My Thoughts about HD Radio

[tomservo]

A combat platoon of Orkin Pest-Control servicemen couldn't eliminate all the bugs in HD Radio. Not even with rocket-propelled sprayers and plenty of overtime.

Ha ha, bugs implies the problems can be fixed. I think the newest generation equipment has all the bugs worked out on the broadcaster's end.

It's the fundamental flaws associated trying to cram 10 lbs of manure in a 5 lb bag that can never be fixed.

 

[Savage]

Behold: HD-think. "We are not talking about subscription radio, as the programming would be totally free (!!)"

Sure. You just have to pay to use the radio you've already purchased. THAT'S going to happen. :

It's a little like saying, you can get into the movie theater for free. You just can't get into the auditorium to actually view the film unless you buy a ticket. IOW - a distinction without a difference.

"We have not quite worked out all the bugs yet." We've been hearing that for - what - NINE years??

Earth-to-HD: Nobody's installing HD and there is an increasing trend for FMs to now join the AM-HD shutoff which has decreased the number of stations by a third in a year. (In fact KNON just shut off HD forever....the latest.) Unless COBY's website is FUBAR, it looks like they've bailed on HD. Receivers, already very scarce, are becoming more so. It's over. Let's move on.

 

[crainbebo]

HD is a waste of time. Why the FCC thought about this I don't even know.
Can't DX first-adjacents that much anymore or it's very hard to because of HASH, not splatter. Plus, analog coverage of some stations can be 100 miles fringe. HD: only 10 miles.

-crainbebo

 

[tomservo]

HD is a waste of time. Why the FCC thought about this I don't even know.
Can't DX first-adjacents that much anymore or it's very hard to because of HASH, not splatter. Plus, analog coverage of some stations can be 100 miles fringe. HD: only 10 miles.

-crainbebo

:

We DXers are very much a minority of the total radio listening audience, and outside the northeast, SoCal and parts of the Midwest, there isn't much in the way of strong first adjacents in most markets.

And HD may only work 10 miles (or zero if it's on an AM) but some get out 30-40 miles. Those running higher power also have much better robustness than the ones stuck at 1%.

 

[L. DeForest]

My thoughts about HD radio - It's illegal.

 

[DaveBayArea]

outside the northeast, SoCal and parts of the Midwest, there isn't much in the way of strong first adjacents in most markets.

You can add Northern California to that list. It's definitely bad here.

Dave B.

 

[DaveBayArea]

I believe the iBiquity HD Radio standard does allow for a digital only broadcast mode. I would really like to see them or another station try out this digital only mode. The sidebands could be brought in, since the analog signal would be gone, and thus the power could be increased to that of the former analog signal since the station would actually be on it's assigned frequency.

The way the Ibiquity full-digital standard is written the full-digital mode actually puts more power OUTSIDE the assigned channel than inside. More info here:

http://www.ibiquity.com/i/pdfs/Conversion_Requirements.pdf

I'm not sure who expected this would ever work, but there you have it.

Dave B.

 

[Ai4i]

That PDF file, and ibiquity overall, keeps promoting, the same dial position, as if people can not learn new frequencies or channel numbers, as if they are even necessary. AOL Radio channels have no numbers at all and I can find what I want. Besides, I think with Eureka, a station on 98.7 could choose to be on channel 987.

 

[spunker88]

That PDF file, and ibiquity overall, keeps promoting, the same dial position, as if people can not learn new frequencies or channel numbers, as if they are even necessary. AOL Radio channels have no numbers at all and I can find what I want. Besides, I think with Eureka, a station on 98.7 could choose to be on channel 987.

With digital you could always create a PSIP system like DTV. The benefit of staying on or near frequency is that the radio station can use the same broadcasting antenna as analog since they are built for a specific frequency. It also allows the radio to use the same antenna to receive. I think UHF would be a better place for HD radio, right alongside HDTV. Digital seems to do better on UHF. Its too bad that when DTV was implemented there wasn't a protocol for digital radio established. You'd be able to fit several digital radio streams in the same amount of bandwidth as an DTV channel. And if the system allowed both radio and TV on the same channel you'd be able to save power and resources. It would also be easier for people to get TV audio on their digital radio and digital radio on their digital TV.

Then leave FM 100% analog since it sounds great, provides reliable signals and allows for cheap production of radios.

 

[ddsparxx]

My thoughts about HD radio - it's garbage. Please shut it off.

 

[fybush]

With digital you could always create a PSIP system like DTV. The benefit of staying on or near frequency is that the radio station can use the same broadcasting antenna as analog since they are built for a specific frequency. It also allows the radio to use the same antenna to receive.

The benefit of the in-band system for broadcasters was that it preserved the existing imbalance of signals. If you're the guy who owns the booming 100 kW signal of WFRY in Watertown, you don't want the guy who owns the rimshot class A signals on 94.1 and 100.7 - or the 1000-watt AM on 1240 - to suddenly have the same signal reach that you do. Broadcasters have fought tooth and nail over decades to create the regulatory scheme that's made the big guys big, and anything that would have leveled the very un-level playing field that now exists would never have gotten the support from the broadcast industry that was needed for any system to get approved by the FCC.

 

[Ai4i]

Very true, but it does seem that TV and especially FM signals are much more evenly matched than AM signals.
Also FM's and TV's are much more likely to share antennæ, albeit for technical reasons.

 

[fybush]

Very true, but it does seem that TV and especially FM signals are much more evenly matched than AM signals.
Also FM's and TV's are much more likely to share antennæ, albeit for technical reasons.

That may be true in South Florida, and it's somewhat true in a handful of other large markets such as Chicago and LA. It's very emphatically not true in a lot of other markets. There's an entire industry of specialists who work very hard to give stations every possible signal edge, and the last thing they wanted was to have that edge blunted by a Eureka-147-type system that puts multiple stations on a single-frequency bouquet with identical reach.

 

[Randal Marshall]

I think a few of you are missing the point...

According to iBiquity's own web site, the letter combination "HD" means nothing. It's not "High Definition" or "Hybrid Digital," they are merely two letters the parent company picked to represent it's product. Any similarity to the "HD" in "High Definition Television" is purely coincidental.

Secondly, somebody above mentioned that consumers are lazy and cheap. That statement can be quickly debunked by the long lines outside of any Apple store when the newest version of the iPhone is released. Consumers will buy products that make their life easier, better, more fun, offer more choices, etc. They will plunk down quite a bit of hard earned green to do so.

HD radio offers nothing new to a consumer. Don't go on about HD-2 and HD-3 channels, which are more of the same bland crap heard on most of the radio stations today. In fact, HD Radio offers only degradation, poor audio, interference, poor signal penetration, dropouts and frustration.

Who wants to pay extra money for that?

 

[tomservo]

OK so digital works better in UHF but more to the point, it works better (imho) with short-hop reception systems rather than brute force high power like radio or television. Our cell phones are digital and they're robust in most areas, many public safety agencies now depend on totally digital end-to-end systems as well. My local PD as well as several other towns are all on Kenwood's Nexedge, for example. And many 800 MHz trunked systems are digital, and the entire trunking concept is more or less cellular in nature.

For digital radio to work that would require building out a Eureka-147 type system with shared coverage cells. We've seen how difficult and arduous the process of getting the country set on wireless cell phones has gone (there's still a lot of cell-free land out there) and it's been mind-boggingly expensive.

 

[pocket-radio]

The only way that Digital Radio can succeed is for the FCC to develop a new class of radio. Digital-only.

The consumers are cheap and lazy. Consumers don't want to buy new radios, especially if those radios only receive AM-FM-Digital. Combine them with something else they want, like a phone or a computer, and you might sell a few.
Having said all this, the FCC has said several times, under several different Chairmen, that they see no reason to do to radio what it did to TV, which was REQUIRE a conversion to digital. So without such a

_________________________________________________

Will the madness ever end? "Consumers are cheap and lazy!" Well now, that's an interesting point of view considering over 100m iphones have been sold to cheap and lazy people.

"Combine them with something else they want, like a phone or a computer" My phone is digital radio, that tunes FM too. A computer, a camera and so much more. So why do I need another box that does the same thing?

 

[tomservo]

The only way that Digital Radio can succeed is for the FCC to develop a new class of radio. Digital-only.

The consumers are cheap and lazy. Consumers don't want to buy new radios, especially if those radios only receive AM-FM-Digital. Combine them with something else they want, like a phone or a computer, and you might sell a few.
Having said all this, the FCC has said several times, under several different Chairmen, that they see no reason to do to radio what it did to TV, which was REQUIRE a conversion to digital. So without such a

_________________________________________________

Will the madness ever end? "Consumers are cheap and lazy!" Well now, that's an interesting point of view considering over 100m iphones have been sold to cheap and lazy people.

"Combine them with something else they want, like a phone or a computer" My phone is digital radio, that tunes FM too. A computer, a camera and so much more. So why do I need another box that does the same thing?

Ah, correction: consumers are stupid and lazy. Better? ;D

So you're going to keep the same cell phone forever? Most upgrade when their contract is up, or every 2 years on average. I think the argument is "get HD radio in that next cell phone."

No one has to use it if they don't need or want it. There's some useful features on my old phone and current smart phone that I don't use.

 

[blackgold]

Let's get FMExtra into the mix and make it work! :-X