HD Radio - TV Question

[oldnewbie]

Hoping for some informed enlightenment here.

Next year, analog tv goes away for ever.

HD Radio is coming on. Are there plans to phase out analog radio? Would much be gained by going only digital on the existing frequencies?

What is the commercial appeal of HD Radio? What does the sales dept. see in HD RAdio? What am I missing?

THANKS!

 

[littlejohn]

No plans, but there should be.
The current percieved appeal is 'we can do more formats". It should be "We got better quality".
Were it totally digital, we could do better quality on more formats.
The above addresses FM HD. AM HD hasn't been as successful.

 

[captainplanet]

Promoting HD technology and how to get the platform off the ground has been the subject of countless industry debates.

To answer your question, though, there is no sunset on analog FM and most likely there will not be. It's primarily because the technology driving HD Television vs. HD (which does not stand for High Definition anyway) Radio is different. HDTV HAD to convert to digital because they are getting booted out of the spectrum they are currently using. FM is not going anywhere. There was an opportunity to embrace HD Radio in a different band, such as the European standard, but the military did not want to give up the spectrum. Even still, in Europe the technology is dying. AM HD Radio is a joke, and is already showing signs that it will be abandoned. Major players are either questioning the technology or are pulling out, especially at night. Not to mention the noise it generates and inferior digital coverage (when compared to analog).

Bottom line, the technology behind HD Radio does not require a sunset on analog. Therefore, it will never happen.

 

[gunterm]

HD radio is a complete joke, when the recievers cost more than $100 forget getting anyone to adopt it.

 

[The F Mister]

My opinion, solely based on my feeling, is that HD FM will never be a success and die a lonely death. Maybe conventional FM may still be around for a while but I think the future lies in IP based streaming. Wireless broadband becomes more and more available and nationwide coverage too. Don't know about the USA but here in Europe it's going fast. Think of Wimax and HSDPA technologies. The only thing standing this in the way may be governments that need to license Telco’s and the costs that go with it. Eventually the user will have to pay and at what price?

Quick example, Nokia released a Beta of their internet radio software. I installed it on my N73 with 3G network access and I bought a AD-15 converter so I can hook it up to the line-in of my car radio. Besides hundreds of stations worldwide I can also listen to my own stream from home anywhere.

 

[littlejohn]

The economics are currently not in favor - traditional broadcasting costs less per listener as the audience increases. Not so for streaming. Which leads to the conclusion that localization is the traditional broadcaster's stock in trade.
Of some surprise (to me at least) is the research Skip Pizzi speaks of in the current Radio World. It's worth a read. Music sales are off 30 odd percent, but top ten sales are off as much as 70 percent. So, the idea of the short playlist seems to be in jeopardy if he's correct.
It's going to be an interesting decade.

 

[CW]

Hoping for some informed enlightenment here.

Next year, analog tv goes away for ever.

HD Radio is coming on. Are there plans to phase out analog radio? Would much be gained by going only digital on the existing frequencies?

What is the commercial appeal of HD Radio? What does the sales dept. see in HD RAdio? What am I missing?

THANKS!

To be technically correct, analog TV does not "go away forever" come next year.

2/17/09 is sunset for Over The Air FULL POWER analog TV...note LPTVs (including Class As) and translators CAN remain analog for some time (no sunset date has been announced....yet)....analog will still be on cable for a while...
TOO many analog TVs out there to be suddenly become landfill fodder...

 

[littlejohn]

I stand corrected... I had forgotten LPTV. And most cable is going the other way right now - the signal arrives digitally and the cable box turns it to NTSC.

 

[gtomas]

HDTV HAD to convert to digital because they are getting booted out of the spectrum they are currently using. FM is not going anywhere.

Plus, the frequency range FM radio occupies is negligible when compared to TV. One TV channel occupies ~6 MHz while the whole FM dial with all the stations occupies 20 MHz. And that 20 MHz probably couldn't be better used to serve the public than it is...


Regards,
Goran Tomas

 

[gtomas]

The current percieved appeal is 'we can do more formats". It should be "We got better quality".
Were it totally digital, we could do better quality on more formats.

But better quality is only possible for HD simulcast only - using whole 96 kbps for single digital channel. That is the only configuration (apart from killing the analog carrier altogether) that could be said to have better sound quality than FM.

But as soon as you add secondary channel, your "digital quality" drops below analog FM quality. And stations in US seem to predominately choose the more-channels-of-lower-quality route...


Regards,
Goran Tomas

 

[gtomas]

Maybe conventional FM may still be around for a while but I think the future lies in IP based streaming. Wireless broadband becomes more and more available and nationwide coverage too. Don't know about the USA but here in Europe it's going fast. Think of Wimax and HSDPA technologies. The only thing standing this in the way may be governments that need to license Telco’s and the costs that go with it. Eventually the user will have to pay and at what price?

I too think that Internet-based transmission might easily become the radio of the future, especially with the technology going more mobile and faster (more bandwidth). Actually, it's not the future, it's the present! I've been listening to stations streaming aacPus, MP3 or WMA on my UMTS/HSDPA enabled mobile phone for over a year now, just as easy as I listen to over-the-air radio. With Internet radio not being confined in bandwidth limits as all OTA digital radio broadcasting systems (current and proposed) are, I can even enjoy better audio quality. One that even deserves to carry the "CD-quality" or "digital quality" epithet (not to mention HD as an allusion to high definition..).


Regards,
Goran Tomas

 

[The F Mister]

Maybe conventional FM may still be around for a while but I think the future lies in IP based streaming. Wireless broadband becomes more and more available and nationwide coverage too. Don't know about the USA but here in Europe it's going fast. Think of Wimax and HSDPA technologies. The only thing standing this in the way may be governments that need to license Telco’s and the costs that go with it. Eventually the user will have to pay and at what price?

I too think that Internet-based transmission might easily become the radio of the future, especially with the technology going more mobile and faster (more bandwidth). Actually, it's not the future, it's the present! I've been listening to stations streaming aacPus, MP3 or WMA on my UMTS/HSDPA enabled mobile phone for over a year now, just as easy as I listen to over-the-air radio. With Internet radio not being confined in bandwidth limits as all OTA digital radio broadcasting systems (current and proposed) are, I can even enjoy better audio quality. One that even deserves to carry the "CD-quality" or "digital quality" epithet (not to mention HD as an allusion to high definition..).


Regards,
Goran Tomas

Exactly, and when you think about it from a financial point of view. Many say that streaming to mobile devices is expensive thus making it not attractive apposed to FM/AM. But wireless broadband can be used for so much more. I find FM expensive. You have to maintain a transmitter site and invest in expensive equipment to just bring ONE analogue stereo audio source to the listener. Who pay's for this? The advertiser mostly. When we go wireless broadband the consumer pays for his/her connection, the radio station pays for uplink and advertisers pay for airplay. But is can be made so much more attractive for advertisers because you can combine video and audio, you can make it possible to download/buy the song you are listening to, record companies might pay a fee to the station because someone bought a song while listening to it on that station.

And because it is a simulcast you can bring custom made advertisements to each listener. Being a male do I care about a make-up commercial? Expensive time being wasted. Instead I could be listening to a new car model advertisement. Things advertiser do care about I think.

Just a bunch of wild thoughts how it could be from my point of view.

 

[FFoti1]

But better quality is only possible for HD simulcast only - using whole 96 kbps for single digital channel. That is the only configuration (apart from killing the analog carrier altogether) that could be said to have better sound quality than FM.

But as soon as you add secondary channel, your "digital quality" drops below analog FM quality. And stations in US seem to predominately choose the more-channels-of-lower-quality route...


Regards,
Goran Tomas

Actually, there is a mode where HD Radio uses something on the order of ~150kbps, and the FM Analog goes away.

-Frank Foti

 

[BROADCAST]

Over here in the UK digital radio has been less than perfect,actually a disaster!
DAB uses high band vhf,210 mhz approx,and uses mp2.

Because of limited bandwidth,bitrates have been reduced to a point where the audio quality is such that component hifi tuners do not sell anymore,only set top radios now sell,due to the quality of audio being so poor!

It is common knowledge that Radio 3 enthusiasts only use band 2 analogue fm tuners to get the best audio quality!

As the bitrates fell,dab was re phrased from cd quality,then near cd quality,and then finally to digital audio,also it was rebranded to digital radio.

Also the public is not aware that dab2 will replace the current dab standard,also when dab2 replaces this current dab standard,most receivers will become obsolete,only some new models that can be upgraded that have a usb socket fitted.

If the general public knew of this it would reduce sales even more,it is a pity that what started out looking promising has been watered down due to short sightedness.

 

[TomT]

It's sad, but fascinating, that the keyboard-in-hand-ipod-in-the-ear generation can't seem to hear bad audio.

I can tell the difference with my near-60 year old ears between any flavor of MP3 and and reasonably good (not square-wave mastered) CD, but it is all the same to my 22 year old production guy

But back to the topic at hand. FM radio will continue for many years because it will still be the only efficient (in terms of cost-per-thousand) method of delivering an audience to advertisers. The young audience may continue to be elusive, but as soon as they start working, have kids, commute to their office cubicle, we'll still have their attention because they will be less interested in "Radio Exotica" on the internet--even if they can get it in their car, and more interested in local weather, and what their team did last night.

 

[The F Mister]

TomT, you are talking about content, don't see why this couldn't be the case with streaming audio. I can also listen to the station thru streaming audio in my car that is also on FM but not receivable the whole way to work. Now I have a choice. Same content, different medium. And FM may be cheap by the thousands, but it only serves one purpose, costs of streaming might be more but serves more purposes so expenses can be divided by more. And history has proven that people are willing to pay for added features/experiences.

And I think that youngsters do hear bad audio it's just the perception OF bad audio. I don't like to listen to old tape when I can have cd/dvd/blueray etc. Yet this same tape was popular in its day's. Why? Well you had the chance to record you own and you could walk around with your walkman. Added experience for the consumer opposed to more quality with other alternatives at the time.

 

[gtomas]

But better quality is only possible for HD simulcast only - using whole 96 kbps for single digital channel. That is the only configuration (apart from killing the analog carrier altogether) that could be said to have better sound quality than FM.

But as soon as you add secondary channel, your "digital quality" drops below analog FM quality. And stations in US seem to predominately choose the more-channels-of-lower-quality route...

Regards,
Goran Tomas

Actually, there is a mode where HD Radio uses something on the order of ~150kbps, and the FM Analog goes away.

-Frank Foti

Indeed, but - you have to kill the analog carrier to do that. By the time there will be enough people listening to HD Radio that removing analog FM service won't be an issue (if that ever happens), I'm predicting mobile Internet will be 20 Mbps minimum, accessible everywhere and possibbly even completly free (some cities are already working on establishing city-wide free Wi-Fi).


Regards,
Goran Tomas