HD radio, and HD-2. Is it a wasted effort?

[bigwoody]

A true look at HD?

http://www.freetimes.com/modules.ph...&POSTNUKESID=fcd7cafad554d9ce283dc8072af4f014


If, as the article points out, the HD-2 channels are only good for a 20-30 mile radius, then HD-2 is a waste. In fact, HD I agree with the article that HD is a poor attempt to put a finger in the dike. The real issue with "free" (aka terrestrial) radio is the product. Build a better widget and the people will "buy" it. Better radio product will lure listeners. Not all, but many.

And streaming HD-2 channels? So what. Has no purpose in the big picture. <P ID="signature">______________
www.OhioRadio.net

</P>

 

[HHH]

> A true look at HD?
>
http://www.freetimes.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=a> rticle&sid=3247&POSTNUKESID=fcd7cafad554d9ce283dc8072af4f014
>
>
>
> If, as the article points out, the HD-2 channels are only
> good for a 20-30 mile radius, then HD-2 is a waste.

Not exactly true. HD covers roughly the same potential coverage area as the main analog signal. What he is probably talking about is that many stations are initially signing on with lower power transmitters to save money until some receivers get out there, then they up power. Sort of like FM in the 1940s when many AM stations signed on their FMs with only 1 or 2KW.


In fact,
> HD I agree with the article that HD is a poor attempt to put
> a finger in the dike. The real issue with "free" (aka
> terrestrial) radio is the product. Build a better widget and
> the people will "buy" it. Better radio product will lure
> listeners. Not all, but many.

I really think that they need both additional signals AND better services.
Satellite offers 100 plus channels, so terestrial needs to get close to this raw number, which they do (with HD-2 and HD-3 feeds) in major markets if most stations multicast. But, yes, if they just put more cookie-cutter crap on these channels, nobody will care. The other half of the game is to let some people push the envelope of these new streams. I mean, how do you think FM took off?
Non-traditional broadcasters in the 20s went on with brand new ideas and blew some minds!


> And streaming HD-2 channels? So what. Has no purpose in the
> big picture.

Not sure about that. If it helps to establish a brand, then it is valuable.

 

[BrokeEngineer]

We'll see...

There is a whole RI board dedicated to this subject. I was bothered when reading Gorman’s rant more than once for mis-information. What stood out the most was him calling it High Def. HD in this manner stands for nothing. So when WXTM was running their ads stating, "now broadcasting in high definition" was incorrect.


> > If, as the article points out, the HD-2 channels are only
> > good for a 20-30 mile radius, then HD-2 is a waste.

He cannot make that claim, as it is dependent upon the station TPO, a Class A will have a different distance than a Class C, obviously.

> Not exactly true. HD covers roughly the same potential
> coverage area as the main analog signal. What he is
> probably talking about is that many stations are initially
> signing on with lower power transmitters to save money until
> some receivers get out there, then they up power. Sort of
> like FM in the 1940s when many AM stations signed on their
> FMs with only 1 or 2KW.

Not really, the power they output now is what they are going to run in the future as well.



> I really think that they need both additional signals AND
> better services.
> Satellite offers 100 plus channels, so terestrial needs to
> get close to this raw number, which they do (with HD-2 and
> HD-3 feeds) in major markets if most stations multicast.
> But, yes, if they just put more cookie-cutter crap on these
> channels, nobody will care. The other half of the game is
> to let some people push the envelope of these new streams.
> I mean, how do you think FM took off?
> Non-traditional broadcasters in the 20s went on with brand
> new ideas and blew some minds!

I disagree (opinion mode on) as it has the potential to dilute the market not to mention that your BMI, ASCAP, Etc. will triple in costs and do you really think that ABC ad agency is going to pay 3 times as much to run the same spot? Doubt it. (Opinion mode off)Every time you add another stream HD2, HD3, you reduce the bitrate. You only have so much bandwidth to work with, 96k. For HD and HD2, you might run 64/32 or 44/44. Adding HD3 will start to sound pretty bad.

It's not like you can just run to best buy in Akron and pick up an HD radio tho. I know a station around here running HD, that only has an HD car radio
to pick it up and it is at the transmitter site; they really don't know when it is running. AM HD really sounds good though but it cannot be run at night!
With all of that being said, I do feel HD Radio is the best solution to a problem that doesn't exist!

 

[bigwoody]

>
> I really think that they need both additional signals AND
> better services.
> Satellite offers 100 plus channels, so terestrial needs to
> get close to this raw number, which they do (with HD-2 and
> HD-3 feeds) in major markets if most stations multicast.
> But, yes, if they just put more cookie-cutter crap on these
> channels, nobody will care. The other half of the game is
> to let some people push the envelope of these new streams.
> I mean, how do you think FM took off?
> Non-traditional broadcasters in the 20s went on with brand
> new ideas and blew some minds!
>


But if the HD-2 (HD-3) is only good for a 20-30 mile radius, then what's the point? And having 100 channels means nothing. Most of the channels are too fragmented. Terrestrial radio could never ENOUGH make money offering the same.<P ID="signature">______________
www.OhioRadio.net

</P>

 

[bigwoody]

Re: We'll see...

Audio quality is not the issue with terrestrial (free) radio. It's the programming - the product being offered. Give people better programming and they'll listen. Plain and simple. HD is a smoke and mirrors move. It really solves nothing.<P ID="signature">______________
www.OhioRadio.net

</P>

 

[HHH]

Re: We'll see...

> Audio quality is not the issue with terrestrial (free)
> radio. It's the programming - the product being offered.
> Give people better programming and they'll listen. Plain and
> simple. HD is a smoke and mirrors move. It really solves
> nothing.
>


Yes, the HD main channel is only going to be as good as whatever the main station is broadcasting (it must be siumulcast). So, if you think MMS or K-Rock programming sucks, a high-fidelity version will not make any difference.

But HD-2 or HD-3 is not "smoke and mirrors" by definition. The broadcasters have a real shot at breaking new ground in an arena where not a hell of a lot is at stake right now (again, sort of like FM in the 60s).

Greater Media is actually doing some cool things in Detroit with WRIF-2 (which is pretty radical and plays lots of local and indie music) and WCSX-2 (which is a "deep tracks" classic rock, where the MD was told to "go crazy" with "as many cool titles as you want").

But, if they just put common crap on these HD-2 and HD-3 feeds, no one will care. So, yes it is programming driven all the way.

By the way, I will say it again.....the only 20-30 mile radius is wrong. Potential coverage is about that of the main analog station. And yes, some stations are initially signing on with lower power than authorized. <P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by HHH on 04/08/06 08:29 PM.</FONT></P>

 

[bigwoody]

Re: We'll see...

> Yes, the HD main channel is only going to be as good as
> whatever the main station is broadcasting (it must be
> siumulcast). So, if you think MMS or K-Rock programming
> sucks, a high-fidelity version will not make any difference.
>
>
> But HD-2 or HD-3 is not "smoke and mirrors" by definition.
> The broadcasters have a real shot at breaking new ground in
> an arena where not a hell of a lot is at stake right now
> (again, sort of like FM in the 60s).
>
> Greater Media is actually doing some cool things in Detroit
> with WRIF-2 (which is pretty radical and plays lots of local
> and indie music) and WCSX-2 (which is a "deep tracks"
> classic rock, where the MD was told to "go crazy" with "as
> many cool titles as you want").
>
> But, if they just put common crap on these HD-2 and HD-3
> feeds, no one will care. So, yes it is programming driven
> all the way.
>
> By the way, I will say it again.....the only 20-30 mile
> radius is wrong. Potential coverage is about that of the
> main analog station. And yes, some stations are initially
> signing on with lower power than authorized.
>

How will the programming on HD2/HD3 benefit the main channel, the one with the commercials? Does HD2/HD3 threaten the main channel? Meaning, if HD2/HD3 are better, and in theory will be since playlists will be larger and no spots for a minimum of 18 months (per the HD Alliance), how will it affect the main channel? Also, consumers are still on the fence about satellite radio and it's extra costs. HD radio is more expensive up front (satellite more $$ over the long term). The marketing effort will cost A LOT of $$$. Satellite has been marketing it's two offerings since 2001. HD now needs to get in the mix...which will confuse consumers (maybe a good thing). HD will be slower than satellite to catch on to the average consumer.

How will you convert HD2/HD3 P1s over to the main channel, the one with the advertisers and the one being rated by Arbitron?

Better programming = more listeners. Analog radio worked well in the past. AM radio used to be huge. Fidelity wasn't the issue. People didn't mind b/c what was being offered was good, quality programming.

Don't get me wrong. HD is great, especially for AM. AND HD2/HD3, as a programmer, will be incredibly fun. <P ID="signature">______________
www.OhioRadio.net

</P>

 

[SonoSational18]

If listeners follow to the HD channels, so will advertisers..... and Arbitron will start listing them in the ratings. The owners will insist on it. As for signal range, the digital HD data (which is reassembled on the receiving end as the programming content) is superimposed on the main carrier, much like the stereo subcarrier and SCA is done (in an alalog version). Like the stereo subcarrier, there may be some signal deterioration at the fringes... and because digital will tend to drop out rather than get hissy like analog, the digital signal would not go quite as far as a mono analog FM signal. A full-power Class C would have far greater digital coverage than, say, a short-spaced 3kw Class A. Another thing to contemplate..... at SOME point, there may be such critical mass in HD receivers (assuming there is some consumer buy-in and HD doesn't go the way of Beta, 8-tracks, DAC's, DAT's, Quad, and AM Stereo), broadcasters may eventually eliminate the main analog signal, opening up the possibility of putting additional channels on a frequency. Ont final thought.... it is all going to come down to program content. Give the public something they can't get elsewhere (at least without paying a subscription fee) and get the price of receivers affordable, the listeners will come. We proved that with FM. Just better fidelity wasn't the answer. Once programmers embraced the medium and Detroit started putting receivers in cars, the medium started growing quickly.

 

[sbe1]

The first generation of receivers are garbage, just as the first few generations of HDTV converter/receivers were garbage. I had a gen1 HDTV converter and it didnt pick up much. I have a gen 5 now and it rocks. The name HD was obviously ripped off from HDTV to give people the illusion that is was High Def. Same with using the term CD quality. Both of these terms are biting radio on the butt now as the recording industry thinks the audio quality will be so good that it will be like the original sound track , and will be ripped off. Now we all know that is BS. And the public is going to have expectations that cannot be met. You need to give digital radio at least a year or two to see if they can get the receivers perfected, and some of the other technical issues like nite AM digital working. Right now, most of the people on this board are too close to the product to see where it's going and what needs to happen. Chill, let it mature and then we can see if it becomes another AM stereo.

 

[dbdigital]

Well, someone brought up the issue of HDTV and I think we have another reason why HD radio will be slow to take off. The public is just NOW getting clued in to the fact that they will soon have to replace their TV sets. And now broadcasters are asking the public to also start thinking about replacing their stereo tuners and radios? One forced obsolesence and unplanned expense at a time, please!A writer at RW said the next 12-18 months will be crucial for HD radio. But, frankly, I think a more realistic figure is 3-5 years or after 2009. Maybe then, after the public has gotten over the sticker shock of a 3000.00 HD monitor, they will think about HD radio, especially if it appears in the cars they've just bought.In the meantime, radio stations will just have to run their HD-2 and 3 channels at a loss and keep paying those licensing dues to iBiquity. (Hmm, of course, radio stations could eventually force the issue by threatening to stop broadcasting analog altogether, but that's risky).db

 

[Chuck]

Re: We'll see...

How will the programming on HD2/HD3 benefit the main channel, the one with the commercials? Does HD2/HD3 threaten the main channel? Meaning, if HD2/HD3 are better, and in theory will be since playlists will be larger and no spots for a minimum of 18 months (per the HD Alliance), how will it affect the main channel?

That's a really interesting business question that has bothered me for some time. Suppose you come up with some really compelling HD-2 programming, and a lot of your core analog listeners discover it. It seems obvious to me that it will take away from the station's core business, on the commercial analog channel. If people are now listening to your non-commercial (at least for now) HD-2 channel, they obviously aren't listening to the analog station that makes all the money. I can't see the bean counters letting that happen. For better or worse, radio is a business, and any self inflicted thing you do that takes away from your core business is quite a leap of faith. Of course, it is true that long term, the new channel could be made into a self supporting venture, but that is still quite a while away. I suspect that the bet is it will also be quite some time before the HD-2 channels actually have any real impact on the core analog numbers. I can only see this working out for broadcasters who already have fairly deep pockets. From a programmer's point of view, I'd love to have a new channel to experiment with, but I'm having a problem with the economics of all this. Obviously, I'm missing something in all the excitement.

Also, consumers are still on the fence about satellite radio and it's extra costs. HD radio is more expensive up front (satellite more $$ over the long term). The marketing effort will cost A LOT of $$$. Satellite has been marketing it's two offerings since 2001. HD now needs to get in the mix...which will confuse consumers (maybe a good thing). HD will be slower than satellite to catch on to the average consumer.

Satellite has a big advantage at the moment. From the consumer's point of view, it costs very little to get in the game. The receivers are subsidized by the satellite companies, so it is easy to find what you are looking for in the $50-100 range. They are included with lots of cars, and even come with a free programming trial period. The subscription can be worked into your car payment, which is almost invisible to the average consumer. In fact, Satellite has followed the car dealer’s long time successful sales pitch of not talking about total cost, but simply about your monthly payments. "You can get the white side walls, curb feelers AND undercoat for only $5.00 more per month," says the car dealer. This pitch has worked well for them for decades. So now, they are “throwing in” satellite for a negligible amount more per month. It’s a great way to market it. HD radio doesn't have the same sales tactic. It's an up front cost to the consumer. True, it is cheaper in the long run, but most consumers don't think of things that way. Besides, we are talking about ultimately replacing a lot of radios, not adding a new gadget to everyone’s ever growing collection.

 

[SonoSational18]

Yes, more channels will potentially dilute audience, but would you rather canabalize yourself than have a competitor do it.... either in-band or from an emerging technology?Let's say you have a "core" station that starts with an AQH of 25,000 people. In scenario A, your second channel goes on the air and has an AQH of 5,000 people, but your core station's AQH now falls to 22,000 because you're siphoning off TSL. In scenario B, a competitor puts on that second channel or because that format is unavailable the listener goes to satellite, CD's, iPods, or on-line. Your core station's AQH will still likely fall to 22,000. Would you rather have an aggregate AQH of 27,000 (more than you started with) or 22,000?

 

[Chuck]

Yes, more channels will potentially dilute audience, but would you rather canabalize yourself than have a competitor do it.... either in-band or from an emerging technology?Let's say you have a "core" station that starts with an AQH of 25,000 people. In scenario A, your second channel goes on the air and has an AQH of 5,000 people, but your core station's AQH now falls to 22,000 because you're siphoning off TSL. In scenario B, a competitor puts on that second channel or because that format is unavailable the listener goes to satellite, CD's, iPods, or on-line. Your core station's AQH will still likely fall to 22,000. Would you rather have an aggregate AQH of 27,000 (more than you started with) or 22,000?

I see your point, but it is likely that a competitor - not necessarily a conventional broadcaster - will still siphon off a part of your audience. I think a lot of us, me included, were quite surprised at the public acceptance of the ipod and the like. Pod casting seems to be a new opportunity for some broadcasters. Now cell phones are coming with mp3 players built in. The cell phone companies are starting various streaming technologies which are bound to make an impact. Let's not overlook wireless Internet streaming audio as an emerging technology. It's growing fast. I’m astounded by how many places I can get a free wireless Internet connection as I travel around. Right now I can listen to my own radio station on my laptop, in places I never dreamed of. More often than not, it’s free. Entire communities are becoming Internet hot spots. It does not take too much imagination to think that a small ipod size wireless Internet receiver is very far away. There are a couple of “vaporware” versions right now. When those hit the market, I believe it will make a huge change in broadcasting as we know it. I’ve been wrong before, but I think all this emerging technology makes our position as conventional broadcasters very tenuous. You may be 100% right that radio needs to add sub formats to survive. On the other hand we might be better of if we worked hard to get really, really good at whatever it is our station does now, and put our best foot forward to keep (and hopefully grow) existing audiences. I’m not sure that intentionally fragmenting it is the right thing to do. One thing is for sure. It is going to be an interesting journey.

 

[Chuck]

I just noticed this news item on the Radio Magazine web site: Menlo Park, CA - May 23, 2006 - M2Z Networks has filed an application with the FCC to allocate 20MHz of spectrum between 2,155MHz and 2,175MHz for use in delivering free broadband Internet access. The company believes that doing so will promote broadband deployment and ensure near-certain access for everyone to have broadband access within 10 years. The service proposes a 384kb/s download, 128kb/s upload capacity through the use of an M2Z broadband radio, which the company says will be inexpensive and widely available. The company's FCC application, available online at this link, includes 124 pages of documentation about the proposed service. M2Z is asking for the spectrum at no cost, which is not something the FCC has been known to accommodate. I don't know if this has an ice cube's chance in hell of being approved, but something similar is probable in the future. I suspect the big issue on this is only money. Once that is resolved, this kind of technology will make a big impact on conventional radio. I think you can count on it.So my question is, "Is it better to be really good at a very few things, or is it better to be "adequate" at lots of things?"