• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Subscription Services on HD

Ai4i

Ai4i

Encrypting the HD channels has been tossed about before.
Has anyone given serious consideration to the possibility?
What services would be viable: local sports, adult content, anything that works for satrad, specialty stuff for doctors or lawyers, foreign language, all local traffic & weather?
Many of these formats would only require a low bandwidth stream, so a whole bunch could be placed on a single FM station.
 
People aren't willing to pay extra for the radios needed to receive the free channels, so I doubt a targeted subscription service would do much better.

AFAIK the only advantage would be a slight increase in sound quality at the expense of coverage or mobile listening, due to the dropouts. Maybe a subscription MUZAK™ type service could find some success targeting businesses, which naturally sit in one space and never move!

As for adult content, I doubt there's a big enough market for that. Satellite radio has cornered what little listenership there is with O&A and Stern and whatever else they offer.
 
Zach said:
Maybe a subscription MUZAK™ type service could find some success targeting businesses, which naturally sit in one space and never move!
Click to expand...

Elevators move. I just love that Wayne Newton, "Danke shoen", "wow oo oo Danke sh..." Damn! We're at the 5th floor again,
 
"Maybe a subscription Muzak-type service could find some success targeting businesses, which naturally sit in one space and never move!"

Been there done that, 20+ years ago. Satellite distribution is way more efficient (cheaper?) than going through FM outlets. I highly doubt Muzak would go back to using terrestrial distribution after this long. Their satellite services are already too well established.

Besides, if anybody did start doing that, they'd probably be better off going MP2 on a leased ATSC subchannel.
 
Zach said:
KB1OKL said:
Zach said:
Maybe a subscription MUZAK™ type service could find some success targeting businesses, which naturally sit in one space and never move!
Click to expand...

Elevators move. I just love that Wayne Newton, "Danke shoen", "wow oo oo Danke sh..." Damn! We're at the 5th floor again,
Click to expand...

And the receiver is not attached to the elevator. Try again.
Click to expand...

I guess it's a moot point anyway, if it was HD it would drop out whether it was attached to the elevator or not.
 
The royal plural gets no dropouts as long as we stay within the stations' 70dbu analog or 60-66dbu digital (protected) coverage areas.
Not a proponent of the technology, but impressed with how some stations get it to sound.
 
ai4i said:
The royal plural gets no dropouts as long as we stay within the stations' 70dbu analog or 60-66dbu digital (protected) coverage areas.
Not a proponent of the technology, but impressed with how some stations get it to sound.
Click to expand...

I was able to get 3 or 4 FM HD's here in central MA when I was still trying my Sony out, I found that the stations that sounded good in analog usually sounded good in HD, the best sounding one here was WGBH Boston, a 100,000 watt NPR station which was still broadcasting music then, it sounded excellent, but it also sounded excellent in analog too, the main difference I found between analog and HD on that station was the silence.
 
KB, you didn't read the memo - "silence" is HD's secret weapon. That's why there's so much of it:

Listen to that super-low noise floor, Madge! (Insurance exec to his wife at the breakfast table)
Let's throw out all our radios right now and go HD!! LOVE those pauses in talk shows!

I just love when KXXX-HD-2 goes silent because their computer quit and nobody noticed! Sometimes it's for an entire weekend! Uber-cool! (17 year old Zune HD listener)

I like the way the HD channels carrying the 50kw news-talker, those HD-3 channels, just stop when I'm driving along. That way I know when it's time to tune back to AM! (Dentist driving HD-capable BMW)
 
Savage said:
"silence" is HD's secret weapon.
Click to expand...
We think KB was referring to the full quieting of the signal when no audio was present, and yes, an infinite s/n ratio has always been a goal with all audio media.
 
So was I.

And my point was: not only will 99% of listeners not notice "full quieting" - something like 100% of them won't, and don't, care.

Analog FM stereo suits the listening public just fine. It's superb technology which provides a superior audio product, robust and dependable coverage, and affordable costs for broadcasters.

Trashing adjacent channels and self-interfering with an expensive, proprietary, unnecessarily complex and cumbersome unwanted digital system in pursuit of "full quieting" is as self-defeating as it is foolish.

Nobody is interested in a "zero noise floor" except purist engineers and many of the folks posting here. It's a non-issue in the real world.
 
When I get a "zero noise floor" in my Miata driving with the top down and the radio OFF, then call me. Until then, it's an analog world.
 
Savage said:
Analog FM stereo suits the listening public just fine. It's superb technology which provides a superior audio product, robust and dependable coverage, and affordable costs for broadcasters.
Click to expand...

Yes it suits them just fine when they have no other choice. Otherwise it's mp3 players, internet streams and CDs instead. Two of those three offer a much better audio presentation than FM radio and all three have a lower noise floor.

Radio's ongoing popularity is due to the fact that it is free and ubiquitous. But, the end listener gets what she or he pays for, and radio is a true lowest common denominator product unless the format is being propped up by listener donations or government tax dollars.

Unfortunately for radio, people are choosing to pay for better quality music, among other reasons, and are causing radio to hæmorrhage listeners left and right. I think if given the choice between a person's choice format on the radio, commercial free and crystal clear, or a free iPod with the same type of music loaded on it, they'd still choose the iPod.
 
Zach said:
Savage said:
Analog FM stereo suits the listening public just fine. It's superb technology which provides a superior audio product, robust and dependable coverage, and affordable costs for broadcasters.
Click to expand...

Yes it suits them just fine when they have no other choice. Otherwise it's mp3 players, internet streams and CDs instead. Two of those three offer a much better audio presentation than FM radio and all three have a lower noise floor.

Radio's ongoing popularity is due to the fact that it is free and ubiquitous. But, the end listener gets what she or he pays for, and radio is a true lowest common denominator product unless the format is being propped up by listener donations or government tax dollars.

Unfortunately for radio, people are choosing to pay for better quality music, among other reasons, and are causing radio to hæmorrhage listeners left and right. I think if given the choice between a person's choice format on the radio, commercial free and crystal clear, or a free iPod with the same type of music loaded on it, they'd still choose the iPod.
Click to expand...

Not here. My part 15 is, like many automated formats, a glorified Ipod, and I put commercials in there so it will not sound dead and lifeless.
Another problem with Ipods is that it seems NO ONE uses the maximum definition bitrate, so it's either swishy or dull as an old POTS line.
Then there's no processing in the audio of an Ipod, so it's often too loud or too soft.
Then there's NO SPEAKER on the Ipod, so it is way behind in "usability", at least in my world.
 
Tom Wells said:
Zach said:
Savage said:
Analog FM stereo suits the listening public just fine. It's superb technology which provides a superior audio product, robust and dependable coverage, and affordable costs for broadcasters.
Click to expand...

Yes it suits them just fine when they have no other choice. Otherwise it's mp3 players, internet streams and CDs instead. Two of those three offer a much better audio presentation than FM radio and all three have a lower noise floor.

Radio's ongoing popularity is due to the fact that it is free and ubiquitous. But, the end listener gets what she or he pays for, and radio is a true lowest common denominator product unless the format is being propped up by listener donations or government tax dollars.

Unfortunately for radio, people are choosing to pay for better quality music, among other reasons, and are causing radio to hæmorrhage listeners left and right. I think if given the choice between a person's choice format on the radio, commercial free and crystal clear, or a free iPod with the same type of music loaded on it, they'd still choose the iPod.
Click to expand...

Not here. My part 15 is, like many automated formats, a glorified Ipod, and I put commercials in there so it will not sound dead and lifeless.
Another problem with Ipods is that it seems NO ONE uses the maximum definition bitrate, so it's either swishy or dull as an old POTS line.
Then there's no processing in the audio of an Ipod, so it's often too loud or too soft.
Then there's NO SPEAKER on the Ipod, so it is way behind in "usability", at least in my world.
Click to expand...

Those are all deficiencies in the iPod that people are willing to live without, sadly.

I am all m4a or flac myself, so sound quality is not an issue except when people send me stuff in low bitrate formats. My mp3 player of choice has built-in basic processing (multiband EQ, compressor, limiter, etc.) which really helps even things out when listening to different types of music on shuffle.

Most music players don't have speakers, but sharing is as easy as plugging a pair of amplified speakers into the headphone jack (mine also has a line out, but that's decidedly uncommon). I have no problem sharing music through the car stereo at better than FM quality, either.

The fact of the matter is the vast majority of users have moved to the iTunes/Amazon/whatever method of purchasing singles and only those nerdniks who still steal music online are running into low bit rate files. Heck, most stuff I've seen online has been flac rips of CDs or DVD-A so even the pirates are surpassing the e-commerce sites.

I'll agree that iTunes and Amazon's music files are not the best quality, but they are still far better than anything I've ever heard on FM. I even live now where we have a very very good sounding FM (WYOK, with its iPod on shuffle "Jack FM" format). It may be the best processed station in the area. Even their HD digital stream sounds better than most. But compared to my digital copies? Not even close. And I'd wager that's the case for nearly everyone these days.
 
mmnassour said:
Until then, it's an analog world.
Click to expand...
We went digital nine years ago and even though the local FM station that we support has better audio than our satrad, we simply can not tolerate the picket fencing. It is a constant distraction. We have notified them that our support will end if they do not adopt current technology.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom