• 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

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

I think the only likely "monetization" scenario from HD subchannels, whether they're used as a pretense to launch what are in effect new Class A FM signals and formats, or lease-out to narrowcasters, can be simply put: not much "money" in "monetization."

I know, I know - some HD-sub-analog FM translators are getting some ratings. But even an excellent 250-watt signal is not going to generate that much revenue on its own, even with a unique and attractive format. I see that a lot of these translator FMs are being used as flankers to bedevil competitors. That's the same tactical use Class As have been used for, for decades now. Take a look at the full Class As many clusters have in larger markets and tell me how many of them generate much billing.

As far as leasing the subs out for narrowcasting, such as ethnic, religious or paid programming - look back at how lucrative SCA has been over the years. ("The best predictor of the future is the past.") Some subchannels make a little money but certainly nothing sufficient to support a staff or a lot of creativity.

So a few operators make a few bucks from SCA programming. Do you see message-board posters crowing about how this portends a bright and growing future for SCA?
 
A lot of you guys aren't aware of it, but I do more than run my station - I also sell. Once about two years ago I performed an experiment (it roughly coincided with the launch of our FM translator.) I was developing a new agency contact for an advertiser, and the media buyer didn't know me well enough to know when I was pulling her leg.

I did a "test pitch" on her, alleging that we were going to be debuting HD on our new FM. She furrowed her brow. "HD? What's that? Does that have anything to do with HDTV?" she asked.

I got two sentences into the explanation, and she cut me off. Rolling her eyes, she said, "hey, I'm in media. If I don't know anything about this, it's a lock that nobody in the listening universe knows about it. Tell me about this again when you can prove it's got an audience." I pressed her a little offering her a trial run - she didn't even want it if it was free. (Note: this was about EIGHT years after the rollout of HD Radio, after the ballyhooed expenditure of a billion dollars worth of radio inventory to promote it, and five years after local AMs and FMs had added HD to some of their stations.)

After the fake "pitch" I confessed and offered to buy lunch. HD Radio is now a kind of standing joke between us: "Hey Savage, any hot new HD listeners yet?" She uses the experience to mock out station reps whose FMs actually DO transmit in HD.

Just an anecdote....from the real world. You know: where most HD proponents never visit.
 
Most people who work at radio stations can't even tell the difference between static and IBOC hash. It's almost guaranteed that you ask the morning DJ on a station that broadcasts in HD and he won't be able to tell the difference. Only the engineer forced to install HD against his will can tell the difference.
 
If HD radio didn't buzz on adjacents they'd be able to increase power and make it a working system.

However, they'd still overload the FMs with sub-channels rather than have one near CD sounding sub. See DAB in the UK and you'll see the US isn't that different.

As for AM they never had enough bandwidth for a decent signal. Maybe if they gave up the futile attempt at audio up to 15kHz and concentrated on static free audio we'd get artifact-free 9 kHz audio that's easy on the ears. Besides, how many AMs use microphones tailored for AM analog as opposed to FM analog like NPR uses?
 
Simply put, HD can't work as designed without the extra spectrum. This was a very contentious issue during the FCC's policy proceedings authorizing its use, and also in the trades.

If you look at the waveform schematics, even in the all-digital mode HD still eats up more spectrum than analog (FM 400 kHz, AM 20 kHz).

Regarding Eureka 147 DAB, it certainly also has its detriments. But it is also now (pretty much) free of patents, and there is some interesting experimentation going on now.
 
rageradio said:
I've never hated it. I've never heard the buzz noise.
Click to expand...

It's more like an all encompassing white noise whoosh. Depending on where you live find out what AM station (if any) broadcasts in HD and tune to the channel adjacent to it you will never forget the awful noise you hear, it is actually quite startling if you are doing a band scan and forget that it exists, it will blow you out of your chair some nights. I'm not as familar with it on FM and I rarely listen to FM, I think the noisy interference is much worse with AM because of the skywave at night.
 
KB1OKL, ,most FM HD radios mask the noise on adjacents. But on a good analog radio that doesn't do it, the hiss or whine you hear on adjacents is every bit as noticeable as the interference on AM IBOC.
I have an excellent Tecsun radio that gets that ugly FM HD hiss on adjacents. There are two benefits: if you can null the hiss, you might have a chance on an adjacent.
And it's easy to tell if an HD is off, giving a listener a chance to hear an adjacent.
Some might say that you can do that with an HD radio, and they'd be right. But the Sonys I own "store" the HD2 channels, and the only way to preempt that action is to weaken them enough by using no antenna or patch cord, or, if the HD is off, to scan the offending channel again so it only receives analog.
I own the Sonys for their selectivity and sensitivity, but would love it if they weren't HD radios.
Incidentally, to answer the question raised in this topic, yes, I'd stil hate HD if it didn't cause interference. Because most AM IBOC sounds like a low-bit-rate stream that I wouldn't put up with on a PC.
And most FM stations aren't doing anything interesting, just running worse automation than I can produce myself with software or a specialized device like an iPod.
As for HD translators, they won't, but the FCC should close that loophole. It's a bastardization of the intent of allowing translators in the first place.
To take a side channel of a signal with virtually no listeners and translate it as if it were relaying a real service is a disservice. If the translator is the supposedly viable reason for an HD, then the HD shouldn't exist, and the translator proposal should be evaluated on its own merit, which, in most cases, would mean that it wouldn't be approved.
Of course the FCC abandoned sane engineering and allotment procedures long ago, so I expect nothing but the worst from that agency. And I always get what I expect.
 
multiplex said:
As for HD translators, they won't, but the FCC should close that loophole. It's a bastardization of the intent of allowing translators in the first place.
To take a side channel of a signal with virtually no listeners and translate it as if it were relaying a real service is a disservice. If the translator is the supposedly viable reason for an HD, then the HD shouldn't exist, and the translator proposal should be evaluated on its own merit, which, in most cases, would mean that it wouldn't be approved.
Click to expand...

I do not understand why you feel this is a disservice. If there are listeners that enjoy the additional programming that these translators offer in various markets, what it the problem? Translators are not permitted to interfere with regular stations.
 
diymedia said:
Regarding Eureka 147 DAB, it certainly also has its detriments. But it is also now (pretty much) free of patents, and there is some interesting experimentation going on now.
Click to expand...

With the UK using frequencies above our channel 13 and the big conglomerates (CBS, CC, Cumulus) operating in the big markets I can see DAB having a go here in the states. However, I see the US going down the same path of quantity over quality.

Source: All the HD-2s & 3s & 4s etc. :mad:
 
Barry said:
I do not understand why you feel this is a disservice. If there are listeners that enjoy the additional programming that these translators offer in various markets, what it the problem? Translators are not permitted to interfere with regular stations.
Click to expand...

Because the translator service was initially intended to be a secondary service which relayed the programming of another station. The fact that translators are now being used like under-the-radar primary services (stand-alone stations) is a complete distortion of the intent of the service. And the fact that translators now sell for tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars each shows just how distorted things have become.
 
Barry, diymedia answered your question the same way I would have.
The original idea of a translator was to fill in weak spots in a station's coverage area, or in some cases expand that coverage area to an underserved audience.
As often happens, broadcasters find a loophole, and there goes the original rule, and here come more FM stations on an already overcrowded band.
As it is, the current allocations should be on a 30 or 40mHz-wide band so that listeners between cities wouldn't just get numerous stations that keep any of them from being enjoyed.
The plethora of translators add to this, and HD adds more interference to a once very usable band.
I'll just say this straight out: if HD was viable, translators wouldn't be needed.
So broadcasters are putting on HD signals to gain translator allotments. If the FCC had any balls, they'd quash this and rescind all translators attached to HD signals, and not allow this in the future.
You'll notice I say if, because they almost always cave into broadcasters.
Part of the reason, of course, is that broadcasters often find ways to stretch the rules beyond their intent, and once the FCC allows it, how do you then disallow and unlicense it?
FM overcrowding has been an issue for many years, but HDs and translators are contributing to the problem.
And so is the FCC by letting it happen.
As for listeners and tastes, that's a completely different discussion. There's little diversity in the dial in most cities, and often media conglomaerates program very similar stations within the same market.
They should be willing to diversify without using HD and translators as an excuse. Again, a pipe dream on my part.
For all of these reasons, and so many, many more, I hardly ever listen to radio these days. Internet stations do much more with much less, without the interference issues.
 
But wait! iBiquity CEO Bob Struble just penned an http://www.ibiquity.com/about_us/bobs_column_thoughts_on_radios_digital_future"]awesome column[/url] in which he calls HD signals on translators an innovative play and one of HD's best-kept secrets:

"In effect, it's like getting another unique analog FM signal for a tiny fraction of the cost of a new station. Get that translator's antenna up high enough, and it's basically a new Class A for the cost of the HD Radio upgrade."
 
I just read Struble's column; the man absolutely has no shame. I loved the bar graph showing 15M HD Radios sold. Riiiiiggghht!!! 99% of them came in new vehicles unbeknownst to the purchasers. Most of those purchasers are unaware of the junk science in their dashboards. Others think their new sound systems are defective. Others think they're listening to HD when they're not. And now this walking-dead junk science is sucking the blood of analog translators in its desperate attempt to survive (SFX: scream from old vampire movie). Remember a few years ago when HD Radio's killer-app was the better than CD-quality audio? Then it was side-channels? Now the killer-app is analog translators? Hmmm . . .
 
Yep! Pretty soon, if we go any further through the HD Looking-Glass, we'll be hearing things like: "savvy operators are monetizing their HD channels by selling Deathstars, importers, exporters and HD mod monitors to recycling centers - there's real money extracting pricey transformers and circuit board metals like silver, gold and lead from junked HD gear! Now's the time to Upgrade and Recycle! Get cash out of that HD stuff and help the environment!" And so forth.... :D
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom