, comes along when OTA broadcast radio is, for all intents and purposes, declining. More and more people are streaming what they want and playing the music they prefer, building their own playlists and doing it without having to listen to pesky jocks and intrusive advertisements, and they control the rotation and amount of repetition based on their own tastes and preferences. If they don't like what comes on, they press the "skip" button. Satellite radio provides channels that are more tailored to specific genres and styles than OTA and there are streaming apps that can "learn" from your music preference and continue to build playlists it thinks you might like. ATSC 3.0 won't fix OTA radio's problem in that regard, and for the other stuff outside of music on the broadcast bands - News, talk, sports, religious programming, ethnic programming and the like, the audio quality of the existing offerings is adequate. I personally wouldn't go out and buy a new receiver or pay a car dealership for an upgrade so NPR will sound "better" for example.

 

[Mark Roberts]

Point well taken, but the difference, of course, is that quadraphonic sound came along at a time when many people were sinking $$ into quality home stereo systems. Back then, my parents prided themselves in their setup that had an "Aux Speakers" button which, when pressed, activated ceiling speakers in the basement so they could play the radio or a nice thick stack of LPs at parties and the same "soundtrack" could be heard both upstairs and down! Quadraphonic came along in about that same era.

Oh, I was in college where the standard dorm-room furniture for a male student included a Pioneer receiver and speakers that could blast out Frampton Comes Alive every Friday afternoon once classes were done for the week. Of course, I had to be different; I got an Advent, and later, the NAD 7020. I only recently parted with that one due to the move and the receiver badly needed refurbishing. But those backlit Pioneer receiver dials were a thing of beauty. It was also the era of hi-fi magazines, Stereo Review, Audio, and so on, packed full of ads for equipment and the latest formulations in cassette tapes. Tape decks still had a "Dolby FM" switch, too. (Anybody remember Dolby FM? Anybody?) I avidly read Leonard Feldman's reviews of receivers and tuners. Perhaps I was more intense about it than most, but I gained a certain cred on the dorm floor because I could get K-SHE most of the time. This was a highly desired characteristic. I showed some of my cohort how to make a folded dipole so they could get in on the progressive rock from St. Louis, too. That was definitely the era of "quad". The local, barely tolerated automated rock station, KFMZ, had a weekly "Quad Concert" which I think was syndicated. On the much larger, national stage, there were various arguments about possible quad FM broadcasts and there were tests on San Francisco's KIOI. Yep, Jim Gabbert had his finger in that pie.

And nowadays...back to you, Mikey.

ATSC 3.0, in contrast, comes along when OTA broadcast radio is, for all intents and purposes, declining. More and more people are streaming what they want and playing the music they prefer, building their own playlists and doing it without having to listen to pesky jocks and intrusive advertisements, and they control the rotation and amount of repetition based on their own tastes and preferences. If they don't like what comes on, they press the "skip" button. Satellite radio provides channels that are more tailored to specific genres and styles than OTA and there are streaming apps that can "learn" from your music preference and continue to build playlists it thinks you might like. ATSC 3.0 won't fix OTA radio's problem in that regard, and for the other stuff outside of music on the broadcast bands - News, talk, sports, religious programming, ethnic programming and the like, the audio quality of the existing offerings is adequate. I personally wouldn't go out and buy a new receiver or pay a car dealership for an upgrade so NPR will sound "better" for example.

These are solutions in a search of problem to solve when, in the meantime, there are real problems for radio to solve in order to thrive. We are in the middle of a transition period and, as usual in such periods, we don't have a clear picture of what the end result is likely to be. But the solution is going to require changes in programming and business models far more than it will require changes in RF technology.

 

[kfbkfb]

I was so hoping that someone would mention the quadrophonic hype of the 1970s

Funny you should mention quad - surround sound has become the norm (TV, Movies, Video Games) for everything except audio only services (Radio/Audio Streaming), sadly, that's headed toward mono due to Smartphone listening with a single speaker.


ATSC 1.0 has a datacast option which could also be used for a digital TV based mobile digital Radio/Audio only service, a new forward error correction scheme could be developed to cope with dynamic multipath and small duration signal dropouts and the newest ultra low data rate stereo audio codec (could also be used for surround sound) could also be used (no need to used Dolby Digital).

A standard ATSC 1.0 receiver + new circuit/DSP code to apply the new error correction and audio codec decoding, no real need to use ATSC 3.0 for mobile audio (radio type) services.


Kirk Bayne

 

[fybush]

Kirk, the problem with 1.0 in any kind of mobile environment is the QAM modulation it uses, which depends on a stable receiving environment. 3.0 uses OFDM, which is much more suitable to mobile reception.

You might look up the now defunct ATSC-M standard, which used a portion of the 1.0 bitstream to do basically the wheel you just reinvented. Device manufacturers had little interest in including the system and so it didn't last long.

 

[Mark Roberts]

Funny you should mention quad - surround sound has become the norm (TV, Movies, Video Games) for everything except audio only services (Radio/Audio Streaming), sadly, that's headed toward mono due to Smartphone listening with a single speaker.


ATSC 1.0 has a datacast option which could also be used for a digital TV based mobile digital Radio/Audio only service, a new forward error correction scheme could be developed to cope with dynamic multipath and small duration signal dropouts and the newest ultra low data rate stereo audio codec (could also be used for surround sound) could also be used (no need to used Dolby Digital).

A standard ATSC 1.0 receiver + new circuit/DSP code to apply the new error correction and audio codec decoding, no real need to use ATSC 3.0 for mobile audio (radio type) services.


Kirk Bayne

Kirk, Kirk, Kirk, Kirk, Kirk. There are more "coulds" in that post than there are McMansions in Lenexa. Il y a beaucoup d'hypothèses. What business problems do these things solve?