High-definition radio in New Mexico?

[JM_pstar]

Hi everyone,

I've been looking into high-definition/digital radio recently. For those who might not be familiar with it, iBiquity explains it at www.HD-radio.com

I see that only eight radio stations have been licensed to carry a high-definition signal so far in New Mexico, but only five are broadcasting the signal right now. The stations that are already on the air with a high-definition signal are denoted with an asterisk next to them.

KANW 89.1 FM Albuquerque
KBQI 107.9 FM Albuquerque *
KPEK 100.3 FM Albuqueruqe *
KSYU 95.1 FM Albuquerque *
KTEG 104.7 FM Albuquerque*
KUNM 89.9 FM Albuquerque
KZRR 94.1 FM Albuquerque*
KGLP 91.7 FM Gallup

So it looks like Clear Channel and public radio are already preparing to or have already launched high-definition signals. Any word on other companies that plan to do so, like Citadel, AGM, or Univision?

I'm excited for digital radio...if it does what it promises. I'm all for clearer signals (Yes! Hopefully, that would let Taos get more of the Albuquerque stations' signals!), higher-quality sound, and multicasting. I just wonder how much the high-definition signal would expand a station's coverage area.

How long do you believe it will take for high-definition radio to take hold in New Mexico, if it does?

-JM

 

[KTMCDO]

> Hi everyone,
>
> I've been looking into high-definition/digital radio
> recently. For those who might not be familiar with it,
> iBiquity explains it at www.HD-radio.com
>
> I see that only eight radio stations have been licensed to
> carry a high-definition signal so far in New Mexico, but
> only five are broadcasting the signal right now. The
> stations that are already on the air with a high-definition
> signal are denoted with an asterisk next to them.
>
> KANW 89.1 FM Albuquerque
> KBQI 107.9 FM Albuquerque *
> KPEK 100.3 FM Albuqueruqe *
> KSYU 95.1 FM Albuquerque *
> KTEG 104.7 FM Albuquerque*
> KUNM 89.9 FM Albuquerque
> KZRR 94.1 FM Albuquerque*
> KGLP 91.7 FM Gallup
>
> So it looks like Clear Channel and public radio are already
> preparing to or have already launched high-definition
> signals. Any word on other companies that plan to do so,
> like Citadel, AGM, or Univision?
>
> I'm excited for digital radio...if it does what it promises.
> I'm all for clearer signals (Yes! Hopefully, that would
> let Taos get more of the Albuquerque stations' signals!),
> higher-quality sound, and multicasting. I just wonder how
> much the high-definition signal would expand a station's
> coverage area.
>
> How long do you believe it will take for high-definition
> radio to take hold in New Mexico, if it does?
>
> -JM
> not sure how long it will take for all of the stations to
broadcast in HD,the only problem i see for this is the
fact that the customer will have to purchase a hd headunit for the car
and currently they are well north of $500 i will stick with satellite radio

 

[Kent]

> not sure how long it will take for all of the stations to
> broadcast in HD,the only problem i see for this is the
> fact that the customer will have to purchase a hd headunit
> for the car
> and currently they are well north of $500 i will stick with
> satellite radio

Actually, if you know where to get one, you can get an HD radio for about half to 60% of that price. The GM of my local NPR station says he could get me, or anyone else in my area who wants one, an HD receiver in the $250-300 range. That's still more than I want to spend on a radio, but it's significantly down from where it was last year, and it will continue to go down as HD radios make their way through the product lifecycle. The biggest problem I've noticed with HD radio is simply its availability. I went to a Best Buy not too long ago and asked about HD radios. The people working there swore up and down that there was no such thing and thought I either meant HDTV or satellite radio.

 

[w9wi]

> I'm excited for digital radio...if it does what it promises.
> I'm all for clearer signals (Yes! Hopefully, that would
> let Taos get more of the Albuquerque stations' signals!),
> higher-quality sound, and multicasting. I just wonder how
> much the high-definition signal would expand a station's
> coverage area.

None at all. HD Radio is essentially designed to maintain stations' existing coverage areas.

In fact, it could let Taos get *less* of the Albuquerque stations' signals, depending on the selectivity of your radio. The HD Radio signal is carried in the *adjacent* frequencies to the station's analog signal - for example, if KTAO 101.7 were to go HD their HD signal would be on 101.5 and 101.9. If your radio can't separate adjacents either, then you could suffer severe interference on 101.3 and 102.1 as well. (most car radios will be OK - I have a local HD station on 102.5 whose HD doesn't clobber their own translator on 102.1. On cheaper radios it's another story.)

On AM, it gets REALLY scary. *Two* adjacent frequencies are used. Many HD proponents seem to believe the FCC should simply stop protecting the skywave coverage of AM stations from HD interference. If that were to happen and HD were to be widely deployed on AM, in Taos you would probably receive **NO** AM service at night. NONE.

> How long do you believe it will take for high-definition
> radio to take hold in New Mexico, if it does?

Radios are going to have to get a LOT cheaper and easier to find first. For what you pay for a HD radio, you can buy a Sirius or XM and two years of service. The satellite set will get you a few hundred more channels, and it will work almost everywhere you go. (unlike the HD radio which will revert to analog if you get more than 50 miles -- if that -- from the towers)

 

[JM_pstar]

> > I'm excited for digital radio...if it does what it
> promises.
> > I'm all for clearer signals (Yes! Hopefully, that would
> > let Taos get more of the Albuquerque stations' signals!),
> > higher-quality sound, and multicasting. I just wonder how
> > much the high-definition signal would expand a station's
> > coverage area.
>
> None at all. HD Radio is essentially designed to maintain
> stations' existing coverage areas.
>
> In fact, it could let Taos get *less* of the Albuquerque
> stations' signals, depending on the selectivity of your
> radio. The HD Radio signal is carried in the *adjacent*
> frequencies to the station's analog signal - for example, if
> KTAO 101.7 were to go HD their HD signal would be on 101.5
> and 101.9. If your radio can't separate adjacents either,
> then you could suffer severe interference on 101.3 and 102.1
> as well. (most car radios will be OK - I have a local HD
> station on 102.5 whose HD doesn't clobber their own
> translator on 102.1. On cheaper radios it's another story.)
>
>
> On AM, it gets REALLY scary. *Two* adjacent frequencies are
> used. Many HD proponents seem to believe the FCC should
> simply stop protecting the skywave coverage of AM stations
> from HD interference. If that were to happen and HD were to
> be widely deployed on AM, in Taos you would probably receive
> **NO** AM service at night. NONE.
>
> > How long do you believe it will take for high-definition
> > radio to take hold in New Mexico, if it does?
>
> Radios are going to have to get a LOT cheaper and easier to
> find first. For what you pay for a HD radio, you can buy a
> Sirius or XM and two years of service. The satellite set
> will get you a few hundred more channels, and it will work
> almost everywhere you go. (unlike the HD radio which will
> revert to analog if you get more than 50 miles -- if that --
> from the towers)

Wow...that is HORRIBLE. I suddenly find myself not as enthusiastic about HD radio. This is bad for areas that already have trouble with reception, like Taos. Is there any chance that they'll be able to fix those problems as time goes on?

 

[Kent]

> Wow...that is HORRIBLE. I suddenly find myself not as
> enthusiastic about HD radio. This is bad for areas that
> already have trouble with reception, like Taos.

No need to be so dramatic, my friend. Stop at Eske's, have a good beer and relax! I don't buy the doom and gloom scenario with IBOC digital, though I also don't buy the hype the industry puts out on HD Radio. For example, you would probably get fewer total stations in Taos, but your existing signals could put out more programming on their subchannels. Clear Channel engineers say you can get 8 stations on a single digital signal, though I'm sure some of them have to be voice instead of music. Also, you have significantly fewer problems with digital radio when you're using a digital receiver. So, the situation with HD radio may not be optimum, but it could also be a lot worse.

> Is there
> any chance that they'll be able to fix those problems as
> time goes on?

Of course there is. Digital radio is a work in progress. It's come a long way in the last 10 years, but it still has a-ways to go. The system Europe and Canada is using, Eureka 147, works better than IBOC digital from a technical standpoint, but it has other problems of its own. For example, Eureka 147 is not very compatible with the AM and FM bands (though it could technically be used there, it doesn't work well) and requires migration to a completely different band. So far, it's not selling. It also uses higher frequencies. So, it can have coverage issues (the higher the frequency, the more power you need to get the same coverage). This is more of a problem in France and Canada, where they use the L-band (1452-1492 mHz), than in the part of Europe that uses Band III (174-240 mHz). Last I heard, the digital stations in Toronto need five transmitters and still don't cover the entire city. That just wouldn't work in the United States when you consider the large, sparsely populated areas that have enough trouble just getting AM and FM sticks (parts of Quay and Guadalupe Counties come to mind as examples).

 

[w9wi]

> No need to be so dramatic, my friend. Stop at Eske's, have
> a good beer and relax! I don't buy the doom and gloom
> scenario with IBOC digital, though I also don't buy the hype
> the industry puts out on HD Radio. For example, you would
> probably get fewer total stations in Taos, but your existing
> signals could put out more programming on their subchannels.
> Clear Channel engineers say you can get 8 stations on a
> single digital signal, though I'm sure some of them have to
> be voice instead of music. Also, you have significantly
> fewer problems with digital radio when you're using a
> digital receiver. So, the situation with HD radio may not
> be optimum, but it could also be a lot worse.

8 stations on a signal? I'm sure not hearing any figures anywhere near that. The most I'm hearing is four. Maybe they can do eight in all-digital mode when the analog signal is gone?

> > Is there
> > any chance that they'll be able to fix those problems as
> > time goes on?
>
> Of course there is. Digital radio is a work in progress.

If the industry can switch to full-digital mode then the coverage issue may clear up; you can increase power on the carriers within the existing channel, and of course that means better coverage. Potentially, at that point you could eliminate the carriers in the adjacent channels altogether (because you could carry the same data in the area previously occupied by the analog) and that would clear up the adjacent-channel interference problem as well. I wouldn't hold my breath for that, as it would require giving up the opportunity to add more subchannels.

The problem is in the transition. Will terrestrial radio survive the transition to see the day when all-digital mode is possible?

> a-ways to go. The system Europe and Canada is using, Eureka
> 147, works better than IBOC digital from a technical
> standpoint, but it has other problems of its own. For
> example, Eureka 147 is not very compatible with the AM and
> FM bands (though it could technically be used there, it
> doesn't work well) and requires migration to a completely
> different band. So far, it's not selling. It also uses
> higher frequencies. So, it can have coverage issues (the
> higher the frequency, the more power you need to get the
> same coverage). This is more of a problem in France and
> Canada, where they use the L-band (1452-1492 mHz), than in
> the part of Europe that uses Band III (174-240 mHz). Last I
> heard, the digital stations in Toronto need five
> transmitters and still don't cover the entire city. That
> just wouldn't work in the United States when you consider
> the large, sparsely populated areas that have enough trouble
> just getting AM and FM sticks (parts of Quay and Guadalupe
> Counties come to mind as examples).

Yes, as I understand it Poland experimented with Eureka in the existing FM band & found it didn't coexist with analog very well. (it'd work fine in 88-108 if there weren't any analog stations there! Eureka doesn't work in AM at all. They have a different scheme for AM, called "DRM". It's not an on-channel scheme -- you have to transmit DRM on a different frequency from analog -- and it's indeed not seeing a whole lot of adoption.)

As I understand it, Eureka is doing well in Britain, not so much so anywhere else. Portable receivers are widely available in the UK and under US$200.

*Because* Eureka operates in a different frequency band... it doesn't interfere with existing service.

I would be pretty confident that IBOC interference has already sold a few Sirius and XM radios. If widely deployed it could be the best thing that ever happened to the satellite companies...

 

[Kent]

> 8 stations on a signal? I'm sure not hearing any figures
> anywhere near that. The most I'm hearing is four. Maybe
> they can do eight in all-digital mode when the analog signal
> is gone?

I'm not sure what the stipulations were behind 8 stations on a signal. I find it a little hard to believe, too, but that's what I was told.

> If the industry can switch to full-digital mode then the
> coverage issue may clear up; you can increase power on the
> carriers within the existing channel, and of course that
> means better coverage. Potentially, at that point you could
> eliminate the carriers in the adjacent channels altogether
> (because you could carry the same data in the area
> previously occupied by the analog) and that would clear up
> the adjacent-channel interference problem as well. I
> wouldn't hold my breath for that, as it would require giving
> up the opportunity to add more subchannels.

I agree that we'll probably see less problems once we get to full-digital, though I'm not sure we'll see that point anytime soon. You're also correct that we probably won't see operators want to give up additional subchannels. Keep in mind that the technology itself will likely improve in the coming years.

> Yes, as I understand it Poland experimented with Eureka in
> the existing FM band & found it didn't coexist with analog
> very well. (it'd work fine in 88-108 if there weren't any
> analog stations there! Eureka doesn't work in AM at all.
> They have a different scheme for AM, called "DRM". It's not
> an on-channel scheme -- you have to transmit DRM on a
> different frequency from analog -- and it's indeed not
> seeing a whole lot of adoption.)

I didn't quite phrase that correctly when I mentioned Eureka on AM and FM. I was referring to FM only. It won't work on anything below 30 mHz (and AM is basically 1 mH). I hadn't heard of DRM, though. So, it probably hasn't been widely adopted.

> I would be pretty confident that IBOC interference has
> already sold a few Sirius and XM radios. If widely deployed
> it could be the best thing that ever happened to the
> satellite companies...

I wouldn't think it has sold many satellite radios, though it might have sold a handful. You'd really run into much the same problem with satellite radio and IBOC interference as you would terrestrial radio. Unless you're a hi-tech wonder who decided to completely get rid of terrestrial radio or you have an older car with a tape deck, you're going to have to find an available FM frequency so you can transmit your satellite radio. Although I have satellite, I've never had even a thought of getting rid of radio from my car because I know where I need to go in case of an emergency.

 

[w9wi]

> I agree that we'll probably see less problems once we get to
> full-digital, though I'm not sure we'll see that point
> anytime soon.

I'm not sure IBOC will last long enough for it to transition to full-digital.

> You're also correct that we probably won't
> see operators want to give up additional subchannels. Keep
> in mind that the technology itself will likely improve in
> the coming years.

I think the sensitivity and interference rejection of IBOC receivers will improve over time. The interference rejection of existing analog receivers of course won't change. So unless they can find a way to make IBOC work while confining the digital carriers to the existing channel, the interference issues aren't going to go away.

(I think that could be done in all-digital mode - but of course there's no way to get there without surrendering your existing audience! Or by going to a very narrow bandwidth mode that would be so low-fi nobody would bother listening.)

> I didn't quite phrase that correctly when I mentioned Eureka
> on AM and FM. I was referring to FM only. It won't work on
> anything below 30 mHz (and AM is basically 1 mH). I hadn't
> heard of DRM, though. So, it probably hasn't been widely
> adopted.

It's my impression (not necessarily valid) that DRM was developed primarily for shortwave broadcasters. Many major SW broadcasters are experimenting with it but none for more than a few hours a week. And there are serious interference complaints there too, as it seems to share IBOC's inability to fit within a single channel.

> You'd really run into much
> the same problem with satellite radio and IBOC interference
> as you would terrestrial radio. Unless you're a hi-tech
> wonder who decided to completely get rid of terrestrial
> radio or you have an older car with a tape deck, you're
> going to have to find an available FM frequency so you can
> transmit your satellite radio.

(I wrote up three replies to that - then deleted them - before the little light bulb came on & I got your point!)

Still, at least judging from the advertising it's still a lot easier to find a car with factory-installed XM or Sirius -- or to find a professional installer who'll put it in -- than it is to find one with IBOC. I understand it *is* now possible to get factory-installed IBOC, but I've yet to see an ad for it.

> Although I have satellite,
> I've never had even a thought of getting rid of radio from
> my car because I know where I need to go in case of an
> emergency.

I don't think much of anyone would go out of their way to remove terrestrial radio altogether.

On the other hand, one wonders how much good it'd do for a listener in, say, Las Vegas who finds he can't get any of the stations carrying emergency information due to interference from other stations' digital sidebands...

 

[k9ez]

> > No need to be so dramatic, my friend. Stop at Eske's,
> have
> > a good beer and relax! I don't buy the doom and gloom
> > scenario with IBOC digital, though I also don't buy the
> hype
> > the industry puts out on HD Radio. For example, you would
>
> > probably get fewer total stations in Taos, but your
> existing
> > signals could put out more programming on their
> subchannels.
> > Clear Channel engineers say you can get 8 stations on a
> > single digital signal, though I'm sure some of them have
> to
> > be voice instead of music. Also, you have significantly
> > fewer problems with digital radio when you're using a
> > digital receiver. So, the situation with HD radio may not
>
> > be optimum, but it could also be a lot worse.
>
> 8 stations on a signal? I'm sure not hearing any figures
> anywhere near that. The most I'm hearing is four. Maybe
> they can do eight in all-digital mode when the analog signal
> is gone?
>

Yes that is the plan... when and IF the analog signals go away. But there is no plan as of now to sunset the analog signals. Presently I am hearing 3. With HD3 being of AM quality.


> > > Is there
> > > any chance that they'll be able to fix those problems as
>
> > > time goes on?
> >
> > Of course there is. Digital radio is a work in progress.
>
>
> If the industry can switch to full-digital mode then the
> coverage issue may clear up; you can increase power on the
> carriers within the existing channel, and of course that
> means better coverage. Potentially, at that point you could
> eliminate the carriers in the adjacent channels altogether
> (because you could carry the same data in the area
> previously occupied by the analog) and that would clear up
> the adjacent-channel interference problem as well. I
> wouldn't hold my breath for that, as it would require giving
> up the opportunity to add more subchannels.
>
> The problem is in the transition. Will terrestrial radio
> survive the transition to see the day when all-digital mode
> is possible?
>
> > a-ways to go. The system Europe and Canada is using,
> Eureka
> > 147, works better than IBOC digital from a technical
> > standpoint, but it has other problems of its own. For
> > example, Eureka 147 is not very compatible with the AM and
>
> > FM bands (though it could technically be used there, it
> > doesn't work well) and requires migration to a completely
> > different band. So far, it's not selling. It also uses
> > higher frequencies. So, it can have coverage issues (the
> > higher the frequency, the more power you need to get the
> > same coverage). This is more of a problem in France and
> > Canada, where they use the L-band (1452-1492 mHz), than in
>
> > the part of Europe that uses Band III (174-240 mHz). Last
> I
> > heard, the digital stations in Toronto need five
> > transmitters and still don't cover the entire city. That
> > just wouldn't work in the United States when you consider
> > the large, sparsely populated areas that have enough
> trouble
> > just getting AM and FM sticks (parts of Quay and Guadalupe
>
> > Counties come to mind as examples).
>
> Yes, as I understand it Poland experimented with Eureka in
> the existing FM band & found it didn't coexist with analog
> very well. (it'd work fine in 88-108 if there weren't any
> analog stations there! Eureka doesn't work in AM at all.
> They have a different scheme for AM, called "DRM". It's not
> an on-channel scheme -- you have to transmit DRM on a
> different frequency from analog -- and it's indeed not
> seeing a whole lot of adoption.)
>
> As I understand it, Eureka is doing well in Britain, not so
> much so anywhere else. Portable receivers are widely
> available in the UK and under US$200.
>
> *Because* Eureka operates in a different frequency band...
> it doesn't interfere with existing service.
>
> I would be pretty confident that IBOC interference has
> already sold a few Sirius and XM radios. If widely deployed
> it could be the best thing that ever happened to the
> satellite companies...
>

 

[k9ez]

> > not sure how long it will take for all of the stations to
>
> > broadcast in HD,the only problem i see for this is the
> > fact that the customer will have to purchase a hd headunit
>
> > for the car
> > and currently they are well north of $500 i will stick
> with
> > satellite radio
>
> Actually, if you know where to get one, you can get an HD
> radio for about half to 60% of that price. The GM of my
> local NPR station says he could get me, or anyone else in my
> area who wants one, an HD receiver in the $250-300 range.
> That's still more than I want to spend on a radio, but it's
> significantly down from where it was last year, and it will
> continue to go down as HD radios make their way through the
> product lifecycle. The biggest problem I've noticed with HD
> radio is simply its availability. I went to a Best Buy not
> too long ago and asked about HD radios. The people working
> there swore up and down that there was no such thing and
> thought I either meant HDTV or satellite radio.
>

I just picked up a brand new HD Radio receiver for $70 on EBay.

 

[JM_pstar]

> > Wow...that is HORRIBLE. I suddenly find myself not as
> > enthusiastic about HD radio. This is bad for areas that
> > already have trouble with reception, like Taos.
>
> No need to be so dramatic, my friend. Stop at Eske's, have
> a good beer and relax! I don't buy the doom and gloom
> scenario with IBOC digital, though I also don't buy the hype
> the industry puts out on HD Radio. For example, you would
> probably get fewer total stations in Taos, but your existing
> signals could put out more programming on their subchannels.
> Clear Channel engineers say you can get 8 stations on a
> single digital signal, though I'm sure some of them have to
> be voice instead of music. Also, you have significantly
> fewer problems with digital radio when you're using a
> digital receiver. So, the situation with HD radio may not
> be optimum, but it could also be a lot worse.
>
> > Is there
> > any chance that they'll be able to fix those problems as
> > time goes on?
>
> Of course there is. Digital radio is a work in progress.
> It's come a long way in the last 10 years, but it still has
> a-ways to go. The system Europe and Canada is using, Eureka
> 147, works better than IBOC digital from a technical
> standpoint, but it has other problems of its own. For
> example, Eureka 147 is not very compatible with the AM and
> FM bands (though it could technically be used there, it
> doesn't work well) and requires migration to a completely
> different band. So far, it's not selling. It also uses
> higher frequencies. So, it can have coverage issues (the
> higher the frequency, the more power you need to get the
> same coverage). This is more of a problem in France and
> Canada, where they use the L-band (1452-1492 mHz), than in
> the part of Europe that uses Band III (174-240 mHz). Last I
> heard, the digital stations in Toronto need five
> transmitters and still don't cover the entire city. That
> just wouldn't work in the United States when you consider
> the large, sparsely populated areas that have enough trouble
> just getting AM and FM sticks (parts of Quay and Guadalupe
> Counties come to mind as examples).

Thanks for the reassurance. That helps a lot.