What a disaster. This is one area where i am not an optimist. HD radio was the biggest radio advertiser in 2006 and 2007. THE BIGGEST ONE IN THE COUNTRY. Yet, NOBODY knows what the hell this is, and Nobody cares. That is a little scary. The writers of these commercials should be fired NOW!
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
HD Radio
- Thread starter superset weekend
- Start date
There's an old saying that goes back to the days of the Mexican border blasters - you can't use radio to promote a cow-pie to apple pie.
Meaning: electronic media (then, radio) can't be used as a form of alchemy to transform some defective, deficient, dangerous or stupid product or service to any appreciable level of success. This was back in the day when the superpower XE stations were being used to sell (usually on a PI basis) all manner of products from hair dyes to sleep aids to Bibles to country swing songbooks to baby chicks. Of course every huckster and charlatan saw these products being hyped on the borderblasters and saw a potential gold mine for every POS they could dream up.
The successful longterm borderblasters like Paul Kalligan and Del Sharbis would have none of it. With the benefit of hindsight, some of the XE mail-order stuff may have been cheesy or questionable (like the glow-in-the-dark Jesus figurines) but they weren't overt ripoffs. Even among the XE stations there was a code of professional conduct.
I can't help but think that HD Radio would be rejected even by the high-pressure borderblaster sales machines of the 1940s and 1950s. Crap is crap, the public knows it, and no amount of hype and repetition can fix that.
If HD Radio is stiffing despite massive industry promotion, don't blame radio. Blame the rotten, stupid product nobody wants.
Meaning: electronic media (then, radio) can't be used as a form of alchemy to transform some defective, deficient, dangerous or stupid product or service to any appreciable level of success. This was back in the day when the superpower XE stations were being used to sell (usually on a PI basis) all manner of products from hair dyes to sleep aids to Bibles to country swing songbooks to baby chicks. Of course every huckster and charlatan saw these products being hyped on the borderblasters and saw a potential gold mine for every POS they could dream up.
The successful longterm borderblasters like Paul Kalligan and Del Sharbis would have none of it. With the benefit of hindsight, some of the XE mail-order stuff may have been cheesy or questionable (like the glow-in-the-dark Jesus figurines) but they weren't overt ripoffs. Even among the XE stations there was a code of professional conduct.
I can't help but think that HD Radio would be rejected even by the high-pressure borderblaster sales machines of the 1940s and 1950s. Crap is crap, the public knows it, and no amount of hype and repetition can fix that.
If HD Radio is stiffing despite massive industry promotion, don't blame radio. Blame the rotten, stupid product nobody wants.
I jump in to correct myself before someone else does it. The fabled Mexican borderblaster announcer and super-salesman of yore was Paul Kallinger (not Kalligan.) He was the guy who refused to allow on the air one Elvis Presley when he was trying to get a break, back in the Louisiana Hayride days. Kallinger admitted saying, "Sorry, Elvis. We just don't do rock n' roll on our station. We have our listeners to be concerned about."
HD radio may have had a chance if they'd produced decent receivers for under $100.00, and made them widely available. They also needed cheap receivers in the $25 - $50 range to bring listeners to the new medium.
The reality is that digital FM isn't as good as analog FM - the analog signal is more reliable. Digital's problems on AM have never been resolved, and won't be because it's a flawed system. IBOC is a failure, and a new approach to digital broadcasting is needed. It may become a moot point as WiFi, WiMax, and cellular Internet access become more widespread and affordable. Streaming will end up offering everything that HD Radio promised to deliver - and more.
Watch as the plug is pulled on HD by stations across the nation as a cost cutting measure during 2009.
The reality is that digital FM isn't as good as analog FM - the analog signal is more reliable. Digital's problems on AM have never been resolved, and won't be because it's a flawed system. IBOC is a failure, and a new approach to digital broadcasting is needed. It may become a moot point as WiFi, WiMax, and cellular Internet access become more widespread and affordable. Streaming will end up offering everything that HD Radio promised to deliver - and more.
Watch as the plug is pulled on HD by stations across the nation as a cost cutting measure during 2009.
I have worked in this business for a long time.
I know many people who have worked in this business for a long time.
I know plenty of people outside of this business as well.
What do they ALL have in commmon?
While the awareness of HD varies from person to person, I have noticed one consistant thread:
NOBODY I know, in or out of this business--myself included--have any interest, inclinatuion or desire, to put down even 1 red cent, for an HD receiver. Not one. NO interest whatsoever. Not even the slightest bit of curiosity even exists over HD. It was DOA.
I consider the entire attempt to win the hearts, minds and ears of IPOD listeners through HD to be at least as misguided as the whole AM-Stereo debacle of the early 80s--maybe even MORE misguided considering the financial burden most operators are saddling right now.
Companies need to stop wasting resources on this nonsense.
It's not that people don't know about HD, it's that once they find out about HD, THEY DON'T CARE! And I cannot blame them. There is NOTHING interesting about it.
You go on some of these radio messageboards and you witness these HD discussions that seem to be in kling-on.
NOBODY CARES! Stop pissing away what little resources we have left!
I know many people who have worked in this business for a long time.
I know plenty of people outside of this business as well.
What do they ALL have in commmon?
While the awareness of HD varies from person to person, I have noticed one consistant thread:
NOBODY I know, in or out of this business--myself included--have any interest, inclinatuion or desire, to put down even 1 red cent, for an HD receiver. Not one. NO interest whatsoever. Not even the slightest bit of curiosity even exists over HD. It was DOA.
I consider the entire attempt to win the hearts, minds and ears of IPOD listeners through HD to be at least as misguided as the whole AM-Stereo debacle of the early 80s--maybe even MORE misguided considering the financial burden most operators are saddling right now.
Companies need to stop wasting resources on this nonsense.
It's not that people don't know about HD, it's that once they find out about HD, THEY DON'T CARE! And I cannot blame them. There is NOTHING interesting about it.
You go on some of these radio messageboards and you witness these HD discussions that seem to be in kling-on.
NOBODY CARES! Stop pissing away what little resources we have left!
Savage said:
Can we stipulate here that I'm going to jump in and point out that both WNED and WXXI have found a small, successful niche using HD2 on their big FM signals to augment coverage of their directionally-challenged AM services?
Maybe I should just put that in my sig line and spare us both the repetition...
Amen, brothers Rox and Steven. The problems facing HD Radio are insurmountable.
a. Doesn't offer a sufficient benefit to be of interest to listeners. As another poster succinctly wrote, "AM-HD sounds like Crystal Lite tastes." It's fake, metallic and screechy-sounding....kind of like a 1960s 'electronically reprocessed to simulate stereo' LP being played on a middling internet stream. With FM-HD, most listeners can't tell the difference between the analog and the digital.
b. The FM multicasting may offer some appeal to broadcasters - such as the capacity to rebroadcast news-talk AM stations on the FM side channels, and the ability to program specialty channels. But the limited choices (3 streams per station) and the degradation of the analog audio with the addition of the subs, limits the multicasting's practicality.
c. Costs WAY too much for either broadcaster or radio purchaser. The extortionate licensing scheme is just stupid.
d. Receivers are mostly unavailable and the ones which can be found, don't comport with most users' lifestyles. For example: no real portable units. Power consumption of the HD chipset is much too high making truly portable HD Radios impossible.
e. The system is just too unreliable. Listeners will simply not bother with stringing antennas and experimenting to get a station to come in reliably. The digital-analog mode-hopping as the digital fades in and out is highly objectionable, and HD can't be defeated, like you would switch to FM mono to improve reception of a marginal FM signal.
And on and on and on.....
a. Doesn't offer a sufficient benefit to be of interest to listeners. As another poster succinctly wrote, "AM-HD sounds like Crystal Lite tastes." It's fake, metallic and screechy-sounding....kind of like a 1960s 'electronically reprocessed to simulate stereo' LP being played on a middling internet stream. With FM-HD, most listeners can't tell the difference between the analog and the digital.
b. The FM multicasting may offer some appeal to broadcasters - such as the capacity to rebroadcast news-talk AM stations on the FM side channels, and the ability to program specialty channels. But the limited choices (3 streams per station) and the degradation of the analog audio with the addition of the subs, limits the multicasting's practicality.
c. Costs WAY too much for either broadcaster or radio purchaser. The extortionate licensing scheme is just stupid.
d. Receivers are mostly unavailable and the ones which can be found, don't comport with most users' lifestyles. For example: no real portable units. Power consumption of the HD chipset is much too high making truly portable HD Radios impossible.
e. The system is just too unreliable. Listeners will simply not bother with stringing antennas and experimenting to get a station to come in reliably. The digital-analog mode-hopping as the digital fades in and out is highly objectionable, and HD can't be defeated, like you would switch to FM mono to improve reception of a marginal FM signal.
And on and on and on.....
I agree with all everyone has said about HD radio. It is ridiculous. I had diner with one of the most powerful people in radio a few years back and asked about HD. THAT PERSON had no idea! My questions is, if these signals are so viable, why don't we make REAL radio stations out of them? Ya know, jocks, jingles, promos, spots, RADIO! Compelling radio! Not the crap that comes out now.Maybe these units will actually sell! I know, I know, it's a money thing! If thats the case, then we need to revolt and start buying these stations back from wall street, which is going to happen eventually anyways!
I am a BIG advocate for the radio industry, and see some great things that can happen, but HD, the way it is now, is not one of them.
I am a BIG advocate for the radio industry, and see some great things that can happen, but HD, the way it is now, is not one of them.
......and on top of EVERYTHING ELSE:
How in the hell are operators ever going to make money with these HD channels? Isn't the main allure NO COMMERICALS? After all, that is the benefit of alternate audio sources. How do they reconcile THAT?
Ironically, this is like discussing how you're going to spend your lottery winnings. "Once we build an audience, we'll....."
Riiiight.
No real audience will ever develop for this, but even if it did, the minute you start with the spots....POOF! Listener is back to exploring other audio options.
HD is the most pure form of what is referred to as a non-starter.
Are you paying attention Farid? David? Lowry?
How in the hell are operators ever going to make money with these HD channels? Isn't the main allure NO COMMERICALS? After all, that is the benefit of alternate audio sources. How do they reconcile THAT?
Ironically, this is like discussing how you're going to spend your lottery winnings. "Once we build an audience, we'll....."
Riiiight.
No real audience will ever develop for this, but even if it did, the minute you start with the spots....POOF! Listener is back to exploring other audio options.
HD is the most pure form of what is referred to as a non-starter.
Are you paying attention Farid? David? Lowry?
Red1 said:
Sssssshhhhh! Aren't you paying attention to this thread? Don't you know that NOBODY is interested in HD? Not "almost nobody," or "nobody, outside of a few interesting niches," but "nobody" - and that's an absolute!
So stop throwing actual examples to the contrary around. You'll just confuse the absolutists...
Yes, Scott. I would be willing to "stipulate" that HD Radio provides some level of success for WXXI-AM and WNED-AM, and probably other pubcasters, in the form of an alternate distribution channel for limited-signal AM stations via FM-HD subs.
You cite a "small, niche" audience for the HD simulcasts of AM. Without being snide, I ask: just how many listeners would you guesstimate are listening to WXXI using the FM side channel? Maybe a couple hundred?
I know that major-market CBS AM news-talk stations are also being heavily promoted as available on co-owned FM-HD subs. I don't know about the other posters here, but my view is that's a tacit admission that HD-AM isn't working. All HD Radios are AM-FM-HD. If the AM flavor was delivering the wonderful noise-free stereo product it's being hyped as providing, and the coverage didn't suck, there wouldn't be a need for the FM-HD simulcast. Or am I missing something?
I just don't see the pubcaster AM simulcasts as being some harbinger of eventual HD success (and yes, I know you never made that claim.)
You cite a "small, niche" audience for the HD simulcasts of AM. Without being snide, I ask: just how many listeners would you guesstimate are listening to WXXI using the FM side channel? Maybe a couple hundred?
I know that major-market CBS AM news-talk stations are also being heavily promoted as available on co-owned FM-HD subs. I don't know about the other posters here, but my view is that's a tacit admission that HD-AM isn't working. All HD Radios are AM-FM-HD. If the AM flavor was delivering the wonderful noise-free stereo product it's being hyped as providing, and the coverage didn't suck, there wouldn't be a need for the FM-HD simulcast. Or am I missing something?
I just don't see the pubcaster AM simulcasts as being some harbinger of eventual HD success (and yes, I know you never made that claim.)
Savage said:
I think it may be perhaps an order of magnitude higher than that at this point. I know we've moved more radios than that during pledge drives. If you believe the ratings (and I know you have good reason to be suspicious of them), we're not talking about an enormous potential audience on the AM to begin with...probably an average weekly cume in the mid-to-high five figures. (Our underwriting professionals would probably interject here with some trenchant observations about the demographics involved, and they'd be right.)
We certainly hear from listeners now when the HD is off, which wasn't the case at the beginning.
It's all anecdotal at this point. My only beef is with those - and I know you're not one of them - who'd try to tell us that "absolutely nobody" is listening and that it's a "total failure." I may not be a radio old-timer, but I've lived long enough to know there are few, if any, absolutes in this business - or in life as a whole. I'm a big fan of gray areas, myself.
Nope, not a thing. You don't see us going HD on 1370, do you?
No argument there, either. It's a niche, and probably a fairly small one - after all, only a few markets are in the position that we're in here, with the news-talk relegated to an AM signal. There are some other niches out there, too, for public radio to exploit. None of them lead to widespread mass acceptance of HD in the commercial world. To the extent that demand for some of those public radio services might put more radios in the hands of (relatively affluent, educated) consumers, they might present interesting opportunities for commercial FM operators to find audiences for their own HD subchannels - but that assumes they can afford to divert scarce programming resources away from their main channels, and in this climate, I don't see much of that happening.
HD radios might take off if more of them were standard feature in cars, similar to what happened with FM radios during the 70s and 80s.
But then again people are not buying cars like they used too because of the recession.
And I don't see a huge influx of people lining up to buy HD radios either.
But then again people are not buying cars like they used too because of the recession.
And I don't see a huge influx of people lining up to buy HD radios either.
Scott, i am not saying that NOBODY (absolute) is not listening or buying HD radio, but for the amout of backing radio has given this, i think it would be safe to say that it is atleast a disappointment. HD Radio was the BIGGEST radio advertiser two years running. THE BIGGEST! It should have more buzz that i am hearing in the general public! I bet if i asked 50 random people on the street in WNY if they know, or had, or listened to HD radio, they would NOT know what i am talking about! There has to be some reason that no one is that excited about this. I know a few people who have HD radios and they all got them for FREE from the radio industry as giveaways.
If i were a station owner who had the cash and ability, i would find a way to take these HD signals, and make them REAL radio stations. Local, jingles, commercials, everything.
If i were a station owner who had the cash and ability, i would find a way to take these HD signals, and make them REAL radio stations. Local, jingles, commercials, everything.
Steven21 said:
You seem to have a chip on your shoulder, Steven.
I'd maintain that there's a large gray area that sits between "the coolest thing in the world" and your earlier claim that "NOBODY (caps yours) has the slightest interest" in HD - and I'd contend that if you actually read this thread, you'd see that.
HD is a tool. It's not the best tool for a lot of the things the commercial side of the industry had hoped it would accomplish. Indeed, at least on the AM side, it's a pretty flawed, if not entirely useless, tool.
But for at least one part of the industry, public radio, it happens to be the best tool available at the moment for solving a specific problem: stations such as WXXI and WNED have content (news and talk) that listeners want to hear, but the delivery mechanism that's been in use (directional AM signals) isn't reaching those listeners where they are (east of Buffalo all day long, east and west of Rochester at night).
At the moment, duplicating that content on the HD2 stream of our powerful FMs (91.5 and 94.5, respectively) seems to be the most cost-effective way to get that content to the ears of our listeners. It's far, far cheaper than buying another full-power FM signal. It scales far, far better than streaming, it's usable in moving vehicles without requiring expensive wireless plans, and as at least one of those actual HD2 listeners has testified right here in this very thread, it's actually being used, contrary to your assertion earlier that "NOBODY" cares.
Does that make it "the coolest thing in the world"? Heck no. It just makes it one useful tool in a whole arsenal of tools we use to fulfill our mission: to provide programming to an audience in the most economical way possible, given - as you correctly note - "how limited radio's cash resources are these days."
(That is, indeed, a strong argument against adopting HD multicasting on commercial radio right now. Superset suggests that a station owner who "had the cash and ability" should be making HD2 signals into "REAL radio stations"; I'd contend that any commercial station owner who still has any cash or ability would be better served focusing those resources on their primary signal, where cash, ability, and anything local seem to be in awfully short supply at the moment.)
Obviously, "coolest thing in the world" is mere hyperbole.
The point is, there really is NO BUZZ whatsoever on HD. None.
If something has a chance of catching on, especially in light of the unreal volume of HD advertising, you tend to notice inroads being made into the mainstream.
That is not the case with HD. Not at all. No one ( and I mean the average Joe) is the least bit interested. Most radio people I know couldn't care less about it, including some in management who actually consider it a useless diversion of already strained resources.
The point is, there really is NO BUZZ whatsoever on HD. None.
If something has a chance of catching on, especially in light of the unreal volume of HD advertising, you tend to notice inroads being made into the mainstream.
That is not the case with HD. Not at all. No one ( and I mean the average Joe) is the least bit interested. Most radio people I know couldn't care less about it, including some in management who actually consider it a useless diversion of already strained resources.
Scott, I'd be the last one to question your sincerity, gravitas or background as they apply to broadcasting... so I won't pose this post in that manner. I will however, offer that HD is a universally flawed technology for Amplitude Modulation. Its negatives outweigh any positives in this regard and as such, HD appears to do more harm to "the neighbors and neighborhood" whose yards are being vandalized by the HD lawn treatment.
As to HD being a tool for non-com AMs airing on FM sisters' subs, this benefit may be temporary. Streaming combined with WiMax and WiFi may be better alternatives with greater possibilities, i.e., reception and acceptance, especially among the lower demos so desperately needed by all AM and FM stations.
Regards,
-9-
As to HD being a tool for non-com AMs airing on FM sisters' subs, this benefit may be temporary. Streaming combined with WiMax and WiFi may be better alternatives with greater possibilities, i.e., reception and acceptance, especially among the lower demos so desperately needed by all AM and FM stations.
Regards,
-9-
HD will stand or fall according to how widely listeners will flock to it. I cannot claim to represent all listeners - all I can do is offer my perspective as one listener. Having discovered and invested in WiFi radios (plural), there is no way I would consider shelling out for an HD radio, however worthy the additional programming that WXXI provides.
The cost of an HD radio is comparable with WiFi but in expanded listening options, HD cannot begin to compare. I don’t think HD can support itself in the long run as an orphan technology with users largely confined to the public radio audience. I would guess that if the powers-that-be at WXXI had known then what they know now, they would never have considered launching their HD service.
The cost of an HD radio is comparable with WiFi but in expanded listening options, HD cannot begin to compare. I don’t think HD can support itself in the long run as an orphan technology with users largely confined to the public radio audience. I would guess that if the powers-that-be at WXXI had known then what they know now, they would never have considered launching their HD service.
- Status