I found this link, wondered if any of it was true? I guess if they killed analog radio to all HD I'll need to go to XM to be able to get anything.
http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/145092
http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/145092
-
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
Will analog radio go dark in 2015?
- Thread starter jras20
- Start date
Ummm.....the linked article is about radio in the UK. And there is a clear statement in the last paragraph that there is no such proposal under consideration for USA radio broadcasting. Also the article states that the FCC has expressly declined to set a deadline for ending analog radio.
And when the blind lead the blind, they shall both fall into the ditch. You can Google to see whose wise-acre remark this was.
Digitize everything now, so we can get it over with, admire them mess, then go back to functional technologies.
I am tired of digital failures only intended to suck up consumer dollars.
I want products that last 10 to 50 years, not the latest disappointing whiz-bang throwaway gimmick.
Ahhh! My car windows won't go down, they're digital! AHH! My phone won't work, it's digital.
My TV keeps blanking out, pixelating and turning faces into monstrous multicolored blobs, it's DIGITAL.
Can someone tell me why phone dialing went from digital to analog? I mean, it was pure digital for 75 years before they
"upgraded" dialing to dual-tone analog sinewave decoding. Just wondering.
Digitize everything now, so we can get it over with, admire them mess, then go back to functional technologies.
I am tired of digital failures only intended to suck up consumer dollars.
I want products that last 10 to 50 years, not the latest disappointing whiz-bang throwaway gimmick.
Ahhh! My car windows won't go down, they're digital! AHH! My phone won't work, it's digital.
My TV keeps blanking out, pixelating and turning faces into monstrous multicolored blobs, it's DIGITAL.
Can someone tell me why phone dialing went from digital to analog? I mean, it was pure digital for 75 years before they
"upgraded" dialing to dual-tone analog sinewave decoding. Just wondering.
Tom Wells said:
I believe in part, the old dial phone technology generated pulses that the 'switch' needed to drive the relays. Digital was deemed more efficient since relays consumed a lot more power than digital, took up a lot of floor space and they were mechanical, which were subject to breakdown. There are solid state relays, but even these are expensive and take up quite a bit of space. I seem to think digital landline is fine, perhaps are you talking about cellular? Any over-the-air digital signal has to overcome a threshold
If the signal does not equal or exceed the threshold, then there would be a dropout, or absence of signal. That's one of the inherent disadvantages of digital, though in some cases the technology has been perfected to the point a signal can be decoded at signal levels lower than -160dBm, which is barely above the the noise, but that's professional equipment, not consumer-grade equipment.
stormy01 said:
Correctomundo! Those old mechanical relays were about the size of a large coffee can. With the explosion of phone numbers over the past 30 or so years it would have been a nightmare to build central offices large enough to hold all the equipment necessary. Also, the relays cannot be programmed. They merely connect or disconnect. With touch-tone dialing a computer can interpret the different commands (which is what the tones actually are) and perform functions other than connect/disconnect.
Those old central offices were way louder than an automobile factory with all the switching going on.
landtuna said:
"Long Lines" as in the old TV network lines or POTS long distance?
Everyone glossed right over the fact that the old relay driven switches were directly driven digital logic hand-wired addresing.
The touch tone system everyone thinks of as digital is purely analog, using two sine waves.
That's why it requires less power. It's not digital until later on in the system.
The pulse system is pure digital, states of zero or one, current or no current.
I'll again challenge anyone to cite an example of any system developed by evolution or "God" that uses a a digital mode.
There are none, because they are not robust enough for life systems.
The laws of physics, rife with entropy and the "real world" with its "unexpected problems", smacks down such foolishness quickly.
The old car had many reasons to run poorly, but still got you where you were going.
The digital based auto just stops and you get to go where you are headed in a tow truck.
I find the suggestion that everything go digital to be dangerously ignorant.
I will not drive a car where the steering is digital, I want a great big analog gearbox to await my input and do my bidding 100% of the time instantly with no decoding and interpretation. I've seen too many encoder driven systems begin interpreting "clockwise" as "counterclockwise".
I've had a newer car interpret my command to run the wiper/washer cycle as a request to turn off the headlights AT NIGHT AT 60 MPH while its SNOWING.
Call me a luddite, but at least I'll stick with technolgies I can trust. No digital radio for me, thank you.
It will not support my desire to listen to great bluegrass from Nashville on the way to work here in Chicago.
Don't suggest that the wi-fi method with an iphone is radio. It's a completely different thing because it cannot work in real-time as radio does.
The touch tone system everyone thinks of as digital is purely analog, using two sine waves.
That's why it requires less power. It's not digital until later on in the system.
The pulse system is pure digital, states of zero or one, current or no current.
I'll again challenge anyone to cite an example of any system developed by evolution or "God" that uses a a digital mode.
There are none, because they are not robust enough for life systems.
The laws of physics, rife with entropy and the "real world" with its "unexpected problems", smacks down such foolishness quickly.
The old car had many reasons to run poorly, but still got you where you were going.
The digital based auto just stops and you get to go where you are headed in a tow truck.
I find the suggestion that everything go digital to be dangerously ignorant.
I will not drive a car where the steering is digital, I want a great big analog gearbox to await my input and do my bidding 100% of the time instantly with no decoding and interpretation. I've seen too many encoder driven systems begin interpreting "clockwise" as "counterclockwise".
I've had a newer car interpret my command to run the wiper/washer cycle as a request to turn off the headlights AT NIGHT AT 60 MPH while its SNOWING.
Call me a luddite, but at least I'll stick with technolgies I can trust. No digital radio for me, thank you.
It will not support my desire to listen to great bluegrass from Nashville on the way to work here in Chicago.
Don't suggest that the wi-fi method with an iphone is radio. It's a completely different thing because it cannot work in real-time as radio does.
Here's an example of something that went digital that is much superior to its analog replacement: CDs and DVDs.
Records and tapes have noise and can be easily destroyed, and tapes have a short life. A CD or DVD burned today will outlive your children.
Radio should remain analog or go all digital. Why do stations turn off the IBUZ for live sports? Because of the delay. What will happen to all the HD radios out there if a new, more efficient audio codec is developed that say, allows for 10 subchannels? If radio goes digital, the government will have to subsidize converter boxes.
If we could have all-digital radio at the current analog power levels, stations would be receivable in HD all the way out to the 30-40 dBu analog contour without dropouts, which is better than what is possible now.
Records and tapes have noise and can be easily destroyed, and tapes have a short life. A CD or DVD burned today will outlive your children.
Radio should remain analog or go all digital. Why do stations turn off the IBUZ for live sports? Because of the delay. What will happen to all the HD radios out there if a new, more efficient audio codec is developed that say, allows for 10 subchannels? If radio goes digital, the government will have to subsidize converter boxes.
If we could have all-digital radio at the current analog power levels, stations would be receivable in HD all the way out to the 30-40 dBu analog contour without dropouts, which is better than what is possible now.
A well-preserved phonograph record will still play perfectly 100 years from today. Records may accumulate scratches, dirt and fingerprints, but they still work. CDs and DVDs darken with age. When the laser beam can no longer focus on the dots buried beneath the surface as the disc dulls with age - it simply stops working. Period.
We're making some unhappy discoveries about all-digital TV - as in, it either works or it doesn't. For those relying on OTA television during storms and emergencies, we're finding the digital system is nowhere near as robust as old analog NTSC. If there is enough electromagnetic disturbance, the system simply stops working, where analog was still detectable and watchable, albeit with streaks and snow.
Look at what happens to AM-HD in thunderstorms. Most receivers would simply mute, even in all-digital mode. That's a "communications service?" What good is it if it craps out when it's needed most?
We're making some unhappy discoveries about all-digital TV - as in, it either works or it doesn't. For those relying on OTA television during storms and emergencies, we're finding the digital system is nowhere near as robust as old analog NTSC. If there is enough electromagnetic disturbance, the system simply stops working, where analog was still detectable and watchable, albeit with streaks and snow.
Look at what happens to AM-HD in thunderstorms. Most receivers would simply mute, even in all-digital mode. That's a "communications service?" What good is it if it craps out when it's needed most?
Nick said:
I buy LP's whenever possible for home use, only buy CD's for my car, why? Because my turntable sounds better and more realistic than any CD I've ever heard, the conversion from LP to CD was a corporate sham and as Tom has written another way to screw us the consumers out of more money. CD's are more durable and have some advantages over LP's but clearer and more realistic sound is not one of them.
Sooo.... is digital invariably "much superior" to analog in every application? I would argue, no. It all depends on the stated need and the expectations of the end user in the marketplace. I will point something out here at which many posters here will scoff in all likelihood: sales of vinyl LPs are exploding. One figure I saw showed that "records" have quadruped in sales annually for several years now, and if you talk to high-end audio retailers, you'll discover that turntables are one of the hottest items - and I'm not talking about the USB conversion players to dub records into your computer, either. And which demographic is buying all these records and record players? The under-30 crowd, not seniors.
Am I arguing for the "death of everything digital" and a return to vinyl LPs? Of course not. But this obsession with converting every human invention to digital is just crazy. It should only happen if there is a compelling need to make the change - as in, "not change for the sake of change."
BTW - with respect to everyone here - this thread is, to my eyes, "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin." If you go back to the original link at the first post, the answer to the question posited by the thread is an obvious "no." Again: the linked article is about radio in the UK, not the US, and even in Britain the answer appears - at least for the forseeable future - to be NO, "analog radio will NOT go dark in 2015."
Am I arguing for the "death of everything digital" and a return to vinyl LPs? Of course not. But this obsession with converting every human invention to digital is just crazy. It should only happen if there is a compelling need to make the change - as in, "not change for the sake of change."
BTW - with respect to everyone here - this thread is, to my eyes, "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin." If you go back to the original link at the first post, the answer to the question posited by the thread is an obvious "no." Again: the linked article is about radio in the UK, not the US, and even in Britain the answer appears - at least for the forseeable future - to be NO, "analog radio will NOT go dark in 2015."
I have no problem with proven results. In other boards here, I've raved about Breakaway Broadcast Processor, a purely digital solution to
sound processing. It is stunning, I can't say enough good about it, and I'm a "hardware" kinda guy.
I'm not anti-digital. I think technologies should be used where and when they are appropriate.
Digital sound processing should have turned toward solving AM noise problems years ago.
50/60 hz noise w/overtones can be modeled into software, and cancellation introduced when detected.
Impulse noise can be deleted, and pre/post sound zipped in to fill the gap.
And of course, you could always bypass such processing when an electrical storm might make it sound worse, with continuous glitching....
When something works, works well, AND reliably, I don't care whether it's analog or digital.
DNR was an incredible analog noise reduction system for hiss that required no encoding, worked in real time.
I still hear lots of hiss in radio airchains... what the heck?
It's no accident that there's a whole new selection of triode-tube microphones on the market.
I don't think radio will go dark for a long time.
sound processing. It is stunning, I can't say enough good about it, and I'm a "hardware" kinda guy.
I'm not anti-digital. I think technologies should be used where and when they are appropriate.
Digital sound processing should have turned toward solving AM noise problems years ago.
50/60 hz noise w/overtones can be modeled into software, and cancellation introduced when detected.
Impulse noise can be deleted, and pre/post sound zipped in to fill the gap.
And of course, you could always bypass such processing when an electrical storm might make it sound worse, with continuous glitching....
When something works, works well, AND reliably, I don't care whether it's analog or digital.
DNR was an incredible analog noise reduction system for hiss that required no encoding, worked in real time.
I still hear lots of hiss in radio airchains... what the heck?
It's no accident that there's a whole new selection of triode-tube microphones on the market.
I don't think radio will go dark for a long time.
Savage said:
I think you're right, and I think the reason is that the government, which owns the airwaves, is too busy over-licensing the spectrum to allow it to go dark. They were almost giddy last week over pulling protection for third adjacents in order to allow more LPFMs. It's found money for them. If the big profit-making companies pull out of the industry (which they've threatened to do), the government will simply license their frequencies to individuals. As long as they don't have to pay for it, they don't care.
They also show absolutely no interest in doing what a lot of other countries have done, which is convert analog radio to digital (as they did with TV). In fact I suspect the experience of converting TV was so traumatic to the government that they don't ever want to repeat the experience.
But I think the train has left the station as far as the future of audio services, and there won't be growth on the analog area. The next battleground is going to be over who controls the internet: ISPs or the government. The feds did quite a bit of sabre rattling, and if they prevent the telecoms from charging more for higher speeds and more bandwidth, while also moving ahead to make low cost, high speed internet a personal right, they could force the telecoms out of the service business.
Digital radio is fine as long as the entire signal path is known, predictable and stable. Fiber optic, wired, line-of-sight etc.
Analog is best for those situations where a constantly changing 'who-knows-what' lies between the transmitter and the receiver. Rain, mountains, buildings, airplanes, horizons etc.
With digital transmission, major signal disruptions result in a total loss of program, despite the best receiver error-correction schemes.
With analog, error correction occurs in the brain of the listener or viewer rather than in the receiver, so there's a lot of computing power available to compensate for static, interference and fading. Even when the signal is totally lost or garbled, there's always 'imagination' to fill in the blanks.
Digital radio works in the real world only if there are multiple line-of-sight signal paths dynamically available to the transmitter/receiver system, as with cellular phones. Even so, dropped calls are common.
I think broadcast radio is best served by remaining basically analog. The marketplace may not agree, of course.
Besides, by 2015 we may have more important things to worry about than whether radio should be digital or analog.
Analog is best for those situations where a constantly changing 'who-knows-what' lies between the transmitter and the receiver. Rain, mountains, buildings, airplanes, horizons etc.
With digital transmission, major signal disruptions result in a total loss of program, despite the best receiver error-correction schemes.
With analog, error correction occurs in the brain of the listener or viewer rather than in the receiver, so there's a lot of computing power available to compensate for static, interference and fading. Even when the signal is totally lost or garbled, there's always 'imagination' to fill in the blanks.
Digital radio works in the real world only if there are multiple line-of-sight signal paths dynamically available to the transmitter/receiver system, as with cellular phones. Even so, dropped calls are common.
I think broadcast radio is best served by remaining basically analog. The marketplace may not agree, of course.
Besides, by 2015 we may have more important things to worry about than whether radio should be digital or analog.
Out where I live in SW Michigan, there are basically NO local stations on AM. All reception is from "out-of-town" stations, so for those that like to bash on "DXers", please keep that in mind. Since the HD radio deBOCle, the AM radio dial is a sea of noise at night, and there are basically only two stations that are listenable: 650 and 740 AM. The rest are trashed.
FM still works, but reception is marginal inside the house. And in the car, you can't listen to a station very long before someone else's IBOC sidebands start to cause dropouts.
If radio were completely digital, then most of the stations on my radio dial would just vanish instead of having a little noise in the background. Since the conversion to digital TV, none of the TV stations come in reliably. You never know if you're going to be able to watch a program or not. With analog, we might have a little noise or static on the picture, but at least we got a signal. With DTV, you certainly cannot expect to watch TV for weather bulletins during thunderstorms. Reception is completely unavailable during periods of lightning activity.
I am by no means against digital technology, but the digital broadcast technology we have available today simply doesn't cut it in the real world, especially in rural areas.
FM still works, but reception is marginal inside the house. And in the car, you can't listen to a station very long before someone else's IBOC sidebands start to cause dropouts.
If radio were completely digital, then most of the stations on my radio dial would just vanish instead of having a little noise in the background. Since the conversion to digital TV, none of the TV stations come in reliably. You never know if you're going to be able to watch a program or not. With analog, we might have a little noise or static on the picture, but at least we got a signal. With DTV, you certainly cannot expect to watch TV for weather bulletins during thunderstorms. Reception is completely unavailable during periods of lightning activity.
I am by no means against digital technology, but the digital broadcast technology we have available today simply doesn't cut it in the real world, especially in rural areas.
Lee Rust said:
Lee hit it right on the head -- and this is why most other parts of the world have chosen a COFDM-based system for digital radio and TV, with distributed transmitters serving each market in a "single frequency" network. The US does have one such network, Qualcomm's "MediaFLO" system on former TV Channel 55 to serve mobile devices -- and reportedly, it works very well.
Due to terrain obstructions (or just a large land area) it's often a problem to cover an entire Arbitron market or ADI with a single transmitter. But with multiple well-placed transmitters, mountains and ridges can be illuminated from both sides and building penetration in high density commercial areas can be enhanced. An all-COFDM system would make this task much easier than with hybrid IBOC, because of the difficulty in synchronizing analog FM "boosters" across a wide area.
I can imagine a future for the current FM band wherein groups of co-owned transmitters throughout a particular market would be joined together into a single digital radio data network that was distributed across multiple frequencies.
Each transmitter would broadcast a portion of a composite data stream. The aggregated digital bandwidth could be combined by a very broad-band receiver into a single high-capacity data stream. Error-correction data could be distributed throughout the composite signal so that the temporary loss of reception of one or more of the individual carriers could be accommodated.
This could be done as a single-frequency system too, but only if we completely abandoned the long established analog-based frequency allocations.
Either way, the result might be a localized, terrestrial version of the Sirus/XM broadcast model. Video or data services could also be incorporated.
Needless to say, our dear old analog broadcast system would have to be deliberately run down, dismantled or destroyed for this kind of technology to be realized. The VHF real-estate would certainly be a lot more valuable if it were 'shovel-ready' and didn't have all those old-fashioned 'radio stations' cluttering the landscape.
Perhaps that process of creative destruction is already well underway. If so, is it inadvertent or deliberate?
Each transmitter would broadcast a portion of a composite data stream. The aggregated digital bandwidth could be combined by a very broad-band receiver into a single high-capacity data stream. Error-correction data could be distributed throughout the composite signal so that the temporary loss of reception of one or more of the individual carriers could be accommodated.
This could be done as a single-frequency system too, but only if we completely abandoned the long established analog-based frequency allocations.
Either way, the result might be a localized, terrestrial version of the Sirus/XM broadcast model. Video or data services could also be incorporated.
Needless to say, our dear old analog broadcast system would have to be deliberately run down, dismantled or destroyed for this kind of technology to be realized. The VHF real-estate would certainly be a lot more valuable if it were 'shovel-ready' and didn't have all those old-fashioned 'radio stations' cluttering the landscape.
Perhaps that process of creative destruction is already well underway. If so, is it inadvertent or deliberate?
- Status