HD Radio

[imyourfatherluke]

I was talking with a neighbor of mine the other day who just bought the latest Camaro with all the toys. I asked if it had HD Radio and he said he never heard of it! What an abomination!! He said that his salesperson walked him all through the radio, but never mentioned HD. Explained satellite at length. I still don't know if he has HD in his car, but think its sad that our industry has sat silent while the car dealers and big box retailers push Sirius XM. In fact. I was scanning through my radio the other day and noticed that Cumulus has actually turned off the HD on 97 Rock and The Edge. I don't think they ever put WHTT on HD. One of the most powerful radio companies and they don't have HD in the market......how can we still claim critical mass if we ignore a technology that can help us stay "cutting edge"?

 

[Mike Sheridan]

It seems to be like AM Stereo, nobody asked for it, no demand. Look how long it took FM to become established!

The problem with HD in the event you are listening to HD-2 or HD-3 if there is a long enough signal drop out the radio reverts to main channel analog.

I have an HD radio at home (I am not in the Buffalo market) formats have changed a few times so there is still some searching going on.

The nice thing about Sirius XM is it goes everywhere, just lock it in and drive. The not so nice things are audio quality and of course the bill!

 

[average_listener]

If I'm not mistaken, WGRF turned off digital a couple of years ago to save money (or am I thinking of WBUF?).

 

[Savage]

Precisely how would HD Radio help radio stay "cutting edge??" Half the time all it does is generate listener complaints about poor coverage, dropouts and analog-digital sync problems.
And don't get me started on the subchannel issues.

If as an industry we're really interested in "cutting edge," it would be far more productive to work with wireless apps and internet-based features, which interface with devices consumers actually want and like. Clear Channel is doing a good job of this with iHeart radio. I hear far greater awareness of iHeart than I do HD in general.

 

[bmcglynn]

If as an industry we're really interested in "cutting edge," it would be far more productive to work with wireless apps and internet-based features, which interface with devices consumers actually want and like. Clear Channel is doing a good job of this with iHeart radio. I hear far greater awareness of iHeart than I do HD in general.

Well said. The marketplace has basically decided that HD radio is irrelevant. There are technical and business issues with the technology that will severely impact its adoption. I have several HD radios. I tried the medium out, and despite having some great DSP capabilities in the radio - it became quite apparent to me that the technology has fundamental flaws.
1. Audio Quality - Double-blind test an FM HD signal and the Analog signal. The codec used in FM-HD has very detectable artifacts. While the frequency response is higher (20-20kHz vs 30-16kHz), the extra 4 kHz of frequency bandwidth is barely detectable.
2. 7 Second Buffer - In a mobile environment, this just serves to annoy the listener. When driving in from Buffalo in a rental car with an HD radio, I needed to be in Hilton to get WPXY's HD signal. When it finally came in, it skipped in and out between Analog and Digital. This is where it was clear that the Analog sounded fuller, better, cleaner, and artifact free.
3. Coverage - HD radio has a substantially lower coverage area.
4. Interference - IBOC (In-Band, On-Channel) is really IBAC (In-Band, Adjacent Channel). Try listening to 1040 within the 1040 service contour at night. When the skywave of 1030 WBZ comes in, it puts a blanket of white noise all over 1040. How the FCC accepted this, boggles my mind.
5. AM Bandwidth - While the digital has an extended bandwidth with a high level of artifacts, the analog signal's bandwidth is cut by over 50%. Listen to 1040 on a quality AM receiver and compare it to WHAM. WYSL has a nice bottom end, as well as crisp highs.

The business model has substantial limitations as well. For a broadcaster, the upgrade requires a substantial amount of capital to upgrade. Everything from the Exciter, Transmitter and STL need to replaced or modified for HD. This is in addition to the substantial ongoing investment in licensing for the technology.

What are the alternatives to be cutting edge?
1. Develop a streaming strategy - How many iHeartRadio ads versus HD ads do you hear on Clear Channel? Clear Channel, from what I understand is one of the investors in HD radio. Look at where their money is being spent
2. Lobby the Receiver Industry for better DSP-built radios. Through DSP processing, you can pick up very weak signals and clean-up noise artifacts. How does WDNY-FM come in well in Pittsford with a simple whip antenna: DSP technology.
3. Investigate CAM-D and other AM technologies. These technologies can help correct, or assist in recovering Analog signals with noise through digital error correction

How many Internet radio listeners are there versus HD receivers? I think the ratio is 100:1 or more. Mobile streaming has a 20% CAGR.

Brian

 

[Bob1370]

If what you want is better sound and broader coverage, do four things for AM;

1)Return to the pre-1990 NRSC standards, allow 50 hZ to 15 kHz audio. C-Quam stereo is fine if you use a music format, unnecessary for a spoken-word format, so let the broadcaster decide that issue of stereo or mono for himself.

2)Scrap IBOC HD on AM completely--if you allow a wider audio signal spectrum it becomes unnecessary for better fidelity, and simply increases noise. It adds nothing for 99.5% of the radio listeners except annoying sideband hash. IBOC HD makes sense on FM where it permits you to offer additional program services, but adds nothing but noise on AM, where it's nothing but a simulcast of the analog. Leave HD to FM.

3)Increase every fulltime AM station's power level by at least 100%...a 1,000 watt station becomes 2,000, a 5,000 watt station becomes 10,000, and a 50,000 watt station would run 100,000. Also, use directional antennas intelligently to allow more regional stations to boost power. The added interference in fringe areas beyond primary coverage areas will be far less of a detriment, than the advantage offered by the stronger signal the listener would get within primary coverage areas, which would be better able to overcome the increased noise floor produced by today's poorly shielded electronic devices and light fixtures. A doubling in power might not even be enough, of course, in which case, raise it still higher.

4)Encourage stations to use audio processing techniques to best advantage, to present a punchy, clear, crisp sound. No Optimod (or equivalent)? Get one.

 

[bmcglynn]

2)Scrap IBOC HD on AM completely--if you allow a wider audio signal spectrum it becomes unnecessary for better fidelity, and simply increases noise. It adds nothing for 99.5% of the radio listeners except annoying sideband hash. IBOC HD makes sense on FM where it permits you to offer additional program services, but adds nothing but noise on AM, where it's nothing but a simulcast of the analog. Leave HD to FM.

3)Increase every fulltime AM station's power level by at least 100%...a 1,000 watt station becomes 2,000, a 5,000 watt station becomes 10,000, and a 50,000 watt station would run 100,000. Also, use directional antennas intelligently to allow more regional stations to boost power. The added interference in fringe areas beyond primary coverage areas will be far less of a detriment, than the advantage offered by the stronger signal the listener would get within primary coverage areas, which would be better able to overcome the increased noise floor produced by today's poorly shielded electronic devices and light fixtures. A doubling in power might not even be enough, of course, in which case, raise it still higher.

Good suggestions. I would go so far as to suggest scrapping FM IBOC as well. It is equally irrelevant compared to streaming technologies, although the side effects are less pronounced on the analog host.

You bring up a good point on AM radio and noise. There was a petition put in front of the FCC a little while back suggesting authorization for a 10 dB increase of power by broadcast engineer Richard Arsenault.

http://www.radio-broadcast-engineer.com/AM-interference-power.htm

10 dB is a bit much for 50KW stations; in that there is not much economic benefit for the additional 450,000 of electricity consumption (in reality, the extra million+ watts of input when you account for sidebands and efficiency). All said, the big 50KW stations already have good building-level signals into their cities of service.

The biggest benefactors would be the regional and rural AM's who could potentially boost to 10KW or 50KW under the 10 dB proposition. This would provide for better building penetration and Signal to Noise.

Brian

 

[Philip_Airtime]

I don't disagree with anything being said here. Indeed, the future appears to be in streaming and smart phone apps. I would add one caveat. All the wireless providers have pulled back on unlimited data access. So, that means smart phone users will face limits on how much data they use for their various functions. If users have to start paying more when they go over their limits, I question whether they'll continue to shell out money to hear a stream that they can hear for free on the radio. I've pointed out in the past that I'm currently paying more than $300 a month for cable, broadband Internet access, a land line and three cell lines, including a smart phone with grandfathered unlimited data. That's my limit! I refuse to pay anymore for technology. That means no satellite radio. No second smart phone and its associated data plan. I can't be alone here. Very few of us have unlimited budgets. So, choices will be made. There will be costs associated with new technology.

I also wouldn't scrap HD on FM. Too many stations have invested too much money to make it happen. I suppose when the equipment wears out years from now, individual stations will drop HD. But why force them to do it now? Granted, there are technical reasons for getting rid of it on AM. But HD on FM hurts no one. Besides, I like listening to WGR on 98.5 HD 2!

 

[JustPastBuffalo]

The AM band is a mess, especially at night. Increasing power, ostensibly to cut through the interference only muddies the water. Any discussion about increasing power can't be made without considering the expenses related to new or upgraded transmitters, additional towers, more copper in the ground and a higher monthly electric bill.

A number of qualified engineers that I talk to believe the AM band is chaos as a result of interference created by computers and complex light and power grids. The NRSC standards and IBOC HD add to the babble. Local Class C grave yarders that now operate with 1kW at night and Class B's with manic directional patterns add more garble.

FM HD is underwhelming. The consumer public has spoken and the silence is deafening. The lack of interest combined with the expense of implementing HD and maintaining it may be the reason many operators large and small are turning off their HD signals or not taking the plunge in the first place. Small market operators and small players in larger markets might be more inclined to invest in hiring another good sales person or news, jock or production person or an IT person.

The future may be in streaming, but the pipeline is only so wide. Imposed data caps limit choices. How many carriers are rescinding their grandfathered data plans? Want to stream your favorite radio station (which may be Pandora) or watch that must-see cat video on Icanthascheeseburger? Who didn't see this coming? There's also the cost of each listener for each song played.

Broadcaster would be better served to concentrate on making the programming on the main FM channel the best that it can be so that it can attract and keep as many listeners as possible.

That's my bucktree80.

 

[chas108]

I also wouldn't scrap HD on FM. Too many stations have invested too much money to make it happen. I suppose when the equipment wears out years from now, individual stations will drop HD. But why force them to do it now? Granted, there are technical reasons for getting rid of it on AM. But HD on FM hurts no one. Besides, I like listening to WGR on 98.5 HD 2!

I think it's still early in the game for HD. My station just got a power increase for our HD and now the coverage area is nice. I have an aftermarket HD in my '97 Blazer.

GM is finally starting to offer HD in some models although I didn't see it available in Camaros when I checked the Chevrolet website just now. Ford, BMW and several others have been on board for a few years...when GM and Toyota offer it across their lines then I think you'll see the needle move. I don't know that all the subchannels will go the distance...there's just so many choices and such bland programming on most HD2-3's...but as the next evolution of FM itself, I think we have a few years to go before calling HD a win or a loss.

To reiterate a point made before, much of the Buffalo/Rochester radio I hear (when I hear it) is cleaner than what you hear in larger markets (like the one I live in, Pittsburgh. This market really needed HD, IMHO...too much overprocessing). I don't recall a big difference hearing Kiss and 'YRK analog and HD, for example. They're pretty crisp but still processed enough to be pleasing.

However a few years back (2005-06) I took a business trip to Chicago. We'd rented a Cadillac DTS at O'Hare and was driving north on I-94 to an appointment in Wisconsin. We had opportunity to hear a lot of radio on that trip...B96, for example, sounded as smashed as any AM Flamethrower in 1977. That seems to be the case in most of the major markets, at least the ones I've heard over the years. In those cases, HD helps a lot.

 

[SirRoxalot]

I think what Chas meant to say is that badly overprocessed FM (i.e. Syracuse radio) sounds as bad as the digital artifacts on HD.

I agree that most Buffalo radio sounds pretty good. Star 102.5, which used to boast some of the best sounding FM around, seems to be the worst offended in the squashed loudness category. For my money, some of the best sounding FM that bangs into the market - or at least the northern part of it - comes from Q-107 in Toronto. Loud and clean. It really jumps out.

As far as HD is concerned, what's the point? Maybe it has a futurue for translating noise-choked AMs onto an HD-2 signals. Otherwise, FM analog sounds pretty damn good, and costs considerably less to operate. Any other expense probably ought to go into improved streaming.

One thing about data caps - Audio simply ain't gonna beat them up the way that video does. You can do a LOT of streaming at 64K (which is a higher rate than most) without putting the hurt on a data cap. Download one movie, though, and you might be done.

 

[chas108]

What, you've been listening to 104.7 in Fulton?

When I worked there 30 years ago as WKFM it was too transparent. Not enough punch for a CHR unless you listened on the King Klipsches hanging in the air studio.

Older Country (pre-2000) needs a lot of compression IMHO but 'BBS never sounded right...a lot of compression/expansion but no life. Kinda like the small-market Froggies surrounding the Pittsburgh market.

OTOH, I think 93Q deserves an award for their processing, some of the best I've heard in the CHR format (unless they've changed it since I last heard it, 'bout a year ago.)

 

[Savage]

Back to "how to improve AM" - as I've argued here before, scrap NRSC and open up each channel to 12.5 kHz, 10 kHz at night. Revive C-QUAM and mandate it in every receiving device. Of course, de-authorize HD-AM since it isn't helping and is almost surely hurting. I strongly disagree with the proposal to double station powers. Half of the QRN problem on AM is due to badly-maintained directional systems. I know of a number of nearby facilities which get zero regular maintenance and where nobody's taken monitor point readings in years; there are at least three I know of where the station operates 24-7 at either day pattern/power or some bizarre random pattern. Just imagine the cacaphony if these operators were granted 10 or 20kw: ugh.

Remember the glee of then-Class IV operators when, a few years back, they were allowed to increase from 250w NDA at night to 1kw? I knew a couple of them who actually went out and sold ad packages promising "four times the coverage!!" Imagine their shock when they found out they were actually losing coverage due to ramped-up interference.

 

[therealjm12]

I agree with everything Mr. Savage said above but would add: I'd like to see some incentives (maybe taxes) to see many of these underused AM's leave the air permanently. A lot of these stations' real estate, they sit on, is worth much more that the license. Think drive in theatres 30 years ago. Also, I know it's international agreements, but I 'd like to see some kind of deal made with Canada to allow American AM stations to take advantage of Canadian frequencies that have been abandoned. A lot of day/night patterns could be loosened up to better serve their communities.

The local frequencies, 1230, 1240, 1490 issue.... Maybe they should have been allowed to cut to 500 watts at sundown. They might have had the increased coverage they wanted without all the interference. On the other hand, I suppose such stations, in unpopulated areas, out west, Alaska, etc. don't have all the interference and the kilowatt works for them. I have worked at local stations that cut to 250 at night. It really did hurt them. Especially when it came to sports programing.

 

[Savage]

Once upon a time there were actually Class IV stations which operated with 100 watts day, 50 night. I'm not kidding! And they were able to provide sufficient local service because....there wasn't all the interference we have today. Fewer stations, more spacing, far less QRM/QRN from consumer devices because there weren't CFLs, LEDs, computer screens and data over power lines.

I remember the Gates General Catalog used to list a 100-watt AM transmitter. This wasn't for some college carrier-current station. This was for broadcasting. With a tower.

Some time in the 50s the FCC encouraged the few remaining hundred-watt IVs to power "up" to 250 watts U! Then in '63 1kw daytime was authorized, although some Class IVs had to go DA to get the kilowatt - that's right, directional day, NDA night (with 250 watts.) That coincided with allowing stations to operate with lesser-grade radiotelephone (3d permit) personnel. Back then, engineers said...it was the "beginning of the end for radio." They were at least partly right if we're considering AM.

 

[WJPYFM]

I have owned 2 HD Radios since last year. In Buffalo, 97 Rock was HD during the Winter but I am guessing that the HD dropped at some point early in the Spring and they left it off with a DNR. 103.3 The Edge HD was on last week, maybe it just needs to be restarted? WTSS Star 102.5 had the exporter stuck with the same artist/title for 2 weeks. Their HD-1 and HD-2 sound like they have the bandwidth split equal between the two and HD-2 WBEN audio sounds out of phase. Kiss 98.5 has analog/digital sync issues since the HD dropped a few weeks ago. The problem is that because the stations feel that no one is listening (because listeners don't complain?) or just that Engineering is spread to thin or whatever the case, the HD does not sound as good as it could or function properly or work at all (HD is down). I know it is a maintenance pain in the butt and far from a perfect system, but the industry needs to spend the time to make it work. It is here to stay on the FM unless the fees go up and stations just turn everything off.
There is no reason why someone at the station can't listen everyday to check the HD. I would agree that most new HD listeners would just turn it off because as a listener "it is not my job" to complain that the HD is not working and I can hear HD-2 or the same artist/title is displaying all the time, or the audio sould like crap and is out of sync, etc. In some cases HD does not sound as good because it is not processed like the analog (and should not be) but there is no reason it can't sound better then the analog because if you listen to 94.5 WNED HD-1 it sounds very good and has an HD-2. The digital needs to having processing to somewhat match the loudness as the analog, but it just does not sound good if it comes right out of the board.
As far as AM IBOC, I am on the fence. There are not any AM stations with HD in Buffalo and I have listened to it at nightime. When it locks in HD it is very short, I think I sounds better then the analog AM. But, some say it sounds like a bad internet stream and it causes sooo much iBUZ. I agree, it should only be used during the day. I liked AM stereo better but those day are gone in most cases.

 

[Savage]

I hear this argument about how HD "should not be processed like analog radio" and I must confess, I don't get that. Why not? Supposedly, it's still radio. Radio is not an audiophile experience. People don't listen to radio to marvel at the audio. And the potential improvement, given HD's creaky and questionable codec, is virtually undetectable to the average listener anyway.

Radio is a product which is often consumed in noisy environment - remember, it's the sole "companion medium," meaning it's often used while people are doing something else. Such as fixing a meal, working in construction, or driving in a car. Why put out a digital product with all kinds of dynamic range which will only frustrate listeners? Think of those landscapers or contractors trying to listen on the DeWalt toolbox-boombox at a construction site. Or someone driving with the windows open on a beautiful fall day. Why make the signal hard to listen to, necessitating constant attention to the volume setting? It's a prescription for them to turn off radio and listen to mp3's.

If the argument pro-HD is "improving audio," then that's just another example of how IBOC purports to fix a nonexistent problem. Nobody complains about FM quality (except when it's overprocessed like in many major markets.) And AM-HD is already dead; most stations are just waiting for various excuses to turn it off permanently.

 

[Bill Myers]

Bob,

You made my day. What you may think wasn't all that funny as opposed to making a point - you had me cracking up laughing. Your correct and accurate point of view aside - your analogies had me rollin' in my sweet baby's arms. Sorry. Rollin' in the chair. Why?
Because you are dead on. That is sooo true. I can totally picture said scenarios.
You're right. Why process the signal to enhance listener enjoyment?
Cause the true audiophile is gonna have his own processing, his own EQ settings and speaker configurations anyway if he really wants to listen to those golden platters or perhaps the more current genre if one favors that kind of tuneage. Radio is to fill the void. Same goes for the Television. I have it on just so it's not so dang quiet or to keep me 'company' while I'm, as you call it, fixin' dinner.
Anyway, just mused by your POV.

Ok. Back to my listening pleasure. Ah, yes. The ol' 78's.

I gotta read ya again.

 

[Savage]

"I just try to capture the spirit of the thing." - Dickie Dunn, "Slap Shot"

But Sirius-ly, folks: as broadcasters we have to walk a line when it comes to matters-technical. Of course we want to have a loud, well-balanced, pleasant audio product. We all want powerful bass and nice sparkly highs, with high intelligibility, that "leaps out of the radio dial."

But a purist's or audiophile approach simply doesn't make sense. Radio is a package deal, combining (when it's done right) entertainment, information, service...an ongoing tableau or act, as opposed to just a string of songs (as has been succinctly observed, if the listener just wants music, there are plenty of alternative choices.)

So the balancing act becomes, to my mind: the best-sounding audio possible consistent with typical listening habits of the average listener. Uber-wide dynamic range is going to cause more listener complaints ("How come I have to juggle the volume all the time on your station??") than glad tidings of appreciation. When the host turns his head for a moment and words are lost or the soft-voiced telephone talk caller disappears in the ambient noise, you're about to lose a listener.

 

[Mike Sheridan]

"I just try to capture the spirit of the thing." - Dickie Dunn, "Slap Shot"

But Sirius-ly, folks: as broadcasters we have to walk a line when it comes to matters-technical. Of course we want to have a loud, well-balanced, pleasant audio product. We all want powerful bass and nice sparkly highs, with high intelligibility, that "leaps out of the radio dial."

But a purist's or audiophile approach simply doesn't make sense. Radio is a package deal, combining (when it's done right) entertainment, information, service...an ongoing tableau or act, as opposed to just a string of songs (as has been succinctly observed, if the listener just wants music, there are plenty of alternative choices.)

So the balancing act becomes, to my mind: the best-sounding audio possible consistent with typical listening habits of the average listener. Uber-wide dynamic range is going to cause more listener complaints ("How come I have to juggle the volume all the time on your station??") than glad tidings of appreciation. When the host turns his head for a moment and words are lost or the soft-voiced telephone talk caller disappears in the ambient noise, you're about to lose a listener.

Well said Mr Savage. You can go too far either way. Most of us who have been on air can probably tell stories about processing that was either set with way too much dynamic range or times when a pause or some low level audio would cause the processing to suck up all the low level noise and give feedback in the headphones. How about times when you played "Suspicious Minds" by Elvis and you couldn't hear the false fade before the end?