HD Radio missing a marketing opportunity ---

[rbrucecarter5]

The sound quality on satellite is now so bad, and some channels are not even in stereo. The difference in sound between satellite and even analog FM is dramatic. That is a vulnerability in satellite radio, and the HD folks should seize the opportunity to promote themselves on one strength they do have - better quality!

It isn't every satellite channel that is terrible, the popular ones still sound great. But one reason I subscribed in the first place was to get CD quality sound. If I happen to listen to things like 60's on 6, I expect my service to sound as good as Howard the pervert. That isn't the case. They rob bandwidth from channels I like to increase it on other channels. And I don't appreciate paying for something that is little better than AM.

 

[RadioEngnr]

I had to work a long day yesterday, and it was after mid-night and I really didn't want to listen to the analog radio so I tuned into satellite, was listening to Classic Vinyl for 45 seconds and turned it off, not because of the song but because I get better sound quality through my magic jack

 

[FredLeonard]

Funny, TV is finally starting to do things with their sub-channels that people might watch and advertisers might buy. Not radio. HD can never have as many channels as satellite but there are formats that certain audience segments would not only listen to - they'd buy HD receivers for. These include...

Real/True Oldies.
Standards/Nostalgia
Progressive Talk
Folk
Classic Country
Classical
Jazz
America's Radio News


But broadcasters can't be bothered. Few people will buy an HD receiver just to get better sound quality (when it doesn't pop in and out) from an AM spoken word station on a sub-channel.

 

[KeithE4]

Funny, TV is finally starting to do things with their sub-channels that people might watch and advertisers might buy. Not radio.

One difference: The digital TV receivers and/or converter boxes already exist, and have been required to receive television over the air since 2009. There is no such requirement for radio and probably never will be.

 

[FredLeonard]

Funny, TV is finally starting to do things with their sub-channels that people might watch and advertisers might buy. Not radio.

One difference: The digital TV receivers and/or converter boxes already exist, and have been required to receive television over the air since 2009. There is no such requirement for radio and probably never will be.

The difference is back when both radio and TV started, broadcasters provided programming that would make people want to buy receivers. Now, they expect people to buy receivers - then they may think about providing programming.

 

[radiophiler]

Here is the biggest reason why HD radio won't take off:

It's owned by the same companies that own AMs and FMs still broadcasting in analog.

These owners would like nothing better if they could get more listeners through their HD stations. However, they will not do that at the expense of the stations they have already been running.

Sirius and XM didn't own other audio broadcast signals. They had nothing to lose in their launches.

Here's how Sirius/XM has survived: First, they worked really hard at getting their receivers in as many cars as possible. Then, they marketed additional receivers for the home/office, etc., to the people who had the car satellite radios (any Sirius/XM subscriber has seen the emails pushing additional radios).

Then, one service made a huge splash by hiring the most popular radio personality on the FM band: Howard Stern.

Then, the FCC allowed the only two satellite companies to merge, deleting direct competition.

Since the HD signals are spread amongst many different station owners, it lacks the competitive model advantage that satellite has.

Require all stations to go HD only? No way, would the owners say, because a bunch of radios would become obsolete.

The only things HD has going for it: 1) It's getting into more car radios every day, 2) You might get those car owners to listen to what had previously been an AM-only station on an FM-HD frequency. Example: I live in the Philly metro, and I never listen to KYW Newsradio on 1060 AM anymore in my car. I listen almost exclusively on its FM-HD simulcast on 94.1.

Maybe this is the way HD might be forced to succeed: Eliminate the AM band in the U.S. Force owners of FMs to move the formats that had been on AMs to FM-HD signals.

 

[ddsparxx]

No, don't eliminate the AM band. Force the stations to stop the adjacent channel interference by correcting it. Maybe that might led HD to succeed.

 

[KeithE4]

Maybe this is the way HD might be forced to succeed: Eliminate the AM band in the U.S. Force owners of FMs to move the formats that had been on AMs to FM-HD signals.

The AM broadcast band cannot be eliminated. It is an ITU worldwide allocation. And until HD-FM radios are in everybody's hands (read: There are two chances of that happening - Slim and None, and Slim was never in the building), what you propose is a non-starter.

 

[rbrucecarter5]

Then, one service made a huge splash by hiring the most popular radio personality on the FM band: Howard Stern.

Is there anybody at all who is very scared for our society when this pervert is so popular? He made comments about the hotness of female Columbine high school CORPSES.

I subscribed to XM instead of Sirius so I wouldn't patronize that pervert. Then they merged ---

 

[TheBigA]

The difference is back when both radio and TV started, broadcasters provided programming that would make people want to buy receivers. Now, they expect people to buy receivers - then they may think about providing programming.

Then again, some of the biggest broadcasting companies were also electronics manufacturers. They made and sold radios. Not any more.

But radio companies are ALWAYS thinking about programming, and if cost was no object, the programming people would be thrilled to offer lots of new formats on HD. But new formats cost money and take time to establish. And most consumers are happy with the multiple devices they currently own. If it wasn't for satellite receivers being standard in most cars, I doubt their subscription rate would be as high as it is. That's what it would take for HD to become commonplace.

As far as sound quality, it's really not a big issue with the majority of listeners. They mostly use crappy devices and crappy earbuds to listen.

 

[FredLeonard]

But radio companies are ALWAYS thinking about programming, and if cost was no object, the programming people would be thrilled to offer lots of new formats on HD. But new formats cost money and take time to establish.

Not true. Formats don't need to be "established." They are there and also stations have to do is plug into a Dial Global, Clear Channel or some other satellite feed but broadcasters can't be bothered in most markets.

 

[TheBigA]

Not true. Formats don't need to be "established." They are there and also stations have to do is plug into a Dial Global, Clear Channel or some other satellite feed but broadcasters can't be bothered in most markets.

They need to be established with the audience. Just because you build it doesn't mean they will come.

Format syndicators like DG typically don't allow you to use their formats on HD channels.

 

[KB1OKL]

If anything is to succeed analog radio it will have to work better not worse, this is the hitch, HD radio's reception sucks and it interferes with it's neighbors, I'm surprised some of you have forgotten that. HD FM radio will never succeed no matter how much baloney and money ibiquity tries to bamboozle car manufacturers and consumers with, it just doesn't work unless you have a Yagi antenna hooked to your receiver, and AM HD is a joke and should be put out of it's misery.

 

[TheBigA]

If anything is to succeed analog radio it will have to work better not worse,

Funny...analog radio works better than internet radio, yet that doesn't stop people from using it.

Quality isn't always a motivation. That's why people eat at McDonalds and drive crappy cars.

 

[KB1OKL]

If anything is to succeed analog radio it will have to work better not worse,

Funny...analog radio works better than internet radio, yet that doesn't stop people from using it.

It sounds better but it doesn't work better, reception is far better for satrad than with analog radio. People use analog radio because it works and it's free, HD despite all the recent hoopla is still going nowhere because it just doesn't work anywhere near as well as analog radio. I think analog and satrad are two different things anyway, most people are probably never going to pay for satellite radio so that's not even included in the equation for the average Joe, but analog and HD are both free and Joe is going to weigh the supposed marginal gains in fidelity HD has against the fact that it unexpectedly drops out all the time and the fact that analog is pretty predictable and works well.

Quality isn't always a motivation. That's why people eat at McDonalds and drive crappy cars.

I agree, Joe Blow doesn't really care all that much about fidelity, he wants something to listen to the news or talk shows on that works reliably and predictably.

 

[TheBigA]

Joe is going to weigh the supposed marginal gains in fidelity HD has against the fact that it unexpectedly drops out all the time and the fact that analog is pretty predictable and works well.

Satellite also drops out, especially in cities and during thunderstorms. In fact, the satellite companies use terrestrial repeaters to help fill in the gaps.

 

[Tom Wells]

Joe is going to weigh the supposed marginal gains in fidelity HD has against the fact that it unexpectedly drops out all the time and the fact that analog is pretty predictable and works well.

Satellite also drops out, especially in cities and during thunderstorms. In fact, the satellite companies use terrestrial repeaters to help fill in the gaps.

Which SHOULD be specifically illegal. The WHOLE point of satellite transmission is that terrestial distribution is not used.
Let satellite distribution fail on its own merits (or lack of).
Everything would like to work as well as terrestial analog radio broadcast.

If anything is to succeed analog radio it will have to work better not worse,

Funny...analog radio works better than internet radio, yet that doesn't stop people from using it.

Quality isn't always a motivation. That's why people eat at McDonalds and drive crappy cars.

In fact, it DOES stop me from using internet radio.
I have given up on trying to use internet radio, which is ever so much more fussy than broadcast.
Every "upgrade" of the cell phone system ( and phones ) has worked less well than the earlier versions, and cost more.
The last thing I want to try to do on a phone is use the internet, until the distribution points and upstream bottleneck
issues have been addressed.

 

[Ai4i]

Satellite also drops out...during thunderstorms.

Solid matter blocks 21/3GHz, not weather.

Which SHOULD be specifically illegal.

Let me get this right: you are saying that something should be banned because it allows people to enjoy solid reliable signals without dropouts?
Please explain how banning terrestrial repeaters would benefit anyone without vested interests in helping the service to fail.

 

[Tom Wells]

I'm saying if it doesn't work as intended, it should fail on lack of merit.

Particularly when it's the taxpayer's money subsidizing the service.

XM Sirius did not foot the bill for the satellites, a great deal of money came out of "our" wallets.

Maybe i'd have an easier time if the service hadn't been >defined< as satellite.

 

[TheBigA]

XM Sirius did not foot the bill for the satellites, a great deal of money came out of "our" wallets.

Ummm...They paid for their share of the transponder, and their share of the launch. And IIRC, it was a big hunk of money.