Something that actually WORKS on AM

[davideduardo]

Care to disclose what your "scientific method" is? Because, in case you haven't heard, evaluating something with a Pioneer car radio isn't exactly a scientific methodology.

I wonder what the range of sensitivity and selectivity is on sample receivers of the same model? I'll bet the variances are considerable, particularly when we add in consumer-provided antennas and installation by folks who think Ohm's Law has something to do with when to use Preparation H.

Bruce does not seem to understand that signal strengths are measured with standardized antennas and calibrated receivers so that comparisons of reading betweens stations and markets have the same base. I can't envision how "scientific method" can be cited when there are no standards as the base for comparison.

 

[rbrucecarter5]

I will reiterate my previous comment...Do you expect broadcasters to make HD streams a PRIORITY?

The priority is where the most listeners are...and that's analog. You expect a different priority?




If you were involved with radio on a day to day basis you would recognize the terms "added-value" and "digital buys" that go into pitching a client. Think of the HD2 like the web site. Does the web site generate revenue? It is simply adding another dimension to the radio station

And where would we be if we made your same arguments when FM was coming of age?

"No one is really listening"? "There are no spots on the FM". "Buyers don't want to buy the FM". "The FM Automation screwed up again last night". "FM is harder to pick up" I can't pick up KXXX-FM at work"., etc., etc.

Why bother? HD is just an added feature that brings some extra functionality to your radio. It is not the end of the world, and is not a priority. But it is here to stay.



No matter what responses he gets...he keeps repeating the same tired arguments (and misinformation).

You keep totally keeping my point. Your perspective is coming from the broadcaster's perspective. In the consumer's eyes - the ONLY - as in ONLY reason to even consider upgrading to an HD radio is the promised "stations between the stations". You are absolutely right in that for most people, analog - and therefore the HD-1 - is the only reason to listen to radio. But the commercials promised more stations. If they aren't there, if HD only copies the format already on analog, the consumer has absolutely no reason to upgrade to HD radio. None. The audio improvements are miniscule for the MP3 / earbud crowd. The comparisons to FM, and FM stereo are VALUELESS, because there was a dramatic increase in quality in the move from AM to FM, and then there was the advantage of stereo music. Digital instead of analog - this isn't another TV upgrade where HD TV really was a big leap in quality from NTSC. HD cannot stand on audio improvement because only a few of us can tell the difference. It takes hundreds or thousands of dollars to have an audio system where HD radio really shines. I have such a system. But the improvement in audio quality goes away if the station has an HD-2. By the time the count is to HD-3, all three sound worse than analog FM. But average consumers won't know that. So - for consumers - the killer app is more stations. If those stations are unreliable, the average consumer gives up. No excuses. Either these are bonafide broadcast stations, taken seriously, or you are right, they might as well be web sites. HD FM will fail in the marketplace, and the only application will be feeding translators. Automakers will start removing it in an economy measure, because there are no stations between the stations - at least not reliable ones. And as much as I hate to admit it - the format choices I enjoy on HD-2 are simply not viable commercially. If HD radio ever becomes a hit, those HD-2 channels will have to be monetized with formats that will make money. The very fact that niche formats exist on HD-2 is the clearest possible proof that nobody is listening to HD except enthusiasts for those formats, and there aren't very many of them. They get thrown a bone to shut them up, nobody has to care if HD-2 is reliable or not, because stations KNOW that nobody is listening to HD radio. So - why even pretend that it is here to stay, or that it is somehow a success, or that people will flock to it the way they did to FM stereo? It just isn't happening, it won't happen, because HD-2 is not a priority, and it was the one and only "killer app"" that was promised. Remember the promised surround sound on HD radio? Never happened. Now HD-2's are unreliable and even folding. In 20 years, the only HD radios will be those required to feed translators, because consumers moved on to something else that WAS reliable.

 

[Kelly A]

No matter what responses he gets...he keeps repeating the same tired arguments (and misinformation).

Yep, and there he goes again. More of the same doublespeak, or is it now triple-speak?

 

[Kelly A]

You keep totally keeping my point. Your perspective is coming from the broadcaster's perspective. In the consumer's eyes - the ONLY - as in ONLY reason to even consider upgrading to an HD radio is the promised "stations between the stations".

That's your opinion, a 50+ year old listener, not someone that speaks for all radio listeners of any age.

Digital instead of analog - this isn't another TV upgrade where HD TV really was a big leap in quality from NTSC. HD cannot stand on audio improvement because only a few of us can tell the difference. It takes hundreds or thousands of dollars to have an audio system where HD radio really shines. I have such a system. But the improvement in audio quality goes away if the station has an HD-2. By the time the count is to HD-3, all three sound worse than analog FM. But average consumers won't know that. So - for consumers - the killer app is more stations. If those stations are unreliable, the average consumer gives up.

As with DTV stations, it's up to the individual station to decide whether more channels with reduced main-channel bandwidth is worth the tradeoff. So far with DTV stations, many have been successful in monetizing their "dot-whatever" channels carrying movies and classic TV shows. Radio or TV, station owners will always take the choice that improves their business over purity of sound (or picture). It's taken several years for DTV 'dot' channels to start making money, but it is happening.

Again, you're speaking with your rather unique opinion, not on behalf of the typical majority of listeners.

If HD radio ever becomes a hit, those HD-2 channels will have to be monetized with formats that will make money.

That is the first true statement from you I agree with, but a DUH, statement none the less.

The very fact that niche formats exist on HD-2 is the clearest possible proof that nobody is listening to HD except enthusiasts for those formats, and there aren't very many of them. They get thrown a bone to shut them up, nobody has to care if HD-2 is reliable or not, because stations KNOW that nobody is listening to HD radio. So - why even pretend that it is here to stay, or that it is somehow a success, or that people will flock to it the way they did to FM stereo? It just isn't happening, it won't happen, because HD-2 is not a priority, and it was the one and only "killer app"" that was promised. Remember the promised surround sound on HD radio? Never happened. Now HD-2's are unreliable and even folding. In 20 years, the only HD radios will be those required to feed translators, because consumers moved on to something else that WAS reliable.

Wow, a lot to reply to here. Let's take them in order:

There are several HD-2 signals around the country that are seeing gradual ratings growth. WAMU here in the DC area for example, has a Blue Grass Country formatted channel which pulls pretty respectable ratings in demo, as compared with other analog-only stations. Just as with DTV ancillary channels, it's taken time to grow interest. Will HD-whatever channels garner numbers like established analog or main channels? Who knows, but unlike what you claim as some sort of expert, there are people listening. In fact, aren't you one Bruce? Regarding your comment about the reliability of HD-whatever channels, just because a station that you listen to has an HD channel that is down, is not indicative of all markets or stations within markets who carry HD. As David mentioned, there may be valid reasons for a station to have it's HD-2 channel offline. If you are so bothered that it is, why don't you direct your concern to that particular station, rather than painting the entire industry with a gigantic, broad brush. Doing so, just continues to illustrate your ignorance to the technical and managerial aspects of modern day broadcasting.

 

[Wimmmex]

You keep totally keeping my point. Your perspective is coming from the broadcaster's perspective. In the consumer's eyes - the ONLY - as in ONLY reason to even consider upgrading to an HD radio is the promised "stations between the stations". You are absolutely right in that for most people, analog - and therefore the HD-1 - is the only reason to listen to radio. But the commercials promised more stations. So - for consumers - the killer app is more stations.

And I posted a list of stations/formats/music that are available in the Boston area.

88.9 - Broadway/Show Tunes
89.7 - Classical New England bringing Classical to areas that are not served by the format.
91.9 - Folk
92.9 - Local Bands
94.5- Bloomberg
96.9 - Irish music
98.5 - WBCN The Rock of Boston lives on!
100.7 - Blues
100.7 - Free form AOR (HD3!)
102.5 - Classic Country
103.3 - Oldies
103.3 - Soft upper-demo AC (HD3!)
104.1 - 80's
104.1 - Christian Contemporary (HD3!)
105.7 - Classic Rock
106.7 - Smooth Jazz
107.9 - EDM

How does this make your point? I've pointed this out every time you say that there is no content...or that HD is just more of the same that's available on analog. But I have a feeling you won't listen to any facts that shatter your anti-HD bias. And your "automakers will start removing it because there are no "stations between the stations"...if just a lot of crock...as I have pointed out to you above (and numerous times previously.)

The audio improvements are miniscule for the MP3 / earbud crowd. The comparisons to FM, and FM stereo are VALUELESS, because there was a dramatic increase in quality in the move from AM to FM,

The comparison is the CONTENT available on AM to FM. What was available on FM wasn't available on AM.

You have been whining about HD for 5+ years...and there are now more listeners than ever, more cars than ever, etc., etc.

 

[tomservo]

Wow, I wish I had that kind of HD sub choice in my market. Mobile and Pensacola are woefully underserved by signals, despite being two different radio ratings markets. The vast majority of content, analog or digital, is available in both cities. We also have just one translator relaying an AM (religious) in Mobile and just three translators active in Pensacola, one religious, one sports and one relaying a (different) out of market commercial sports station.

As far as HD goes, it's sad:

88.1 - 2 Classical 24 (Pensacola area only)
88.1 - 3 Radio for the Blind (Pensacola area only, and off air for last three months)
92.9 - HD but no subchannels
94.9 - 2 Classic Country
96.1 - 2 // WNTM-AM 710, news/talk
99.9 - 2 Smooth Jazz
101.5 - HD but no subchannels as of March 2015
104.1 - HD but no subchannels
107.3 - 2 Smooth Jazz (Baldwin County only, does not reach Pensacola or Mobile)

Then there's the defunct HD broadcasts:

98.7 - shut off in 2006 or 2007
100.7 - shut off in 2014

Travel one market east or west of here and the only HD is the public broadcaster serving those areas. WMAH in Biloxi and… WUWF (same as Pensacola) and WFSW (Panama City) in Fort Walton Beach.

In places like Montgomery and Birmingham there's a vibrant HD subchannel selection. And in both markets, all of them are available on translators.

It's no wonder HD is irrelevant for the vast majority of listeners, even if they do likely have one HD radio now in their car or at home. There's just nothing to listen to unless you're in a top 20 market.

 

[Wimmmex]

There's just nothing to listen to unless you're in a top 20 market.

Which is where 80-85% of US citizens live.

 

[semoochie]

You keep totally keeping my point. Your perspective is coming from the broadcaster's perspective. In the consumer's eyes - the ONLY - as in ONLY reason to even consider upgrading to an HD radio is the promised "stations between the stations". You are absolutely right in that for most people, analog - and therefore the HD-1 - is the only reason to listen to radio. But the commercials promised more stations. If they aren't there, if HD only copies the format already on analog, the consumer has absolutely no reason to upgrade to HD radio. None. The audio improvements are miniscule for the MP3 / earbud crowd. The comparisons to FM, and FM stereo are VALUELESS, because there was a dramatic increase in quality in the move from AM to FM, and then there was the advantage of stereo music. Digital instead of analog - this isn't another TV upgrade where HD TV really was a big leap in quality from NTSC. HD cannot stand on audio improvement because only a few of us can tell the difference. It takes hundreds or thousands of dollars to have an audio system where HD radio really shines. I have such a system. But the improvement in audio quality goes away if the station has an HD-2. By the time the count is to HD-3, all three sound worse than analog FM. But average consumers won't know that. So - for consumers - the killer app is more stations. If those stations are unreliable, the average consumer gives up. No excuses. Either these are bonafide broadcast stations, taken seriously, or you are right, they might as well be web sites. HD FM will fail in the marketplace, and the only application will be feeding translators. Automakers will start removing it in an economy measure, because there are no stations between the stations - at least not reliable ones. And as much as I hate to admit it - the format choices I enjoy on HD-2 are simply not viable commercially. If HD radio ever becomes a hit, those HD-2 channels will have to be monetized with formats that will make money. The very fact that niche formats exist on HD-2 is the clearest possible proof that nobody is listening to HD except enthusiasts for those formats, and there aren't very many of them. They get thrown a bone to shut them up, nobody has to care if HD-2 is reliable or not, because stations KNOW that nobody is listening to HD radio. So - why even pretend that it is here to stay, or that it is somehow a success, or that people will flock to it the way they did to FM stereo? It just isn't happening, it won't happen, because HD-2 is not a priority, and it was the one and only "killer app"" that was promised. Remember the promised surround sound on HD radio? Never happened. Now HD-2's are unreliable and even folding. In 20 years, the only HD radios will be those required to feed translators, because consumers moved on to something else that WAS reliable.

Since no one else mentioned it, I should point out that anything above an HD2 doesn't affect the HD1.

 

[davideduardo]

Which is where 80-85% of US citizens live.

The current 12+ population of the US is about 270 million.

In the top 25 markets, there are 107 million 12+ persons.

In the top 100 markets there are 174 million.

The top 20 markets represent 92 million people, or one-third of the US population, not 80-85% as you state.

Source: Nielsen "red book" 2014 (representing 2013 population estimates 12+) and extrapolated US Census Bureau ACS data for 2013 (Census does not give 12+, so extrapolation of the 7-14 cell must be done).

 

[davideduardo]

Since no one else mentioned it, I should point out that anything above an HD2 doesn't affect the HD1.

Any use beyond HD1 "affects" the HD1 as there is a finite data bandwidth on HD as a whole. It can be divided into two, three, even four or more channels, but as each division takes place, the bandwidth of each channel is reduced. At some point you get noticeable degradation, such as users of Sirius XM complain about.

While the amount of bandwidth for each channel is adjustable, the total usage has to "fit" in the total HD bandwidth.

 

[semoochie]

Any use beyond HD1 "affects" the HD1 as there is a finite data bandwidth on HD as a whole. It can be divided into two, three, even four or more channels, but as each division takes place, the bandwidth of each channel is reduced. At some point you get noticeable degradation, such as users of Sirius XM complain about.

While the amount of bandwidth for each channel is adjustable, the total usage has to "fit" in the total HD bandwidth.

That's the problem with not being an engineer. I tend to think of things as "finite" and sometimes, they just aren't. From what I understand, IBOC has 96KB of space. The HD1 portion is required to be at least as good as its analog counterpart. I took that as 48KB because I thought most stations ran 48 for the HD1 and 48 divided between whatever was left but the HD1 would remain at 48, no matter how much they chop up the remaining 48. If there's another kind of degradation elsewhere, I wasn't aware of it and can't hear it.