What if HD Radio's Sub-Channels Had a Secondary Carrier?

[Kmagrill]

You are correct that people don't care what multipath or pre-emphasis, they care about content and the experience. Using your logic, FM wouldn't have happened because, hey, it wasn't that much better than AM (and it took decades for it to be widely accepted), and FM stereo would not have happened because there's a big noise penalty over mono and most people won't notice or care. I have heard and continue to hear from listeners that get an auto with and HD radio and lament when they must switch cars back to a standard radio; some miss the sub-channels but many comment about the "clarity" of HD verses the analog FM.

I'm smart enough to know I won't change your mind (and most others on this board) but if, as you say, the system is dead, why are more automakers including it in their vehicles? Do you think they all have been "hoodwinked" by iBiquity? You are entitled to you own opinion but not your own facts.

Your main point is spot on. FM, as we know it, wasn't available until after WWII. Within 25 years it was already the dominant medium in many markets. The first 20 years saw slow, but steady growth, then it exploded in popularity once enough receivers were available AND owners began programming competitive formats. By 1972, some popular formatted FM stations were drawing 30+ shares. HD may actually be ahead of the FM curve at this point.

I think the analogy to stereo might be a good one, but for a different reason. It's a fact that most listeners are not aware when a station is mono. Although I'm sure that there are listeners that hear the difference and like the sound of HD, for most folks, the difference is nearly unnoticed, much like when stereo is turned off and almost nobody notices. If analog and digital were both processed similarly, I'd bet that 99% of the listeners would say that either is acceptable. Do some find HD to be better than FM? Of course there are some that do. There are also some that dislike the coding artifacts and prefer analog. The point is simply that there's far, far less difference between FM and HD than there was between AM and FM. Comparing AM to FM, the quality difference is obvious and compelling in favor of FM.

So, with a nod to those that tune in to HD because they like the sound, I think HD's lifeline is multi-formats, but only if stations program something compelling on those channels.

It now remains to be seen where HD will be in 2025.

 

[Chuck]

So, with a nod to those that tune in to HD because they like the sound, I think HD's lifeline is multi-formats, but only if stations program something compelling on those channels.

I think that is true. Don't forget, there are some people will swear that some brands of loudspeaker wire sounds better than others of similar size and gauge.

FM didn't really take off until the late 1960's and early 70's when a few programmers decided that you could put pop and rock music on it. The late 60's "underground" movement was quite instrumental in FM's success. Before that, it was mostly sleepy instrumentals and classical music. While that was fine for many (usually older) listeners, to the average 20 year old, all it needed was the sound of a dentist's drill in the background to complete the experience....

As usual, compelling content is what made it become the dominant radio format.

 

[diymedia]

I'm smart enough to know I won't change your mind (and most others on this board) but if, as you say, the system is dead, why are more automakers including it in their vehicles? Do you think they all have been "hoodwinked" by iBiquity? You are entitled to you own opinion but not your own facts.

The "HD adoption trajectory is like FM's adoptive trajectory" trope has been well-addressed by broadcast engineer Paul Thurst:

http://www.engineeringradio.us/blog/2010/09/hd-radio-2010-fm-radio-1950-not/

As for why automakers are putting HD in cars? It's an extra piece of bling to add in their newly-redesigned and -updated glass dashboards. Why not add another feature when you're rolling out a new platform? Sort of a riding-the-coattails-of-change kind of thing. If automakers were really on board in a priority sense, they'd be implementing it across all their models as factory-standard.

Also, considering that one of HD's newest selling points is broadcast traffic data provision, you can see how it might be easier for automakers to make the HD leap for this reason, even though it actually has little to do with radio's traditional strengths (i.e., the provision of audio).

 

[Kmagrill]

The "HD adoption trajectory is like FM's adoptive trajectory" trope has been well-addressed by broadcast engineer Paul Thurst:

http://www.engineeringradio.us/blog/2010/09/hd-radio-2010-fm-radio-1950-not/

As for why automakers are putting HD in cars? It's an extra piece of bling to add in their newly-redesigned and -updated glass dashboards. Why not add another feature when you're rolling out a new platform? Sort of a riding-the-coattails-of-change kind of thing. If automakers were really on board in a priority sense, they'd be implementing it across all their models as factory-standard.

Also, considering that one of HD's newest selling points is broadcast traffic data provision, you can see how it might be easier for automakers to make the HD leap for this reason, even though it actually has little to do with radio's traditional strengths (i.e., the provision of audio).

Based on Paul's blog, HD looks like it has a better chance of early adoption than analog FM did. It has many functional and financial advantages that early FM did not. That may explain why HD seems like it may be ahead of the analog FM curve.

 

[dumber than a box of hair]

Using your logic, FM wouldn't have happened because, hey, it wasn't that much better than AM...

Please have your ears professionally cleaned and then repeat the above line with a straight face. It was WAY better than AM, even as AM was practiced back then.

FM stereo would not have happened because there's a big noise penalty over mono and most people won't notice or care.

...and most FM stereo radios of that era could be set to mute in the absence of a stereo signal, unless it was strong enough to decode cleanly.

I have heard and continue to hear from listeners that get an auto with and HD radio and lament when they must switch cars back to a standard radio; some miss the sub-channels but many comment about the "clarity" of HD verses the analog FM.

...and I hear just the opposite. HD secondaries are generally programmed with formats that won't fly on a primary signal, so the few listeners who have tried them treat them as mostly irrelevant. HD primaries keep dropping back to analog, especially in vehicles, if they're more than about ten miles from the transmitters. I'm good friends with someone who runs a mid-sized car dealership in a major market's suburbs. His report: HD is off *all* his customers' radar (no prospect has ever asked about it), and the few customers who actually realized it was there post-purchase were completely clueless about it.

There was absolutely nothing wrong with FM that required a "fix" with ten times the technical problems of analog, and the constant struggles of engineers (who were never consulted about installing this crap in the first place, but who must now waste their time making it work) to keep HD working is a testament to all that is wrong with it. The multitudinous problems of HD on AM (particularly the adjacent-channel interference and the absolutely grating audio quality) ought to have been enough to kill it from the start.

if, as you say, the system is dead, why are more automakers including it in their vehicles? Do you think they all have been "hoodwinked" by iBiquity?

Probably. Snake-oil salesmen have existed as long as humanity has walked the earth.