Interesting HD radio article

Force Commander · Post by **Force Commander** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 7:52 am

Notice the radio rebels comment:

http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2007/10/hdradio

engineer · Post by **engineer** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 1:35 pm

HD on AM is dead. It is coming for FM too. Many major market stations have been on the air since 2003 with FM HD. Here in Mowtown WVAQ was on in the summer of 2003. When NPR said they were going HD I bought a Boston Acoustics receptor. It was renamed the "rejecter." I live about two miles from 50 kW WVAQ. I could not receive HD inside using the old and replacement antennas. NPR would also not receive. If I moved the rejecter out onto my deck I could get VAQ in HD, but not NPR. I sent the rejecter back and tried the new cambrige soundworks 820 HD. It will get HD in some locations inside of my house, but with the antenna fully extended. Not extended, the unit will not pick up VAQ. NPR will not work outside on the Cambridge unit. Folks, this technology is flawed. Unless you turn off the analog on FM and AM and go completely digital, this is never going to work. Nobody cares about sound quality with radios. Have you heard a XM or Sirius radio. It sounds terrible compared to normal FM radio. It's really the content that matters anyway. The HD 2 was a decent idea, but an extra channel compared to hundreds on satellite is not a selling point. The FCC authorized HD AM night transmissions about a month ago. After one week most stations had turned off their nighttime HD. For a few days the dial sounded like one big hiss. None of this makes any sense to many of the industries top engineers. Even some of the CE's of major market stations have been warned not to discredit HD technology or they would be looking for another job. Almost five years later not one car maker is making HD a standard radio. Trust me, its dead

Force Commander · Post by **Force Commander** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 3:37 pm

It would not be a bad thing at all to end. I am told by engineers that AM stereo has a better sound than HD (when you can receive it). FM weak reception issues, HD radio was definately not ready for prime time.

Ace Purple · Post by **Ace Purple** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 7:42 pm

"The group still won't allow actual commercials on the subchannels, however, and DJs remain rare."

I didn't realize that the HD Radio people don't allow commercials on the subchannels. I wonder how long that policy will last?

GlenBrannon1 · Post by **GlenBrannon1** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 2:16 am

Ace Purple wrote:
"The group still won't allow actual commercials on the subchannels, however, and DJs remain rare."
I didn't realize that the HD Radio people don't allow commercials on the subchannels. I wonder how long that policy will last?

I just hooked up a after-market HD reciever last week. WCKG in Chicago is piggybacking WBBM-780 on HD-2. I did notice that they block out the spots during the breaks. WTMX (also in Chi-town) HD-2 is 80's, but they run the webstream. Again, no spots.

Here in Indy, WZPL is running the Comedy Network commerical-less.

Bob Campbell · Post by **Bob Campbell** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 4:55 am

The problem with HD is the same problem AM stereo had....
They don't really exist!! They're not real!
Figments of geek imagination.

Bob Loblaw · Post by **Bob Loblaw** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 6:19 am

I've felt like I've been HD's biggest supporter...now I feel like they no longer stand a chance in hell.

Peter Ferrara, the trade group's president, says another development will spur HD Radio's success: a less power-hungry digital radio chip, to debut at the Consumer Electronics Show in January.

No, it won't. People won't start buying radios because the chips consume less power, even in a "think green" world.

The trade group announced last Monday that it will, for the first time, allow advertisers to underwrite blocks of time on the hundreds of subchannels that piggyback onto parent stations' digital signals.

There could be "a BMW oldies station, a Starbucks coffee channel," says Ferrara.

If people aren't buying radios now, what makes you think they're going to buy them because they've been "commercialized?"

"My HD radio has a Squealing Pig sub channel!"
"So?"
"It's sponsored by Dr. Zak's Lubes, Ointments, and Salves."
"WHERE DO I BUY AN HD RADIO????"

iBiquity, again, is just being amazingly unrealistic and huffing their own ether.

Despite HD Radio's slow and possibly flawed start, Ferrara says the technology will take off in time.

I agree with him. If it was a technology that became a standard feature and wasn't something that had to be licensed through his company to put into radios.

Zak Tyler · Post by **Zak Tyler** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 6:51 am

Bob Loblaw wrote: I agree with him. If it was a technology that became a standard feature and wasn't something that had to be licensed through his company to put into radios.

DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING........

free tube of lube for the bald man in the corner in the orange dingo shirt.

lastone · Post by **lastone** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 11:04 am

In a world where there is 1.5 radio stations for every 1,000 persons....one has to wonder, why bother with any of this. Big media has killed itself and we are in the end game.

Jay Nunley · Post by **Jay Nunley** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 11:30 pm

HD radio will catch on after a few years of HD television being the standard everyone is forced to adopt. The concept of HD (multiple signals on one channel) and how it applies to radio will pick up then. Right now it's just a gadget for gadget nerds.

Cameron · Post by **Cameron** » Fri Oct 26, 2007 7:38 am

Television offers up to six additional channels in it's digital flavor. Even the sliced-channels are an improvement to the analog offering. The HD quality is a compelling reason for the investment. The consumer doesn't need much to pick the stations up over-the-air and the television receivers are sensitive enough to receive a quality signal without much effort. The same cannot be said for HD radio. The additional channels, in many cases, are NOT an improvement to the audio quality. This area's terrain will make HD2/HD3 listeners - former HD2/HD3 listeners quickly. The streaming-technologies via cellular/wi-max will take a foothold and provide a delivery-method for audio and video streams with as much portability as radio in its current form. The manufactuers are dedicating a lot more of their resources to R&D in these arenas than that of HD radio.

HD is a kid on crutches, the wireless streaming technologies are his new bionic leg.

Zak Tyler · Post by **Zak Tyler** » Fri Oct 26, 2007 9:04 am

Cameron wrote:Television offers up to six additional channels in it's digital flavor. Even the sliced-channels are an improvement to the analog offering. The HD quality is a compelling reason for the investment. The consumer doesn't need much to pick the stations up over-the-air and the television receivers are sensitive enough to receive a quality signal without much effort. The same cannot be said for HD radio. The additional channels, in many cases, are NOT an improvement to the audio quality. This area's terrain will make HD2/HD3 listeners - former HD2/HD3 listeners quickly. The streaming-technologies via cellular/wi-max will take a foothold and provide a delivery-method for audio and video streams with as much portability as radio in its current form. The manufactuers are dedicating a lot more of their resources to R&D in these arenas than that of HD radio.

HD is a kid on crutches, the wireless streaming technologies are his new bionic leg.

i'd still like to see more creativity in the surround sound radio concept. with all these side channels, can't we broadcast in 5.1 or even 7.1??? the recording industry can start creating some sweet surround sound recordings, and imaging pro's would totally blow a nut. i can imagine geeking out over a kick ass new song from (insert artist here) that sounds good in 2-D radio, BUT blows my mind in 3-D surround sound in my car. or am i the only geek around here????

not to mention all the pot heads shelling out money on the digitally remastered surround sound recordings of pink floyd et. al.

Bob Loblaw · Post by **Bob Loblaw** » Fri Oct 26, 2007 9:16 am

people don't listen to radio that way zak.

Zak Tyler · Post by **Zak Tyler** » Fri Oct 26, 2007 10:04 am

Bob Loblaw wrote:people don't listen to radio that way zak.

and before surround sound in theaters they didn't watch movies or tv like that either.

Arp2 · Post by **Arp2** » Fri Oct 26, 2007 10:13 am

Zak Tyler wrote:i'd still like to see more creativity in the surround sound radio concept. with all these side channels, can't we broadcast in 5.1 or even 7.1???

Ibiquity has almost always included this as the climax of their demos, but.....you know.....come on!

And there's an audio processor in particular, already ready to go, that has the same guts in both an FM/HD version and a TV/surround version, but.....you know.....come on!

Zak Tyler · Post by **Zak Tyler** » Fri Oct 26, 2007 10:42 am

Arp2 wrote:
Zak Tyler wrote:i'd still like to see more creativity in the surround sound radio concept. with all these side channels, can't we broadcast in 5.1 or even 7.1???
Ibiquity has almost always included this as the climax of their demos, but.....you know.....come on!

And there's an audio processor in particular, already ready to go, that has the same guts in both an FM/HD version and a TV/surround version, but.....you know.....come on!

but... come on... what?

Bob Loblaw · Post by **Bob Loblaw** » Fri Oct 26, 2007 12:45 pm

Zak Tyler wrote:
Bob Loblaw wrote:people don't listen to radio that way zak.
and before surround sound in theaters they didn't watch movies or tv like that either.

When was the last time anyone you know bought a -just- a radio?

Not something that contained a radio like a clock radio or a car or a myriad of a miliion other things.

But when was the last time anyone you know went out to buy -just- a radio?

They DO happen to buy thing that CONTAIN radios like clock radios, cars, portable & personal stereos, etc.

Radio is a Utility. To a very small group it is more than that, but otherwise, it's a utility. Adding technology to it just makes it a more expensive utility (see: HD radio).

cgarison · Post by **cgarison** » Fri Oct 26, 2007 2:40 pm

Bob Loblaw wrote:
When was the last time anyone you know bought a -just- a radio?

Not something that contained a radio like a clock radio or a car or a myriad of a [million] other things.

But when was the last time anyone you know went out to buy -just- a radio?

They DO happen to buy thing that CONTAIN radios like clock radios, cars, portable & personal stereos, etc.

What about the FM Receiver attachment for the iPod. It is essentially "only a radio" but is useless until it is plugged into an iPod.

Bob Loblaw · Post by **Bob Loblaw** » Fri Oct 26, 2007 3:58 pm

That would qualify

Cameron · Post by **Cameron** » Fri Oct 26, 2007 4:36 pm

Bob Loblaw wrote:Radio is a Utility. To a very small group it is more than that, but otherwise, it's a utility. Adding technology to it just makes it a more expensive utility (see: HD radio).

Largest FM radio manufacturer in the world....wait for it.......

Nokia.

(Embedded in their devices, ya' know.)

When was the last time your cell phone provider told you how to access the free over-the-air services built into your phone?

...or did they steer you to all of their additional streaming-services?