• 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 NYC Thread

>>... people who for some reason dislike HD.<<

For some reason? There are many reasons ... limited signal range, greater complexity and added cost are the most prominent.
 
Last edited:
>>Remember, even a small audience can bring in the revenue if the advertisers get good results or want to target a specific group.<<

That's turning out to be the case with print where some small community newspapers are still thriving. Also seems to be the case with WBBR where you still hear ads for high-end retailers and products but not many of the wrinkle-creams and other scams.

BTW, how do you add a quote box these days without quoting the entire message?
 
>>... people who for some reason dislike HD.<<

For some reason? There are many reasons ... limited signal range, greater complexity and added cost are the most prominent.

Signal limitation is the same problem with our digital TV system. It's not the technology as much as the fact that the math used to compute the stations power limit/coverage is wrong. With all of these digital technology's as they exist now, the coverage is less than what was achieved by a stations analog signal. It's the math not the technology.

What greater complexity? If greater complexity was an issue how is it that the home computer is so successful? Any of today's PC's is far more complex than any radio. If you mean that HD radio is difficult to use I'll just say this...Huh? It's no more difficult to use than any other radio. As to cost, I can't say. When CD's came on the market players were over $1,000 and discs were $20 and more. Analog records were cheap. As the technology took hold the prices came way down to the point where digital became the default system for music delivery. The same has happened with every innovation delivered to the public. To paraphrase the old Robert Hall jingle, as the numbers go up, up, up, then the prices go down, down, down. Have a pleasant day :)
 
Whether it's the technology or the math doesn't matter. People aren't buying the devices. The devices aren't selling so the price stays the same, same, same.

Simplicity is using the devices you already have. Complexity is adding new devices that you don't really need.

Also I'd beg to differ that using an HD radio is simpler than finding what you want on a PC. HD radios have no search function and, to a young person who's grown up with computers and smartphones, not radio, a location like "101.1, HD2" is arcane and meaningless.
 
"Also I'd beg to differ that using an HD radio is simpler than finding what you want on a PC. HD radios have no search function and, to a young person who's grown up with computers and smartphones, not radio, a location like "101.1, HD2" is arcane and meaningless."


I have to tell you that this conversation reminds me of conversations I had with a colleague of mine, many years ago. He would tell me that the end was near and that the company didn't need any of us and that we would all soon be out of work. My argument was that we had certain guarantees in place which would protect us. He would argue that they didn't matter, the end was near. I would say that my wife had just become an attorney and that she would get a good paying job. He would reply that companies aren't hiring lawyers any longer. Any argument I would make, he'd have a reply for. I realized that with some people, no matter how valid the argument, the end was imminent. That's my reply. :)
 
One big reason HD radio never caught on was that the people most likely to adopt a new technology, young people, are the ones that are no longer listening to the radio. They have too many better alternatives online and on their smartphones. They simply have no need for HD radio.

And the term "HD" radio is misleading. If you compare HD tv to SD tv, the HD picture is obviously better. If you compare HD radio to regular FM radio, the sound is no better, and is often worse than regular FM.
 
" If you compare HD radio to regular FM radio, the sound is no better."

Now that's simply a lie.
 
Anyone who has experienced a emergency, be it weather related or other, soon learn how fragile things like our current internet delivery services are. During last years hurricane Sandy, our area suffered from weather related outages. My neighborhood thankfully survived unscathed. Nevertheless cell service and power was cut for many hours and others in surrounding areas lost power for many days. There was no internet or cell service as sites went down do to lack of power. Radio continued to operate normally, delivering news to people in need. Sometimes it pays to look beyond ones own nose and see the world as it really is. If you've never experienced anything like this, look beyond your own nose to the way things really are. You never know when you might be next.
 
" If you compare HD radio to regular FM radio, the sound is no better."

Now that's simply a lie.

Not really. Initial tests of HD Radio's codec (among both regular and "expert" listeners) found the majority thought HD sounded as good or worse than analog—the minority thought it sounded better. There have been improvements since the HDC codec has been adopted, but nothing that blows analog out of the water (i.e., as good or better than CD, which was the benchmark proponents used to sell the technology). In fact, on AM, HD often does sound worse than analog, depending on the program content (some music better, speech not so much).
 
Last edited:
Not really. Initial tests of HD Radio's codec (among both regular and "expert" listeners) found the majority thought HD sounded as good or worse than analog—the minority thought it sounded better. There have been improvements since the HDC codec has been adopted, but nothing that blows analog out of the water (i.e., as good or better than CD, which was the benchmark proponents used to sell the technology). In fact, on AM, HD often does sound worse than analog, depending on the program content (some music better, speech not so much).

But the discussion was about HD FM sounding better than analog FM, which, albeit by a small amount, is true.

HD AM, today, sounds vastly superior to analog AM if the station has taken all the steps to avoid dueling codecs and such. Few AMs have done this, but those that I have heard which did (such as KFI and KNX in LA) sound amazingly good...
 
"Also I'd beg to differ that using an HD radio is simpler than finding what you want on a PC. HD radios have no search function and, to a young person who's grown up with computers and smartphones, not radio, a location like "101.1, HD2" is arcane and meaningless."

I have to tell you that this conversation reminds me of conversations I had with a colleague of mine, many years ago. // Any argument I would make, he'd have a reply for. I realized that with some people, no matter how valid the argument, the end was imminent. That's my reply. :)

My statement you quoted isn't just an arbitrary put-down of HD Radio -- it's part of a specific response to your assertion that HD Radio is somehow easier for a user to deal with than streaming audio on a PC or a smartphone. Your reply, however, is very general and doesn't address my points -- 1) no search function; 2) arcane station locations. Neither of these by itself is a show-stopper, but they're not helpful to the cause.

I seldom say this because you never know what lies ahead but, in 2013 I think it's safe to say, "The end IS near," for HD Radio.
 
"I seldom say this because you never know what lies ahead but, in 2013 I think it's safe to say, "The end IS near," for HD Radio."

I'll have to remember to tell my wife who just purchased a 2013 Subaru which came standard with an HD radio. We drove from Stanford to NYC over the summer and listened to WNYC 2, with few dropouts.
 


But the discussion was about HD FM sounding better than analog FM, which, albeit by a small amount, is true.

HD AM, today, sounds vastly superior to analog AM if the station has taken all the steps to avoid dueling codecs and such. Few AMs have done this, but those that I have heard which did (such as KFI and KNX in LA) sound amazingly good...

And I think this strikes directly to the ease-of-use issue, from the broadcasters' perspective.
 
As it is not uncommon for HD signals to go down for several days (or even weeks) and then return, it may be more accurate to state that at the moment, there is no HD signal on WEPN FM.
But it does seem reasonable to conclude that WEPN HD3 which had broadcast the audio from one of ESPN's TV channels, is gone. That has been off the air for several months.
For a short while after WEPN FM signed on, the display on their HD1 showed sports scores, which seemed to be a good idea. That is also gone.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom