Not like AM Stereo?

[CMHDave]

I don't really know the history of AM Stereo but there is an interesting article that I ran across in the December 9 edition of the Mercury News.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/business/13367221.htm

So it looks like the competition is banding together to fight off satellite radio and pump up HD Radio by forming the HD Digital Radio Alliance. Interesting quote from the article, "The new radio alliance pledges to invest $200 million worth of commercial airtime next year touting HD Digital Radio in hopes of breaking it out of obscurity."

So it got me to thinking, was anything like this ever done for AM Stereo? There are a lot of parallels drawn here between HD Radio and AM Stereo but could this save HD Radio? I have made it known here that I think the fact that HD Radio is proprietary will be it's downfall but I'm curious as to what people think of this move.

I'd still love to get my hands on an HD Radio just for the sake of satisfying my curiosity but I'll be damned if my curiosity is worth $250 to listen to a handful of stations that I don't even listen to in analog.

 

[Trick_Magnet]

> I don't really know the history of AM Stereo but there is an
> interesting article that I ran across in the December 9
> edition of the Mercury News.
>
http> ://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/business/13367221.htm
>
>
> So it looks like the competition is banding together to
> fight off satellite radio and pump up HD Radio by forming
> the HD Digital Radio Alliance. Interesting quote from the
> article, "The new radio alliance pledges to invest $200
> million worth of commercial airtime next year touting HD
> Digital Radio in hopes of breaking it out of obscurity."
>
> So it got me to thinking, was anything like this ever done
> for AM Stereo? There are a lot of parallels drawn here
> between HD Radio and AM Stereo but could this save HD Radio?
> I have made it known here that I think the fact that HD
> Radio is proprietary will be it's downfall but I'm curious
> as to what people think of this move.
>
> I'd still love to get my hands on an HD Radio just for the
> sake of satisfying my curiosity but I'll be damned if my
> curiosity is worth $250 to listen to a handful of stations
> that I don't even listen to in analog.
>

CMHDave you are so succinct in the last paragraph why HD Radio hasn't taken off. What content is compelling people to buy into it? None. Same ol' staions. People are compelled to buy into satellite radio. Last night I talked to a subcriber of Sirius and he absolutely loves it and could not contain his enthusiasm for Stern's move to it.
Most people can't tell or don't care in the sound difference between CD and a 128kbps MP3 so why would digital radio be of any interest (no insult to those of us who can hear the difference)? It's about the content.

Trick_Magnet

 

[Nu_Roo_2]

> > I'd still love to get my hands on an HD Radio just for the
> > sake of satisfying my curiosity but I'll be damned if my
> > curiosity is worth $250 to listen to a handful of stations
> > that I don't even listen to in analog.
>
> CMHDave you are so succinct in the last paragraph why HD
> Radio hasn't taken off. What content is compelling people
> to buy into it? None. Same ol' staions. People are
> compelled to buy into satellite radio. Last night I talked
> to a subcriber of Sirius and he absolutely loves it and
> could not contain his enthusiasm for Stern's move to it.
> Most people can't tell or don't care in the sound difference
> between CD and a 128kbps MP3 so why would digital radio be
> of any interest (no insult to those of us who can hear the
> difference)? It's about the content.


Inside Radio has been reporting on surveys that say satellite users are not enthralled by the services, saying that they don't think there is sufficiently improved content or benefit to commercial-free music to justify the subscription costs. And not all the channels are commercial free. Stern certainly won't be.

I can't comment on the accuracy of the surveys. Like you, I've heard a lot of positive testimonials on satellite.

As for CMHDave's comments about buying an HD radio (if it didn't cost a fortune), I'd think twice even if HD broadcasts DO become more widely available soon. Cox Radio recently did focus groups asking people whether ther would rather see HD-Radio multicasts shown as, say 104.3-HD2, or instead have the stations show up as an expansion beyond 107.9 (e.g, 108.7). Respondents almost unanimously preferred the latter approach finding the former too confusing, and Cox is pushing hard to get the radio industry and manufacturers to go along with this. I can definitely see how the "fake" band expansion would be more intuitive for users. But that would make those crucial inital (and expensive!) HD radios obsolete from the get-go, ticking off those crucial early adopters from both the consumers and manufacturer sides. What a mess.

P.S: I should point out I haven't read the article yet, so sorry if any of this was redundant.
<P ID="signature">______________
Nu_Roo_2 formerly Nu__Roo formerly Nu_Roo</P>

 

[Oscar]

Each station will now be two stations

You may think the "same ol" stations now, but there will be double the choices when HD becomes reality. Each station will be able to program a separate HD-2 channel, and there may be a third channel with FM that allows a lower bandwidth service. AMs will also sound like FM (at least during the day). They can't seem to overcome the nighttime interference issues with HD and IBOC.

You'll have more choices, but for it to work, they need to program something unique.

Satellite will still be a success, but for cheapos like me, HD will be fine once the radios get reasonably priced.

 

[Inventor989]

Re: Each station will now be two stations

If more=better, then HD will be something worth buying. If better=better, the consumer won't be fooled. More of the same ol' same ol' won't cut it, on HD or satellite.

 

[dab1100]

Re: Each station will now be two stations

AM Stereo was a train wreck from the get-go. First of all, the technology (at least the Kahn system) existed since the early 60's, but was not put into play until almost 20 years later. When it was, the FCC approved a single system, then reversed itself and said the marketplace should decide. Eventually, CQUAM became the de-facto standard but by then there was so much migration of music audiences to FM that the point was moot. There was also the fidelity issue... FM Stereo just sounded better than AM stereo, so why invest in the equipment for an inferior product.

I see a lot of parallels between the development of FM and HD radio. The "early adoptors" ended up with worthless receivers when FM migrated from its original band in the 42 mHz neighborhood to its current 88-108 address (it should be noted that in portions of Europe and Asis, the FM band expands into the low 80's). The sound quality is better on HD, but the question is is it THAT much better to get people to invest in new equipment (anyone remember Quadriphonic??). Just like FM, the success or failure of HD hinges on two things.... offering the listener programming content that is not available in the "traditional" spectrum and getting the receivers into the hands of consumers at reasonable prices... especially into cars. FM, as we know it, came into existence in 1948. It was not until 1961 that multiplex stereo began, and not until the late 60's that there was a good selection of non-simulcast programming on the band. Over the next ten years, as in-car receiver penetration climbed, FM attained parity and then passed AM as the primary band.

The question is.... can the radio industry compress what took 30 years in the case of FM into less than five years? The answer is... we have to. If we don't someone else will.

 

[Nu_Roo_2]

Re: Each station will now be two stations

Interesting post. A few comments:

>(anyone remember Quadriphonic??).

Yes, believe it or not. 99.7 made a big deal about being the first station in Ohio to broadcast in Quad. That went nowhere, of course. I believe this was in the mid-70's, using a short-lived upbeat easy listening format. I don't recall whether the station was still WMNI-FM at the time, or perhaps this is when they changed the calls to WRMZ. (Of course, 99.7 is now WBZX The Blitz.)

> FM, as we know it, came
> into existence in 1948. It was not until 1961 that
> multiplex stereo began, and not until the late 60's that
> there was a good selection of non-simulcast programming on
> the band.

As I'm sure you know, the growth in non-simulcast programming is largely a credit to the FCC, which helped jump-start FM by putting limits on AM simulcasting. Before that, WCOL-FM, for instance, was basically a mono FM simulcast of WCOL-AM 1230.

>Over the next ten years, as in-car receiver
> penetration climbed, FM attained parity and then passed AM
> as the primary band.
>
> The question is.... can the radio industry compress what
> took 30 years in the case of FM into less than five years?
> The answer is... we have to. If we don't someone else will.
>

True. But I don't think the fact that FM development took 30 years is relevant today, given that so many changes now take place at warp speed compared to mid 20th-century norms...particularly where electronic technology and entertainment media are involved. HD has been soozin and losin. It's a good thing for HD proponents that industry leaders are galvanizing efforts now, so at least they might have a chance to catch up before its too late.<P ID="signature">______________
Nu_Roo_2 formerly Nu__Roo formerly Nu_Roo</P>

 

[dab1100]

Re: Each station will now be two stations

> Yes, believe it or not. 99.7 made a big deal about being
> the first station in Ohio to broadcast in Quad. >

I'm not quite sure when WMNI-FM went quad. I do know that WTUE in Dayton was promoting itself as quad in the fall of 1972.

And yes... the FCC did give FM a push with its non-sumulcast rules that went into effect in 1967.

I don't doubt that our industry has the need and the means to make HD roll out at warp speed. My question is whether we're going to be the ones to do it this time or will other technology (SatRad, iPods, et. al.) will leave us in the dust.

We could have hastened FM's development in the 50's simultaneously with the roll out of Hi-fi records (45's and LP's) by offering more programming choices. At the time, most operators were not beleivers in the medium. Many just let their licenses lapse because they didn't even think it was cost-effective to even simulcast. Two of those that come to mind were WMCA-FM and WMGM-FM in New York. Today, those two frequencies are known as K-Rock and Z-100, respectively each worth nine figures.

IF the listener sees something (s)he can't get now, he will invest in the new technology. That difference could be superior sound quality, commercial free music, unavailable formats or personalities, or a combination thereof. The Quad and AM stereo failures proved that "just marginally better" ain't gonna' cut it. So far, I agree... HD has been "snoozin' and loozin'" We should be much farther down the road than we currently are.

Radio has always been an adaptable medium. The gauntlet has been thrown down. We have the technology. The mega-owners have the finanancial resources. Do we have the vision to make it happen?