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.

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.

In article ,
SMS wrote:

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

I beg your pardon. In most cases, it does. I do this for a living;
what's your source?

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).

Where do you think the IBOC signal comes from? It's called a
"transmitter". And for your information, a low-power transmitter running
in class A (necessary for IBOC) costs about as much as a much larger
class C transmitter. Remember, 90% of the IBOC power is thrown away, so
you need an IBOC transmitter capable of ten times the power you intend
to use.

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.

Most people don't have spare IBOC transmitter laying around.

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.

You have no idea, do you? Conglomerates **** away money all the time.
Millions of dollars have been spent just in the Bay Area to install IBOC
at the chain stations. The independents can't afford it, and that's part
of the game plan by the conglomerates.

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

And John will answer that such headroom is a very minor consideration.
The major cost is the IBOC transmitter, the combiner and reject load,
and the iBiquity gear. Don't forget the annual checks to iBiquity.

--
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.

In article ,
dave wrote:

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.

That's a misconception. All pre-IBOC analog transmitters are non-linear
by design for efficiency reasons. They cannot pass an IBOC digital
signal, which consists of multiple carriers. A specially-designed linear
transmitter must be used.

I can see from reading these threads that many people are under the
impression that IBOC is nothing more than some sort of subcarrier
superimposed on the main channel. Unless the station is using a combo
analog/IBOC transmitter, the outputs of both analog and IBOC transmitter
must be combined by a device that discards 90% of the IBOC signal and
10% of the analog signal. All of that stuff costs money, as does the
increased air conditioning requirement, and power (particularly that
which is burned off as heat). In many installations (and I've seen
dozens...I wonder how many of our pontificators have even seen one), the
IBOC and analog transmitter sit side by side...and they're about the
same physical size.

My point is, adding IBOC to a station is far more complex and costly
than putting some 4-unit device in the rack and hooking it up. A "new
exciter" doesn't do it.

Oh, and don't forget the studio, the new digital STL, monitoring
equipment, and the fact that HD equipment currently in the field is
notoriously unreliable. Fortunately, most stations don't care that much
because their three HD listeners don't phone in to complain.

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

On 10/16/09 14:07 , John Higdon wrote:


Oh, and don't forget the studio, the new digital STL, monitoring
equipment, and the fact that HD equipment currently in the field is
notoriously unreliable. Fortunately, most stations don't care that much
because their three HD listeners don't phone in to complain.



You know what's really interesting about that whole HD Listener
thing,...is that people see this as an opportunity for a station to
garner new revenues by attracting new listeners.

Reality paints a much different picture than the public perceives.

First, there is only a 100 share in any market. New listeners are
not printed up like $100 bills in Washington. They have to be taken
from some pre-existing program source. Any new programming outlet
steals it's listeners from the existing 100 share. So, literally,
stations are hoping to steal their own listeners to put them on the
HD streams.

What's that, you say? They stay in the family? Really? Well,
while a listener shift from the baseband channel to the HD2 stream
DOES keep that listener within the company, it takes that listener
from the programs of high advertising rates, and puts them on the
programs of LOW advertising rates. Enough listeners make that shift,
and the baseband channel's advertising rates fall. Meanwhile the HD
stream's rates are abysmally low mostly because there is virtually
no listenership. Most advertising on HD at the moment is value added
to the baseband's sales packages. That which isn't, is low rated.
And the advertising revenues per spot are dramatically less than the
revenues per spot on the baseband.

So, what HD is really doing is robbing the analog channels of
it's revenues while putting the ratings points on HD streams that
can't begin to replace the lost revenue from the baseband.

How the hell the bean counters at these stations let that go is
beyond me. Hell, when I was at CBS, we reused the toner in the copy
machine, for cryin' out loud. Drop $100,000 + on HD and then let it
siphon off the ad rates?

C'mon.

D. Peter Maus wrote:

Reality paints a much different picture than the public perceives.

Your reality isn't reality at all.

First, there is only a 100 share in any market. New listeners are not
printed up like $100 bills in Washington. They have to be taken from
some pre-existing program source.

Nope. According to the NAB chairman, Apple will be adding an HD FM tuner
to an upcoming iPod Nano. Microsoft has already added it to the Zune
(though that may only bring in one or two new listeners!). The
additional market is not coming just from listeners that would otherwise
be listening to analog FM on their car radios. It's coming from
listeners that would otherwise be listening to their iPod, CDs, or
digital media (in the car or not in the car) because there's nothing on
analog AM or FM that they want to listen to. HD radio is much more
likely to be stealing customers from satellite radio than from analog FM.

Any new programming outlet steals it's
listeners from the existing 100 share. So, literally, stations are
hoping to steal their own listeners to put them on the HD streams.

Not true at all.

What's that, you say? They stay in the family? Really? Well, while a
listener shift from the baseband channel to the HD2 stream DOES keep
that listener within the company, it takes that listener from the
programs of high advertising rates, and puts them on the programs of LOW
advertising rates.

Versus putting them on the programs of another station.

So, what HD is really doing is robbing the analog channels of it's
revenues while putting the ratings points on HD streams that can't begin
to replace the lost revenue from the baseband.

You're not looking at the big picture.

How the hell the bean counters at these stations let that go is beyond
me.

It's because they have more information than you have.