The FCC doesn't seem to care about RF, least of all AM, other than selling off spectrum. These suggestions, all reasonable, could be implemented tomorrow, but while the reception of AM radio might improve, the perception of AM radio would likely remain the same. The AM band is Geezer street.Savage said:
-
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
Mike Sheridan said:
Or how 'bout The Gentry's - Keep on Dancing with their Oops ending?
Processing in radio has always been a hot topic and in many cases closely guarded. When going from analog to digital they should sound as close as possible in level and in sync with better frequency response on the digital. What you don't want is the digital to sound so different that it is a turn-off. The point is that this is a new product to most listeners. The last thing you want to do is make someone that just bought a new car with HD Radio turn it off because the sync is off like Kiss 98.5 and 107.7 WBEN is right now. Also you don't want the HD to sound unprocessed either like a CD or feed directly from the mixer to transmitter.
Tonight on my drive in here there are only 3 stations in Buffalo (not counting Canada, No HD yet anywhere) without HD on the air: 96.9 (97 Rock) 101.7 (Catholic), 104.1 WHTT. I sent an email for fun to the program director of 92.9 WBUF a few months back to ask when the HD2 will be active and the response was.... "never". "HD is going away and most stations are turning the HD off" also "the corporation is investing in their digital product not HD". Do they mean web site? What more do they plan to have than what is already there? After all it is Jack FM, no requests, no contests, no real DJs...
Tonight on my drive in here there are only 3 stations in Buffalo (not counting Canada, No HD yet anywhere) without HD on the air: 96.9 (97 Rock) 101.7 (Catholic), 104.1 WHTT. I sent an email for fun to the program director of 92.9 WBUF a few months back to ask when the HD2 will be active and the response was.... "never". "HD is going away and most stations are turning the HD off" also "the corporation is investing in their digital product not HD". Do they mean web site? What more do they plan to have than what is already there? After all it is Jack FM, no requests, no contests, no real DJs...
Speaking of HD again. The Hybrid stuff stinks. To do it right digital should have it's own band. At least that would keep it from destroying analog reception!
B
Bob1370
Guest
"To do it right digital should have it's own band. At least that would keep it from destroying analog reception!"
Won't happen. Canada and Britain both tried to create a band for digital broadcasting somewhere above 1300 mHz.
They flopped. Case in point; a lot of stations in Toronto put up transmitters for it including all the major AM and FM outlets, running several kilowatts ERP from the CN Tower and promoting enhanced audio service. Almost no one bought the radios (which were heavily promoted for a while). Uncle Sam also claimed potential interference with adjacent military communications channels...but the real problem was, lack of demand for a service that wasn't appreciably better than analog FM, or even AM (where IIRC Canadian stations aren't governed by the same restricted 50 hZ-10 kHz audio bandwidth as American stations, but can modulate out to 15 kHz if their transmitters will pass it).
Won't happen. Canada and Britain both tried to create a band for digital broadcasting somewhere above 1300 mHz.
They flopped. Case in point; a lot of stations in Toronto put up transmitters for it including all the major AM and FM outlets, running several kilowatts ERP from the CN Tower and promoting enhanced audio service. Almost no one bought the radios (which were heavily promoted for a while). Uncle Sam also claimed potential interference with adjacent military communications channels...but the real problem was, lack of demand for a service that wasn't appreciably better than analog FM, or even AM (where IIRC Canadian stations aren't governed by the same restricted 50 hZ-10 kHz audio bandwidth as American stations, but can modulate out to 15 kHz if their transmitters will pass it).
Bob1370 said:
This subject has been beaten to death on a number of boards over the past few years. Bob hit it on the head with the quote above.
The way I look at it HD was DOA. Why with all of the cost cutting that radio companies continue to make would they make a commitment of funds and personnel to develop any sort of compelling programming on their HD channels? Commonly owned stations within a market are already in competition for listener's ears. Why create more?
I'm also puzzled by the ongoing promotion of HD receivers that you still hear in some markets after several years of failing to "move the needle". People, the public, just doesn't get it - and they're obviously not buying it either.
As I have said before, look how long it took FM to catch on. A separate band is better than the mess we have now.
And as I have said before, comparing the rollout timelines of FM to HD isn't apples-and-oranges. It's apples-and-ethanol. This ain't 1955 when there was no internet, no satellite, no car audio players, etc., etc. And there was never any debate over the superiority of FM as a system. It just took a couple decades for the technology to produce popularly-priced receivers and for AM format radio to mature and FM's future was assured. None of this is true of HD.
You can buy a decent-performing HD Radio (or at least the closest there will ever be to a "decent-performing HD Radio") for chump change today, and they're still not selling. And the sole remaining retailer featuring HD, Best Buy, is circling the drain financially so the prospects for the future availability of ANY non-car HD Radio is a dim one.
You can buy a decent-performing HD Radio (or at least the closest there will ever be to a "decent-performing HD Radio") for chump change today, and they're still not selling. And the sole remaining retailer featuring HD, Best Buy, is circling the drain financially so the prospects for the future availability of ANY non-car HD Radio is a dim one.
M
makeradiowaves
Guest
HD radio was a very failed attempt to combat technology, and how that technology is hurting terrestrial radio. For many years, the HD Radio "Superpac", the people buying radio airtime to promote HD, was the biggest advertiser in the radio industry! The biggest advertiser!!! Even RADIO PEOPLE don't know what HD radio is and how it works, how is a consumer suppose to know. Plus, the cunsumer DOES NOT CARE. The really don't care with anything to do with radio. IF this were an APPLE rollout of a thing called HD, do you thing it would create some interest?? OF course it would, because people are interested in APPLE - they have lost interest in radio, and it is the industrys fault. Radio, with the exeption of talk and complete local content, is losing and will lose the war, and it won't be long. The HD thing was a great example of how radio has ZERO pull with consumers anymore. I have NO idea where Arbitron gets it numbers that says soooo many people are listening to radio, but they have to be wrong. I wish they would include, IPOD in those surveys, Pandora, XM, IHEART, SPOTIFY, etc.
HD radio was originally planned on being the answer to the challenge radio faced with satellite. "Better" fidelity, more stations -all of those things that didn't happen for several obvious reasons.
*The recession and devaluation of radio properties saw revenues tank. Even if the big companies thought it a good idea to eventually staff HD stations, their loss of income squashed that.
*Consolidation overvalued radio properties, and companies like Clear Channel have massive debts to pay down. The expense of adding HD radio produced 0 revenue. ZERO. Had it caught on, they could have treated these "side channels" like real stations.
*Early on in the discussion with our corporate bigshots in the mid 90's, we were discussing HD radio and I had suggested NOT treating the sub-channels as separate channels. New receivers could list stations with names (rather than numbers) and all would appear equal. Instead they went with HD1 HD2, making it very obvious that the sub-channels were add-ons.
*If you remember UHF tv back in the sixties, it failed until ALL CHANNEL receivers were mandated. WBUF TV flopped for NBC because no one could get it! I'm sure now, WNED-TV is flourishing just fine. Should it become necessary that all radios made receive all channels, HD might get noticed. However, I can imagine the cost of upgrading receivers with fast enough chips so you wouldn't have to wait for HD to kick in is prohibitive.
*Regarding the sideband issues. In some markets, the HD sidebands aren't an issue. In others (like San Diego) they certainly are. On a good day we could get 93.3 from San DIego and 93.1 in L.A. 93.3's sidebands have all but killed 93.1. Adjacent channels in (or near) big markets are lost now. The promise of "MORE" has actually become "LESS".
*AM is in more trouble because of choice. In the 60's we had 5 stations to choose from in Rochester. When FM became commonplace it became possible to hear four times as many stations -most on FM. With the evolution, now on AM in Rochester what do you have? WHAM...and Sports. Oh WXXI AM is fairly compelling but even the old fuddy-duddies who would listen to AM for music (i.e. MOYL or 50's Oldies) have nothing. (It's okay I'm over 60) - and we're not about to go out of our way to get HD radio even if one of those formats DOES show up.
*HD radio answered a problem that never really existed. Satellite radio hasn't replaced the wireless. Some think it's better-some won't pay for it. It's an addition just like Slacker, Pandora, bla bla.
The real solution is content. Always has been and always will be.
*The recession and devaluation of radio properties saw revenues tank. Even if the big companies thought it a good idea to eventually staff HD stations, their loss of income squashed that.
*Consolidation overvalued radio properties, and companies like Clear Channel have massive debts to pay down. The expense of adding HD radio produced 0 revenue. ZERO. Had it caught on, they could have treated these "side channels" like real stations.
*Early on in the discussion with our corporate bigshots in the mid 90's, we were discussing HD radio and I had suggested NOT treating the sub-channels as separate channels. New receivers could list stations with names (rather than numbers) and all would appear equal. Instead they went with HD1 HD2, making it very obvious that the sub-channels were add-ons.
*If you remember UHF tv back in the sixties, it failed until ALL CHANNEL receivers were mandated. WBUF TV flopped for NBC because no one could get it! I'm sure now, WNED-TV is flourishing just fine. Should it become necessary that all radios made receive all channels, HD might get noticed. However, I can imagine the cost of upgrading receivers with fast enough chips so you wouldn't have to wait for HD to kick in is prohibitive.
*Regarding the sideband issues. In some markets, the HD sidebands aren't an issue. In others (like San Diego) they certainly are. On a good day we could get 93.3 from San DIego and 93.1 in L.A. 93.3's sidebands have all but killed 93.1. Adjacent channels in (or near) big markets are lost now. The promise of "MORE" has actually become "LESS".
*AM is in more trouble because of choice. In the 60's we had 5 stations to choose from in Rochester. When FM became commonplace it became possible to hear four times as many stations -most on FM. With the evolution, now on AM in Rochester what do you have? WHAM...and Sports. Oh WXXI AM is fairly compelling but even the old fuddy-duddies who would listen to AM for music (i.e. MOYL or 50's Oldies) have nothing. (It's okay I'm over 60) - and we're not about to go out of our way to get HD radio even if one of those formats DOES show up.
*HD radio answered a problem that never really existed. Satellite radio hasn't replaced the wireless. Some think it's better-some won't pay for it. It's an addition just like Slacker, Pandora, bla bla.
The real solution is content. Always has been and always will be.
- Status