how not to sale hd radio

[tankedsecondchance]

found this very interesting, this will surely help move some units


http://www.yakima-herald.com/page/dis/287940526904250

Johnson said that while digital radio offers higher quality sound than analog, he cautioned that the signal can be brittle and break off abruptly the farther a listener is from the transmitter. People in the Lower Valley may not receive as clear a signal on HD radios as those living in Yakima.

Even though the digital signal may not travel as far and listening requires buying a new radio, Johnson is still upbeat about the gains for Yakima.

"HD Radio may not be the perfect solution, but it gets NPR's News service into Yakima, and a lot of people have wanted that," he said.

 

[rbrucecarter5]

If all they want is talk - they could have used the SCA channel which is more than adequate for the job - and the signal would be much more robust in fringe areas. SCA adapters are MUCH cheaper than HD radios.

I submit that if they don't get the cost of HD receivers down to the $50 range (or $20 more than a conventional radio) - THIS YEAR - the whole technology is doomed.

 

[700WLW]

If all they want is talk - they could have used the SCA channel which is more than adequate for the job - and the signal would be much more robust in fringe areas. SCA adapters are MUCH cheaper than HD radios.

I submit that if they don't get the cost of HD receivers down to the $50 range (or $20 more than a conventional radio) - THIS YEAR - the whole technology is doomed.

Absolutely, but as Mark Ramsey pointed out, the price-point of HD radios is just a myth:

"HD Radio and the myth of price"

http://www.hear2.com/2006/05/hd_radio_and_th.html

As a matter of fact, the whole momentum myth of HD Radio, with the HD Radio Alliance bragging about the number of available units, is not going to sell a technology that is not in demand (the HD Radio Alliance never talks about the number of HD radios sold, for good reason):

"Exploding the momentum myth of HD radio"

http://www.hear2.com/2005/11/exploding_the_m.html

Here is the current interest in HD Radio, over the past two years:

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

With the $200,000,000 spent this year, by the HD Radio Alliance, one would expect an up-swing in 2006, but interest is now waining.

Now, let's put that graph into perspective - compared to other technologies, that up-swing is just a flat line, in comparison:

http://www.google.com/trends?q="hd+radio",+ipod,+mp3,+"cell+phone"&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all

On the actual graph, cell phones and HD Radio seem to be pretty close, until one examines the bar-graph, below - we can just imagine, the popularity of Ipods and MP3s.

 

[700WLW]

If all they want is talk - they could have used the SCA channel which is more than adequate for the job - and the signal would be much more robust in fringe areas. SCA adapters are MUCH cheaper than HD radios.

I submit that if they don't get the cost of HD receivers down to the $50 range (or $20 more than a conventional radio) - THIS YEAR - the whole technology is doomed.

Absolutely, but as Mark Ramsey pointed out, the price-point of HD radios is just a myth:

"HD Radio and the myth of price"

http://www.hear2.com/2006/05/hd_radio_and_th.html

As a matter of fact, the whole momentum myth of HD Radio, with the HD Radio Alliance bragging about the number of available units, is not going to sell a technology that is not in demand (the HD Radio Alliance never talks about the number of HD radios sold, for good reason):

"Exploding the momentum myth of HD radio"

http://www.hear2.com/2005/11/exploding_the_m.html

Here is the current interest in HD Radio, over the past two years:

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

With the $200,000,000 spent this year, by the HD Radio Alliance, one would expect an up-swing in 2006, but interest is now waining.

Now, let's put that graph into perspective - compared to other technologies, that up-swing is just a flat line, in comparison:

http://www.google.com/trends?q="hd+radio",+ipod,+mp3,+"cell+phone"&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all

On the actual graph, cell phones and HD Radio seem to be pretty close, until one examines the bar-graph, below - we can just imagine, the popularity of Ipods and MP3s.

And, we also know, that 73% of consumers are aware of HD Radio, at some level:

"In-Stat: Digital Radio Set to Take Off"

"In 2006, 73 percent of respondents to an In-Stat U.S. consumer survey were aware of HD Radio on some level. "

http://beradio.com/eyeoniboc/instat-digital-radio-set/

Even if, HD radios cost, as little as $25, I would not purchase a unit, because I see no benefit in the technology - besides, I only needed to spend $10, on the excellent Sony ICF-S10MK2 for AM DXing. Most analog AM/FM clock and walkman-type radios are in the $10 - $25 price range.

 

[rbrucecarter5]

HD vs. XM and Sirius

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

 

[rbrucecarter5]

HD radio against walkman

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

 

[rbrucecarter5]

Items under the tree at Christmas

HD radio against:

digital camera

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

ipod

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

xbox

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

DLP

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

laptop

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

mp3

http://www.google.com/trends?q="hd+radio",+"mp3"+&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all

portable dvd

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

abrecrombie

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

--- kitchen stuff

blender

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

dishes

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

even "termites" are more popular

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

 

[700WLW]

Glad, you are enjoying Google Trends - cool tool !

 

[rbrucecarter5]

Glad, you are enjoying Google Trends - cool tool !

Paricularly when termites are more popular than HD radios!

 

[MotoMuzak]

rbrucecarter5:
"If all they want is talk - they could have used the SCA channel which is more than adequate for the job - and the signal would be much more robust in fringe areas. "

Also, aside from a little low-power KPBX transmitter broadcasting Evergreen Radio Reading Service (on 67), a couple of data channels (Teletype, I gather) and an automated-voice channel with hourly agriculture commodity reports (all on 92kHz), Yakima doesn't really have much on SCA to offer currently. What better way to re-populate the band than that?

And it is true--SCA is more tolerant to errors and fringe listeners because it is all analogue. The sound quality isn't as high-fidelity as the host FM's main channel but it is certainly better than most of the narrowband AM talkers currently available, at least in the Portland area. (SCA IS well more than adequate for talk.....it was originally intended as a band for transmitting background music, after all..........)

"SCA adapters are MUCH cheaper than HD radios."
Yup, definately so. In fact you can even buy radios designed TO receive SCA for about $20--http://subcarrierusa.com/ has a little gem that got me started in SCA chasing. Far cheaper than an IBAC, and you can do quite a bit more with it.

Hey, if nothing else, better late than never............

 

[ElCheapo]

rbrucecarter5:
"If all they want is talk - they could have used the SCA channel which is more than adequate for the job - and the signal would be much more robust in fringe areas. "

Also, aside from a little low-power KPBX transmitter broadcasting Evergreen Radio Reading Service (on 67), a couple of data channels (Teletype, I gather) and an automated-voice channel with hourly agriculture commodity reports (all on 92kHz), Yakima doesn't really have much on SCA to offer currently. What better way to re-populate the band than that?

And it is true--SCA is more tolerant to errors and fringe listeners because it is all analogue. The sound quality isn't as high-fidelity as the host FM's main channel but it is certainly better than most of the narrowband AM talkers currently available, at least in the Portland area. (SCA IS well more than adequate for talk.....it was originally intended as a band for transmitting background music, after all..........)

"SCA adapters are MUCH cheaper than HD radios."
Yup, definately so. In fact you can even buy radios designed TO receive SCA for about $20--http://subcarrierusa.com/ has a little gem that got me started in SCA chasing. Far cheaper than an IBAC, and you can do quite a bit more with it.

Hey, if nothing else, better late than never............

You have to be kidding...

SCA tops out at around 5,000 Hz and most of the receivers are far from flat. Many sound just plain weird.

Somehow, I don't think a generation raised on CDs would accept that.

 

[SUPERCASTER]

rbrucecarter5:
"If all they want is talk - they could have used the SCA channel which is more than adequate for the job - and the signal would be much more robust in fringe areas. "

Also, aside from a little low-power KPBX transmitter broadcasting Evergreen Radio Reading Service (on 67), a couple of data channels (Teletype, I gather) and an automated-voice channel with hourly agriculture commodity reports (all on 92kHz), Yakima doesn't really have much on SCA to offer currently. What better way to re-populate the band than that?

And it is true--SCA is more tolerant to errors and fringe listeners because it is all analogue. The sound quality isn't as high-fidelity as the host FM's main channel but it is certainly better than most of the narrowband AM talkers currently available, at least in the Portland area. (SCA IS well more than adequate for talk.....it was originally intended as a band for transmitting background music, after all..........)

"SCA adapters are MUCH cheaper than HD radios."
Yup, definately so. In fact you can even buy radios designed TO receive SCA for about $20--http://subcarrierusa.com/ has a little gem that got me started in SCA chasing. Far cheaper than an IBAC, and you can do quite a bit more with it.

Hey, if nothing else, better late than never............

You have to be kidding...

SCA tops out at around 5,000 Hz and most of the receivers are far from flat. Many sound just plain weird.

Somehow, I don't think a generation raised on CDs would accept that.

But they would be satisfied with FMeXtra HD Radio (www.dreinc.com) that uses the same SCA space, can be stereo, and can have the same fidelity as iBiquity HD radio with greater coverage. It causes no interference, does not trespass on your neighbor's adjacent channel signal, and inexpensive radios will soon be on the way.

Interest in iBiquity HD radio is flatlined at close to zero, dead, as proven by the previous Google charts. As recently reported, 75% of the public is aware of HD radio, but almost no one is interested.

But they are interested in internet radio:
http://www.google.com/trends?q=%22hd+radio%22%2C+%22internet+radio%22+&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all

and podcasts:
http://www.google.com/trends?q=%22hd+radio%22%2C+%22podcast%22+&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all

 

[700WLW]

Glad, you are enjoying Google Trends - cool tool !

Paricularly when termites are more popular than HD radios!

I think, this one is most relevant to HD Radio:

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

Looks, like Minneapolis has a problem !

 

[MotoMuzak]

"Somehow, [Elcheapo doesn't] think a generation raised on CDs would accept [analogue SCA's sound quality.]"

Well, to some degree (mainly as a hobbyist) I have. But I am only one person.....don't know about the rest of my generation, except maybe some of the most 31337........

Supercaster:
"But they would be satisfied with FMeXtra HD Radio (www.dreinc.com) that uses the same SCA space, can be stereo, and can have the same fidelity as iBiquity HD radio with greater coverage. It causes no interference, does not trespass on your neighbor's adjacent channel signal, and inexpensive radios will soon be on the way."

I, personally, would also like to see a bit of development in FMX too........(not Freestyle Motocross--I already practically have that one nailed anyways *laughs* ;o).......I have seen "exciters" (actually computer terminals with SCA modulators) on the DRE web page a couplea weeks ago but I have yet to see any radio receivers set up to receive FMX! Hopefully this isn't doomed to be FM's equivalent to Kahn Stereo in the 80s.

Ergo if history is any indicator of the future, based on past FCC mistakes I can sort-of see in my crystal ball FCC mandating the interference-prone, fidelity-lacking Ibiquity system, in spite of the technically-superiour and reportedly higher-fidelity FMXtra. It likely might be just like Kahn vs. CQuam on the other band. And we all know how that one ended!

Digital Radio, specifically speaking Ibiquity IBAC, will probably happen but in the end who will really care? Look at SCA's deregulation in the 80s. It happened, but looking strictly from a consumer standpoint, who even knew? Who even knows? How many folks who walked into a Radio Shack store today (not those in the know, but rather average consumers) asked if they had FM rigs that could get SCA? Just a wild guess, but probably not too many. If an actual effort to promote SCA had been made earlier on we'd be seeing lots more radios with SCA demodulators. (Caveat: FM Stereo DOESN'T count, even though it too is a wideband SCA itself!)

What I say is, engineering problems aside (Ibiquity IBAC, as I can tell, is a technical mess regardless when audio broiadcasting is concerned) if the advertising's a mess, if not practically non-existant, who's even going to buy?

Hopefully this won't be the fate of FMX though.................

 

[hipporadio]

Even if, HD radios cost, as little as $25, I would not purchase a unit, because I see no benefit in the technology - besides, I only needed to spend $10, on the excellent Sony ICF-S10MK2 for AM DXing. Most analog AM/FM clock and walkman-type radios are in the $10 - $25 price range.

'700... I just returned from a nine-day business trip and my $13 Sony pocket radios from Amazon were waiting for me... THEY REALLY DO WORK! WOW!... A genuine value in these times... VERY REFRESHING... And now I finally own a real "pocket radio".

Nice find!

 

[SUPERCASTER]

Even if, HD radios cost, as little as $25, I would not purchase a unit, because I see no benefit in the technology - besides, I only needed to spend $10, on the excellent Sony ICF-S10MK2 for AM DXing. Most analog AM/FM clock and walkman-type radios are in the $10 - $25 price range.

'700... I just returned from a nine-day business trip and my $13 Sony pocket radios from Amazon were waiting for me... THEY REALLY DO WORK! WOW!... A genuine value in these times... VERY REFRESHING... And now I finally own a real "pocket radio".

Nice find!

I wonder how much the AM and FM HD signals interfere on these radios, and if they get c-quam and Kahn stereo AM. Most of the IC radio chips were designed that way. What a wonderful, reasonably priced promotional offering for AM stations this would be!

 

[700WLW]

Even if, HD radios cost, as little as $25, I would not purchase a unit, because I see no benefit in the technology - besides, I only needed to spend $10, on the excellent Sony ICF-S10MK2 for AM DXing. Most analog AM/FM clock and walkman-type radios are in the $10 - $25 price range.

'700... I just returned from a nine-day business trip and my $13 Sony pocket radios from Amazon were waiting for me... THEY REALLY DO WORK! WOW!... A genuine value in these times... VERY REFRESHING... And now I finally own a real "pocket radio".

Nice find!

Hey Hippo - welcome back ! I was wondering, what happened to you. I am glad, that you are happy with the Sony - the best darn $10 ever spent ! You are welcome !

 

[rbrucecarter5]

SCA tops out at around 5,000 Hz and most of the receivers are far from flat. Many sound just plain weird.

Somehow, I don't think a generation raised on CDs would accept that.

But - that is EXACTLY what AM stations are doing today - for a few dozen to a few hundred listeners that are early adopters of HD, they are forcing the rest of their listeners to accept audio quality little better than a phone line:

I am sure Radio Disney's business model is valid - all those kids are going to go out and buy HD radios ---. All I hear from the kids now (they know I am an engineer) kids as young as 5 or 6, are questions - "why does Radio Disney sound so bad? It used to sound good". Some even notice the self-jamming. "Why does it have wierd whistling?" The answer is too technical, so I just tell them that they are playing with digital, and digital has static and whistling. A cheap one ceramic filter (wide as a barn door), and a 1 1/2 inch speaker that is a terifically good tweeter for digital hash above 10 kHz that is still amplitude modulated, coupled with a poor sliderule tuning system making it impossible to be exactly on frequency brings in the phase modulated sidebands from 5 to 10 kHz as amplitude modulated. That is the real explanation. And the AM listening experience on the $5 radios the vast majority Radio Disney listeners use.

And I have heard local standards station KAAM's corporate line "most of our listeners have Bose Wave radios" / 1.7 kHz audio bandwidth and as sensitive as a deaf ear. So - why in the name of sanity would they even care about FM quality AM sound if all they are interested in hearing is 1.7 kHz?

I've been around a Bose fanatic in Houston. After they paid ten times too much for a radio, it was intense fanaticism. I did some research for an e-friend about KAAM reception in Houston. I had my GE Superradio, and a small loop. KAAM is not too bad in the NW part of town. My host insisted that their Bose would do the job better than my "cheap" radio. After they put a 770 on their Bose, and nothing happened, they just said it was in a bad part of the house for reception. When I put the GE next to it, and KAAM came out fairly well, they started getting ANGRY - at ME - because my radio was making their radio look bad. That was back when I could get Radio Shack loops. I gave them a Radio Shack loop and left soon thereafter. They still insist its their radio, and not the Radio Shack loop, that makes their Bose get KAAM. And - back on subject - I doubt the decrease in audio quality on KAAM is noticable on their Bose, because it was already chopped off at 1.7 kHz. And that means a Bose will not self jam on IBOC.

WHAT a travesty! For Kahn fanatics - this makes C-Quam look good. And with that level of education and expertise among listeners, I doubt you can sell them on HD because they won't hear the improvement in the audio quality. Most radio listening is in the car anyway, and you aren't going to hear a decrease in the noise floor, because the dominant source of noise is road noise. Noise sums by the root sum square law.

 

[hipporadio]

SCA tops out at around 5,000 Hz and most of the receivers are far from flat. Many sound just plain weird. Somehow, I don't think a generation raised on CDs would accept that.

But - that is EXACTLY what AM stations are doing today - for a few dozen to a few hundred listeners that are early adopters of HD, they are forcing the rest of their listeners to accept audio quality little better than a phone line:

I’ve read A lot of posts here—I’m most impressed with those from Tom Wells, SUPERCASTER,and RCB-5 here... And I appreciate the contributions of ‘700 here. "El Cheapo's" are motivated by “corporate influence” and should be dismissed for their premeditated position. He claims to be “an engineer”, but offers LITTLE based on acceptable acumen. BTW... He also claims to be a “programmer”... I’m blind [sorry] to reconcile those two disciplines... I feel he is simply a “corporate recipient” cashing a paycheck and should be summarily dismissed!

I am sure Radio Disney's business model is valid - all those kids are going to go out and buy HD radios ---. All I hear from the kids now (they know I am an engineer) kids as young as 5 or 6, are questions - "why does Radio Disney sound so bad? It used to sound good". Some even notice the self-jamming. "Why does it have wierd whistling?" The answer is too technical, so I just tell them that they are playing with digital, and digital has static and whistling. A cheap one ceramic filter (wide as a barn door), and a 1 1/2 inch speaker that is a terifically good tweeter for digital hash above 10 kHz that is still amplitude modulated, coupled with a poor sliderule tuning system making it impossible to be exactly on frequency brings in the phase modulated sidebands from 5 to 10 kHz as amplitude modulated. That is the real explanation. And the AM listening experience on the $5 radios the vast majority Radio Disney listeners use.

VERY WELL PUT, RC... Today I flew into Indianapolis (my 75-yo father is undergoing heart surgery—please pray for his recovery—THANKS). I packed my Tivoli “Henry Kloss” Model One “table radio”. Upon setup in my hometown of Connersville, IN, I tuned the local Oldies station (WIFE 1580-AM) www.superoldies1580am and was “blown away” with the awesome AM quality of this small 250-watt station. PLENTY of credible “highs” and a TOTAL LACK of demodulated distortion... It is very nearly an “FM station”—enjoyable in every respect. I need to harken back to the legendary Jim Lupas 1967 “Super-‘CFL Chicago” audio as a fair comparison.

The local owner recently sold off Indiana’s third-oldest FM frequency to be used as a demure Class A to join the 2-share stable at Radio One-Cincinnati for 18-mil (courtesy of those Gorillas running the zoo at the FCC)... To his “humane” credit, Dave Rogers COMPLETELY REBUILT the remaining AM station and put on a VERY GOOD “hometown” Oldies format under the direction of Bob Wills on the air with a modern Harris digitally-modulated transmitter. The resulting audio quality is nothing short of AWESOME! The station isn’t half-bad either—Bob does an exceptional job with his remaining resources—I’d invite you older “WarHorses” to listen on the net... My 50-something soul LOVES IT—and would happily reward advertisers MANY times over! I wish many of you here could listen to this station’s over-the-air transmitted audio—it would change many perceptions of “AM quality”—this station presents nearly FM quality on a decent analog-tuned AM receiver!

So AM finally “arrived” only to be amputated by IBOC—I’m scratching my head dangerously!

I would get REALLY MAD if this station were to have to endure IBOC adjacent-channel HASH from a neighbor while it was making an attempt to serve its community of 16k. “The public interest” in Connersville, Indiana DESERVES MORE that that... This IS NOT a “DX hobby” issue—SORRY EC! Even within this station’s FIVE-WATT nighttime contour—they provide exceptional service! It amounts to “scraps” left to them as a result of the Texas Boys running the FCC!

...1.7 kHz audio bandwidth and as sensitive as a deaf ear. So - why in the name of sanity would they even care about FM quality AM sound if all they are interested in hearing is 1.7 kHz?

That’s the “scrap” Mr. Walker wishes to toss the AM industry courtesy of the 2kHz “software” in his prized Radio Shack Accurian HD Radio. In reality—that’s NOTHING more than “honk factor”... It’s NOT an AM option—TWO bad channels of audio (instead of one)—SAD and PATHETIC! The current “state-of-the-art” deserves WAY MORE!

I've been around a Bose fanatic in Houston. After they paid ten times too much for a radio, it was intense fanaticism. I did some research for an e-friend about KAAM reception in Houston. I had my GE Superradio, and a small loop. KAAM is not too bad in the NW part of town. My host insisted that their Bose would do the job better than my "cheap" radio. After they put a 770 on their Bose, and nothing happened, they just said it was in a bad part of the house for reception. When I put the GE next to it, and KAAM came out fairly well, they started getting ANGRY - at ME - because my radio was making their radio look bad. That was back when I could get Radio Shack loops. I gave them a Radio Shack loop and left soon thereafter. They still insist its their radio, and not the Radio Shack loop, that makes their Bose get KAAM. And - back on subject - I doubt the decrease in audio quality on KAAM is noticable on their Bose, because it was already chopped off at 1.7 kHz. And that means a Bose will not self jam on IBOC.

Sad that the public actually “bought into” those pathetic radios... Try the $120 Tivoli “Henry Kloss” Model One table radio... Or $160 Sangean WR-2 with its “hi-fi” presentation... BETTER AUDIO (even with your iPod plugged in)... BETTER AM and FM reception... And very good demodulated AM quality (but it does require an external “loop” for out-of-town stations)

SCA tops out at around 5,000 Hz and most of the receivers are far from flat. Many sound just plain weird.

Somehow, I don't think a generation raised on CDs would accept that.

But - that is EXACTLY what AM stations are doing today - for a few dozen to a few hundred listeners that are early adopters of HD, they are forcing the rest of their listeners to accept audio quality little better than a phone line:

You are ONE-HUNDRED PERCENT CORRECT... Don’t let corporately-mesmerized El Cheapo affect your well-based value judgments on this “basic”!

ANYONE can post here... ‘Just have the aptitude to figure out their “modus”... It may surprise (and disgust) you!

 

[hipporadio]

SORRY... I messed up the 1580 WIFE radio link... It is www.superoldies1580.com

You "seasoned" radio pros will enjoy!