Has HD radio already failed?

[Chuck]

You apparently missed my point as well. As I stated, most of the HD promotion efforts are being headed by people who have a vested interest in HD not succeeding. They want you to know you can hear their station with "digital quality" but realistically - is that any reason to buy an HD Radio? Most major market FMs sound pretty darn good as is.

The approach to marketing the HD2 channels is half hearted at best. The "something is out there" approach is just plain dumb. I'd liken that to a music store full of unmarked CDs. Do you think people would walk in and part with their hard earned cash to hear "something?" Not likely...

If you were a program director in a major market, would you be eager to promote an HD subchannel being programmed by someone else? It's just more competition for you.

Radio could produce an effective marketing campaign for HD, but currently has no desire. Alliance members have contractual obligations to promote it, but that doesn't mean they have to do a good job.

Like I said - radio as an industry is currently just hedging its bet with HD. It's like the early days of FM.

Were the program directors of KHJ, WLS and WABC promoting their FMs? No. The program directors of today's stations are no more eager to promote the new channels and multicasting is the USP that will move HD Radios.

Is this the same "El Cheapo" who was posting a month or so ago? I'm just wondering since it seems to be quite a realistic turn-around. I actually agree...

 

[SUPERCASTER]

VSA said:

You missed my point ENTIRELY. The point was, if radio can't even properly market HD radios for its own self-serving purposes, why should ANY advertiser believe that radio is capable of marketing ANY OTHER product or service?
Radio is used to being an audio distribution semi-monopoly. It hasn't had to sell radios since its earliest days. It doesn't know how to do it. Not a clue! To be somewhat fair to radio, HD radio doesn't offer any clear benefits. "Buy an overpriced special radio because there may be a few low-powered radio stations between-the-stations playing who-knows-what, and soon those stations will also be playing 20 minutes of spots an hour just like the others."

No benefits = no HD radio buyers

Agreed.
Radio (by executive order) has already lost most of it's credibility with advertisers, citizens, and listeners. Most people are already convinced that many radio stations no longer serve the public; just owners, Wall Street, bankers, and management. No amount of money, can buy that lost trust back. Good deeds might, but it takes a long time to re-establish trust.
All the false HD Radio hype is just exacerbating the problem, and proving the point.
Many Broadcast execs have worked so very hard to prove their total worship, dedication, loyalty, and complete lack of integrity, to the money boys. By disparaging everyone else, and using Enron style management methods, they have proven themselves to be undeserving of the public trust, or qualified to hold broadcast licenses.
Why should anyone place any credibility or trust in what many broadcasters do, say, or broadcast, anymore?
The answer is, they shouldn't.

 

[700WLW]

According to Jerry's latest article today, he reaffirms that terrestrial radio has lost the younger generation to other technologies, obvioulsy:

"Why 2007 Will Be Another Bad Year For Radio "

http://insidemusicmedia.blogspot.com/2006/12/why-2007-will-be-another-bad-year-for.html

 

[ElCheapo]

Agreed.
Radio (by executive order) has already lost most of it's credibility with advertisers, citizens, and listeners. Most people are already convinced that many radio stations no longer serve the public; just owners, Wall Street, bankers, and management. No amount of money, can buy that lost trust back. Good deeds might, but it takes a long time to re-establish trust.
All the false HD Radio hype is just exacerbating the problem, and proving the point.
Many Broadcast execs have worked so very hard to prove their total worship, dedication, loyalty, and complete lack of integrity, to the money boys. By disparaging everyone else, and using Enron style management methods, they have proven themselves to be undeserving of the public trust, or qualified to hold broadcast licenses.
Why should anyone place any credibility or trust in what many broadcasters do, say, or broadcast, anymore?
The answer is, they shouldn't.

I couldn't agree with you more. When Clinton signed the Telecom Act of '96 into law, many (probably most) radio stations were doomed to lose owners that actually cared about quality. Radio became just another business, and stations became just another commodity to be bought, sold and traded.

To be fair, many stations were already there - the first one I ever worked for fit squarely into that category because it was repoed by a man who really didn't want to own it, but most stations were owned and operated by people who actually seemed to care about producing a quality product and connecting with their communities.

I disagree with your statement about "false HD Radio hype" though...

What has the industry said to the public about HD that's untrue? That it offers "digital quality" sound? That there are more programming choices to be found on HD? Where's the false statement in that?

 

[vsa]

With the high cost of most new technologies, you'd think an expensive high-end A/V receiver designed to handle HD TV could include an HD radio tuner. None so far. 

A friend of mine told me about a (C/Net Editor's Choice) new Denon high-end video and audio receiver. Read the review and watch the video and check out the HD TV features - and the built-in XM Radio, iPod, USB port and Internet radio capabilities. Note: no HD radio capability. In this instance, XM and Internet radio are the digital radio media of choice. Is this a sneak peak of the future - today?

http://reviews.cnet.com/Denon_AVR_4306/4505-6466_7-31736750.html

 

[Mike Walker]

How long after the introduction of XM was it until you could get XM in an audio or audio/video receiver?

HD Radio is brand, spankin' new! The rollout takes longer because there are thousands of providers (individual stations), rather than two (XM and Sirius).

Lots of communities, particularly small ones, still have no HD stations. It's cool. This takes a while!

 

[vsa]

Like almost all radio people, you zeroed-in on the XM Radio capability. This is far from the first XM-capable component receiver. I see this giant blind spot for Internet radio among radio folks.

Internet radio is killing the HD radio star.

 

[700WLW]

How long after the introduction of XM was it until you could get XM in an audio or audio/video receiver?

HD Radio is brand, spankin' new! The rollout takes longer because there are thousands of providers (individual stations), rather than two (XM and Sirius).

Lots of communities, particularly small ones, still have no HD stations. It's cool. This takes a while!

It's such exciting technology, that after a year's worth and $200 million dollars of heavy advertising, only a few tens-of-thousands receivers have been sold, not counting the many that have probably been returned for poor HD channel programming and lousy reception - I bet, a number of consumers didn't know, what they were getting into, until they got home and saw those ugly dipole antennas, and realized they needed to be mouted outside and high-up. Never, has a technology had to be "pushed", so hard on consumers ! Phew...

"If you build it will they come?"

http://www.hear2.com/2006/10/if_you_build_it.html

 

[ElCheapo]

Like almost all radio people, you zeroed-in on the XM Radio capability. This is far from the first XM-capable component receiver. I see this giant blind spot for Internet radio among radio folks.

Internet radio is killing the HD radio star.

No, it really isn't.

Bitter people who couldn't make it in the industry for whatever reason love to spout off about whatever new technology or programming choice is going to "kill radio." If the internet and chat boards were around when MTV launched, the same people would have been predicting the end of radio then.

Every major broadcasting company either has a significant streaming mechanism in place or in development. If anything, internet streaming will raise awareness of HD Radio because the major broadcasting companies will be streaming all of their HD channels - Clear Channel already is. My best guess is that the streams will direct people to buy HD radios to hear the streams with higher quality audio and more portability. As much as you guys love to tout WiMAX, it's just not going to be as viable or portable as you think anytime soon. I don't need to look any further than my digital cell phone to figure that out. Talk about an unreliable and drop-out prone infrastructure and they've had YEARS to work on getting it right. I carry a Cingular and Sprint phone because I'm on call 24/7 and neither service has the reliability necessary to guarantee I can be reached. Can you hear me now?

Second, who's going to pay for the infrastructure to deliver this much content?

There is a finite amount of data the networks that comprise the internet can handle. Sure, they can always be expanded, but who's going to pay for it? Streaming audio is data! Data on the internet has to get from point A to point B through copper wires, or fiber optics, or microwave, or satellite or through some end user wireless technology - typically a combination of a few different links. There's a limit to how much data each one of these links can handle - especially the wireless ones. You can always bury another fiber line, but you can't create more spectrum for wireless.

Capacity aside, we're talking about the public internet here. If I can't listen to a stream reliably and without dropouts here in my office which is served by a T1, why would I be able to listen to one in a moving car over a 2.5 GHz wireless link? I hate to tell you this, but that frequency doesn't perform particularly well when obstacles get between the transmitter and receiver - obstacles like buildings, rain, trees, etc. Couple that with the already unreliable nature of the public internet and you'll have virtually unlistenable audio that's EXTREMELY prone to drop outs.

Just today, I tried to listen to a 64K stream originating from another group of stations owned by my company... Coincidentally, the stream was of an HD Radio monitoring device - I was listening to a stream of an HD Radio station through the internet. It dropped out constantly - every 30 to 40 seconds there was some glitch in the stream. There was just one user connected to it (me) and there was a T1 on each end with the public internet in the middle. Totally unreliable.

And you think HD Radio is a "fraud and a farce?" Super-low bitrate, crap quality internet streams are the norm and will continue to be the norm because there is currently no way to get high bitrate audio through the public internet reliably. It doesn't matter what wireless technology you put at the receiver end - with the audio going through the net, it's going to suck - period - and the listening experience will fall short.

Internet radio - especially portable internet radio - is the best thing that could ever happen for HD Radio.

 

[Chuck]

Just today, I tried to listen to a 64K stream originating from another group of stations owned by my company... Coincidentally, the stream was of an HD Radio monitoring device - I was listening to a stream of an HD Radio station through the internet. It dropped out constantly - every 30 to 40 seconds there was some glitch in the stream. There was just one user connected to it (me) and there was a T1 on each end with the public internet in the middle. Totally unreliable.

So, why do an increasing number of radio stations use the public internet for their STL? Are they just cheap and don't care about quality? That will be news to the people at Telos, Barix, etc.

My personal findings are, it is about 99.9% reliable. Not perfect, but at least an interesting technology that shows a lot of promise.

Maybe you should have a word with your T-1 provider...

 

[700WLW]

Like almost all radio people, you zeroed-in on the XM Radio capability. This is far from the first XM-capable component receiver. I see this giant blind spot for Internet radio among radio folks.

Internet radio is killing the HD radio star.

No, it really isn't.

Bitter people who couldn't make it in the industry for whatever reason love to spout off about whatever new technology or programming choice is going to "kill radio." If the internet and chat boards were around when MTV launched, the same people would have been predicting the end of radio then.

Every major broadcasting company either has a significant streaming mechanism in place or in development. If anything, internet streaming will raise awareness of HD Radio because the major broadcasting companies will be streaming all of their HD channels - Clear Channel already is. My best guess is that the streams will direct people to buy HD radios to hear the streams with higher quality audio and more portability. As much as you guys love to tout WiMAX, it's just not going to be as viable or portable as you think anytime soon. I don't need to look any further than my digital cell phone to figure that out. Talk about an unreliable and drop-out prone infrastructure and they've had YEARS to work on getting it right. I carry a Cingular and Sprint phone because I'm on call 24/7 and neither service has the reliability necessary to guarantee I can be reached. Can you hear me now?

Second, who's going to pay for the infrastructure to deliver this much content?

There is a finite amount of data the networks that comprise the internet can handle. Sure, they can always be expanded, but who's going to pay for it? Streaming audio is data! Data on the internet has to get from point A to point B through copper wires, or fiber optics, or microwave, or satellite or through some end user wireless technology - typically a combination of a few different links. There's a limit to how much data each one of these links can handle - especially the wireless ones. You can always bury another fiber line, but you can't create more spectrum for wireless.

Capacity aside, we're talking about the public internet here. If I can't listen to a stream reliably and without dropouts here in my office which is served by a T1, why would I be able to listen to one in a moving car over a 2.5 GHz wireless link? I hate to tell you this, but that frequency doesn't perform particularly well when obstacles get between the transmitter and receiver - obstacles like buildings, rain, trees, etc. Couple that with the already unreliable nature of the public internet and you'll have virtually unlistenable audio that's EXTREMELY prone to drop outs.

Just today, I tried to listen to a 64K stream originating from another group of stations owned by my company... Coincidentally, the stream was of an HD Radio monitoring device - I was listening to a stream of an HD Radio station through the internet. It dropped out constantly - every 30 to 40 seconds there was some glitch in the stream. There was just one user connected to it (me) and there was a T1 on each end with the public internet in the middle. Totally unreliable.

And you think HD Radio is a "fraud and a farce?" Super-low bitrate, crap quality internet streams are the norm and will continue to be the norm because there is currently no way to get high bitrate audio through the public internet reliably. It doesn't matter what wireless technology you put at the receiver end - with the audio going through the net, it's going to suck - period - and the listening experience will fall short.

Internet radio - especially portable internet radio - is the best thing that could ever happen for HD Radio.

With all these other delivery systems, people will just realize they can hear the crappy HD channels for free on the Internet/Internet Radio, so they will not need to buy ugly, clunky, expensive HD radios, that require ugly, clunky dipole antennas mounted in the attic, or on the roof.

 

[ElCheapo]

So, why do an increasing number of radio stations use the public internet for their STL? Are they just cheap and don't care about quality? That will be news to the people at Telos, Barix, etc.

My personal findings are, it is about 99.9% reliable. Not perfect, but at least an interesting technology that shows a lot of promise.

Maybe you should have a word with your T-1 provider...

If you do some research on the subject you'll see that people using "internet" STLs like the offerings from Comrex, Barix, etc. are encouraged to utilize the same ISP on both ends of the link - the audio never really makes it out to the public internet - it stays on the private network of the ISP for the entire haul.

I'm sure if I was using my ISP for the entire haul - if the box were on the other side of town, not the other side of the state - it would be much better - but I did a traceroute and found the link between me and the other end goes through 6 different networks between here and there - a total of 19 hops.

I had a similarly terrible experience trying to listen to the 32k stream of Nova 106.9 Brisbane last night. No wonder - it goes through 22 different hops from there to here.

One or two hops on the same network is a far different animal than 15-30 hops on the public internet. You're making an apples to oranges comparison.

 

[vsa]

Like almost all radio people, you zeroed-in on the XM Radio capability. This is far from the first XM-capable component receiver. I see this giant blind spot for Internet radio among radio folks.

Internet radio is killing the HD radio star.

No, it really isn't.

Bitter people who couldn't make it in the industry for whatever reason love to spout off about whatever new technology or programming choice is going to "kill radio."  If the internet and chat boards were around when MTV launched, the same people would have been predicting the end of radio then.

Every major broadcasting company either has a significant streaming mechanism in place or in development.  If anything, internet streaming will raise awareness of HD Radio because the major broadcasting companies will be streaming all of their HD channels - Clear Channel already is.  My best guess is that the streams will direct people to buy HD radios to hear the streams with higher quality audio and more portability.  As much as you guys love to tout WiMAX, it's just not going to be as viable or portable as you think anytime soon.  I don't need to look any further than my digital cell phone to figure that out.  Talk about an unreliable and drop-out prone infrastructure and they've had YEARS to work on getting it right.  I carry a Cingular and Sprint phone because I'm on call 24/7 and neither service has the reliability necessary to guarantee I can be reached.  Can you hear me now?

Second, who's going to pay for the infrastructure to deliver this much content?

There is a finite amount of data the networks that comprise the internet can handle.  Sure, they can always be expanded, but who's going to pay for it?  Streaming audio is data!  Data on the internet has to get from point A to point B through copper wires, or fiber optics, or microwave, or satellite or through some end user wireless technology - typically a combination of a few different links.  There's a limit to how much data each one of these links can handle - especially the wireless ones.  You can always bury another fiber line, but you can't create more spectrum for wireless.

Capacity aside, we're talking about the public internet here.  If I can't listen to a stream reliably and without dropouts here in my office which is served by a T1, why would I be able to listen to one in a moving car over a 2.5 GHz wireless link?  I hate to tell you this, but that frequency doesn't perform particularly well when obstacles get between the transmitter and receiver - obstacles like buildings, rain, trees, etc.  Couple that with the already unreliable nature of the public internet and you'll have virtually unlistenable audio that's EXTREMELY prone to drop outs.

Just today, I tried to listen to a 64K stream originating from another group of stations owned by my company...  Coincidentally, the stream was of an HD Radio monitoring device - I was listening to a stream of an HD Radio station through the internet.  It dropped out constantly - every 30 to 40 seconds there was some glitch in the stream.  There was just one user connected to it (me) and there was a T1 on each end with the public internet in the middle.  Totally unreliable.

And you think HD Radio is a "fraud and a farce?"  Super-low bitrate, crap quality internet streams are the norm and will continue to be the norm because there is currently no way to get high bitrate audio through the public internet reliably.  It doesn't matter what wireless technology you put at the receiver end - with the audio going through the net, it's going to suck - period - and the listening experience will fall short.

Internet radio - especially portable internet radio - is the best thing that could ever happen for HD Radio.

I work in traditional radio in market number 2. I have no reason to be bitter about anything. Most major broadcasters are very late in coming to the streaming table. There is a very steep learning curve. There's a lot more to the Internet radio environment than just putting up a 20k or 32k stream and selling cheap spot inserts. Streaming your on-air programming is no different than AMs who put the same stuff on the their FMs in the 50's and early 60's.

Traditional radio has every reason NOT to move their audience to their streams. Since they are not 100% simulcasts, you actually lose in the Arbitron ratings. Streaming costs traditional broadcasters more money too - in bandwidth and music copyright fees.  

Perhaps you ought to try Verizon Wireless EV-DO data service. It's quite reliable. It's 3G, not even 4G Mobile Wimax. Even their older and slower fall-back x1rtt service can handle 28 to 32k streams reliably. For Christmas, I drove north from Los Angeles through much of the state of California. I listened on my cell phone (plugged into my radio's sound system) to a 24k AAC+ audio stream. Quite good audio quality in the car. The ONLY dropouts came in the mountains near the Los Angeles/Kern County line. The reception put AM and FM reception to shame. HD radio reception would have been a joke or non-existent.

As for any perceived shortage of frquencies for mobile data networks, may I direct you to this article about "Cognitive Radio" from Scientific American:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000C7B72-2374-13F6-A37483414B7F0000&pageNumber=5&catID=2

As for who's going to build the networks? The cell phone companies are racing to do it before they are left in the dust. Cellphone voice service will eventually go to mobile VOIP.

HD radio diverts attention and diminishing resources from the real battle ahead. You are in denial.

Oh, and if I were you, I'd get a different ISP. There's no reason for you to access much of anything on the Internet over more than about 10 hops.

 

[ElCheapo]

I work in traditional radio in market number 2. I have no reason to be bitter about anything.

Really? The context you used in your earlier post would have led me to believe otherwise.

Like almost all radio people, you zeroed-in on the XM Radio capability. This is far from the first XM-capable component receiver. I see this giant blind spot for Internet radio among radio folks.

Anyway...

Most major broadcasters are very late in coming to the streaming table. There is a very steep learning curve. There's a lot more to the Internet radio environment than just putting up a 20k or 32k stream and selling cheap spot inserts. Streaming your on-air programming is no different than AMs who put the same stuff on the their FMs in the 50's and early 60's.

Hmmm... If traditional radio is so late coming to the table, then why are most people listening to streaming online listening to streams of traditional radio stations?

Traditional radio has every reason NOT to move their audience to their streams. Since they are not 100% simulcasts, you actually lose in the Arbitron ratings. Streaming costs traditional broadcasters more money too - in bandwidth and music copyright fees.

I don't see how traditional Arbitron methodology could even tell. If people are listening to a stream of KXXX they're most likely going to report that they were listening to KXXX not KXXX.com. PPM stations are also encoding their streams with the PPM data. Whether it survives the encoding process, I have no idea.

Perhaps you ought to try Verizon Wireless EV-DO data service. It's quite reliable. It's 3G, not even 4G Mobile Wimax. Even their older and slower fall-back x1rtt service can handle 28 to 32k streams reliably. For Christmas, I drove north from Los Angeles through much of the state of California. I listened on my cell phone (plugged into my radio's sound system) to a 24k AAC+ audio stream. Quite good audio quality in the car. The ONLY dropouts came in the mountains near the Los Angeles/Kern County line. The reception put AM and FM reception to shame. HD radio reception would have been a joke or non-existent.

Well God bless you and your miraculous cell phone! I already stated why I carry two different phones from two different providers. If the cellular companies are providing the backbone of future radio in your little dream scenario, traditional radio really has nothing to worry about!

Cellular as an industry can't provide reliable voice service - I'm not very confident of their ability to provide reliable ancillary services. C'mon - their own marketing acknowledges this - surely you've heard or seen the ads - "Can you hear me now?" or "The network with the fewest dropped calls!"

As for any perceived shortage of frquencies for mobile data networks, may I direct you to this article about "Cognitive Radio" from Scientific American:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000C7B72-2374-13F6-A37483414B7F0000&pageNumber=5&catID=2

As for who's going to build the networks? The cell phone companies are racing to do it before they are left in the dust. Cellphone voice service will eventually go to mobile VOIP.

Spectrum is spectrum and there is a finite amount available - period. Do you really think cellular companies are going to keep expanding their infrastructure just to support streaming audio? Streaming audio is a huge bandwidth hog by any estimation. When your browser reloads this page, it's pulling a miniscule amount of data compared to even a few seconds of streaming audio. I have no doubt that there will be progressively increasing demand for mobile internet access, but I have serious doubts about ISPs gleefully bearing the brunt of costs associated with your internet radio fantasy. If even a few percent of traditional radio listeners switched exclusively to internet streaming, the strain on the public internet and ISPs would be huge.

Think the ISPs wouldn't notice? Try hosting a server on your cable modem and see how Time Warner or Comcast reacts.

HD radio diverts attention and diminishing resources from the real battle ahead. You are in denial.

If I'm in denial, it's just of your fantasy scenario. While I don't doubt the infrastructure for such a scenario might exist someday, I absolutely can't see it coming to fruition for another 5 years - at least. We're talking about the same public internet that takes forever to load some web pages (let alone streams) on both my office T1 and on my ClearWire wireless broadband at home.

Speaking of ClearWire - now THAT is a joke and they're the frontrunner in the WiMAX battle. Going with them was absolutely the worst ISP decision I've ever made. But I digress...

Oh, and if I were you, I'd get a different ISP. There's no reason for you to access much of anything on the Internet over more than about 10 hops.

Yeah - they suck for a variety of reasons, but many ISPs users experience a similar number of hops - if not more. Not really condusive to good streaming audio. My office ISP is in no way atypical.

 

[Chuck]

If you do some research on the subject you'll see that people using "internet" STLs like the offerings from Comrex, Barix, etc. are encouraged to utilize the same ISP on both ends of the link - the audio never really makes it out to the public internet - it stays on the private network of the ISP for the entire haul.
<SNIP>

One or two hops on the same network is a far different animal than 15-30 hops on the public internet. You're making an apples to oranges comparison.

Well, I have done some research. In fact I am currently using the technology to link two studios together through the public internet. You are right that it is recommended that you use the same ISP, but in many cases, that simply is not an option. In my case, the same ISP is not available in both areas. One end is connected to a T-1 line. The other end comes via wireless Internet. That's pretty scary, but funny thing is it works quite reliably, or at least, it has so far. The equipment was installed in August. As I said, it is only 99.9 percent reliable. I'd prefer 99.9999%. Who wouldn’t?

When I fell off the turnip wagon, the wheels missed my head...

 

[ElCheapo]

If you do some research on the subject you'll see that people using "internet" STLs like the offerings from Comrex, Barix, etc. are encouraged to utilize the same ISP on both ends of the link - the audio never really makes it out to the public internet - it stays on the private network of the ISP for the entire haul.
<SNIP>

One or two hops on the same network is a far different animal than 15-30 hops on the public internet. You're making an apples to oranges comparison.

Well, I have done some research. In fact I am currently using the technology to link two studios together through the public internet. You are right that it is recommended that you use the same ISP, but in many cases, that simply is not an option. In my case, the same ISP is not available in both areas. One end is connected to a T-1 line. The other end comes via wireless Internet. That's pretty scary, but funny thing is it works quite reliably, or at least, it has so far. The equipment was installed in August. As I said, it is only 99.9 percent reliable. I'd prefer 99.9999%. Who wouldn’t?

When I fell off the turnip wagon, the wheels missed my head...

I'm glad it's working for you - particularly because I've been contemplating doing the same thing with one of my AMs. I've done some checking and haven't found an ISP that can service both ends of the link except by T1, and if I wanted to pay for that, I'd just do a point to point T1. Because of its location, the studio end can only be serviced by T1.

You have to admit though - there is a huge difference between creating a basically static link from one side of town to the other - even using different ISPs - than creating many different links to locations throughout the world.

 

[Chuck]

I'm glad it's working for you - particularly because I've been contemplating doing the same thing with one of my AMs. I've done some checking and haven't found an ISP that can service both ends of the link except by T1, and if I wanted to pay for that, I'd just do a point to point T1. Because of its location, the studio end can only be serviced by T1.

You have to admit though - there is a huge difference between creating a basically static link from one side of town to the other - even using different ISPs - than creating many different links to locations throughout the world.

True enough about the multiple ISP's. Just like anything, the more weak links you have in your signal chain, the greater the chance for failure. Maybe we've been lucky, but so far it has been OK. I'd think it would be an appropriate way to get from point A to point B for many small to mid size stations. I'm not sure I'd trust WOR or WLS to it, but it might be a great back up. Quite a few public broadcasters are using it as either a temporary or back up STL. I've heard of a few AM's doing it too. The Barix boxes work quite well, especially when you consider that they don't cost very much.

Have you considered using a private wireless network? For nearly nothing, you can buy a pair of radios and antennas from Tranzeo in Canada http://tranzeo.com/ that will give you a great connection for as much as 20 miles. Plug the Barix or Comrex boxes in and you're done. Really, it works. I know several people doing it. Or if you want to spend more, the Motorola Canopy stuff works well. A local station in our area is using it. They usually have the #1 spot in the ratings, so the quality must be "good enough" for their listeners.

Of course a couple of traditional broadcast suppliers offer equipment that will accomplish the same thing. I also understand that there is a new 3.6 GHz licensed band that allows as much as 10 watts. It might be worth looking in to.

Sometime in the first quarter, I'm planning on replacing our Internet independence with our own private link, and use the Internet for backup. I'll let you know how it works out.

 

[vsa]

ElCheapo wrote: "Really?...Anyway...Hmmm...I don't see how...Well God bless...Spectrum is spectrum...If I'm in denial...Yeah."

Wow, some really accurate and coherent arguments and assumptions there! I can see that you've thoroughly investigated and weighed this subject with an inquisitive mind and refused to merely dismiss my points.

You've just explained to me how one can be such a stong supporter of HD radio.

 

[700WLW]

Personally, I prefer a writing style with some personality over cut and dried technobabble. We're all here for entertainment after all - except maybe 700WLW - he's clearly on a mission from God.

How, did you know, God sent me here ? Yes, I am on a one-man mercy mission from God, to rid the planet of the HD Radio Cartel/iBiquity gangstas ! Analog AM shall live forever (well, maybe in Canada) !

 

[ElCheapo]

True enough about the multiple ISP's. Just like anything, the more weak links you have in your signal chain, the greater the chance for failure. Maybe we've been lucky, but so far it has been OK. I'd think it would be an appropriate way to get from point A to point B for many small to mid size stations. I'm not sure I'd trust WOR or WLS to it, but it might be a great back up. Quite a few public broadcasters are using it as either a temporary or back up STL. I've heard of a few AM's doing it too. The Barix boxes work quite well, especially when you consider that they don't cost very much.

Have you considered using a private wireless network? For nearly nothing, you can buy a pair of radios and antennas from Tranzeo in Canada http://tranzeo.com/ that will give you a great connection for as much as 20 miles. Plug the Barix or Comrex boxes in and you're done. Really, it works. I know several people doing it. Or if you want to spend more, the Motorola Canopy stuff works well. A local station in our area is using it. They usually have the #1 spot in the ratings, so the quality must be "good enough" for their listeners.

Of course a couple of traditional broadcast suppliers offer equipment that will accomplish the same thing. I also understand that there is a new 3.6 GHz licensed band that allows as much as 10 watts. It might be worth looking in to.

Sometime in the first quarter, I'm planning on replacing our Internet independence with our own private link, and use the Internet for backup. I'll let you know how it works out.

Sounds good - I'd love to hear how it works out for you.

I read an article on the Tranzeo links a while back and was really intrigued, but they probably wouldn't be a good fit for my application. The link is just too long and there are terrain issues.

What this station really needs is a traditional 950 MHz STL, but we don't have the tower to make the hop on the studio end. It's a little kilowatt AM that bills next to nothing and the powers that be aren't going to foot the bill for a new stick at the studio just to fix it. My FM shots work fine from the existing STL tower.

Its STL has been an FM subcarrier for many years now, and apparently I'm the only person that thinks some improvement is in order. I will probably end up doing a link with the Barix boxes and maintain the subcarrier. I'll probably put a silence sensor on the output of the Barix and wire it to fall back to the subcarrier if needed.