-
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
"Consumers expect radio, they expect digital.."
- Thread starter Carmine5
- Start date
We're not being afraid, BigA. We're being pragmatic. And we're not obstructionist or reactionary. It's just that HD is a lousy system and we're insisting that if we're going to commit to improving "radio," we absolutely MUST do it with a system which works acceptably. We're holding out for, and demanding, something better. That requires rejection of HD.
You say "it would be better if the problems are fixed." I agree. But HD Radio is so addled with problems and compromises, it can't be fixed. The system is too complex, the modulation scheme is too fragile, there's too much interference, there isn't sufficient bandwidth for both the analog and digital information. There is NO fix. It's never going to be better than it is today. In fact, the more stations build out with HD and add subchannels and increase digital power, the more problems there will be, because the interference is unavoidable and will ramp up with increased implementation.
Clean-sheet-of-paper-time. The sooner we all recognize this, the sooner we can move on to something actually beneficial - for everyone, not just the cynical and self-interested few.
You say "it would be better if the problems are fixed." I agree. But HD Radio is so addled with problems and compromises, it can't be fixed. The system is too complex, the modulation scheme is too fragile, there's too much interference, there isn't sufficient bandwidth for both the analog and digital information. There is NO fix. It's never going to be better than it is today. In fact, the more stations build out with HD and add subchannels and increase digital power, the more problems there will be, because the interference is unavoidable and will ramp up with increased implementation.
Clean-sheet-of-paper-time. The sooner we all recognize this, the sooner we can move on to something actually beneficial - for everyone, not just the cynical and self-interested few.
I bought a brandy new Sony flat screen HD TV 4 or 5 years ago, hooked it up as I already had satellite and the picture didn't look any different to me so I called them and found out I had to pay extra for HD, I thought forget it. I waited a few years until it was mandatory called again and again was told that I had to pay extra for it even though it was now forced on us. I laughed in their face and gave the TV to my ex-wife. I have seen HD at my father's house and had to ask him if the show was in HD or not, it was, I did not see much difference at all. I have come to see that HD TV is pretty much the same as HD radio: not much of a difference and a huge waste of time, they are both money makers for the industry (although the only people really making money from HD radio is ibiquity) and not much more, there is no benefit for the consumer at all. Here I am, I don't watch TV or very rarely and it's not on my own TV and my HD tuner is gathering dust in a storage space, so much for the ballyhooed digital revolution!
TheBigA said:
I guess that depends on how you define "better"?
Would it be better for the broadcasters? Probably not. Going digital would require a significant amount of new investment and engineering talent. As I understand the economics of radio today that would impose a considerable hardship on a whole lot of independent stations and even the big guys might not want to invest without some good prospect of return-on-investment (which I understand is not there).
Would it be better for the listener? Most definitely not. It would require at least a front-end to existing radios in the manner of TV's converter boxes. Unless there is some compelling reason to listen to digital radio most people would just go without. And multiply that geometrically when it comes to mobile digital radio with its many reception and distance issues.
Would it be better for the advertiser? You tell me. There would be some significant audience shrinkage initially (if for no other reason than it would take time to get new receivers/converters in the field). Fewer listeners = less coverage = unhappy advertisers = lost clients.
Bottom line - in this terrible economy is the gubmint willing to finance another converter box buy-out? I doubt it. And without that listeners are not going to be willing to shell out money for new equipment - especially if the converters provide the same old analog quality.
Bear in mind there are many more radio listeners than OTA TV viewers so the impact and costs will be that much greater. It is a recipe for disaster. Given the tenuous position of our current administration I really doubt they are willing to take a chance on a potential boondoggle.
landtuna said:
They might even have to hire engineers again. Remember when stations actually had engineers? They really don't need them on staff any more.
I have no reason to believe that any of this will be required by their Congress or the FCC. I think both of them had enough with the TV conversion, and don't want to venture down that road again. But as I said in an earlier post, it helps when you have a new product to sell. Certainly the status quo isn't exciting advertisers. So maybe a little new investment wouldn't be a bad thing. You gotta spend money to make money.
Keep an open mind. Don't be so automatically opposed to change. It's going to happen whether you want it to or not. So you better be ready. People don't believe me when I say advertisers don't like older demos (especially men) because they don't like change. This is a perfect example.
TheBigA said:
I understand what you are saying but don't realistically think the advertisers care whether their message is on analog or digital so long as it reaches the target demo and gets results. It seems the only demo you might reach today on digital radio are the geeks.
TheBigA said:
I have no problem with change. I have a big problem with a half-azzed "solution" is forced down my throat and is not a benefit to me. This is my experience with DTV and I don't want to repeat the experience with digital radio.
If "they" ever come up with a good solution for digital radio I will buy in but not if it repeats the DTV fiasco. The current HD radio is not a good solution and has no benefit to me therefore if it is ever implemented in its current form I will simply be a former radio listener.
F
flashback
Guest
^ yes there is no digital radio today.i can`t speak for everyone but i realize that.i am saying as problematic as digital tv is we don`t need it hoisted on radio.
as i said if there is a choice between analog and digital i am fine with it but we know how it works.
there was a choice between attendents pumping gas and self serve.now it is just self serve.
there was a choice between beta and vhs.then there was just vhs.then a choice between vhs and dvd .now there was just dvd.now there is a choice between dvd and blu-ray.it will soon just be blu-ray.
it doesn`t have to be a goverment decre.
as i said if there is a choice between analog and digital i am fine with it but we know how it works.
there was a choice between attendents pumping gas and self serve.now it is just self serve.
there was a choice between beta and vhs.then there was just vhs.then a choice between vhs and dvd .now there was just dvd.now there is a choice between dvd and blu-ray.it will soon just be blu-ray.
it doesn`t have to be a goverment decre.
TheBigA said:
If The Old Gringo is correct most ad buys are through agencies and not individual business owners. I'm pretty sure that agencies are far more educated about the coverage of digital radio than Honest Harry's used car lot. "New and Improved" is 99% a hoax no matter what product it is featured upon - especially when the same slogan is splattered over virtually every product on the shelf.
MattParker said:
What then would you call the .2's currently being broadcast?
MattParker said:
Since the radio industry itself, nor anyone else for that matter except iBiquity, see HD radio as anything of value there would be no alternative but for the gubmint to do the implementation mandate as they did with DTV.
TheBigA said:
Exactly, we hear in analog. That fancy HD radio of yours is converting the digital signal back to analog so that you can hear it. So instead of it being converted to 1939 as you say at the radio station, its being done at your receiver. And FM has improved since it was first invented. Adding stereo was a big thing. Theres also RDS that can bring all of the text goodies that HD can. And digital can even help out analog with DSP units which can eliminate much of the soft static that old style FM radios had.
HD Radio and DTV are not comparable. DTV is made to be picked up by a stationary receiver and does not do well in motion. HD radio also has the same issues. On analog FM a brief weak signal will cause the audio to fade, maybe fall back to mono if it gets weak enough, but the instant the signal comes back you hear it. Hit this same dead spot with HD, and the signal goes quiet or falls back to analog. DTV also brought higher picture quality. 720p and 1080i are definitely better than analog was. 480i is about what analog TV would be in digital.
On FM I'd say the analog signal would sound like a 200-300 kb/s MP3 file. But the current hybrid digital system gives us much less, and the whole hybrid system is a bad idea. It relies on the adjacent channels adding noise and reducing reception of these adjacent channels. It also broadcasts at a much lower power than the main analog signal. Can you imagine if DTV ran a hybrid system like IBOC, it would have been a mess. The best hope for HD Radio would be for it to drop analog so it could raise the bit rate and reduce adjacent channel noise.
Savage said:
Bingo! On the money!
As I recall, another wise man -- ok, it was Randy Michaels -- once said: "The most important thing is your signal. If they can't hear you, nothing else matters." He said that long before HD -- and from a programming perspective. Such a simple concept, yet one that some didn't seem to understand back then, and many more still don't today.
I like to say that signals need to be "real." HD Radio signals cause a world of interference, and they are decidedly not "real."
spunker88 said:
Okay granted I'm not a techie, but something doesn't look correct in your statement.. Aren't CD's something like 44.1? And most people, including myself, find CD's to be the audio standard to achieve. If just plain old FM is indeed 200-300, then why is it that FM frequency response is less than a CD? I'd heard the whole idea of FM-HD radio, was to have "CD quality" audio along side the well..non CD audio of analog FM.
Even my less than precision ears can tell the difference between analog FM and HD, or a CD for that matter.
Or is this another one of those AM audio is perfectly good arguments?
Ok, guru, I'll give it a try. You're confusing sample rate and bitrate. CD's are normally recorded with a sample rate of 44.1k/s, each sample has 16 bits (or 2 bytes) for each channel of the stereo pair, so "uncompressed" CD digital audio = 44,100 x 16 x 2 = 1,411 kbps. Garden variety MP3 files at 128 kbps are compressed by a factor of 11 -- over 90% of the original bits are removed. Higher quality 256 kbps files have only 80% of their bits removed. It's impossible to say that analog FM is equivalent 200-300 kbps digital audio -- it isn't even like comparing apples to oranges, it's more like comparing boats to pizzas. Quality can go from excellent to awful on either side of the analog-digital divide. Digital typically has the advantage of a lower noise floor, and analog has the advantage of an infinite sample rate. If you put a quality example of each through a typical FM broadcast transmission system, they will sound quite good and about the same, with their high ends rolled off above 15 kHz to protect the FM stereo pilot at 19 kHz.
The hybrid HD Radio scheme currently in use allows for a digital bitrate of 96kbps, which has to be divided among the HD1, HD2, HD3, etc., channels. Even though HD uses higher quality compression algorithms than MP3, the claims of "CD quality" and "FM quality" are over-the-top.
And yes, AM is quite good and might have been great. Unfortunately, HD Radio, the FCC, the NRSC, receiver manufacturers, and our computer and fluorescent light-filled world have robbed it of its stereo, its high fidelity, and its acceptable noise floor -- but that's a story for another time.
The hybrid HD Radio scheme currently in use allows for a digital bitrate of 96kbps, which has to be divided among the HD1, HD2, HD3, etc., channels. Even though HD uses higher quality compression algorithms than MP3, the claims of "CD quality" and "FM quality" are over-the-top.
And yes, AM is quite good and might have been great. Unfortunately, HD Radio, the FCC, the NRSC, receiver manufacturers, and our computer and fluorescent light-filled world have robbed it of its stereo, its high fidelity, and its acceptable noise floor -- but that's a story for another time.
- Status