• 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 the Signal Fading for HD Radio?

This from Mike Baxter's blog:

"Over the last couple of months I have been talking to some managers and operation personnel from a lot of the stations in the Hampton Roads, VA market about HD radio. Many feel as if they were forced into using the technology and that it was not something the consumer demanded or really even needed. Some say the sheer cost of implementing and maintaining the technology makes it very impractical from a business standpoint. Especially since only 1%-2% (My estimate about HD Radio ownership) of the listeners in a given market have the technology to listen to the HD signal. Many feel that iBiquity’s licensing fee is rather excessive. It also seems that there are fewer HD Radio capable receivers on the market each day."

He's a fan as he says later on in the blog but feels that it has no future.

Read the whole blog at:

http://baxon.mikebaxter.info/?p=178#comment-24
 
In all seriousness, the number of aftermarket radios with HD included have gone up in recent years, and those are being bought by people even if they don't know or care about the feature. So I would imagine the number of HD radios floating around in any given market and active may actually be 1-2% of total listenership, including enthusiasts and public radio fans.

From a consumer standpoint, the signal was never there to begin with. It was pretty much a stillborn benefit. But I think it will live on at selected stations thanks to the ability for public stations to offload unruly classical fans onto their own subchannel, and as a tool to skirt translator rules.
 
And....aren't practically all new cars equipped with HD now, so that DXers can stay focused on driving, and forget about the hobby while they are on the road? ;)

cd
 
Excellent point! Or they can just get so disgusted with dropouts and annoying mode-hopping, they might just turn the radio off entirely and sing show tunes to themselves! "HD Radio - promoting driver safety always...."
 
Savage said:
Excellent point! Or they can just get so disgusted with dropouts and annoying mode-hopping, they might just turn the radio off entirely and sing show tunes to themselves! "HD Radio - promoting driver safety always...."

Best DX radio made is in my dash. I never use the radio. I use it as an amplifier for my satellite radio, and a controller for my iPhone streaming.
 
With all of this talk on the board of HD radio losing its steam, what is the solution?
I know that we need to move into the future away from analog and into digital.
I agree that the FCC needs to mandate HD tuners be implemented into all Radios like UHF and DTV.
If the HD radio technology is not the solution for terrestrial radio, then what technology will work?
I know HD works similarly to the way TDMA and CDMA did back in the late 90s where your cell phone would stay in the same band but would lock into digital where available and drop to analog when the digital was not there.
Is the solution to mandate the tuners and eventually sunset analog like Tv did in 2009?
I think HD sounds great and works great but if the FCC does not get behind this, I fear it may be doomed.
Most of the people I talk to don't even know what HD radio is.
 
I definitely don't agree with any of the previous poster's suggestions! The FCC should NOT mandate switching from analog to digital. Exactly what advantage does digital broadcasting offer to either the listener or to the broadcaster? The reason it hasn't caught on is that there is no perceived benefit. Digital for the sake of being digital makes NO SENSE. Analog works well, is robust, and fulfills the need. Do you hear anyone complaining that the audio quality of an analog station is not good? Or that it drops out? Or that it causes interference with other stations? NO!

Analog transmission works much better for mobile transmission. Most people would greatly prefer to hear a little hiss in the background occasionally rather than have their program mute or switch over to something else.

Digital TV was mandated by the FCC for an altogether different reason: so they could reallocate most of the band and sell it off to the highest bidder. The DTV system chosen in the U.S. is ridiculously unreliable, and that is part of the reason that over-the-air viewing is now down to 8% by latest estimates. It is all but unusable in many areas, so TV broadcasting is basically putting itself out of business by having adopted this inferior digital technology. Pretty soon there will be NO off-air viewers and then there will be no broadcasting stations either.

What can and should be done is improvement in receiver technology through the use of digital signal processing, better IF filtering, improvements in front end overload, etc. These technologies already exist, are inexpensive, and work well. As many have noted, the few high quality tuners that were developed for HD reception turned out to be superb for analog listening.

Another reason why digital radio will fail: the mass exodus of both major and small market AM stations to FM translators. More than half of the AM stations I listen to now announce "and now on FM". These translators would not provide any useful service using digital transmission; they work because they are analog!

In case anyone has forgotten, FM is an abbreviation for Frequency Modulation. Frequency Modulation is an ANALOG technology that works quite well; much better, in fact, than digital.
 
Forget digital on AM. I think that particular horse has been whipped around the block several times.

One interesting speculation on this board is a new digital only allocation on the old Channel 5/6. But that is not being pushed by anyone with enough bucks.

I am curious of what would happen if the HD power was increased to the same power as the analog signal by beign digital only.

It appears HD is just starting to reach a critical mass in cars. Give it another couple of years before calling it dead. look how long it took for FM to reach critical mass.
 
audioguy said:
The DTV system chosen in the U.S. is ridiculously unreliable, and that is part of the reason that over-the-air viewing is now down to 8% by latest estimates. It is all but unusable in many areas, so TV broadcasting is basically putting itself out of business by having adopted this inferior digital technology. Pretty soon there will be NO off-air viewers and then there will be no broadcasting stations either.

If you look for current figures, the non-cable, non-satellite household count is now at 22% with rather significant and ongoing increases due to the economy and simultaneous increases in cable fees.
 
audioguy said:
Digital for the sake of being digital makes NO SENSE. Analog works well, is robust, and fulfills the need. Do you hear anyone complaining that the audio quality of an analog station is not good? Or that it drops out? Or that it causes interference with other stations? NO!

While I agree that digital for the sake of digital (which is what HD really is) makes no sense. But yes, I *do* hear people complaining about analog radio all the time, myself included. Here on the gulf coast, tropo is sometimes a daily event and it clobbers local stations, sometimes even the 100,000 watt monsters. People complain about it. AM has electrical noise. People complain about that, too.

That said, it does fulfil the need to convey information and entertainment, but by that logic so do most HD broadcasts. Only instead of another station creeping in, or static, it just drops to the analog or to silence depending on the channel.

Most of the technical issues stem from shoddy programming of the encoder boxes, low power and sync issues, two of which could be resolved if the HD proponents had bothered to fully hash out their system before forcing it on stations.
 
K6JHU said:
Forget digital on AM. I think that particular horse has been whipped around the block several times.

One interesting speculation on this board is a new digital only allocation on the old Channel 5/6. But that is not being pushed by anyone with enough bucks.

I am curious of what would happen if the HD power was increased to the same power as the analog signal by beign digital only.

It appears HD is just starting to reach a critical mass in cars. Give it another couple of years before calling it dead. look how long it took for FM to reach critical mass.

Go to a car dealership and ask the salesman about HD radio. Chances are they won't even know what it is. Then look at the radios inside the cars, and you'll notice most of them are analog and satellite radios.

HD radio might have been a good idea back in the 90s before Internet streaming, MP3 (or even CD) players and satellite radio. Now it's almost useless. The IBUZ on the AM band is accelerating the death of AM, rather than reviving it. HD on FM causes interference in a larger area than it provides reliable service. The only good thing about HD radio is that it brought us some good HD2 stations, and some high quality receivers like the Sony XDRF1HD and the Insignia portable. Other than that, HD is "too little too late". Why would I rip out my radio to install an HD radio just to hear a few additional stations that drop out more than 15 miles from the transmitter, when I can stream the very same stations on my phone and hear them anywhere with little or no dropouts.
 
Zach said:
I *do* hear people complaining about analog radio all the time, myself included. Here on the gulf coast, tropo is sometimes a daily event and it clobbers local stations, sometimes even the 100,000 watt monsters.

Since Tropo is an atmospheric problem that affects VHF frequencies, HD isn't going to help that.
 
The percentage of over-the-air TV households has slipped to 8% as of June 7, 2011 according to the CEA.

http://broadcastengineering.com/hdtv/cea-over-the-air-tv-households-slip-to-8-percent/

I think many people in the TV broadcast industry would like to THINK it's higher than that, and believe that people are disconnecting their cable and satellite connections to save money. But the fact is, they are not. High quality TV entertainment is one of the last things people will give up, and the limited choices offered by OTA TV are not enough to satisfy most people. I personally only watch one program a week, and I can receive it over the air. Sometimes... depending on which way the wind is blowing.

The last rooftop TV antenna in my neighborhood (other than my own) came done years ago. Ask your neighbors how many of them are watching OTA TV? I know of none.

After you ask them that, if you want a good laugh, ask them if they listen to HD radio.
 
bull. 8%. I read that they said somewhere between 20% - 30% of US households now use OTA TV, as more drop cable and realize that with a decent antenna you can actually get a better HDTV picture than what's compressed on your cable box!
So what is the real percentage? I think that many households that have cable or a dish ALSO use OTA as well, so the percentage is much higher than just 8% - especially with growth in the past year, not a drop-off.
 
JohnnyElectron said:
I read that they said somewhere between 20% - 30% of US households now use OTA TV, as more drop cable and realize that with a decent antenna you can actually get a better HDTV picture than what's compressed on your cable box!

See: http://www.**********.com/shownews/119987
 
..."non pay-satellite household count is now at 22%"...

Fixed.

"The I-BUZZ on the MW band is accelerating the death of MW, rather than reviving it."

You must be using an awfully narrowband radio if the "white noise" hashing of the Ibiquity signals on mediumwave sounds like "buzzing". I'd shudder to imagine how a regular analogue station would sound on such a setup!

The only "buzzing" I've ever heard on mediumwave is the increasing amount of loud wideband electrical/electronic noise that's polluting the band. Which, in fact, is doing far more harm to the band than a few Ibiquity signals here and there. The neighbours in an adjacent unit recently acquired a gigantic 56" plasma display, a wall-hanger type. I can always tell when they have it on because the entire mediumwave band sounds like they're splitting atoms in the front room.
 
Chuck said:
Zach said:
I *do* hear people complaining about analog radio all the time, myself included. Here on the gulf coast, tropo is sometimes a daily event and it clobbers local stations, sometimes even the 100,000 watt monsters.

Since Tropo is an atmospheric problem that affects VHF frequencies, HD isn't going to help that.

I know, but you were saying that no one complained about analog radio dropping out or causing interference and that's not true, at least here.
 
RadioDoogie said:
I know that we need to move into the future away from analog and into digital.
I agree that the FCC needs to mandate HD tuners be implemented into all Radios like UHF and DTV.
If the HD radio technology is not the solution for terrestrial radio, then what technology will work?
I know HD works similarly to the way TDMA and CDMA did back in the late 90s where your cell phone would stay in the same band but would lock into digital where available and drop to analog when the digital was not there.
Is the solution to mandate the tuners and eventually sunset analog like Tv did in 2009?
I think HD sounds great and works great but if the FCC does not get behind this, I fear it may be doomed.
Most of the people I talk to don't even know what HD radio is.

There is no such thing as digital. In the real world, it is ALL analog or RF. Digital just switches between two states. Those transitions are governed by voltage levels, bounce, and overshoot. Digital this and digital that seems to be the mantra for everything. Digital does NOT automatically equate to "better". It only adds complexity to the decode.

NTSC was very poor quality, and nothing was going to ever improve it. So a switch to digital transmission made sense - a very noticable increase in quality. Not so with HD radio. Analog radio was never broken. Nothing except extremely high end audio systems can even tell the difference between analog and digital FM. And you lose that advantage completely when you have HD-2, then the HD-1 and HD-2 are little better than analog is now. The only compelling aspect of HD FM are the subchannels, but broadcasters have not stepped up with compelling formats, only minor variations of their HD-1 or at best a discarded former format. AM traded one really bad problem for a completely different problem with HD - AM now sounds like streaming audio at best. It is bad enough on talk radio When you try HD AM for music, the problem is acute.

Mandating a switch to digital would mean a massive obsolescence of radios, especially in cars. There is probably no "converter box" that the government can subsidize that would work in cars, and one or two per household like they did for TV would not be enough. The radio industry would be fools to push for a mandate, because when the shutdown occurred, they would lose a massive portion of their audience overnight - an audience that once it went to satellite, streaming, iWhatevers, Pandora, etc. would never come back to radio.

So - what system would work? HD, in principle, was a good idea. Where they lost it was when they attempted to salvage all existing subchannel services and put the sidebands over adjacent frequencies. The RF designers forgot one thing - the gain / bandwidth product. If you took the present sidebands and moved them in towards the FM subcarrier, sacrificing stuff like RDS, whose functionality is done better in HD anyway, then you would end up with a system much narrower in bandwidth, one that wouldn't be subject to interference from first adjacents on skip, one that nobody would complain is jamming first adjacents, and one that utilizes the narrower bandwidth to achieve greater range by taking advantage of higher gain that happens when you lower bandwidth in receivers. I am hoping this could be done with simple re-programming of existing transmitters and receivers. The time would be now before things get any worse than they are now, if possible.

As for AM, HD lucked out when some receivers can decode C-Quam. C-Quam, with its faults, still worked. The HD people could announce they have "solved" HD-AM, make everything C-Quam. It would sound great, the range would be fantastic, it would be in stereo, there are still a lot of C-Quam receivers in cars. Almost NOBODY would realize it is a repackaged AMax - iBiquity's pride would be restored, noise on the AM band wouldn't cause stations to lose lock, HD noise would be eliminated, and everybody would be happy. True, it wouldn't be "digital", but consumers would never know, they would only know it sounds better and actually works. Maybe they could phase modulate that 20 Hz tone to display call letters and song titles or something.

Most people really don't know what HD radio is - as you said. And when they do hear about it, they are not sold on the benefits. Word of mouth spreads about it not working very well. I've suggested a couple of simple fixes that would cost virtually nothing and offer a real chance to the system. But you can add those to your list of things that will never happen.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom