RBR Poll: Should radio set a fixed date for HD conversion?

[dumber than a box of hair]

Remembering that Radio Business Report is an industry-insider publication, the results are surprising, at least to me:

QUESTION: Should radio set a fixed date to end analog and go 100% HD?

ANSWERS:
Yes, set a target date and make our digital investment pay off. - 8.33%
No, the transition will come, but should not be forced. - 33.33%
No, HD is a mistake and should never replace analog radio. - 58.33%

(Results as of Saturday 4/23, 8:46AM ET)

http://www.rbr.com

 

[radioskeptic]

Most of those acknowledging that it's not only useless but destructive are probably small station people.

Maybe Iniquity will pressure RBR to limit access employees of HD Alliance members!

(BTW, your link goes to the RBR home page. If that poll is still open, could you provide a link to the survey itself so that we can both participate and follow the results as more and more readers vote -- or at least to the poll results page, if the poll is now closed?)

 

[dumber than a box of hair]

The polls page is at http://www.rbr.com/poll/index.html .

 

[spunker88]

HD Radio still has too many problems for it to take over analog. Many people listen to FM in their cars, and even strong stations can have those null spots. In the city large buildings, bridges, tunnels, etc can cause you to lose your line of sight or have nasty edge propagation which will cause the HD signal to go in and out. In rural areas its distance from the transmitter that causes bad signals in some areas. On analog FM there will be a few brief moments of static, some may even go unnoticed being drowned out by the audio. If things get really bad the signal can fall back to the more robust FM mono.

Why doesn't Ibquity set up a HD Radio FM experimental station that doesn't broadcast in hybrid mode. If they can pull in the side bands and increase the power to that of analog FM, it may not be that bad. Id be interested in seeing a non-hybrid HD radio station.

 

[w9wi]

Remembering that Radio Business Report is an industry-insider publication, the results are surprising, at least to me:

QUESTION: Should radio set a fixed date to end analog and go 100% HD?

ANSWERS:
Yes, set a target date and make our digital investment pay off. - 8.33%
No, the transition will come, but should not be forced. - 33.33%
No, HD is a mistake and should never replace analog radio. - 58.33%

(Results as of Saturday 4/23, 8:46AM ET)

http://www.rbr.com

I thought that 8.33% number was "mathematically suspicious", so I broke out the calculator...

It seems likely that as of 8:46am this morning, only twelve people had voted...

1 yes vote = 1/12 = 8.33%
4 "no, don't force the transition" votes = 4/12 = 33.33%
7 "no, HD is a mistake" votes = 7/12 = 58.33%

It looks like there have been more votes submitted since then, how many is not obvious.

 

[radioskeptic]

wiw9 said:

It seems likely that as of 8:46am this morning, only twelve people had voted...

Or some multiple of twelve! And if the yesses are gaining ground, that's only because CBS and Iniquity have gone into high gear getting all their people to vote!

 

[radioskeptic]

On that "polls" page, scroll down to the "HD Radio Investment" poll and note that, when asked whether they had bought an "HD" radio, the number of respondents checking "No, not interested" outnumbered those checking "Yes, and I love it" and "Yes, but it was a waste of money" combined. That's because radio professionals know the system is inherently flawed and simply doesn't work very well (and not at all on AM!).

 

[kc1ih]

Remembering that Radio Business Report is an industry-insider publication, the results are surprising, at least to me:

QUESTION: Should radio set a fixed date to end analog and go 100% HD?

If you end analog then what you will have is not Hybrid Digital (HD), but just plain digital. Which could work out to be a whole lot better than HD, but I’m sure a lot of testing would be needed to determine if this is workable.

 

[tomservo]

If things get really bad the signal can fall back to the more robust FM mono.

I'd be willing to bet that overall, 75% of FM listening is mono these days. Between mono clock radios, alarms, etc. and aggressive blending on car stereos, most people only think they're getting stereo because the light is on, when it reality it's monophonic. I've spent a lot of time on the road over the years in various automobiles and in many a hotel rooms in all kinds of cities and frankly blended mono audio is a way of life in the car, and finding the mono switch on the radio is a necessary evil because of all the noise stereo brings in places like apartments, office buildings and hotel rooms.

So why do we even tolerate this mess? We should just shut off FM stereo and be done with it. So few can truly enjoy it, it just doesn't work.

I'm only half joking here. FM stereo is a mess in the hills of east Tennessee and in concrete buildings in dense RF urban areas, but we treat it totally different because it's been a standard for decades.

I can say that in three recent hotel locations (Las Vegas, New Orleans and Birmingham) that HD was the saving grace to otherwise unlistenable FM stereo audio. In Birmingham and New Orleans reception was definitely finicky, but then stereo FM was so much more so.

Why doesn't Ibquity set up a HD Radio FM experimental station that doesn't broadcast in hybrid mode. If they can pull in the side bands and increase the power to that of analog FM, it may not be that bad. Id be interested in seeing a non-hybrid HD radio station.

Didn't ESPN of all companies do this? I seem to recall an experimental license was handed out to ESPN's Connecticut headquarters for an digital-only IBOC station, running four feeds. Or am I dreaming?

 

[Lee Rust]

I agree that stereo FM has become a bit of a luxury in our noisy RF world. Most listeners probably wouldn't miss it, just like they don't seem to miss hi-fi audio. Plus, most contemporary music just doesn't have a whole lot of stereo separation anyhow.

 

[Tom Wells]

The idea is based on the very wishful engineering that spawned this.

Just because stations would no longer emit analog does not eliminate the essential, inescapable analog-ness of propogation,
nor spurious analog events, whether natural or man-made.

The data redundancy necessary to approach the full/realtime resolution of analog
consumes much of what could be more data (resolution).

In short, an all-digital HD dial would assure that listeners were listening to the "right"
stations, those in their immediate, wel served citygrade signals.

I don't see this as an improvement from the standpoint of listeners or "radio" ( old world RF idea), but it IS
from a marketng/commnications/PPM /target advertising perspective.

 

[Chuck]

I agree that stereo FM has become a bit of a luxury in our noisy RF world. Most listeners probably wouldn't miss it, just like they don't seem to miss hi-fi audio. Plus, most contemporary music just doesn't have a whole lot of stereo separation anyhow.

I don't know about that. I switched off our stereo pilot and ran mono for a couple of days to see if it helped our fringe areas. I got a ton of complaints from our listeners. They certainly noticed.

Listening subjectively on a couple of factory car radios (Chevy Tahoe and Nissan Altima) I could tell no difference in fringe reception, since the radios blend to mono anyway. As a result, I switched the stereo back on and haven't regretted it.

 

[BRNout]

This rush to all-things-digital is very short sighted, IMO. It reminds me of every "next great idea" where yesterday's fad turns into today's obsolescence. The suits and sales slime love it because it sounds cutting-edge and because they can lease out more broadcast space because those 1s and 0s take up less room that an analog signal.

That said, digital audio still sounds thin to me and, given the slightest signal weakness, starts to muddy up and distort fast. At that point, it sounds horrible. Much worse than the little bit of background static that you get from analog signal impurities.

Which leads me to my biggest problem with digital radio (and why I think it would be a HUGE mistake): because it is fragile. Receivers are fragile, transmitters are fragile and the signal itself is fragile. The slightest bit of interference and zap! Silence. Digital receivers are more expensive and infinitely more complex than analog ones. Right now, we have a relatively cheap (for the consumer) medium that is always there when you need it. That's what distinguishes it from the internet, where you can lose service at the drop of the hat and for which you must pay for even basic service. In an emergency, digital will fail you. But analog radio will shine.

And, the sound quality for analog can be spectacular - MUCH better and richer than the artificial highs and lows of digital. Operators just need to do it right. Some already do, by the way.

Let's not be fools here. Don't listen to the guy trying to sell you the monorail. Dump Strubel and his ilk off in North Haverbrook (yes, it's a Simpsons reference).

 

[tomservo]

In short, an all-digital HD dial would assure that listeners were listening to the "right"
stations, those in their immediate, wel served citygrade signals.

Does the FCC guarantee your ability to listen to distant stations beyond their 70/60 dBu "protected contour"?

If not, why would you expect that to continue into the digital world? I don't know of a single broadcaster who wants more choice in his city or market. The side "benefit" of eliminating some distant stations and the prospect of limiting listenership to locals only is probably incredibly tantalizing to both big and small broadcasters.

 

[tomservo]

I agree that stereo FM has become a bit of a luxury in our noisy RF world. Most listeners probably wouldn't miss it, just like they don't seem to miss hi-fi audio. Plus, most contemporary music just doesn't have a whole lot of stereo separation anyhow.

I don't know about that. I switched off our stereo pilot and ran mono for a couple of days to see if it helped our fringe areas. I got a ton of complaints from our listeners. They certainly noticed.

Listening subjectively on a couple of factory car radios (Chevy Tahoe and Nissan Altima) I could tell no difference in fringe reception, since the radios blend to mono anyway. As a result, I switched the stereo back on and haven't regretted it.

You must have more discriminating listeners than we do down here in Darwin's Waiting Room. It's neither here nor there, but we have a local talk station that advertises talk in "digital FM stereo", yet they broadcast in neither HD nor stereo!

 

[TheBigA]

Maybe I just don't understand HD Radio, but isn't the concept of IBOC to be ADJACENT to analog, not a replacement of it? Nowhere, even in Strubel's wildest dreams, have I read anyone proposing one should REPLACE the other. Except in this poll.

 

[stacker]

Yeah A. Good point. TV had a end-analog date, but just because new spectrum was issued for digital operation and an auction opportunity existed for the government.

Interesting poll, though.

 

[Chuck]

Maybe I just don't understand HD Radio, but isn't the concept of IBOC to be ADJACENT to analog, not a replacement of it? Nowhere, even in Strubel's wildest dreams, have I read anyone proposing one should REPLACE the other. Except in this poll.

I can't imagine anyone wanting to turn off their analog signal for many years to come. That would be suicide, considering how few HD radios are in the hands of the general public. Nobody in their right mind would want to lose 99% (or more) of their extisting listeners by flipping a switch.

 

[SirRoxalot]

What's the point in taking FM digital? To alienate the millions of listeners who enjoy FM radio - and its inherent advantages over AM and all-digital satellite? BTW, have you listened to satellite? It's AWFUL - especially if it's not rebroadcast by a ground station.

FM stereo just plain works, and there are hundreds of millions of receivers in the hands of listeners. Those who want all digital are going to get their programming via their cell phone apps. The telecom providers are already building out their systems to deliver massive data capability, and decent stereo audio - which would be better than what's being delivered now - would be "economical" compared to video.

Digital works best when there's two-way communication, which allows error detection and/or correction to work. Otherwise, you get dropouts and stutter instead of the occasional fading or stereo/mono blending. Digital isn't going to penetrate buildings any better than analog. Remember, you're moving digital information on an analog carrier. There's no such thing as a digital carrier. I'd rather try to improve an analog signal by moving a receiver or antenna around to get the best sound than try to guess what's going to make a digital signal better. The digital signal is pretty much on/off. Every try to improve silence?

 

[Tom Wells]

Maybe I just don't understand HD Radio, but isn't the concept of IBOC to be ADJACENT to analog, not a replacement of it? Nowhere, even in Strubel's wildest dreams, have I read anyone proposing one should REPLACE the other. Except in this poll.

The proposed "all-digital" scenario for both AM and FM were clearly presented in the original US Digital Radio white papers.

IIRC, it was also stated that the all-digital mode was seen as the preferred condition.
That an all digital radio dial was diesirable was not stated, but the statements were clearly leading to that notion.