HD Radio subchannels a bad idea

[nhradiochild]

I was reading Scott Fybush's "Year in Review" and it came to my mind that HD Radio subchannels are not worth the time and effort put into them. It just doesn't play well with the overall balance of the economy. Companies are laying off left and right for the most part, keeping costs as trim as can be, but let's throw on another signal! Mind you, because it is an HD subchannel, we don't have to work as hard to program it, because let's face it, it's not easy picking one of those bad boys up. (I believe it's a seperate selection button on most radios to change subchannels, when you CAN pick it up.) Yet, because of a dominant LACK of HD radios in a market, be it because the signal's poor or listeners don't know it's even a reality, we must buy and operate a translator to get the product out to the masses. News flash! If they can pick it up on a standard radio, they aren't going to rush out and buy the HD-radio!

Is it me, or does this seem counterproductive to any radio scenario? Let's throw on another signal to perhaps reduce advertising value even more for what? A subchannel station? In an ideal world, those subchannels would be producing quality programming that were necessary because there was no more room on the radio dial for a traditional station. But in New Hampshire?? Where there is obviously enough room on the dial to create the pissy translator signal to begin with?

By and large, stations can't program their PRIMARY channels very well, let alone a subchannel, so why are we spending all this money on things that aren't necessary? Can anyone tell me? ???

 

[MassMusicMan]

Institutional arrogance.

"We have a precious frequency, and you don't, so we must be smarter than everybody else. Let's just do what we want with all this money!"

And that is why Citadel is bankrupt, CC went private, and most radio stocks trade under $10 a share.

 

[noflufftampa]

CC in Tampa is the Only one promoting the HD Sub Channels in the tampa market. I agree its a waste of money.

 

[Jimc]

They could lea$e them out to specialinterest groups, churches,fanatics,whoever. At least they could make money with it.

 

[splicer38]

or in the case of some broadcast on your HD channels and use the your translators to re-broadcast those sub channels to create new stations! I beleive Saga is doing that now in some markets.

Problem is radio has been talking about this for years. Until you get the hardware in the hands of the people to recieve it, its useless. Greater Media and other major outlets have been championing this effort and made huge investments into the transmission technology. They still advertise the HD radios on their air.

I think this might be a technology that has been surpassed... like Microsoft Millenium! Maybe not.

 

[Tom Wells]

In engineering terms, the subchannels are a waste of system robustness and audio purity.
Lossy codecs can only hide "so much" or define "so much".
Changes in audio that are rapid and continuous give them quite a workout deciding what essential instaneous voltage component of
the sum of frequencies is worth defining and assigning. There must also be data redundancy to permit smoothing over losses in imperfect transmission paths. Every reduction in total bitstream assigned to one (stereo) channel further reduces any chances of this technology to EVER be accepted by the masses who will tolerate fluffs and spits of mutipath noise, but not total loss and 5 seconds of
rebuffering. They DO accept it on a computer, because that's what computers DO.
Radio is perceived as absolutely live by almost all listeners, even if automation voice-tracked with drop-in local advertising, little or no
nationwide network newscasts, and auto weather reports. They don't know yet, fully, that it's not.
But they expect that it just works instantaneously since the invention of the transistor. If it doesn't do that, it's broke.
Radio was the great invention that damn near always seemed to be working somehow, even while lots of other things weren't,
during crises and natural disasters, calls for life saving, radio's great durability and robustness designed to work in war environments
were what he public puchased in 1963. Auto radios were kicked down stairs by the manufacturers to test mechanism precision, and what happened to alignment.
So where exactly is it broken now with HD?

Somewhere. Perhaps even in design. But certainly by dividing an adequate stream into 3 inadequate streams, probably all on one chksum,
is a way to potentially annoy 3 times as many listeners than if you'd provided one hell of a good robust, reliable signal.
The subchannels are certainly a political boondoggle, not a rip-roaring engineering recommendation.

 

[nhradiochild]

Wow, Tom! I'm glad I have an engineering background to understand all that!

I had never thought of it that way, but since the can of worms is open...

Does that mean the translators are feeding off the end result HD 2 or 3 broadcast, or do they just send out another STL shot with raw product? I suppose it could be done either way, but from what you said about buffering issues, that means the former would suffer "dead air" shots even though it's a regular broadcast! (Not to mention the latter choice would occupy another STL frequency as well!) :

 

[MarcB]

or in the case of some broadcast on your HD channels and use the your translators to re-broadcast those sub channels to create new stations! I beleive Saga is doing that now in some markets.

Red Wolf Broadcasting did this in Connecticut. They bought the 97.5 Translator in Bolton, boosted its signal to 60 watts and launched Hartford's first FM Tropical formatted radio station since the 80s - La Bomba 97.5 FM. It's relaying 104.1 HD 2. http://www.labomba975.com/

 

[Oldbones]

Is it me, or does this seem counterproductive to any radio scenario? Let's throw on another signal to perhaps reduce advertising value even more for what? A subchannel station? In an ideal world, those subchannels would be producing quality programming that were necessary because there was no more room on the radio dial for a traditional station. But in New Hampshire?? Where there is obviously enough room on the dial to create the pissy translator signal to begin with?

By and large, stations can't program their PRIMARY channels very well, let alone a subchannel, so why are we spending all this money on things that aren't necessary? Can anyone tell me? ???

Other than Saga in Manchester (and maybe Keene), I'm not aware of any HD-2 channels being put on translators in N.H.

I agree that the HD-2 & 3 channels are less than useful, but for that matter why does almost every station (aside from AM daytimers) run 24 hours? The number of people up at that hour in NNE is nil.
The reason is competitive...if your competition is on overnight and you're not then you're (at least perceived to be) behind the 8-ball. Likewise with digital...if one of your listeners (or potential listeners) gets an HD radio you'd better be there. Adding an automated or syndicated sub-channel doesn't cost much.

 

[nhradiochild]

Thing of it is, 24-hour service with the automated EAS service lets whomever might be up the ability to listen for emergency information (even if it is terribly unlikely) without changing from whatever their favorite station is.

Having an HD signal does not translate in the same way... at least not yet. (I truly don't ever expect it to either.)

But that brings up another point to ponder: are HD subchannels required to carry EAS information like their primary counterparts? ???

 

[necrat123]

But that brings up another point to ponder: are HD subchannels required to carry EAS information like their primary counterparts? ???

Yes, they are.