HD Radio? What's That??

[passtheword]

Here's a link to an R&R website story about a study on HD radio. Only 42% of people (aged 14-64) polled were aware of HD radio.

http://www.radioandrecords.com/RRWebSite/NewsStoryPage.aspx?ContentID=PEcf9p5MYdk=&Version=0


________________________
Radio stations come and go.
Does anything last forever?
www.PassTheWord.net

 

[clouseau]

Here's a link to an R&R website story about a study on HD radio. Only 42% of people (aged 14-64) polled were aware of HD radio.

I thought it had already died. Sheesh, I'm such an idiot.

Clouseau

 

[4dude]

Hehehe

 

[LinoNYC]

Here's a link to an R&R website story about a study on HD radio. Only 42% of people (aged 14-64) polled were aware of HD radio.

Considering that radio isn't "sexy" these days and these radios are overpriced and hard to find, that figure is higher than I would have estimated.


I'am sure that number will disturb it's opponents.....

-This one will give 'em dyspepsia and flatulence:"The price for an HD Radio receiver has to drop to the $40-$50 range before most listeners will consider buying one, with 81% of respondents saying they were likely to buy an HD Radio in that price range."

This is what I and others have been saying; once this technology is reduced in price and embedded in the type of radios that people actually buy these days, it will become mainstream.

Lino

 

[amfmsw]

Question. What good is any HD source when it's played on crap audio equipment? Isn't that what $40-$50 will buy? Unless it's an HD tuner to hook up to a decent stereo, there's no purpose in HD radio other than the multiple program sources fo FM. A mediocre HD tuner...that's what $50 will buy.

 

[Mike Walker]

And the Radiosophy HAS been sold at 50 dollars. It's just a matter of time until an HD Radio hits the market at the 40-50 dollar mark as it's regular price. It's also just a matter of time (probably less than a year) until HD Radio can be included in portable devices like mp3 players and cell phones. Anyone who's tried to receive quiet fm stereo on these devices in anything but urban/suburban conditions should welcome these!

 

[Savage]

Well, you'll pardon my being a little skeptical about that 41% figure, given that (a) I'm in the biz and (b) I've never yet met ONE person "familiar" with HD Radio, beyond stating that they misunderstand the "stations between the stations" promos being hammered relentlessly on Rochester FMs. Listeners all think it's an invitation to tune out to out-of-market signals - and it seems to be having a little success there!

Nevertheless, I took the "survey" at face value and was so despondent I had crawled out on the window ledge, ready to hurl myself from a first-floor window at WYSL, when it suddenly occurred to me:

We've been listening to giddy "surveys" and predictions of impending HD hegemony for four years now. And how many of those projected sales benchmarks have materialized?

Umm....that would be .....none.

 

[rbrucecarter5]

Well, you'll pardon my being a little skeptical about that 41% figure, given that (a) I'm in the biz and (b) I've never yet met ONE person "familiar" with HD Radio, beyond stating that they misunderstand

Here is a good one - of the people manning the booth for KRLD at a local festival, only ONE even knew what HD radio was. I stopped by to voice my objections to their horrible audio with hiss in it. One person, the one that knew about HD radio, told me I needed to go buy a brand new HD radio. But since the festival was being held in PLANO, TX - there is not a chance in the world of getting a lock on the HD. Too far from the station. Also, I probably have a couple of dozen radios around the house. Probably more. I am not about to spend $200 each to replace them.

 

[Play Freebird]

And the Radiosophy HAS been sold at 50 dollars. It's just a matter of time until an HD Radio hits the market at the 40-50 dollar mark as it's regular price. It's also just a matter of time (probably less than a year) until HD Radio can be included in portable devices like mp3 players and cell phones. Anyone who's tried to receive quiet fm stereo on these devices in anything but urban/suburban conditions should welcome these!

For some reason, the US market is way behind Europe and India in marketing cell phones that include FM broadcast receivers. I have a hunch that our carriers would rather sell subscriptions to their own entertainment services. (Verizon, for example, transmits these programs on Qualcomm's MediaFLO network using the reassigned spectrum of TV channel 55.)

I'm really not optimistic that portable devices will do a good job decoding HD radio except in urban/suburban conditions. The antennas on these receivers are highly compromised (they usually use the headphone cable without a ground plane or any impedance matching, so the gain is several dB less than a half-wave dipole) and users are often in poor signal areas -- at street level or inside buildings. At least the receivers should revert to mono analog if the HD-1 signal fades, but don't expect good results on secondary services.

 

[Play Freebird]

Well, you'll pardon my being a little skeptical about that 41% figure, given that (a) I'm in the biz and (b) I've never yet met ONE person "familiar" with HD Radio, beyond stating that they misunderstand the "stations between the stations" promos being hammered relentlessly on Rochester FMs. Listeners all think it's an invitation to tune out to out-of-market signals - and it seems to be having a little success there!

A few months ago while I was getting a haircut, an HD Alliance promo played on the radio in the shop, so I asked the "stylist" what she thought they meant by "stations between the stations." She seemed confused, but assumed these stations would be located on the even decimal frequencies -- 93.2, 93.4, 93.6, etc. Then, she told me that her car radio skips over them -- so apparently, she never got the message that HD listeners must buy a new receiver.

I told her the digital radio would cost at least $100, she responded that her family had better things to spend money on.

 

[Mike Walker]

Radios are almost always included in something else...a car, a boombox, an mp3 player, a home theater system. THIS (as well as affordable table radios, and walkman-type portables) is where the future lies.

PlayFreebird is right, everyone else gets the "cool toys" before us! Digital cameras, cell phones, teeny-tiny laptops, all the cool stuff makes the rounds before it gets here, if at all. Which is why the "alliance" is at least in part a good thing...control of this new technology is in American hands. Maybe not the hands you or I would have chosen, but still....

 

[PhilGalasso]

Question. What good is any HD source when it's played on crap audio equipment? Isn't that what $40-$50 will buy? Unless it's an HD tuner to hook up to a decent stereo, there's no purpose in HD radio other than the multiple program sources fo FM. A mediocre HD tuner...that's what $50 will buy.

Of course, those mediocre HD receivers are what we have available nowadays. None of the home receivers currently available are anything more than glorified clock radios, complete with poor sensitivity and lousy audio. And some of these are selling for $200 or more!

The Day Sequerra tuner isn't bad. I have one in my office for monitoring HD stations in my market. But it is a professional unit priced at over $1,000...much more than I could afford for my home!

 

[Mike Walker]

amfmsw connected to a good antenna, my Accurian brings in RELIABLE HD reception from one hundred miles away (WMIT...Black Mountain NC, and several HD stations in the Greenville/Spartanburg SC market). Of course you know this, but radio reception, analog or digital, is 95 percent antenna, 5 percent radio.

 

[rbrucecarter5]

market). Of course you know this, but radio reception, analog or digital, is 95 percent antenna, 5 percent radio.

Which is why HD radio is DOOMED in portable devices. I looked up that Silabs chip "Shredderman" linked - the recommended AM antenna for the AM / FM version is - a ferrite bar? NO! A single loop trace on a PC board. How is THAT type of design EVER going to lock onto an HD signal unless you are under the tower? I am sure the FM antenna will be the headphone wire - couple to a 20 dB loss ceramic filter. DEAF. HD - never decodes. No wonder Silabs isn't bothering with HD, they know the type of antennas portable electronics has to put up with. As if headphone wires and one inch ferrite bars were EVER good for receiving either band in analog. Let alone FM stereo.

 

[Mike Walker]

You raise some good points rbrucecarter5. I was a HUGE HD Radio skeptic a year ago. The problem is, it keeps exceeding my (originally quite low) expectations. I bought my Accurian out of curiosity, fully expecting to take it back because I didn't think I'd get anything with my INDOOR FM antenna. The problem is, I did. I got quite a few solid signals, from many miles away with rabbit ears, and more with a "Silver Ribbon" (glorified rabbit ears, and still I'll be damned if I know why it performs better than standard "wabbit ears", but it does). So I kept the radio, and put up a new antenna/preamp/rotor to replace the (very old) one taken down by a storm in the summer of '06. DAMN! I now get SEVERAL HD stations from 100 miles away. And I'm talking SOLID signal lock 24/7/365.

Remembering that the majority of Americans live in urban/suburban areas, it's actually possible for a portable receiver to be very successful without ever working for someone like me (WAY out in the sticks). Still, I'll buy one, because as I said...HD (on FM) though it certainly DOES have limitations, and sometimes doesn't penetrate as well as analog, has exceeded my expectations for reliability (and sound quality at surprisingly low bitrates!) at every turn. So I'll give this a try too. I'm no longer as convinced that ANYTHING concerning this technology "can't work". Whatever you may think of the people who developed the technology, they ain't stupid. Getting a digital system, ANY digital system to work in the same frequency spectrum as analog, without massively damaging the analog signal IS an engineering triumph, even if the result isn't everything we'd hoped for. I continue to believe that the hopes for a more "perfect" digital radio system were dashed not by Ibiquity, but by the FCC itself when they mandated an "In Band, On Channel" solution in the first place.

A year ago I would have bet a week's pay that HD wouldn't have worked at my house. I would have lost. I would have bet that reliable 100 mile reception wasn't possible even with a good antenna. I would have lost. So like any wise gambler on a losing streak, I'm not goint to put any more money on the table. I'll wait and see. You may well be right rbrucecarter5 (that HD won't be practical on portable devices). But remember, you may not. Neither outcome would surprise me!

 

[LinoNYC]

market). Of course you know this, but radio reception, analog or digital, is 95 percent antenna, 5 percent radio.

Which is why HD radio is DOOMED in portable devices. I looked up that Silabs chip "Shredderman" linked - the recommended AM antenna for the AM / FM version is - a ferrite bar? NO! A single loop trace on a PC board.

market). Of course you know this, but radio reception, analog or digital, is 95 percent antenna, 5 percent radio.

Which is why HD radio is DOOMED in portable devices. I looked up that Silabs chip "Shredderman" linked - the recommended AM antenna for the AM / FM version is - a ferrite bar? NO! A single loop trace on a PC board. How is THAT type of design EVER going to lock onto an HD signal unless you are under the tower?

You are basing an argument on the assumption that the entire radio market is/will be dominated by these low-end chip makers.

The $100 acurian that I bought last fall is easily the most selective set i own and one of the most sensitive. In those two areas it outperforms my Bose wave radio ($1200) and my Luxman and Carver receivers, B&O Beosound etc.

Low end junk will allways be around but the demands of new technology force manufacturers to produce products that have increased performance in the mid and eventually, low-end of a product spectrum.

An obvious example: the $35 Sony DVD/Cd player of today performs far better sonically than the $1500 one I couldn't stand in 1983.

If there is a place for hd radio in Amercia, receiver makers will have to rise to the demand.

Lino

 

[rbrucecarter5]

You are basing an argument on the assumption that the entire radio market is/will be dominated by these low-end chip makers.

The $100 acurian that I bought last fall is easily the most selective set i own and one of the most sensitive. In those two areas it outperforms my Bose wave radio ($1200) and my Luxman and Carver receivers, B&O Beosound etc.

Low end junk will allways be around but the demands of new technology force manufacturers to produce products that have increased performance in the mid and eventually, low-end of a product spectrum.

An obvious example: the $35 Sony DVD/Cd player of today performs far better sonically than the $1500 one I couldn't stand in 1983.

If there is a place for hd radio in Amercia, receiver makers will have to rise to the demand.

Lino

Most consumer gear today, whether it costs $5 or $500 - is based on the same 3 or 4 IC's. The performance of the IC itself is stellar, the difference is in how it is applied. And since 95% of the radio's performance is tied to the antenna - you hook a headphone wire / 1 inch ferrite bar to it, you will get lousy reception. Hook a deep fringe Yagi to it / decent box loop antenna - the IC becomes a DX machine. Maybe not as good as a $5000 communications receiver where performance is absolutely required by the user - but I've seen the performance of these things with a decent antenna.

Your Acurian probably has that TI chipset in it with the adaptive IF bandwidth. I have the same chipset in a Pioneer car radio, the Sangean HD's have it - it is truly amazing. It transforms first adjacent FM frequencies into viable listening target when they were obliterated before. Just in time - for HD splatter all over those first adjacents - which are the REAL stations between the stations. If that TI chipset had come out 5 years ago, we wouldn't have FM IBOC in its present form, because people would be used to first adjacent reception.

Incidentally - there is no reason why the Acurian has to cost $100. The chipset costs far less than that.

Bose Wave radios are trendy junk. If you paid $1200 for one - my sympathies. My GE Superadio 3 runs rings around it sensitivity and selectivity wise on both bands, and it cost me $40. The speaker is larger, too.

The cost differential in CD players is due to a design change made when oversampling simplified the anti-aliasing filter. One of those very few times that a design simplification actually yielded far superior performance at a much lower cost. I wouldn't look for a similar price differential in HD radio, because Ibiquity has the licensing fees sewn up tightly in their favor for both stations and IC makers. And they LOVE holding on to their money.

 

[LinoNYC]

Your Acurian probably has that TI chipset in it with the adaptive IF bandwidth. I have the same chipset in a Pioneer car radio, the Sangean HD's have it - it is truly amazing.

One of the peculiarities I have noticed regarding bandwidth is that certain program material such as the harmonica bridge on Stevie Wonder's "For Once In My Life" causes the AM analog to narrow then re-widen. It may interpret these frequencies as hetrodyne whistles.

Incidentally - there is no reason why the Acurian has to cost $100. The chipset costs far less than that.

You can say about almost anything once it's boiled down to "parts value'.

Bose Wave radios are trendy junk. If you paid $1200 for one - my sympathies

Save them.

My GE Superadio 3 runs rings around it sensitivity and selectivity wise on both bands, and it cost me $40. The speaker is larger, too.

My experience with friend's SR2 and 3 is that of superior performance on AM (re: Acoustic Wave)although the SR3 was somewhat noiser, this is easily corrected, but mediocre FM in terms of selectivity.
As for speakers, the Bose wins, partially by ingenious gimmick of a tuned bass "tunnel" and audio an system tuned to 52hz with an odd bass agc system that auto eq's the low end based program material and customer volume level setting.

I've used this unit at a Christmas party in one of my restaurant locations, it was more than adequate and remained clean at max volume. All that said, I would not recommend anyone pay the near $1300 they are now going for, try e-bay instead.

I wouldn't look for a similar price differential in HD radio, because Ibiquity has the licensing fees sewn up tightly in their favor for both stations and IC makers.

Perhaps, however licensing fees are alot more flexible than actual manufacturing, if iboc shows signs of faltering, fees will likely come down.

Lino

 

[Mike Walker]

I know my views aren't those of the typical consumer, but I still think HD Radios are astoundingly cheap for the technology level! Sync detection and infinitely variable if bandwidth were VERY RECENTLY items that radio hobbyists paid LOTS OF MONEY FOR! Today they're available on 100 dollar radios. Add in digital reception and they're a helluva deal (imho). Still "Joe Public" wants cheap radios, and he'll get 'em.

What I'd like to see personally is HD in more quality AUDIO COMPONENTS! I know we're (audio hobbyists) a tiny part of the total marketplace (especially compared to two or three decades ago). But we want what we want, and will pay for it!

 

[rbrucecarter5]

My experience with friend's SR2 and 3 is that of superior performance on AM (re: Acoustic Wave)although the SR3 was somewhat noiser, this is easily corrected, but mediocre FM in terms of selectivity.
As for speakers, the Bose wins, partially by ingenious gimmick of a tuned bass "tunnel" and audio an system tuned to 52hz with an odd bass agc system that auto eq's the low end based program material and customer volume level setting.

I find Bose Wave radio audio to be annoying because it is really boomy at about 300 Hz down to 100 Hz - they may tune the resonance to 52Hz but that doesn't mean you can actually HEAR 52 Hz out of the thing. Maybe if you put your ear up to it - the small speakers can only produce so much motion at 52 Hz, a good resonant tunnel can amplify it a little. I'd love to let the mythbusters get hold of the thing and do some audio testing on the claims. The audio in the GE SR-3 is junk - the older SR-1's and 2's sound better. The speaker is about twice the diameter of the speaker in the Bose, therefore approximately four times the surface area, with a spider that allows more cone travel. Therefore more bass, although bass to me is a decent 15 or 18 inch driver with some serious wattage behind it - I actually equalize my subwoofer with a 20 dB gain pre-amp with a cutoff frequency of 13 Hz, and unity gain of 50 Hz. That seems to offer the best balance of sonic sensation and low bass.

2 1/2 or 3 inch woofer in a small case with a tuned duct? Give me a break - that isn't bass.

The FM performance of the GE, out of the box, with no modifications isn't good enough for adjacent channel reception. But with the built in whip extended, I can easily get stations 140 miles away. The Bose - won't do that. I already talked about the 280 mile reception on AM with KAAM. The Bose - won't even touch that type of performance.