Waller HD

[buckwheat]

Has Waller gone HD???? What impact will this have??

 

[Chuck]

Has Waller gone HD???? What impact will this have??

I've heard they purchased a couple of transmitters. I don't know if they are up and running yet.

Since nobody in East Texas has a HD capable radio, I'd say it has very little impact for quite some time, if ever. I guess they want to be "first."

 

[newschoolrocker]

Has Waller gone HD???? What impact will this have??

I've heard they purchased a couple of transmitters. I don't know if they are up and running yet.

Since nobody in East Texas has a HD capable radio, I'd say it has very little impact for quite some time, if ever. I guess they want to be "first."

Excuse me? Nobody in East Texas has a HD capable radio? ..... I do.

 

[Chuck]

Excuse me? Nobody in East Texas has a HD capable radio? ..... I do.

OK, that's one. There may be a dozen others. So far HD radio sales have been dismal all over the US, despite what the spin-doctors at Ibiquity have been saying.

What have you been listening to in HD? Just wondering...

 

[C414B]

At least it's not A.1 doing it yet. I don't think the world is ready for DRU in hi-def!

 

[Chuck]

Actually, there is nothing High Definition about HD radio. They just latched on to that name to ride the coat tails of HDTV. Originally it was touted as being "better than CD quality," but that hasn’t worked out to be the case. It is capable of extra high frequency response when compared to an analog signal, but as long as the system remains a hybrid (analog & digital) the sound quality has to remain the same so there is not an abrupt change when your radio switches from one mode to another. Otherwise, you wouldn't put up with it. Both signals are usually processed to sound nearly identical. The HD signal does not travel as far as the analog signal, so at least for now, its going to be a fact of life.

About the only advantage the system has is the ability to multicast. There are other technologies besides the Ibiquity version which can do that as well. This could mean additional channels that might or might not be worth listening to. For now, most of these secondary channels seem to be digital jukeboxes, which may or may not suite your fancy. Because there are not many radios to receive these secondary channels, it is unlikely that much will happen with them until enough radios are out there to make an audience.

There is a lot of discussion about HD on the HD Boards elsewhere on this forum. The opinions are quite divided. Those who work for large companies that have a lot at stake in this technology are very much in favor of it. Those who represent small broadcasting seem to be less than enthused, if for no other reason that a by product of IBOC is interference to your adjacent channel neighbors. It seems obvious to some folks that IBOC that it is a good way to legally squeeze small stations off the dial.

As for the general public's opinion, so far it has met with indifference and/or apathy. A lot of people seem to think that they are listening to HD on their regular radios. They don’t know that they have to buy new radios.

You might want to drop by the HD Board and watch the fur fly. It's a hoot....

 

[Garrett]

I think the mistake was trying to be another FM and AM, instead of just being another band, like FM was. Becuase, let's face it, IBOC is to us what FM was in the late 60s. some have it, most don't and few stations are experimenting. The difference is, it just wasn't launched properly. What incentive is there for a station on FM to move to HD FM? At this point, none.

From a Texas standpoint I don't see it having an impact here, ever, because I don't see HD catching on ever. And out here in West Texas, where stations don't even have budgets to scroll song information, (unless there's some big thing I don't know about) you can forget about IBOC...

 

[newschoolrocker]

Excuse me? Nobody in East Texas has a HD capable radio? ..... I do.

OK, that's one. There may be a dozen others. So far HD radio sales have been dismal all over the US, despite what the spin-doctors at Ibiquity have been saying.

What have you been listening to in HD? Just wondering...

I frequently travel to Houston. So KHPT 1&2, KHMX 2, KIOL 1, KLOL 2, KTBZ 1&2, and just for kicks, Radio Disney 1590 - in FM quality.

 

[Musicradio]

"From a Texas standpoint I don't see it having an impact here, ever, because I don't see HD catching on ever."

It will. This is all brand new -- stations can vary their formats, have all new formats....a lot of new ideas.

I can't wait to see how it all comes together!

 

[Chuck]

[I frequently travel to Houston. So KHPT 1&2, KHMX 2, KIOL 1, KLOL 2, KTBZ 1&2, and just for kicks, Radio Disney 1590 - in FM quality.

I certainly don’t condemn you for having an HD capable radio, but you are the exception, not the norm. Other than BMW, HD radios are not yet available in new cars. Of course, you can buy an aftermarket radio from JVC or Kenwood, etc. That must be what you’ve done, and you get ten bonus points for being an early adopter. On many newer cars, changing the radio isn’t much of an option though. The factory radios are highly integrated into many other vehicle systems, and changing them is not as easy as it used to be. When and if HD comes stock from the factory with your new car, it might be something to get excited about. Then it will take around 7 years for most people to have access to one, given the length of time most people keep their car. Until then, there won’t be a very big potential audience.

Within the confines of a large city, HD-2 could be useful. It does have limited range though. It extends only to the station’s 64 dbu contour, and sometimes not that far. I’d hazard a guess that a high percentage of radio listening in Texas is done well past the 64 dbu contour, even in the suburban areas of large cities like Houston or Dallas. Texas is a BIG place. That makes these secondary and tertiary channels less attractive than they appear on the surface.

I'd love to do something to help AM. The problem with your "Radio Disney 1590- in FM quality" is it does it at the expense of their analog listeners. IBOC requires limiting Analog frequency response to no more than 6 KHz. Most CC stations have settled on 5 KHz and some even filter at 4.5 KHz. For the bulk of your listeners, 99.9%, that makes their radio sound like a telephone answering machine. Further, it generates digital sidebands that are easily heard on each side of the stations assigned frequency. In this case, 1580 and 1600. Try listening. It sounds like a loud hissing sound, very similar to white noise. These side bands can and do travel a very long way and cause interference with the stations adjacent channel neighbors. The reason IBOC has not been approved for night operation on AM is because the potential for this interference traveling great distances. Since a lot of people in Texas don't live in metro areas, this could be a very big problem. If IBOC were truly "In Band On Channel," I'd be one of its biggest supporters. Unfortunately, it uses adjacent channels as well. 1590 is really 1580-1600. That is not very neighborly.
.

 

[dx7]

Amen, Chuck, about 1590AM really being 1580 through 1600. I used to listen to KLVI 560AM Beaumont in Austin during the day. Then KTSA went HD at 550AM. Now it's just continuous white noise on 560, no signal.

 

[USMC0407]

Actually, there is nothing High Definition about HD radio. They just latched on to that name to ride the coat tails of HDTV. Originally it was touted as being "better than CD quality," but that hasn’t worked out to be the case. It is capable of extra high frequency response when compared to an analog signal, but as long as the system remains a hybrid (analog & digital) the sound quality has to remain the same so there is not an abrupt change when your radio switches from one mode to another. Otherwise, you wouldn't put up with it. Both signals are usually processed to sound nearly identical. The HD signal does not travel as far as the analog signal, so at least for now, its going to be a fact of life.

About the only advantage the system has is the ability to multicast. There are other technologies besides the Ibiquity version which can do that as well. This could mean additional channels that might or might not be worth listening to. For now, most of these secondary channels seem to be digital jukeboxes, which may or may not suite your fancy. Because there are not many radios to receive these secondary channels, it is unlikely that much will happen with them until enough radios are out there to make an audience.

There is a lot of discussion about HD on the HD Boards elsewhere on this forum. The opinions are quite divided. Those who work for large companies that have a lot at stake in this technology are very much in favor of it. Those who represent small broadcasting seem to be less than enthused, if for no other reason that a by product of IBOC is interference to your adjacent channel neighbors. It seems obvious to some folks that IBOC that it is a good way to legally squeeze small stations off the dial.

As for the general public's opinion, so far it has met with indifference and/or apathy. A lot of people seem to think that they are listening to HD on their regular radios. They don’t know that they have to buy new radios.

You might want to drop by the HD Board and watch the fur fly. It's a hoot....

Where do you get your information?
I have an HD radio and the sound is much better in digital, no multipath at all, no static, and it causes no interference at all to adjacent channels, it is , however alot more complicated to install at a site.

 

[Chuck]

Where do you get your information?
I have an HD radio and the sound is much better in digital, no multipath at all, no static, and it causes no interference at all to adjacent channels, it is , however alot more complicated to install at a site.

I get my information from technical papers published by Ibiquity, tech sessions at the Texas Association of Broadcaster’s meetings, various trade publications like Radio World, Radio Guide, etc, as well as various engineering news boards. I’d also include engineers who are personal friends who have had to deal with the technology, as well as my personal listening experience. Many of these opinions have originated from people whose opinions I respect. They are reliable sources, and they are having problems with the technology. It is especially so in the Public Radio sector, where they are beginning to suspect that they have been sold a bill of goods.

Sure, with AM, HD does sound a lot better than analog AM. No argument there, but it is at a price. The problem is it does it at the expense of its analog listeners. 99.999+% of all AM radio listening is still done on analog radios. It will be that way for a very long time.

You can hear the interference caused by IBOC quite clearly on any analog AM radio. If you are within a few hundred miles of Dallas, tune in KRLD, 1080. Now tune in 1070. and then 1090. You will notice a loud hissing noise. That is digital hash generated by the IBOC exciter. That is not good, and it is no way to treat your neighbor. There is nothing "In Band, On Channel" about this technology. If you are not near Dallas, try it on any HD AM station in your area. They take up at least three channels, and frequently five. How big a problem that is has a lot to do with the bandwidth of your radio. Wide band radios will have big issues with this.

For FM, the interference issue is not as great in commercial channel allocations, but in the much more crowded "Reserved (noncom) Band" it has been a problem for many Pubcasters who are finding that HD has reduced their effective audience, and thus their donor base. Check out the archives of Pubtech Digest if you have any questions. Further, any short spaced FM stations do exist in some parts of the country. This technology is not good news for them, unless you like the notion of rendering all small stations as “local.” Seeing ones market area shrink does not go down well with many broadcasters.

Any radio station that I know of that is running HD uses exactly the same processing for FM analog as it does for their HD broadcast. Why? So it will sound the same when the HD drops out and the radio reverts to analog. It would be silly to do otherwise. It is true that HD does provide for audio up to 20 KHz, rather than FM's 15 KHz top end, but if you do that, the blend mode will not be seamless. I guess it is your station's decision to extend frequency response on your HD feed if you like, but it makes little sense to do that at this point. It is jarring when it switches to analog for the half dozen listeners who have the appropriate car radios.

The real problem is we're trying to come up with a hybrid solution to transition to digital. I have no problem with the idea of Digital Radio. In fact, I'm quite in favor of it. I just don't think we have chosen the best way to go about doing this. It's NTSC all over again.

 

[USMC0407]

Surely, some one can come up with something better than IBOC. I'm accually dealing with it on the FM band.
I'm all for radio moving forward, I havn't heard AM in HD yet, so the full time 100% modulation for AM isn't
the best thing I guess. For me, I have the latest Harris HT+ 35k HD 4th gen equipment, which sounds nice, but
very expensive. It is moving forward, prices are reducing, and by 2009 all the car makers are going to have HD
in bed, but only cars and SUVs, not vans or trucks.
Waller is going HD very soon...very soon...

 

[newschoolrocker]

Surely, some one can come up with something better than IBOC. I'm accually dealing with it on the FM band.
I'm all for radio moving forward, I havn't heard AM in HD yet, so the full time 100% modulation for AM isn't
the best thing I guess. For me, I have the latest Harris HT+ 35k HD 4th gen equipment, which sounds nice, but
very expensive. It is moving forward, prices are reducing, and by 2009 all the car makers are going to have HD
in bed, but only cars and SUVs, not vans or trucks.
Waller is going HD very soon...very soon...

Prices too high? Desktops made by Accurian are $99 or just over at Radio Shack. Car stereos, JVC makes one for $165.

 

[Chuck]

Prices too high? Desktops made by Accurian are $99 or just over at Radio Shack. Car stereos, JVC makes one for $165.

The $99 price for a radio was a three day only sale. It is now $199.95. At the Fry’s in Dallas, the JVC car radio is $199.99 also. Sure you may find it cheaper on line somewhere, but not that many people actually install after market radios in their cars. It’s a very small minority of early adopters and car stereo freaks. Most people are content with whatever radio came with their car. They are pretty good these days. That said, I have no doubt that the prices for radios will go down, but they really need to hit the $50 mark to achieve mass appeal. There also needs to be portable radios available, which are not in site yet.

I suspect that what USMC0407 is talking about the cost for a station to convert to HD. It can vary, but right now it seems to be running in the $100,000 range for most stations. That's not chicken feed, when you consider that there is very little chance for any quick return on your investment. To large chain broadcasters, that money may be pretty insignificant, but to smaller stations, it can be a huge part of their annual budget. A lot of smaller stations haven't spent that much on technical matters in years. Maybe they should though…

I guess the good news is it is giving station owners a reason to upgrade transmitters and antennas. Some of the new stuff is quite nice, and even without IBOC, it should be a big improvement over an aging RCA, Gates, Bauer, McMartin or Collins transmitter.

The funny thing is there is a better and cheaper way to maker this conversion on FM. It's called FMExtra. It puts digital signals on your SCA channels. By all reports, it goes farther than IBOC, doesn't bleed over into your next door neighbor's channel, and costs a lot less. The entire system is a one time purchase of $8900, and takes about 30 minutes to install into your existing transmitter. It requires no FCC filings, since it SCA is already authorized for any FM station. You don't need a new antenna either. I really don't know what's not to like about it.

I know Ibiquity was first, but sometimes first is not always better. If you are interested, you should hop on over the HD Radio Board, elsewhere on this forum. There is a lot of good discussion going on there.

 

[USMC0407]

Thanks Chuck, I was talking about converting a station, and yes for the general public, the radios are still too much money, for us, it's time for an upgrade, and this is the hand that FCC dealt us. It is the wave of the future , just a very long term return. I also think the retailers should push a little harder, and stop pressing so hard on SAT radio, Ipods, and mp3s.
They are also too expensive, and you have to pay for the music. FM radio is still free to listen to. Right?

 

[Chuck]

Thanks Chuck, I was talking about converting a station, and yes for the general public, the radios are still too much money, for us, it's time for an upgrade, and this is the hand that FCC dealt us. It is the wave of the future , just a very long term return. I also think the retailers should push a little harder, and stop pressing so hard on SAT radio, Ipods, and mp3s.
They are also too expensive, and you have to pay for the music. FM radio is still free to listen to. Right?

Actually, the FCC hasn't dealt the hand YET. IBOC is still an experimental service, but it is OK by the FCC for you to participate in that experiment. There is still some speculation in investing in this technology. If it were my money (it's not), and I was in East Texas (I am), I wouldn't spend a dime until HD is the approved standard, or until GM, Ford and Chrysler make HD radios standard equipment in their cars.

If it were time to replace equipment right now, I'd get transmitters and antennas that were capable of the upgrade. They will make your existing signal a lot better. Call it a partial conversion. I just don't see a sound business reason to add HD at this time, unless you are in a top 50 market. I'd prefer a little more assurance that it is a good investment before plunking down money that might be better spent on programming and promotion. Assuming that part is done well, the business will grow, and it won't be a problem coming up with the cash to finish the conversion if and when the market demands it.

Just call me cautious.