People are so negative about HD Radio

[HowardMBurgers]

There you have the weakness of corporate radio. They are operating like corporate television - programming to the least common denominator in the audience, producing a poor quality product at a cheap price. The result - news articles about the end of free over the air television. Can radio be far behind?

Interesting.. I can't remember who made the point in an earlier post, but weren't the first licensed radio stations in the country owned by one of the largest corporations in the world, Westinghouse? And weren't these "corporate radio" stations used as a marketing and advertising tool to promote the products of the parent company?

 

[Savage]

Howard, that "HD users don't pay anything other than the costs of their electricity" is not a trifling matter. Depending on the installation and the type of combining used, FMs that transmit in HD can see their utility costs double or triple. In this economy, using reject loads that waste 9 out of every 10 kilowatt-hours as unnecessary heat and force the 24-7 use of high-capacity HVAC represents a serious drawback.

This inefficiency combined with the increased costs of upgrade HD transmitting plants, plus the license fees, all to reach a negligible audience (see below) makes HD a highly questionable proposition.

Here's another factor which has gotten little discussion here: getting a digital audience via HD is a zero-sum game. Each listener that listens to the digital stream, by definition, no longer listens to the analog signal. So you're spending two or three times as much to reach the same listener. This would be justifiable if there was a steep growth curve to the digital audience, but it simply doesn't exist today nor is it likely to in the forseeable future. So, from a business standpoint, where's the break-even?

 

[davideduardo]

Interesting.. I can't remember who made the point in an earlier post, but weren't the first licensed radio stations in the country owned by one of the largest corporations in the world, Westinghouse? And weren't these "corporate radio" stations used as a marketing and advertising tool to promote the products of the parent company?

And there were stations owned by RCA, AT&T, General Electric, many large insurance companies, large newspapers, major retailers, etc.

Here is a list from the 20's that shows the existing stations and owners by city, state and wavelength.

http://www.davidgleason.com/Archive Stevensons Burgess/Burgess Index 1925.pdf

 

[Chuck]

Here's another factor which has gotten little discussion here: getting a digital audience via HD is a zero-sum game. Each listener that listens to the digital stream, by definition, no longer listens to the analog signal. So you're spending two or three times as much to reach the same listener. This would be justifiable if there was a steep growth curve to the digital audience, but it simply doesn't exist today nor is it likely to in the forseeable future. So, from a business standpoint, where's the break-even?

That is the part that has never made sense to me. Why do you purposely want to slice the pie even thinner, especially if it is your pie?

As I recall, many commercial broadcasters went nuts when LPFM was suggested; the reason being if somebody was listening to one of these new flea powered stations, then they weren't listening to their station. The hue and cry was "Unacceptable Interference," but in most cases that "interference" was mostly about increased competition.

Now, with HD radio, broadcasters have the opportunity to compete with their own stations. What's more, they get to pay to do it. Unless you are NPR or some other non-profit organization that idea just doesn't make good economic sense. The only possible upside I see is if these "stations between the stations" actually brought some people back to radio, then that might be a good thing. So far that hasn't worked out that way, at least not in any significant amount. As we progress in the 21st century, it is looking less and less likely that it will.

 

[RadeoEngineer]

Howard, that "HD users don't pay anything other than the costs of their electricity" is not a trifling matter. Depending on the installation and the type of combining used, FMs that transmit in HD can see their utility costs double or triple. In this economy, using reject loads that waste 9 out of every 10 kilowatt-hours as unnecessary heat and force the 24-7 use of high-capacity HVAC represents a serious drawback.

This inefficiency combined with the increased costs of upgrade HD transmitting plants, plus the license fees, all to reach a negligible audience (see below) makes HD a highly questionable proposition.

Here's another factor which has gotten little discussion here: getting a digital audience via HD is a zero-sum game. Each listener that listens to the digital stream, by definition, no longer listens to the analog signal. So you're spending two or three times as much to reach the same listener. This would be justifiable if there was a steep growth curve to the digital audience, but it simply doesn't exist today nor is it likely to in the forseeable future. So, from a business standpoint, where's the break-even?

This is exactly correct. My former cluster is spending twice as much for two station's antenna space because they're using two more ports, and recently installed an additional air handling system to cool the room. The additional use of power is the smallest, albeit non-negligible part of the cost of operation. I have always said there was no justification for this and certainly no ROI. I'm glad I left before this debacle was ordered from above.

 

[Carmine5]

Here's another factor which has gotten little discussion here: getting a digital audience via HD is a zero-sum game. Each listener that listens to the digital stream, by definition, no longer listens to the analog signal. So you're spending two or three times as much to reach the same listener. This would be justifiable if there was a steep growth curve to the digital audience, but it simply doesn't exist today nor is it likely to in the forseeable future. So, from a business standpoint, where's the break-even?

As one person said:

"...it is analog that pays the bills and it is analog tuners that are being built into the new generation of cell/data phones" (and I might add iPods).

So analog radio will be with us for years to come and unless there is sufficient penetration of HD Radios in U.S. households, trying to reach an existing audience with HD is, indeed, a zero-sum game. In fact, it will be a negative sum game when the HD power increase occurs, degrading the quality of analog signals in the process and causing listeners to wonder why their favorite station no longer sounds as clean or as strong as it once did as they switch over to mp3 players (or whistling ).

Bob Struble may be giddy over 734,000 HD Radios sold this year but with only 1.3 million sold to date, HD Radio has a long row to hoe.

Personally, I'll take a clean-sounding, well processed analog signal over something as idiotic as Image Support any day.

c5

 

[davideduardo]

So analog radio will be with us for years to come and unless there is sufficient penetration of HD Radios in U.S. households, trying to reach an existing audience with HD is, indeed, a zero-sum game.

The issue is not even analog radio or its derivitives. The big issue is that the method of distribution of content is changing from AM and FM transmitters to the Internet via DSL, HotSpots, 3G, WiMax, Cable, etc. Radio stations that survive will simultaneously make their offerings available on all of the possible distribution systems, nearly all of which will be digital.

The inherent disadvantages to the AM system make it the first to be near irrelevance. FM will go the same way, but more slowly due to the high number of current radios and users. But radio does not need to die... it just needs to recognize the new distribution models that are forming.

 

[Play Freebird]

The issue is not even analog radio or its derivitives. The big issue is that the method of distribution of content is changing from AM and FM transmitters to the Internet via DSL, HotSpots, 3G, WiMax, Cable, etc. Radio stations that survive will simultaneously make their offerings available on all of the possible distribution systems, nearly all of which will be digital.

The inherent disadvantages to the AM system make it the first to be near irrelevance. FM will go the same way, but more slowly due to the high number of current radios and users. But radio does not need to die... it just needs to recognize the new distribution models that are forming.

I think we can all agree that listeners (or for that matter, consumers of any product) want convenience. As long as FM analog continues to provide the most convenient means of content delivery to a sufficient number of people, it will remain relevant.

As we've discussed before, the primary reason AM listening has declined is a relative lack of convenience, caused by disparities in day vs. night coverage and RF interference from power lines, computers, lightning, etc.

The question we need to ask is whether HD actually improves convenience -- or degrades it.

 

[nd2023]

The issue is not even analog radio or its derivitives. The big issue is that the method of distribution of content is changing from AM and FM transmitters to the Internet via DSL, HotSpots, 3G, WiMax, Cable, etc. Radio stations that survive will simultaneously make their offerings available on all of the possible distribution systems, nearly all of which will be digital.

The inherent disadvantages to the AM system make it the first to be near irrelevance. FM will go the same way, but more slowly due to the high number of current radios and users. But radio does not need to die... it just needs to recognize the new distribution models that are forming.

I think we can all agree that listeners (or for that matter, consumers of any product) want convenience. As long as FM analog continues to provide the most convenient means of content delivery to a sufficient number of people, it will remain relevant.

As we've discussed before, the primary reason AM listening has declined is a relative lack of convenience, caused by disparities in day vs. night coverage and RF interference from power lines, computers, lightning, etc.

The question we need to ask is whether HD actually improves convenience -- or degrades it.

When Internet radio comes to cars, there will be the convenience of just presetting your favorite online stations and tuning between them by pushing buttons. The technology is already there to have streams start without buffering.

 

[davideduardo]

I think we can all agree that listeners (or for that matter, consumers of any product) want convenience. As long as FM analog continues to provide the most convenient means of content delivery to a sufficient number of people, it will remain relevant.

To many, and probably well concentrated in the younger demos, there are convenient forms of getting content that don't include AM and FM but do include smart phones and other portable devices.

I have a Logitech Squeezebox and it is now my home radio. It has presets of stations from Paris, Milano, Buenos Aires and Mexico City. And I can program it from my computer.

As we've discussed before, the primary reason AM listening has declined is a relative lack of convenience, caused by disparities in day vs. night coverage and RF interference from power lines, computers, lightning, etc.

I believe that what you mention are artifacts, not reasons. In the 70's, FM offered better music formatics, a wider range of formats (the ratio of technically good FMs to good AMs in most markets was, then, between 2 to 1 and 3 to 1) and lower commercial loads. FM became "better" and more hip for most people under around 30 or 35 in that era. In other words, anyone under about 60 today. AM became "old" and uncool, an image that endures through this day.

Add in the artifacts, and it's no more likely that AM can become attractive to under-60 demos than it is that a Corvair look-alike will become the #1 selling car.

The question we need to ask is whether HD actually improves convenience -- or degrades it.

As to AM HD, good or bad, it's just wasted effort. For FM, it is possible that it will make certain niche formats convenient for some. In my experience, with a factory HD in my car and others at home and at work, tuning is less than uncomplicated and thus, often I ignore the subchannels. But it does not bother me, either. It's there should I care... and has never interferred with an FM station I wanted to listen to.

 

[pocket-radio]

"The question we need to ask is whether HD actually improves convenience -- or degrades it"

The real questions is, does providing another classic rock station, country, rock or oldies bring more listeners to radio? Broadcasters believed listeners were unhappy with analog and they believed satellite radio was a threat. What were they thinking?

The solution, add more jukebox stations to the marketplace with similar content already heard on analog or the internet. And advertise features like hundreds of new stations, with no fees and cd quality. Well a quick Google search shows, the new stations are classic rock, country, rock, oldies and classic rock, country, oldies, and ac. And depending on where you live, you'll probably hear a small handful of HD broadcasters. Again what were they thinking?

The real threat is cell phones and wireless internet access. Because listeners want to hear what they want when they want. And I'm not sure another classic rock station that may or may not sound better depending on your perception of sound quality, is what radio needs.

The issue is content! it's always been content! and will be content. What will change is the device, listeners choose to hear their programming on!

Depending on what study you believe, radio's next generation finds the internet and cell phones more relevant than radio. Do they still listen to radio? yes! But unlike 1960, their choices for content are unlimited now! It means time spent listening is less and results for advertisers isn't so certain with this generation. Conversely, baby boomer's and anyone 35+ was raised on broadcast and still appreciates
radio and thinks FM music radio, sounds good and likes AM radio just so they can hear Rush or Glenn Beck.

By the way HD isn't CD quality! So let's stop selling that lie. It's more like a poor MP3 at 96 or 48 kbps. Great sounding MP3's are 192 kbps. Even then, CD's sound much better.

Say what you want about the technology, but does anyone really think broadcasting another classic rock jukebox format is going bring more listeners to radio? If you do, please put the bottle down and stop drinking the kool-aid, or cool-aid.

 

[Ken Tucky]

"By the way HD isn't CD quality! So let's stop selling that lie. It's more like a poor MP3 at 96 or 48 kbps. Great sounding MP3's are 192 kbps. Even then, CD's sound much better."




I wish more people realized this! We have a real large crop of people with tin ears out there right now! I've got a bad case of tinnitus & HD still sounds like crap to me!!!

 

[Carmine5]

The issue is not even analog radio or its derivitives. The big issue is that the method of distribution of content is changing from AM and FM transmitters to the Internet via DSL, HotSpots, 3G, WiMax, Cable, etc. Radio stations that survive will simultaneously make their offerings available on all of the possible distribution systems, nearly all of which will be digital.

The inherent disadvantages to the AM system make it the first to be near irrelevance. FM will go the same way, but more slowly due to the high number of current radios and users. But radio does not need to die... it just needs to recognize the new distribution models that are forming.

I think we can all agree that listeners (or for that matter, consumers of any product) want convenience. As long as FM analog continues to provide the most convenient means of content delivery to a sufficient number of people, it will remain relevant.

We all know that broadcast radio is but one of many platforms available to consumers for entertainment and information. The advantage broadcasting has besides convenience is that it is still the most cost effective way to reach the most people. You will never hear a station whine, as AT&T did, that its customers (or audience) is consuming too much bandwidth, a problem typical of WiFi.

For the same reason, Mobile DTV is a very efficient way to reach viewers on handheld devices. BTW, within the Mobile DTV specification is a sub-spec for mobile radio among other services.

c5

 

[DaveBayArea]

The only possible upside I see is if these "stations between the stations" actually brought some people back to radio, then that might be a good thing. So far that hasn't worked out that way, at least not in any significant amount. As we progress in the 21st century, it is looking less and less likely that it will.

I know of at least one instance where HD caused someone to quit listening to radio. Several years ago I had some yard work done. The people installing the fence attempted to receive 107.5 FM on their radio, shortly after 107.7 in the Bay Area began HD broadcasting. They couldn't get it, and made some comment about "nope - it doesn't work here either" as they switched over to the local classic rock station. The foreman had even contacted their favorite station to ask if something was wrong. Of course, they said "everything is fine". I explained to them what was going on, and they were somewhat amazed, but thankful. The next day they came back with a brand new boom box sporting an integrated MP3 player. That was probably five years ago, and I'm sure they're still listening to their own music at the job site.

Dave B.

 

[K6JHU]

"By the way HD isn't CD quality! So let's stop selling that lie. It's more like a poor MP3 at 96 or 48 kbps. Great sounding MP3's are 192 kbps. Even then, CD's sound much better."

Of course, CD quality nowadays is nowhere near CD quality.

 

[HowardMBurgers]

Good point. The fact remains that however you lean toward or against FM HD radio, the frequency response, distortion and noise floor is substantially less than analog FM. That is a fact. Now of course in my view, sticking multi-band distortion generating audio processors to somehow mimic the sound of analog radio is totally purpose defeating in any sense.

Granted, there were those in the 80's who claimed records sounded better than CDs because of the warmth (distortion). The same can be said for tube amplifiers and equipment supposedly sounding 'better' than solid state technologies.

Speaking purely from a scientific perspective however, the numbers don't lie.

 

[KB1OKL]

Granted, there were those in the 80's who claimed records sounded better than CDs because of the warmth (distortion). The same can be said for tube amplifiers and equipment supposedly sounding 'better' than solid state technologies.

Speaking purely from a scientific perspective however, the numbers don't lie.

There are probably more in 2010 who would say that although I wouldn't call it distortion, I would call it lack of digital distortion, I could play you any number of records which sound more clear and realistic than any digital audio source ever will. Ears don't hear numbers, they hear music. Music is inherently warm which digitizing destroys.

I have a local IBOC FM which sounds worse in IBOC than analog. The ONLY thing IBOC has going for it when it's not dropping out and of course squashing it's neighbors whether it is dropping out or not it that it is a little more quiet. The only station I've heard that actually sounds great in IBOC is WGBH 89.7 but it also sounds great in analog so what's the reasoning for IBOC's existence? 13 HD-2 listeners? Oh yeah it's our inevitable digital future. :

People are negative about HD radio for many obvious reasons, chief among them is that most consumers just want to turn on the radio and have it work.

 

[HowardMBurgers]

Okay so you say whatever sounds better than HD radio, fine. I'm sure your prejudice against HD radio isn't having any impact with that statement.

But seriously, how has HD radio, especially on FM, adversely affected your life? Has it affected it so profoundly that you feel the need to repeat visit some discussion board and repeat the same mantra (to paraphrase) HD radio evil! HD radio unnessary! I don't care for HD radio!

Okay then take your radio and tape over the HD feature, better yet make a real statement! Take your HD radio to the roof and throw it off. Just think, you'll sleep better at night and the world will continue spinning.

 

[BRNout]

Okay so you say whatever sounds better than HD radio, fine. I'm sure your prejudice against HD radio isn't having any impact with that statement.

But seriously, how has HD radio, especially on FM, adversely affected your life? Has it affected it so profoundly that you feel the need to repeat visit some discussion board and repeat the same mantra (to paraphrase) HD radio evil! HD radio unnessary! I don't care for HD radio!

Okay then take your radio and tape over the HD feature, better yet make a real statement! Take your HD radio to the roof and throw it off. Just think, you'll sleep better at night and the world will continue spinning.

OK, it ruins my ability to listen to nice clean AM signals and has removed my prior option to listen to adjacent market ("distant") adjacent-frequency signals on FM. In that way it has limited reception from my location and thus harmed me by removing some stations that I used to enjoy. The FM subchannels that I can receive on my portable Inspiron HD Radio - if I stand still so that I don't lose digital lock - are not a sufficient substitute to replace the stations that I have lost the ability to listen to on AM and FM.

That's how it's adversely affected me. And, this is a 'discussion' board - all we're doing is putting it to use.

 

[Savage]

Well, of course it's silly to argue that anything about radio - either today or 40 years ago, when radio was arguably a more indispensable part of American life - has "adversely affected it."

However it is similarly obvious and beyond dispute that HD Radio creates harmful interference, both to the originating station and to adjacent-channel operators. If it didn't, the current controversies wouldn't exist. The hot-button issues are over whether the interference issue is getting due consideration and whether there will be real no-foolin' mitigation measures available in bad cases, or whether "mitigation" will simply be a catch-word and nudge/nudge/wink/wink illusory window-dressing "safety valve" behind which boosters can hide and which the Commission and interferors have no sincere intent of actually employing. One can be forgiven for assuming the foregoing to be the case. After all, the FCC has never ordered the actual reduction of digital power or cessation of digital broadcasting in a single case, despite numerous cases being reported of severe adjacent-channel problems.

It doesn't help the credibility of the FM-HD proponents that the "mitigation provision" for the HD-FM digital power increase employs identical language to that once proposed to help adjacent-channel victims of AM-HD. As noted: mitigation has never been ordered. Not once. That's not a good track record.

HD pushers argue - somewhat implausibly and inconsistently, it must be admitted - that (a) there really isn't any truly harmful interference and (b) that the interference is worth it because HD digital is so vastly superior to analog. Real world experience has pretty much debunked both of these arguments.

And the cavalier attitude about legitimate issues expressed by Howard, an admitted member of the increasingly lonely and strident pro-HD faction, does nothing but bolster the arguments of the anti crowd. Howard displays a gentler yet unmistakably similar modus operandi typically employed by HD fans - namely, ridiculing critics.

Hey, keep up the ad hominem arguments, instead of showing how HD critics are wrong. Now THAT'S the way to win converts for a highly controversial, highly irrelevant technical "innovation."

KB's opinions are no more "prejudice" than are mine or Howard's. Opinions are opinions. That's what this board is for.