R
rbrucecarter5
Guest
SirRoxalot said:
Actually the original thread was talking about streaming as an alternative to HD radio. There is some math there, too.
HD AM results in SERIOUS reduction in coverage area. Annoying to out of market listeners, of course, but extremely bad for the station within their COL. It would be far better, from an advertising revenue standpoint, for an AM station in a large metro area to abandon HD immediately and gain back that coverage in far flung suburbs on all types of radios. FM moans all the time about a power increase for HD - but there is an immediate and dramatic coverage gain on AM equivalent to a massive power increase when they shut off HD - as much or more than 10 dB. Witness the dramatic effect on AM powerhouse WBAP, which quickly realized the mistake and shut down the system, getting back their huge analog footprint. Contrast that to the imaginary coverage decrease of C-Quam, which never existed in the first place. At least not in a canyon 290 miles West of the DFW area, where C-Quam station came in strongly on an SRF-A1 walkman. I walked all over that canyon looking for dead spots, while dodging rattlesnakes. Daytime. 290 miles. In stereo, from a 5 kW and a 10 kW station. Walkman radio with a little two and half inch ferrite bar. How much freakin' range do stations need? I doubt those rattlesnakes cared about KMKI or KAAM reception, although the rest stop caretaker might. C-Quam - works. Even at night, when I've heard stations 1000 miles away in stereo, on the same walkman. It's decendants sold for $25, and the non stereo versions are still sold today for as little as $15. Contrast that with a $50 portable HD - which doesn't even include AM. And I couldn't get KAAM HD less than 10 miles from the transmitter with the best HD radios made, not even with good antennas. Madness - KAAM - 290 miles in stereo with C-Quam on a walkman. Less than ten miles with HD with a $250 tuner. Do the math. Which system works and which doesn't????
Want some more math? FM HD also reduces coverage in some cases. Houston's 107.5, coverage to Centerville pre-HD. Coverage stops at Huntsville post HD. Almost 60 miles lost. During a maintenance window when HD was down, I happened to be on the road. Guess what? Coverage right back to Centerville. I drive it enough I notice things like that. Another example - Dallas stations. The only major Dallas holdout is KLTY. Easily makes it to the Houston area on a Pioneer Supertuner. Fades completely about Little York in North Houston. The other Dallas stations? Lost by Centerville. That is a massive range difference. Same Cedar Hill Towers, everything else equal - except HD. Dallas FM doesn't need Houston listeners. But those $5 clock radios in far flung Dallas suburbs are going to notice the signal strength difference. If the present HD power levels are having that large of an effect - what is going to happen when they crank up the sidebands another 10 dB? Analog coverage loss is already massive, it will only get worse!!! Since the vast majority of listeners are still analog listeners, those on cheap radios are going to simply move on to some other source of music, news, and information. How does that eventually hit the station's bottom line?
Some more math. If every station in a metro area runs HD, that could add 20 to 30 formats to the dial on FM. But - if you have satellite, you have ten times that. Granted you have to pay, but not a lot - it painlessly deducts from the card each month. And - you are used to paying for cable TV anyway. Ten times the number of formats - already a no-brainer to buy a satellite radio which costs the same as an HD radio. And satellite doesn't have the coverage problem unless you are under something. The same station is available across the whole country, no guesswork, no retuning searching for the format in a new city.
Now add streaming to the mix. Thousands of formats. You can still get the same station anywhere in the country. Coverage is not as good in rural areas, and you potentially have to pay a megabyte fee. Take that fee out of the equation, and streaming is a clear winner for city dwellers where coverage is good.
So there are a lot of things entering into the discussion, and when comparing alternatives, we need to deal with facts - not wishful thinking on the part of HD, satellite, and streaming enthusiasts. I would say each group is guilty of being less than 100% honest, but the HD folks are spouting out lies at an exponential rate as their system tanks in the marketplace with consumers, creates massive interference on AM, and soon will on FM as the next solar max occurs around 2012, putting the powerful new sidebands all over the country. If you want to kill free radio - just put so much interference on it nobody can listen. My daughter is really quick to change the radio station when it fades or we go under a power line on AM. The solution to radio's dilemma is clear reception and good formats, not interference and cr@ppy corporate formats.
