HD Radio Stations I Can Get

[PocketRadio]

To clarify my original post for those whom require such clarification... I am curious what HD Radio stations other people can receive via an HD Radio FM receiver, tuned to the broadcast band from 88 - 108 MHz, and not from a personal FM transmitter/modulator device, from a FCC-licensed broadcaster running HD Radio's flavor of IBOC (or IBAC as it should be called).

http://psmith.us/rf/hdradio

"Further Order on Digital Radio Adopted"

o Stations that chose to broadcast in digital must provide a free digital stream that simulcasts the programming of the analog channel.

o Stations have the flexibility to provide multiple programming streams, provide data services, or provide the highest quality audio service.

o Stations may lease the unused portion of their radio spectrum to third parties.

o The existing rules, such as EAS, political, sponsorship ID, and station identification, are extended to all the free streams of programming provided by a station.

http://www.broadcastlawblog.com/archives/digital-radio-further-order-on-digital-radio-adopted.html

Other than that, not much.

 

[vsa]

Philip J. Smith wrote: "...can receive via an HD Radio FM receiver..."

Well, that narrows your original question down quite a bit. You aren't even interested in HD-AM radio hardware?

I suppose the programming that is heard is not important to you, just the hardware?

 

[R.F. Burns]

If you guys are going to say the Roku is not a radio because of some distinction you've established,
you are also saying IBOC is not a radio in the same breath.

Roku and IBOC HD are both modem connected. The Roku, by virtue of internet connectivity enjoys the same
questionable connectivity as an over-air-data modem. Both methods can work well or poorly.

The computer inside then reassembles as much audio as was sent.

The only difference is data delivery path.
One use a structure developed for many years to move data.
The other one uses the public's radio waves.

Neither one is a radio.

A radio I again repeat, works WITH natural laws inherent in physics to modulate information.
in a way that the medium propagates. It does not work against them, stubbornly.

Simplicity at the receiving end shows all the smarts went into design and concept.
Unlike HD IBOC where a computer is required at each receiver!

Which way will you have it? I beleive that by, the the rules of RF, eazy, and others spoorting IBOC, the Roku is a radio.
It's an RF-fed bitstream no different from any other.

EXCEPT HIS ROKU IS NOT MAKING NOISE ON MY RADIOS.

His radio plays nice with all of my radios, just like sattelite does, but now HD has to come in like a thug and says:
"we gonna --- this place up. You bettah like it. Punk. Charlie sez it's gonna be OK, huh?"



Mr. Burns, I await a response regarding the real reason audio mod. must keep sibilants and percussives out of the bitstream.
Is it not to keep the data trom being confused by the audio in these "events".

Why ask such a foolish question and what difference does it make. If you have audio in with data you will get corrupt data/. Why not run two distinct audio fees to a single analog mono AM radio station. What do you think that will get? Dumb question of no relevance to this discussion. How about we broadcast 20 Khz wide band AM after all wouldn’t that improve the audio quality too? Geez, get a life !!!

 

[Tom Wells]

If you guys are going to say the Roku is not a radio because of some distinction you've established,
you are also saying IBOC is not a radio in the same breath.

Roku and IBOC HD are both modem connected. The Roku, by virtue of internet connectivity enjoys the same
questionable connectivity as an over-air-data modem. Both methods can work well or poorly.

The computer inside then reassembles as much audio as was sent.

The only difference is data delivery path.
One use a structure developed for many years to move data.
The other one uses the public's radio waves.

Neither one is a radio.

A radio I again repeat, works WITH natural laws inherent in physics to modulate information.
in a way that the medium propagates. It does not work against them, stubbornly.

Simplicity at the receiving end shows all the smarts went into design and concept.
Unlike HD IBOC where a computer is required at each receiver!

Which way will you have it? I beleive that by, the the rules of RF, eazy, and others spoorting IBOC, the Roku is a radio.
It's an RF-fed bitstream no different from any other.

EXCEPT HIS ROKU IS NOT MAKING NOISE ON MY RADIOS.

His radio plays nice with all of my radios, just like sattelite does, but now HD has to come in like a thug and says:
"we gonna --- this place up. You bettah like it. Punk. Charlie sez it's gonna be OK, huh?"



Mr. Burns, I await a response regarding the real reason audio mod. must keep sibilants and percussives out of the bitstream.
Is it not to keep the data trom being confused by the audio in these "events".

Why ask such a foolish question and what difference does it make. If you have audio in with data you will get corrupt data/. Why not run two distinct audio fees to a single analog mono AM radio station. What do you think that will get? Dumb question of no relevance to this discussion. How about we broadcast 20 Khz wide band AM after all wouldn’t that improve the audio quality too? Geez, get a life !!!

I have never characterized you or your responses. Please regain your diginity and regain the debate.

First of all, the question is at the heart of your "go ahead and stay analog" argument, not silly at all.

You admit then, that there is insufficient forward error correction to overcome normal modulation events in AM,
unless the audio is limited in way that it hasn't been since before the dawn of cone speakers.

What's this about two audio feeds?
Run one feed and let the HD subtract the AM components as described by the encoding.
Don't tell me you're not smart enough to follow this concept.


I like the idea of broadcasting out to 20 khz audio, it would be less noisy than the HD.
Yes, wouldn't the audio be grand?

We should also be boosting the 50kws, and all AMs , in power.

We should also be adding carrier control (look it up) and anything else that lets an inherently
analog medium not suffer such a haphazard solution as any digital modulation.
Look up what happens , and what modulation products are produced by true square waves.
Information theory as regards bandwidth cannot be denied.

 

[PhilJSmith67]

I suppose the programming that is heard is not important to you, just the hardware?

For the sake of my first post on this thread, YES! Ding, Ding, Ding, you get the booby prize for reading the Subject line for this thread. Now, if you would like to debate content, go ahead... Start another thread, jump on, or hijack one of the dozens of threads that debate technology versus content. There are plenty.

It's amazing how a simple post to ask about others' reception experiences propagates into a situation where an array of posts had to be moved to the "Take It Outside" area. I make one post, return two days later and holy shimoli, a dumptruck of trash got emptied all over the place. I never asked for a sarcastic retort about alternatives to my question, with wisecracks like "maybe you need a bigger antenna." What happens if someone asks you for a hammer to drive in a nail? Do you hand them what they asked for, or do you engage in debate about the merits of hammers versus screwdrivers or rivet guns? Do you berate them for buying into the conspiracy of fastening things together?

I figured I would just let that first post go. So, I made a repost to try to get things back on track. Thank you for your second, and equally useless, response.

Go ahead and actually *read* some of my posts on various other threads. I am not a HD Radio zealot. I am not an HD Radio hater. You'll find that I am as factual as I can possibly be about my experiences with HD Radio. I've even backed up posts with content directly from the iBiquity HD Radio AM and FM technical specifications, which in most cases were critical of the technology, especially for AM. I didn't jump on the forum to lambaste and berate everyone who likes it, hates it, or is just curious about others' experiences. Making posts that smack of "religious missions" do nothing but undermine credibility. It is the equivalent of sticking the neighbor's dog with a stick through the fence just to make him growl.

When new technologies arrive, I try them out, regardless of what other people's quasi-religious feelings are toward such technologies. I like to try it for myself before I shoot my mouth off about its merits or drawbacks. I like to hear what other people's experiences are. Unfortunately, I can't find out, because the interference from a very select few on this board is stronger than HD Radio, arc lamps, a kitchen blender, and BPL combined. At least with a radio, I can adjust an antenna to reduce interference. No such techniques work here.

Oh great... Now I've been lured into hijacking one of my own threads. I bow in the shadow of your superiority. We might as well send this entire thread to Take It Outside. You win.

 

[R.F. Burns]

I suppose the programming that is heard is not important to you, just the hardware?

For that sake of my first post on this thread, YES! Ding, Ding, Ding, you get the booby prize for reading the Subject line for this thread. Now, if you would like to debate content, go ahead... Start another thread, jump on, or hijack one of the dozens of threads that debate technology versus content. There are plenty.

It's amazing how a simple post to ask about others' reception experiences propagates into a situation where an array of posts had to be moved to the "Take It Outside" area. I make one post, return two days later and holy shimoli, a dumptruck of trash got emptied all over the place. I never asked for a sarcastic sermon about alternatives to my question, with wisecracks like "maybe you need a bigger antenna." What happens if someone asks you for a hammer to drive in a nail? Do you hand them what they asked for, or do you engage in debate about the merits of hammers versus screwdrivers or rivet guns? Do you berate them for buying into the conspiracy of fastening things together?

Go ahead and actually *read* some of my posts on various other threads. I am not a HD Radio zealot. I am not an HD Radio hater. You'll find that I am as factual as I can possibly be about my experiences with HD Radio. I've even backed up posts with content directly from the iBiquity HD Radio AM and FM technical specifications, which in most cases were critical of the technology, especially for AM. I didn't jump on the forum to lambaste and berate everyone who likes it, hates it, or is just curious about others' experiences. Making posts that smack of "religious missions" do nothing but undermine credibility. It is the equivalent of sticking the neighbor's dog with a stick through the fence just to make him growl.

When new technologies arrive, I try them out, regardless of what other people's quasi-religious feelings are toward such technologies. I like to try it for myself before I shoot my mouth off about its merits or drawbacks. I like to hear what other people's experiences are. Unfortunately, I can't find out, because the interference from a very select few on this board is stronger than HD Radio, arc lamps, a kitchen blender, and BPL combined. At least with a radio, I can adjust an antenna to reduce interference. No such techniques work here.

Oh great... Now I've been lured into hijacking one of my own threads. I bow in the shadow of your superiority. We might as well send this entire thread to Take It Outside. You win.

I think if you asked the typical non Anti HD type in here you'd get the same response. It isn't perfect but it's an attempt to bring radio as w know it into the 21st century. I own 2 IBOC radios and both perform as well as can be expected for first generation electronics. My Sangean tuner is a superior piece of equipment. That has nothing to do with HD or analog. It doesn't matter to some in here for whom the term HD is nothing less than a profanity and who claim all will be told, maybe eventually. Most people who want to discuss this technoogy have moved out of here but there are a few of us that keep fighting on. It's a human weakness I suppose. Like banging your head against the wall. One of the anti IBOC people had it right actually, what we as un-anti IBOC posters should do is go away and leave these zealots to themselves In a few weeks they'll destroy each other anyway. Oh to be so patient with such self restraint.

 

[PhilJSmith67]

I appreciate your response. It actually helped me realize how ridiculously futile my rant was, from only 10 minutes ago. 8)

As for the hostile debating, I should have reflected upon some discussions five or so years ago which centered around RDS. There were a few hyper-pro-RDS and hyper-anti-RDS posters out there that seemed to be willing to fight to the death. Although, I think only if they were shielded by their keyboards. I actually had someone, who professed to like satellite radio, tell me that my buying of a radio that had RDS capability was promoting a technology that could cause numerous highway fatalities, because the display were harder to read than those of satellite receiver heads. I was told that I should have to attend funerals of those who died because a driver was reading the RDS display on his radio and crashed into them. Amazing.

 

[vsa]

Philip J. Smith wrote: "I never asked for a sarcastic retort about alternatives to my question, with wisecracks like "maybe you need a bigger antenna."

The subject of this thread is "HD Radio Stations I Can Get".

You listed the HD radio stations you could get locally in Chicago. You indicated you could not hear several local HD stations. I told you that I could hear those several stations from my location in Los Angeles.

Asking if you needed a bigger antenna was a legitimate question to ask. Why? Because it goes to the heart of why or why not the public will embrace HD technology. We were both attempting to listen to the programming of HD radio stations. To the average person, it would be obvious that my receiver sure has dramatically better reception capabilty than yours. If your receiver can outperform mine, please prove it.

I can understand it when people try to do things the hard way, like playing with obsolete computers, or setting up elaborate antennas and DXing radio stations from thousands of miles away when those same stations can be easily and clearly heard via the Internet.

Perhaps being an HD radio enthusiast is a lot like being a DXer. It's your hobby. I prefer to listen for content, as opposed to getting that DXing type of thrill. I seem to recall the pro-HD side continually harping about the fact that the general public is not into DXing.

 

[SUPERCASTER]

All HD lovers are HD DXers. You can't have one without the other.

 

[R.F. Burns]

Philip J. Smith wrote: "I never asked for a sarcastic retort about alternatives to my question, with wisecracks like "maybe you need a bigger antenna."

The subject of this thread is "HD Radio Stations I Can Get".

You listed the HD radio stations you could get locally in Chicago. You indicated you could not hear several local HD stations. I told you that I could hear those several stations from my location in Los Angeles.

Asking if you needed a bigger antenna was a legitimate question to ask. Why? Because it goes to the heart of why or why not the public will embrace HD technology. We were both attempting to listen to the programming of HD radio stations. To the average person, it would be obvious that my receiver sure has dramatically better reception capabilty than yours. If your receiver can outperform mine, please prove it.

I can understand it when people try to do things the hard way, like playing with obsolete computers, or setting up elaborate antennas and DXing radio stations from thousands of miles away when those same stations can be easily and clearly heard via the Internet.

Perhaps being an HD radio enthusiast is a lot like being a DXer. It's your hobby. I prefer to listen for content, as opposed to getting that DXing type of thrill. I seem to recall the pro-HD side continually harping about the fact that the general public is not into DXing.

But that is specifically the point of FM HD. You get content otherwise not available in a market and radios willl improve over time. I remember the anti CD arguments from the 80's. The best was, they aren't musical. It's all too similar, in my opinion.

 

[Mike Sheridan]

I think Phil and RFB have the right idea. I work in radio and I'm not for or against HD Radio I'm just looking for information.

From their posts it's easy to see they were not talking about Internet radio. Why cloud the issue?

I hear the hash on AM from the stations that are using HD. I'm not sure how that's going to work out.

So far i don't have an HD radio, I have been resisting it. So far none of the stations has an HD2 format that I couldn't live without and admittedly they aren't overly concerned about attracting people in my age group. I do admit though that I'm getting courious about HD radio and I haven't bought any new "electronics toys" in awhile!

Oh and DX is a natural question. Just like wondering how fast a car will go, most of us want to know how far a signal will go.

 

[vsa]

R.F.Burns wrote: "...the point of FM HD. You get content otherwise not available in a market and radios willl improve over time. I remember the anti CD arguments from the 80's. The best was, they aren't musical. It's all too similar, in my opinion."

I've been in radio for almost 40 years, from the smallest of markets to the nation's largest billing market. I never bought the anti-CD arguments. Back in the 80's, I even liked AM stereo.

There comes a time, however, when you've got to pay attention to technology developments that can turn your world upside-down.

I'm a firm believer that radio delivered via the Internet, and the wireless Internet, is such a development. You ignore it at your own peril.

After digital CDs gained traction in the marketplace, cassette makers and users figured they could compete by going digital as well. In the early 1990's they introduced the DCC, Digital Compact Cassette. They were backwards-compatible, able to play existing analog cassettes. To them, it made sense. Hardly anyone bought the players or recorders. It was a miserable failure. They couldn't understand why the public wasn't interested.

I submit that virtually the same thing is going on with HD radio as compared to Internet radio. Why the blind spot? Internet radio started out as a rather crappy technology. However, it has been improving - relentlessly. Sort of like the automobile versus the horse and buggy. 

It's time to be moving our eggs out of the buggy whip business and into the real future, not the one filled with wishful thinking.
 

 

[R.F. Burns]

R.F.Burns wrote: "...the point of FM HD. You get content otherwise not available in a market and radios willl improve over time. I remember the anti CD arguments from the 80's. The best was, they aren't musical. It's all too similar, in my opinion."

I've been in radio for almost 40 years, from the smallest of markets to the nation's largest billing market. I never bought the anti-CD arguments. Back in the 80's, I even liked AM stereo.

There comes a time, however, when you've got to pay attention to technology developments that can turn your world upside-down.

I'm a firm believer that radio delivered via the Internet, and the wireless Internet, is such a development. You ignore it at your own peril.

After digital CDs gained traction in the marketplace, cassette makers and users figured they could compete by going digital as well. In the early 1990's they introduced the DCC, Digital Compact Cassette. They were backwards-compatible, able to play existing analog cassettes. To them, it made sense. Hardly anyone bought the players or recorders. It was a miserable failure. They couldn't understand why the public wasn't interested.

I submit that virtually the same thing is going on with HD radio as compared to Internet radio. Why the blind spot? Internet radio started out as a rather crappy technology. However, it has been improving - relentlessly. Sort of like the automobile versus the horse and buggy.

It's time to be moving our eggs out of the buggy whip business and into the real future, not the one filled with wishful thinking.

OK As someone with 30 years in major market broadcasting I will say you are correct. That is why broadcast facilities have such a presense on the internet. Check out CBS alone. They are now streaming most of their major market facilities on the ineternet and selling those internet streams seperately from what they broadcast on the air. Check out WCBS AM during while a Yankees game is airing (WCBS AM is the flagship of the Yankees network). News continues on the internet and it's sponsored by internet only advertisers, while over the air the Yankees games are airing on 880 KHZ. I'm not suggesting that major broadcasters aren't involved with the internet but they also must keep working on providing the best service possible for the majority of their audience who happen to listen over the air.

 

[PhilJSmith67]

I don't think most people are ignoring Internet radio. That's why new Internet/WiFi devices are hitting the market, so that people who are more used to listening to "radio" on conventional receivers can listen to Internet streams without the hassle of toting around a laptop. Nevertheless, every delivery method has its issues. Many Internet streams sound lousy (try listening to a Sirius Stiletto radio in WiFi mode instead of Satellite). The streams with the highest bandwidth that sound decent also steal enough bandwidth from my ISP that it noticeably affects response times on the computer for everything else.

Conventional AM and FM radio will eventually go the way of the buggy whip, as the metaphor goes. But, it will still be around for a while, and broadcasters will try to do as much with it as they can before it falls into complete obsolescence. HD Radio, in my opinion, is by no means a "wonderful" technology, but it is functional to some degree. For the sake of this thread, I am focusing on what that degree of functionality really is. As I said, there are plenty of other threads devoted to the political, philosophical, business and content issues surrounding HD Radio, and there is a whole category on Radio-Info parallel to this one devoted exclusively to Internet radio.

Concerning buggy whips... Funny, but they are still being manufactured today.

Westfield Whip Manufacturing Company, 360 Elm St, Westfield, MA 01085, 413-568-8244.

 

[vsa]

R.F.Burns wrote: "...the point of FM HD. You get content otherwise not available in a market and radios willl improve over time. I remember the anti CD arguments from the 80's. The best was, they aren't musical. It's all too similar, in my opinion."

I've been in radio for almost 40 years, from the smallest of markets to the nation's largest billing market. I never bought the anti-CD arguments. Back in the 80's, I even liked AM stereo.

There comes a time, however, when you've got to pay attention to technology developments that can turn your world upside-down.

I'm a firm believer that radio delivered via the Internet, and the wireless Internet, is such a development. You ignore it at your own peril.

After digital CDs gained traction in the marketplace, cassette makers and users figured they could compete by going digital as well. In the early 1990's they introduced the DCC, Digital Compact Cassette. They were backwards-compatible, able to play existing analog cassettes. To them, it made sense. Hardly anyone bought the players or recorders. It was a miserable failure. They couldn't understand why the public wasn't interested.

I submit that virtually the same thing is going on with HD radio as compared to Internet radio. Why the blind spot? Internet radio started out as a rather crappy technology. However, it has been improving - relentlessly. Sort of like the automobile versus the horse and buggy. 

It's time to be moving our eggs out of the buggy whip business and into the real future, not the one filled with wishful thinking.

OK As someone with 30 years in major market broadcasting I will say you are correct. That is why broadcast facilities have such a presense  on the internet. Check out CBS alone. They are now streaming most of their major market facilities on the ineternet and selling those internet streams seperately from what they broadcast on the air. Check out WCBS AM during while a Yankees game is airing (WCBS AM is the flagship of the Yankees network). News continues on the internet and it's sponsored by internet only advertisers, while over the air the Yankees games are airing on 880 KHZ.  I'm not suggesting that major broadcasters aren't involved with the internet but they also must keep working on providing the best service possible for the majority of their audience who happen to listen over the air.

Mr. Burns, it's nice to see that we are in agreement.

I don't think most people are ignoring Internet radio.  That's why new Internet/WiFi devices are hitting the market, so that people who are more used to listening to "radio" on conventional receivers can listen to Internet streams without the hassle of toting around a laptop.  Nevertheless, every delivery method has its issues.  Many Internet streams sound lousy (try listening to a Sirius Stiletto radio in WiFi mode instead of Satellite).  The streams with the highest bandwidth that sound decent also steal enough bandwidth from my ISP that it noticeably affects response times on the computer for everything else.

Conventional AM and FM radio will eventually go the way of the buggy whip, as the metaphor goes.  But, it will still be around for a while, and broadcasters will try to do as much with it as they can before it falls into complete obsolescence.  HD Radio, in my opinion, is by no means a "wonderful" technology, but it is functional to some degree.  For the sake of this thread, I am focusing on what that degree of functionality really is.  As I said, there are plenty of other threads devoted to the political, philosophical, business and content issues surrounding HD Radio, and there is a whole category on Radio-Info parallel to this one devoted exclusively to Internet radio.

Concerning buggy whips...  Funny, but they are still being manufactured today. 

Westfield Whip Manufacturing Company, 360 Elm St, Westfield, MA 01085, 413-568-8244.

Mr. Smith, it's nice to see that we are in agreement.

A few important questions? Why are most broadcasters merely simulcasting their AM or FM signals over the Internet? Do we lack any sense of adventure? Are we afraid of establishing any new strong brands? Have we been playing defense for so long that we have forgetten as an industry how to play offense?

I submit that "radio's" best days have yet to come if we grab the reigns.

 

[davideduardo]

A few important questions? Why are most broadcasters merely simulcasting their AM or FM signals over the Internet? Do we lack any sense of adventure? Are we afraid of establishing any new strong brands? Have we been playing defense for so long that we have forgetten as an industry how to play offense?

Most broadcasters are simulcasting (technically not a "simulcast" but close) because the interest is in filling in coverage holes, and not, for the moment, creating new stations. The cost of doing some major market stations is in the millions per year, and there is not a local ad market for such an endeavor.

Further, much of the effort of Top 100 market FMs has been creating HD-2 content, not in adding internet streams to the tens of thousands that already exist.

The radio business model is local and advertiser supported.

 

[vsa]

A few important questions? Why are most broadcasters merely simulcasting their AM or FM signals over the Internet? Do we lack any sense of adventure? Are we afraid of establishing any new strong brands? Have we been playing defense for so long that we have forgetten as an industry how to play offense?

Most broadcasters are simulcasting (technically not a "simulcast" but close) because the interest is in filling in coverage holes, and not, for the moment, creating new stations. The cost of doing some major market stations is in the millions per year, and there is not a local ad market for such an endeavor.

Further, much of the effort of Top 100 market FMs has been creating HD-2 content, not in adding internet streams to the tens of thousands that already exist.

The radio business model is local and advertiser supported.

All of this is true. What I'm getting at is that the business model will have to morph, at least somewhat over time. Perhaps the definition of local will morph as well. If we don't do it, it may be done for us by emerging competitors on more flexible platforms.