• 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

More deceptive promotion from Camp Struble

The item was written by a public radio guy, and my personal take is that public radio stations have the most to offer on HD sub-channels. Classical 24 could almost be called the HD-2 network, so more power to them.
 
Public Radio HD is indeed a special case. Most NPR stations didn't have to pay most or all of the tab to put HD on the air. As a result, in many markets the only station running HD is the NPR affiliate. Major Public Radio stations also have another reason to love HD: It allowed them to transition their main channels to full time NPR News/Talk without incurring the wrath of the Classical and Jazz fans, who were sent packing to HD2/3-land. Methinks the wrath is still there, just deflected a bit. It's sad that Public Radio folks don't always recognize HD Radio for the junk science that it is, in part due to the two aforementioned benefits. To be fair, examples of commercial FM stations parking an outgoing format on an HD2/3 in order to avoid listener conflict are not uncommon. Hey, if you can put it on HD2/3 AND an analog translator, so much the better. That's the ticket!
 
local oscillator said:
http://radioworld.com/TabId/64/Default.aspx?ArticleId=217888

Do I sense a bit of desperation?

You can beat a dead horse for only so long. In other words, the money is going to run out.

There is an upside, though. When the final nail is driven, the radio industry won't have to deal with the PR nightmare that is usually associated with such a failure. The public pays no attention to HD Radio now and won't notice when it's gone.

Oh brother --- "you can go farther with digital than with existing analog"? Give me a break. I measured the HD range on a full class C, 2000 foot tower, 100kW over flat terrain at just under 70 miles. Impressive for such a flawed system. But it was with a whip antenna and a Pioneer Supertuner. Most listeners are complaining it drops out at 20 to 30 miles in the car. Contrast that with analog range. Prior to this HD debacle, it averaged about 130 to 140 miles on a full class C, hobbled to about 80 to 90 when HD was introduced. So what - the ratings obsessed asked - to which I respond that it translates directly to building penetration where it counts. So - no - yet another lie from the HD folks. When I am lied to repeatedly, it does tend to diminish my belief in anything they say.

The only thing that might rescue HD is to do what I have been suggesting - abandon SCA, RDS, and deaf reading services and put the sidebands within the existing channel. I seriously doubt it would require a firmware upgrade - those tuners probably decode any HD transmission they find no matter where it is located in the channel. That's the way I would have written the software, and it would make the band - AM or FM - irrelevant to the digital decoding process. Because of the narrower channel, the gain / bandwidth product change would immediately supercharge HD range and reliability. Adjacent channel interference would be completely eliminated, and the displaced services could be done better on HD anyway (data transmission vastly superior to RDS, HD-2 for SCA, HD-3 for deaf reading, etc. But that idea makes way too much sense for the iBiquity folks, because they didn't think of it and it would embarrass them for a throwback Neanderthal outmoded DX'er to fix their system for them.
 
"You can beat a dead horse for only so long."

Really? If that's the case, this sub-board should have died out years ago. 163 pages of mostly the same tired old regurgitated anti-Ibiquity whining from the same dozen or so users later.....

@rbrucecarter5--

What's this "deaf reading service" thing you keep mentioning? If it's what I'm thinking of, it'd require a *hell of a lot* more bandwidth than even Ibiquity and the main composite FM signal together combined could provide, since it'd undoubtedly consist of a fast-scan visual signal (since sign language is especially difficult to convey via an audio-only signal like FM or Ibiquity.) Besides, the obvious things like dyslexia notwithstanding, what's to stop a deaf guy from just picking up a book/newspaper/whatever and reading it on his own?
 
Darth_vader said:
"You can beat a dead horse for only so long."

Really? If that's the case, this sub-board should have died out years ago. 163 pages of mostly the same tired old regurgitated anti-Ibiquity whining from the same dozen or so users later.....

@rbrucecarter5--

What's this "deaf reading service" thing you keep mentioning? If it's what I'm thinking of, it'd require a *hell of a lot* more bandwidth than even Ibiquity and the main composite FM signal together combined could provide, since it'd undoubtedly consist of a fast-scan visual signal (since sign language is especially difficult to convey via an audio-only signal like FM or Ibiquity.) Besides, the obvious things like dyslexia notwithstanding, what's to stop a deaf guy from just picking up a book/newspaper/whatever and reading it on his own?

Nope - audos subcarrier doesn't take a lot of bandwidth. My apologies - it isn't for deaf. It is for blind - just some guy reading books. Perfect for another HD subcarrier because it wouldn't take a lot of bandwidth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RDS_vs_DirectBand_FM-spectrum2.svg
 
Darth_vader said:
Really? If that's the case, this sub-board should have died out years ago. 163 pages of mostly the same tired old regurgitated anti-Ibiquity whining from the same dozen or so users later.....

The only ones who think that posts questioning the technical reliability of HD radio are whining those who have a financial stake in the system, or whose professional reputations are on the line when it ultimately fails due to those shortcomings. Results of independent real world, controlled, repeatable, and scientifically unbiased tests, and pointing out the lies propagated by the HD alliance - are not whining. Lest I be confused as a whiner - I personally use and enjoy HD radio, owning three - two at home and one in the car. That doesn't mean I think it is technically robust, couldn't be done much better, or is going to succeed in the marketplace.

I am afraid that due to bad engineering, cover ups to hide that bad engineering, and incompetent marketing - I will someday be the owner of three orphans that have digital capability, but no stations to decode. Just like I own 3 AM stereo radios today, long after the last C-Quam station anywhere near me has shut off its C-Quam. Thankfully, all the radios work for conventional radio. I miss the AM stereo quality. Some day, I will miss the HD-2 formats which are about the only over the air broadcasts in my area that are of interest to me.

HD radio could have succeeded, but engineering problems needed to be addressed and corrected before the first radios ever went to consumers, or as soon as problems were recognized by consumers, especially DX'ers who traditionally were the best ally station engineers ever had, because they notice problems first, before they are noticeable by the station's main audience. Instead, we were insulted and marginalized for daring to declare that the emperor had no clothes. Because we were ignored, problems went un-fixed a decade ago, and consumer word of mouth spread that the system is unreliable after people returned "defective" radios. The radios weren't defective. The whole system is, and now it is much too late to do anything about it.

As HD radio joins the cue cat, PC Junior, Microsoft Bob, new coke, and the other legendary consumer fiascos, I am puzzled. In most consumer electronics companies, engineers who produce defective, unsuccessful products are fired - not defended. Once this consumer flop does go under, who in their right mind is ever going to hire the engineers who produced it? It would have been in their best interest to fix the darn system when problems first arose - not cover them up. Now, they have sealed their own fate.
 
The HD Cartel and it's minions are like the emperor's ministers in The Emperor's New Clothes, they also know it's a waste of time and money but they have too much of a vested interest in it to be honest with themselves (like J-O-B-S), we're like the child who has no understanding of hypocrisy and nothing to lose so we point it out.
By the way I just picked up a Fisher 400 all tube receiver from the 60's, it sounds excellent. The sound from this thing blows away any HD receiver I've ever heard, and all I'm using for an antenna is a home made half wave dipole tacked to the wall I tried that with my Sony XDRF1HD tuner and it was drop out city. Fisher 400 is a little easier to remember than XDRF1HD too which I always have to look up before I write about it.
 
I only joined the ranks of the regurgitating, anti-iBiquity whiners when I saw that the promise of digital radio was turning into the interfering, non-robust, proprietary piece of junk science that is HD Radio. Analog FM is by far the finest broadcast radio system ever devised; if at some point in the future a new digital system comes along that is truly better for my station, I will support it. I think that the HD Radio fiasco has made that possibility unlikely, though. Due to online developments, the radio industry may have had only the one opportunity to show its digital prowess. By whatever convoluted process, the ball was handed to iBiquity and fumbled, with the able assistance of several large groups, NPR, and the NAB. Another downside to this HD Radio mess: So much money, time, and energy have been devoted to this failure that could have been invested into making our product better and our industry stronger. Instead we're at each others' throats. Sad.
 
This morning, on CBS Sunday Morning, was a car ad for a Honda Accord that featured, as the major attraction in the Dash, Pandora. Do you think the misguided folks with HD Radio can't read the writing on the wall?

Nobody's going to spend money on an HD radio if they can simply connect their phone or tablet to their automobile's sound system to access a greater variety of entertainment. Online, there's so much variety that only a fraction of it is controlled by radio conglomerates like Clear Channel or Cumulus, allowing people to escape the cookie-cutter programming approach where you need a magnifier to see any sense of local identity.

I outlined much of this in an op-ed piece I wrote for Radio World several years ago but people who have working radios aren't going to be motivated to buy another one. Young people can find the niche formats they desire online because they aren't programmed on terrestrial stations due to the limited return on investment. If a car has a choice between an HD radio and connecting your wifi-3g-4g wireless device for in-car entertainment can you guess what people will likely choose?

When iBiquity can't sucker stations into paying its outrageous license fees they'll finally see the writing on the wall. I had written in my past article that they were the wrong people to even develop the technology. One of the computer software concerns such as Apple (Quicktime), Microsoft (Windows Media) or even Adobe (Flash Media) would have been a much better choice since the development could have co-existed with their online coding technologies. Also, can they improve their coding technology without recalling each and every radio?

The last thing is when the HD transmission equipment "soils the linen" how many listeners actually call to complain? The staff at most stations don't even notice, so do you expect the listeners to care? HD Radio has turned into this century's debacle just like AM Stereo was the debacle for the 1980's.
 
The reason HD's many problems weren't corrected when they first manifested themselves on rollout in 2002-2003 (particularly the AM version) is....those problems can't be corrected without tearing down the entire architecture and starting over. That would take too much time and cost too much. The nonnegotiable requirements for digitizing audio broadcasting included "compatibility" (use of quotation marks is advised) with existing analog facilities. There was no way that CBS, Greater Media, Cheap Channel et al wanted to give smaller operators facility parity with them. They also wanted an investment horizon which built in the ability to license the digital system to independent operators with a perpetual cost - annual license fees - which would give them an ROI guaranteed by competitors. Pretty slick, eh? Except the stupid system doesn't work and consumers don't want it.

It's as if the New York Port Authority built a George Washington Bridge with uneven piers so that the bridge deck permanently leans 30 degrees to the south. To fix it, the whole thing would have to be demolished and a new bridge built on the old footprint. Too expensive; it would take too long and be politically embarassing. So instead the Authority is trying to get everyone used to driving on an incline, or making suggestions like having different size tires on the two sides of your car. Or telling you that the queasy disorientation from driving on the thing is "all in your head" and calling people who complain, "whiners, "Luddites," etc.

HD's perpetrators are very close to the levers and switches of political power in the radio industry. They can't backtrack on HD without disastrous political costs and adverse consequences to their companies, plus their enablers in the NAB and their Commission lapdogs. So they will hang on and desperately cling to every chance, no matter how slim and/or unlikely, that HD will "finally catch on."
 
This column sounds more like a shrill shill from Struble then the words of a respected engineer.

And while Ibiquity is trumpeting its growing list of car makers, web radio is rapidly making inroads with these same car makers and the interface for it is getting easier and more "radio-like". Legislators are introducing bills to bring sanity to the issue of performance royalties. At some point, consumers and consumer groups will begin demanding and the FCC will put pressure on the telcos to provide, low-cost, all-you-can-eat data plans. This is the more likely evolution of digital radio.

HD Radio, on the other hand, is a Mastodon that will soon be part of the dead technology ice age.
 
Carmine5 said:
At some point, consumers and consumer groups will begin demanding and the FCC will put pressure on the telcos to provide, low-cost, all-you-can-eat data plans. This is the more likely evolution of digital radio.

I'm not sure it will be necessary to involve the FCC. It looks like the market is working on that right now. For instance, Walmart has a "Free and Clear" plan that puts you on either the Verizon or AT&T network for $49.95 per month. It is unlimited text, talk and data. If you already have a phone that you like, you can get a new sim card for it and party on. I've seen other competing plans offering similar features and price. Since that is almost 40% less than I am currently paying for a more restricted plan, I'll probably jump ship when my contract is over. I'll bet a lot of other people do to, so that will further drive down the price. Sometimes competition is a good thing.
 
Straight Talk's terms of service prohibit streaming from what I have read. I think some of the other low cost data plans also have restrictions on the types of applications you are allowed to run.
 
From what I read, StraightTalk doesn't prohibit streaming audio, though it very clearly prohibits streaming video. Of course, we still don't really have unlimited data with any carrier, and StraightTalk has that clause that says they can throttle or terminate your service for anything it considers to be excessive use. Given that I go through 1.5-3 gig of data every month, I suspect StraightTalk would bounce me in a hurry!
 
Kent said:
From what I read, StraightTalk doesn't prohibit streaming audio, though it very clearly prohibits streaming video. Of course, we still don't really have unlimited data with any carrier, and StraightTalk has that clause that says they can throttle or terminate your service for anything it considers to be excessive use. Given that I go through 1.5-3 gig of data every month, I suspect StraightTalk would bounce me in a hurry!

I use the Verizon plan which gives me unlimited talk/text and 2 GB of data. But at some point, plans that have data caps are going to have to go away and unlimited data usage is going to have to be affordable. It's the way digital video and audio are going.

And simply giving the telcos more spectrum isn't necessarily going to encourage them to drop the price on data usage any more then an abundance of oil would encourage oil companies to drop the price on gas. I'm sure the FCC is going to have to get involved at some point.
 
Last I checked, radio is free and data plans are not. Data is a cash cow for telecom companies and will continue to be that way for some time. I will not pay for wireless data when I have wifi just about anywhere I go. The car is the only place I listen to radio. I like audio to sound good. I paid extra for hd radio because I don't like static. HD radio for the most part fixes that. But I also understand that I am one of the few that even care how my radio experience is. Most stations in this area don't care. Poor timing of analog and digital are a big problem. But the biggest is when the HD goes off. Does anyone else care? No! Entercom just about owns Buffalo radio. WTSS HD has been off since I complained back in December. It was on for a week or so, crashed again, and never restarted. Now their RDS has stopped giving artist and title. When others ask me if HD radio worth getting I say not really unless there is something on HD2 that you really like. Radio is free so don't expect much right?
One last thing, if HD is here to stay....why are there so many station web sites that still have no mention of it? I guess it is bad to advertise something that does not work well or may not be available today or tomorrow.
 
WJPYFM said:
But I also understand that I am one of the few that even care how my radio experience is.

If you are talking about your radio listener experience then I also care about my listener experience which is PRECISELY why I haven't turned on my HD radio in at least two years and will never get an HD car radio.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom