"HD Radio Farce" wrote in message
...
On Oct 13, 1:35?am, "Jo Jo Gunn" wrote:
Jo Jo Gunn wrote:

There has been no widespread interference complaints from the
public...and virtually all stations are protected within their
contours.

That doesn't mean there's no interference. ?It's amazing how the
proponents of HD Radio assume that receivers magically quit receiving a
signal once they leave a station's protected contour.

No, the FCC has made a judgement on how far and how long a stations signal
would be protected.

That's the established standard. ?The days of clear-channels being
protected
nationwide are over.

Plus, to the average listener an HD carrier sounds like white noise &
they
think it's weak signal. ?Nobody thinks to complain about interference.
They just move on to something else.

The large broadcast companies do engineering research and audience
research.
There has been no widespread complaints (if any at all), and there is no
indication that people "move onto something else".

I've heard on and on about how great the HD-2 formats are going to be,
but
all I've observed is more lame cookie-cutter radio taking away the
reception that I once enjoyed.

THe formats on HD are quiite similar to what was on FM in the early to mid
60's. ?Music intensive, non-commercial, some simulcasting to improve
coverage, and mostly automated.

The audio quality is nothing to write home about either.

The public has had no complaints about HD audio quality. ?And like the
qualities of MP3's, which is "nothing to write home about" either, it's
"good enough" and the public isn't complaining.

But HD radio has caused us to adapt. ?My wife & I listen to web radio
more
than terrestrial radio now, since there are fewer choices on the dial.

I'd be interested in knowing where you are, and what station(s) you can no
longer listen too due to HD radio.

"Dave Barnett" wrote in message

...



Jo Jo Gunn wrote:

There has been no widespread interference complaints from the
public...and virtually all stations are protected within their
contours.

That doesn't mean there's no interference. ?It's amazing how the
proponents of HD Radio assume that receivers magically quit receiving a
signal once they leave a station's protected contour. ?Plus, to the
average listener an HD carrier sounds like white noise & they think it's
weak signal. ?Nobody thinks to complain about interference. ?They just
move on to something else.

I've heard on and on about how great the HD-2 formats are going to be,
but
all I've observed is more lame cookie-cutter radio taking away the
reception that I once enjoyed. ?The audio quality is nothing to write
home
about either. ?But HD radio has caused us to adapt. ?My wife & I listen
to
web radio more than terrestrial radio now, since there are fewer choices
on the dial.

Dave B.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

WOR clobbers WLW, WLW clobbers WOR, WBZ clobbers WHO, WCBS clobbers
WWL, WBBM clobbers WABC, etc...

but you left out the important element....where!

if this is dx...then please realioze that the fcc and owner/operators does
not care about dx-ers and hobbyists.

you are trying to hang onto the past.

"HD Radio Farce" wrote in message
...
On Oct 13, 3:50?pm, SMS wrote:
John Higdon wrote:
In article ,
?dave wrote:

Stereo destroys FM coverage. ?Those engineers were right.

IBOC destroys coverage (of other stations) even more.

People don't complain as much as they just find other things to listen
to. ?Digital sidebands increase analog channel noise. ?That is a fact.
Now if they were to quit trying to do stereo in the analog channel,
that
might work.

Analog is still the bread and butter of all stations. Crippling it for
the sake of promoting iBiquity's financial health is done at every
station's peril.

iBiquity just wants to make its system the digital radio standard so the
company has value when they sell it. As analog radio goes the way of
analog television they want to be like Qualcomm is with 3G. They aren't
making any money now.

There are revenue opportunities in HD for the broadcasters that go
beyond simple advertising spots. Stations that don't take advantage of
these opportunities aren't too bright.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There are virtually no radios in listeners' hands, after five years -
no radios, no listeners, no revenue. IBOC is a malignant tumor eating
away at stations' revenues.

there is revenue....if you would stop your cut/paste/post and actually
listen for awhile.

"Dave Barnett" wrote in message
...
RHF wrote:

Care to dispute any of the 'others' too . . .
HumDesi : South Asian Radio {WorldBand Media}
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HumDesi
New York Metro - WRKS FM via HD-2
Los Angeles Metro - KPWR FM via HD-3
Chicago Metro - WLUP FM via HD-3
Washington DC Metro - WTOP FM via HD-2
.

Well, my previous post stands - I'm sure they're not making any money when
the true costs of HD are added up.


in the scheme of things...hd radio is very inexpensive

most stations hav echosen not to air any commericals...so as to be able to
"sell it" to the public as commercial free.

RHF wrote:
=IF= SCA was a good idea : Then HD-2 is a Better Idea.

idtars ~ RHF
.

There's 2 completely different cost models there for the broadcaster.
An SCA generator can be had for less than $1500. That can be
recuperated in one month in a large market. But it doesn't matter.
Even then, until there's something compelling to listen to it won't
happen. I think about radioparadise and fatmusicradio on the web and
how fine their presentation and music mixes are, yet every time I try an
HD-2 channel for a while it's just boring. Maybe some broadcaster ought
to try to hook up with some of the better webcasters. The programming
is already there, and I wouldn't think they'd charge too much to put it
on the radio.

Dave B.

Dave Barnett wrote:

There's 2 completely different cost models there for the broadcaster. An
SCA generator can be had for less than $1500. That can be recuperated
in one month in a large market. But it doesn't matter. Even then, until
there's something compelling to listen to it won't happen. I think
about radioparadise and fatmusicradio on the web and how fine their
presentation and music mixes are, yet every time I try an HD-2 channel
for a while it's just boring. Maybe some broadcaster ought to try to
hook up with some of the better webcasters. The programming is already
there, and I wouldn't think they'd charge too much to put it on the radio.

That would be a good model. The broadcasters need to understand that the
incremental cost of adding HD is quite small, they can't expect that HD
is going to provide revenue in proportion to the number of listeners, at
least not yet. We're four years away from HD becoming a standard feature
on all new car radios, and even then it'll be years before most cars on
the road have HD receivers.

Add an HD signal generator and an exciter that combines HD Radio and
analog FM and then concentrate on the more difficult task of actual
content, but as you stated hooking up with webcasters would be good
model. John says it would cost "six figures" to add HD, and I wonder
where that number came from. Is there some big up-front payment you have
to make to iBiquity, because the equipment certainly doesn't cost
anything close to $100K?

You have the potential to add listeners with different formats on HD (or
not lose listeners when you change format by moving the old format to
HD). I.e. I'd love an oldies station, but the Bay Area market can't
support a regular FM oldies station the way other markets can, so if you
want that content you have to subscribe to satellite radio at rather
ridiculous prices.

Time for the broadcasters to realize that HD is here, and that fighting
it is rather hopeless. Closing your eyes and pretending it doesn't
exist, and hoping for a better digital radio standard to emerge is not
productive.

Now when will the SAP actually have some content on my TV?

On 10/16/09 12:08 , SMS wrote:
Dave Barnett wrote:
Is there some big up-front payment you have
to make to iBiquity, because the equipment certainly doesn't cost
anything close to $100K?



Yeah, actually, it does. The digital system is virtually a
separate system, requiring separate transmitters and towers.

Followed by the ongoing licensing fee to iBiquity for the right
to use the encoding algorithms, which are proprietary.

D. Peter Maus wrote:

Yeah, actually, it does. The digital system is virtually a separate
system, requiring separate transmitters and towers.

No, actually it doesn't. Or at least it usually doesn't require a new
transmitter.

As long as the existing transmitter has an extra 10% of power headroom
to overcome combiner losses, you can do high-level combining and you do
not need a new transmitter (or tower).

If you have to buy a new transmitter then of course the cost goes way up
but you still don't need a new tower.

They are not separate systems, either virtually or in reality. No
stations at all would be broadcasting HD if it required separate
transmitters and towers.

John can answer the question as to how many stations have transmitters
with that 10% of headroom, but apparently many do.

In article ,
"Watchin & Waitin'" wrote:

in the scheme of things...hd radio is very inexpensive

Obviously, you have never done an HD conversion. It amounts to basically
building a new transmitter plant from scratch. And that's just the
transmitter end. Oh, and don't forget the ongoing iBiquity fees based
upon the station's gross revenues, with additional royalties on each
HD-X channel.

most stations hav echosen not to air any commericals...so as to be able to
"sell it" to the public as commercial free.

Where does the revenue come from when it is "commercial free"?

--
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
AT&T-Free At Last

D. Peter Maus wrote:
On 10/16/09 12:08 , SMS wrote:
Dave Barnett wrote:
Is there some big up-front payment you have
to make to iBiquity, because the equipment certainly doesn't cost
anything close to $100K?



Yeah, actually, it does. The digital system is virtually a separate
system, requiring separate transmitters and towers.

Followed by the ongoing licensing fee to iBiquity for the right to use
the encoding algorithms, which are proprietary.

There's no need for a separate tower. Depending on the linearity and
headroom of the transmitter plant you could conceivably get by with just
a new exciter and new monitor.

On 10/16/09 13:03 , SMS wrote:
D. Peter Maus wrote:

Yeah, actually, it does. The digital system is virtually a separate
system, requiring separate transmitters and towers.

No, actually it doesn't. Or at least it usually doesn't require a new
transmitter.

As long as the existing transmitter has an extra 10% of power headroom
to overcome combiner losses, you can do high-level combining and you do
not need a new transmitter (or tower).

If you have to buy a new transmitter then of course the cost goes way up
but you still don't need a new tower.


That assumes the existing array is broadband enough. That's an
issue in directionals and some older omni's. Some DA's can be
broadbanded to accomodate the two channel extra bandwidth.
Some...not so much. Even broadbanding an existing array can run into
money. At the station in Iowa, we tried for the entire time I was
there to broadband the antenna so we had fewer issues at night some
of which were severe, presenting highly irregular loads to the
transmitters. There were audio artifacts that became quite
objectionable. Spent bags of money on it. And never did get it where
we wanted it to be.

Eventually, everything was replaced with newly redesigned and
engineered hardware. Including north tower which was the center of
our broadbanding problems.

And that was a single channel's bandwidth. For IBOC, they'd
have to tear out everything from the program line terminal to the
toplights.





They are not separate systems, either virtually or in reality. No
stations at all would be broadcasting HD if it required separate
transmitters and towers.


Many of the stations around here installed them as separate systems.



John can answer the question as to how many stations have transmitters
with that 10% of headroom, but apparently many do.

The question is IF the existing transmitter has that kind of
headroom. Often, especially in the case of some lower margin
stations, this is not the case. Even in the cases of big markets,
new hardware is often installed. WGN put in new transmitters for the
implementation of IBOC.