Clear Channel ‘tests’ found no problem with ‘HD’ power hike

[BRNout]

BRNout is right, streaming is the future... better codecs...

I hope not.  compressed crap either way.

My comment is, by no means, an endorsement of "digital quality sound" but rather it is my opinion of what the next big thing will be.  With internet-based streaming, consumers will have thousands of choices at their fingertips - something for everyone from all over the world.  So, the compressed sound of digital streams is a reasonable price to pay for the wealth of variety available.  Agreed on the concept that analog audio has a more natural sound to it - and the robustness of the signal is far superior to anything digital has come up with.

In the case of so-called HD radio, there's very little upside and the number of extra choices offered is not worth the cost and hassle of buying a new receiver to the consumer.   It's clear that they are voting NO with their wallets.   

One last note on analog versus digital, if I may.  I recall quite clearly the last such conversion (prior to TV) - which was the cellular phone.  Digital was supposed to offer clearer calls and better quality sound without static.  While that was true (for the most part), the coverage area was cut back significantly.  Importantly, it also brought the cost down to where everyone could afford one.  As cell phone companies were in a growth explosion, they could afford to add cell towers by the hundred which quickly filled in the gaps.  They started doing this before the gradual switchover and were in pretty good shape by the time analog went away.  Had they just converted all of their existing analog towers to digital, they would have lost half of their coverage (and a solid chunk of customers).  Of course, being a private enterprise, cell companies didn't allow that to happen.  They altered and upgraded their respective networks accordingly.

That's the difference between accepting the reality of the laws of physics and ignoring them as the
knuckleheads on the pro-IBOC side and the FCC (which apparently stands for "follow the money" in Russian) are doing. 

[Chuck]

Even the  lowest bit rate stream sounds better than shortwave and most AM radio.  Lots of people have spent untold hours trying to DX the world with expensive receivers and elaborate antennas.  With a relatively inexpensive  Internet radio, it is now possible to listen broadcasts from all over the world with little or no problem.  Maybe you don't think that is progress, but a lot of people do.   

[BRNout]

Even the  lowest bit rate stream sounds better than shortwave and most AM radio.  Lots of people have spent untold hours trying to DX the world with expensive receivers and elaborate antennas.  With a relatively inexpensive  Internet radio, it is now possible to listen broadcasts from all over the world with little or no problem.  Maybe you don't think that is progress, but a lot of people do.   

I'd argue that a good, local-grade AM signal that's not hobbled by IBOC sounds a lot better than a low bit stream.  Perhaps that may not be so of shortwave, but you don't always have a laptop and broadband connection available either - whereas with AM/shortwave all you need is a radio and some batteries.

[Chuck]

I'd argue that a good, local-grade AM signal that's not hobbled by IBOC sounds a lot better than a low bit stream.  Perhaps that may not be so of shortwave, but you don't always have a laptop and broadband connection available either - whereas with AM/shortwave all you need is a radio and some batteries.

I'm not questioning the viability of AM radio or even Shortwave.  If you have some copper wire, an old toilet paper tube, a razor blade, a safety pin and a pencil lead, you can make a radio that will receive a strong AM signal.  (Of course you will need a headphone or something similar to actually listen to.)  Add a tuning capacitor and maybe substitute a crystal diode for the razor blade set-up, and you have a basic receiver that can work in many instances.  There is no other audio delivery technology that is simple as AM radio at its basic level.  There is a lot to be said for that.  Those really simple AM radios (like crystal sets) sound as good as the source, minus any local interference.  They can easily beat the quality of most web streams, assuming the broadcast signal is up to par.  But audio quality is not why most people listen to the radio. 

Content usually trumps audio quality. Admittedly, some web streams do sound dreadful, but most do not. What they bring to the table is an amazing variety of content and reasonable audio quality.  It doesn't matter how good something sounds if the program is not something you want to listen to.  The Internet is a real game changer.  It is possible to listen to "radio stations" from all over the world.  You are almost sure to find something interesting.  As long as the Internet is working, you are no longer at the mercy of random atmospheric conditions. 

A good reason for preserving good old analog radio is the Internet is more fragile than many would like to admit.  I am reasonably sure that people who really want to mess with us work long and hard at figuring out ways to bringing it to a screeching halt.  That is modern warfare in the modern world.  If and when that happens, an analog radio may be a very important part of your life. 

[BRNout]

You know Chuck, I agree with you on all counts!! 

Yes, I enjoy the variety offered via internet streaming - particularly useful to me is the ability to listen to radio stations located in other countries.  Some offer fantastic music programming - and I'm not even talking about foreign music.  I'm talking about playlists of familiar music which are far better than anything offered domestically (where consultants and focus groups rule the nest). 

On the whole, I think posters here have done an excellent job summarizing why HD radio is a failure.  Not the least of which is that the corporate pushers of the system rarely offer anything compelling on HD2's.  And, when compared with the capabilities of the internet, HD is totally impotent (and that's the FM version).  2 or 3 subchannels per local signal versus thousands?  Yeah right. 

Also agree that simplest is often best when it comes to national defense and necessity.  We've already made our TV broadcasting system very fragile with the digital switchover.  Let's not do it to radio, which has the potential to be the real lifesaver in a time of national emergency.  Our granddads had it right: a 50 kw AM signal is as robust as it gets during such a time - and the older and simpler the transmitter, the better. 

At this point, nobody needs to nuke us - all they need to do is detonate an EMP high above the continent to destroy us.  Let's not make it any easier than it is.  Digital is fine for the fun stuff, but we NEED solid, robust, analog broadcasting and AM offers the best wide area coverage.  The simpler, the better, for the basic necessities.

[JimmyJames]

I disagree that HD2 content isn't "compelling." There's quite a few good ones. And some that are good concepts. But with the budgets of corporate radio now, they often aren't realizing their potential to sound great and offer something new.

I still haven't been convinced that streaming is going to work in rural areas, whereas a well engineered HD signal has been proven to in some cases.

[Chuck]

I still haven't been convinced that streaming is going to work in rural areas, whereas a well engineered HD signal has been proven to in some cases.

Well, I live in a fairly rural area.  I think the current official term is "Exurban." With a really good HD radio like the Sony and an external antenna on a rotor, there are two signals receivable in my area that have HD signals.  One is a NPR station that does make good use of the sub channels.  The other (which belongs to a friend of mine) simulcasts one of their other analog signals on the HD-2.  That's creative....  Without the outdoor antenna, neither HD signal is reliable where I live.  At best, they are a "DX Catch."

There may be some places where HD is a screaming success, but for every one of those, there is an offsetting number of examples where the system has made matters worse.

If HD worked well for all stations, regardless of their power levels, and if it did not encroach on your RF neighbor, I'd be a huge supporter.  That would be especially true if the ridiculous Ibiquity licensing scheme was more reasonable, or better yet, non-existent. Sadly, those conditions don't seem to be in sync with reality, which is why I have a problem with the technology, but not the basic concept. 

[KB1OKL]

I'm not questioning the viability of AM radio or even Shortwave.  If you have some copper wire, an old toilet paper tube, a razor blade, a safety pin and a pencil lead, you can make a radio that will receive a strong AM signal.  (Of course you will need a headphone or something similar to actually listen to.)  Add a tuning capacitor and maybe substitute a crystal diode for the razor blade set-up, and you have a basic receiver that can work in many instances.  There is no other audio delivery technology that is simple as AM radio at its basic level.  There is a lot to be said for that.  Those really simple AM radios (like crystal sets) sound as good as the source, minus any local interference.  They can easily beat the quality of most web streams, assuming the broadcast signal is up to par.  But audio quality is not why most people listen to the radio. 

A little off topic but when I was a kid, I used to hook up my crystal radio to a 15 watt mono tube amp going through either a 12" or 15" speaker. The sound was great. This was back when AM radio stations broadcast full fidelity signals.

[ddsparxx]

I also had a crystal radio when I was a kid, and a local station sounded great with the supplied earphone.

[Tom Wells]

Still off topic, I built a one-tube regenerative radio from a kit while in Australia in 1990.
Maybe a dozen or so electrical parts in all, handwound spiderweb coils, etc.
  It has outputs for a high-impedance set of headphones, and a matching transformer for 8-ohm headphones.  With the "good" Sony headphones, it's actually loud, and with "nothing" to degrade the audio, it has a purity that sounds much like studio monitors.
It shows off how much distortion actually occurs in the typical audio circuits ( and various flavors of AF detection).

When I've plugged it into a good Hi-fi amp, it's hard to believe it's AM.