NPR Labs: 10% Injection Solves HD Reception Problems, But...

[dumber than a box of hair]

The NPR Labs study on the proposed increase in HD carrier injection from 1% to 10% has been published online. Cliff's Notes: Raising the HD carriers to 10% will solve nearly every reception problem, but at a huge cost to analog coverage, and not just in the "fringe" reception areas. They recommend that 10% injection levels across the board be scaled back.

http://www.nprlabs.org/research/drcia.php

 

[Mike Walker]

There are two places to address reception problems (broadly speaking). At the transmitting end. And at the receiving end. 10 percent injection may well be an "over the top" response, attempting through brute-force to place the solution entirely at one end. Common sense dictates a more balanced approach (digital injection increased at a more moderate rate, AND improved radios and antennas).

 

[Savage]

Well, now - let's all take out our August 1st RW. You don't even have to go through the inconvenience of opening the publication. Check out the graphic above the fold, page 1, showing a projected loss of analog listenership to KTYS Dallas from a second-adjacent IBOC station of a mere 574,000 in the event of the 10db digital hike. And was this submitted by some "anti-HD naysayer?" Nope. It's from a ranking member of the NRSC.

What rational broadcaster - which would exclude, by definition, those operators who are members of the HD Alliance - would spend up to a million bucks to convert a full B or C to power-enhanced IBOC, incurring permanent increases in rent, taxes, maintenance and HVAC - when you're just going to be sued by some second-adjacent operator whose investment in his station is now worth bupkis thanks to your efforts to superserve 14 HD-FM listeners?? If you were the owner of KTYS, would you put up with it? Of course not. You'll do what you have to do, to protect your livelihood.

Yeah, I know. We've GOTTA do this because "the world is going digital." The latest brain-dead talking point to bolster an insane and self-immolating HD obsession. Where the hell are the real leaders in our benighted industry?

 

[Mike Walker]

Savage, obviously what's wrong with radio isn't technology, it's PROGRAMMING. Or lack of innovation in that area. It's lack of community service. It's the inability to freakin' come up with an original idea! It's too few voices in the marketplace (literally, in the form of fewer voices on the air, and figuratively in terms of too few individual owners). It's lack of competition, CAUSED by too few owners. It's all of the above. Technology (digital or otherwise) isn't a "solution" to radios problems, because what's (mostly) wrong isn't technological. Good progamming will ALWAYS lead to larger, more loyal audiences. However, it's simultaneously true that digital (forget HD, just DIGITAL) offers many advantages, and that future mass media formats will ALL BE DIGITAL! This is the DELIVERY part of the equation. Should radio (FM anyway) be delivering content digitally over the air? You betcha! And not just for improved audio quality (we all know that if stations lower bitrates too much, audio can actually be worse...MUCH worse), but because of the ability to better serve listeners. But again, success in this area will be dependent upon PROGRAMMING, not technology! For multicasting to matter, there has to be something people freakin' care about! There are actually a couple of INTERESTING (to me) programming options available only by multicast in my area (fulltime classical, fulltime news...NOT POLITICAL TALK, BUT NEWS, a really varied blend of pop music from the last forty years, folk/jazz/eclectic, to name a few). But I understand this isn't the case in much, perhaps MOST of the country. For HD (or any other delivery method...insert your favorite) to succeed, you have to put something there people actually care about.

Do as WFDD in Winston-Salem has done, restore the classical music programming lost when they (like most NPR stations) went talk, and you'll sell radios. It's a loyal audience that cares! Do as nobody to my knowledge has done, and put say Rush Limbaugh (or Bill O'Reilly, or Randi Rhodes to give an example from the other end of the political spectrum) on a multicasst channel ONLY in a major market, and first you'll piss off listeners, but second...YOU'LL SELL RADIOS! People who love that programming will seek it out. People who LOVE any programming will seek it out.

Will people buy a new radio just to receive their local classic rock (country/adult contemp/etc) station with slightly better fidelity (nosie-free, lower distortion, better stereo)? Of course not. The way most people listen, they won't hear much of a difference (especially the way most stations process their signals TO HELL!) Stations that CARE about audio will offer clean, high-bitrate streams that the small audiophile public will reluctantly admit (eventually) actually sound better. For the rest of us, it'll be about more choices, a modern delivery system, and trumping everything else..COMPELLING PROGRAMMING! I'd rather hear music I love on analog AM than a multi-channel SACD of CRAP! It's about content, obviously! But separate from that, delivery methods will change, ARE CHANGING, and we ignore that at our own peril, because if WE DON'T EMBRACE THE NEW TECHNOLOGY, others will..and eventually they'll take our audience by PLACING INNOVATIVE PROGRAMMING ON THESE NEW PLATFORMS!

Radio should embrace new media. ALL new (viable) media...web streaming, podcasting, blogging, and yes..>HD...at least on FM where it works well (especially in metro areas, where the vast majority of listeners are), and causes little harm.

 

[Savage]

Mike, kudos for a thoughtful and rational post. We are mostly in agreement. Programming, or the fuzzy facsimile that currently passes for radio on-air product, is the industry's most severe handicap. There can be no question.

My criticisms of the "we gotta go digital" mantra should be taken in the context of my emphatic rejection of HD. Digital is digital and that's all fine, and I'm completely in favor of any technical scheme that will improve the fortunes of radio.

I think if we have a disagreement it's over whether HD Radio is the answer. I say not. The technical problems have been exhaustively discussed and unfortunately, for every compromise touted by the Alliance as an "answer," two replacement problems crop up. And I am distressed and disturbed by the fundamental dishonesty which characterizes the HD rollout. I say it's all about trying to manufacture a few fat cats at the expense of the rest of us, not about improving radio. The lying from HD's inventors and proponents and the jaw-dropping ineptitude of the NAB are sickening.

 

[dumber than a box of hair]

There are two places to address reception problems (broadly speaking). At the transmitting end. And at the receiving end. 10 percent injection may well be an "over the top" response, attempting through brute-force to place the solution entirely at one end. Common sense dictates a more balanced approach (digital injection increased at a more moderate rate, AND improved radios and antennas).

One thing that was noted in the report was that NPR doesn't expect receivers to become any more sensitive, so they factored that assumption into their recommendations. Of course, if the Sony tuner is any indication, that assumption may be premature.

 

[Tom Wells]

The FM version sure does make tuning mushy and funny on my old FM car radios.
FM stations used to snap in from the capture effect, and now I must rock back-n-forth to find a spot with full
signal demodulation.

Here in Chicago, some iboc FM stations, like WLUP (which will no longer decode in stereo at home) are razor-thin and
hard to tune in the 7-30 mile range I drive daily. I can still pick up fringe stations in Michigan and Milwaukee
on these car radios, so the radio's OK. One is a Bendix, the other a Motorola.
I'm pretty sure both have ratio detectors for FM.

Will ibquity buy me some filters to retrofit into my radios? I'll do the work, if they'll spring for the filters.

 

[Carmine5]

And then we have HD-AM. Will someone tell the FCC that it's time to put this lame horse down?

It's only super-serving a few well-heeled, high powered AM stations at the expense of many smaller operations.

I think it's great that HD radios (all or most??) can decode C-QuAM. But it's time for the FCC to swallow its pride and take a fresh look at how digital can realistically (read: cost effective, non-interfering) be broadcast on AM--or if it can at all.

C5

 

[Mike Walker]

Well we're gonna' have HD FM. Millions have been spent, it's in thousands of stations...the big ones, radios are hitting the market in all categories, and price ranges. Would a special digital band have been preferable? YOU BETCHA! Then we could all have a beer, and argue about something which invokes less emotion. Like politics. Or religion. Or over whether there actually is a "recipe" for Budweiser (the Belgians say they'll "use the same recipe"...I say they should stick to waffles!) But we got what we got, and the FCC ain't likely to take it back. I still think AM can be saved, and that the FM problems are WAY exaggerated...particularly with new products like the Sony, which apparently performs better than even "FanBoys" like me would expect!

How about we got a NEW BAND from some of that spectrum being vacated with the switch to digital TV??? Make it ALL DIGITAL! That would be great for current stations, AM and FM. But even so, I still believe we'd have hybrid IBOC (I HATE THE TERM 'HD') on FM.

 

[TheBigA]

Savage, obviously what's wrong with radio isn't technology, it's PROGRAMMING. Or lack of innovation in that area. It's lack of community service. It's the inability to freakin' come up with an original idea!

Oh gag me with a friggin' spoon!

So by your logic, the founding fathers of radio had no originaly because at the time there were only a couple dozen owners. Come on!

It's not about quantity, but quality. It doesn't matter how many owners you have if they're all eating at the same trough.

No one cares about innovation or community service, and they CERTAINLY don't care about owners.

Listeners want what they want when they want it. Everything else doesn't matter. You guys have all convinced yourselves into thinking people want original programming, or they want diversity of opinion, and they DON'T!!!!

Don't overthink this. You can throw out all the owners, you can throw out all the programming, and replace it with NPR talk shows or school board debates, and none of that will change the situation. How do I know? Because I've examined markets where such options exist, and they haven't captured the public's attention any more than "another ten in a row."

 

[TheBigA]

How about we got a NEW BAND from some of that spectrum being vacated with the switch to digital TV??? Make it ALL DIGITAL!

I'd support that idea, but the FCC has already sold that spectrum for billions of dollars. They're not going to give it away for free.

Plus 98% of the country would have to replace their radios. The public still hasn't completely realized their TV sets are gonna go black in six months. Wait til that happens! Ha! I can't wait.

 

[Mike Walker]

I agree with you TheBigA...most Americans still have no clue about the switchoff of analog TV, and they ain't gonna' like it. LOTS OF FOLKS will be screaming at their congress-critters, senators, and the new president, demanding to know "who turned off grandma's tv????" Because it's the elderly, low income people, and people in rural areas who have never had satellite or cable, and will LOSE THEIR TV NEXT FEBRUARY! And many of them can't simply "get it back" with a converter, because digital coverage isn't as great. A REAL problem, and one radio should seek to not emulate!

If I had it my way, analog radio (and TV) would NEVER be switched off. Analog and digital can, and should co-exist indefinitely.

 

[Mike Walker]

"The BigA" with all due respect, your claim that people don't want originality, or diversity (of opinion or programming) is proven to be B.S. by the huge rise of streaming services like Pandora, internet radio in general, and satellite radio in particularly. Go to "XM Fan Dot Com" and read about what people want that they can't get from terrestrial radio. Variety, diversity, and originality.

You contradict yourself when, after saying people don't care about "diversity and originality/innovation" you say "they want what they want". Yep. The do. And they want MANY THINGS! Like the return of freakin' mainstream formats like OLDIES, not to mention jazz and classical! Like talk shows that reflect the opinion of the 80 percent of the country who think we're on the "wrong path", not the 20 percent who think everything is "peachy". These things ONLY come (and came in the past) through diversity of ownership. If I worship Limbaugh and Hannity, think 20 songs is the right length for a playlist, think oldies is for people too old to matter, and jazz is irrelevant, and I own twenty stations, how diverse do you think my programming on those twenty stations will be, vs. ten owners who owned two stations apiece? Earth to "The BigA"...when offerings were more diverse, MORE PEOPLE LISTENED! And if you think people don't care, turn on C-SPAN and hear what congressmen and senators are saying about the need for broadcast diversity. That ain't out of their love for diversity of ideas! It's a reflection of what people back home are telling THEM.

It's not some wild-eyed theory that radio used to be better, more fun, more relevant, more diverse, and more LOCAL than now. Listen to airchecks from 20 to 30 years ago. It WAS as good as we 'old farts' remember. I used to wonder if, here in NC, '61 Big WAYS' in Charlotte, '13 The Best Music 80, WTOB' in Winston-Salem, and '13 Big WISE' in Asheville were as great as I remembered, of if it was a case of "rose colored glasses". So I sought the airchecks, and listened. They weren't just as good as I remembered, they were BETTER. And they are SORELY MISSED! People who have never had radio like that (you perhaps, "The BigA"? I'm assuming you're younger than I am...most people are!) truly don't know what they're missing!

 

[pqgeorge]

When you come right down to it, they're trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. The only thing that will come out of it is that when they go with 10% injection, it will be at the expense of the analog coverage, period. IBOC is not cutting it. If there are only 350,000 IBOC radios, it's not worth the cost of killing the analog coverage area. It's time to reconsider digital and look at FMeXtra. It will not damage the existing analog coverage and would provide the digital stereo quality you want, the multicasting and 5.1 digital surround sound that people expect. Why go with a digital system that is loaded with potential interference, when you could get the same quality digital sound using the existing SCA spectrum that all FM stations have. FMeXtra will not interfere with first or second adjacents. The cost of installing IBOC is enormous, at least $100,000 per stick. Imagine the non-comms, the college stations and LPFM's who cannot afford the cost of the licensing and the installation. With FMeXtra, you pay one fee..... $15,000 and that's it! No licensing, no exorbitant costs of installing it. Hey, the FCC reassessed CBS Color and switched to NTSC/RCA color broadcasting back in 1953. Maybe it's time to reconsider digital using FMeXtra.

 

[KB1OKL]

How about we got a NEW BAND from some of that spectrum being vacated with the switch to digital TV??? Make it ALL DIGITAL!

I'd support that idea, but the FCC has already sold that spectrum for billions of dollars. They're not going to give it away for free.

Plus 98% of the country would have to replace their radios. The public still hasn't completely realized their TV sets are gonna go black in six months. Wait til that happens! Ha! I can't wait.

Why would we have to replace existing radios? They'd all function fine again if they shut off IBOC. We would just have to buy another receiver to augment the analog receivers. I listen to both analog radio and digital radio (via computer) and like both and hope both never go away. I'll maybe even buy a Satellite receiver now that this stupid merger is finally settled but it won't replace my analog radio in my car, I'll use both and will keep both.

 

[dumber than a box of hair]

"The BigA" with all due respect, your claim that people don't want originality, or diversity (of opinion or programming) is proven to be B.S. by the huge rise of streaming services like Pandora, internet radio in general, and satellite radio in particularly. Go to "XM Fan Dot Com" and read about what people want that they can't get from terrestrial radio. Variety, diversity, and originality.

So, let's see if we have this straight:

There are roughly 230 million daily users of OTA radio (last estimate I saw).

There are 16 million satellite radio subscribers.

Of those, 9.7 million are XM subscribers.

Of those, XMfan.com has 58,925 registered users.

And you claim this is representative of what the average listener wants? Not even Arbitron uses such a small sample!

 

[TheBigA]

"The BigA" with all due respect, your claim that people don't want originality, or diversity (of opinion or programming) is proven to be B.S. by the huge rise of streaming services like Pandora, internet radio in general, and satellite radio in particularly.

There's nothing "original" about Pandora or any of the internet streams. They just have more narrowly defined niches which appeal to people's individual musical tastes.

Commercial radio can't operate that way. Unfortunately, musical formats have splintered into a million very individual formats. Very few traditional formats appeal to today's audiences. But there simply aren't enough radio stations to serve all those tastes. It is (as Gilbert & Sullivan might say) a paradox. Commercial radio is being hurt by competition, but it needs many more outlets in order to serve the narrow tastes. Which, ironically, is kind of what HD Radio is hoping to do.

Regarding the diversity comment, that was directly mainly towards your statement about ownership. Diversity of ownership doesn't necessarily lead to diversity of opinion or programming. In Washington DC, ownership of several Clear Channel stations moved to a local billionaire, and it hasn't greatly improved diversity of programming or opinion.

You contradict yourself when, after saying people don't care about "diversity and originality/innovation" you say "they want what they want". Yep. The do.

I don't see that as a contradiction. The point is they want to be in charge. But it doesn't necessarily lead to diversity or innovation. Just the perception of it. Because they only see their square foot, and that's all they're interested in.

It's not some wild-eyed theory that radio used to be better, more fun, more relevant, more diverse, and more LOCAL than now.

Yep and you probably were younger, had darker hair, and weighed a couple less pounds. Does that make you a bad person now? Of course not. At the same time, there were about half as many radio stations, no computers, no cell phones, half as many musical formats, less media competition, and less negativity. It ain't the 70s any more. It's great to revel in the past, but we simply can't put the toothpaste back in the tube, we can't turn back the hand of time, and you can't drop a time bomb from 30 years ago into the present and expect it to fit this time as it did then.

 

[Mike Walker]

First of all, there's "nothing original" about a radio station (stream) that plays ONLY what I like? Tailored to ME, and nobody else? Perhaps you should read the definition of "original". Something that's one of a kind is, by definition, "original".

As for not being able to go back, sure we can. All we have to do is remember what it sounded like, what it felt like, and recreate it. Creativity may have vanished from (most) radio stations, but certainly not from the planet. Those times weren't "quaint", and aren't irrelevant to today...as I've found by the enthusiasm shown by stations signing-on for my new oldies show 'Saving the 70s'. I do it for two reasons...one for fun. That's the primary one. But the second is as a demonstration of what classic Top-40 radio sounded, and felt like. Full-bore personality-oriented, breakneck-paced, irreverant as hell...FUN! Judge for yourself whether I've succeeded http://www.savingthe70s.com

Don't like it? Don't put it on your station. Others gladly will, and are doing so! Radio is about PROGRAMMING! It's about CREATIVITY, FUN, and COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT! The last one is pretty much impossible with a syndicated show, but creativity and fun are still out there. We simply need to tap into it. The only thing that needs to change (in creating a station with the "old forumla" for today's listeners) is the music and programming elements (jingles, liners, etc.) need to sound like TODAY, not like 30 years ago (as with an oldies show like mine). I'm too old to know, or frankly care exactly how to tailor this formula to young listeners. But I think hearing how it used to be can help form today's, and tomorros's sound. We're NOT jukeboxes! Radio people, get off your asses and MAKE YOUR STATIONS EXCITING, FUN, AND RELEVANT! And while you're at it, make it digital (over the air, internet, podcast, etc.) because THAT is where many young people (older ones too) listen today.

 

[TheBigA]

First of all, there's "nothing original" about a radio station (stream) that plays ONLY what I like? Tailored to ME, and nobody else? Perhaps you should read the definition of "original". Something that's one of a kind is, by definition, "original".

You're changing the context of the discussion. Pandora is not a radio station. It's an infinite number of personalized radio stations. And it's not a radio station at all, but a music stream. No DJs, no information, not local. Is a Walkman a radio station? Is a home stereo a radio station? We need to get our terminology straight when making comparisons.

As for not being able to go back, sure we can. All we have to do is remember what it sounded like, what it felt like, and recreate it.

Recreation isn't the point. The issue is if you recreate the past, will it enjoy the same level of popularity it did when it existed in its own time. I can ride in a horse drawn carriage, but I do so on an asphalt street surrounded by automobiles. Not the same thing.

Once again, commercial radio is an ad-driven medium. It aims at seeking the largest audience it can. Sure, that audience keeps getting diverted by thousands of other things. But recreating radio as what it was before computers, video games, cell phones and everything else won't eliminate those distractions. They will still be there, and radio will still lose audience to them no matter what programming is available.

Radio people, get off your asses and MAKE YOUR STATIONS EXCITING, FUN, AND RELEVANT! And while you're at it, make it digital (over the air, internet, podcast, etc.) because THAT is where many young people (older ones too) listen today.

Nothing new or original about any of what you say. It's all being done now, and to varying levels of success. There is no one-size-fits-all solution here. Lot of hard working people in radio trying to reach out to listeners in their communities. They're adding all the digital componants. I talk to these folks, and many of them are working 18 hour days because they know that radio is 24/7 now. Just because you do a morning show doesn't mean you stop working at 10AM. You have to reach out to the audience all day, and go where they are at night. Some may not call that "work," but it's communication.

 

[Mike Walker]

I'm not saying there's a "one size fits all forumla". That wouldn't exactly be original, OR creative. I've never heard a show exactly like my oldies show (which I use as an example). It was an example of the energy level that's missing, not the specific sound. In fact I said I'm too old, and disinterested to program to a young audience. I simply don't care enough about reaching that specific audience...I'm too far removed from it. CLEARLY I'm not the one to answer the question of how SPECIFICALLY to target younger listeners. But in targeting them, elements of personality, originality, creativity, and LOCALISM most be included for longterm success. THAT is my point.

Any music rotation can be duplicated. A station across town can play EXACTLY the same music. But they can never steal your SOUND if it's ORIGINAL, CREATIVE, and UNIQUE to the people who produce it...YOUR PROGRAMMING AND AIR-STAFF! Nothing reaches human beings like OTHER HUMAN BEINGS! REAL personalities, who share their own unique take on the world, the music, the community, and LIFE...who LOVE what they're doing, love it so much it's contagious.

NONE of the above is "one-size-fits-all". To the contrary, my philosophy is that EVERY SIZE IS UNIQUE! Every person, and every station is UNIQUE. Every air talent IS UNIQUE! Let that shine through, and NOBODY WILL EVER BE ABLE TO DUPLICATE WHAT YOU'VE GOT!

To take an example from the past...John Landecker didn't sound anything like Larry Lujack, or Tommy Edwards! Jay Thomas (who was at WAYS in Charlotte when I was in high school) sounded nothing like Rick Dees! Imus sounded nothing like...well, insert name here! And WCFL sounded nothing like WLS! WTOB (Winston-Salem) sounded nothing like WAIR! What they all shared (the personalities AND stations) was MASSIVE amounts of energy and emotion, and CREATIVITY GONE WILD!

As for the earlier post about XM Fan not being "scientifically representative", WELL FREAKIN'DUH! But it might be far more representative than you might imagine, because XM and Sirius listeners are "sirius" enough about radio TO PAY FOR IT! These are people who are REALLY INTO RADIO. I'd say those who venture onto the forums to comment care even more passionately. So while it doesn't PROVE anything, it doesn't take too much imagination to see that it INDICATES some things we might look for. Nobody in terrestrial radio would be harrmed by considering the reasons people who subscribe to these services give why it's important enought for them to do so, and what they were looking for they couldn't find elsewhere.