• 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 Radio in Indiana markets

R

Radiogeek500

So who is coming online with the HD Radio transmissions? And any multicasts planned?

Multicasts might be a great benefit for smaller Indiana markets especially Evansville and Terre Haute. You could get those ninche yet still mainstream enough formats that wouldn't have seen light in any other day in markets of those sizes.

Just think, things like Alternative, Classic Country, Urban, Urban AC, Dance, etc etc could finally be heard.

Hey, people like midwest clubber and his dad may have something both to look foward to?

But of course, this is all still new technology and I am sure that the whole BETA/VHS arguments and court battles over specific ratios, quality blah blah blah will play out. And getting people to buy a radio will be another issue. The cheapest I have heard of a HD Radio going for is 300.00 bucks. That's not entirely great considering I can currently get a cheaply made crappy Boombox/CD player for 30.00 bucks at CVS/Rite Aid/etc etc or go to Best Buy and get a Sony one for 79.99 or so. Now I ain't saying for HD Radio Makers to stoop to the CVS level, just make something that's within the current 69.99+ Boombox range and 99.99-300.00 for a bookshelf system. And they need to come out with a walkman that's reliable too. But if all these issues can be straightened out various Indiana markets sure might have some good choices in store.

Thoughts?<P ID="signature">______________
The old skool show@noon with Jeff G and DJ Rawn
Only on Power 106(KPWR Los Angeles)

JOSH, Moderating the whole Radio-Info radio state of California and Indiana too!</P>
 
Many assume adding HD radio (or In-Band On Channel)to analog will reinvent radio, but IBOC has so much going against it.

The creation of IBOC isn't as simple of adding a cable or an inexpensive magic box. The physical plant upgrade will cost at least $100,000 per station. Operating cost will also increase. The analog transmitter now has a digital transmitter along side eating electricity as well as many other pesky expenses. Monitoring off the air will become a thing of the past with IBOC due to the eight second conversion delay. Even in this early stage, sideband interference has become a major issue with only a handful of stations broadcasting IBOC. It goes without saying as the digital streams increases so will the interference.

The receiver situation isn't much better. So called “HD radios” are very hard to find and cost a lot of money, a price only a radio geek would pay. Despite what many in our industry believe, the average person will not spend that much money on a radio when media players, satellite radio and other means of portable competition are much cheaper and widely available. The availability of HD radios won’t improve until the FCC mandates receiver manufactures to add a digital tuner. The likelihood of a mandate is slim based on how the FCC handled AM Stereo and AMAX.

Finally, the name HD (as in High Definition) radio is a lie. The bit rate is lower than most available downloads. With all that in the equation, HD radio destiny is to fail.
 
> Many assume adding HD radio (or In-Band On Channel)to analog
> will reinvent radio, but IBOC has so much going against it.
>
>
> The creation of IBOC isn't as simple of adding a cable or an
> inexpensive magic box. The physical plant upgrade will cost
> at least $100,000 per station. Operating cost will also
> increase. The analog transmitter now has a digital
> transmitter along side eating electricity as well as many
> other pesky expenses. Monitoring off the air will become a
> thing of the past with IBOC due to the eight second
> conversion delay. Even in this early stage, sideband
> interference has become a major issue with only a handful of
> stations broadcasting IBOC. It goes without saying as the
> digital streams increases so will the interference.
>
> The receiver situation isn't much better. So called “HD
> radios” are very hard to find and cost a lot of money, a
> price only a radio geek would pay. Despite what many in our
> industry believe, the average person will not spend that
> much money on a radio when media players, satellite radio
> and other means of portable competition are much cheaper and
> widely available. The availability of HD radios won’t
> improve until the FCC mandates receiver manufactures to add
> a digital tuner. The likelihood of a mandate is slim based
> on how the FCC handled AM Stereo and AMAX.
>
> Finally, the name HD (as in High Definition) radio is a lie.
> The bit rate is lower than most available downloads. With
> all that in the equation, HD radio destiny is to fail.
>
The few things IBOC has got going for it you seemed to fail to mention. No hiss, better qulality sound than analog, and The fact that HD radio is being implimented in over 2500 stations in all the big 100 markets nationwide. I don't think it is mandated, like HDTV is, but we are inching up on it. I think it is coming whether we like it or not.
 
> The few things IBOC has got going for it you seemed to fail
> to mention. No hiss, better qulality sound than analog,

Better quality? As I said in the prior post, IBOC is a loss format. The hiss is gone but at the sacrifice of quality, especially with acoustics.

and
> The fact that HD radio is being implimented in over 2500
> stations in all the big 100 markets nationwide. I don't
> think it is mandated, like HDTV is, but we are inching up on
> it. I think it is coming whether we like it or not.


Twenty years ago we were all giddy over AM stereo. Many stations installed expensive equipment only to revert to mono a few years later due to little interest and most of all the few receivers available wasn't worth the tradeoff of maintaining the system. The same can be said for other "improvements" like AMAX, Quad and Dolby FM. Each a good idea on paper but in reality were failures. IBOC is wondering down the same path. As long as receiver manufactures lack the motivation (read: potential profits or FCC mandate) they won't build IBOC receivers in mass quantities.

Television broadcasters have a bargaining chip with the FCC. When the HDTV transition is finished part of the spectrum will be returned to the FCC. Because of this, the FCC is pushing manufactures to produce sets with HDTV tuners. July 1st 2005 was the date that all television with a 36 inch screen or larger must have a HDTV tuner. Within a few years most of the sets manufactured will have HDTV tuners. HDTV has its own evils, but at least there is a slight chance of a life.

There are better ways to improve radio means of distribution, IBOC isn't one of them. The only way IBOC has a chance is if the receivers are widely available and practically given away. Most of all, there has to be something on these fancy radios that people want to hear. As long as the receivers and content are few and far between, IBOC will be another set of improvements that didn't work.
 
> > The few things IBOC has got going for it you seemed to
> fail
> > to mention. No hiss, better qulality sound than analog,
>
> Better quality? As I said in the prior post, IBOC is a loss
> format. The hiss is gone but at the sacrifice of quality,
> especially with acoustics.
>
> and
> > The fact that HD radio is being implimented in over 2500
> > stations in all the big 100 markets nationwide. I don't
> > think it is mandated, like HDTV is, but we are inching up
> on
> > it. I think it is coming whether we like it or not.
>
>
> Twenty years ago we were all giddy over AM stereo. Many
> stations installed expensive equipment only to revert to
> mono a few years later due to little interest and most of
> all the few receivers available wasn't worth the tradeoff of
> maintaining the system. The same can be said for other
> "improvements" like AMAX, Quad and Dolby FM. Each a good
> idea on paper but in reality were failures. IBOC is
> wondering down the same path. As long as receiver
> manufactures lack the motivation (read: potential profits or
> FCC mandate) they won't build IBOC receivers in mass
> quantities.
>
> Television broadcasters have a bargaining chip with the FCC.
> When the HDTV transition is finished part of the spectrum
> will be returned to the FCC. Because of this, the FCC is
> pushing manufactures to produce sets with HDTV tuners. July
> 1st 2005 was the date that all television with a 36 inch
> screen or larger must have a HDTV tuner. Within a few years
> most of the sets manufactured will have HDTV tuners. HDTV
> has its own evils, but at least there is a slight chance of
> a life.
>
> There are better ways to improve radio means of
> distribution, IBOC isn't one of them. The only way IBOC has
> a chance is if the receivers are widely available and
> practically given away. Most of all, there has to be
> something on these fancy radios that people want to hear.
> As long as the receivers and content are few and far
> between, IBOC will be another set of improvements that
> didn't work.
>
I will improve AM radio tremendously. Witness an article from Radio Currents Online, Sept27-Oct 3, 2004:

"A memo sent to the Clear Channel Radio engineers from Jeff Littlejohn, senior VP of engineering for Clear Channel, spells out a plan for all the Clear Channel AM stations to reduce their audio bandwidth to 5kHz or 6kHz, depending on the station's format. Littlejohn based the decision on his own listening experience during IBOC tests with WLW (700) Cincinnati and WOR (710) New York.

An excerpt from his memo:

During those tests, we limited both stations to 5kHz audio bandwidth and then turned on and off the IBOC carriers at 1-minute intervals. The result was pretty interesting! When I tuned to 710 AM, I heard WOR-AM's skywave crystal clear! Never in the dozen years of living in Cincinnati had I heard WOR's skywave signal. It had always been obliterated by the sidebands of WLW."

As for FM, I listen to loss MP3s all the time, and there is one thing I notice over FM radio, better audio seperation, clearer sound. What did I lose? Sound off the top and the bottom I couldn't hear anyway. While most of my MP3s are at 128kbs or better, FM radio will be broadcasting at 96kbs. I am not sure of the format, but if it is good encoding, the layman's ear will notice an improvement, not a degradation, especially since it will have no hiss, and better stereo seperation. I know, laymen don't count, right?

As for implimentation, currently, it looks like automakers are going to include them in car radios in the near future (Delphi and Visteon.) If this is the case, then digital radio will have the breakthrough it needs. Add to that being able to stream information in the signal, and you have something people will give a damn about.

It isn't the doomed format you make it out to be.
 
> "A memo sent to the Clear Channel Radio engineers from Jeff
> Littlejohn, senior VP of engineering for Clear Channel,
> spells out a plan for all the Clear Channel AM stations to
> reduce their audio bandwidth to 5kHz or 6kHz, depending on
> the station's format. Littlejohn based the decision on his
> own listening experience during IBOC tests with WLW (700)
> Cincinnati and WOR (710) New York.
>
> An excerpt from his memo:
>
> During those tests, we limited both stations to 5kHz
> audio bandwidth and then turned on and off the IBOC carriers
> at 1-minute intervals. The result was pretty interesting!
> When I tuned to 710 AM, I heard WOR-AM's skywave crystal
> clear! Never in the dozen years of living in Cincinnati had
> I heard WOR's skywave signal. It had always been obliterated
> by the sidebands of WLW."
>

I'm assuming that WOR was heard with the IBOC off on WLW. IBOC on AM just makes the sideband interference even worse. With the IBOC on the sidebands would eliminate everything up to 730 and down to 670 at least.

The correct term is more like IBAC (in band adjacent channel...)
 
> So who is coming online with the HD Radio transmissions? And
> any multicasts planned?
>

While at a ham radio club meeting last night, one of the guys brought in his Kenwood HD receiver portable setup to demonstrate. I got to hear WIBC, and the difference was really noticeable..very crisp sounding audio. We also were able to tune into WFBQ's HD-2 audio channel. They are running a Jack-type format with a lot of 70's and 80's music...even heard a Michael Jackson song..gag. They run liners referring to themselves as "The Serve". Obviously they are just playing with it, but what I heard sounded pretty good...the stereo separation was outstanding. I think the literature the guy had mentioned something about up to 70db of separation between the channels. At any rate, it was a pretty cool demonstration of what the capabilities are. Would I spend the 700 bucks or so for the radio and HD box that goes with it? Probably not.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom