bring krth hd2 to wogl

[vmelis]

WOGL just added HD4, currently running WPHT on both HD3 and HD4. I often listen to KRTH HD2 on my Droid phone (using Wunderadio app) plugged into Aux input.

 

[musichead1029]

If the FCC had really wanted to save radio, they would have ....

Expanded the FM band by taking over VHF channels five and six when analog TV shut down.
Shut down AM radio.
Go to all digital FM broadcasting like they did with TV.
Require all receiver sold in the US be digital receivers (like they did with UHF television).

If they did this, everyone would have to go out and buy new receivers or get digital adapters as many had to do with the TV transition. Of course the reason the TV digital switch was mandated was that the FCC compressed the TV band and reclaimed much of the old bandwidth for other purposes. And look at the mess it made - lousy reception, converter boxes and few portable units available at the present time. Radio kept its existing bandwidth, hence no reason to mandate a wholesale change. The main problem with radio HD is that no one sees the need for it. The additional channels are nice, but not necessary. The fidelity on FM is mostly degraded, not enhanced (yes, multipath interference goes away, but you may or may not get reliable HD reception in those areas). On AM, the fidelity is greatly improved, but at the expense of coverage area. And forget about reliably capturing even local AM HD at night.

Require that stations program sub-channels separately from the main channel with unique and distinct programming (like they did with FM).

Government programming content mandates will benefit no one in this situation and being that no new bandwidth is involved, the government has no reason to exert content control. If there's an economically viable model for HD programming, stations will find it on their own. If not, the technology will fail to catch on.

Increase the power for digital signals to give dependable full metro market area coverage.

This makes sense and is what's happening now. Some signals may be limited by interference to others, but most should be able to benefit. Stations also have to be careful not to bludgeon their own analog signals in the process.

The mandated OTA TV changeover (for bandwidth savings) was made somewhat manageable by most viewers having cable systems as buffers (the digital conversion of cable signals and the associated abuses by cable companies are a different situation). Radio doesn't need nearly as much bandwidth as TV, so a switch to digital has less benefit, certainly not enough to mandate a change and the associated receiver market upheaval.

HD is an unnecessary luxury that radio can try to sell to the public. But if the public doesn't buy into it, there's always the internet and over-the-air digital data services that can co-exist with the analog signals and generate revenue.

 

[gunsmoke]

WOGL's HD's were off ONCE AGAIN, last night, they just were running the main Stereo signal on their main frequency. This morning they came back with all 4, I thought the HD-4 would be different but its still 1210. CBS has two great 50-60's "oh wow" formats, one on KRTH-LA and the other on KLUV-Dallas, both on HD-2. KLUV is more "oh wow" many forgotton hits from 55 - 65, sample, Here Comes the Night - Them and Triangle - Janie Grant, if this gives you some idea. KRTH is more familiar 50's and 60's, KLUV would be nice on WOGL-4. All 4 do sound good audio wise, but remember Hearst has 4 on WIYY in Baltimore and they all sound crystal clear in HD. If you spend the bucks, and are committed, your signals can be great on all HD's, if the company wants to spend....WSTW is a good example, great power, great signal on all 3-HD's, even though Graffiti radio is a bit too obscure.

 

[gunsmoke]

Don't know whats up at OGL but their HD's have been off all weekend, today their main signal is in HD but the 2-3 and 4 are gone...YSP still has there 3 up, so its not CBS.

 

[tommygraser]

maybe they are doing something to boost up the power on the HD & they need to be off for them to work on it?

 

[Savage]

Here's the problem (well, the dominant one) with HD Radio: there isn't enough bandwidth.

HD is a nasty-smelling bouquet of compromises. Digital is 1% to 10% of analog power because the higher the digital power, the more self-interference (with the host analog signal) and the greater the adjacent-channel interference. The digital data reside primarily in the first-adjacent channels. This causes problems for both the host station and nearby neighbors. The lower the digital power, the lousier the digital reception, with more mode-hopping (analog to digital.)

And: the entire system operates on FM with a total 96 kbps bandwidth. If you add HD-2, 3 and 4 subchannels, the 96 kbps gets whacked up - so maybe the main (HD-1) stream eats 48 kbps with the remaining 2 or 3 channels having to share a total of 48 kbps. So you could be listening to an HD-3 or HD-4 via a whopping 16 kbps. That's why the subs often sound lousy and/or are in mono. I've heard of pubcasters programming classicam music on HD-2 streams in mono with the equivalent of AM audio bandpass of about 7 kHz.

It is what it is. There is no real-world fix. Plus, for my tastes, I think the codec sounds lousy.

 

[gunsmoke]

Well I guess that bursts my bubble on HD. From what you say, its not gonna last and probably in a few years will disappear. But at least it did better than AM Stereo, I have to stick with my Blackberry, Sirius and the net for music. Why they even tried this is beyond me after hearing your summary, all those HD radios sold and when you check out the HD web site it looks like the best thing since sliced bread.

 

[Savage]

Yep. Good old hard-sell hype and promotion, lobbied through an FCC which is far more interested in pushing loopy policy agendas these days than technical excellence which actually protects the public's listening experience. The lawyers have taken over and overwhelmed the engineers who historically have served as America's electromagnetic-spectrum traffic cops and investigators.

By the time non-Alliance members comprising the majority of radio operators discovered what a fraud HD Radio is, HissZilla had been unleashed and was wreaking havoc around the AM and FM bands - while the public watched, listened, and shrugged. They don't care if radio self-destructs. If we don't care enough to safeguard the quality of our product, why should they be interested??

It's as if the drug companies have been permitted for nine years to put laetrile, Havacol, Warner's Safe Kidney Cure, Hop Bitters, copper bracelets and magnetic cancer cures on CVS and Walgreen shelves alongside Tylenol and Prilosec. After we get done cleaning up the wreckage after this interference mess and "digital" fakery, I just hope we're still able to persuade people to come back inside our radio store.

 

[gunsmoke]

The only reason someone like me, who is not into all the tech ins and outs, embraced it was because finally there was something else on the stale dial to listen to, and it was free. If you are a radio geek you liked the way you could still have your radio and not a Satellite receiver or Puter. You had at least a choice of side bands that had various formats. I wrote before, going to NYC and loving rock, and not finding it on the main signals, except for RXP, the Q is more Classic. At least there was something to hear, same with the DC market. It did seem like a good idea at first but the signal strength was reallly bad and the drops and dead air is frustrating, for instacnce OGL is still only running the main signal. Also, if you liked Christmas music, you had XTU, BEN, PEN, OGL and the B for non stop holiday music on HD-2. So what are your thoughts on the future of HD? what do you think will eventually happen.

 

[Savage]

gunsmoke, I sympathize with your wish for better programming choice. Know the old saw about how "a donkey is a horse designed by a committee?" HD Radio is digital radio designed by the same corporate geniuses who bring you homogeneous McFormats typical of analog radio. We COULD have had DAB+ which would have given you better reception and up to 30 channels per station. But DAB+ would also have given little guys like me, signal parity with the big guys. Big groups like CBS and Clear Channel spent billions back in 1996-1998 buying up every competitive signal they could snatch. They were not about to let DAB+ happen, which could challenge their hegemony. So, voila: meet HD, the blind, toothless, one-legged not-very-bright entry of broadcast radio in the new-media Olympics.

Want choice? Go to ww.ccrane.com and pick up a C Crane Wi-Fi for around $149. One of my employees got one and brought it in for us to play with. It sounds very good, reception is rock-steady when locked and the build quality is excellent - it's a standalone radio offering 22,000 choices. Disco. Country. Country disco. Latvian standup comedy. Gregorian chants. African-American weather. All EAS tests, all the time (I may have made that last one up.) I raise my eyebrows and shake my head about some of the formats, but I'll tell you what: you'll never be bored.

But if you're looking for HD Radio to solve your yearning for "choice," you're gonna be disappointed. HD is destined for oblivion, or as good as, which is about where it is now. Go Wi-Fi, and have fun. I wish you well.

 

[musichead1029]

Good old hard-sell hype and promotion, lobbied through an FCC which is far more interested in pushing loopy policy agendas these days than technical excellence which actually protects the public's listening experience. The lawyers have taken over and overwhelmed the engineers who historically have served as America's electromagnetic-spectrum traffic cops and investigators.

You've got that right. But at least terrestrial radio can back out of HD and restore the primacy of their analog signals while exploiting the internet and smart phones. When the FCC gets done screwing with the internet and satellite radio there may be no going back.

Want choice? Go to www.ccrane.com and pick up a C Crane Wi-Fi for around $149. One of my employees got one and brought it in for us to play with. It sounds very good, reception is rock-steady when locked and the build quality is excellent - it's a standalone radio offering 22,000 choices.

The C. Crane radio is good as are the lower cost Grace standalones and their tuner which is under $100. That's real variety, and if you've already got broadband internet, a web radio is also 'free' without the reception issues and the limited formats.

 

[MattParker]

A WiFi radio is nice, sure. But if you are on this board, you already have an Internet radio - your computer. No need to spend more money until you've checked out online broadcasting using your PC. Lower cost options would include upgrading your speakers, wireless speakers or wireless headphones.

 

[aindik]

Or, you can buy an FM transmitter, hook it up to your computer's sound card output, and listen to internet radio on any FM radio within range of your transmitter.

I do that with Music Choice from the cable box. Lets me listen to it in rooms where I don't have a TV.

 

[rtetro]

Regarding HD radio on FM, the potential is tremendous - if management can figure out what to do with it. Technically, since FM is largely an "in-market" medium (as opposed to AM which can cover major portions of the nation), the additional sideband signal is probably not a major issue. Travelling between NYC and Philly, for instance, I have really not experienced many problems on adjacent channel stations (i.e., 92.3 and 92.5, 95.5 and 95.7, etc) while listening in either analog or digital. The key issue, as I see it, is and will continue to be programming. If the programming isn't there, why invest capital in the technology? (Unless, of course, your company has something to prove since it is involved with Ibiquity). That being said, FM-HDR definitely sounds better than analog FM... even in the less than perfect listening envirornment of an automobile.

AM HD, on the other hand, is almost worthless. It is little more than a noise generating hash machine whose advantages (?) are far outwieghed by its disadvantages. I've been saying for several years that the net result of AM IBOC will be to drive away listeners. Listening to an IBOC station on an analog radio is annoying at best. The on-channel hiss is just the beginning, however. It's the the first and second adjacent channel interference - especially at night - that is the real issue. The example given of WBZ and KDKA interfering with each other within their respective markets is the perfect example. This is why so many stations have, at the very least, turned IBOC off at night (like Citadel), or shut it down entirely. I am not saying that AM IBOC doesn't sound better than analog. It does. BUT, and it is a big BUT, it is doing substantial damage to the band in the process. As I mentioned earlier, AM has the ability to travel hundreds of miles. That creates objectional interference between markets. AM IBOC is the biggest technical farce in the history of AM radio - including the "market decision" to choose an AM Stereo standard. The public is the big loser - even more so than the companies whose stations are negatively effected by the adjacent channel hash. As if man-made power line noise isn't bad enough....

Concerning Internet Radio, as one who owns four internet radios, I find the arguments to just use one's computer a little naive. Like any software program, listening to internet radio on your pc or laptop uses valuable resources and slows things down on less than ideal computers. That aside, we need to stop thinking of internet radio as just another add-on or feature on your computer. Instead, we need to start thinking of it as another "radio band" of sorts. There's AM, FM, Satellite and now internet Radio. The emphasis needs to be on the "radio" part of the equation. Therefore, the preferred method of listening should be a radio, not a computer. With increasing use of smartphone listening, w-fi, in car broadband, and so on, internet radio will eventually become as viable and all-encompassing as other forms of meda.

 

[musichead1029]

The key issue, as I see it, {with FM HD} is and will continue to be programming. If the programming isn't there, why invest capital in the technology?

Definitely. There has to be compelling programming to even think about spending more money for a replacement radio, and since HD isn't standard in most cars, people have to jump through hoops to get it. People don't see a reason to do it. If HD becomes standard in cars (or easily available for no more than a token price premium) and the reception issues are cleared up, people might get to hear HD. But if there's no programming advantage, that's as far as people's HD exposure will go.

FM-HDR definitely sounds better than analog FM... even in the less than perfect listening envirornment of an automobile.

Maybe in an automobile or when there's a multipath situation on the analog signal (and the digital is receivable), but otherwise, I have to disagree. The best digital FM channels sound like the 96k webstreams that they are, relatively clean but flat with no depth and a superficial soundstage. AM HD improves the sound quality remarkably, but the problems with AM reception remain and are worse with digital.

But I've been most spoiled by AM HD's sound, listening to Rush in HD. When I listen to WNTP, I do it online for the sound quality (and I didn't realize until recently how often Hugh Hewitt is pre-empted by sports on the OTA signal).

as one who owns four internet radios, I find the arguments to just use one's computer a little naive. Like any software program, listening to internet radio on your pc or laptop uses valuable resources and slows things down on less than ideal computers.

Exactly. When I'm doing resource-rich things on the computer, winamp is sometimes too much of a hog, slowing things down. A dedicated wifi radio and an FM transmitter put a reliable programming stream into the whole house without burdening the computer. The only restriction is with stations that don't have an alternative to their Flash players. That's still a problem, and the result is that I'm less likely to listen to the stations I can't get on the Wifi radio.

That aside, we need to stop thinking of internet radio as just another add-on or feature on your computer. Instead, we need to start thinking of it as another "radio band" of sorts. There's AM, FM, Satellite and now internet Radio.

I assume you're preaching to the industry now. When I'm in listener mode, its all audio entertainment, and the content is far more important than where its coming from. I don't really care if I'm listening to a web-only stream, an AM easy listening station, a deep tracks album rocker out of Vermont or Colorado, or a playlist on my hard drive. It's the programming I'm after. If I can get it everywhere I want it, that's what's important to me, the listener. And that's where radio has to be.

 

[aindik]

Exactly. When I'm doing resource-rich things on the computer, winamp is sometimes too much of a hog, slowing things down. A dedicated wifi radio and an FM transmitter put a reliable programming stream into the whole house without burdening the computer. The only restriction is with stations that don't have an alternative to their Flash players. That's still a problem, and the result is that I'm less likely to listen to the stations I can't get on the Wifi radio.

Which is why the Wifi radio is a niche device without a niche. If you want to listen to internet radio without using a computer, and you don't have and don't want a smartphone, the most useful thing you can buy to do that is an iPod Touch or an iPad.

 

[MattParker]

Which is why the Wifi radio is a niche device without a niche. If you want to listen to internet radio without using a computer, and you don't have and don't want a smartphone, the most useful thing you can buy to do that is an iPod Touch or an iPad.

You mean, iPOS. There are far better mobile media devices. The iPOS devices are flashy but flawed. They are over-priced and the data plans required for them are over-priced. Do your homework. Don't buy all the media hype. If you feel like you just gotta get one of the Apple devices, remember you do have a 30 day buyer's remorse period. Play with it for 29 days and you can chose to cancel your contract and return the item.

If WinAmp slows down your computer, sounds like it's time for a new computer. If you computer is fairly news, sounds like you should have more RAM.

 

[aindik]

You mean, iPOS. There are far better mobile media devices. The iPOS devices are flashy but flawed. They are over-priced and the data plans required for them are over-priced.

There is no data plan required for an iPod Touch or an iPad unless you want to listen to internet radio outside your home. Read the context again, please. I'm comparing it to a WiFi radio, not to a smartphone.

Do your homework.

Kinda funny coming from someone who can't be bothered to read the thread before posting in it.

If WinAmp slows down your computer, sounds like it's time for a new computer. If you computer is fairly news, sounds like you should have more RAM.

I'll agree with this.

 

[qtpieislit]

Play with it for 29 days and you can chose to cancel your contract and return the item.

And there you have a typical terrestrial radio listener. The sophisticated radio listener and those with any measure of disposable income have moved on. Terrestrial radio has what is left.

 

[gunsmoke]

(QUOTE) Definitely. There has to be compelling programming to even think about spending more money for a replacement radio, and since HD isn't standard in most cars, people have to jump through hoops to get it. People don't see a reason to do it. If HD becomes standard in cars (or easily available for no more than a token price premium) and the reception issues are cleared up, people might get to hear HD. But if there's no programming advantage, that's as far as people's HD exposure will go.


I just had that problem, I just bought a new ford taurus 2011, from Pacifico and I wanted an HD installed, the salesman kept telling me not to get it, he gave me a radio with Sirius for the length of the car. He would not listen to me asking for HD, he rebuked it, was stern and said I am giving you Sirius FREE. It looked like either he knew nothing about HD, or they did not want to install it...so I settled for Sirius.