HD vs. DAB: Were listeners screwed?

[Whale]

I found this site regarding DAB radio: http://www.worlddab.org/

From the looks of it, although probably biased, it appears that DAB is quickly becoming the worldwide standard.

I found this quote:

(08/03/2005) While the Eureka 147 system has emerged as clearly superior in laboratory and field tests carried out by CEMA (Consumer and Electronics Manufacturers Association), the National Association of Broadcasters opposes the adoption of Eureka 147 in the USA. This opposition is based on lack of new spectrum; dislike of sharing transmitters in the multiplex; and concerns that DAB would introduce new competition. The USA have now developed a more limited in-band solution (originally named IBOC, In-band on-channel, but now called HD radio), utilising existing FM transmitters.

I do believe that the FCC screwed over the listeners by selecting IBOC. The same companies stay in control of their market by utilizing an inferior technology. Just looking at the DAB listings by country makes it obvious to me that what I'm going to get in my market, a couple more voicetracked formats run by the same companies that control it today and have destroyed the quality, doesn't justify the decision to go with IBOC.

 

[ChiefCheese]

> I found this site regarding DAB radio:
> http://www.worlddab.org/
>
> From the looks of it, although probably biased, it appears
> that DAB is quickly becoming the worldwide standard.
>
> I found this quote:
>
> (08/03/2005) While the Eureka 147 system has emerged as
> clearly superior in laboratory and field tests carried out
> by CEMA (Consumer and Electronics Manufacturers
> Association), the National Association of Broadcasters
> opposes the adoption of Eureka 147 in the USA. This
> opposition is based on lack of new spectrum; dislike of
> sharing transmitters in the multiplex; and concerns that DAB
> would introduce new competition. The USA have now developed
> a more limited in-band solution (originally named IBOC,
> In-band on-channel, but now called HD radio), utilising
> existing FM transmitters.
>
> I do believe that the FCC screwed over the listeners by
> selecting IBOC. The same companies stay in control of their
> market by utilizing an inferior technology. Just looking
> at the DAB listings by country makes it obvious to me that
> what I'm going to get in my market, a couple more
> voicetracked formats run by the same companies that control
> it today and have destroyed the quality, doesn't justify the
> decision to go with IBOC.
>

You may very well be right. Eureka 147 DAB already exists in Canada, though, and I don't recall seeing much about it, positive or negative. I think (someone please correct me) it's been up there for 10 years at least.

On the subject of IBOC, though: if you are an investor in a broadcasting company such as Clear Channel, Viacom (CBS radio), Entercom, ABC (Disney), Emmis, Cumulus; or any companies that make HD transmission equipment (like Harris corp); or any mutual funds that have shares in any of these (and more I'm sure) companies, than perhaps you shouldn't be too upset. A large part of the value of these radio companies are all the aggregated "stick" values-and so it wasn't very likely that they were going to endorse another medium which ultimately could have a very detrimental effect on that. Many European countries, and others throughout the world have a completely different way of looking at broadcast facilities; they don't have the same reason to protect the status quo. In fact one could argue that the U.S. is unique (with Canada and Mexico, and to some extent at least the U.K. being similar).

 

[arnoldevns]

> You may very well be right. Eureka 147 DAB already exists
> in Canada, though, and I don't recall seeing much about it,
> positive or negative. I think (someone please correct me)
> it's been up there for 10 years at least.
>
> On the subject of IBOC, though: if you are an investor in a
> broadcasting company such as Clear Channel, Viacom (CBS
> radio), Entercom, ABC (Disney), Emmis, Cumulus; or any
> companies that make HD transmission equipment (like Harris
> corp); or any mutual funds that have shares in any of these
> (and more I'm sure) companies, than perhaps you shouldn't be
> too upset. A large part of the value of these radio
> companies are all the aggregated "stick" values-and so it
> wasn't very likely that they were going to endorse another
> medium which ultimately could have a very detrimental effect
> on that. Many European countries, and others throughout the
> world have a completely different way of looking at
> broadcast facilities; they don't have the same reason to
> protect the status quo. In fact one could argue that the
> U.S. is unique (with Canada and Mexico, and to some extent
> at least the U.K. being similar).
>

It's fairly simple: the competition in the US is far greater than it is in the other countries. That makes is harder to get them to all agree to move to another part of the spectrum - and share transmitters.

I think the IBOC system we are presented with today is about as good as we could have hoped for. My hope is that down the road there will be a way to eliminate the analog transmission to make radio all-digital. If you could use the entire 10khz on AM or 200khz on FM for digital broadcasting, you could have a much better broadcast than the Ibiquity system currently provides.

 

[smashedcd]

quote:

This opposition is based on lack of new spectrum; dislike of sharing transmitters in the multiplex; and concerns that DAB would introduce new competition. The USA have now developed a more limited in-band solution (originally named IBOC, In-band on-channel, but now called HD radio), utilising existing FM transmitters.

yep they are definitly scared of competition look at how much they attack sat radio. my wish is actually to get live 365 in my truck. wonder if that will ever happen. that would be nice!! <P ID="signature">______________
note to the NAB..satellite radio..its worth paying for!!</P>

 

[xmusicmatt]

> yep they are definitly scared of competition look at how
> much they attack sat radio. my wish is actually to get live
> 365 in my truck. wonder if that will ever happen. that would
> be nice!!
>

eh, if wireless internet takes off, that could become a possiblity.

--Matt<P ID="signature">______________
Program Director/Music Director
X Music Online
The X
Today's Best Music
http://www.xmusiconline.com/</P>

 

[bossmsx]

a dissenter?

I'm not necessarily sure what to say here....I heard Eureka in Canada...While the issue of 'makes all stations equal' is somewhat true (one of the things that happens, though, is many AMs end up getting Mono, lower bitrate streams, but it's true the signals are all essentially the same when they're out of the same antenna at the same power), to my ears, the HD codec (HDC) is more efficient than the Eureka MP2 codec....

An example was BEN-FM in Philly, which, to me, sounded better than Mix 99.9's DAB signal in Canada, which was 224kbps...BEN couldn't have been running more than 96 or 108kbps, and certainly not the 224 they ran in Toronto...At issue here, however, was the receiver used, which in Canada was a cheap Walkman like radio, and in Philly was an expensive Yamaha home theater system, that may have been an 'unfair advantage' in IBOC's favor...Don't think DAB is not without its' problems, though...I tried to Walk around the 'beach' in Toronto with the Perstel DR-101 "Walkman" and the signal was not terribly stable, I had to sit the radio down alot of times and take out the antenna.

Back to the AM/equality/bitrate issue with DAB....In Toronto, the Talk AMs, like CFRB and CFTR were using lower bitrates like 128, CJYE and CJMR as low as 96, and all were Mono...(128 is usually considered 'lower' in the DAB realm)..CHUM-AM was 192 and said "Stereo" on the receiver but the audio was Mono...The FMs were all Stereo....Sure the signals were equal since they all came from the CN tower, but the 'equality' issue only applies in some cases, not all.

 

[ian]

> You may very well be right. Eureka 147 DAB already exists
> in Canada, though, and I don't recall seeing much about it,
> positive or negative. I think (someone please correct me)
> it's been up there for 10 years at least.


DAB never took off in Canada. You can't buy the radios at all, and there are few stations actually broadcasting with it. It's unfortunate, because the sound quality is generall far superior to IBOC/

 

[RadioEnginerd]

> eh, if wireless internet takes off, that could become a
> possiblity.
>
> --Matt

Wireless internet is likely to take off more aggressively than IBOC. Not to say they both won’t co-exist, but Internet based radio does open up a whole bunch of doors. Companies such as Verizon and Sprint have launched 3G wireless (broadband speed wireless internet) in my home area of Sacramento. This is just the start!

There’s already "internet radios" in production. It's only a matter of time before more "mobile" versions of these radios will be made utilizing wireless broadband. It's only a matter of time.

-R.E.<P ID="signature">______________
If you put your mind to it, you can accomplish anything...</P>

 

[ChiefCheese]

> > eh, if wireless internet takes off, that could become a
> > possiblity.
> >
> > --Matt
>
> Wireless internet is likely to take off more aggressively
> than IBOC. Not to say they both won’t co-exist, but
> Internet based radio does open up a whole bunch of doors.
> Companies such as Verizon and Sprint have launched 3G
> wireless (broadband speed wireless internet) in my home area
> of Sacramento. This is just the start!
>
> There’s already "internet radios" in production. It's only
> a matter of time before more "mobile" versions of these
> radios will be made utilizing wireless broadband. It's only
> a matter of time.
>
> -R.E.
> The internet radio idea is nothing new-does anyone remember Kerbango? They made a very cool looking "radio" that was supposed to pick up streaming audio through an internet connection (or maybe even your network connection at the office). This was around '97 or '98. Very cool but unfortunately, the first time around, it didn't go anywhere. I think this time it'll take off though.

 

[jim8230]

> ....what I'm going to get in my market, a couple more
> voicetracked formats run by the same companies that control
> it today and have destroyed the quality, doesn't justify the
> decision to go with IBOC.

I could not agree more! Radio listeners have been underestimated. These corporations must have thought everybody would just keep listening to the crap they have been pushing on us. The FCC is truely to blame for the sad state of radio...knowing full well that the lack of quality content is what is driving listeners away. So, of course, the solution is to blame the transmission method! Analog AM and FM are suddenly unacceptable! So now, we all need to buy new radios to hear the same lame, insipid programming. (I haven't even touched on IBOC's technical issues, but there are many!)

My prediction is: NO ONE WILL BE BUYING IT! I am even willing to go as far as to suggest that this may actually kill off over-the-air radio quicker than if it were just left alone.

My suggestion: Free up some bandwidth and let the big boys sell their digital wares in a different spectrum. Leave the existing AM and FM bands to broadcasters who are willing to act in the public interest.