[BC] HDradio & our digital future

WFIFeng@aol.com WFIFeng
Thu Dec 21 08:03:34 CST 2006


In a message dated 12/21/2006 03:44:54 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
jsomich at gmail.com writes:

> I am using the stock radio in my 2002 Jeep Liberty to listen to analog AM
>  stations that have gone to HD. This seems to be a fairly decent AM
>  radio...probably average to slightly above average. It is used in a lot of
>  Chrysler products also.

So then you're telling me that there are a significant number of these radios 
out there... and stations that light-up HD are going to start annoying the 
owners of these vehicles, thus-equipped. As many people know, AM reception is 
often better "in the car" than at home. (Many of our listeners tell us this.) If 
many people start getting the impression that reception "in the car" is now 
*worse* than at home, AM is in deeper doodoo than ever.

>  The "HD whine" is much more evident on WJR than WTAM. Both are 50Kw ND
>  stations.
>  I can still hear it on WTAM, but I can ignore it a lot easier. What I DO
>  notice on WTAM is a lot of glitches and noise...sounds like multipath
>  distortion. This was never there before HD and doesn't exist on non HD AM
>  stations. Some of this could be receiver-generated, but it is still a big
>  annoyance to me.

Which of the two are you closest to? Just looking at the radio-locator.com 
maps, the pattern of WTAM is much more circular, thus WJR must have more ground 
conductivity variations around them. If you're closer to JR, then their 
stronger signal (thus stronger hash signals) could be a factor.

>  OK "relatively cheap" is a relative term. We all know how much it costs, 
and
>  each station will have to decide if the expenditure is worth it for them.
>  The license fees are too high (IMHO) and receivers are overpriced. We all
>  know that. But prices will come down. They always do. If they do not, the
>  system will fail.

Well, if only a handful of stations add it because only a handful can afford 
it, I can't see it going very far. When the cost to install the thing is a 
significant percentage of a station's annual operating budget, that's a huge hit. 
Since it's essentially a "discretionary" item, there are very few stations 
with shallower pockets than the large Coroporate-owned ones, that will even 
think twice about the thing.

Since someone else had also commented on their HD radio "locking up", that 
makes me wonder if the real problem is within the specialized, $40 "chipset" 
that is required in these radios?

>  I am betting that, over the long haul, prices will gradually moderate. They
>  are doing this already in the receiver world. We are so impatient today.
>  This is going to take years and years...this kind of change always has.

Many years, many bucks.

>  I like the HD-2 channels, and the display of program information is
>  something you get used to really fast.

RDS already can give you that information... at far less cost, all the way 
around. From what I've heard, the HD2 & 3 channels are even less interesting 
than the already bland cookie-cutter stuff on the main analog channels.

>  The quality improvement on AM is impressive.

While the interference being generated affects the 99.995% of listeners still 
using analog sets: it ranges from somewhat annoying to utterly intolerable.

>  I am old enough to remember when FM was a throwaway. We never worried if 
the
>  FM was off the air in the late 50s early 60s. After all "no one was
>  listening anyway."

But FM and TV did not render the existing AM sets virtually useless. If AM 
stations decided to "throw the big switch" and go all-digital, all analog sets 
would be instantly rendered useless. There are over 800 million of them out 
there. That's a *lot* of sets to replace, thus a lot of ticked-off people.

As Rich Wood has said, unless the programming being offered on the HD2 and 3 
channels is a *lot* more compelling, people just aren't going to make the 
investment. The consumer attitude, "What's in it for me?" is a tough hurdle.

>  I believe that stations should have the conversion to HD on their plate.

Many of them simply don't have that kind of money in the bank, though. Many 
are fortunate to afford the 99c mac & cheese with a side of tap water. They 
can't afford caviar and filet mignon.

>  They can make the move on a schedule that makes financial sense. This is
>  pure chicken and egg.

But for *many*, it never *will* make sense. You're right abou tthe chicken & 
egg... until the receiver penetration is high enough, and the cost falls low 
enough, it just isn' tgoing to happen for a significant number of stations. 
It's just far too expensive.

>  The broadcasters must have it on the air before people
>  will buy receivers. And the quality must be good or better and it can be!

Yup. Chicken & egg.

>  If the broadcasters don't embrace this, it will never happen and be
>  relegated to the scrap heap. 

Make room on the scrap heap, then.

>  Terrestrial radio needs digital and this is its
>  big chance.

It doesn't *need* digital. It *needs* better, more compelling content.

>  Yes, its an imperfect system, but so is the GE-Zenith fm stereo
>  system we now use. Look what it did to the signal-to-noise ratio.

Yes, *but*... people didn't need to throw-away their existing AM/FM-mono 
radios when the conversion was complete.

>  Getting rid of the pre-emphasis curve is a solid improvement with all
>  formats.

Not sure that would be so helpful, because then all existing receivers would 
sound "muddy". (Ok, *more* muddy.)

>  This is progress and it is slow and painful. Sometimes I think we are too
>  close to this thing to be totally objective. IMHO the iPod is a fad and
>  satellite radio has peaked. We have much more to be worried about from
>  internet radio once broadband becomes mobile.

I agree with you here, as well... while I don't think the iPod is only a fad, 
I don't see it as the "doom" of Radio, either. It will continue to succeed, 
because there is a benefit to the consumer. Radio has the opportunity to 
capitalize on it, for "podcasts", etc.

You are 100% correct on the broadband/WiFi concept. Now *that* is the digital 
"killer app" to be watching and preparing for. HD is too little, too late. 
WiFi, when it becomes truly widespread, has the potential to "take over" (or at 
least make a very significant "dent" in) Broadcasting as we know it. Why? 
Well, the receivers are already widespread! Cell phones. They're everywhere... 
*that* is where Broadcasting's biggest "threat" (or *Opportunity*) awaits.

Thank you for the dialogue. :)

Willie...


More information about the Broadcast mailing list