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

[tomservo]

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.

Well duh potatoes the idea is the have as many people as possible have digital radios first. Geez, it's like some of you HD haters are intentionally sandbagging yourselves.

And yes, I have listened to satellite radio and it's not at all comparable to terrestrial digital broadcasting. The frequencies are different, the reception challenges are different, even the encoding schemes are different. There was a period when I was an XM sub, before they picked up MLB and added 50 more damn channels for the games, that it sounded friggin' fantastic for a low bitrate digital delivery system. There was a period of several months after major tweaking that XM really rivaled a decent mp3 (not great, but for the price? Very good.)

And as someone who had that subscription in rural Mississippi I can attest that dropouts were few and far between. Only in Jackson & Vicksburg were there reception issues, and even then only one or two blocks of downtown streets blocked by the only tall buildings in the state. Everywhere else was pretty much trouble-free. Major metros were seamless 99.9% of the time thanks to terrestrial repeaters.

That's the polar opposite of IBOC.

A full digital terrestrial system would definitely need more error correction to improve robustness for the reasons you mentioned, but it's not like it can't be done. Killing the analog carrier would free up a lot of extra bandwidth. Heck, the FCC even already has provisions for fill-in boosters and translators. They might actually get to be used for those actual purposes in an all-digital scheme on FM. I imagine it would be cheaper to hang a 10 or 20 watt digital booster off a building or billboard than it would be going through the RF exposure hoops of installing a 1500 watt on-channel booster like they have in LA.

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.

The capacity won't be enough if there's a mass migration to IP delivery. How many listeners sample a popular station in a major metro each day? 250,000? How many spend significant time (>15 min) listening? 10-20,000? Name one station that could afford the data of 20,000 unique streams at once.

Broadcasting, analog or digital, is still the best way to reach the masses cheaply. As it stands now, at least from my experience, it is a system TOTALLY not ready for prime time. My record for uninterrupted streaming on my CDMA carrier's 3G network is a paltry 18 minutes. Then there are the software crashes, network dropouts, stream incompatibilities, etc. It's a headache.

Even on my home network with ~10 Mbps down I often have buffering issues listening to radio or watching online video when the network is in heavy use.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Zach, let me point out the obvious flaws in your argument.

There was a period of several months after major tweaking that XM really rivaled a decent mp3 (not great, but for the price? Very good.)

Analog FM is already vastly better than a "decent mp3". And no new receivers are necessary. Where's the gain? Leave it alone.

A full digital terrestrial system would definitely need more error correction to improve robustness for the reasons you mentioned, but it's not like it can't be done. Killing the analog carrier would free up a lot of extra bandwidth.

No matter how much bandwidth you free up, or how many translators you put in, you still can't do error correction without getting a signal back from the digital receiver. If you don't know that there were errors, how can you correct them?

(Cellular) capacity won't be enough if there's a mass migration to IP delivery. How many listeners sample a popular station in a major metro each day? 250,000? How many spend significant time (>15 min) listening? 10-20,000? Name one station that could afford the data of 20,000 unique streams at once.

You don't need have to have 20,000 unique streams for IP delivery. You can still send out one stream in "real time" (plus latency) and have 20,000 people listen to it. Of course, the expense is different because of licensing issues with IP delivery, but that's an artificial difference, not a technical one. IP networks support "broadcasting" of a single stream to a large number of listeners if the servers are configured that way.

The bottom line is that the proposed "conversion to digital radio" is simple a government grab for bandwidth. Digital delivery wouldn't improve the signal, but it would allow you to significantly reduce the bandwidth necessary for a single "radio" station. The FCC would then get to sell off another chunk of bandwidth to the cellular providers so that they can stuff a little more money in their pockets, and the cell providers can offer more competition to terrestrial broadcasters. None of the above is good for radio, or radio listeners. If you take away their analog radio, they're simply not going to buy new receivers. They'll put the money into their cellular plan.

 

[tomservo]

Analog FM is already vastly better than a "decent mp3". And no new receivers are necessary. Where's the gain? Leave it alone.

OK, I'll say this is a draw. There are definitely advantages to an all-analog chain on analog FM. But how many stations still do that? I bet slim to none. They're playing those same mp3 files that are foisted on us by download sites. The difference is they're run through a digital STL and an IBOC encoder and wind up sounding bad anyway.

At least XM's sound quality was from raw audio files stored on their Dalet system, encoded just once digitally. They've ruined it now with having a billion talk channels, but at the time it was a real competitive sound.

Analog FM may be cleaner and certainly more enjoyable to listen to, but you have to concede the rich dynamic range and low noise floor of digital audio is better than FM.

As for no new receivers being necessary, that's true. IF local radio is playing your kind of programming. Local radio does not program for me, my friends or frankly, anyone I know anymore. I don't have blues, bluegrass or oldies at my fingertips. My mother and father can't stand the six minute commercial breaks of the local classic rock outlet. My aunt's into some weird hair metal that she grew up with. My grandmothers miss the the big band sound. God knows there's nothing even close to the mish-mash of wild underground stuff my best friend listens to.

For us, a new receiver (XM, HD, or more realistically, a mp3 player or cell phone w/ data plan) is our new receiver.

Come to think of it, the only people I know who enjoy listening to radio anymore are… radio people. Even my former co-workers shunned the only R&B station in their area for CDs of uncensored rap music. Yuck.

If radio wishes to expand its horizons, it needs to cater to more than the blandest dental office music fanclub. Subchannels and (more importantly) online delivery can do that.

No matter how much bandwidth you free up, or how many translators you put in, you still can't do error correction without getting a signal back from the digital receiver. If you don't know that there were errors, how can you correct them?

That's simply not true. Digital OTA TV works and has error correction. The reception of satellite radio terrestrial repeaters is accomplished with error correction. Digital cellular phone networks use error correction. You just need more overhead for a robust signal. You're thinking as if the signal has to be 100% perfect from end to end, like a internet connection. It doesn't. It just needs most of it to be right, and enough forward error correction in place to fix the lost bits. Certainly you don't think the FM signal you listen to from your local station is 100% exact as it was when it left the transmitter?

You don't need have to have 20,000 unique streams for IP delivery. You can still send out one stream in "real time" (plus latency) and have 20,000 people listen to it. Of course, the expense is different because of licensing issues with IP delivery, but that's an artificial difference, not a technical one. IP networks support "broadcasting" of a single stream to a large number of listeners if the servers are configured that way.

Fair enough. But somewhere in the pipeline are 20,000 unique streams. If not at the server's end, it's at someone's end. Maybe the wired (cable/DSL/fiber) network can handle that, but not wireless. At least not yet.

The bottom line is that the proposed "conversion to digital radio" is simple a government grab for bandwidth. Digital delivery wouldn't improve the signal, but it would allow you to significantly reduce the bandwidth necessary for a single "radio" station. The FCC would then get to sell off another chunk of bandwidth to the cellular providers so that they can stuff a little more money in their pockets, and the cell providers can offer more competition to terrestrial broadcasters. None of the above is good for radio, or radio listeners. If you take away their analog radio, they're simply not going to buy new receivers. They'll put the money into their cellular plan.

And which part of the FM broadcast band is suitable for wireless cellular communications?

The truth is the FM band is really only good for wide area mass communications. In analog. But if there's some perceived need to "go digital", it needs to be done, and done right. I don't necessarily believe iBiquity's technology is the answer to that, either. I have no idea how it works in full digital mode.

 

[davideduardo]

Analog FM is already vastly better than a "decent mp3". And no new receivers are necessary. Where's the gain? Leave it alone.

A 256 kbs or better MP3 is equal to or better than FM quality... and if properly encoded from an original source, devoid of the FM preemphasis artefacts. At that sample rate, the minimal compression is far less detrimental than analog FM issues.

You don't need have to have 20,000 unique streams for IP delivery. You can still send out one stream in "real time" (plus latency) and have 20,000 people listen to it.

You forget that each "listener's" stream is separate, as it is a two-way nature to it that permits the listener to start and stop and pause the stream. RF does not do that on AM and FM. The station pays for Internet bandwidth by the stream, because each one uses a new amount of resources at some stage in the distribution system. The station may send a single stream to the provider of streaming services, but after that, it gets split and is definitely 20,000 different bandwidth hogs when entering the cellphone system.

If it were as simple as you state, the country would not be populated with enormous server farms... needed to, among other things, stream video and audio. The station pays for the total number of streams into the backbone of the web, and the listener pays from the backbone to their device over leased bandwidth.

Radio is "e pluribus unum" but the Internet is, sort of, "e pluribus, pluribus."

IP networks support "broadcasting" of a single stream to a large number of listeners if the servers are configured that way.

At some point along the chain, the providers of the backbone will want to be compensated for the delivery of streams to each and every ISP account that connects. There is no free lunch here.

None of the above is good for radio, or radio listeners. If you take away their analog radio, they're simply not going to buy new receivers. They'll put the money into their cellular plan.

It's likely we are approaching a majority opinion already when it comes to the desire to get all forms of communication and entertainment from a single device. People don't want discreet radios, discreet TVs, discreet music players, etc. They want all of it on a single device, which can be plugged into speakers, screens, keyboards and such.

Radio's mistake is to think of delivery systems as a product, rather than thinking of content as the product and distributing it in any way listeners want.

 

[SirRoxalot]

A 256 kbs or better MP3 is equal to or better than FM quality... and if properly encoded from an original source, devoid of the FM preemphasis artefacts. At that sample rate, the minimal compression is far less detrimental than analog FM issues.

MP3 compression is far from minimal. FM analog with faithful reproduction up to 12KHz is simply better audio than even a 256Kbs MP3, especially if the original source is .wav direct from CD and not some crappy iTunes download. Anybody who puts those on the air deserves to be buggy-whipped.

You forget that each "listener's" stream is separate, as it is a two-way connection somewhat like a phone call. The listener can configure, start and stop and pause the stream, all of which requires two way communication. The station pays for Internet bandwidth by the stream, because each one uses a new amount of resources.

It simply doesn't have to be delivered that way. One stream can be delivered to as many people as are willing to receive it using a broadcast or multicast address. It's a one-way trip that runs in real time. See http://www.comptechdoc.org/independent/networking/guide/netbroadcasting.html for more info.

If it were as simple as you state, the country would not be populated with enormous server farms... needed to, among other things, stream video and audio. The station pays for the total number of streams into the backbone of the web, and the listener pays from the backbone to their device over leased bandwidth.

Server farms are used to deliver data on demand. A multicast or broadcast stream isn't on-demand. It's a continuous stream, and any time-shifting is done on the receiving end, not the sending end. Cable providers don't deliver 5000 video streams to 5000 network TV watchers, even in a digital domain. They deliver a single stream. One reason that there's such a demand for bandwidth is that video (or audio) on demand requires a separate stream for each client - like a podcast or YouTube. If you don't deliver audio that way, you only need to deliver a single stream that many listeners can receive.

The FM band, which works from about 87MHz to 108 MHz can deliver at least 87Mbits to 107Mbits of uncompressed data. Twice that, depending on the modulation scheme (ex. CQAM). The cell providers would LOVE to have that bandwidth.

If Europe can deliver FM on cell phones, why can't the US? It's a question of will, not capability. The telcos want to charge you for receiving bits on your phone. FM is seen as competition in the content delivery business that they can't charge for, which is why they resist turning on the capability to receive FM that already exists in many cell phones.

 

[davideduardo]

MP3 compression is far from minimal. FM analog with faithful reproduction up to 12KHz is simply better audio than even a 256Kbs MP3, especially if the original source is .wav direct from CD and not some crappy iTunes download. Anybody who puts those on the air deserves to be buggy-whipped.

Without even getting into the area of what is "good enough" in the context of iTunes, in the real world, a 320 bps MP3 from a never converted digital source sounds as good as analog FM and it's really unlikely that anyone who uses broadcast media would find anything wrong with it.

The whole "iTunes audio sucks" line of thinking is a total waste of time in the context of radio. Radio is not going to "get people to listen more" (note that I avoid the common "get people back" statement, as that is untrue) by improving the audio. Radio is going to improve its exposure time by being easily available on devices that are not radios, by reducing commercial loads and by adding content that adds listener value to the stream.

It simply doesn't have to be delivered that way.

No, it doesn't have to be. It needs to be. Only a stream that is bidirectional and allows interaction, like pausing, requesting information, requesting downloads, scheduling podcasts, getting a ringtone of some character voice, etc., etc. can compete and be in many ways superior even to pureplay sources (which have can be nothing other than individual streams).

What if in LA you could have Amp's music with Mark & Brian's bits? You have to have personalized streams for all of that. And AM FM radio is about "us" yet most consumers are in "me" mode today.

Yes, you can do what you say. But the real issue is understanding why anyone would want to do that.

Server farms are used to deliver data on demand.

You mean like podcasts, or the material needed to create custom streams? That's exactly what I'm talking about. Individualization and personalization require data on demand, not a one size fits all single stream.

A multicast or broadcast stream isn't on-demand. It's a continuous stream, and any time-shifting is done on the receiving end, not the sending end. Cable providers don't deliver 5000 video streams to 5000 network TV watchers, even in a digital domain.

TV analogies are not appropriate. TV shows are significant productions, costly and not the stuff I can do in my home office. But I could have a web station activated by this time tomorrow if I wanted. Which means anyone with a playlist can do it. The game is going to be who can deliver customized or personalized content on the listener's timetable... and that is not a continuous stream and it uses lots of bandwidth.

They deliver a single stream. One reason that there's such a demand for bandwidth is that video (or audio) on demand requires a separate stream for each client - like a podcast or YouTube. If you don't deliver audio that way, you only need to deliver a single stream that many listeners can receive.

But, as nearly 100 million Pandora users will tell you by actions, not words, that's not what consumers want today.

If Europe can deliver FM on cell phones, why can't the US? It's a question of will, not capability. The telcos want to charge you for receiving bits on your phone. FM is seen as competition in the content delivery business that they can't charge for, which is why they resist turning on the capability to receive FM that already exists in many cell phones.

The CEA, to an extent, is right in its opposition of FM radios in cellphones... their users want the content available, not the actual FM signals. No consumer wants a built in FM tuner... they want to be able to hear this station or that morning show on their phone... and they have no preference in how it is delivered.

 

[SirRoxalot]

So, David, in other words, you're wrong about how networks can deliver content. So, you propose a complete change in the content being delivered, which creates a service that has nothing to do with broadcasting as we know it. What you propose isn't an HD conversion by broadcasting, it's a completely new service - not unlike what's already being delivered via Internet broadcasting. I guess that means that radio isn't viable in your New Media World Order.

There are people who simply don't have the time or inclination to do all the "personalization" that you find key to the future. One of radio's strengths is that it doesn't require much interaction. That's part of the point. Of course, smart radio stations will offer added options, but that's still not their primary product. Has anybody figured out how to monetize the "added features" yet?

It is nice to hear you to acknowledge that content has meaning, and that simply repeating syndicated content isn't a path to success for local broadcast outlets.

 

[DaveBayArea]

There are people who simply don't have the time or inclination to do all the "personalization" that you find key to the future. One of radio's strengths is that it doesn't require much interaction.

Indeed, that's what I'm finding out from my friends who are very much in to Pandora. They complain about repeats, the need to consistently tune their station with the thumbs, and how much of a chore it is to make it worthwhile to listen to. There's something to be said for radio programmed by a creative human. That's true whether it's AM, FM, HD, or via digital stream.

The other large elephant in the room here regarding a "full digital conversion" is that the Ibiquity spec for occupied bandwidth is 400 KHz. See page 7 of this document:

http://www.nrscstandards.org/SG/NRSC-5-B/1026sE.pdf

To effectively make this work en-masse would require a re-allocation of the FM band in many areas of the country, since FM was previously based on 200 KHz channels. Full digital using the Ibiquity scheme requires a 400 KHz channel.

Dave B.

 

[local oscillator]

Zach, I can't speak for other stations, but mine uses: CD to uncompressed .wav files to analog processing to analog STL to analog transmitter. Sounds great. And . . . if the only people you know who enjoy radio are radio people, you must travel in some very small circles or never leave the company of radio people! ;D Over 93% of Americans 12+ listen to the radio!

David, a high-sample-rate MP3 is a paradox. If you sample at a high rate, you might just as well go uncompressed. The MP3 format is a lossy compression algorithm; its intended purpose is to be lossy and to compress, which is the way it's used 99.99999% of the time. I think that more and more folks (especially the younger ones) appreciate many things, but audio/video quality isn't one of them. Unfortunately, iTunes MP3 files from an iPod going into earbuds and streamed video on a 3" screen seem to be "good enough."

 

[davideduardo]

So, David, in other words, you're wrong about how networks can deliver content.

No, from the very first moment I said that the content radio wants to deliver can not be done with a single stream accessed by many.

So, you propose a complete change in the content being delivered, which creates a service that has nothing to do with broadcasting as we know it. What you propose isn't an HD conversion by broadcasting, it's a completely new service - not unlike what's already being delivered via Internet broadcasting. I guess that means that radio isn't viable in your New Media World Order.

This is not my idea. Why do you think CC hired Pittman, Marince, Casey, Michaels? The smart people in radio know that the future is in delivering our content in customizable formats.

And internet stations so far are not delivering the hits with Ryan Seacrest or Elvis Duran... it's mostly just someone's playlist. Radio can add the content to the music and create customizable variants and deliver the demographic chunks advertisers want.

Radio using terrestrial transmitters is not the long term solution for radio. First, people don't buy radios any more... they buy mobile devices and want to get all their content there. In the car, they may not have access to mobile device functionality, so they play their own songs locally. But when they finally get a connected car, the mobile device will go there, too. So radio has to change its distribution, and that requires more personalized options to stand out in a crowded arena of offerings.

There are people who simply don't have the time or inclination to do all the "personalization" that you find key to the future. One of radio's strengths is that it doesn't require much interaction. That's part of the point. Of course, smart radio stations will offer added options, but that's still not their primary product. Has anybody figured out how to monetize the "added features" yet?

Personalizing to the extent of saying "I want this show with that music" is not hard. And beyond that, you can have additional levels of personalization. And yes, streams that have options to download songs, coupons, present concert data, etc., do make money. Not a lot and not everywhere, but this part of radio is growing and the other part is not... what does that say to you?

It is nice to hear you to acknowledge that content has meaning, and that simply repeating syndicated content isn't a path to success for local broadcast outlets.

I think most listeners will opt for the same talents who are syndicated now in a music mix the listener determines themselves. We'll have more people listening to Kid Kraddick and Seacrest, not less... but give listeners the chance to determine how many bits an hour, how much and what kind of music, news or no news, etc., is part of the key... but so is the interactive content. The internet taught much of America that they can get their content on their schedule... and given "radio" with options, not just "playlists with options" radio can prosper. Otherwise, it dies.

 

[davideduardo]

David, a high-sample-rate MP3 is a paradox. If you sample at a high rate, you might just as well go uncompressed. The MP3 format is a lossy compression algorithm; its intended purpose is to be lossy and to compress, which is the way it's used 99.99999% of the time. I think that more and more folks (especially the younger ones) appreciate many things, but audio/video quality isn't one of them. Unfortunately, iTunes MP3 files from an iPod going into earbuds and streamed video on a 3" screen seem to be "good enough."

Yes, that's my point... the bar has been lowered. The standard for audio quality is sacrificed to portability and versatility.

Those at stations that play currents know that many songs no longer have a promo CD. They are released as downloadable MP3's, very often at 256 kbs. A few labels, Sony being one, will sometimes offer a short download window for a wav as well as a 320 kbs MP3. Most stations are going for the MP3, I'm told.

One person told me, in a shrewd observation, that the defining factor in audio quality is whether the song will fit as an attachment. With most mail systems barfing at over 10 mb, then 256 or 320 kbs MP3s are going to be the standard, not wav files.

In fact, in many parts of the world, where even in-home and at-work internet access is metered, size matters. I've produced one of those "weekly new releases and breakers" CDs for 18 years... today I get zero promo CDs. And few stations are shipped a real CD any more... they download. And they want 256 kbs... the best size vs. cost compromise for the stations who use it who are all in Latin America. I believe (and fear) that at some point the labels will set a standard, perhaps 256 kbs VBR, so that there are not a lot of versions at different rates running around.

And keep in mind that if you put songs on your iPad, iPod or iPhone (yeah, I have the trio and listen to nearly 100% of my music on one of them and enjoy it) iTunes wants to convert any higher sample rates into 128 kbs. On my first iPhone, one with 4 gb of memory, I said yes to the question. I got very used to it and accept it now, unless I start being a critic rather than an enjoyer of music.

 

[Lee Rust]

To my surprise, I found no practical quality difference between an iTunes download and the original CD. In the real world of the marketplace, it would seem that the bitrate/compression scheme choices have already been made. There are lower limits, of course, like AM-HD, FM-HD3 or some of the satellite channels, but it's clear that the rarified upper audio realms that we used to call 'high-fidelity' have largely been abandoned.

Besides, the high-frequency pre-emphasis curve inherent to the analog FM system is a much bigger audio quality issue than choice of digital compression modes.

 

[tomservo]

Zach, I can't speak for other stations, but mine uses: CD to uncompressed .wav files to analog processing to analog STL to analog transmitter. Sounds great. And . . . if the only people you know who enjoy radio are radio people, you must travel in some very small circles or never leave the company of radio people! ;D Over 93% of Americans 12+ listen to the radio!

LO I salute your station for preserving the analog sound through the chain. I bet it sounds awesome and I wish more stations did that. The quality of radio stations seems to correspond to two factors: ownership (big corp or small owner) and when they did their last technology upgrade.

I'm almost certain that my local small-town AM'er still pops music in off of CDs or carts. Technology has likely passed them by. But the big Clear Channel stations all have very obvious artefacting in the audio, which is made all the worse on their online streams or HD feeds due to cascading codecs.

Up in Birmingham some of the former Dick Broadcasting stations embraced computers early on and the MUSICAM (mp2) audio was horrific. But the tin eared (but otherwise competent) engineer couldn't hear the difference so my complaints fell on deaf ears, so to speak. To this day those stations stand out for how bad they sound, while some that appeared to upgrade to computer networks later sound pretty good. The Cox stations all sound especially crisp and clear and I've been told they're all uncompressed music at the source.

As for the dozens of people I know and have discussed radio with, only the radio people listen regularly. Even my parents and their relatives have abandoned radio in all but the rarest of occasions (weather, news, etc.) So maybe I do have an odd circle, or they just don't admit to listening.

People my age and younger are definitely all attached to their mp3 players or online streaming of Pandora and the like. For some of them, radio is iTunes and the player is an iPod and there is no such thing as any other way to take music on the go. But they're weird.