New York's WBLS and WRKS have increased their respective HD power and they have gone from the fragile "sometimes I can get it and sometimes not" kind of signals to solid "lock and stay locked" signals. Now this is hardly a technical study. I'm basing this on reception on radios in my home and that reception has been solid. I cannot say the same of the other NYC station transmitting from Empire. I do not have HD in my cars and I'd like to hear from anyone who does.
-
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
HD Power Boost at WRKS and WBLS Yields Good Results
- Thread starter VeteranPD
- Start date
Well, "good" results are relative. I am sure that JVC Media who owns 98.5 out on Long Island must be delighted by this as they lost a few dozen more square miles of coverage area. Same goes for Press Communications and WBBO (98.5) on the Jersey Shore, listeners of WRWD 107.3 in Poughkeepsie (many of whom just lost their country station) and for whoever owns WGNY 98.9 up in the Hudson Valley. All lost effective listening areas with these power boosts.
BRNout said:
Do you live in the area? Has your reception changed to show that the stations you've listed have been effected by the 6 DB increase in power? You've listed stations which are far outside of areas where even NYC's main analog channels cover completely. The only people possibly effected by the increase on power would be a handful of DXers who live outside the NY market. I live north of Manhattan and with better than average equipment at home even when the NY facilities were down during a blackout (a few years back), I couldn't receive those stations. WBBO alone is closer to Atlantic City than it is to NYC. I now have HD in the car. I am however not using a standard mobile antenna which would be a major improvement. I am using a standard 300 ohm wire dipole. With that set up I can receive WBLS without a dropout from midtown Manhattan to Route 202 & The Palisades Parkway in Mount Ivy NY, without a dropout. Other stations such as WNYC do dropout. That is my report from actual experience.
I've seen several stations that implemented a partial upgrade, basically to what their existing HD transmitters and antennas could accommodate without buying anything see substantial improvements in coverage and stability on the fringe.
The extra HD power yields nothing to the bottom line. Nobody has the HD radios. It's just a waste of electricity at this point. The only advantage the extra HD power has is that it will dissuade pirates from setting up shop on the adjacent frequencies.
Name me one station that has a revenue boost directly attributable to HD. Analog translators don't count. I only know of one HD2 station that appeared in the ratings, but that most likely was its stream since there aren't even enough HD radios that exist in the market to meet the minimum reporting standard.
Name me one station that has a revenue boost directly attributable to HD. Analog translators don't count. I only know of one HD2 station that appeared in the ratings, but that most likely was its stream since there aren't even enough HD radios that exist in the market to meet the minimum reporting standard.
stacker said:
Do you live in the area? The math is one of the reasons why HD TV coverage is spotty and why stations like WABC had to up their power to properly cover the market. They aren't alone. The point I'm making is that whatever math was used to compute power output levels was far too low to duplicate the old analog coverage That doesn't make analog better. the digital power output is far below its analog equivelant.
Nick said:
It's called the cost of doing business. You can't sell something unless there's a product to buy. UHF TV and FM were both busts for many years with stations going out of business or turning in licenses. These aren't mom and pop operations behind HD. Although its implimentaion has been very slow (especially as seen by our short attention span society) HD is making inroads. The ideal would be new spectrum for digital broadcasting but for that you can blame the FCC not broadcasters.
R.F. Burns said:
You are so right, RF, but as guilty as any of us for refusing any "solution" that did not come with new spectrum.
Just because the regulating body has lost touch with reality does not mean engineers are free to ignore reality.
In fact it was the job of engineers to make sure that this happened in new spectrum, and I take responsibilty too, for not
somehow having stopped this disastrous experiment in RF pollution.
Yes, I see the existence of ibiquity and HD partly as a personal failure, to have become part of a world that would "allow"
such a thing to happen in an area of my expertise.
Saying HD is imaking inroads is like saying any particular disease is becoming chronic, and that supposed to be a good thing?
You and every other professional engineer should be screaming to the FCC about disrespect for the rules that
that you and many others make a living at. Divide and conquer works easily when it's your living at stake.
This every bit like saying we can all stand a little hepatitis, because it can be "managed" by doctors and will
support a whole new industry of extendend hepatitis care services. See how wacky it sounds in terms of healthcare?
So where was the outcry of engineers when this predictably divisive and intrusive method was first announced?
"Blaming" the FCC has absolutely no result or effect and is a complete waste of time, as they clearly have had no
interest in protecting broadcast radio service spectrum for over 40 years since the "innovation" of lamp dimmers.
The only way HD will die is when it is forgotten and dies of neglect.
Time has a way of sorting out species that are not quite robust enough, or useful enough, or too wacky to breed reliably.
My wife is pretty tech savvy, but absolutely WILL NOT find her way through the menus on her Kenwood HD auto radio.
She hates the menus, and has no idea how to get to the HDs even after explaining. It doesn't stick.
Same way with the tone controls. There's a tuning knob that's not a knob, it's a "wiggler" in 4 directions, none too certain, plus a "straight down" push for some functions that usually results in also picking up one of the side switches, resulting in unitended
operation.
I put the radio in, and when that vehicle "goes away" I'll don't think I'll go to all the bother of taking it out.
What I still hear is the same FM "spitting" I had so much fun discussing with Don Juan.
Pity that I'm in the strongest signal areas, and now FM has more intrusive noises than AM, listening while driving.
It didn't used to be that way until you got out 30 miles or more.
Still can't seem to figure out why it's better to have the "more noise" during moments of multipath flutter, instead of
the old fashioned "soft hissing" we used to enjoy.
Of course on AM the old fashioned soft hissing was dreamy, compared to the hiss-blasts of today.
I guess hissing is just the order of the day.
Anything that hisses continuously is sure to run out of breath eventually.
R.F. Burns said:
I'm not so sure about that. Remember, broadcasters were formerly allocated TV channels 52-69 prior to the DTV cutover, but gave up this spectrum which had been available for broadcast use since 1952. 3 or 4 UHF channels would have provided a nice band for COFDM digital radio (on a wavelength short enough to work well with handheld devices).
What would it have taken for NAB (and other broadcast lobbyists) to retain these channels? The situation we have today resulted from an arbitrary decision to relinquish 18 channels, rather than 14 -- not a big difference. If negotiations with FCC and Congress 20 years ago had included a sensible plan to put digital radio in this segment, we probably could have done it -- but instead, NAB fell for the false promises of in-band digital.
"Although its implimentation (sic) has been very slow....HD Radio is making inroads?" 
R. F., you have a gift for understatement! Thus to characterize HD's current impact in the market is akin to asking, "have you noticed that sales of Wartburg cars is pretty slow these days?"
(The Wartburg was a East German car with a 2-stroke engine that some guy in California actually tried to import to the US back in the late 50s. The quality and fit and finish were so bad banks refused to finance the cars. The importer spent most of his time arguing with the commies at the factory about quality and delivery issues, which was apparently like yelling at your dog because no matter what you say, she just won't practice the piano. This disastrous experiment with an expected VW-fighter ended after about 500 cars were sold here.)
We're closing in on ten years of HD Radio. About 7% of FM stations have bothered to increase digital power (and that's 7% of HD stations, not all FMs.) I can count on one hand the number of radio professionals I know who own an HD Radio, and all except one are engineers who need the things for monitoring. I can't remember the last time I saw an HD Radio on sale that wasn't an aftermarket car tuner, a disappearing segment of the audio market.
And don't even get me started on AM-HD. Mostly, the handful of stations operating with it are finding excuses to just shut it off, one by one. Everyone admits HD-AM is a debacle.
R. F., you have a gift for understatement! Thus to characterize HD's current impact in the market is akin to asking, "have you noticed that sales of Wartburg cars is pretty slow these days?"
(The Wartburg was a East German car with a 2-stroke engine that some guy in California actually tried to import to the US back in the late 50s. The quality and fit and finish were so bad banks refused to finance the cars. The importer spent most of his time arguing with the commies at the factory about quality and delivery issues, which was apparently like yelling at your dog because no matter what you say, she just won't practice the piano. This disastrous experiment with an expected VW-fighter ended after about 500 cars were sold here.)
We're closing in on ten years of HD Radio. About 7% of FM stations have bothered to increase digital power (and that's 7% of HD stations, not all FMs.) I can count on one hand the number of radio professionals I know who own an HD Radio, and all except one are engineers who need the things for monitoring. I can't remember the last time I saw an HD Radio on sale that wasn't an aftermarket car tuner, a disappearing segment of the audio market.
And don't even get me started on AM-HD. Mostly, the handful of stations operating with it are finding excuses to just shut it off, one by one. Everyone admits HD-AM is a debacle.
Savage said:
It's pretty disingenuous to say we're closing in on "ten years" of HD Radio as if it matters in this context. Even in the largest markets, HD implementation didn't happen on a wide scale until 5 or 6 years ago. The master antenna systems in the biggest markets weren't replaced or upgraded overnight.
A few weeks ago, I had one of my stations broadcasting from an alternate site that isn't HD equipped while I was doing some daytime transmitter maintenance. I got an email from one of our part-time jocks asking why we weren't broadcasting in HD.
Play Freebird said:
I suspect the real reason is because large broadcasters (who are the real players at NAB and curiously enough, also investors in Ibiquity) wanted to preserve the status quo. Under the Ibiquity plan, powerful stations remain powerful and weaker stations remain weak, or even get obliterated.
If everyone had been given the opportunity to slowly migrate to a new all-digital band that actually worked, it is possible that many smaller stations would have ended up with improved coverage. I guess we couldn't have that....
Sounds like a business decision to me.
Savage: "I can count on one hand the number of radio professionals I know who own an HD Radio, and all except one are engineers who need the things for monitoring."
Radiogooroo: "A few weeks ago, I had one of my stations broadcasting from an alternate site that isn't HD equipped while I was doing some daytime transmitter maintenance. I got an email from one of our part-time jocks asking why we weren't broadcasting in HD."
Could this be the same person?
Radiogooroo: "A few weeks ago, I had one of my stations broadcasting from an alternate site that isn't HD equipped while I was doing some daytime transmitter maintenance. I got an email from one of our part-time jocks asking why we weren't broadcasting in HD."
Could this be the same person?
If commenting on HD Radio's slowly declining acceptance after ten years of relentless hype "doesn't matter in this context," in precisely WHICH context DOES it matter? The reasons why HD isn't being implemented no longer matter. Nobody's going to gravely wag his head and say, "oh, THAT'S why HD doesn't lock or most stations don't have it or whatever: the stations just haven't upgraded their master antenna systems! Hell, that's okay. Here's my C-Note, hand over that Accurian. I'll wait for the signals."
We're not talking about "overnight." We're talking about TEN YEARS. And the HD-types kicked and screamed when the excuse-du-jour about HD's stiffing was, "we suddenly discovered 1% digital injection doesn't work. We need TEN percent." The FCC dutifully handed 10% to the industry on a silver platter, just like everything about HD - and look what's happened. It's mostly gone un-"implimented," even after 10% was rubber-stamped.
The anecdotes about actual HD listeners (hey, seriously, I found one, no kidding!) remind me of the stories about early 1940s TV when NBC and Dumont had maps of Manhattan with pushpins that marked receiver locations. Each TV owner was personally mailed a weekly program schedule, and the engineers would call the TV owners and ask about reception and programming. But the difference between early TV and HD was, within five years there were millions of TVs operating daily. After ten years there were tens of millions.
We're not talking about "overnight." We're talking about TEN YEARS. And the HD-types kicked and screamed when the excuse-du-jour about HD's stiffing was, "we suddenly discovered 1% digital injection doesn't work. We need TEN percent." The FCC dutifully handed 10% to the industry on a silver platter, just like everything about HD - and look what's happened. It's mostly gone un-"implimented," even after 10% was rubber-stamped.
The anecdotes about actual HD listeners (hey, seriously, I found one, no kidding!) remind me of the stories about early 1940s TV when NBC and Dumont had maps of Manhattan with pushpins that marked receiver locations. Each TV owner was personally mailed a weekly program schedule, and the engineers would call the TV owners and ask about reception and programming. But the difference between early TV and HD was, within five years there were millions of TVs operating daily. After ten years there were tens of millions.
R.F. Burns said:
HD is making inroads, where? Granted Ibitquity's build it and they will come story worked on broadcasters and car manufactures but as for listeners they didn't get the memo..
Pandora has 75 million listeners and is claiming space in the dashboard. Online radio heard through smart phones is growing faster than HD.
UHF and FM had time to fumble because technology was stuck in the dark ages. Today by the time concepts are launched and case studies are prepared it's already outdated junk and ready to be replaced by something else. HD radio would be your grand fathers state of the art electronics..
- Status