Toyotas Getting HD et al.

[KB1OKL]

Like it or not, HD is legal in the USA, on the air, and starting to show up in automotive receivers.

Many of the private and public broadcast corporations who have pushed the system from inception through implementation are also the owners of the choicest radio properties in the largest markets in the country. They have grubstaked their claim on the digital media gold field with a huge political and capital investment in IBOC technology, and this ground is not going to be abandoned anytime soon.

Since the FCC has bigger fish to fry these days, any further improvements or eliminations in the American system will be most likely be made in the marketplace.

I think the market place has already spoken, HD was never a serious contender, in fact most people never even knew it existed. You can throw it in every Toyota in existence it still isn't going to take off, it doesn't work well, it drops out, it has dead secondary channels, it just goes off the air for unexplained reasons, in other words it will be shut off on the radios. It doesn't sound much different than analog FM, especially in a car so who's going to drive around and put up with drop outs for no good reason when all they have to do is switch it off with instant better reception? This huge political and capital investment is a waste of time and money.

HD is, was and always will be dead, it just hasn't had the sense to lie down and be buried yet. Digital radio is failing all over the world.

 

[RadeoEngineer]

Most new receivers are software-based, so there is no reason why other systems like FMeXtra or DRM could not be incorporated as optional transmission methods.

There are many reasons why FMeXtra can't be used, just starting with that pesky SCA rule.

 

[Savage]

I agree with my colleague Lee that HD isn't going away any time soon, and for the reasons he enumerates. But that doesn't mean HD gets a guaranteed-marketplace-success ticket. That's not the way the world works.

Maybe the big public and private broadcasters have forced the IBOC issue and have essentially sold themselves and each other a lot of equipment (much of it junk.) HD still has problems. And contrary to suggestions advanced here, they are vastly more complex, expensive and fix-resistant than simple "software improvements" and better receivers. (For example, you have the combining issues, the low-efficiency Tx plants, the vastly increased operating costs, the self-interference and coverage issues, and on and on and on. They're not fixable with new code and keystrokes.)

For these reasons, HD will continue to struggle - especially in view of the modest-at-best real-world benefits as perceived by listeners. HD will not be implemented by the majority of broadcasters. And people are not going to stop listening to their local analog broadcasters simply because they haven't "embraced" HD. (Contrary to dismissive suggestions here, every radio operator who hasn't installed IBOC and has no plans to do so, is the equivalent of some bumpkin with a dirty, malfunctioning FM exciter.)

Okay, so Ford and Toyota are offering it. So where does that leave HD? I think, kind of like The Clintons. Forgotten but not gone.

 

[Play Freebird]

gooroo, you're an engineer who strongly believes in HD. I get it. All I'm gonna say is, you (and others here) should visit markramsey.com and read his commentary on "the most important takeaway for broadcasters from CES." Truer words were never posted.....excellent.

Correction in the website address (markramsey.com is owned by a different guy), it's actually: http://www.markramseymedia.com/blog/

I worked with Mark on a research project years ago (when he was first getting started in this field) and would say he has a very well-balanced perspective on these matters. Want proof? Compare his forecasts for HD Radio that were posted, say, six years ago with those that came from the iBiquity people and their investors, then consider what has actually happened since then.

 

[radiogooroo]

gooroo, you're an engineer who strongly believes in HD. I get it. All I'm gonna say is, you (and others here) should visit markramsey.com and read his commentary on "the most important takeaway for broadcasters from CES." Truer words were never posted.....excellent.

So how are his points different from when I made them here a few days before he posted that article? Geez, you'd think he could at least credit me! Lol...

 

[spunker88]

I was just driving a 2010 Toyota the other day and the AM radio was great in it, in analog. It didn't have any noticeable noise from the car's electronics, even on weak stations like some car AM radios get.

 

[Casey]

While Mark Ramsey maintains an interesting blog, he fails to understand just what it would mean for broadcasters to move over to the "future" aka the internet. He constantly fails to grasp why broadcasters are determined to keep listeners on their "tower." The internet is a great place that radio should embrace, but if they put everything in it, the stations will die. On the internet, broadcasters suddenly lose all their control. With their analog/digital signal, they at least know consumers will get the signal if they want it via a radio. On the internet, consumers are restricted to their internet provider. Here is news to Mark Ramsey. If Verizon said you must now pay us $10 per month extra for internet radio on your phone, guess what? Consumers will have to pay for it if they want it. End of story. Their is no neutrality on mobile internet, broadcasters are nothing. Internet as a whole has no neutrality. The FCC is powerless to uphold their rules. Their is nothing stopping At&t from redirecting people to listen to Pandora or 1.fm over some little AM/FM station streaming on the internet. As long as radio continues to pursue offering a free signal to consumers, they will benefit or rather die more slowly.

There is also nothing keeping people from discovering different stations on the internet. The main advantage AM/FM radio stations have over internet stations is that they are available to consumers for free at any time. If radio stations depend on the internet for their future they are digging themselves their own grave. Consumers know there are better stations out their on the internet and there is also customizable music such as Pandora/Slacker. No matter how hard a broadcast station tries, they will never be able to program a station better than Slacker or Pandora. If a consumer has to pay for data to their phone (to listen in the car) and has a choice of Pandora or KXXX, they will likely choose Pandora. But KXXX is broadcasting over the air for free. Then all of a sudden consumers may be more likely to listen to KXXX of WXXX. Internet radio will NEVER be free. In fact it is getting more expensive. T-mobile UK just announced a new 500MB cap. In a few years something similar will likely come to the USA. In fact MetroPCS is already trying something similar, only they are also saying what you can use and what you can't. Enjoy listening to internet radio on a 500MB cap, if the even allow it. They may only allow Pandora.

Stations know they are no match for the internet-only radio stations and dealing with service providers is a pain in the butt. That is why they want to encourage a platform known as HD radio where they are the only game. HD radio is safe haven and it will most likely work whether you like it or not. I am willing to bet that current AM/FM's with 100,000 listeners would be bankrupt if they only streamed online. There is nothing pulling consumers to listen to broadcast stations online. Pureplay stations can do everything except the local part, and they can do it better. Pandora is growing rapidly as are other online only stations. Broadcasters could embrace the internet instead of HD radio, but they would ultimately lose. They may still lose, but migrating people to the internet will only make them lose faster.

 

[KB1OKL]

Broadcasters could embrace the internet instead of HD radio, but they would ultimately lose. They may still lose, but migrating people to the internet will only make them lose faster.

What does HD radio have that analog radio doesn't have beside negatives? It doesn't sound any better to most people in fact many sound worse and the range is much worse with incessant droputs, I fail to see why putting a few iBlock radios in a few Toyotas has got all the HD cheerleaders fired up.

 

[Savage]

As far as the "ubiquity" of HD in Ford, just an observation from out here in the HD Cheap Seats (f/k/a "The Real World".....)

My business manager drives a 2010 Focus with the Sync system (which, it must be said, is pretty cool.) No HD in that vehicle. The owner of the Ford store - a major advertiser and a leading regional Ford dealer, dualed with an adjacent Chrysler-Jeep store - says he has never sold a single vehicle with HD Radio, as far as he knows. Not.....one.

Nor has he seen any sales materials or promotional programs from the factory touting HD Radio.
I'm not claiming there aren't any - just saying this is the report from a savvy and successful major Ford dealer, for what it's worth.

Kind of hard to reconcile this account-from-the-field with the claim that "90% of Ford products sold in 2011 will have HD Radio." (Then again....if you send $4500 to that guy on the Nigerian website, doubtless you'll be a millionaire by lunchtime....)

 

[Casey]

Broadcasters could embrace the internet instead of HD radio, but they would ultimately lose. They may still lose, but migrating people to the internet will only make them lose faster.

What does HD radio have that analog radio doesn't have beside negatives? It doesn't sound any better to most people in fact many sound worse and the range is much worse with incessant droputs, I fail to see why putting a few iBlock radios in a few Toyotas has got all the HD cheerleaders fired up.

I didn't say there was anything better about it. Mark Ramsey's blog criticizes radio for embracing HD radio instead of further embracing the internet.

I personally have no plans on buying an HD radio anytime soon. I am just saying that what they are doing makes (in my opinion) slightly more sense than embracing the internet wholeheartedly. I personally would never have embraced HD radio, but broadcasters did and now they must decide what path to take. Mark Ramsey is great at criticizing, but not so great at giving them viable ideas in place of HD radio. The internet is not viable.

 

[Tom Wells]

The internet is not viable.

Well, that will always be the "price point". It wasn't "worth it" on a 28k modem.
But it is worth it now that DSL works on the same copper pair.

It could be viable, but not likely that we will soon see the infrastructure ( cell hand-offs included, to different carriers )built out, compatible, and reliable to the degree that the "already provided" and "cost-free" ether provides.

I haven't got a bill from the "Laws of Maxwell" yet, anyone else?

 

[tomservo]

And part of being reliable will be building out systems that don't take the driver's eyes off the road when a glitch DOES occur.

Aside from all the trouble I have streaming music on the go with my smartphone, the bigger issue is one of safety. When HD cuts out, it automatically buffers and plays when the signal comes back. More often than not my streaming software will time out or present another glitch, and I gotta take my eyes off the road to 'OK' it or reload the page.

It's easy to push a physical button on a radio, but having to navigate a small touch screen while moving is a recipe for disaster.

 

[nd2023]

Maybe it's just me but I'd rather have a choice of 5 FM stations with the same format that I can switch between than a soulless Pandora.

 

[Play Freebird]

My business manager drives a 2010 Focus with the Sync system (which, it must be said, is pretty cool.) No HD in that vehicle. The owner of the Ford store - a major advertiser and a leading regional Ford dealer, dualed with an adjacent Chrysler-Jeep store - says he has never sold a single vehicle with HD Radio, as far as he knows. Not.....one. Nor has he seen any sales materials or promotional programs from the factory touting HD Radio.
I'm not claiming there aren't any - just saying this is the report from a savvy and successful major Ford dealer, for what it's worth.

Thanks for the report -- I had also thought of asking those folks for sales figures, but you beat me to them.

Here's what we should keep in mind: The median age of registered passenger cars in 2008 (the most recent figures available) was 9.4 years, and official statistics indicate a clear upward trend. With the economy in its present dismal state, I expect the age has actually surpassed 10 years.

http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_01_25.html

Light trucks are replaced a couple of years earlier, but its a safe assumption to say the majority of vehicles in operation today are at least 9 years old.

Now, let's suppose every new car driven off the lot, starting today, has a factory-installed HD radio. (Only in an iBiquity executive's wildest fantasies, but this is "just pretend"). It would still take until 2020 for half to be equipped, and probably another ten years for 80 percent to have IBOC capability, so we're now up to the year 2030 in this imaginary best-case scenario. Let's also assume that in 2030, 80 percent of home, office, and portable receivers have been replaced with HD radios that function just as well in all listening environments. But with 20 percent of the receivers still analog-only, would any broadcasters be ready to convert from hybrid to all-digital operation?

As long as the system is required to operate in hybrid mode, the audio bitrate will be severely limited (32k is far from "CD Quality") -- and, it will be difficult for stations to add on-channel boosters, which could offer an effective means to fill coverage holes.

Meanwhile, we're witnessing steady progress in the development of wireless internet, "smartphones", and broadband service to homes and businesses (Verizon's FiOS, for example), technologies that are intended to supplement conventional radio, rather than replace it. That's why I expect broadcast companies to invest money extending their content to these platforms, rather than spending it on HD radio.

 

[Savage]

D'accord, Freebird - and I have an update, since that Ford dealership-owner was just at the station this afternoon to record a new spot. I renewed my query about HD Radio at his store. He reiterated that not only had he never sold an HD Radio-equipped Ford, he's never had one....single....solitary....inquiry about it. Zero. Zip.

Interestingly, after a peak a couple of years ago, his customers are pretty indifferent to satellite as well. Nobody asks about it any more. He blames repetitive programming and says what people really want are integrated web access and nav systems.

 

[Casey]

It is not much of a surprise that people do not ask about HD radio. Either you know about it or you don't. In this area, I have never heard an advertisement for HD radio. The station with the largest listening base, KHAK (owned by Cumulus, ~18 Arbitron) is not broadcasting in HD. None of the Cumulus stations are.


Satellite radio committed suicide when the companies merged. Two poorly managed companies merging together makes one big poorly managed company. Sirius has killed off nearly all XM music stations that were not mainstream and replaced them with Sirius channels. Sirius channels are known for shallow playlists. They have also been creating too many stations and therefore lowering sound quality dramatically. While they have been doing this they are raising rates dramatically, charging extra for internet listening, and paying millions for celebrity stations no one cares about. They may have become profitable for the first time, but they are certainly not successful. Their stock price reflects that nicely.

 

[KTN Corp]

They have also been creating too many stations and therefore lowering sound quality dramatically.

Is it true that all channels except a couple are in mono? I remember seeing a topic about XM's first stereo channel. That startled me and couldn't believe that people were bamboozled onto an inferior broadcasting system that one, as a subscriber, had to pay for. It's like the cable/satellite companies providing b&w video (with stereo sound? ) or color with mono sound while connecting my rabbit ears provides both color and stereo sound.

 

[Savage]

We're getting a little OT here, but it's useful to put satradio's total subscriber base, and total listener cume, in perspective. (Largely because the HD digital audience is miniscule compared with XM-Sirius.)

The last figures I saw for XM-Sirius' total audience claimed about 16 million North American listeners. I know it's ancient history, but when I worked at CKLW in 1973, that was our North American cume.

On.....ONE AM radio station outside of Detroit.

I've always said, anyone who needs a PR firm should hire the publicity flacks used by satradio. These guys have done a real number on the media and on Wall Street. I've never seen such a non-factor get such great press coverage.

 

[tomservo]

They have also been creating too many stations and therefore lowering sound quality dramatically.

Is it true that all channels except a couple are in mono? I remember seeing a topic about XM's first stereo channel. That startled me and couldn't believe that people were bamboozled onto an inferior broadcasting system that one, as a subscriber, had to pay for. It's like the cable/satellite companies providing b&w video (with stereo sound? ) or color with mono sound while connecting my rabbit ears provides both color and stereo sound.

I had XM until just after the merger, when Uncle Mel basically ruined it. As a regular "headphones" listener I can attest that all but one or two talk channels were in mono and all but a handful of music channels were in stereo.

The only talk channel that I know was in stereo was The Virus, Opie & Anthony's channel. They played a lot of music and during the XM years it's sound quality was among the best of all the channels. I recall the 40's channel being mono, as well as some of the Canadian channels like the French pop channel, the South Asian music channel and maybe even Radio Disney.

As Savage pointed out their total subscriber base is smaller than the listenership of one station back in the old days and smaller than most medium sized markets in total. Plus it's spread out over hundreds of channels.

 

[Savage]

And an entire continent. But they still have more listeners than HD Radio.