HD Radio - U.K vs. U.S.

[dbdigital]

Interesting comparison on the acceptance of digital radio in Britain verses here and why it's doing better overseas.

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,72514-0.html?tw=rss.index

db

 

[700WLW]

Interesting comparison on the acceptance of digital radio in Britain verses here and why it's doing better overseas.

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,72514-0.html?tw=rss.index

db

This big partnership with Microsoft, is a big joke - MSN Direct, is only a subscriber-based, glorified pager-system, that would put HD Radio into coffee-makers and blenders (wow, now they come with speakers) ! MSN Direct, is real popular with consumers, too:

http://www.google.com/trends?q="msn+direct",+"hd+radio"

"Melitta ME1MSB Smart Mill & Brew 10-Cup Programmable Coffeemaker"

http://www.amazon.com/Melitta-ME1MSB-10-Cup-Programmable-Coffeemaker/dp/B000HCUCOK

 

[dbdigital]

Interesting comparison on the acceptance of digital radio in Britain verses here and why it's doing better overseas.

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,72514-0.html?tw=rss.index

db

This big partnership with Microsoft, is a big joke - MSN Direct, is only a subscriber-based, glorified pager-system, that would put HD Radio into coffee-makers and blenders (wow, now they come with speakers) ! MSN Direct, is real popular with consumers, too:

http://www.google.com/trends?q="msn+direct",+"hd+radio"

"Melitta ME1MSB Smart Mill & Brew 10-Cup Programmable Coffeemaker"

http://www.amazon.com/Melitta-ME1MSB-10-Cup-Programmable-Coffeemaker/dp/B000HCUCOK

Yeah, MSN Direct has very little traction.

Here again, I don't think anyone involved in this is really looking at how listeners or consumers use the technology. If I'm driving while the radio is on the last thing I want to do is stare at a scrolling text message on my dash. And if I'm listening to the radio at home, I'm not going to be glued to my receiver's LCD (or LED) display. I'll be doing something else.

So while this agreement with Microsoft looks great for investors it doesn't, so far, translate into anything of value for consumers.

db

 

[Mike Walker]

Radios have been widely available in the UK for at least FIVE YEARS, vs. barely five months in the US. Geez!

 

[700WLW]

Radios have been widely available in the UK for at least FIVE YEARS, vs. barely five months in the US. Geez!

Digital radio is being forced on consumers, in the UK, because the government has threatened to turn off analog; only 4.5 million digital receivers, have been sold, since 1999 - not very many, over 7 years, for a population of 45 million. In Canada, as here, the situation is different, and digital radio is flailing, in both countries.

 

[dbdigital]

Radios have been widely available in the UK for at least FIVE YEARS, vs. barely five months in the US. Geez!

In Canada, as here, the situation is different, and digital radio is flailing, in both countries.

This article in the latest RW was interesting because it talks about how Canada is now experimenting with different flavors of digital radio, including IBOC.

http://www.rwonline.com/pages/s.0049/t.775.html

Canada has already approved Eureka-147 and is now permitting stations to try IBOC as well as DRM (for AM). In essence, Canada has become a huge "laboratory" for digital broadcasting. This is something the FCC should have done before deciding on a standard but I'm glad to see some country (and our neighbor at that) do it.

Hopefully the results the Canadians find will have a positive influence on future FCC policy for digital broadcasting.

db

 

[700WLW]

Radios have been widely available in the UK for at least FIVE YEARS, vs. barely five months in the US. Geez!

In Canada, as here, the situation is different, and digital radio is flailing, in both countries.

This article in the latest RW was interesting because it talks about how Canada is now experimenting with different flavors of digital radio, including IBOC.

http://www.rwonline.com/pages/s.0049/t.775.html

Canada has already approved Eureka-147 and is now permitting stations to try IBOC as well as DRM (for AM). In essence, Canada has become a huge "laboratory" for digital broadcasting. This is something the FCC should have done before deciding on a standard but I'm glad to see some country (and our neighbor at that) do it.

Hopefully the results the Canadians find will have a positive influence on future FCC policy for digital broadcasting.

db

"Digital radio in Canada"

"The only comprehensive technical comments came from the CBC. They stated that AM-IBOC "...would create a serious degradation in sound quality for existing AM stations." (*all* AM stations, not just the ones adopting IBOC) They also state that due to interference concerns, "...IBOC transmission at night is not practical." As for FM-IBOC, implementation "...would require additional first and second adjacent channel coordination." and "...would make it difficult to coordinate the CBC's network operations." (presumably, they'd have trouble finding FM spectrum for expansion of Radio Two and the French-language services)... The Commission concurs with the CBC: "...digital IBOC signals will add a certain amount of noise to a station's analog signal, marginally reducing its effective service area." and "...IBOC signals can degrade the service areas of technically related stations located in the same or adjacent markets." (both of these premises have been presented by DXers in the U.S. and are generally denied by IBOC supporters. It is interesting to see them accepted, on the record, by the Canadian regulatory authorities.)"

http://americanbandscan.blogspot.com/2006/12/digital-radio-in-canada.html

This article, was the subject of a seperate thread, but it looks like Canada will not put up with interference problems, especially for nighttime AM. I guess, Canada hasn't learned their lesson, that consumers were not willing to purchase separate DRB receivers, so they will run into the same problem with IBOC, as here.

 

[PhilJSmith67]

It's amusing how the Canadian government pays attention to simple physics, which say that if an FM station adds digital ensembles that range from 129 to 198kHz from their center frequency, that the station is transmitting hash completely outside the their allocated channel, and within the bounds of their first-adjacent channels. This brought them to the obvious conclusion that HD Radio interferes with first-adjacent stations.

Then, we have the United States Government that pays very close attention to revenue, and lies to themselves and the general public about the technical ramifications of HD Radio. This should IN NO WAY be deemed "IBOC" - In Band On Channel.

As for the U.K. acceptance of DAB, 10% of the population is quite respectable after 7 years, considering that there is no mandate. Nobody over there is complaining that they can't hear stations anymore because they're blocked by Eureka-147 signals. I've played around with a few DAB receivers in a London store and they worked very nicely. Sound quality was okay (still not a big fan of digital compression at lower bitrates) and reception was solid, even in a store full of RFI.

 

[SUPERCASTER]

Philip J. Smith said about Eureka-147:

Sound quality was okay (still not a big fan of digital compression at lower bitrates) and reception was solid, even in a store full of RFI.

Something that iBiquity's HD radio/"IBOC" has a great deal of difficulty with, in spite of false claims of noise and multipath immunity.

 

[OKCRadioGuy]

IBOC for AM is a total joke. The quicker we get the radios where they'll accept DRM transmissions for the future, the better off we'll be. As a FM DX'er I'm not in love with the idea of adjacent channel interference. However, in MOST cases it's liveable. In short-spaced markets back east and in LA, it's a big issue. In those areas, stations should have to prove they're not tearing up someone else. Otherwise, the FM standard is somewhat useful, although the range is more limited than what I'd like to see at this point.