Inventor of comepting technology thinks IBOC violates FCC rules.

[autopaint-1]

FMeXtra is a digital format which at this time is dead. There are no radios and none on the horizon, to the best of my knowledge. IBOC already has over 1,000 stations commited to using its exciter as their default digital system.

 

[vsa]

Please tell me, how many HD Radios have been sold since the first one became available in January 2004?

I really want an answer in terms of hard numbers.

 

[autopaint-1]

Of course I can't give you any answers for a question such as this. The most reasonable answer I can give you is many more than have been sold for either FMeXtra or Cam D or both of them combined. As I type this there are new HD radios now being designed with a second generation chip soon to be released. There are NO radios for the other formats and none on the horizon.

 

[IBOCRocks]

Please tell me, how many HD Radios have been sold since the first one became available in January 2004?

I really want an answer in terms of hard numbers.

I'm sure you do, but it won't prove a point. That's like an anti-Color TV person asking about color TV penetration figures from 1962 to prove that Color-TV is a failure. It's not very indicative of how popular color TV eventually became, after the televisions became low-cost and easy to find. It didn't happen for about 15 years after the technology was introduced. Fortunately we're better at that stuff now, but we're still in the early years. Again - the anti IBOC folks look at the landscape RIGHT NOW to determine the health of HD. Got news for you : You are the only ones doing that! The rest of us are looking a little bit farther into the future, especially since the radios aren't mass produced yet, nor has the promotion really started to gather steam yet.

 

[vsa]

I'll ask again and again and again. Please tell me, how many HD Radios have been sold since the first one became available in January 2004? I know it has only been 2.5 years, but there must be some figures out there somewhere.

I really want an answer in terms of hard numbers. Is it 1,000 radios sold? 10,000 radios sold? 100,000 radios sold? Why is the number of HD Radios sold such a deep dark secret?

It's been 2.5 years since radios became available to the public. iBiquity made a huge deal about the first Kenwood HD Radio being sold to an Iowa man in January, 2004. They even held a big press conference for it.

Don't give me excuses. I want NUMBERS!!!

 

[SUPERCASTER]

FMeXtra is a digital format which at this time is dead. There are no radios and none on the horizon, to the best of my knowledge. IBOC already has over 1,000 stations commited to using its exciter as their default digital system.

FMeXtra www.dreinc.com
Is already approved, requires no new transmitting equipment or antenna, (just add a relatively inexpensive encoder to any existing broadcast FM transmitter) is 100% compatible with current broadcasting standards, and does not need an FCC standards change by approval of an adjacent channel mask.

Adjacent channel digital HD Radio (which is not really IBOC) is still awating final approval and still applying for changes in their proposed (but as yet unapproved) adjacent channel RF mask.
Some engineers are saying there are serious defects in many of the Boston Acoustics HD Receptors. Mentioned is excessive clock interference with reception.

 

[IBOCRocks]

I'll ask again and again and again. Please tell me, how many HD Radios have been sold since the first one became available in January 2004? I know it has only been 2.5 years, but there must be some figures out there somewhere.

I really want an answer in terms of hard numbers. Is it 1,000 radios sold? 10,000 radios sold? 100,000 radios sold? Why is the number of HD Radios sold such a deep dark secret?

It's been 2.5 years since radios became available to the public. iBiquity made a huge deal about the first Kenwood HD Radio being sold to an Iowa man in January, 2004. They even held a big press conference for it.

Don't give me excuses. I want NUMBERS!!!

Wow...relax!

You're not getting excuses, you're getting fact. Whether or not you agree with the facts is aside from the point.

They made a big deal about it because IT WAS THE FIRST RADIO, SIGNALING THE ROLLOUT OF HD! It was not "Hey HD's here - come and get it!".

You want numbers because you think it will prove a point. It won't. You know and I know that there haven't been many radios sold. What do you hope to prove?

Again, how many color TV's were available in 1962? How many CD players in 1985? How many FM radios in 1950? Whether or not you choose to accept it, HD radio is in it's infancy. In my market there was one station in HD a year ago. There are 10 now. Why does FM radio get 15 years to be successful, CD Players get five years, while HD Radio gets (in your world) a year and a half. Interesting sense of reality you have there.

So, yeah, bash it or whatever but the truth is the truth, whether or not you feel that it's an "excuse".

 

[vsa]

Please see the new message subject/thread "Looking for any HD Radio sales figures."

 

[davideduardo]

I'll ask again and again and again. Please tell me, how many HD Radios have been sold since the first one became available in January 2004? I know it has only been 2.5 years, but there must be some figures out there somewhere.

The consumer roll out has been going on for all of TWO WEEKS.

The first HD radios came out because a couple of manufacturers realized they could sell 5 to 10 thousnad units just to the engineers and staffs of the radio stations that are on with HD. With 1025 already on, at a dozen or so per station, that was a nice market. Many radios are made in much lower quantities and are rpfitable to the manufacturer.

I suggest you ask this question in August of 2007, when the rollout is a year old.

Remember, many of us had XM radios before XM rolled out... those of us who were content providers got them... and there were plenty sent out to buyers at the auto companies and big box electronc stores. But nobody started counting until the consumer rollout began.

HD, for the consumer, is a not even a month old.

 

[JasonW]

Please tell me, how many HD Radios have been sold since the first one became available in January 2004?

I really want an answer in terms of hard numbers.

I'm sure you do, but it won't prove a point. That's like an anti-Color TV person asking about color TV penetration figures from 1962 to prove that Color-TV is a failure. It's not very indicative of how popular color TV eventually became, after the televisions became low-cost and easy to find. It didn't happen for about 15 years after the technology was introduced. Fortunately we're better at that stuff now, but we're still in the early years. Again - the anti IBOC folks look at the landscape RIGHT NOW to determine the health of HD. Got news for you : You are the only ones doing that! The rest of us are looking a little bit farther into the future, especially since the radios aren't mass produced yet, nor has the promotion really started to gather steam yet.

Color TV isn't a good analog (pun intended) of HD radio. When black-and-white TV came out, color TV was an obvious and much-anticipated revolutionary improvement. Likewise, true radio (voice or "phone," as Hams call it) was an obvious and much-anticipated revolutionary improvement over Marconi's dit-and-dah morse code "wireless telegraphy."

FM radio took so long to finally surpass AM radio because FM was an incremental rather than revolutionary improvement over AM. AM stations used to sound very good back when they really cared about their audio quality (in the 1950s WLW pioneered Hi-Fi AM, which audio engineers judged to sound better than FM). That was why only FM was originally allowed to go stereo, to give it some revolutionary feature over AM to encourage the public to embrace it.

HD FM is only slightly better than analog FM (although some listeners report no discernable difference at all), and thus it is at best only a tiny incremental improvement over analog FM. The HD FM HD2 and HD3 side channels are interesting features, but analog FM already has SCA channels which are much under-utilized. In addition, the HD2 and HD3 channels have no analog signals to blend to when their digital signals are obstructed or have to re-buffer, so unlike analog FM SCA signals the HD2 and HD3 signals will occasionally drop out completely.

HD AM is potentially a revolutionary improvement over analog AM, offering stereo and better audio quality, but it comes at a price. This potential can't be fully realized until and unless analog AM is mandatorily "Sunsetted" (which is unlikely), with all subsequent AM broadcasting being digital-only. In the hybrid analog/digital AM HD system, the need to protect the analog signal component requires using a narrower analog audio bandwidth and low HD transmission power, which makes the analog sound worse and doesn't allow for good HD AM signal coverage. HD AM can't be used at night because its skywave propagation plays havoc with distant analog AM stations, and it increases the noise level on adjacent channels. Since AM has become established as the medium for news/talk radio, stereo is a nice feature but isn't essential. For those AM stations who want stereo, C-QUAM AM Stereo is already available and is 100% compatible with their listeners' existing monaural AM receivers.

There are other digital AM transmission schemes (DRM and CAM-D) which are widely held to be superior to HD AM. The common argument against adopting them (or even evaluating them) is that "HD AM is already in use by many stations, it has receivers available for it, and it is the de facto standard." This argument is the radio equivalent of "Might makes Right," and it is just as fallacious. Microsoft Windows has far greater market penetration than the Linux or MacIntosh operating systems, but no one would seriously argue that Microsoft Windows is superior to them--it achieved its dominant status through the might and muscle of Microsoft rather than by its technical merits. In radio, however, the industry is regulated by the FCC. The FCC should evaluate the competing digital AM (and digital FM) systems and select the best one for each band based on its technical merit.


-- Jason

 

[IBOCRocks]

Please tell me, how many HD Radios have been sold since the first one became available in January 2004?

I really want an answer in terms of hard numbers.

I'm sure you do, but it won't prove a point. That's like an anti-Color TV person asking about color TV penetration figures from 1962 to prove that Color-TV is a failure. It's not very indicative of how popular color TV eventually became, after the televisions became low-cost and easy to find. It didn't happen for about 15 years after the technology was introduced. Fortunately we're better at that stuff now, but we're still in the early years. Again - the anti IBOC folks look at the landscape RIGHT NOW to determine the health of HD. Got news for you : You are the only ones doing that! The rest of us are looking a little bit farther into the future, especially since the radios aren't mass produced yet, nor has the promotion really started to gather steam yet.

Color TV isn't a good analog (pun intended) of HD radio. When black-and-white TV came out, color TV was an obvious and much-anticipated revolutionary improvement. Likewise, true radio (voice or "phone," as Hams call it) was an obvious and much-anticipated revolutionary improvement over Marconi's dit-and-dah morse code "wireless telegraphy."

FM radio took so long to finally surpass AM radio because FM was an incremental rather than revolutionary improvement over AM. AM stations used to sound very good back when they really cared about their audio quality (in the 1950s WLW pioneered Hi-Fi AM, which audio engineers judged to sound better than FM). That was why only FM was originally allowed to go stereo, to give it some revolutionary feature over AM to encourage the public to embrace it.

HD FM is only slightly better than analog FM (although some listeners report no discernable difference at all), and thus it is at best only a tiny incremental improvement over analog FM. The HD FM HD2 and HD3 side channels are interesting features, but analog FM already has SCA channels which are much under-utilized. In addition, the HD2 and HD3 channels have no analog signals to blend to when their digital signals are obstructed or have to re-buffer, so unlike analog FM SCA signals the HD2 and HD3 signals will occasionally drop out completely.

HD AM is potentially a revolutionary improvement over analog AM, offering stereo and better audio quality, but it comes at a price. This potential can't be fully realized until and unless analog AM is mandatorily "Sunsetted" (which is unlikely), with all subsequent AM broadcasting being digital-only. In the hybrid analog/digital AM HD system, the need to protect the analog signal component requires using a narrower analog audio bandwidth and low HD transmission power, which makes the analog sound worse and doesn't allow for good HD AM signal coverage. HD AM can't be used at night because its skywave propagation plays havoc with distant analog AM stations, and it increases the noise level on adjacent channels. Since AM has become established as the medium for news/talk radio, stereo is a nice feature but isn't essential. For those AM stations who want stereo, C-QUAM AM Stereo is already available and is 100% compatible with their listeners' existing monaural AM receivers.

There are other digital AM transmission schemes (DRM and CAM-D) which are widely held to be superior to HD AM. The common argument against adopting them (or even evaluating them) is that "HD AM is already in use by many stations, it has receivers available for it, and it is the de facto standard." This argument is the radio equivalent of "Might makes Right," and it is just as fallacious. Microsoft Windows has far greater market penetration than the Linux or MacIntosh operating systems, but no one would seriously argue that Microsoft Windows is superior to them--it achieved its dominant status through the might and muscle of Microsoft rather than by its technical merits. In radio, however, the industry is regulated by the FCC. The FCC should evaluate the competing digital AM (and digital FM) systems and select the best one for each band based on its technical merit.


-- Jason

Good post! I'd point out it that HD is also an incremental step from analog, using your analogy. Which means in two years, you shouldn't expect a huge user base. I also think that HD 2&3 will be more of a killer app than you'd think. I saw a display at a fair recently which allowed the public to listen to HD2 on a Receptor, and judging from the response - it will do well! SCA's can't touch it. SCA's have poor frequency response, they're mono, they're noisy, and they rob you of main channel modulation. It's certainly not the answer.

As for which system to use? I won't get into that discussion...my POV is that it's a conversation that should probably have happened, though I think the train has left the station.

By the way...I enjoy your posts - you explain why you have a problem with HD, and why alternatives may be better. No CAPS, exclamation points, or links. You have some experience, and it shows.

OK. Off of my soap box!

 

[JasonW]

Thank you. Without naming other posters (or is it just one? <grin>), there is a principle of disagreeing without being disagreeable that hasn't always been in evidence.

Regarding HD FM (including HD2 and HD3 channels) and HD AM, iBiquity should get with small-town fathers where there are no local radio stations, help local entrepeneurs get CPs and licences to set up digital-only HD stations, and (if necessary) *give away* some receivers to the residents. Being able to operate at full power in digital-only mode would provide good coverage for HD2 and HD3 signals as well.

If growth from the top down (in big markets) is slow, growth from the grassroots upwards (in areas with no existing local radio stations) could be very rapid.


-- Jason

 

[SUPERCASTER]

From IBOC Rocks- "SCA's have poor frequency response, they're mono, they're noisy, and they rob you of main channel modulation."
You are years behind the times, the new DIGITAL SCA uses the same codec as HD Radio (AAC Plus from Coding Technologies) and has the same quality. The old analog SCA you refer to is over 50 years old! FMeXtra puts the DIGITAL SIGNAL ON THE SCA BANDWIDTH, at 10 times greater transmitting power, and the same fidelity as HD Radio without using the adjacent channels or extra bandwidth. In addition it uses existing FM transmitters and antennas, is not proprietary, and is 100% compatible with existing FM frequency allocations.
FMeXtra - www.dreinc.com

 

[davideduardo]

From IBOC Rocks- "SCA's have poor frequency response, they're mono, they're noisy, and they rob you of main channel modulation."
You are years behind the times, the new DIGITAL SCA uses the same codec as HD Radio (AAC Plus from Coding Technologies) and has the same quality. The old analog SCA you refer to is over 50 years old! FMeXtra puts the DIGITAL SIGNAL ON THE SCA BANDWIDTH, at 10 times greater transmitting power, and the same fidelity as HD Radio without using the adjacent channels or extra bandwidth. In addition it uses existing FM transmitters and antennas, is not proprietary, and is 100% compatible with existing FM frequency allocations.
FMeXtra - www.dreinc.com

So what? The industry has already made a decision, and it is HD. There is an investment of over $200 million in transmitters and STLs and antennas, and there is no going back.

 

[JasonW]

From IBOC Rocks- "SCA's have poor frequency response, they're mono, they're noisy, and they rob you of main channel modulation."
You are years behind the times, the new DIGITAL SCA uses the same codec as HD Radio (AAC Plus from Coding Technologies) and has the same quality. The old analog SCA you refer to is over 50 years old! FMeXtra puts the DIGITAL SIGNAL ON THE SCA BANDWIDTH, at 10 times greater transmitting power, and the same fidelity as HD Radio without using the adjacent channels or extra bandwidth. In addition it uses existing FM transmitters and antennas, is not proprietary, and is 100% compatible with existing FM frequency allocations.
FMeXtra - www.dreinc.com

So what? The industry has already made a decision, and it is HD. There is an investment of over $200 million in transmitters and STLs and antennas, and there is no going back.

Similar statements were made about the inevitable dominance of quadrophonic sound Hi-Fi systems. SUPERCASTER's statements regarding FMeXtra raise an interesting question. If it uses the same codec as HD FM, can it be received on an HD radio? If so, then FMeXtra might be a good solution for shoehorning FM HD radio into markets with a crowded FM band, while "straight" FM HD could be used in less-crowded markets without interfering with analog FM stations.


-- Jason

 

[SUPERCASTER]

From IBOC Rocks- "SCA's have poor frequency response, they're mono, they're noisy, and they rob you of main channel modulation."
You are years behind the times, the new DIGITAL SCA uses the same codec as HD Radio (AAC Plus from Coding Technologies) and has the same quality. The old analog SCA you refer to is over 50 years old! FMeXtra puts the DIGITAL SIGNAL ON THE SCA BANDWIDTH, at 10 times greater transmitting power, and the same fidelity as HD Radio without using the adjacent channels or extra bandwidth. In addition it uses existing FM transmitters and antennas, is not proprietary, and is 100% compatible with existing FM frequency allocations.
FMeXtra - www.dreinc.com

So what? The industry has already made a decision, and it is HD. There is an investment of over $200 million in transmitters and STLs and antennas, and there is no going back.

Similar statements were made about the inevitable dominance of quadrophonic sound Hi-Fi systems. SUPERCASTER's statements regarding FMeXtra raise an interesting question. If it uses the same codec as HD FM, can it be received on an HD radio? If so, then FMeXtra might be a good solution for shoehorning FM HD radio into markets with a crowded FM band, while "straight" FM HD could be used in less-crowded markets without interfering with analog FM stations.


-- Jason

With FMeXtra, why would anyone need adjacent channel HD Radio at all?
If broadcasters decided to waste money on the defective, adjacent channel, proprietary, HD Radio system that has still not gotten FCC final approval, and is still modifying it's "mask" then the mistake is at their expense. Picking the wrong system can be costly.
What is so very wrong with having a really objective engineering study between the two systems by a top, totally independent, engineering organization. Preferably one that can not be influenced by the HD Radio lobbyists. If HD Radio is the best system then why are they avoiding an objective, scientific, engineering study?
It is better to get it right, then get it fast. If people are expected buy the new system and replace their old radios, it should be the best, most compatible system. Broadcasters and the public will have to live with any mistakes a long time.

 

[JasonW]

If FMeXtra can be received on an HD radio, it could undercut sales of FM HD transmission equipment. If this is the case, and a station could add a digital signal with a one-time purchase of an FMeXtra transmitter, they would be less likely to buy the more expensive HD equipment with its recurring usage fees.

-- Jason

 

[SUPERCASTER]

If FMeXtra can be received on an HD radio, it could undercut sales of FM HD transmission equipment. If this is the case, and a station could add a digital signal with a one-time purchase of an FMeXtra transmitter, they would be less likely to buy the more expensive HD equipment with its recurring usage fees.

-- Jason

The FMeXtra radios that will be coming out are simpler and much less expensive the HD Radios, while offering the same, or better quality. A standard FM radio with composite output could even be plugged in to a low cost decoder.
No new transmitters or antennas are necessary at the FM station, just a relatively cheap FMeXtra encoder. This is the way to go.

 

[JasonW]

If FMeXtra can be received on an HD radio, it could undercut sales of FM HD transmission equipment. If this is the case, and a station could add a digital signal with a one-time purchase of an FMeXtra transmitter, they would be less likely to buy the more expensive HD equipment with its recurring usage fees.

-- Jason

The FMeXtra radios that will be coming out are simpler and much less expensive the HD Radios, while offering the same, or better quality. A standard FM radio with composite output could even be plugged in to a low cost decoder.
No new transmitters or antennas are necessary at the FM station, just a relatively cheap FMeXtra encoder. This is the way to go.

Let me make sure I'm copying you correctly. An *analog* FM receiver's audio output can be run to a decoder box (instead of directly to a speaker or headphones) to retrieve the digital signal?


-- Jason

 

[SUPERCASTER]

If FMeXtra can be received on an HD radio, it could undercut sales of FM HD transmission equipment. If this is the case, and a station could add a digital signal with a one-time purchase of an FMeXtra transmitter, they would be less likely to buy the more expensive HD equipment with its recurring usage fees.

-- Jason

The FMeXtra radios that will be coming out are simpler and much less expensive the HD Radios, while offering the same, or better quality. A standard FM radio with composite output could even be plugged in to a low cost decoder.
No new transmitters or antennas are necessary at the FM station, just a relatively cheap FMeXtra encoder. This is the way to go.

Let me make sure I'm copying you correctly. An *analog* FM receiver's audio output can be run to a decoder box (instead of directly to a speaker or headphones) to retrieve the digital signal?


-- Jason

Not exactly. An analog radio that has a composite output, (some do and many can be easily adopted) not the audio output, can be run to a relatively simple FMeXtra digital decoder and then to your amp, speakers, or headphones.