HD Radio continues to "amaze"

[recto101]

In any other economic situation, stations would have expanded HD programming, added air talent or mixers or specialty shows, increased power once it was authorized, added HD exciters to auxiliary transmitters, and done marketing.

That's funny. During the best of times broadcasters cut their core assets, firing inumerable Programmers, Air Talent, Production people, Managers, etc... To think that there was ever going to be a sizeable investment in HD is delusional. If they won't invest where they get the greatest ROI, why would anyone think that they would invest where there is none?

The HD Alliance... It's just a loose association of the larger broadcasters to create promotions at retail and spots for on-air use promoting HD radio.

Yes, and just a year ago or so it was the Number One advertiser on radio! Bigger than Geico. Bigger than Toyota. Yet HD took off like a Lead Dirigible.

HD was born of a bunch of tired old suits vastly out of touch with listeners. And it sounds like crap too.

I'm sure others will correct me if they think I'm off base - but I can see the analogy between HD radio today, and FM in the 50s and early 60s. In those days, FM was used to either simulcast a station's AM programming, or to run separate programming for which there was very little revenue - few commercials because nobody was listening. Most consumers had no FM receivers, and it took a decade or more for people to be willing to shell out the extra money necessary to pick up FM programming.

In my case, my father was a classical music addict, so he was willing to pay to get FM reception by the early 60s - my parents had a huge old "Hi-Fi" and they listened primarily to KFAC-FM (simulcast) at home in the living room...no stereo yet, just one big speaker, and lots of vacuum tubes. But FM in those days was basically under-utilized. Most consumers had no FM radio, and weren't anxious to shell out extra money just to listen to the FM programming. It took more than a decade for FM equipped radios to appear in any significant numbers -either at home or in car radios. My first new car (1976) had an AM only radio, but the second (1979) had AM/FM.

The difference today is - there are so many competing services these days - satellite radio, MP3s, internet radio, etc. So HD providers will have to convince listeners that their service is worthwhile.

HD Radio will flop the same way AM Stereo did in the 1980's. I remember Telsa had a prototype where the car dashboard to the internet via Satellite. Ford's 2012 models are backing Microsoft Sync

 

[OCradiodude]

FM-HD could sound better than analog if they only run one stream (just HD1) and loose the Optimod.

Unfortunately not only do they want the digital to sound exactly like the analog but they add the HD2.

Oh, forget about AM-HD. Something about what they do on AM brings out the worst in SBR. It's a cheese grater working on my eardrums.

The same goes for HD-TV as well. The sub-channels are brought to you by the use of compression. If the side channels weren't there, all the bandwidth would go to the main channel for better quality.

AM-HD is not worth the time or the money. After the KFI tower rebuild, they ran the audio without the HD filter for a while. Excellent sound quality for AM. Then it all changed when the filter was installed.

 

[justpassingthough]

I think HD radio would have had a fighting chance, but it was about 5 years too late to the party. I don't know if many people, radio execs included, knew how quickly internet-enabled smartphones would take to market. In a recessed economy, with so many other entertainment options, why purchase another set of equipment to receive a few more listening options when internet radio, etc was available within services already being paid for like internet at home connections, internet at work, internet on a smartphone, etc?

Lets not forget that many of today's early adapters grew up in an age when the Internet played a strong and viable role in their entertainment choices. Sure, radio is and will probably always be a factor, but it does not have the hip edge of a Pandora or a Spotify-so anyone rushing out to be the first to own a new technology in 2006 or 2009 or 2012 isn't going to think of radio- a medium that has been around for nearly a century now.

 

[ercjncpr]

I think that the HD Radio Alliance should just shut things down and admit that it was about as good an idea as AM Stereo and 500,000 watts.

The HD Alliance has no power to shut anything down. It's just a loose association of the larger broadcasters to create promotions at retail and spots for on-air use promoting HD radio. Since it is, like RAB or NAB, a trade association, the restrictions on monopolistic practices, collusion, etc., prevent it from telling any member what to do or what not to do... even the Alliance's suggestion early on that HD channels should run commercial free was just that... a non-binding suggestion and nobody was prevented from running spots, ever.

Thank you Dave...I stand corrected on that!

 

[davideduardo]

That's funny. During the best of times broadcasters cut their core assets, firing inumerable Programmers, Air Talent, Production people, Managers, etc...

And what do you consider the "best of times" in radio's 90 year history? The late 30's when networks were in bloom? The Post-war years when radio revenues expanded enormously? Or the late 50's when radio was reborn in the music and news model? Or perhaps in the early to mid 70's when FM came into its own after 20-some years of trying? Or the 90's when consolidation returned viability to so many marginal stations?

I don't recall any time "core assets" (which would be stations and their licenses) have been cut... how many stations have been shut down? And changes in program structure, such as the reduced dependence on jocks and the increased dependence on syndicated or centralized product come from changes in listener wants and needs and advances in technology that made what had been desirable for eons practical in reality.

You are assuming that change is only destructive, and not beneficial.

To think that there was ever going to be a sizeable investment in HD is delusional.

There was a sizable investment right at the start... first, broadcasters provided the seed capital for HD and then bought equipment for nearly 2000 stations. What happened later is that further investment was cut off by the recession and programming expenses limited.

If they won't invest where they get the greatest ROI, why would anyone think that they would invest where there is none?

You are assuming that having one manager per station in a market, having chatty DJs and talent live 24/7 is the way to improve ROI. As someone who had 9 stations in one market over 40 years ago, with one manager who was also the GSM and PD, I can tell you that there are many advantages to consolidation and the efficiencies they create.

Yes, and just a year ago or so it was the Number One advertiser on radio! Bigger than Geico. Bigger than Toyota. Yet HD took off like a Lead Dirigible.

As I said, HD came too late and arrived just prior to a recession along with a stream of more attractive entertainment options to choose from. But using HD as an example of mismanagement of radio is absurd.

For absurdity, look at the inability of radio to divorce itself of the land based transmitters on AM and FM... and the failure to differentiate between distribution and content. Yet the one company that seems to "get" the need for that transition and change is the master of consolidation... Clear Channel.

HD was born of a bunch of tired old suits vastly out of touch with listeners. And it sounds like crap too.

Actually, it was born in the off shoot of the old Bell Labs... and it sounds very good on both AM and FM.

 

[robnokshus06]

And what do you consider the "best of times" in radio's 90 year history?

For the sake of this conversation, let's say 2004; the year the Los Angeles market eclipsed $1,000,000,000 (one billion dollars) in revenue. Arguably the best of times for this market and radio was well into cost cutting mode then.

I don't recall any time "core assets" (which would be stations and their licenses) have been cut...

Perhaps core assets isn't the correct term? I was referring to the actual people who do the work. What would be a better term for them, "expendables?" "Walking line items?" Educate me.

You are assuming that change is only destructive, and not beneficial.

You are assuming what I assume? THERE's a conversational downward spiral!

There was a sizable investment right at the start... first, broadcasters provided the seed capital for HD and then bought equipment for nearly 2000 stations.

Broadcasters replaced turntables with cart machines, cart machines with CD players, CD players with hard drives... Yes, broadcasters have been upgrading equipment for a long, long time. (Some even bought AM stereo and Quadraphonic transmitters!) I'll bet there are a lot of those broadcasters who would like to have their HD money back!

You are assuming that having one manager per station in a market, having chatty DJs and talent live 24/7 is the way to improve ROI

Again with the assuming what I assume! Knock that off. It's beneath you.

and it sounds very good on both AM and FM.

This, of course is highly subjective. I would maintain that a well-processed analogue signal sounds much better than the brittle sound of HD. That's been my experience. HD sub channels? Puh-leeze!

 

[davideduardo]

For the sake of this conversation, let's say 2004; the year the Los Angeles market eclipsed $1,000,000,000 (one billion dollars) in revenue. Arguably the best of times for this market and radio was well into cost cutting mode then.

LA has been a "billion dollar market" for a long time. Just consider the value of money, and you can see that the market was billing the equivalent for many years. In fact, it overtook NY as the top billing market over 25 years ago.

From about 2000, the growth of the market revenue did not even keep up with inflation, so from 2000 to 2004, real revenue went down.

Perhaps core assets isn't the correct term? I was referring to the actual people who do the work. What would be a better term for them, "expendables?" "Walking line items?" Educate me.

Although the vogue in the last decade has been to call people "human resources" the fact is that people in radio are either owners or employees. Everything else is a subdivision of that.

I saw recently an ad for WOR from some time in the first couple of decades of commercial radio, recognizing the studio and transmitter technical staff... over 100 of them. When you had live bands and transmitters that needed daily maintenance and a recoding meant an acetate disk, that was needed. But as technology advanced, those engineers became expendable in the true sense of the word... no longer needed nor necessary.

I used to have two people doing traffic and two doing production for one top 15 market AM in around 1971. When I rebuilt a different station in the same market 4 years later, one person did traffic and all production... an IBM System 33 and Columbine made traffic a brief task, and better state of the art equipment did the same for production. The other three formerly needed positions were expendable.

Skip forward a bit over a decade. A rated-last FM needed around 8 street sellers and billed less than 3/4 of a million. I got it to #1 and had three sellers calling on agencies only... in three years, it billed five times the former level and continued to grow and stay at the top for another twenty years... with less people, and zero promotional dollars in 20 years.

You are assuming that change is only destructive, and not beneficial.

You are assuming what I assume? THERE's a conversational downward spiral!

Then list the changes in radio in the last 30 years you find beneficial... you have not mentioned one of them yet. The only conclusion based on the evidence is that you find that radio has only changed for the worse.

There was a sizable investment right at the start... first, broadcasters provided the seed capital for HD and then bought equipment for nearly 2000 stations.

I'll bet there are a lot of those broadcasters who would like to have their HD money back!

I'm sure you are right. Because they only got into the new house, and never had the money to furnish it or to even turn on the lights! Then the money ran out and they had an expense and no hope for much revenue, save some brokering or the Garmin deals.

You are assuming that having one manager per station in a market, having chatty DJs and talent live 24/7 is the way to improve ROI

Again with the assuming what I assume! Knock that off. It's beneath you.

Again, when you criticize the cuts in DJ positions, production positions and "even" managers, what other assumption could I have than that you think that such changes are, at least in part, at fault for whatever you think is wrong with radio. So, if I'm leaping to false conclusions, then what are the failures, shortcomings and wrongs of radio of recent?

and it sounds very good on both AM and FM.

I would maintain that a well-processed analogue signal sounds much better than the brittle sound of HD.

Just for example's sake... an AM that has a decent signal to start with in HD is actually listenable. Without HD, I know of no AM in the last decade I'd listen to...

 

[RockTheGlobe]

Well, it looks like KLOS-HD2 is back online -- but only as a simulcast of KABC-AM. Apparently, Cumulus decided to drop the music side-channel and push KABC from HD3 to HD2, which decreases the Los Angeles value of getting an HD Radio even more, because now the same broadcast is being heard in two different places and an additional choice of programming has been lost. Sound-quality issues aside, I see no benefit to this change, since spoken-word formats can use lower-bitrate broadcasts and still sound better than AM. All I know is I've lost a preset, which takes away another reason for me to use my HD Radio.

 

[RockTheGlobe]

Also adding to the pile of misfires, KSWD is running the same content on HD2 and HD3. Apparently, one Mormon Channel wasn't enough, they needed two.

 

[nmoore6676]

and it sounds very good on both AM and FM.

I would maintain that a well-processed analogue signal sounds much better than the brittle sound of HD.

Just for example's sake... an AM that has a decent signal to start with in HD is actually listenable. Without HD, I know of no AM in the last decade I'd listen to...

Which leads to the question that I've always had. Why did not the FCC adopt a drop dead date for the AM, medium wave, band to go all digital like they did for TV. The objections to IBOC on the band are the hash caused by the expanded sideband activity or rather activity in what were previously just sidebands. Well if there were only a digital signal occupying the entire channel and at full power would not that be better technically which would lend itself to transmitting the full frequency and dynamic range that everyone wants.

Or am I just oversimplifying a more complex issue?

 

[RockTheGlobe]

In another sign that HD Radio technology is up to par, KSPN is dropping their HD signal. Tom Taylor's e-mail this morning says:

Disney’s all-sports “710 ESPN” KSPN in Los Angeles drops its HD Radio transmission, and has begun using the recently-approved power-saving MDCL (Modulation-Dependent Carrier Level) technology. That news was reported by Radio World, and amplified by the CGC Communicator. That’s the southern California engineering newsletter written by Robert Gonsett. He says Disney pulling its AM IBOC (in-band on-channel) system out of the audio chain is good news for “the listeners of adjacent channel stations who will no longer receive HD splatter.” KSPN runs 50,000 watts daytime and 10,000 watts at night. The FCC is allowing AM operators to request a waiver to use the MDCL technology that’s already in widespread use in Europe.

 

[recto101]

Look Now Toyota Prius V includes a web dashboard. The new Prius will include dashboard apps like Iheartradio. Maybe some of the popular AM stations like KNX and KFI will just bypass FM simulcast or HD- Simulcast for web dashboard app simulcasts.

 

[SuperRadioFan]

Look Now Toyota Prius V includes a web dashboard. The new Prius will include dashboard apps like Iheartradio. Maybe some of the popular AM stations like KNX and KFI will just bypass FM simulcast or HD- Simulcast for web dashboard app simulcasts.

That's the future fast approaching everyone. Five years ago, who'd have thought that smart phone apps would give broadcast radio a new platform which sounds superior to anything over the air? Since I got my iPhone and a router at home I can "tune" in to """AM radio""" and it sounds better than FM. Makes sense why so many talk stations are migrating to FM. I love it!

BTW I also got a Roku set up which plays a variety of material on my TV including TuneIn Radio. Currently listening to '93.9 The River' (Mass. AAA station) over my TV in crystal clear fidelity.

 

[KeithE4]

BTW I also got a Roku set up which plays a variety of material on my TV including TuneIn Radio. Currently listening to '93.9 The River' (Mass. AAA station) over my TV in crystal clear fidelity.

Unfortunately, CBS/Radio.com and Clear Channel/iHeartRadio pulled their stations from TuneIn on Roku and they don't have their own channels for that product yet. That's a lot of stations lost for the time being.

 

[davideduardo]

Look Now Toyota Prius V includes a web dashboard. The new Prius will include dashboard apps like Iheartradio. Maybe some of the popular AM stations like KNX and KFI will just bypass FM simulcast or HD- Simulcast for web dashboard app simulcasts.

The average car in the US is 8 years old, and going on 9 due to the recession. That means it would, assuming every car sold from today on has a web dashboard, take 8 years to get into just 50% of all cars.

Also, keep in mind that, even in LA, in-car listening is less than a third of all listening. bedrooms and kitchens and cubicles don't have dashboards.

In the meantime, FM is the dominant distribution channel for content.

 

[RockTheGlobe]

The average car in the US is 8 years old, and going on 9 due to the recession. That means it would, assuming every car sold from today on has a web dashboard, take 8 years to get into just 50% of all cars.

Also, keep in mind that, even in LA, in-car listening is less than a third of all listening. bedrooms and kitchens and cubicles don't have dashboards.

In the meantime, FM is the dominant distribution channel for content.

I disagree about FM automatically being the dominant distribution channel. How many of those cars have headphone jacks that easily allow people to plug in their cell phones or iPods? My car and my wife's car are both 7 years old (and from different companies), but both have those jacks. With the remarkable popularity of Pandora and the growing awareness of other services like Slacker, Spotify and iHeartRadio, it's unwise to assume that FM is still king simply because it's integrated into dashboards.

Which brings me to my next point -- just because in-car listening accounts for less than a third of all listening, what makes you think that radio listening is extremely prominent in the home? Radio is no longer sold as a standalone product -- the function of AM/FM radio is now included as a feature in other products, like iPod docks or home-theater amplifiers. More and more, bedrooms and kitchens have TVs, not radios, and cubicles have computers that can stream Pandora/Slacker/Spotify/etc. Press releases keep going out trying to reassure the industry that radio still reaches X percent of Americans every week, but no one seems to pay any attention to the fact that every time those press releases go out, the percentage number has dropped.

 

[davideduardo]

I disagree about FM automatically being the dominant distribution channel. How many of those cars have headphone jacks that easily allow people to plug in their cell phones or iPods?

That's not a web enabled dashboard, which was the subject. And, keywords "for the moment," terrestrial radio signals are the dominant distribution channel. Just about everyone has access to them at home, at work and in the car. Every other system is secondary and more limited.

People have had in-car tapes, cassettes, CDs and such going back over 40 years. The iPod fits that category.

My car and my wife's car are both 7 years old (and from different companies), but both have those jacks.

And I had a '69 with an 8-Track. Nothing new, except the changes in technology.

With the remarkable popularity of Pandora and the growing awareness of other services like Slacker, Spotify and iHeartRadio, it's unwise to assume that FM is still king simply because it's integrated into dashboards.

We know how many "AQH" listeners that those folks have. We know how many terrestrial radio has. And we get monthly streaming numbers. There's still no comparison... the 6+ AQH of just the New York City stations is 1.5 million persons, 6 AM to Midnight. The national figure is somewhere around 30,000,000. In drive times it's around 40-something million.

And remember, iHeart and others are either radio station streams or extensions of radio brands, so what we have is radio moving into additional distribution channels as they become popular and widespread. But in the meantime, the revenues and the bodies are still listening to AM and FM... mostly FM.

Which brings me to my next point -- just because in-car listening accounts for less than a third of all listening, what makes you think that radio listening is extremely prominent in the home?

Uh, well let's start with Arbitron. We have plenty of data showing that radio gets around 35% of its listening in the home. We know not just how many, but what percent of the population listens, and what percent is listening at a given time.

Radio is no longer sold as a standalone product -- the function of AM/FM radio is now included as a feature in other products, like iPod docks or home-theater amplifiers. More and more, bedrooms and kitchens have TVs, not radios, and cubicles have computers that can stream Pandora/Slacker/Spotify/etc. Press releases keep going out trying to reassure the industry that radio still reaches X percent of Americans every week, but no one seems to pay any attention to the fact that every time those press releases go out, the percentage number has dropped.

Actually, the percentage is very constant... less than about 2% of the universe in difference from the early Arbitron data in the 70's. Listening time has decreased, but that is understandable given all the entertainment options... and the devices used changed. Home radios used to come with clocks... now they have phone chargers and clocks, and the dock is the selling point, not the clock. That is just the evolution of technology.

In any case, the issue is content, not technology. For the moment, the delivery of content via RF is the major distribution channel... and while that is changing, so is the radio industry.

 

[Rusty Muck]

BTW I also got a Roku set up which plays a variety of material on my TV including TuneIn Radio. Currently listening to '93.9 The River' (Mass. AAA station) over my TV in crystal clear fidelity.

Unfortunately, CBS/Radio.com and Clear Channel/iHeartRadio pulled their stations from TuneIn on Roku and they don't have their own channels for that product yet. That's a lot of stations lost for the time being.

Not to mention Cumulus is aligning with iHeartRadio.

Ditto with Univision and K-Love/Air 1.

 

[Rusty Muck]

Which leads to the question that I've always had. Why did not the FCC adopt a drop dead date for the AM, medium wave, band to go all digital like they did for TV. The objections to IBOC on the band are the hash caused by the expanded sideband activity or rather activity in what were previously just sidebands. Well if there were only a digital signal occupying the entire channel and at full power would not that be better technically which would lend itself to transmitting the full frequency and dynamic range that everyone wants.

Or am I just oversimplifying a more complex issue?

I don't know if that's even possible.

Unlike the TV analog-to-digital conversion, there doesn't exist any sort of conversion box or adapters for standard radios, let alone AM/FM radios or Sony Walkmans. (That's a whole lot of equipment that would suddenly become obsolete and inoperable; to wit, my seven-year-old Sony Walkman has a TV audio band for VHF channels that has been practically useless since June 2009.) And the price of HD receivers is still cost-prohibitive to many, if not all... let alone the recession and continued economic problems.

Then again, Steve Jobs got all of us to somehow spend money on iTunes, iPods and iPads...

As per the in-band-on-channel hash, at least WJR/760 in Detroit was able to tune the transmitter in a way so that the hash was barely noticeable, and the analog audio went back to 10 MHz. This was back in 2006; Citadel pulled the plug on HD for WJR (and a few other legacy "ABC Radio" AM stations like WABC and WLS) a year or so later. But no other AM station AFAIK has been able to achieve such a thing, and it puzzles me to no end.

 

[kogi19]

The average car in the US is 8 years old, and going on 9 due to the recession. That means it would, assuming every car sold from today on has a web dashboard, take 8 years to get into just 50% of all cars.

Also, keep in mind that, even in LA, in-car listening is less than a third of all listening. bedrooms and kitchens and cubicles don't have dashboards.

In the meantime, FM is the dominant distribution channel for content.

Many car audio retailers posted 2011 Christmas sales gains over the previous years. The aftermarket car audio industry will help accelerate web audio devices.

FM is still dominant. However, in the next eight years, would you bet on HD Radio over web dashboard devices?