• 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's amazingly swift rollout

M

Mike Walker

Guest
Two+ years into the rollout of HD, we're on our way to having 2,000 HD stations late this summer. That's more HD STATIONS than there were RADIO STATIONS in the 1950s, THIRTY YEARS after the rollout of broadcasting. And that (broadcasting) went rather well.

FM stations came on the air in large numbers after WW-II. Many of them left the air for years, after failing to gather an audience (WHKY in Hickory NC was a great example...they left the air for YEARS in the 50s. Today they're WLYT Charlotte, one of the most successful statinos in town...with 2 HD streams). Still, it took until the 1982, nearly FORTY YEARS before FM tied AM's audience numbers.

Two years into the general rollout of tv, about 1949, most of what constituted "programming" was a TEST PATTERN. The vast majority of tv stations were on the air only during the afternoon and evening hours well into fhe 50s.

Color tv was a VERY slow starter...more than 45 YEARS, from the first experimental transmissions in the 20s till "critical mass" was reached in the late 60s. Or taken from the early 50s, then the first practical electronic systems were demonstrated for color tv, it was about 17-20 years before most families had a color tv.

FM Stereo was a VERY SLOW technology to catch on. Even today, MOST FM LISTENING IS DONE IN MONO, especially during daytime hours (table radios, clock radios, etc.) FM stereo was authorized in 1962, but it was relatively rare in lots of homes until well into the 70s. I didn't have my first real FM stereo experience until about 1972, and my local FM station (WIFM Elkin, NC) didn't convert to stereo until the late 80s. Mono fm stations were COMMON in many parts of the country THROUGH THE 70s. Our local college station (WSIF Wilkesboro NC) was actually mono until the 90s.

The first commercial products to receive HD radio have been on the market only a couple of years, and widely available for about a year. Still, there are probably as many HD radio products NOW as there are satellite radio products after six years.

The first personal computers became widely available in the 1970s. But they were still just business machines and "geek toys" twenty plus years later. It was the introduction of the World Wide Web in the 90s, and more user-friendly GUI-based operating systems that make them common in most households.

So let's review...HD radio's rollout has gone much faster than analog AM radio, FM radio, FM stereo, television, color television, personal computers, and many other technologies (automobiles spring to mind...they took three or four decades to become common. And that turned out pretty well). The speed has been PHENOMENAL by any objective standard. I challenge anyone to name a technology that has rolled out faster! Not cell phones ("car phones" took more than a half-century!). Not microwave ovens. Not pocket calculators. Not VCRs. Not cd players. DVD players DID rollout pretty darn quickly...and could well be "the exception that proves the rule."

Remember the rules for HD radio are JUST BEING FINALIZED! ALL HD prior to this spring was officially "experimental". Still, virtually all of the nation's largest stations...those in the top 50 markets...are HD (at least on the FM dial, AM is just getting started because the rules were much slower to be adopted). So don't let ANYONE tell you HD's growth is anything short of record-setting. There is almost no technology which has rolled-out so quickly. Even so, it was nearly a decade and a half before the first plans for HD, and when the first experimental broadcasts of what was to become "HD Radio" began. WELL DONE RADIO! WELL DONE EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURERS! WELL DONE ENGINEERS! WELL DONE CONSUMER ELECTRONICS MANUFACTURERS! Now programmers, GET TO WORK producing compelling programming, so we can get past some of the "HD Test Patterns". ;)
 
"First HD Radio Sold"

"Digital Corporation announced today that an Iowa buyer became "first in the nation" to purchase an HD Radio tuner. Nathan Franzen purchased a Kenwood KTC-HR100 HD Radio tuner from the Ultimate Electronics store in Cedar Rapids, Iowa on Monday, January 5, 2004."

http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/recording/ibiquity.html

"Regional stations join the ranks of HD radio"

"Information in this article, originally published February 12, 2007, was corrected February 27, 2007. A previous version of this story incorrectly said HD radio made its area debut when KUOW began broadcasting with it three years ago. In September 2002, KBKS-FM was the first station to broadcast HD radio in the Puget Sound region."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2003567591_hdradio12.html

Google Trends for "hd radio", "internet radio", xm, sirius, podcast:

http://www.google.com/trends?q="hd+radio",+"internet+radio",+xm,+sirius,+podcast

At least 4 1/2 years since stations have been broadcasting in HD Radio, and 3 1/2 years since the first HD Radio was sold, why hasn't HD Radio caught on ? :D
 
Don't respond guys. Don't give them the satisfaction. Rational discussion can only take place with rational participants.
 
HD Radio is trending up...

Len14043 said:
Since some posters here are into graphs, let the following link show the impressive growth of HD radio.

http://www.google.com/trends?q="hd+radio",+&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all

Google trends really doesn't show anything but Google searches which really have NO MEANING.

Still it does look like there is more interest in this irrelevant info than some of the HD detractors wold like to admit...

Still means nothing, though. Internet searches does not equal anything but Internet searches...

Clouseau
 
Re: Consumer interest in HD flat-lined for three years

clouseau said:
Len14043 said:
Since some posters here are into graphs, let the following link show the impressive growth of HD radio.

http://www.google.com/trends?q="hd+radio",+&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all

Google trends really doesn't show anything but Google searches which really have NO MEANING.

Still it does look like there is more interest in this irrelevant info than some of the HD detractors wold like to admit...

Still means nothing, though. Internet searches does not equal anything but Internet searches...

Clouseau

"Google Labs"

"Google Trends - Google Trends is a search analysis web application, that lets users seek information about previous searches conducted on Google Web Search. Several keywords can be entered, to compare different queries and their popularity. Google Trends is also available in Chinese."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Labs

"Google Trends Gives P2P Insight"

"Google Trends is a new comparison tool used to compare the search frequency of various topics over a period of time. The feature is currently English only, however the data is a aggregation of searches conducted globally. Google Trends is experimental in nature, although it appears to be accurate enough to demonstrate the popularity of a topic over time."

http://www.slyck.com/story1188.html
 
Mike said:
Two+ years into the rollout of HD, we're on our way to having 2,000 HD stations late this summer.

Almost as many station streams as HD radios actually sold after over 3 years, is not what could be called "record-setting".

Some of your observations might be somewhat valid for where you live, in a very rural area, but not in major markets where most of the listeners are located. FM stereo in major markets started challenging the ratings of many AM stations in the 1960's. TV was not as slow to start as you claim in major markets where there were 4 TV networks and dozens of syndicators, thousands of old movies and shorts available. Early major market TV stations also did much more local origination then rural TV stations. The holdup was partly extending the network TV lines to rural areas, and fewer local sponsors convinced of, or able to afford local TV sponsorship on rural TV stations and limited live local production facilities of early small rural TV stations. Development of video tape helped expand programming and commercial production in small stations, because it allowed replay, and facilitated syndication. Before videotape for TV production there was only kinescope (an expensive, low quality, complex process) or live talent on TV. All the rest of delayed or repeat programming was from film.
 
PocketRadio said:
Len14043 said:
Since some posters here are into graphs, let the following link show the impressive growth of HD radio.

http://www.google.com/trends?q="hd+radio",+&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all

http://www.google.com/trends?q="hd+radio",+"internet+radio",+xm,+sirius,+podcast

Actually Lenny, that impressive growth is just a flat line, compared to competing technologies.

True. But that flat line is starting to creep up. Thats getting you a little nervous, isn't it!? ;D
 
Re: HD Radio is still a flat line compared to competing technologies

Len14043 said:
PocketRadio said:
Len14043 said:
Since some posters here are into graphs, let the following link show the impressive growth of HD radio.

http://www.google.com/trends?q="hd+radio",+&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all

http://www.google.com/trends?q="hd+radio",+"internet+radio",+xm,+sirius,+podcast

Actually Lenny, that impressive growth is just a flat line, compared to competing technologies.

True. But that flat line is starting to creep up. Thats getting you a little nervous, isn't it!? ;D

"HD Radio: The Battle for Your Mind" Dave Van Dyke, Bridge Ratings

"Thus far it is still the audiophiles and early adopters who show interest and that is where the 'several hundred thousand' units sold comes in to play."

http://navigatethefuture.blogspot.com/2007/01/hd-radio-battle-for-your-mind.html

Not one bit worried - that little bump in the graph is just the radio geeks interested in HD Radio.
 
Mike Walker said:
Two+ years into the rollout of HD, we're on our way to having 2,000 HD stations late this summer.

There are still only about 1,300 stations broadcasting in HD Radio and mostly those are owned by the HD Radio Alliance - it is almost June, and that leaves an average of 100 stations a month converting over to HD. Still there are about 13,500 radio stations, so 1,300 represents only about 1/10th of stations broadcasting in HD - if the royalty rates are approved for HD Radio, you can bet that the number of stations converting to HD Radio will drastically slow down. Still, there are only a few tens-of-thousands of consumers listening, and it is only the radio geeks that are interested in HD Radio:

http://www.google.com/trends?q="hd+radio",+"internet+radio",+xm,+sirius,+podcast
 
The 2000 figure is projected for the end of this summer. As for "only alliance members" converting to HD (though that would actually be enough...there are THOUSANDS of them...nearly all of the biggest stations), read the article in this week's Radio World about the INDIVIDUAL station owner in LA who just went HD (multicasting), or the one in last week's Radio World about the small, independent public radio group in Northern California that just went HD.

WBT AM in Charlotte is about to turn on the switch. They're not an Alliance member. Neither is their FM station, 107.9 "The Link", already in HD. Neither are MANY of the public stations in this area which have gone HD. I can personally find DOZENS of stations not fitting the stereotype of "alliance members" that have gone HD, and that's without really trying.

As for there being "about the same number of radios as streams...about 3,000", utter b.s. Fanfare has sold A THOUSAND of their broadcast monitors, one of the most expensive HD tuners on the market! Others have sold MANY THOUSANDS. INDIVIDUAL MANUFACTURERS are selling them by the thousands now in some markets, and phone activity for HD streams is starting to pick up (according to friends who work at HD stations). You may have had a point six months ago (about there being "fewer radios than streams". Now that's pretty damn far from the truth.
 
Mike Walker said:
WBT AM in Charlotte is about to turn on the switch. They're not an Alliance member. Neither is their FM station, 107.9 "The Link", already in HD. Neither are MANY of the public stations in this area which have gone HD. I can personally find DOZENS of stations not fitting the stereotype of "alliance members" that have gone HD, and that's without really trying.

Just one point, the Public Radio stations, although not a part of "The Alliance," have been adopting HD because they were given grant money to convert. It didn't cost them much at all. Some of that funding came from NPR and CPB. You might say, “It's your tax dollars at work." At least, sort of.

The ability to multi-cast was the big sales point for many public stations. In fact, that is the thrust of NPR's "Tomorrow Radio" project, a term they seem to have ripped off from TM Productions, in Dallas. ( I liked TM's version better - it was funny.) The public stations that run classical formats were also very interested in doing 5.1 surround sound. I know that there have been some experiments with it, but I'm not aware of anything on the consumer level that is purpose built to handle it. Maybe that $2500 tuner you were eyeing can do it. I'd hope so, considering the price.


I'll have to wait for a more affordable solution....
 
I think the grant money was mostly for NPR affiliates (am I wrong on that?) That's why I mentioned some smaller, non-NPR stations that have gone HD.

As for the 2500 dollar tuner, it'll probably be my EYE that I keep on it, rather than my wallet.

The question many would probably ask is, "does HD radio REALLY sound better than a pristine analog fm stereo signal, received on a top-quality tuner"? Honestly, probably not. But remember for the "top quality tuner" you'd pay more than a thousand bucks these days (something from Magnum Dynalab?), a couple of hundred for an antenna and rotor, and then WHOSE STATION SOUNDS THAT GOOD ANYWAY? Not very many. HD gives the same kind of sound quality you'd get on absolute top quality (VERY expensive) analog gear for a couple of hundred bucks. THAT is one of the biggest attractions TO ME! And it brings the kind of sound quality to distant, rural areas that people in urban and suburban areas used to be able to take for granted ("used to be" because of all the grunge these days from heavy processing).
 
I think you could apply for grant money, even if you weren't an NPR affiliate. I might be wrong on that, but I recall getting an overture from someone - I can't say as I recall who - to change our station over. CPB, maybe? I thought it was a joke. We’d have a 3.6mile HD radius, which simply isn't worth a $50K investment, even if someone else is paying most of it. Since most of our audience listens on translators, and nobody could tell me how that worked, it seemed silly to pursue it.

As to whether HD sounds better than analog, I guess that will be a subject of debate for some time. I think it can, from what I’ve observed on my Sangean tuner at the house. Does it sound significantly better enough to encourage me to write bad checks? I don't think so. A second HDTV will come first at my house. I can easily see the benefit in that.

Somewhere along the line there is a point where something is "good enough." For instance, I drive a Chevy. I think you do to. Is it the best car in the world? In a word, "no,” but it is entirely adequate for my needs, and I could afford to buy it. I actually like my car.

The same is true for audio. People who had Edison cylinders were perfectly happy with them. The same could be said for 78 RPM records. By today's standards, they are awful, but truth be known, I admire the engineering that went into them. I've actually heard some that sounded very good. I even play some on the air.

The audio industry has always made advances, and I suspect it always will. The difference between an Edison cylinder and an early magnetic recording is dramatic. The same can be said for the evolution from the 78 to the 33 1/3 rpm microgroove record. But the change from the LP to the CD is more a change of convenience, rather than ultimate sound quality. As each generation of technology evolves, the changes become less dramatic. That takes the "Oh Wow! factor out of the equation. I think HD is in that last category: Potentially it is better sounding, but not many people really care. What they have is "good enough."

Let's face it. Not many people listen to radio through quality headphones, like Sennheisers or Sony's. That's where you an really tell the difference. If they use headphones at all, they most likely use some that came with their iPod or other device. Maybe they "upgraded" at Wal-Mart or Radio Shack. Most of the ear bud headphones sound dreadful. Do you think most people can hear the difference? I'd like to say "yes" but the realist in me says that the public is tone deaf.
 
Yes... "HD" radio, especially the AM standard, is a flawed technology. Yes, the progamming is currently pretty limited. The fact remains that we're basically at the same point as FM WAS back when tuners drifted in and out before good AFC circuits were utilized back in the 60s and programming was automated and sucked for the most part. Nothing is instant folks. If you don't like the standard (it's a little LATE now to change, don't you think?) complain to the damn FCC and the Congress that sells freqencies off like a comodity. Ibiquity doing their very best to put 100 pounds of crap in a 10 pound bag on FM and put 100 pounds of crap in a 1 pound bag on the AM band. The stupid goverment and the power brokers at the NAB wanted it this way. Now, what we all aught to do is figure out how to make do with what we have and try to program it and promote it. Personally I think the AM standard is pretty worthless, so for the most part we'd be better to utilize a HD3 channel for now if an AM station is within a cluster instead of messing with the messy AM "HD" transmission. Some day when it's viable to dump the analog AM messing with AM "HD" makes sense. For now it would be better to just not bother. Thank you NPR for doing something that the commercial guys were too chicken and unorganized to do. Without NPR there would be NO HD2 or HD3 possiblities. People piss and moan about paying for NPR out of tax dollars. If the American public has no use for their programming, they should now feel they've got their money worth, because without NPR labs HD would be limited to the same horrible programming of the main channel. HOPEFULLY some smaller groups in larger markets will take the ball and run with it and program something worth buying a radio to hear on HD2 or 3. Call up your local programming staff at local stations in your area and ask them for a format you'd like to see on the air. In some cases they actually have a chance for once to experiement a bit. KZPS in Dallas is already a product of their former HD2 channel experiement. Between having extra channels to play with and Arbitron's People Meter I feel radio might have a pretty good chance of surviving. The direction of programming could be a lot better just with these two new technolgies entering the picture.

Back on the HD subject. I agree that we don't have the best option. Unfortunalty, it's going to be the ONLY option. It's now up to us in the industry to make lemonade out of the lemon. Let's make some damn good lemonade folks!



On a slighty different but related subject, have any of the eggheads considered running LESS power on more powerful AM stations' "HD" signals? Here's a thought.. IF stations over 5k made their HD signal only at the level of a 5k at night, wouldn't that do a LOT to help minimize the nighttime skywave interference problems caused by "HD"? The analog could blow out enough goo as usual to get long-range coverage while the station could keep HD going for the local market at night that way. I think it would be a pretty cool comprimise! (not perfect but much better than just "go ahead boys and let the mush fly!")
DX'ers have been the most vocal about the problem, but it's going to be a REAL problem for "normal" listeners of lower-powered stations at night if the problem isn't addressed more so than just letting it rip.
 
Mike Walker said:
Don't respond guys. Don't give them the satisfaction. Rational discussion can only take place with rational participants.

Mike, usually you are rational, but you can't compare the rollout rate of HD with the advent of radio. Let's be serious.

Also, you can't compare the number of models of HD radios available vs the number of units sold of a device that can recieve programming. Sattelite radio has that over HD by a huge margin. I believe there are only 3 IPOD models available... which tech would you rather be behind?

I could also point out the adoption of AM stereo... and how Chrysler and GM featured it stock in many models for years. Look where that got us?
 
PocketRadio said:
There are still only about 1,300 stations broadcasting in HD Radio and mostly those are owned by the HD Radio Alliance

The HD Alliance is a trade association, and it does not own any stations. Neither does the NAB, the SCBA, the RAB, NABOB, etc.

There are many groups not a member of the Alliance with hundreds of HD stations, ranging from Univsion Radio to UnoRadio Corp, the first HD broadcaster in Puerto Rico.

- it is almost June, and that leaves an average of 100 stations a month converting over to HD. Still there are about 13,500 radio stations, so 1,300 represents only about 1/10th of stations broadcasting in HD

Those 1300 on air staitons and additional 500-600 licenced but not on ones represent nearly every single viable station in the top 100 markets. And just the top 50 markets alone have half the population of the US... the top hundred is nearly 70%. It's the large markets that will drive this, as that is where the retailers are who will sell themost receivers, too.

if the royalty rates are approved for HD Radio, you can bet that the number of stations converting to HD Radio will drastically slow down.

What royalty rates? The RIAA has proposed fees for terrestrial radio overall, not just for HD. And radio has long paid fees... to ASCAP, SESAC and BMI, so this is neither new nor a threat... especially since terrestrial radio fees are based right now on a percentage of income, not on "streams" and the fees would be proprtional to actual revenues... if and when such fees occur.
 
I love all the Google Trends crap. At this point in Google's development, it would have had a similar profile to HD Radio in Google Trends if it had been around then.

I was using infoseek back then. You probably were too if you had even discovered the internet.
 
wgilradio, I wasn't just comparing HD to the advent of radio. That would be silly. I was making the point that ALL new technology takes many years. There's literally no such thing as an "overnight success" in technology (possible exception: DVD). Note all the other technologies I included in the comparison...everything from color television to pocket calculators to pcs to microwave ovens. ALL took MANY years.

As I've had time to think about AM Stereo, you're right about all the cars with AM Stereo. But AM Stereo was NEVER on as many stations as HD is RIGHT NOW. Not only that, AM stereo stations continue TO THIS DAY. AM Stereo was a HUGE hit in countries where there was no "marketplace decision" (Japan, Brazil)...where the government did what it was supposed to...choose a standard. Even in the US, new AM Stereo radios are being made NOW, there are still hundreds of stations, and there are MILLIONS of receivers in the marketplace after more then two decades. It's the most successful "failure" that I can remember! MOST HD RADIOS RECEIVE C-QUAM AM STEREO! If, in terms of the number of receivers in the marketplace, HD was in the same position that AM Stereo is, IT WOULD BE CONSIDERED AN OVERNIGHT SUCCESS, rather than on the same slow, upward curve as every other new technology. My 2 cents worth on AM Stereo after reflecting on it for years. I was a HUGE AM Stereo fan. NOBODY has more AM Stereo radios than I do!
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom