On 1/12/2012 3:48 PM, Dave Barnett wrote:
On 1/11/2012 7:29 PM, SMS wrote:
IBOC is a temporary compromise. Eventually analog will be turned off and
HD Radio will be all digital.

I still haven't heard how you plan to allocate 400 KHz worth of digital
signal into a 200 KHz assigned FM channel. How does that work again?

Dave B.

I think you're well aware of the answer. Not every FM station will be
able to use 400 Khz. Some can have only one sideband at maximum power. A
small percentage can't use either sideband. Life is rough when you're
trying to maximize spectral efficiency.

On 1/12/2012 5:26 PM, SMS wrote:

I think you're well aware of the answer. Not every FM station will be
able to use 400 Khz. Some can have only one sideband at maximum power. A
small percentage can't use either sideband. Life is rough when you're
trying to maximize spectral efficiency.

In fact a very small percentage will be able to use 400 KHz at their
assigned frequencies. We had this discussion once before, since the
Ibiquity spec posted he

http://www.nrscstandards.org/SG/NRSC-5-B/1026sE.pdf

shows double the occupied bandwidth for a digital signal.

You said that most stations are spaced far enough from their
adjacent-channel neighbors that this wouldn't be a problem, despite
numerous examples of adjacent-channel interference right here in the Bay
Area. The fact is that this would work somewhat in the plains of
Western Nebraska, but never in the Bay Area. Moving just one station
has a severe domino effect. Let me give you an example of one such
situation right here in the Bay Area:

The South Bay will soon have a full-power FM station on 93.7. Why?

93.7 KXZM in Felton will be increasing power. Why?

KXSM in Hollister is moving from 93.5 to 93.1 and increasing power. Why?

KOSO in Patterson moved from 93.1 to 92.9 and decreased power. Why?

So 93.1 KHLX in Pollock Pines could move their transmitter closer to
Sacramento.

How did Pollock Pines get a radio station? Somebody bought a radio
station in Susanville and moved it to Pollock Pines.

This is just one example of how tightly sandwiched signals are
throughout the US. A transaction in Susanville has an effect on the Bay
Area. Spacing is already so close that adjacent-channel HD interference
is very obvious to those who know what it is. Those who don't know the
difference between regular static and digital noise just turn off their
radio. That is why those of us who care about the real future of
broadcasting and know how to use a spectrum analyzer would like to see
the Ibiquity scheme just go away and be replaced with a truly viable
digital radio medium.

Dave B.

On 1/12/2012 10:49 PM, Dave Barnett wrote:
On 1/12/2012 5:26 PM, SMS wrote:

I think you're well aware of the answer. Not every FM station will be
able to use 400 Khz. Some can have only one sideband at maximum power. A
small percentage can't use either sideband. Life is rough when you're
trying to maximize spectral efficiency.

In fact a very small percentage will be able to use 400 KHz at their
assigned frequencies. We had this discussion once before, since the
Ibiquity spec posted he

That's why the industry is pushing for asymmetric sidebands. 200 KHz is
a compromise when 400 KHz isn't feasible.

It's absolutely vital to the future of terrestrial radio to move to
digital broadcasting. It's the only way to remain a relevant choice.
We're not talking about radio enthusiasts, we're talking about the mass
market which matters to broadcasters.

On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 06:25:59 -0800
SMS wrote:
It's absolutely vital to the future of terrestrial radio to move to
digital broadcasting. It's the only way to remain a relevant choice.

Oh BS. The average radio listener doesn't give a rats arse what medium its
on so long as the content is good and it sounds reasonable. And for speech
radio AM is perfectly satisfactory.

If music radio stations want to know why they're slowly haemoraging listeners
perhaps they should listen to the computer generated playlist drivel they
pump out occasionally.

B2003

On 1/13/12 3:25 PM, SMS wrote:
It's absolutely vital to the future of terrestrial radio to move to
digital broadcasting. It's the only way to remain a relevant choice.
We're not talking about radio enthusiasts, we're talking about the mass
market which matters to broadcasters.

Listeners are perfectly happy with the technical side of things. When FM
radio started, stations knew... it is content that the people are going for.

So if stations worry about their future they should worry about content.

gr, hwh

On 1/13/2012 7:16 AM, hwh wrote:
On 1/13/12 3:25 PM, SMS wrote:
It's absolutely vital to the future of terrestrial radio to move to
digital broadcasting. It's the only way to remain a relevant choice.
We're not talking about radio enthusiasts, we're talking about the mass
market which matters to broadcasters.

Listeners are perfectly happy with the technical side of things. When FM
radio started, stations knew... it is content that the people are going for.

Content is one component. With HD Radio you can deliver more content.
It's a mistake to not look at the big picture though. Audio quality
matters, and _every_ study has shown that digital radio's audio quality
is perceived as much higher than analog radio. Cost matters too.

If content were all that mattered then everyone would be on satellite
radio, which has relatively poor audio quality but an enormous selection
of content at a relatively high price. Yet satellite radio can barely
add enough new subscribers to make up for churn.

If cost didn't matter then everyone would have an unlimited data plan on
a smart phone and would buy all all the music they wanted.

Coverage also matters. Streaming is fine if you have an unlimited data
plan, but not on long trips outside wireless coverage areas.

On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 07:47:24 -0800, SMS
wrote:

Content is one component. With HD Radio you can deliver more content.
It's a mistake to not look at the big picture though. Audio quality
matters, and _every_ study has shown that digital radio's audio quality
is perceived as much higher than analog radio. Cost matters too.

If content were all that mattered then everyone would be on satellite
radio, which has relatively poor audio quality but an enormous selection
of content at a relatively high price. Yet satellite radio can barely
add enough new subscribers to make up for churn.

If cost didn't matter then everyone would have an unlimited data plan on
a smart phone and would buy all all the music they wanted.

Coverage also matters. Streaming is fine if you have an unlimited data
plan, but not on long trips outside wireless coverage areas.

Methinks content is everything with one big catch. Polluted content
is a big problem. Having the correct content will attract listeners.
Interleaving the content with advertising, irritating announcers, and
worthless PSA's, will drive them away. I've noticed that I tend to
always change stations in the middle of commercials and announcements
and rarely in the middle of a song or tune. I'm sure there's a study
somewhere on WHEN listeners change stations, but I can't find it.

Another problem is convenience. I've only played with HD Radio in the
stores and in a friends vehicle. I forgot the exact ordeal process
required but one thing stood out. It was not possible to tune or scan
across the band, catching all the regular FM and HD stations in
sequence. You had to tune to the regular FM channel, and then switch
to HD1 or HD2. As long as HD1 and HD2 are the poor step child of the
regular FM station on the dial, people are not going to listen.

Incidentally, it was really irritating to listen to HD1 while moving.
Every time the error rate climbed to an unacceptable level, it would
switch to the regular FM audio. No provisions for locking it on HD1
or switching to dead air. I forgot the maker and model, but I can ask
the owner if necessary. I will admit that when the signal was strong
enough, HD1 sounded quite good.

Convenience is also a problem with the lack of genre selection. On
many computerized (PC based) radios, you don't just have a few
presets. You have the stations programmed into memory by the type of
music or talk they offer. I vaguely recall it can be rather fine
grain to include genre changes by the hour. For example, I've been
listening to KUFX lately. Repetitive "Classic rock" during the day,
with sports in the evenings. Ideally, you should be able to punch a
"60's rock" button and limit the selections to only those stations
doing classical. The radio and the station support RBDS, the PTY
(program type) data that allegedly accompanies the music or talk
should contain the necessary genre info.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Data_System

As for streaming, that's what I'm doing after my Subaru stock CD
player died (low output in the laser head) and my favorite classical
FM station changed format. I preload about 8 hours of music, audio
books, and TED talks onto a cheap MP3 player, which is hot-wired into
the car radio. The only reason I bother to listen to FM is when I
forget to preload the MP3 player or charge the player battery. I
could also rip streaming content from the internet, but haven't
bothered as it ties up my computers for too long a time.

HD Radio has been around long enough to make a determination if it's
going to live or die. I suspect it will die because there's no
compelling reason for Joe Sixpack to buy or install one. That's
because the content of HD1 and HD2 often is quite similar to the
regular FM channel. To the buyer, it's more of the same thing. Were
HD1 and HD2 to offer commercial free or subscription based commercial
free service, there might be an incentive, but those have been
proscribed by economic necessity and FCC rules.

Installing an HD Radio is also not a trivial exercise. There are few
plug in converters and those tend to be tied to specific high end
radios. At this time, installing and HD Radio consists of ripping out
the existing radio, and installing an upgraded radio. That's neither
cheap nor easy. Lacking a compelling reason to do this, Joe Sixpack
will probably install whatever the dealer has in stock. I checked
Best Buy in Capitola. One radio on the shelf has HD and nobody in the
store seemed to know anything about it. I asked a few questions and
got some bad guesses. As long as that situation persists, the
retrofit market is a lost cause.


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On 1/13/2012 8:58 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

Methinks content is everything with one big catch. Polluted content
is a big problem. Having the correct content will attract listeners.
Interleaving the content with advertising, irritating announcers, and
worthless PSA's, will drive them away. I've noticed that I tend to
always change stations in the middle of commercials and announcements
and rarely in the middle of a song or tune. I'm sure there's a study
somewhere on WHEN listeners change stations, but I can't find it.

You're right, and ironically, at least for now, the HD sub-channels do a
wonderful job of solving that problem. There are sufficiently few HD
receivers that the stations can't or don't sell advertising on the
sub-channels.

Another problem is convenience. I've only played with HD Radio in the
stores and in a friends vehicle. I forgot the exact ordeal process
required but one thing stood out. It was not possible to tune or scan
across the band, catching all the regular FM and HD stations in
sequence. You had to tune to the regular FM channel, and then switch
to HD1 or HD2. As long as HD1 and HD2 are the poor step child of the
regular FM station on the dial, people are not going to listen.

I can't speak for all receivers, but the ones I have don't work that
way. When you scan, it scans in sequence by frequency and then by
sub-channel. And of course you can preset and HD2 channel which is what
I do, and what I suspect most people do on car radios, whether it's an
analog or a digital channel.

Incidentally, it was really irritating to listen to HD1 while moving.
Every time the error rate climbed to an unacceptable level, it would
switch to the regular FM audio. No provisions for locking it on HD1
or switching to dead air. I forgot the maker and model, but I can ask
the owner if necessary. I will admit that when the signal was strong
enough, HD1 sounded quite good.

You're also right about reception. At 1% power, reception is poor
outside urban areas. That will be solved with power increases. Many head
units do allow you to go to analog only mode.

Installing an HD Radio is also not a trivial exercise.

On older vehicles, which have a standard single DIN or double DIN
opening, it's quite easy to change the head unit. You buy the harness
that matches your vehicle and attach it to the wires from the head unit,
and it all plugs right in. In most vehicles it's very straightforward.
On newer vehicles where the audio system is non-standard, you're right,
adding HD is more of a pain. You can usually find an adapter that plugs
in to a port on the back of the unit intended for a satellite tuner.

But the bottom line is that most people are not going to change their
vehicle's head unit unless it fails. The big increase in digital
receivers is coming from new cars where they are standard or optional
equipment from the factory.

On 1/13/12 4:47 PM, SMS wrote:
Content is one component. With HD Radio you can deliver more content.

Most markets are already fully loaded with stations. It's not more
content, it is content people want that matters.

Non-stop music in any flavor might as well be played from a personal
audio system, so I'm not surprised people won't pay a substantial
monthly fee to get them.

gr, hwh

"hwh" wrote in message
...
On 1/13/12 4:47 PM, SMS wrote:
Content is one component. With HD Radio you can deliver more content.

Most markets are already fully loaded with stations.

The dial is fully loaded. That's doesn't mean the "menu" of choices is
fully loaded.