AM HD TURNOFF PACE ACCELERATES

[Wimmmex]

Boston Acoustics Receptor. I've tried the regular antenna and a Terk Select-A-Tenna.

I don't think it's the antenna. I haven't been happy with any of the BA HD radios....I think they are all junk. And not too sensitive.

 

[N1WVQ]

In looking up the model, I went to B.A.'s website. The reviews there gave it something like a half-star or something low! When living in East Providence, it decoded on WHJJ but wouldn't lock on 550!

For awhile I would use it here to feed a part 15 A.M. transmitter to have something up on the air but the only HDs that lock 100% of the time are the subchannels of WGBH. Not being into public radio, the radio sits off.

Number check: still 172.

 

[KB1OKL]

I picked it up in Millbury Ma for a minute or two at a time when conditions were unusually good on my Sony late afternoons, too bad the sound wasn't unusually good. AM HD sounds very shrill and artificial. Welcome to the world of DXing (at 5-10 miles and on). I never could receive WTAG 580 HD at less than ten miles from the transmitter. It's a 5KW station that pins the meters on all my receivers in analog.

 

[Wimmmex]

the sound wasn't unusually good. AM HD sounds very shrill and artificial.

HD sounds much better than analog AM to the average person....and MUCH better than Sirius/XM

 

[JohnnyElectron]

Wim said: "...HD sounds much better than analog AM to the average person....and MUCH better than Sirius/XM..."

SXM quality has turned to sh*t, so I don't disagree on that. HD-AM for a news-talk-sports stations with people on crappy cellphones sounds grating on my earsl Music is halfway decent on AM-HD, but not as good as a local station running CQUAM AM stereo on a wideband AM tuner with properly adjusted audio processing - it sounds even better than several local FM's.

 

[DavidEduardo]

HD sounds much better than analog AM to the average person....and MUCH better than Sirius/XM

In all my experience listening in major markets, few AM HD's sound better than analog AM.

First, analog AM without the 5 kHz cutoff needed by AM HD sounds much better than HD.

Then consider that HD AM is plagued by artifacts... many due to dueling codecs... and few stations have adjusted all systems to eliminate that. Many AMs can't get the delay synched, so driving around under bridges or in corridors of large buildings causes stuttering and echo.

Finally, the HD signal on AM is not as robust as the main analog signal. So it drops out a lot... in LA I have driven in areas with a theoretical 15 to 20 mV/m signal where going under bridges causes drops. Getting farther away and having it come in and out constantly is horrible.

 

[frankberry]

AM HD just needs a quiet death. Few would notice or mourn the loss.

 

[kc4rae]

Wim said: "...HD sounds much better than analog AM to the average person....and MUCH better than Sirius/XM..."

...Music is halfway decent on AM-HD, but not as good as a local station running CQUAM AM stereo on a wideband AM tuner with properly adjusted audio processing - it sounds even better than several local FM's.

That's true with one of our local AM Stereo stations here I posted two YouTube videos of. Processing is VERY open. I'm going back soon to record the oldies program soon. That should really be nice.

There's many examples of AM Stereo audio on YouTube.

 

[Wimmmex]

In all my experience listening in major markets, few AM HD's sound better than analog AM.

Just another pronouncement! Another opinion...and worth every cent

First, analog AM without the 5 kHz cutoff needed by AM HD sounds much better than HD.

Another opinion.

Then consider that HD AM is plagued by artifacts...

Most can't hear them.

Finally, the HD signal on AM is not as robust as the main analog signal.

That could easily be changed.

 

[DavidEduardo]

Just another pronouncement! Another opinion...and worth every cent

An opinion, in this case, by an engineer who built more than a dozen stations from the ground up, including 100% "in house" built AM and FM transmitters, diplexers, directional phasers, boards and stereo generators. And beta tester for a lot of 70's audio processing gear when multi-band audio processing was just beginning to be introduced.

Now... what are your qualifications?

Another opinion.

Based on listening to many, many HD stations in a dozen or more markets.

Most can't hear them.

You are the same person who said HD was expanding. All in-car receivers that can get HD get both AM and FM. So you are admitting that most people can't get HD. Exactly my point.

That could easily be changed.

Not without either changing the laws of physics or significantly altering the adjacent channel interference rules.

 

[MarioMania]

Now IBOC off 172

 

[Wimmmex]

Now... what are your qualifications?

I have run major market stations, groups, and into ownership twice. But it doesn't matter, I make my point here...not based on some title.

Based on listening to many, many HD stations in a dozen or more markets.

So, as a listener...that equates your opinion with many other listeners.

You are the same person who said HD was expanding.

Yes, it is in more cars now than ever.

Not without either changing the laws of physics or significantly altering the adjacent channel interference rules.

It's always a question of how much interference is permissible, and how much service we want to offer. Some would like us to go back to the old "clear channel" system where no one except one station were on certain frequencies. It was decided as policy that local service was more important...and the old clear channel stations were suddenly not available to as many people.

 

[DavidEduardo]

I have run major market stations, groups, and into ownership twice. But it doesn't matter, I make my point here...not based on some title.

If you remain anonymous, then it helps to have facts.

In statistics, one or two exceptions to an otherwise flawless finding fall into the category of "outliers" and are considered irrelevant and of no consequence.

So if we have a few HD stations that are the product of considerable hours of work and dedication, that does not invalidate the fact that essentially all the HD-2s that don't have FM translators are give nearly no time, have old, tired generic production, have music lists that are not updated often, etc. In other words, not competitive with many vastly superior streams.

Another fact: HD-2's without FMs don't show in the ratings. If nobody is listening, there is no aggregate value when adding them to a station cluster's sales efforts as no listeners means no results.

If you read the reports of the just concluded NAB convention, you would note that the general tone of all the major sessions was that OTA radio had a short window to move to new distribution methods and to embrace digital derivatives. There were presentations that showed copious data about the percentage of people using smart phones, and which demonstrated that within another year or two they would basically reach almost the entire market in the US. There were also discussions of the digital dashboard that showed that auto makers were following consumers who demanded easy access to Pandora & Friends and who did not really care if cars have radios or not.

Consumers... as a fact...are not buying radios. You say that it is because there is no passion for radio, when, in fact, there is great passion for products that can be listened to via new media devices. What there is no passion for is the AM and FM method of delivery.

So if there is nearly no buying of discreet radios, it is because consumers want a different device, and those devices have plenty of "radio" options for the listener.

Yes, it is in more cars now than ever.

But surveys of listeners prove that HD is something most car buyers are aware of and most who are don't use it or it would show in ratings.

iBiquity says 22 million vehicles have HD. iBiquity tends to include unsold vehicles in its count, so that number is likely exaggerated. Even then, that is only around 9% of all vehicles in the US, so penetration is very minimal. And since in-car is only about a third of all listening, the penetration is such that HD is only an option about 3% of the time.

Dem dere's da facts.

 

[Wimmmex]

then it helps to have facts.

Facts are my business.... I have sat in enough research presentations and heard my fill of facts and interpretations of such.

So if we have a few HD stations that are the product of considerable hours of work and dedication, that does not invalidate the fact that essentially all the HD-2s that don't have FM translators are give nearly no time,

We have many stations (of all types!) in the country that are "given no time". Clear Channel is famous for operating stations with no staff. Nothing new. Good management, good programming can be had....and it can be neglected.

Another fact: HD-2's without FMs don't show in the ratings.

You are repeating the same tired themes.

Many of Salem's and Multicultural's stations don't show in the ratings either. (BTW...this was {i]your[/i] argument that stations could be successful with no ratings. I am using your own logic!)

If you read the reports of the just concluded NAB convention, you would note that the general tone of all the major sessions was that OTA radio had a short window to move to new distribution methods and to embrace digital derivatives.

And, I'm asking again, you are a believer (and supporter) of this theme? You are not proposing RF solutions to the changing habits of the audience?

There were presentations that showed copious data about the percentage of people using smart phones,

So you are saying smart phones = the end of RF radio?

There were also discussions

There are lots of discussions....and more discussions.

Consumers... as a fact...are not buying radios.

I have made the same observation many times

What there is no passion for is the AM and FM method of delivery.

There is no passion for anything radio....not just AM/FM SWL, Scanners, CB, Ham,


The question I have for you....are you getting ready to give RF the heave-ho?

ut surveys of listeners prove that HD is something most car buyers are aware of and most who are don't use it or it would show in ratings.

recent survey of listeners sre "aware" of "HD....but not aware of any of the content. Content drives everything. They don't care about the technology...they care about the content...and HD, iBiquity and owners have done a crap job of letting anyone know the content of their HD signals.

iBiquity says 22 million vehicles have HD. iBiquity tends to include unsold vehicles in its count, so that number is likely exaggerated. Even then, that is only around 9% of all vehicles in the US, so penetration is very minimal. And since in-car is only about a third of all listening, the penetration is such that HD is only an option about 3% of the time.

Does anyone expect HD to take over and become "the next big thing"? I don't

Dem dere's da facts.[/SIZE][/FONT][/QUOTE]

Facts are facts....it's the interpretation.

And you propose no RF solution(s)?

 

[DavidEduardo]

And you propose no RF solution(s)?

There is no long range AM or FM solution. The "RF" solution is not in 540 to 1700 or 88 to 107. It is in the frequencies that cellphones operate in.

And, while you obviously don't consider streams that don't involve steel in the air, listeners think of anything that is audio without pictures that does not come from an MP3 player to be "radio". Pandora is radio... iHeart is radio... but more than that, if the public perception is that new media streams are radio, that is radio.

So the solution is to move the content to all possible distribution channels because the old ones are slowly fading.

 

[DavidEduardo]

There is no long range AM or FM solution.

I should add to this that I do believe that NextRadio, the initiative spearheaded by Emmis' Jeff Smulyan, is definitely a form of an FM "RF" solution in that it puts FM reception on mobile devices.

Wasting time on HD is not going to be productive. Getting behind NextRadio and trying to get the other 3 major carriers to activate FM reception chips is going to put FM stations... at least the ones with decent signals... onto the new media platforms where it satisfies both the emergency communication need and the accessibility requirement that OTA radio requires as discreet radio sales decline.

NextRadio acknowledges the change in consumer device preference. HD does not. HD is like installing chrome wheels on a horse drawn carriage.

 

[K6JHU]

"There is no passion for anything radio....not just AM/FM SWL, Scanners, CB, Ham,"

Ham licenses are at an all time high.

 

[Wimmmex]

So the solution is to move the content to all possible distribution channels because the old ones are slowly fading.

But then again...there's this.

http://www.ericksonmedia.com/blog/r...10202241315087516&fb_action_types=og.comments

BTW...I'm all FOR all platforms...including HD.

Wasting time on HD is not going to be productive.

There's no wasted time...it's just another platform and t's already there. Like it? You can use it...don't like it...don't use it.

Ham licenses are at an all time high.

That's because they last 10 years....and involves virtually no effort to keep it active.

 

[diymedia]

Wasting time on HD is not going to be productive. Getting behind NextRadio and trying to get the other 3 major carriers to activate FM reception chips is going to put FM stations... at least the ones with decent signals... onto the new media platforms where it satisfies both the emergency communication need and the accessibility requirement that OTA radio requires as discreet radio sales decline.

Not only is there a need to activate FM chips in phones and getting more wireless carriers on board, but there's also the need to develop an iPhone version of NextRadio. Somebody at NAB said Sprint may be adding NextRadio to selected tablets soon, but when I asked NextRadio about that they couldn't tell me which tablets may have an FM chip onboard, or how to enable it.

 

[joebtsflk1]

I think of my first little RCA AM transistor radio that barely fit in my front pocket as a kid in the 70s, then compare that to the functions of a typical smartphone...it's no contest. AM is toast.

Given how quickly people change out cell phones, an FM chip that can tune down to 76 or 82 Mhz would give a lot of relocated AMs a chance at viability within three to five years.

Then again, broadcast radio might just coalesce onto the present FM band exclusively. All of the terrestrial radio that might be desired by the public 10 years from now would easily fit on 88 to 108. And that's with some of the lesser FM move-ins returning to their original cities of license.