HD-radio future

[Clayton Douglas]

if an FM station is a success with HD1,HD2, and maybe HD3----in theory---- would it's value increase a lot? three stations in one!

 

[dumber than a box of hair]

if an FM station is a success with HD1,HD2, and maybe HD3----in theory---- would it's value increase a lot? three stations in one!

Doubtful. Station value is usually tied to revenue, and no HD secondaries make money...yet.

 

[Radioman100]

if an FM station is a success with HD1,HD2, and maybe HD3----in theory---- would it's value increase a lot? three stations in one!

Hard to say. I've wondered the same thing about HDTV. Where I live, a lot of the TV stations have multiple subchannels. Right now, they're either broadcasting their newscast over and over, music videos or a weather radar.

I've wondered how they're making money with that, and if any new networks will pop up to fill all that space with programming people might actually watch.

As for value of the stations themselves? I suppose anything that increases cashflow could increase station value.

 

[Clayton Douglas]

how many subchannels can HDTV use at this time? just an HDTV-2 channel?

 

[Radioman100]

how many subchannels can HDTV use at this time? just an HDTV-2 channel?

Honestly, I have no idea what the max is. TBN has 5 or 6 of them here. I honestly don't remember. I programmed them out of my TV. I do remember their quality was crap.

 

[Mike Walker]

North Carolina Public TV's over the air service has FIVE channels daytime, but only two during primetime, one HD and one SD.

I suppose HD would add slight value now, because it would negate the need to pay for the upgrade. But it's real "value-added" status will, as others have pointed out, be tied to revenue. If stations never learn to generate revenue with their HD streams, it could actually be a net negative...as offering even minimum service on these "extra" channels costs money. Maybe not much, but some.

I believe that HD WILL eventually be a moneymaker, in different ways for different stations. In fact, I'd wager that it's already contributing at least a little bit to subscriber contributions for public radio. I KNOW that some people in the Triad area (Winston-Salem, Greensboro, High Point) are willing to donate more to WFDD, because HD has allowed them to return fulltime classical music to the market. I believe public radio may well be the first to generate substantial revenue BECAUSE of HD, because they already have an audience willing to pay for a service others consume for free.

 

[MotoMuzak]

"how many subchannels can HDTV use at this time? just an HDTV-2 channel?"

To my knowledge, the technical maximum (currently) per the ATSC standards is six, assuming your channel broadcasts only 480I (4*3, or standard definition, like a regular TV set) programming. Terrestrial TV channels in the US occupy 6 MHz of frequency space, and each ATSC channel can occupy that amount at maximum. So, assuming the channel broadcasts only SD programming like TBN does, they could cram 6 channels in the space a single NTSC channel would have used, making each channel use around 1MHZ' worth of space for its video, audio and any accompanying text data (EPG, channel descriptions, closed-captioning etc.)

Rule of thumb: the more channels a station adds, the less bandwidth is available for the existing channels, and the lower the quality will be overall. A similar phenomenon can be observed on XM/Sirius and on many Eureka174 towers as well. (It's sort of a matter of "Quantity, not Quality.") So Clayton, if the picture on the TBN affiliate in your area looks like crap, well that's because it probably is. It looks very blocky and artefacted here in Portland (KNMT 24/45) as well.

That's for over the air ATSC. I have *no* idea what the situation is with cable, as I don't use that. Although from what I further understand the FCC wants all cable operators to cut their analogue service by February 2009 and go all-digital as well. I don't know if that means they will be using the same DVB-C system as many "Digital Cable" systems like Comcast have used for years, or if it means in the future they will be using QAM on the channels of their current analogue service, or what. Truth be told my knowledge of cable isn't exactly up to date, as we haven't had cable service since the mid-90s.

Oh yes--just because it's a digital channel does NOT always mean it's HD, despite the fact that some people will go blue in the face trying to tell you that they somehow are. All HDTV channels are digital, yes, but not all digital channels are HD.

 

[PhilJSmith67]

how many subchannels can HDTV use at this time? just an HDTV-2 channel?

Just like HD Radio it all depends on how much bandwidth the station wants to devote to each individual stream. For TV, some HD/720p stations carry two to three additional SD/480i or SD/480p streams. I've seen stations with HD/1080i carry one "normal" SD/480i stream plus one "really low bandwidth" SD/480i stream such as a local weather channel with a lot of still-frame video. If the streams are all SD/480i, the station could easily jam in 6 streams, and theoretically 8 if they really compress the heck out of the video.

For HD Radio on FM, the limit is theoretically 8 streams, but the audio would sound horrid on every channel. One of my local stations has 3 HD Radio streams; HD1 and HD2 run music and the bandwidth is pretty high. The HD3 is a simulcast of an AM station (which is also HD). Sometimes the channel has music, sometimes talk, and although the sound quality isn't fantastic on FM-HD3, it sounds better than the same program on the AM-HD signal.

AM-HD has a high enough bitrate to support only one audio stream. Barely.

 

[Clayton Douglas]

Is it likely many AM stations will try music with AM-HD? ( such as standards, oldies, spanish. ) If not--- then what is the advantage of AM stations going HD? will talk, news, sports, religion, ethinic programs, infomercials sound better in HD? I suppose text info/messaging will be sent by AM-HD stations. and stations will go to AM-HD simply because the technology is here.

 

[Radioman100]

Is it likely many AM stations will try music with AM-HD? ( such as standards, oldies, spanish. ) If not--- then what is the advantage of AM stations going HD? will talk, news, sports, religion, ethinic programs, infomercials sound better in HD? I suppose text info/messaging will be sent by AM-HD stations. and stations will go to AM-HD simply because the technology is here.

A lot of stations are already trying it. Personally, I don't see much point in AM HD. Does it sound better? That's a matter of opinion. It sounds brighter for sure, but the compression scheme sounds about like one of the music channels on XM, and they don't sound good at all. Lots of data reduction artifacts.

To me, a more logical use of HD technology for AM stations is to simulcast on a sister FM's HD2 channel.

 

[Savage]

KYW Philadelphia is doing this already. Maybe George Brusstar is on the channel and confirm/deny, but it seems KYW isn't running IBOC-AM any more, at least at night. I'm hearing promos for "No static at all! Listen to KYW Newsradio 1060 in digital HD Radio...." and followed by a promo for a co-owned FM station's HD-2 channel. No mentions on-air that I've been able to hear, for HD-AM.

 

[rbrucecarter5]

Is it likely many AM stations will try music with AM-HD? ( such as standards, oldies, spanish. ) If not--- then what is the advantage of AM stations going HD? will talk, news, sports, religion, ethinic programs, infomercials sound better in HD? I suppose text info/messaging will be sent by AM-HD stations. and stations will go to AM-HD simply because the technology is here.

The entire Radio Disney network is going AM-HD, and it is a music format - a mix of non-offensive current top-40, Disney only artists, and oldies. One has to wonder about a business plan that counts on little kids buying $200 HD radios, though.

The quality I have heard is somewhere around mid to high bandwidth streaming. There is enough group delay and phase distortion to make extended listening to music a bit tedius - but then I have never been a fan of lower bandwidth streaming - it makes some of the audio content sound like it is "growling" at me. If you contrast HD-AM to C-Quam done right, you will REALLY miss C-Quam quality audio.

As for HD on talk and sports - that is the biggest waste of bandwidth I have ever heard of. Most of those stations just go HD "because it is there". Talk and sports radio does not need better fidelity than analog - and the same listener fatigue sets in, at least for me, after about 15 minutes. When you think about it, a lot of FMs that go talk eventually shut off their stereo subcarrier, unless they want commercials and music beds to be in stereo. But turning off stereo gives them better coverage. I suspect AM HD will eventually be shut off on talk and sports stations for the same reasons - not needed - limits station coverage.

 

[mgpt6]

if I was Kevin Martin of the FCC this is what I would do with IBOC and radio in general.
First with FM IBOC allow digital in the band from 61-99 Khz ,now the SCA band width to allow more bits for an extra HD channel or higher bit allocation to current HD channels.
In later years ,when penetration is higher allow , IBOC digital in the range of 20-60 KHz , now the range of the stereo L-R difference signal and RDS signal.I would keep the analog mono FM signal from baseband to 20Khz for legacy FM radios.At this point 5.1 surround and some more HD channels could be added.
The second thing I would do after 2009 would be to extend the FM band to add 76- 88 MHz. ( the present TV Ch 5 and 6) I would move Class 3 and Class 4 AM stations to the new FM band. They could have a Class A FM allocation.Class 2 AM stations could be given the option to stay in the AM Band or be given a Class B FM allocation in the new extended FM Band. Class 1 AM stations would stay on the AM band with fixes to the current AM IBOC system. DO I think this would happen, I doubt it but it would be logical. For the adding digital IBOC band width to FM that I hope will happpen in future years.

 

[Mike Walker]

Yeah, make changes once a standard has been adopted, and we're heading toward 2,000 installs (and lots of radios in the field). That's a great idea.

A better plan would be to perhaps mandate that FUTURE radios ALSO receive FMExtra...a system that could be easily, and affordably adopted by small-market FMs, give extra programming options to big market stations that already have HD, and would add a tiny amount of expense to radios. The precident for REQUIRING the inclusion of FMExtra on future digital radios? The requirement for UHF on televisions, then the requirement that UHF be as easy to tune as VHF.

It's a win/win! AM stations could then barter with their FM neighbors (often down the hall) for inclusion on their multicast channels.

 

[RadioFixerCLE]

The entire Radio Disney network is going AM-HD, and it is a music format - a mix of non-offensive current top-40, Disney only artists, and oldies. One has to wonder about a business plan that counts on little kids buying $200 HD radios, though.

WMKI 1260 in Boston (Mickey 1260 as I call it) is already doing that. They're a Radio Disney transmitter.

I think they're counting on riding the wave. They figure HD radios are going to be common in cars, so Mrs. Soccer Mom in the station wagon is more likely to turn the station on if "it sounds good".

Some of the Radio Disney stations that I've heard sound like total mud on analog. The dance-pop music they play doesn't lend itself very well to AM radio.

When you think about it, a lot of FMs that go talk eventually shut off their stereo subcarrier, unless they want commercials and music beds to be in stereo. But turning off stereo gives them better coverage. I suspect AM HD will eventually be shut off on talk and sports stations for the same reasons - not needed - limits station coverage.

When 102.7 here in New York went all talk, they didn't shut the stereo off. When sister station 92.3 later tried a talk format, they also remained in stereo. I think Boston's 96.9 is also broadcasting in stereo.

I think the reasoning there is, most people are likely to stop at a certain FM station if the "FM stereo" light comes on as they're tuning along :-[ ??? :-\.

 

[radioskeptic]

Quote from: rbrucecarter5 on November 14, 2007, 10:03:18 am

The entire Radio Disney network is going AM-HD, and it is a music format - a mix of non-offensive current top-40, Disney only artists, and oldies. One has to wonder about a business plan that counts on little kids buying $200 HD radios, though.

WMKI 1260 in Boston (Mickey 1260 as I call it) is already doing that. They're a Radio Disney transmitter.

I think they're counting on riding the wave. They figure HD radios are going to be common in cars, so Mrs. Soccer Mom in the station wagon is more likely to turn the station on if "it sounds good".

Some of the Radio Disney stations that I've heard sound like total mud on analog. The dance-pop music they play doesn't lend itself very well to AM radio.

WWJZ in Mt. Holly, Burlington County, NJ, “Radio Disney Philadelphia,” is also running H[uge] D[isaster] on AM at 640, and it sounds like, well, let’s just say that my reaction, though still brown, was a little more graphic than “mud”!

The station is 50 kw day and 950 w night, with two different directional patterns. The transmitter is about 20 miles east of Philly.

Even during the day, it’s a waste, because WWJZ and WFAN (660 NYC) cause mutual IBOC interference (In case you didn’t know, those NY flamethrowers come in pretty well in southern NJ, even several miles south of Philly -- or at least they did B.I. (Before Ibiquity)!

As for counting on the Radio Disney moms to find the “HD AM” sound attractive, I don’t think they, or anybody else, will. Sure, it’s “brighter” than the hybrid analog, though often no brighter than good (read “non-HD”) analog! But it’s a spurious brightness. At least 80 percent of what you hear in the upper two octaves is nothing but digital artifacting from the ridiculously low-def, low-bit-rate technology, while no more than 20 percent of the energy in that range consists of true harmonics of the lower-frequency components of the program material.

Quote

When you think about it, a lot of FMs that go talk eventually shut off their stereo subcarrier, unless they want commercials and music beds to be in stereo. But turning off stereo gives them better coverage. I suspect AM HD will eventually be shut off on talk and sports stations for the same reasons - not needed - limits station coverage.

When 102.7 here in New York went all talk, they didn't shut the stereo off. When sister station 92.3 later tried a talk format, they also remained in stereo. I think Boston's 96.9 is also broadcasting in stereo.

I think the reasoning there is, most people are likely to stop at a certain FM station if the "FM stereo" light comes on as they're tuning along

I think you’re right – except that I wouldn’t call that “reasoning.” How many FM receivers today have the option of automatically skipping any FM station not in stereo?

If the sound is loud and clear – and if the content is interesting – the station will find its audience. And it will be louder and clearer at greater distances if it’s in mono. How big is the difference? Well, it takes a signal more than 20 dB stronger at the antenna terminals to get adequate quieting in stereo!

That’s why talk WWDB (96.5) in Philadelphia (now, alas, Beasley’s Rhythmic CHR WRDW) used to use Stereo only for Sid Mark’s “Friday with Frank” and Sunday with Sinatra.”

 

[Mike Walker]

It's sad that in 2007 we're discussing whether stereo is an advantage to talk radio. IT WOULD BE IF STATIONS WOULD FREAKIN' BE CREATIVE! If TV took this attitude, Meet the Press would be in Black and White, because "It's Only Talk".

American broadcasters should SERIOUSLY listen to some British radio. THOSE GUYS APPRECIATE STEREO, including for "speech" and "sport" programming! WE AMERICANS INVENTED FM STEREO, and should hang our heads in shame!

 

[KB1OKL]

As most of you know I'm sure, 99% of people don't even know if they are listening in stereo or mono or even worse: IBOC. Give people two speakers and they automatically think they are hearing stereo, I've seen that happen over and over again in many places. They are all buzz words to attract listeners which obviously isn't working when it comes to iBlock. If radio concentrated on good shows, then they'd have listeners. IBOC does nothing but make radio sound harsh and shrill and is a waste of time, money and spectrum space. It is not selling because 99.9% of the audience really couldn't care less and won't spend one penny extra for it.

 

[Radioman100]

It is not selling because 99.9% of the audience really couldn't care less and won't spend one penny extra for it.

Well, good news Bob! It's starting to look like it will be a standard feature on all new radios soon, so they won't have to pay "extra" for it!

 

[Mike Walker]

Ya' see KB1OKL, MY point was that people "don't know if they're listening to mono or stereo", because nothing imaginative (or often nothing at all) is being done with stereo!

We are cable of hearing direction, and even depth (distance), not just frequency! Broadcasters not using stereo are lazy, cheap, uninformed, unimaginative, lack creativity, or some combination!