-
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
Is HD radio dead?
- Thread starter brian65
- Start date
The problem I have had with mine is the reception flat out sucks. I have to get it perfectly set to get a station in but then as soon as I want to change it to another I lose my setting because I have to readjust. It does make a dramatic improvement in sound quality for AM. When I can get it to work it is pretty cool but they need more power.
Upper90 said:
Whenever I hear "talk radio" in FM quality it just sounds weird. I don't know the exact tech terms involved, but it just sounds more powerful on AM.
I think 'talk' on FM lets you notice more of the background silence, which detracts from the speaker's delivery.
I was curious about it's future because even C. Crane radio seems to have given up on it.
100 mhz has sufficient resolution for the bandwidth needed, 1 mhz does not.
The change in speed of wave propogation changing from free space to a metallic conductor distorts
all waveforms but is most unkind to the shape of square wave data.
In a resonant length antenna like FM broadcast at 100 mhz and 1 meter, the penalty is at a minimum.
In MW broadcast at 1 Mhz, resonant antennas are seldom seen on either end. :
We can "make" the antenna tune as though it were a reasonant length, but this comes at a big cost to
the linearity needed to maintain the squareness of such data.
The general effect is that in such a compromised transmission/antenna system is to "smear" the hoped-for square wave into something smoother, at which point they won't decode.
In AM HD transmission, this requires high linearity and wide bandwidth ( not easy ) through tuning networks.
All networks create phase and other distortions.
In reception, AM HD pretty much only works in a brute-force manner, and in almost any meaningful, normal
distance expected for AM service, it quickly loses the "crispness" if you will, to decode.
In every AM loop antenna in a modern radio. there is no real RF amp/tuning/peaking.
This would be an actual HELP, because it make the bandwidth wider, but effective sensitivity is much lower.
And there simply is no escaping the fact that as any normal MW antenna is but a fractional size of the wavelength,
there is going to be significant distortion of the (hoped for) square wave in the (2nd) change in speed, from C, to 9/10th of C.
It's wishful engineering at best on 1 mhz.
You can sweep water up a hill if you are really, really energetic and tireless, but eventually it begins to seem unwise.
The change in speed of wave propogation changing from free space to a metallic conductor distorts
all waveforms but is most unkind to the shape of square wave data.
In a resonant length antenna like FM broadcast at 100 mhz and 1 meter, the penalty is at a minimum.
In MW broadcast at 1 Mhz, resonant antennas are seldom seen on either end. :
We can "make" the antenna tune as though it were a reasonant length, but this comes at a big cost to
the linearity needed to maintain the squareness of such data.
The general effect is that in such a compromised transmission/antenna system is to "smear" the hoped-for square wave into something smoother, at which point they won't decode.
In AM HD transmission, this requires high linearity and wide bandwidth ( not easy ) through tuning networks.
All networks create phase and other distortions.
In reception, AM HD pretty much only works in a brute-force manner, and in almost any meaningful, normal
distance expected for AM service, it quickly loses the "crispness" if you will, to decode.
In every AM loop antenna in a modern radio. there is no real RF amp/tuning/peaking.
This would be an actual HELP, because it make the bandwidth wider, but effective sensitivity is much lower.
And there simply is no escaping the fact that as any normal MW antenna is but a fractional size of the wavelength,
there is going to be significant distortion of the (hoped for) square wave in the (2nd) change in speed, from C, to 9/10th of C.
It's wishful engineering at best on 1 mhz.
You can sweep water up a hill if you are really, really energetic and tireless, but eventually it begins to seem unwise.
From a programming standpoint, how many more "premium choice" canned channels do listeners want?
If HD means more of the same, there's no future in this. However, if new, unique products are allowed to be developed, maybe interest will rise.
A number of years ago, I read where there was an idea floated about using HD to devvelop "farm teams" for the big guys on HD. This would be a great way to combine new ideas with up-and-coming talent. All we need is someone in the driver's seat to get a brain.
If HD means more of the same, there's no future in this. However, if new, unique products are allowed to be developed, maybe interest will rise.
A number of years ago, I read where there was an idea floated about using HD to devvelop "farm teams" for the big guys on HD. This would be a great way to combine new ideas with up-and-coming talent. All we need is someone in the driver's seat to get a brain.
Wanna buy some AM stereo Walkmans..and an AKAI quadraphonic receiver? How about some IBM selectric typewriters, and a betamax?
The HD feeds on some CC stations in the Ville have disappeared in the last few days.....
BTW, 96 Rock is the only station that I have heard the HD and analog feed match when switching between the two. Outside of the digital hash, the timing difference between the two feeds is most annoying.
BTW, 96 Rock is the only station that I have heard the HD and analog feed match when switching between the two. Outside of the digital hash, the timing difference between the two feeds is most annoying.
To answer the original question, for all practical purposes, HD radio is pretty much dead. Broadcasters are still playing with it, but mainly only to feed a translator or something like that. For general public consumption, it's deader than dead.
D
del_griffith
Guest
OKCRadioGuy said:
Although there was a time the same could be said for FM.
I'm in Columbus. In the 50's 4 FM licenses were turned in because of lack of public interest. Including one that was owned by Powell Crosley.
Not saying HD will ever be viable. But the market sometimes changes its mind.
A
actixguy
Guest
Was it ever alive? Considering that all the majority of broadcasters did was put the same format or soem other boring format on their HD channel, what made it so wonderful? How many owners actually took the opportunity to offer some type of unique format on their HD that would have interested and attracted listeners. Same of old story with radio. No creativity, no forethought, no risk. radio as we knew it died at deregulation.
brian65 said:
Short signals, mediocre processing, repetitive "same old same old" programming, no availability of receivers in mass merchandise retailers, automakers not buying in to HD, these are some of the problems HD radio has had and continues to have. No one, not radio stations and not retailers, are promoting HD as "a Great Holiday Gift". Youth market is not convinced that HD is "cool" or "must have". If these problems can be overcome. maybe new life can be breathed into the medium. If not, bury it in the back yard.
Not a moment too soon.schmave said:
- Status