Clear Channel ‘tests’ found no problem with ‘HD’ power hike

[HowardMBurgers]

Of course the technical aspects don't alter the lack of consumer interest with HD radio, but we do need to take a step back and try not to make the comparrison of how FM IBOC works vs. AM IBOC. Other than the same licensing organization, it's a completely different animal.

I've seen two adjacent N+1 ATSC DTV signals coming out of the same antenna with pure digital modulation 6mHz wide with no interference to each other or other channels. Assuming the filters are working correctly and everything stays within the mask, I doubt the power increase of the data carriers will be noticeable to the average listener. I suppose there will be some of the Chrysler radios from the 1990's that went into stereo blend mode with any subcarrier that may have issues, but not a deal-breaker by any means.

Really if these folks want to keep dumping money down a rat hole in developing FM-HD radio from a technical perspective, why should I care?

 

[JimmyJames]

All of you appear to care a great deal, considering for the most part this board is a select cadre carping about a technology that's already being used. It's here. You didn't stop it.

What confuses me is why you don't pour your energies into promoting better alternatives instead of preaching to the choir here.

 

[SUPERCASTER]

All of you appear to care a great deal, considering for the most part this board is a select cadre carping about a technology that's already being used. It's here. You didn't stop it.

What confuses me is why you don't pour your energies into promoting better alternatives instead of preaching to the choir here.

It's pretty much stopped itself.

You asked for alternatives. Here are several:
FMeXtra, internet radio, podcasting, WiFi, WiMax.

 

[KB1OKL]

All of you appear to care a great deal, considering for the most part this board is a select cadre carping about a technology that's already being used. It's here. You didn't stop it.

What confuses me is why you don't pour your energies into promoting better alternatives instead of preaching to the choir here.

I have still never personally met anyone who owns an HD radio besides myself, in fact I've never MET anyone who has heard of it and actually knows what it is. One guy thought it was RDS and another who's ex-husband is a computer programmer thought it was something else also. These are the two people I've met who though they knew what it was.
HD radio is limited to a few people who frequent message boards and radio people, the public has no idea and wouldn't care if they did. Super posted some good alternatives but forgot satellite which is actually being used also.

 

[Savage]

Actually, while I can't offer cite specific evidence, I think that two years of publicly pointing out the endless problems presented by HD - on this board and in industry publications - has had the effect of slowing HD.

Broadcasters who haven't invested in HD Radio by being members of the Alliance, or who haven't invested directly in iBiquity such as Clear Channel and CBS, or aren't dominated by egomaniac pro-HD engineering executives who became intoxicated with getting their names in industry publications and got all moist hearing themselves talk at convention speeches about the brave new world of HD, have taken stock - and found HD Radio to be the dangerous, stupid and pointless concept which it is.

Did we "stop" HD Radio? Not literally. But it IS dying. Otherwise you wouldn't be here trying to defend it, because that wouldn't be necessary.

 

[calstymes]

Mr. Savage did thusly and forcefully proclaim:

Broadcasters who haven't invested in HD Radio by being members of the Alliance, or who haven't invested directly in iBiquity such as Clear Channel and CBS, or aren't dominated by egomaniac pro-HD engineering executives who became intoxicated with getting their names in industry publications and got all moist hearing themselves talk at convention speeches about the brave new world of HD, have taken stock - and found HD Radio to be the dangerous, stupid and pointless concept which it is.

Bravo! Well said, young fellow!

 

[Savage]

"I'd like to thank Cal, and the Academy, and my mom and dad, and my high school physics teacher, and the guy who lent me his AMECO 3rd-Class FCC Radiotelephone Permit Study Guide for Elements 1, 2 and 9, and Paul Drew, and Burstein-Applebee, and, and, and.....

"But most of all: I'd like to thank.....hey, did somebody clip my mike??"

 

[Tom Wells]

Actually, while I can't offer cite specific evidence, I think that two years of publicly pointing out the endless problems presented by HD - on this board and in industry publications - has had the effect of slowing HD.

Did we "stop" HD Radio? Not literally. But it IS dying. Otherwise you wouldn't be here trying to defend it, because that wouldn't be necessary.

I'd like to thank the instructors at Valpo Tech, who taught me to call BS on bad engineering.
That which works needs no defense. Any "innovation" suceeds and surpasses on merit, if worthwhile.

 

[4dude]

Inside Radio is reporting this morning (8/25/09) that Clear Channel engineers performed “extensive tests” in Connecticut and determined that a full 10-dB increase in “HD” digital signals on the FM band wouldn’t cause interference.

Sure it doesnt cause problems WITH THIS HD GARBAGE but for the analogue listeners it messes it up even more!!

Stupid idiots!

 

[HowardMBurgers]

I think it would be more honest to say that it was consumers that determine the success or lack thereof regarding HD radio. To average consumers; radio is radio, TV is TV. How they get the content they're seeking is all that matters to them.

Suffice it to say that no discussion boad with less than 100 regular contributors would have any impact on the success or failure of HD radio.

 

[Savage]

Well!! I guess that settles THAT.

Howard, I would venture to guess that the operators of radio-info.com might take exception to your last post. (Just a hunch.)

Just had a chat this afternoon with the Director of Engineering for "a major eastern seaboard" Public Radio statewide group. Suffice it to say - the much-maligned anti-HD posters here have lots of company.

There is a viral nature to posts on industry blogsites. They often shape the impressions of decision-makers, who in the case of broadcast radio, may make decisions for scores or even hundreds of stations. Nobody can say whether the posts here pointing out the parade of HD faults may have tipped them in a negative direction.

Also: the truth has a way of coming out. HD pushers who have forgotten this law, are reminded of it daily, and it they're susceptible to it they already know that - for example - 6 dB is a non-starter for HD's future.

We all believe what we believe, and that's it. (Except for those who are interested in reality.)

 

[BRNout]

Well!! I guess that settles THAT.

Howard, I would venture to guess that the operators of radio-info.com might take exception to your last post. (Just a hunch.)

Just had a chat this afternoon with the Director of Engineering for "a major eastern seaboard" Public Radio statewide group. Suffice it to say - the much-maligned anti-HD posters here have lots of company.

There is a viral nature to posts on industry blogsites. They often shape the impressions of decision-makers, who in the case of broadcast radio, may make decisions for scores or even hundreds of stations. Nobody can say whether the posts here pointing out the parade of HD faults may have tipped them in a negative direction.

Also: the truth has a way of coming out. HD pushers who have forgotten this law, are reminded of it daily, and it they're susceptible to it they already know that - for example - 6 dB is a non-starter for HD's future.

We all believe what we believe, and that's it. (Except for those who are interested in reality.)

Another excellent post by Mr. Savage.

What I'd like to add with regard to HD radio is this (to coin an overused phrase): it is what it is. No matter what Howard and other proponents would like it to be, IBOC has technical limitations that can't be overcome by wishing and spinning the truth. It offers a very pale option to the average consumer when compared with the offerings of iPods, MP3 units, wireless devices and, yes, internet radio. The upside to the IBOC technology is about 8 years out of date. The downside involving interference to analog, poor economics, and overly compressed audio is without an expiry date. That cannot be wished away, nor can the laws of physics.

The proponents may mock us as much as they want but, like it or not, we're right.

 

[hdsucks]

hd radio is representative of what is wrong with the united states today. tons of special interests ramming some expensive piece of crap down our throats, to serve their own financial benefit, while at the same time harming the masses.

we take a decent radio system that has served us for close to 100 years and thrash it. unreal.

why don't they start over and design a non IBOC solution, with a high data rate, and a great codec that can be remotely updated. and use at least two transmitter sites.

 

[calstymes]

hdsucks offered this insight:

why don't they start over and design a non IBOC solution, with a high data rate, and a great codec that can be remotely updated. and use at least two transmitter sites.

C'mon. Bobby Struble isn't going to go for that, or any other changes for that matter! He is running out of time to take the company public. It is too late to start messing with the goods and still expect that the capitalist speculators who have been pouring money down iBiquity's throat will get a return on their investments.

If things continue on their present course, this company WILL be offering an IPO behind the curtain of having had complete success with IBOC. I have been saying this for at least four years now on this here message board, but now the effort has been ramped up. Bobby keeps reporting how well they're doing in the trades regardless of what we all know is really happening. If you keep chanting the mantra, eventually the public will believe it.

Remember to follow the money. It is the only thing that is important!

 

[BRNout]

hdsucks offered this insight:

why don't they start over and design a non IBOC solution, with a high data rate, and a great codec that can be remotely updated. and use at least two transmitter sites.

C'mon. Bobby Struble isn't going to go for that, or any other changes for that matter! He is running out of time to take the company public. It is too late to start messing with the goods and still expect that the capitalist speculators who have been pouring money down iBiquity's throat will get a return on their investments.

If things continue on their present course, this company WILL be offering an IPO behind the curtain of having had complete success with IBOC. I have been saying this for at least four years now on this here message board, but now the effort has been ramped up. Bobby keeps reporting how well they're doing in the trades regardless of what we all know is really happening. If you keep chanting the mantra, eventually the public will believe it.

Remember to follow the money. It is the only thing that is important!

Struble is clearly taking financial advice from Bernie Madoff! What a scam.....

 

[JimmyJames]

You're all still ignoring rural and smaller areas where internet radio over cell phones is not profitable to the companies that have to invest in the cell towers. Even if you spent millions to put it there, I doubt many people would suddenly buy expensive phones and start streaming media with no local content. I've worked a lot of small markets and the internet is not a viable sole business model. It's a part of the mix, but internet only in small markets is STILL not a viable proposition. For numerous reasons.

 

[BRNout]

You're all still ignoring rural and smaller areas where internet radio over cell phones is not profitable to the companies that have to invest in the cell towers. Even if you spent millions to put it there, I doubt many people would suddenly buy expensive phones and start streaming media with no local content. I've worked a lot of small markets and the internet is not a viable sole business model. It's a part of the mix, but internet only in small markets is STILL not a viable proposition. For numerous reasons.

And you're ignoring all the posts that have discussed how expensive the IBOC technology is to install and run and how rural and small market stations can't afford such an investment. Many of these areas already have 3G service via at least 1 cell provider and it's not much of a leap to provide internet radio via that platform. THAT is the future, not this scam known as HD radio.

 

[Play Freebird]

You're all still ignoring rural and smaller areas where internet radio over cell phones is not profitable to the companies that have to invest in the cell towers. Even if you spent millions to put it there, I doubt many people would suddenly buy expensive phones and start streaming media with no local content. I've worked a lot of small markets and the internet is not a viable sole business model. It's a part of the mix, but internet only in small markets is STILL not a viable proposition. For numerous reasons.

What's working very well for our small market daytime AM station is a group of three FM translators. We're now able to operate 24 hours/day and our listeners already own the necessary receivers. The translator sites are located in such a way as to overcome terrain obstacles, so the total rural service area exceeds that of a typical Class A facility in our hilly terrain. And we were able to purchase the translator licenses for far less than a $25,000 iBiquity broadcaster license.

I think you'll agree that in our situation, HD Radio would have been a complete waste of money -- there's just no return on investment. That seems to be the case in large markets as well.

 

[hdsucks]

BRNout is right, streaming is the future... better codecs...

 

[buzzdemming]

BRNout is right, streaming is the future... better codecs...

I hope not. compressed crap either way.