If HD radio didn't buzz on adjacents, would you still hate it

[nd2023]

Lets say that HD radio finds a way to not buzz on the adjacents, but all other benefits and drawbacks remain. The HD coverage would also remain the same. Would you still hate HD radio?

 

[4dude]

Hmmmm

Maybe not so much but the fact remains its not ANALOGUE and the quality cannot ever be as good!!


EDIT:

One thing I notice in my area: Almost every station thats running IBOC has had to disable it for weeks @ a time due to some problem.... Seems like its more hassle running this than not,i dont know why they bother to be quite frank about it! (Not very many listeners)

 

[K6JHU]

When I am in LA or Phoenix (in the car) listening to an HD-1 (with no HD-2,3) the result can be mind blowing. No picket fencing, a noise floor that is just not there, and no 'blend' to mono. As long as the engineering staff is paying attention and corporate resits the urge to dilute the bit rate with HD-2,3, then the results can be spectacular.

BTW, when I am not in either of those two places, I am listening to Sirius/XM where the effects of mucking with the bit rate are more than noticable.

 

[local oscillator]

Would I still hate it? Yes!!! Eliminating one of its many negatives while it continues on without any positives isn't a game-changer. HD Radio has been incredibly detrimental to our industry. It has diverted attention and resources away from issues that should be of far greater concern. The radio industry has some serious problems -- most self-inflicted -- that are more deserving of attention and resources than trying to band-aid some unnecessary digital junk-science project. The NAB and the big groups are fiddling while Rome burns.

 

[KB1OKL]

Would I still hate it? Yes!!! Eliminating one of its many negatives while it continues on without any positives isn't a game-changer. HD Radio has been incredibly detrimental to our industry. It has diverted attention and resources away from issues that should be of far greater concern. The radio industry has some serious problems -- most self-inflicted -- that are more deserving of attention and resources than trying to band-aid some unnecessary digital junk-science project. The NAB and the big groups are fiddling while Rome burns.

Yup, agree with everything he said.

 

[rbrucecarter5]

Lets say that HD radio finds a way to not buzz on the adjacents, but all other benefits and drawbacks remain. The HD coverage would also remain the same. Would you still hate HD radio?

It is a moot point because it won't happen. Nobody would think to do something practical like move the sidebands in towards the main channel and give up dinosaurs like SCA, RDS, and blind reading (all of which can be done better with HD). If they ever get their heads out of the sand and think of this, coverage would immediately increase dramatically, interference to adjacents disappear, the IF image problem would disappear, the skip problem would disappear, and probably the system would be viable. Of course, that is too simple and practical to the engineers who dreamed up this colossal kludge, and their arrogant egos will never admit that a suggestion from an engineer who isn't one of their clique might actually work.

I don't hate HD. I have three HD radios and use them because analog over the air sucks in this city. I hate HD interference on first adjacents. I hate HD-2 silent dropouts. I hate the car next to me tuned 10.4 to 11 MHz below my frequency jamming my HD. I hate skip destroying HD.

 

[nd2023]

If they gave up everything on FM above 15 kHz (that includes stereo), would HD not buzz on the adjacents?

 

[CTListener]

I don't hate it now. WDRC-FM HD2 the only thing keeping the music of the '50s and '60s on the air in Connecticut, and 102.9 doesn't have any adjacents I ever listened to anyway. Come to think of it, I have no reason or desire to listen to adjacents of 93.7, 96.5, 99.1, 101.3, 104.1 or any other frequency that has IBOC running. I'm not an FM DXer or a weak signal chaser.

 

[rbrucecarter5]

If they gave up everything on FM above 15 kHz (that includes stereo), would HD not buzz on the adjacents?

I don't think they have to do anything that draconian. From what I can see, the digital sidebands are only 35 to 40 kHz wide. They almost fit neatly above the stereo. Reducing the overlap would have two immediate benefits - (1) to the broadcaster, the gain / bandwidth product of the receivers would provide an immediate boost to coverage area, because the receivers with adapative IF would automatically narrow bandwidth (thereby boosting gain on what is important). Those with fixed IF would still have sidebands farther away from non-linear portions of the IF response - and believe me some of those ceramic filters are U-G-L-Y near the stop bands. So they would get quite a boost as well. (2) The DX'ers would love getting their first adjacents back. And by DX'ers I don't me a few lunatic hobbyists that number a few thousand at most. I mean everybody in suburbs whose listening scenario may be quite different from that in downtown areas. Even 20 to 30 miles out, first adjacents begin to appear as equals in signal strength and viable listening targets. Particularly in the East. So the HD folks looked myopically at central city residents, and forgot that concentric rings of coverage encompass geometrically more square miles and therefore listening households, until the metro area ends. What works near the towers, where no first adjacents exist, doesn't necessarily work in the suburbs where HD signals are weak, first adjacents from nearby cities and towns start to show up, etc. Most suburbs do not allow the outdoor antennas required to receive reliable HD, and most cars now don't have whip antennas required for weak FM reception. Add to that the HUGE blunder of overlooking IF images and how they jam the wider channels - even from non-HD radios - and you have a really unworkable system. I'd sure love to test an FM with sidebands moved in. I've looked at the hardware and reverse engineered the firmware. It looks to me like the radio really doesn't care where the sidebands are located. It just accepts them no matter where they are and decodes them. LUCKY accident! Stations could move the sidebands in with no impact to existing HD radios. Not so much as a firmware update. Just - immediate coverage gains. But - like I said - I'm not a member of the HD mafia. They are too arrogant to listen to suggestions. Too bad, really, there is a real potential to fix this thing.

 

[4dude]

 

I don't hate it now. WDRC-FM HD2 the only thing keeping the music of the '50s and '60s on the air in Connecticut, and 102.9 doesn't have any adjacents I ever listened to anyway.

It would be nice IF THEY STREAMED THAT ONLINE!!!!!!! (Some of us are out of the area and WOULD LOVE LISTENING!!)

 

[FredLeonard]

I wouldn't hate it. I still wouldn't care much. HD radio's real problem is NO BUZZ. Alternate meaning. Nobody is talking about it. Nobody cares. No media attention (not even from tech reporters who work for radio broadcasters). People wait with breath held for the next smartphone or tablet. People gush over innovative apps. HD radio is a mega-yawn.

 

[CTListener]

Re:  

I don't hate it now. WDRC-FM HD2 the only thing keeping the music of the '50s and '60s on the air in Connecticut, and 102.9 doesn't have any adjacents I ever listened to anyway.

It would be nice IF THEY STREAMED THAT ONLINE!!!!!!! (Some of us are out of the area and WOULD LOVE LISTENING!!)

It took Buckley Broadcasting about a decade to resume streaming its main signal after having pulled it in the spring of 2001 to protest the additional fees for streaming ads voiced by unionized talent. Unfortunately, it resumed just after the station dropped all but a few '60s titles, so nobody outside the area ever got to hear what made DRC special. Even though there is no advertising on the HD2, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for Buckley to put it online.

 

[4dude]

Yea I know.....

There are several FREE streaming providers out there,they should put it up with them!!

 

[Chuck]

Yea I know.....

There are several FREE streaming providers out there,they should put it up with them!!

It isn't the cost of actual streaming bandwidth that keeps stations from streaming. That is just the tip of the iceberg. It is the music royalty (and in some cases (SAG/AFTRA agreements) that are killing streaming by commercial stations. On a per listener basis, it is very hard to justify the cost.

 

[nd2023]

Its certainly more expensive to operate the HD transmitter than to stream. We are the only people listening, so they're spending several hundred per listener.

 

[Savage]

HD Radio was an anachronism almost from its launch date. It was rushed to market to give terrestrial radio a platform to compete with satellite, which was much-feared 10 to 12 years ago. The threat of commercial-free sat radio to commercial terrestrial radio has failed to materialize. There is no need for HD and no demand, except for a few narrow carve-outs like alternate audio streams for NPR stations who wanted to preserve jazz and classical to superserve their base.

Even if the technical problems weren't so egregious HD would still be a non-starter. Given the interference, the lousy coverage, the artifacts, the staggering operating costs, and the lack of receivers, it's deader than disco. With the AM flavor, the foregoing is true x20.

 

[rbrucecarter5]

HD Radio was an anachronism almost from its launch date. It was rushed to market to give terrestrial radio a platform to compete with satellite, which was much-feared 10 to 12 years ago. The threat of commercial-free sat radio to commercial terrestrial radio has failed to materialize. There is no need for HD and no demand, except for a few narrow carve-outs like alternate audio streams for NPR stations who wanted to preserve jazz and classical to superserve their base.

Even if the technical problems weren't so egregious HD would still be a non-starter. Given the interference, the lousy coverage, the artifacts, the staggering operating costs, and the lack of receivers, it's deader than disco. With the AM flavor, the foregoing is true x20.

It's - A-LIVE! Seriously - that is what HD radio is. A zombie walking around dead, with the HD cartel and broadcasters hoping for ad dollars keeping it going. Actually, I dispute your statement that only NPR uses it. In Houston, about the only creative and interesting formats are all on HD-2 so I have all but three of my 18 presets on HD-2's. One of the three is a deep fringe station 150 miles away. The other two non-HD-2 formats are one classical and one CHR Christian. I can tell you the lock time when switching stations is freakin' annoying, as are the dead silent dropouts when a car drives next to me and creates an IF image.

 

[Savage]

Sorry - I didn't mean literally "only" NPR uses HD successfully. In fact, I didn't say so - what I meant was, the successful applications for the subchannels appear to be few and far between. The fear among terrestrial broadcasters seems to be fragmentation of the audience. Then there are the technical problems of which you speak - full muting when the signals falls below threshold, plus the RF image interference (I guess we've reverted to 1920s superregenerative performance with neighboring receivers interfering with each other plus the need for elaborate antennas. Like any civilian listener is going to put up with those conditions.....)

I know, rbruce, that you've had a measure of success with HD subs in your market, and I think that's great - really, I do. My point is, essentially nobody cares about this tech, not even in our own industry. I know cluster GMs who aren't even sure about what's running on their own HD subs; they regard the subchannel formats as "a corporate concern," which gives you a clue as to HD's importance among local broadcasters. If this thing had even a vague potential for not being a PITA, much less a real revenue source, you'd be seeing GMs suddenly showing some interest.

As we've said for five years: if we're going to try digital radio, we've got to do better than iBiquity-Walden HD. I think the wireless internet apps are going to be way to go. It's the analog to cable and satellite vs. broadcast OTA TV.

 

[Barry]

Of course HD Radio is increasingly being used to feed translators. In effect this is creating new stations all over the country. To the average listener, they appear to be normal FM broadcasts (if somewhat weak).
Even if this was not the original intention when HD radio was designed, this appears to be a worthwhile use for the technology. I believe it is not discussed often enough on this board.
In connection with the use of HD radio for rebroadcast on translators, this is also resulting in some HD2's being leased out to other broadcasters. This should eventually lead to monetization of the HD radio facilities.

 

[local oscillator]

Repeating HD sidechannels on analog translators is one of the more insidious aspects of this whole HD debacle. It's like giving blood to a vampire; I'd prefer to give it the silver stake treatment.