• 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

ATSC 3.0 Radios in Vehicles

fybush said:
Kirk, the problem with 1.0 in any kind of mobile environment is the QAM modulation it uses, which depends on a stable receiving environment. 3.0 uses OFDM, which is much more suitable to mobile reception.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's why I would use the regular ATSC 1.0 datacast option (not M), that way more (newly developed) error correction can be added to the datacast to help overcome the problems of dynamic multipath and/or small duration signal losses, regardless of the broadcast signal format (in the case of ATSC 1.0, a single carrier).

AFAIK, there are no restrictions on using more error correction (and not using Dolby Digital for audio) in an ATSC 1.0 datacast.


Kirk Bayne
 
I agree with both David & Kelly A,

Smartphones do much, but my point is radio (in my opinion) let itself down, when the improvements would have made a difference, years ago . . . for now, forget today's digital ideas . . . years ago a new band for just AM, so AM could have become like FM . . . back in the 70's would have been a nice start.

I know the FCC would have said no . . . well, fight for it. When radio was "flying high" they had the pull & money then.

When the AM stereo thing was going on . . . corporate radio just set around raking in the money, they set there dumb founded just counting profits, not thinking about the future (they knew changes were needed for AM especially) . . . had only if they fought and told the FCC, "will do this AM Stereo thing on our own"
You had, ABC, CBS, Avco, Clear-Channel, etc. owning stations, they had the money to get involved . . . but nope they did not.

If listeners didn't care in the 70's right up to today (like you say they don't care or know today about quality), then the broadcasters should have cared. I am sure you all engineer the stations you worked for years ago at now the best you can . . . I was taught you engineer a station to be the best (within budget) that it can be . . . if the listener doesn't notice the improvements "the heck with them" for sure the radio broadcast engineer would know they are providing the best they can . . . moving AM in the 70's to a new band allowing it to be like FM would have been a start.
There was interference on AM in the 70's, yes, it is worst now, but I remember it on AM in the 50's when I was kid. Broadcasters knew it was an inferior band compared to FM . . . did they fight for change - nope

On the directional arrays for AM David dating back to the 30's / 40's I knew that and heard it over & over from many, again a new band for AM would have eliminated these DA's and limit coverage areas they provided as populations spread out from cities.

David, on the HD thing being IBOC, I knew that, Thanks for mentioning it.

On my comments about when we went DTV, like I said I heard from high-end audio / video people, but I also heard from many average Joe's that saw the better pictures . . . and liked what they were seeing.
I volunteered to take calls from viewers, they were great to talk with and it was fun. They taught me and I taught them.

If the FEDS (FCC & others) feel AM was/is important then let them stock the AM band with just with emergency broadcast stations and today.

Yes, Smartphones made their appearance and they do much, but radio still let itself down, when improvements could have been made long before Smartphones, the Internet and Streaming, maybe helping radio to do better in today's world.
If radio goes way in the future, it at least would have gone away "technically" on top in todays would, better than it was 100 years ago, but no it set on its backside & did nothing.

Again, Merry Christmas & Happy Holidays to all.
 
Mark Roberts said:
I was so hoping that someone would mention the quadrophonic hype of the 1970s but I guess I'm going to have to do it. It was the classic example of a technological innovation driven mostly by the need to sell something new. Most such innovations have that as their core driver. Sometimes they stick with the public, sometimes they don't. It depends on circumstances and whether what came before was considered good enough or whether the new thing really is a substantial improvement.
Click to expand...
Broadcasting Yearbook would list quadrophonic stereo stations. I don't know if this means it listed all of them.
 
alok said:
I agree with both David & Kelly A,
Click to expand...
Doesn't look like it to me.
alok said:
When the AM stereo thing was going on . . . corporate radio just set around raking in the money, they set there dumb founded just counting profits, not thinking about the future (they knew changes were needed for AM especially) . . . had only if they fought and told the FCC, "will do this AM Stereo thing on our own"
Click to expand...
Wouldn't that be the same thing as a 'marketplace decision'?
alok said:
You had, ABC, CBS, Avco, Clear-Channel, etc. owning stations, they had the money to get involved . . . but nope they did not.
Click to expand...
Clear Channel wasn't around back in the late 70's early 80's. CBS actually had AM stereo (Motorola) on a couple of their music stations back in the day. Didn't do them much good back then now did it?
alok said:
If listeners didn't care in the 70's right up to today (like you say they don't care or know today about quality), then the broadcasters should have cared. I am sure you all engineer the stations you worked for years ago at now the best you can . . . I was taught you engineer a station to be the best (within budget) that it can be . . . if the listener doesn't notice the improvements "the heck with them" for sure the radio broadcast engineer would know they are providing the best they can . . . moving AM in the 70's to a new band allowing it to be like FM would have been a start.
Click to expand...
What band? There wasn't any spare spectrum to move-to.
alok said:
If the FEDS (FCC & others) feel AM was/is important then let them stock the AM band with just with emergency broadcast stations and today.
Click to expand...
That's a recent FEMA investment that would likely be ignored by the vast number of a community because consumers don't even think about battery-powered radios or even turning to radio in an emergency. Our tax dollars at work hardening 100-year-old technology that's seen its day.
alok said:
Yes, Smartphones made their appearance and they do much, but radio still let itself down, when improvements could have been made long before Smartphones, the Internet and Streaming, maybe helping radio to do better in today's world.
Click to expand...
You keep saying that but are ignoring the fact that consumers drive what they own, not radio stations
 
Kelly A said:
What band? There wasn't any spare spectrum to move-to.
Click to expand...

Bingo! We have neighbors ranging from Canada and Mexico to The Bahamas and St. Pierre et Miquelon. That we have to agree with on the spectrum.
 
alok said:
Yes, Smartphones made their appearance and they do much, but radio still let itself down, when improvements could have been made long before Smartphones, the Internet and Streaming, maybe helping radio to do better in today's world.
If radio goes way in the future, it at least would have gone away "technically" on top in todays would, better than it was 100 years ago, but no it set on its backside & did nothing.
Click to expand...
As credentials, I built and owned Northern South America’s first commercial FM, South America’s first FM stereo station among other things so I have been at least at the vanguard of radio innovations so, based on my experience, I can say that a new band would not work… now or then. And today anything requiring new standalone hardware will never work
 
Last edited:
vchimpanzee said:
Broadcasting Yearbook would list quadrophonic stereo stations. I don't know if this means it listed all of them.
Click to expand...
Except for licensed data (Calls, frequency, power and legal owner data) the Broadcasting Yearbook used a form sent to each station each year. Some data was out of date as stations did not submit the form.
 
DavidEduardo said:
Bingo! We have neighbors ranging from Canada and Mexico to The Bahamas and St. Pierre et Miquelon. That we have to agree with on the spectrum.
Click to expand...

David SAID this but the QUOTE thingy did it incorrect!!! (above)

Did Kelly A win Bingo, how much?:)

No spectrum, even back in the 70's? I guess - per you - yes, but that's OK. I think something could have been worked out, my opinion.

David, are you saying that if the FCC wanted to give AM, the band from say 200Mhz - 220 Mhz, forget who is on there now, they couldn't have worked it out with Canada, Mexico, Carribean countries, etc. way back in the 70's or 80's (20 years to make it happen, table radios were being made, etc.).
Those countries would have made better the AM stations they all had back then.
I know, maybe all those places, the broadcasters from them were at the same coffee shop as the American broadcasters when Fight 277 left the gate and the broadcasters missed it . . . they were eating pancakes, remember.

They could all have moved to the new band and today we'd have a great FM band of all former AM stations imagine THE BIG 202 HOT FM would be spinning the hits in STEREO . . . you the engineer would know that because you as the stations engineer made it happen - STEREO, you say the listener doesn't know the difference between STEREO and MONO, but you the stations engineer would know you are providing the best possible sound experience and a good listener will know it

Kelly A said:
Clear Channel wasn't around back in the late 70's early 80's. CBS actually had AM stereo (Motorola) on a couple of their music stations back in the day. Didn't do them much good back then now did it?
Click to expand...
DON'T KNOW, QUOTE THINGY AGAIN . . . Kelly A SAID this, (above)

Sorry, gee wiz . . . how about subbing NBC, for Clear-Channel they owned stations then!

An error like we all make, gee wiz, the guy wins at Bingo and gets a big head!!;)

I'm gonna go listen to THE HOT TICKET - SPORTS FM 212 "THE POWERHOUSE FOR METRO METROPOLIS!!!

Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays!!!
 
alok said:
David SAID this but the QUOTE thingy did it incorrect!!! (above)



No spectrum, even back in the 70's? I guess - per you - yes, but that's OK. I think something could have been worked out, my opinion.
Click to expand...
That's like saying we're running out of air, but there must be a way to make more. All great thinking until you pass out.
alok said:
David, are you saying that if the FCC wanted to give AM, the band from say 200Mhz - 220 Mhz, forget who is on there now, they couldn't have worked it out with Canada, Mexico, Carribean countries, etc. way back in the 70's or 80's (20 years to make it happen, table radios were being made, etc.).
Click to expand...
The U.S. High VHF TV band is/was 174-216 Mhz. How exactly would you put radio stations even back in the 70's or 80's on an already used chunk of spectrum? Oh, that's right, in your opinion they should just have figured it out. :ROFLMAO:
alok said:
Those countries would have made better the AM stations they all had back then.
I know, maybe all those places, the broadcasters from them were at the same coffee shop as the American broadcasters when Fight 277 left the gate and the broadcasters missed it . . . they were eating pancakes, remember.
Click to expand...
What the? Talk about gibberish?
alok said:
They could all have moved to the new band and today we'd have a great FM band of all former AM stations imagine THE BIG 202 HOT FM would be spinning the hits in STEREO . . . you the engineer would know that because you as the stations engineer made it happen - STEREO, you say the listener doesn't know the difference between STEREO and MONO, but you the stations engineer would know you are providing the best possible sound experience and a good listener will know it
Click to expand...
Yep, can't move if there is no place to go and no consumer interest in buying a new radio to go there. Hey, maybe you're finally figuring it out!
alok said:
Sorry, gee wiz . . . how about subbing NBC, for Clear-Channel they owned stations then!
Click to expand...
I believe some of the NBC AM stations tried stereo as well. As mentioned, didn't do any a bit of good.
 
alok said:
David, are you saying that if the FCC wanted to give AM, the band from say 200Mhz - 220 Mhz, forget who is on there now, they couldn't have worked it out with Canada, Mexico, Carribean countries, etc. way back in the 70's or 80's (20 years to make it happen, table radios were being made, etc.).
Click to expand...
Some of the 200 MHz spectrum was partially used by the military (I think above 220 MHz though), and a chunk was carved out by the FCC for ham radio use, sometime in the 1980s. Then they sold some of that spectrum to business or other interests.

So yeah, there obviously was some spectrum available, but even in the 1980s the idea of people buying new radios was a hard sell. And no one was calling for a "new AM band" anywhere.

Satellite (Sirius & XM) took off slowly in the 1990s when it was introduced, and it took a ton of marketing to make it work. In a way, you could say that Sirius & XM were an example of what you are saying could happen. A new band for broadcasting. But another new radio tech, HD radio, didn't take off, and that was introduced in the 2000s, when radio was still an important media for younger people.
 
boombox4 said:
Satellite (Sirius & XM) took off slowly in the 1990s when it was introduced, and it took a ton of marketing to make it work. In a way, you could say that Sirius & XM were an example of what you are saying could happen. A new band for broadcasting. But another new radio tech, HD radio, didn't take off, and that was introduced in the 2000s, when radio was still an important media for younger people.
Click to expand...
Satellite radio did not launch until the 2001-2002 period so it could hardly have "taken off slowly in the 1990's" as it did not even exist then:

XM’s first satellite was launched on March 18, 2001 and its second on May 8, 2001.[7] Its first broadcast occurred on September 25, 2001, nearly four months before Sirius.[29] Sirius launched the initial phase of its service in four cities on February 14, 2002,[30] expanding to the rest of the contiguous United States on July 1, 2002.[29] The two companies spent over $3 billion combined to develop satellite radio technology, build and launch the satellites, and for various other business expenses.[5] Stating that it was the only way satellite radio could survive, Sirius and XM announced their merger on February 19, 2007, becoming Sirius XM.[31][32] The FCC approved the merger on July 25, 2008, concluding that it was not a monopoly, primarily due to Internet audio-streaming competition (Wikipedia)

HD radio is actually profitable for many, but in other than the intended purpose: it supports hundreds of FM translators and many ethnic and niche formats in other cases.

However, and depending on how you define "younger people", radio has not targeted the youth market for decades as advertiser support pretty much disappeared in the 70's.
 
DavidEduardo said:
Satellite radio did not launch until the 2001-2002 period so it could hardly have "taken off slowly in the 1990's" as it did not even exist then:

XM’s first satellite was launched on March 18, 2001 and its second on May 8, 2001.[7] Its first broadcast occurred on September 25, 2001, nearly four months before Sirius.[29] Sirius launched the initial phase of its service in four cities on February 14, 2002,[30] expanding to the rest of the contiguous United States on July 1, 2002.[29] The two companies spent over $3 billion combined to develop satellite radio technology, build and launch the satellites, and for various other business expenses.[5] Stating that it was the only way satellite radio could survive, Sirius and XM announced their merger on February 19, 2007, becoming Sirius XM.[31][32] The FCC approved the merger on July 25, 2008, concluding that it was not a monopoly, primarily due to Internet audio-streaming competition (Wikipedia)

HD radio is actually profitable for many, but in other than the intended purpose: it supports hundreds of FM translators and many ethnic and niche formats in other cases.

However, and depending on how you define "younger people", radio has not targeted the youth market for decades as advertiser support pretty much disappeared in the 70's.
Click to expand...
RE: Satellite's rollout: I was going by memory. I know they were talking about it in the late 1990s. Radio was scared of the competition. That was the talk where I worked. The OTA radio industry especially didn't want satellite to operate translators in dead spots, either. It still took a while for satellite to become adopted widely. I think Howard Stern's move to satellite mid decade boosted it a bit.

RE: HD Radio: Hard to say how successful it is when so few HD2's and HD3's get ratings. If they're making money, though, good for them.

RE: Younger people: No millennial or GenZer I know listens to FM radio. They use streaming services like Spotify. Sure, it's anecdotal, but I think the statistics probably correlate roughly -- use of radio by demos under 35 is probably much lower than it was in 1985 or 2005.
 
Greg Goodfellow said:
Is the reason HD Radio hasn’t taken off is simply due to lack of promotion by the stations themselves? Sorry-couldn’t resist. No pancake metaphors on the horizon.
Click to expand...
First, this while HD thing was initially a reaction to the perception by some that "digital" was a requirement for future audio. The fact is that listeners focus first on content and not on what kind of transmission standard is used.

Existing broadcasters did not want the state-managed change to a full digital system such as in some parts of Europe, as it would have made all stations "equal" in signal and huge investments would have been compromised.

Third, consumers had not need for a tiny improvement in audio quality. There was no market for HD to begin with. And if you market for something for which there is no need, it better be so good it creates a need; Apple is great at doing this sort of thing. But HD was not "so good we had to have it". It offered no real improvement that listeners wanted.
 
Greg Goodfellow said:
Is the reason HD Radio hasn’t taken off is simply due to lack of promotion by the stations themselves? Sorry-couldn’t resist. No pancake metaphors on the horizon.
Click to expand...
I think this subject has been gone over a lot in the HD Radio forum here, but it's a combination of factors, the first HD radios being a bit expensive being one of the factors, and online streaming kicking in when HD radios were being installed in more and more car soundsystems. The timing wasn't terrific. And the system was proprietary, which added to the cost of the radios, and I think stations had to pay for the HD tech as well.

When I used to listen to the local rock station's analog channel they never mentioned the metal music HD2. It was given some mention on their website, but not much. But that's just one station. I'm sure other stations promote their HD channels a lot more.

So, maybe promotion could have been better in some cases.
 
boombox4 said:
RE: Younger people: No millennial or GenZer I know listens to FM radio. They use streaming services like Spotify. Sure, it's anecdotal, but I think the statistics probably correlate roughly -- use of radio by demos under 35 is probably much lower than it was in 1985 or 2005.
Click to expand...
About 85% of all persons use radio weekly... down from around 94% in Y2K. What is way off is the amount of time... about 18 to 20% of persons using radio on average 6 AM to 12 MN in Y2K to about 5% today.
 
Back
Top Bottom