"HD an annoyance to some GMs and owners, just like FM was."

[pocket-radio]

Eric Rhodes of Radio Ink has interesting take on HD. After you digest his opinion, then consider the comments of his followers.

I believe Eric is venting his personal frustrations that oddly enough sound exactly like what has already been said by you on this board. So let's be clear, Eric is a true believer who is praying for the return of radio in the form of HD, but his brain can't rationalize the evidence from what his eyes and ears are telling him... Follow the link and make up your own mind..

http://ericrhoads.blogs.com/ink_tank/2010/05/are-you-killing-hd-radio.html

 

[tomservo]

I have to take issue with this point…

It seems to me that if we came up with something that is not researched to death, that is as radical as FM was in its early days, and that gives HD the feel of being "underground" or offering something you can't get anywhere else (and that a large audience actually cares about), HD could take off.

Something is not "underground" anymore if it attracts a large enough audience. Radio is already a mass-appeal medium, meaning niche formats will never get the commitment they need or deserve. Would you commit time and money towards a format that only a handful of (loyal) people would tune in to?

The fact of the matter is FM took off when new music was taking off, and we haven't had new music in decades. There simply isn't anything new or different to latch the HD wagon to like there was with FM. There is only offering existing formats to a wider (ha) audience.

Even if a station wanted to offer up its HD subchannels to, say, live jocks to do with as they wished… could they? Most HD subchannels seem to be nothing more than computers in closets or satellite feeds from Clear Channel HQ.

I'm with the guy from Montgomery in the comments, too: until iBiquity makes HD and open standard and stops trying to rob stations of their profit, it's only going to remain in the realm of big station operators.

 

[TheBigA]

The growth of FM didn't come from underground music. Those stations were blips on the ratings screen. It also didn't come from giving people something not available elsewhere. Because for 20 years prior to 1975, FM was giving audiences classical music and other alternatives to AM fare. And no one cared. What popularized FM was when Top 40 stations migrated to FM, and the band was standard equipment in all new radios. The most popular FM stations were the ones that duplicated a lot of what was on AM, but had the better fidelity.

Same with HD. The ONLY thing that will expand HD to the level of FM is for it to become standard equipment on all radios. But that won't happen until iBiquity removes all its costly royalties. I agree with Zach about that. IBiquity is its own worst enemy. It should have given the technology away, make it standard, then get the money afterwards.

 

[DuckBlue]

Mr. Rhodes states, "But many of the stations I'm listening to on HD are playing MP3s instead of higher-quality .WAV files, making the difference in sound less noticeable." Does he believe that the HD codecs are lossless? I would think that HD corrupts the signal much more than say a 192k mp3 compression ever would. Does anyone know how they compare?

 

[Tom Wells]

Mr. Rhodes states, "But many of the stations I'm listening to on HD are playing MP3s instead of higher-quality .WAV files, making the difference in sound less noticeable." Does he believe that the HD codecs are lossless? I would think that HD corrupts the signal much more than say a 192k mp3 compression ever would. Does anyone know how they compare?

It's not so much as how they compare, a WAV file would be very clean, a 192k mp3 is clean enough to satisfy my "ready to criticize" ears,
AND I believe the HD codec for FM is pretty dang good with the full 96k used for one stream, if the source was "pristine" analog.
BUT any time there are cascading codecs, " something odd " WILL happen and will be heard.
With multiple steps of compression/decompression, it becomes increasingly important to use higher and higher bitrates to prevent the losses from
become apparent to the critical listener.

Did he really say that the lower bitrate "losses" would be less noticable after running through another codec?
That's just mind boggling, and runs counter to all my experience, unless a brickwall filter has lopped off (or rolled off) a lot of high-frequency info early on before the first codec.

 

[turkeydance]

eric: "buy the technology" NONONO. Give AWAY the tech. BUY the service.
the consumer gets a FREE razor, and BUYS the blade (old razorblade strategy)
eric: "enough that a consumer can tell a difference?" HD ain't enough. it would have
to be the difference between an HDTV and the old standard. HD radio is not.
56% listen to radio while in traffic. HD can't overcome the 'noise'.
iBiquity is monetizing from the wrong end. even the street corner Drug Lords know
to "low-ball" the entrance offering in order to hook a long-time consumer.

 

[KB1OKL]

Eric is a true believer alright, kind of like the unfortunate residents of Jonestown.

 

[Savage]

It's very sad. Obviously somebody fooled around with Eric's Thorazine drip and wasn't careful about keeping him away from the computer. Very difficult to witness.

There are so many nut-bar declarations and fallacies and nonsense-swallowed-wholesale and fibs and unintentionally funny technical misunderstandings, I don't even know where to begin.

I just shake my head, and wish him well. But it is nice that Eric earned himself a couple of hundred bucks selling Mighty Red Insignia knockoffs.

 

[mmnassour]

The bottom line for Eric and those who believe in HD is simple....when you folks start making money with it, call us!

Until then, you're just wasting electricity.

 

[Savage]

FWIW - take it from somebody who was there in 1966-67 when FM stations weren't even included in ratings summaries (Arbitron, then called "ARB" for Audience Research Bureau, used to issue a supplemental pamphlet titled "FM Stations" to accompany their Ratings Estimates.)

FM was never considered an "annoyance" in the manner HD is today. True, until the late 60s some managers ignored FM co-owned properties - not unlike the way cluster-Veeps ignore their AM stations today - but they weren't regarded as "annoyances" in most cases.

Once WOR-FM and a handful of others launched mass-appeal formats on FM in 1966 - this was after the FCC ordered 100% simulcasting of AMs to cease - everyone saw the potential and started upgrading and developing their FMs. Seven or eight years later, most of the music formats had migrated to FM and the writing was on the wall.

The reason management largely views HD as an annoyance today without any business potential is simple: both propositions are true. (And once again, the attempted parallel with FM's trajectory of development is revealed as a just another fantastic, self-serving and unsupportable HD Radio talking point.)

 

[Carmine5]

I'm surprised that Eric still insists on comparing the slow adoption of HD Radio to the early days of FM.

It may be a reassuring hand pat for HD Radio boosters but it denies the current reality which didn't exist in FM's formative years, namely, too much competition for listener ears and advertising dollars from other media, particularly the web. Plus with the advent of radio consolidation we now have PD's, sales staffs and other employees servicing multiple stations. Who has the time and resources to program HD side channels properly or go out, as Eric suggests, and browbeat local retailers into carrying and promoting HD Radios?

No, it is the comments from those who read Eric's blog, that is to say the in-the-trenches radio people, where the real information lies.

But forgetting for a moment that hardly anyone is listening to HD Radio, Eric's suggestion that side channels be turned over to independent programmers makes sense. Maybe they can do a better job of programming the channel. At least, these programmers would be taking all the risks by paying for leasing the channel as well as any music royalties and iBiquity fees. The station just has to collect rent money and possibly place a certain number of ads of their own on that channel.

This is exactly what TV broadcasters are doing with their sub-channels. Depending on the market, the diginets either pay the station as well as an ad barter and revenue sharing or, if it is a lesser market, it may be strictly a revenue sharing arrangement or, at the very least, a barter.

But this is the best and probably only way an HD-FM station can make money with its side channels (of course, just shutting off HD will save them plenty on utilities).

c5

 

[Savage]

But the problem is: there are no listeners largely because the technology is so flawed. And because the technology has so many problems - largely unsolveable interference issues dominate - there won't be any, or many, HD-capable radios either. On the infrequent occasion when a curious technie-listener actually buys an HD Radio, it generally goes back to the retailer because of unsatisfactory performance. (Which the vaunted HD-FM power increase won't help, BTW.) No listeners, Q. E. D.

Thus we keep on loping goofily around in the HD Error-Loop Circle. Because there isn't a viable innovation at the bottom of all this, there are no receivers, there are no listeners and there will be no advertisers. Because there is no revenue base, there is no industry interest. Because the technology can't feasibly be fixed, there is no interest in investing in it. And so on, and on, and on, and on.

Subcontractors are not going to be interested in leasing HD side channels - for the above reasons. If Clear Channel and Entercom and CBS can't make money on HD subs, neither can Gretchen's Screen Door Repair and Broadcasting Company. If there's no money, there's no money - no matter who programs and runs them.

Witness the pro-sports franchise "Winnemucca Flesh-Eating Birds All Hockey Channel" type HD subs. They're quickly learning that if they really want a dedicated-team radio station, they'd be better off hunting up a disused old AM station to buy on the cheap. At least everybody has an AM radio and if the facility is even reasonable they'll have at least a prayer of attracting a narrowcast audience.

 

[TheBigA]

But the problem is: there are no listeners largely because the technology is so flawed.

The listeners don't care about the technology. The issue is requiring them to buy new radios, most of which are stupid table models that no one but grandparents buy. If HD was available for free on all radios, with no additional hoops to jump through, more people would listen, even if the programming sucked. While turning the channels over to independent programmers would make a nice press release, it wouldn't make a difference.

 

[Chuck]

FWIW - take it from somebody who was there in 1966-67 when FM stations weren't even included in ratings summaries (Arbitron, then called "ARB" for Audience Research Bureau, used to issue a supplemental pamphlet titled "FM Stations" to accompany their Ratings Estimates.)

FM was never considered an "annoyance" in the manner HD is today. True, until the late 60s some managers ignored FM co-owned properties - not unlike the way cluster-Veeps ignore their AM stations today - but they weren't regarded as "annoyances" in most cases.

As I recall, there were some very successful FM stations back in the 1960's. I remember one in Dallas sold for something like $6,000,000 which was HUGE money back then. I'd be happy to have that kind of "annoyance."

 

[Savage]

The listeners "care about the technology" when it doesn't work, BigA. Maybe they could care less about analog versus digital, but they care about their wallets. If the new HD Radio they bought - format, type or size doesn't matter - doesn't work satisfactorily when they get it home, it goes back into the packaging and back to the store for a refund.

Perhaps it's more accurate to say "listeners care about the technology only if it works." But hairsplitting aside, the assertion in the first paragraph has been the scenario, over and over, tens of thousands of times, when it comes to the history of HD. And there's nothing indicating that is changing to any significant degree.

The more negative experiences of listeners and broadcasters with HD Radio stack up, the worse the prospects are of its ever seeing anything like wide acceptance. I personally believe IBOC passed that tipping point something like a year or longer ago. Broadcasters hate it, most people have no clue about HD Radio and a majority of those with knowledge of it have had a bad experience.

HD. R-I-P.

 

[TheBigA]

The listeners "care about the technology" when it doesn't work, BigA.

My point is they don't know whether it works or not, because they haven't even sampled it. And they can't actively make a decision when the technology isn't even available on the vast majority of radios in their universe. Let's be generous and say a million radios have been sold. That's the universe of people who've been able to decide if the technology works. Out of what, 350 million? I wouldn't use that as the basis of anything.

 

[landtuna]

I'm a gadget guy and like to try all manner of new stuff. When HD arrived I was anxious to try it because one of my favorite stations had its music, commercial-free, on a digisub. But I am averse to bleeding edge issues so waited awhile for the 2nd gen equipment.

Alas, in that short time I read on this site post after post detailing the many failures of HD technology. Sometimes it is worthwhile to pay attention to the reviews and this was one of them. I didn't have to buy an HD radio to know I was going to be frustrated with it.

So, no HD in my future, that is, until post after post says it is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

 

[tomservo]

One of the problems is your experience will vary depending on where you live. In rural MS where I live, HD is a no go. But right now I'm in a hotel room in St Louis and 11/13 HD signals are rock solid. I've enjoyed KLOU-HD2 city wide with no drop outs.

 

[tomservo]

Whoops, the mobile site doesn't allow much text entry!
The point is, this is a big midwestern city with lots of 100 kw signals. Anyone up north isn't going to find such trouble-free reception in a mobile environment.

 

[Carmine5]

But the problem is: there are no listeners largely because the technology is so flawed. And because the technology has so many problems - largely unsolveable interference issues dominate - there won't be any, or many, HD-capable radios either. On the infrequent occasion when a curious technie-listener actually buys an HD Radio, it generally goes back to the retailer because of unsatisfactory performance. (Which the vaunted HD-FM power increase won't help, BTW.) No listeners, Q. E. D.

Thus we keep on loping goofily around in the HD Error-Loop Circle. Because there isn't a viable innovation at the bottom of all this, there are no receivers, there are no listeners and there will be no advertisers. Because there is no revenue base, there is no industry interest. Because the technology can't feasibly be fixed, there is no interest in investing in it. And so on, and on, and on, and on.

Subcontractors are not going to be interested in leasing HD side channels - for the above reasons. If Clear Channel and Entercom and CBS can't make money on HD subs, neither can Gretchen's Screen Door Repair and Broadcasting Company. If there's no money, there's no money - no matter who programs and runs them.

Witness the pro-sports franchise "Winnemucca Flesh-Eating Birds All Hockey Channel" type HD subs. They're quickly learning that if they really want a dedicated-team radio station, they'd be better off hunting up a disused old AM station to buy on the cheap. At least everybody has an AM radio and if the facility is even reasonable they'll have at least a prayer of attracting a narrowcast audience.

Mr. Savage, what you trying to do here? I keep putting smiley face stickers on HD Radio and you keep pulling them off with inconvenient truths. My observations were predicated on if HD Radio worked properly and if it had a significant penetration in the marketplace (you know, like OJ Simpson's book, "If I Did It").

Looking at today's (6/2) RW edition there are a couple of interesting points on HDR that I missed:

1. Ibiquity is trying to develop a method for AM stations to broadcast an RDS-type data stream without broadcasting HDR, that is to say, the station would broadcast an analog only signal. Of course, it will mean putting another box online and, I suspect, a license fee.

2. Ibiquity is also showing a concept called "Active Emergency Alert" in which an HD Radio will show an emergency alert even when it is turned off.

http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/newbay/rw_20100602/#/8

Then we have Bob Struble claiming that the software problems involving HD-AM are not iBiquity's fault but someone else's.

http://www.rbr.com/radio/ENGINEERING/94/24677.html

Finally we have this information from Bext on the KATY/KRTH interference complaint. They say KATY's complaint is legit because the FCC-required spacing between the KATY and KRTH transmitters is 113 km and KATY exceeds that by 21 km. Also, the interference is occurring within KATY's protected 60 dBu contour.

To sum up the problem, the Bext newsletter says:

"KATY's claim of HD interference from KRTH is reasonable considering not only the large amount of power run by KRTH
(67 times the Class B limit when KRTH's elevation is considered), but the fact that KRTH's upper HD sideband sprays noise power directly into KATY's first adjacent analog channel. That's because of a major design flaw in FM HD, and a similar flaw
exists in AM HD. This is why some call IBOC operations "In Band Off Channel" instead of "On Channel." The HD data
is sprayed into adjacent channels."

http://www.bext.com/_CGC/2010/cgc1011.htm

c5