I just picked up a sony HD tuner for $75 to find out what HD radio is all about.Here in Ct there are maybe a dozen or so stations that broadcast HD.Here are some things i do like so far!I'm maybe one of the few left that listens to AM radio at times for news,weather and sports.The one AM station that i listen to is WTIC and now that i have HD i can listen to them on WTIC-2 FM with no noise from my computer set ups .I'm a big oldies fan and WDRC-2 is nice to hear without advertisements.My wife loves the Christmas music so hoping to find a HD station that plays it all the time from after thanksgiving till end of Xmas.For the money i have spent i would say it has been well worth it for me.I think HD should be standard for all radios but so far i see no sign of it happening.I don't understand why it would make radios really that more expensive!but maybe its because the technology is still new.
-
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
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
New HD radio owner
- Thread starter stanleyjohn
- Start date
KB1OKL said:How far do you live from WTIC and WDRC stanley?
I would say that they are around 25 miles away.I do get WAQY from springfield mass (50+ miles) with a very good sig but no HD on that station yet.When i find time i will search out greatest distance HD station i can find and post.
"And from our Non Sequitur Department...."
Hear them speak:
"I'm one of the few left that listens to AM radio at times for news, weather and sports....The one AM station that I listen to is WTIC and now that I have HD I can listen to them on WTIC-2 FM...."
(Huh??)
Stanley, you don't listen to 1080 in glorious HD digital on AM? Why would that be?? ???
Hear them speak:
"I'm one of the few left that listens to AM radio at times for news, weather and sports....The one AM station that I listen to is WTIC and now that I have HD I can listen to them on WTIC-2 FM...."
(Huh??)
Stanley, you don't listen to 1080 in glorious HD digital on AM? Why would that be?? ???
With two computer setups and many other noise making electronics here in my computer room without any HD too much noise to hear any AM!with HD AM i have much less interferance but still some and WTIC HD FM broadcasting the AM is giving me a very clean signal.I havent really dome anything with the HD AM side mostly because i dont really use am anymore execpt for WTIC.Savage said:"And from our Non Sequitur Department...."
Hear them speak:
"(Huh??)
Stanley, you don't listen to 1080 in glorious HD digital on AM? Why would that be?? ???
I'm as confused as Savage seems to be.
Is AM station audio rebroadcast and heard over an FM station still an AM station, or does it become an FM station broadcasting from a "network" or "chain broadcast" source. Same if it's broadcast over HD or HD2?
Is an internet stream from an AM station still AM?
When a daytime only AM station broadcasts at night over it's FM translator is it still an AM broadcast?
I believe I know the correct answers for all this, but it might be confusing to some.
My conclusion from what "stanleyjohn" said is that HD-AM is unlistenable.
I agree.
Also the HD required narrow bandwidth analog AM fidelity of HD-AM stations is irritating and almost unlistenable, for voices or music.
HD-AM is destroying AM radio. No listeners, no benefit, massive destruction.
Is AM station audio rebroadcast and heard over an FM station still an AM station, or does it become an FM station broadcasting from a "network" or "chain broadcast" source. Same if it's broadcast over HD or HD2?
Is an internet stream from an AM station still AM?
When a daytime only AM station broadcasts at night over it's FM translator is it still an AM broadcast?
I believe I know the correct answers for all this, but it might be confusing to some.
My conclusion from what "stanleyjohn" said is that HD-AM is unlistenable.
I agree.
Also the HD required narrow bandwidth analog AM fidelity of HD-AM stations is irritating and almost unlistenable, for voices or music.
HD-AM is destroying AM radio. No listeners, no benefit, massive destruction.
I find it most telling that CBS Radio, one of HD's most virulent proponents - and stubborn interferor not only with adjacent channel out-of-market stations but also self-interferor among its own properties (WBZ, KDKA, WINS) is the most prolific programmer of its news-talk AM properties on co-owned HD-FM subs.
If HD-AM is doing such wonderful things for the AM band - which IBOC pushers have obstinately insisted (the band is dying, the audience is ancient, it's dying, HD is AM's only hope!!!!) why are the FM subchannel simulcasts necessary?
And if, as this development tacitly and strongly suggests, HD isn't helping AM, why not just turn all the noise off and give the existing analog service a break - and a fighting chance?
Last I checked, manufacture of HD-AM capable radios has all but ceased. All the touted new HD products are FM only.
If HD-AM is doing such wonderful things for the AM band - which IBOC pushers have obstinately insisted (the band is dying, the audience is ancient, it's dying, HD is AM's only hope!!!!) why are the FM subchannel simulcasts necessary?
And if, as this development tacitly and strongly suggests, HD isn't helping AM, why not just turn all the noise off and give the existing analog service a break - and a fighting chance?
Last I checked, manufacture of HD-AM capable radios has all but ceased. All the touted new HD products are FM only.
I agree that AM radio is heading to an end!Not in the short term but maybe 10 to 25 years out.What you find on AM now will migrate to FM and use HDs 2 or 3 channels.FM like TV should be able to survive longer than AM radio but they will need to adapt to a changing world where Internet streaming for TV and Radio will become a much more common place taking away much the advertising revenue that TV and Radio for the most part survive on today.
Len, I agree with everything you said....except: instead of migrating to HD subs, AM stations with severe HD adjacent-channel interference should be given a range of options, which could include:
(a) AMs with demonstrated interference problems can be granted priority for the equivalent of LPFM facilities, (but commercial) or short-spaced Class A FMs with the caveat that they surrender their AM licenses, or
(b) AMs with interference problems will be permitted to migrate to the expanded band PLUS be able to apply for new FM translators (instead of being forced to buy pricey existing ones) or
(c) Any AM operator would be able to turn in their license in return for a generous federal tax credit, in the interest of ridding the band of marginal or disused AM stations.
Federal grants or low-cost subsidized loans should be available to such affected AM stations. Why not? Tens of millions of taxpayer dollars are going to fund HD conversions in public radio. The cost of relocating a relative handful of adversely-affected AMs would be pocket change compared with the dough that's being blown on HD for pubcasters. Relief for injured adjacent-channel stations should be part of the budget for rolling out Wonderful HD Radio, if it's The Second Coming a few parties continue to insist it is.
Putting AMs on FM subs doesn't make sense. Most of the stations operating with HD-FM are owned by the big groups. Why would they put their smaller competitors on their FM subchannels? Besides there are few radios, little prospect that's going to change soon, and no audience, so even if the Big Guys went along ( which is highly doubtful) it wouldn't help the AM broadcasters in any meaningful sense.
And as a footnote: the coverage for the HD subs is lousy. The subs on a local Class B here barely go 10 miles with reliable coverage. (Yeah, I know - "power increase coming for HD-FM digital, etc., etc." So at -14 dBc the HD-2/3 will go 15 miles instead of 10.....BFD.....)
(a) AMs with demonstrated interference problems can be granted priority for the equivalent of LPFM facilities, (but commercial) or short-spaced Class A FMs with the caveat that they surrender their AM licenses, or
(b) AMs with interference problems will be permitted to migrate to the expanded band PLUS be able to apply for new FM translators (instead of being forced to buy pricey existing ones) or
(c) Any AM operator would be able to turn in their license in return for a generous federal tax credit, in the interest of ridding the band of marginal or disused AM stations.
Federal grants or low-cost subsidized loans should be available to such affected AM stations. Why not? Tens of millions of taxpayer dollars are going to fund HD conversions in public radio. The cost of relocating a relative handful of adversely-affected AMs would be pocket change compared with the dough that's being blown on HD for pubcasters. Relief for injured adjacent-channel stations should be part of the budget for rolling out Wonderful HD Radio, if it's The Second Coming a few parties continue to insist it is.
Putting AMs on FM subs doesn't make sense. Most of the stations operating with HD-FM are owned by the big groups. Why would they put their smaller competitors on their FM subchannels? Besides there are few radios, little prospect that's going to change soon, and no audience, so even if the Big Guys went along ( which is highly doubtful) it wouldn't help the AM broadcasters in any meaningful sense.
And as a footnote: the coverage for the HD subs is lousy. The subs on a local Class B here barely go 10 miles with reliable coverage. (Yeah, I know - "power increase coming for HD-FM digital, etc., etc." So at -14 dBc the HD-2/3 will go 15 miles instead of 10.....BFD.....)
In my house, where AM=static , I can only get KFI in HD. I do not notice ANY difference. KABC and KNX are on their assoiciated FMers in HD and it sounds a whole lot better than KFI HDSUPERCASTER said:I'm as confused as Savage seems to be.
Is AM station audio rebroadcast and heard over an FM station still an AM station, or does it become an FM station broadcasting from a "network" or "chain broadcast" source. Same if it's broadcast over HD or HD2?
Is an internet stream from an AM station still AM?
When a daytime only AM station broadcasts at night over it's FM translator is it still an AM broadcast?
I believe I know the correct answers for all this, but it might be confusing to some.
My conclusion from what "stanleyjohn" said is that HD-AM is unlistenable.
I agree.
Also the HD required narrow bandwidth analog AM fidelity of HD-AM stations is irritating and almost unlistenable, for voices or music.
HD-AM is destroying AM radio. No listeners, no benefit, massive destruction.
Although I support FM HD, I have to agree with some of the posters here that AM stereo was a better system for the band. AM works fine under controlled conditions such as a laboratory setting. Under perfect conditions, i.e. on a freeway away from urban areas, power lines and thunderstorms; WLW and WJR can be received in HD about 200 miles from the tower. If that was the typical performance, I would gladly tolerate the interference. But, inside my home within 20 miles of the WLW tower, I have to fiddle with the antenna to get a lock. As Bob Savage postulated in some of his posts, the AM band may not be conducive to digital broadcasting. FM, however, isn't susceptible to noise and therefore works quite well in the digital mode.
Len14043 said:FM, however, isn't susceptible to noise and therefore works quite well in the digital mode.
Except it doesn't have the coverage of the analog signal, doesn't sound as good as an MP3 player and costs a fortune to install and operate with no return on investment.
RadeoEngineer said:Except it doesn't have the coverage of the analog signal, doesn't sound as good as an MP3 player....
When you say it doesn't have the coverage of the analog signal, keep in mind that the digital signal power is currently only 1% that of the analog signal - that's like comparing apples and steaks. Lets see how the coverage will be when stations increase their power from -14 to -10 db. The sound quality is superior to that of an MP3 player - unless you are referring to AM HD.
Len14043 said:The sound quality is superior to that of an MP3 player - unless you are referring to AM HD.
Listen closely. In some ways, you're both right. But it becomes a matter of opinion. The artifacts on HD tend to exaggerate the highs, like the sibilance of a female vocal, and cause them to lose definition. Piano notes sound more "clanky". In contrast, MP3 encoding can sound more hollow. The big difference here is that HD has a limitation as to bit rate. There's no way that HD can sound as good as an MP3 that is encoded with a high (I.E. 320 KB/s) bit rate.
Dave B.
Len14043 said:RadeoEngineer said:Except it doesn't have the coverage of the analog signal, doesn't sound as good as an MP3 player....
When you say it doesn't have the coverage of the analog signal, keep in mind that the digital signal power is currently only 1% that of the analog signal - that's like comparing apples and steaks. Lets see how the coverage will be when stations increase their power from -14 to -10 db. The sound quality is superior to that of an MP3 player - unless you are referring to AM HD.
Really? Which stations will be making this power increase? I know of one station locally that can increase by 3 dB without any additional expenditure. To increase more than that they'd have to replace the entire transmission system at a rough cost of $150k. Most stations running HD can't make any increase at all without spending another couple of hundred k. How much sense does that make given the economy, lack of listeners to HD and no ROI? This was a bad technology starting out and a worse one going forward.
Savage said:Len, I agree with everything you said....except: instead of migrating to HD subs, AM stations with severe HD adjacent-channel interference should be given a range of options, which could include:
(a) AMs with demonstrated interference problems can be granted priority for the equivalent of LPFM facilities, (but commercial) or short-spaced Class A FMs with the caveat that they surrender their AM licenses, or
(b) AMs with interference problems will be permitted to migrate to the expanded band PLUS be able to apply for new FM translators (instead of being forced to buy pricey existing ones) or
(c) Any AM operator would be able to turn in their license in return for a generous federal tax credit, in the interest of ridding the band of marginal or disused AM stations.
Federal grants or low-cost subsidized loans should be available to such affected AM stations. Why not? Tens of millions of taxpayer dollars are going to fund HD conversions in public radio. The cost of relocating a relative handful of adversely-affected AMs would be pocket change compared with the dough that's being blown on HD for pubcasters. Relief for injured adjacent-channel stations should be part of the budget for rolling out Wonderful HD Radio, if it's The Second Coming a few parties continue to insist it is.
Putting AMs on FM subs doesn't make sense. Most of the stations operating with HD-FM are owned by the big groups. Why would they put their smaller competitors on their FM subchannels? Besides there are few radios, little prospect that's going to change soon, and no audience, so even if the Big Guys went along ( which is highly doubtful) it wouldn't help the AM broadcasters in any meaningful sense.
And as a footnote: the coverage for the HD subs is lousy. The subs on a local Class B here barely go 10 miles with reliable coverage. (Yeah, I know - "power increase coming for HD-FM digital, etc., etc." So at -14 dBc the HD-2/3 will go 15 miles instead of 10.....BFD.....)
These are all great ideas, Bob. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the FCC's top priority for radio is not the HD power increase (was it ever a true priority?) but giving the FM band some breathing room--especially if we are to soon see an onslaught of LPFMs.
Similar to the MMTC, I would immediately call a moratorium on granting television licenses on channel 6 and for the movement of incumbent Ch. 6 stations to the UHF band (hey, isn't DTV better on UHF, anyway?). Then I would call for an emergency expansion of the FM band to at least 87.1. After all, most existing radios can tune down to either 87.5 or 87.1. This expansion would be for LPFMs and impacted AM stations who need to move.
As I see it, the real game changer for radio's future is not HD Radio or HD Radio in a Zune but in the iPod Nano's ability to tune FM down to 78.0 MHz. If this is a foretaste of what we will be seeing in portable entertainment devices in the future than we need to seriously press the FCC now into considering giving both ch. 6 and 5 over to all radio stations--FM AND AM.
C5
Some questions and opinions.
What about all digital mode for HD AM?
At 15 dB (32 times) higher power in pure digital mode compared to hybrid mode the coverage, and adjacent interference issues become non-issues.
Do you think this would solve the AM bands problems in the long term?
Initially in some large markets a 1 or 2.5 kW station in pure digital mode should become viable (the FCC needs to amend the rules for this to happen). My thinking is this; most of the purchasers of HD radios are more likely to be avid regular radio listeners. Even if HD radio penetration is around the 1% mark, these are radios that are more likely being listened to on a daily basis. (Average household has 9 radios many of which are gathering dust in an attic) A 2.5 kW HD AM in pure digital mode would exceed the coverage of a class B FM with noise free and pretty acceptable sound for music to the majority of listeners (not those listening for nuances in how cymbols are being reproduced) It would also be in stereo over a larger portion of the area without the FM stereo noise.
Let's face it some 1 kW AM stations are looking for some dramatic options to survive right now and in a big market, with the right programming and sufficient time, there may well get more listeners on HD AM in all-digital mode than they otherwise would get in analog only. Maybe Ibiquity could subsidize a single 1kW AM station in the 5 largest markets to go into pure digital mode and phase out the subsidy as the listenership evolves.
Anyway just some brainstorming to think about.
What about all digital mode for HD AM?
At 15 dB (32 times) higher power in pure digital mode compared to hybrid mode the coverage, and adjacent interference issues become non-issues.
Do you think this would solve the AM bands problems in the long term?
Initially in some large markets a 1 or 2.5 kW station in pure digital mode should become viable (the FCC needs to amend the rules for this to happen). My thinking is this; most of the purchasers of HD radios are more likely to be avid regular radio listeners. Even if HD radio penetration is around the 1% mark, these are radios that are more likely being listened to on a daily basis. (Average household has 9 radios many of which are gathering dust in an attic) A 2.5 kW HD AM in pure digital mode would exceed the coverage of a class B FM with noise free and pretty acceptable sound for music to the majority of listeners (not those listening for nuances in how cymbols are being reproduced) It would also be in stereo over a larger portion of the area without the FM stereo noise.
Let's face it some 1 kW AM stations are looking for some dramatic options to survive right now and in a big market, with the right programming and sufficient time, there may well get more listeners on HD AM in all-digital mode than they otherwise would get in analog only. Maybe Ibiquity could subsidize a single 1kW AM station in the 5 largest markets to go into pure digital mode and phase out the subsidy as the listenership evolves.
Anyway just some brainstorming to think about.
You bring up some very poignant questions for today's operators. I would seriously like to see some test facilities not only for HD AM but for Digital Radio Mondiale (DRM). From what I understand the modulation efficiency (bits per hertz) and audio quality is much better with DRM. Either way, it is certainly something that should be investigated. I also wonder about the "tropical" shortwave bands - 90 and 120 meters. Seems like those frequencies could be re-purposed for digital AM transmissions domestically.briankay said:Some questions and opinions.
What about all digital mode for HD AM?
Dave B.
Whether we're talking digital or hybrid mode, you're always going to run up against the same practical problems. "Digital radio" is a topic of discussion only on radio boards, at radio trade conventions or in the pages of industry periodicals. There is NO real-world demand for this conversion. Nor will there ever be. People just don't care whether their radio is 'digital or analog.'
Outside of our navel-gazing world, nobody cares enough about the service provided by AM radio to send their share of an estimated half- to one-billion operable radios to a landfill. Essentially, when someone proposes all-digital in the existing band for AM (and to a lesser extent the same is true of hybrid IBOC) what you're proposing is a nihilistic approach where we blow up EVERYTHING.
The fond, highly hypothetical hope is that station owners will voluntarily trash their livelihoods (and waste assets in many cases which are highly valued) by killing their analog service, and that listeners will miss AM Radio so much they'll wiggle out and buy new radios which at the outset - and probably beyond - will be priced beyond actual value, given marketplace conditions.
Oh - and that advertisers and agencies who have been forced away from AM radio to develop newer media buying habits will come back, now that the New All Digital Era has arrived.
Isn't gonna happen. And - isn't gonna happen. And, for good measure: not gonna happen either.
If the day comes when a compelling need arises for digital radio - a highly dubious proposition given how people listen to radio - the only way it will happen is through dual-mode operation on separate frequencies for a transitional period, a la Tee Vee.
Outside of our navel-gazing world, nobody cares enough about the service provided by AM radio to send their share of an estimated half- to one-billion operable radios to a landfill. Essentially, when someone proposes all-digital in the existing band for AM (and to a lesser extent the same is true of hybrid IBOC) what you're proposing is a nihilistic approach where we blow up EVERYTHING.
The fond, highly hypothetical hope is that station owners will voluntarily trash their livelihoods (and waste assets in many cases which are highly valued) by killing their analog service, and that listeners will miss AM Radio so much they'll wiggle out and buy new radios which at the outset - and probably beyond - will be priced beyond actual value, given marketplace conditions.
Oh - and that advertisers and agencies who have been forced away from AM radio to develop newer media buying habits will come back, now that the New All Digital Era has arrived.
Isn't gonna happen. And - isn't gonna happen. And, for good measure: not gonna happen either.
If the day comes when a compelling need arises for digital radio - a highly dubious proposition given how people listen to radio - the only way it will happen is through dual-mode operation on separate frequencies for a transitional period, a la Tee Vee.
- Status
- This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.