-
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
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
S
Sahisko
Guest
HaHa. You know, I talked to a lot of people in radio especially here in Pittsburgh and a lot of them are not too impressed with HD Radio but theyare putting their bets on not only satellite radio but internet radio of all things as 'the wave of the future in radio.' I am still curious to just hear HD radio just to hear what these Pittsburgh HD radio stations are like.
The part that is totally overlooked with HD is that it also improves the sound quality of the primary channels. AM is raised to FM sound quality and FM is near-CD quality. The multicast channels are actually a side benefit, but the broadcasters have totally gotten off purpose with this technology.
R
Radio_Realist
Guest
The part that is totally overlooked with HD is that it also improves the sound quality of the primary channels.
Which should compensate for the program quality on some stations playing music from compressed MP3's. The thing is, will that improved sound quality make third-rate bubble-gum songs sound better? If 100.7 plays "I Touch Myself" in improved, HD quality sound, will it stop sounding like a piece of left-over 80's crap? If WDVE goes HD, will that make "LaGrange" any less annoying as they continue to play it to death? If 3WS goes HD, will it make their playlist not sound like three K-Tel song collections in a CD player set to random play?
Which should compensate for the program quality on some stations playing music from compressed MP3's. The thing is, will that improved sound quality make third-rate bubble-gum songs sound better? If 100.7 plays "I Touch Myself" in improved, HD quality sound, will it stop sounding like a piece of left-over 80's crap? If WDVE goes HD, will that make "LaGrange" any less annoying as they continue to play it to death? If 3WS goes HD, will it make their playlist not sound like three K-Tel song collections in a CD player set to random play?
F
feeball
Guest
Radio_Realist said:The part that is totally overlooked with HD is that it also improves the sound quality of the primary channels.
Which should compensate for the program quality on some stations playing music from compressed MP3's. The thing is, will that improved sound quality make third-rate bubble-gum songs sound better? If 100.7 plays "I Touch Myself" in improved, HD quality sound, will it stop sounding like a piece of left-over 80's crap? If WDVE goes HD, will that make "LaGrange" any less annoying as they continue to play it to death? If 3WS goes HD, will it make their playlist not sound like three K-Tel song collections in a CD player set to random play?
The only thing that could ever improve the song "I Touch Myself" [EDIT]
. Crap will still be crap whether it is HD crap, satellite crap, internet crap, digital crap, or the crap that never quite gets flushed down the toilet. The only plus is how AM stations will stop sounding like the broadcast is being conducted from a porta potty.
[EDIT-vulgar content]
The thought process was actually that AM could play music again if they wanted to. (Scripted radio dramas would sound great too).
Granted only a percentage of listeners, mostly those who use a better audio system to listen to the radio, would care, but if we think back, sound quality is the reason FM crushed AM. The all-music formatting came from the feeling that it was a waste to put AM-style programming on that medium.
Granted only a percentage of listeners, mostly those who use a better audio system to listen to the radio, would care, but if we think back, sound quality is the reason FM crushed AM. The all-music formatting came from the feeling that it was a waste to put AM-style programming on that medium.
R
Radio_Realist
Guest
if we think back, sound quality is the reason FM crushed AM.
Actually, when I think back to when I switched from KQV to KQV-FM and stayed there when it became WDVE, it was because of the songs on FM, not the sound quality. I had a fairly decent FM stereo at home, but throughout the 1970's, I spent much of my time listening to WDVE and other AOR stations on an FM converter plugged into an AM radio. I listened to FM stations over an used frequency on the AM band.
That's only my own, personal experience. Your mileage may vary. Maybe other people listened to songs they didn't like as much on FM because the audio quality was better. My experience that people pay more attention to the songs being played than they do to the audio quality might not indicate that the majority of people would rather hear high fidelity versions of songs they don't like instead of low fidelity versions of songs that they do like.
Would you, Parttimer, if given a choice between a station playing your favorite songs on an AM station, or an FM station playing songs you do don't particularly like, which would you listen to? And for this hypothetical question, those are your only two choices.
Actually, when I think back to when I switched from KQV to KQV-FM and stayed there when it became WDVE, it was because of the songs on FM, not the sound quality. I had a fairly decent FM stereo at home, but throughout the 1970's, I spent much of my time listening to WDVE and other AOR stations on an FM converter plugged into an AM radio. I listened to FM stations over an used frequency on the AM band.
That's only my own, personal experience. Your mileage may vary. Maybe other people listened to songs they didn't like as much on FM because the audio quality was better. My experience that people pay more attention to the songs being played than they do to the audio quality might not indicate that the majority of people would rather hear high fidelity versions of songs they don't like instead of low fidelity versions of songs that they do like.
Would you, Parttimer, if given a choice between a station playing your favorite songs on an AM station, or an FM station playing songs you do don't particularly like, which would you listen to? And for this hypothetical question, those are your only two choices.
The real problem with HD is all of the technical gremlins that are appearing. IBuquity knew about some of them like side channel splatter on the AMs and the increased shading problems on the FM but all of that was swept aside by the NAB and the FCC to get this rolling. So what we have is an AM band that is hash along the East Coast after sunset, FM stations whose range is down in some cases almost 40% and areas 10 miles from the transmitter who can't hear the HD signal at all. Other than that it sounds wonderful.
Radio_Realist said:Would you, Parttimer, if given a choice between a station playing your favorite songs on an AM station, or an FM station playing songs you do don't particularly like, which would you listen to? And for this hypothetical question, those are your only two choices.
I, Realist, would choose the former. That's what's been keeping music-formatted AM stations going for quite awhile now.
kenhawk1160 said:Radio_Realist said:Would you, Parttimer, if given a choice between a station playing your favorite songs on an AM station, or an FM station playing songs you do don't particularly like, which would you listen to? And for this hypothetical question, those are your only two choices.
I, Realist, would choose the former. That's what's been keeping music-formatted AM stations going for quite awhile now.
I would as well. I would also put up with good songs on a somewhat staticky station (hello, WJPA) rather than songs I detest on a station coming in clear as a bell.
R
Radio_Realist
Guest
good songs on a somewhat staticky station (hello, WJPA)
Out of curiosity, where can one tune in 1450 AM but cannot tune in 95.3 FM? I've never been in a place where if I could tune in 1450 I couldn't also tune in 95.3. That doesn't mean such places don't exist, only that I've never been in one.
Out of curiosity, where can one tune in 1450 AM but cannot tune in 95.3 FM? I've never been in a place where if I could tune in 1450 I couldn't also tune in 95.3. That doesn't mean such places don't exist, only that I've never been in one.
I haven't listened to Star 100.7 in a very long time. But I lost my iPod charger, so I was "forced" to listen to the radio in the car this evening. As I was driving home, I turned to Star at 8:00 expecting to hear the usual John Melloncamp VS Bon Jovi 80s "Star Wars" battle they've been doing for years and years... But much to my surprise, it was the return of the Top 8 @ 8! For those that don't know the Top 8 @ 8 was a B94 nightly fixture for years. Did this just start today?? Hum... I wonder what this means. I like this change!
corporateradiosucks said:kenhawk1160 said:Radio_Realist said:Would you, Parttimer, if given a choice between a station playing your favorite songs on an AM station, or an FM station playing songs you do don't particularly like, which would you listen to? And for this hypothetical question, those are your only two choices.
I, Realist, would choose the former. That's what's been keeping music-formatted AM stations going for quite awhile now.
I would as well. I would also put up with good songs on a somewhat staticky station (hello, WJPA) rather than songs I detest on a station coming in clear as a bell.
OK, reality check here.
If any significant portion of the world agreed with you WTAE and KQV would still be music stations.
And it wasn't just pure fidelity, it was thunderstorm interference, reduced power at night on AMs, and stations being daytimers that helped force the shift.
The younger folks on the board probably have no idea that during the "Urban Cowboy" days Pittsburgh had a very highly-rated country station. On AM. It was 1080 WEEP, and the ratings were as high as a 7-share 12+. The morning show with Jonathan and Terri Rhodes was particularly popular. But WEEP was a daytimer with a really weird set of constraints, only allowed a very directional 25kW from sunrise to 9AM, their full 50kw from 9A-3P, then back to 25K from 3 to signoff, and in the winter that was in the middle of PM drive. They eventually got pre-sunrise authority, about 10 watts from a tower farm in Hampton. You couldn't hear it in the studio, so we (I worked there then) had to run a phone line back off the modulation monitor so you could hear the air feed in the studio. WDSY (now Y108) was "Daisy", the weird little FM experiment aimed at female country listeners. But eventually the FM surpassed the AM and now 1080 is a religious station.
Again, HD radio was supposed to fix some of this, giving FM sound quality to AM, but it travels too far after sundown on AM and obliterates adjacent channels, so to say it's not a perfect technology would be an understatement.
Parttimer said:Again, HD radio was supposed to fix some of this, giving FM sound quality to AM, but it travels too far after sundown on AM and obliterates adjacent channels, so to say it's not a perfect technology would be an understatement.
Parttimer, you'll forgive my ignorance, because I'm not that well-versed in how hi-def radio works.
When you say that HD radio was to fix some of AM's woes, but that it traveled too far after sundown, are you saying that in HD, the AM signals go WAY further at the same power level if it were on an analog channel?
R
Radio_Realist
Guest
If any significant portion of the world agreed with you WTAE and KQV would still be music stations.
Why? As I recall, what killed KQV and WTAE as music stations was the FM's that used to play "elevator music" switching over to playing the same kind of popular music that had previously been AM's stock in trade. The whole point of my question was if given a choice between the music you liked on Am versus music you didn't like as much on FM, would you pick songs you didn't care for much in FM fidelity over songs you really liked in AM low fidelity. Obviously, if you have the choice of songs you like on FM versus the same songs on AM, you'd pick AM.
Perhaps you've heard of WJAS, a station on the AM band. They play music that isn't played on any FM station. If you're a fan of Middle-of-the-Road oldies, you either listen to those songs on WJAS AM, or you drag out your old Victrola. You can't hear those songs on any FM station in this market.
The younger folks on the board probably have no idea that during the "Urban Cowboy" days Pittsburgh had a very highly-rated country station. On AM. It was 1080 WEEP, and the ratings were as high as a 7-share 12+.
What you said about WEEP is 100% correct. As long as it was the only country music source in town, it didn't matter that it was on AM, it didn't matter that it had that complex signal strength deal. It didn't matter that it signed off at sunset. When WEEP had a monopoly on country music, when it was the only choice in town, people tuned in. When an FM competitor came along playing the same songs, then the superior signal of the FM station beat the crappy sound of the AM station.
The reality check that's needed is to compare pure apples-to-apples. Whenever the content is more-or-less identical, then FM will beat AM on almost any format you can think of -- even talk. Whenever an AM station plays a music format that isn't duplicated on FM, people who want to hear that music will settle for the lesser AM signal quality.
Why? As I recall, what killed KQV and WTAE as music stations was the FM's that used to play "elevator music" switching over to playing the same kind of popular music that had previously been AM's stock in trade. The whole point of my question was if given a choice between the music you liked on Am versus music you didn't like as much on FM, would you pick songs you didn't care for much in FM fidelity over songs you really liked in AM low fidelity. Obviously, if you have the choice of songs you like on FM versus the same songs on AM, you'd pick AM.
Perhaps you've heard of WJAS, a station on the AM band. They play music that isn't played on any FM station. If you're a fan of Middle-of-the-Road oldies, you either listen to those songs on WJAS AM, or you drag out your old Victrola. You can't hear those songs on any FM station in this market.
The younger folks on the board probably have no idea that during the "Urban Cowboy" days Pittsburgh had a very highly-rated country station. On AM. It was 1080 WEEP, and the ratings were as high as a 7-share 12+.
What you said about WEEP is 100% correct. As long as it was the only country music source in town, it didn't matter that it was on AM, it didn't matter that it had that complex signal strength deal. It didn't matter that it signed off at sunset. When WEEP had a monopoly on country music, when it was the only choice in town, people tuned in. When an FM competitor came along playing the same songs, then the superior signal of the FM station beat the crappy sound of the AM station.
The reality check that's needed is to compare pure apples-to-apples. Whenever the content is more-or-less identical, then FM will beat AM on almost any format you can think of -- even talk. Whenever an AM station plays a music format that isn't duplicated on FM, people who want to hear that music will settle for the lesser AM signal quality.
kenhawk1160 said:Parttimer said:Again, HD radio was supposed to fix some of this, giving FM sound quality to AM, but it travels too far after sundown on AM and obliterates adjacent channels, so to say it's not a perfect technology would be an understatement.
Parttimer, you'll forgive my ignorance, because I'm not that well-versed in how hi-def radio works.
When you say that HD radio was to fix some of AM's woes, but that it traveled too far after sundown, are you saying that in HD, the AM signals go WAY further at the same power level if it were on an analog channel?
Yes, my understanding is that the HD portion of the signal, which is a digital subcarrier that rides on the AM carrier, goes way too far at night, creating a big problem for non-clear channels. Originally it was legislated that the AM HD signals were to be daytime only as a result. I believe that the FCC has now taken the attitude that they'll live with whatever interference is caused in an effort to get more AM's to embrace the technology. To date, that number has been relatively small to my knowledge.
Parttimer said:Yes, my understanding is that the HD portion of the signal, which is a digital subcarrier that rides on the AM carrier, goes way too far at night, creating a big problem for non-clear channels. Originally it was legislated that the AM HD signals were to be daytime only as a result. I believe that the FCC has now taken the attitude that they'll live with whatever interference is caused in an effort to get more AM's to embrace the technology. To date, that number has been relatively small to my knowledge.
In that case, it may get smaller yet. I don't see any AM's that profitable to make such a huge investment. There'd better be one hell of a tax break for the new equipment investment.
F
FCR
Guest
Snafu said:No. My new technology of choice is satellite. Not interested in tearing the radio out of my car for something that is just a programming playtoy at the moment.
Do you know what you're talking about? Earlier this year, the FCC gave the final stamp of approval on HD radio that removed it from the experimental phase. That's why big manufacturers like Sony are starting to manufacture HD radios and big electronics chains like Circuit City are now carrying them. Additionally, Sirius and XM are pointing out that HD radio is a new form of competition to satellite radio.
Dave said:I haven't listened to Star 100.7 in a very long time. But I lost my iPod charger, so I was "forced" to listen to the radio in the car this evening. As I was driving home, I turned to Star at 8:00 expecting to hear the usual John Melloncamp VS Bon Jovi 80s "Star Wars" battle they've been doing for years and years... But much to my surprise, it was the return of the Top 8 @ 8! For those that don't know the Top 8 @ 8 was a B94 nightly fixture for years. Did this just start today?? Hum... I wonder what this means. I like this change!
I do believe the top 8 at 8 did start this past Monday. Star might just be trying the new feature to see if it is successful. With the way their ratings have been and if they stay this way, I wouldn't be surprised for some kind of format change by the end of the year for Star.
- Status
- This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.