I Finally Got to Hear HD Radio

[Rocco]

In a side-by-side comparison, I gotta be honest with you: I can't tell the difference between the digital and the analog.

 

[JasonW]

In a side-by-side comparison, I gotta be honest with you: I can't tell the difference between the digital and the analog.

Was it AM HD or FM HD? -- Jason

 

[Rocco]

FM

 

[JasonW]

FM

I'm not surprised. The audio quality difference between HD FM and analog FM isn't very noticeable.

HD AM is a different story--it can sound quite good or lousy, depending on the audio chain, filtering, and the tower's ability to pass the bandwidth of the hybrid digital/analog signal. -- Jason

 

[SirRoxalot]

FM HD

I'd be thrilled if FM HD is as good as the quality of a decent-sounding analog FM. Considering that you're using a lot less bandwidth, a high-bitrate stream with no noticeable digital artifacts would be outstanding. The only read advantage I can see with FM HD is that you'd be able to run multiple streams instead of a single signal. I'm still interested in whether distance is improved or reduced by switching to digital.

Now, if only there were affordable HD receivers available...

 

[Rocco]

I've only heard (not experienced it myself) that the digital signal travels only about 1/3 as far as the analog signal in terms of useful signal quality. I've thought about what I actually heard myself and what I was told by someone else and have come to the following conclusion: When one gets far enough from the transmitting tower where the analog signal is noisy and the digital signal would be a definite plus, the digital signal isn't even there.

I do agree that the extra channels would be the only real benefit.

 

[jcolletta275]

I can tell you right now that the digital signal doesn't travel anywhere near as far as the analogue. Detroit stations right now are having a terrible time trying to push their digital sub-channels because even the inner suburbs are having problems receiving them.

 

[Rocco]

Since your post, I've heard similar stories from techs in other markets. :'(

 

[dougw9wi]

I've only heard (not experienced it myself) that the digital signal travels only about 1/3 as far as the analog signal in terms of useful signal quality. I've thought about what I actually heard myself and what I was told by someone else and have come to the following conclusion: When one gets far enough from the transmitting tower where the analog signal is noisy and the digital signal would be a definite plus, the digital signal isn't even there.

That would be my experience. If the HD signal is strong enough to decode, the analog signal is strong enough to be noise-free. That goes for AM too, even more so than for FM.

I suspect HD would work a LOT better in full-digital mode. I just don't see how we're going to get there!

 

[SayNoToIBOC]

Don't get me started on HD/IBOC - it is going to make a mess of the AM/FM bands. As an AM DX'er, I am hoping the FCC will never approve it for nighttime. Here is a quick summary of the problems with HD/IBOC on the AM band:

http://www.wbdhradio.com/html/say_no_to_iboc.html

For some unbelievable reason it is approved for nighttime, I will have to DX into Canada (they are smart, and have no plans to go digital) to get talk radio, and that's assuming, adjacent-channel interference from US stations don't wipe out the signals (Canada has already filed a formal protest with the FCC).

 

[HD_Ready]

Here in the Boston area the FM digital signal travels about 40 miles, useful analog about 50. The HD-2s are pretty robust inside 40 miles as well. Some sound spectacular, some need help.

There is one AM HD powerhouse, WBZ which its digital signal is everywhere I go and sounds great!

 

[Rocco]

It's too bad that HD Radio seems to have so many reported issues related to its performance, but I've long felt that the quickest way to an industry turnaround is simply to focus more on streaming and podcasting to provide a digital presence. It looks like someone else agrees at least in principle:

===================================================

Emmis Interactive’s Ray Mena says radio can’t “bury our head in the sand” and wait for HD.

He says HD Radio has promising new applications but that radio “can’t wait for that to happen” to open up to new media and changing consumer habits.

 

[Rocco]

One group of small stations in the SE part of the US is not going to adopt HD-Radio because they are afraid of the costs involved in trying to serve only about 1/2 of their listening area (the digital signal goes only about half as far as their existing analog one). They are also afraid that disappointed consumers will attach their poor HD-Radio experience to their famous-in-the-market call letters and blame their old favorite station for their bad experience which could drive them to look further to the many more choices on the Internet or on satellite radio.

Why can't we do this right? Why can't terrestrial broadcasters take a part of the soon-to-be vacant VHF TV frequencies and have a digitial-only band, similar to what the industry did with a separate FM band many years ago? Separate band, higher power, greater signal coverage, maybe even a greater of choices instead of the 5-20 or so, depending on the number of stations.

 

[thebroker]

I know one thing for certain...I'm sure not going to spend the money to switch my stations to IBOC. Why should I? Both my stations are AMs, and they are by far the leaders in our community. To me, IBOC is the solution to a problem we simply do NOT have. My audience isn't being fragmented by iPod or HDTV or any of the other stuff the pushers of HD Radio are taking about. Sure, my listeners have iPods, and plenty of other media options. However, I compete because I offer content and information they just can't get anywhere else. Local news, weather, sports, even the obituaries...an iPod will never give you all of that. However, within the next month, you'll be able to go to our station websites and download news, weather, sports...those sorts of things...to your iPod, tagged, of course, with our imaging. This, to me, makes much more sense than spending a ton of money on the equipment to implement IBOC. I already have great-sounding stations. To me, the answer to audience fragmentation is simply to remain RELEVANT.

As for hearing HD Radio...I bought a Boston Acoustics radio a while back...it was around $400 if I remember correctly...and it's a GREAT little radio. However, since I'm nowhere close to anybody broadcasting in HD, I've never heard IBOC. However, I do have a complaint...when listening to one of my stations, the radio gets confused and "thinks" it hears an HD signal. Then, it realizes it obviously doesn't hear one, and switches back to normal mode, and this causes a little 'Hiccup' in the signal. It's VERY annoying.

No, HD Radio isn't going to be the savior of radio. Telling Wall Street to kiss off and running our radio stations the way they SHOULD be run...THAT's the solution.

And there's my rant for the day...

 

[Rocco]

Great point! However, it sounds as if you may live in a market that could be vulnerable to Internet radio (if you have broadband in the area) and satellite radio that rains down 120 or more stations even in the middle of Death Valley. HD Radio can only compete with that if we get a part of the VHF-TV band that will be up for auction soon and can offer many more than the extra channels HD Radio provides (20 max in New York City they tell me). That's not even close to the 120 satellite channels on satellite or the practically infinite choices on the Internet. Also, that HD Radio signal is pretty puny, not reaching the outer suburbs in some markets, especially on indoor radios and even on some car radios. No wonder some other broadcasters are concerned that HD Radio could associate some well-known local call letters with an inferior product.

 

[radiofriend1]

Great point! However, it sounds as if you may live in a market that could be vulnerable to Internet radio (if you have broadband in the area) and satellite radio that rains down 120 or more stations even in the middle of Death Valley. HD Radio can only compete with that if we get a part of the VHF-TV band that will be up for auction soon and can offer many more than the extra channels HD Radio provides (20 max in New York City they tell me). That's not even close to the 120 satellite channels on satellite or the practically infinite choices on the Internet. Also, that HD Radio signal is pretty puny, not reaching the outer suburbs in some markets, especially on indoor radios and even on some car radios. No wonder some other broadcasters are concerned that HD Radio could associate some well-known local call letters with an inferior product.

yes fm in the bay area is a major improvement on hd. signal wise at least. if u cruise sanjose kufx hd2 is a deep trax format. really cool

 

[Rocco]

Radiofriend, I know someone who spent $599 for a Polk i-Sonic. He was actually in the market only for an XM receiver, but this caught his eye because it also had HD Radio, so he bought it. The XM works fine, but to say that he was very disappointed in the HD is putting it mildly. He lives in a Top 20 market where there are supposed to be a bunch of HD-2 channels, but he could only get two of them even with the external antenna because of the limited range of the digital broadcasts. I got to hear the i-Sonic through him and he showed me that the radio automatically flips to digital (HD channel 1) when it gets an HD signal for the main carrier, but the set stayed analog on four of the local stations that were supposed to have digital. In other words, the digital couldn't even reach his location, well within the MSA. On the two that did switch, I couldn't tell the difference between the digital and the analog.

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm not buying it. That's the 2nd poor demonstration that I've seen now.