Cox Focus Groups Provide Insight to Multicast Tuning

[954]

Just found this interesting article:

Cox Focus Groups Provide Insight to Multicast Tuning

Excerpt: "Following a qualitative research study conducted during November 2005, nearly nine out of ten consumers would prefer seeing HD Radio supplemental -- or multicast -- stations displayed as expanded bands instead of layered bands. In other words, instead of displaying a frequency's multicast streams as 100.7 HD1 and 100.7 HD2, the station would use a radio display of 100.7 for the HD1 stream and 120.7 for HD2."

http://beradio.com/currents/radio_currents_121205/index.html#cox

100.7 is a frequency. But 120.7 is not. It's meaningless.

And what if a station has three or five multicasts?

200.7?

Maybe they should have polled people who know what multicasts are.

I'd say 100.7-A through 100.7-Z should be sufficient for a long time.

Happy New Year and 73s from 954

______________
NEW YEAR'S EDITION JUST POSTED 12/30:
http://www.univox.com/radio/20052006.html
with highlights of New Year's Eve Programming!

[KMRichards]

> 100.7 is a frequency. But 120.7 is not. It's meaningless.

That doesn't matter, apparently, to the listeners.  You can be a purist all you want, but if "120.7" makes sense to the person trying to find your station, why would you want to keep a cumbersome system like "WXXX-2" instead?

Also, note that under DTV there are going to be a lot of stations whose "channel number" is unrelated to their broadcast frequency.  

> And what if a station has three or five multicasts?

Perhaps you are not in the category below ("people who know what multicasts are") ... HD radio only allows for two streams.

> Maybe they should have polled people who know what
> multicasts are.

No, I think it is far better to find out what the average radio listener thinks the easiest identification is than to poll a bunch of technogeek purists.

> I'd say 100.7-A through 100.7-Z should be sufficient for a
> long time.

And I, who both know the technology and understand how listeners think, would say "120.7" is perfectly adequate and user-friendly.

______________

[954]

> > 100.7 is a frequency. But 120.7 is not. It's meaningless.
>
> That doesn't matter, apparently, to the listeners.  You can
> be a purist all you want, but if "120.7" makes sense to the
> person trying to find your station, why would you want to
> keep a cumbersome system like "WXXX-2" instead?
>
> Also, note that under DTV there are going to be a lot of
> stations whose "channel number" is unrelated to their
> broadcast frequency.  
>
> > And what if a station has three or five multicasts?
>
> Perhaps you are not in the category below ("people who know
> what multicasts are") ... HD radio only allows for two
> streams.

OK. I didn't know that.

Lemme ask you this: are multicasts like sidebands? Like SSB.

Like the existing subcarriers used for special programming?

(I don't know a lot aboput any of these, so keep that in mind.)

> > Maybe they should have polled people who know what
> > multicasts are.
>
> No, I think it is far better to find out what the average
> radio listener thinks the easiest identification is than to
> poll a bunch of technogeek purists.
>
> > I'd say 100.7-A through 100.7-Z should be sufficient for a
> > long time.
>
> And I, who both know the technology and understand how
> listeners think, would say "120.7" is perfectly adequate and
> user-friendly.

So it would have to go through 147.9?

73s from 954

______________
NEW YEAR'S EDITION JUST POSTED 12/30:
http://www.univox.com/radio/20052006.html
with highlights of New Year's Eve Programming!

[KMRichards]

> Lemme ask you this: are multicasts like sidebands? Like SSB.
>
>
> Like the existing subcarriers used for special programming?
>
> (I don't know a lot aboput any of these, so keep that in
> mind.)

It is a hybrid analog and digital signal.  Not precisely the same as a subcarrier, but very similar.

You might read this at the iBiquity website:
http://www.ibiquity.com/technology/hdradio_tech.htm

> So it would have to go through 147.9?

Well, let's presume the digital "frequencies" start at 108.1, corresponding to the second programming on 88.1 (I use "frequencies" since that is what the listeners will perceive them as; it's actually the second 88.1 stream).  Then 107.9 would be at "127.9" for its second stream; there would be no need to renumber the first streams as they would be the same programming as the analog service.

______________

[mwebster]

They say it's a qualitative study and then they turn around and quote numbers!  This is a sure sign of cr*p research.  

Insight?  What insight?  If they didn't explain the choice any better in the field, how could study participants have known what they were being asked?

PS: I checked the web link.  This study is junk research of the worst order.  It is typical of the type of study done by consultants (as opposed to bona fide researchers) which always seem to support the consultants' recommendations.  Further, the consultant, Bob Harper, is not a member of any of the major research organizations, including the Qualitative Research Consultants Association, suggesting he is not qualified to do this type of study by either education or experience.  Cox, you got ripped off.  He saw you coming.



>
>
> Excerpt: "Following a qualitative research study conducted
> during November 2005, nearly nine out of ten consumers would
> prefer seeing HD Radio supplemental -- or multicast --
> stations displayed as expanded bands instead of layered
> bands. In other words, instead of displaying a frequency's
> multicast streams as 100.7 HD1 and 100.7 HD2, the station
> would use a radio display of 100.7 for the HD1 stream and
> 120.7 for HD2."
>
http> ://beradio.com/currents/radio_currents_121205/index.html#cox
>
>

Edited by mwebster on 01/01/06 11:45 PM.

[clichemoth]

> > 100.7 is a frequency. But 120.7 is not. It's meaningless.
>
> That doesn't matter, apparently, to the listeners.  You can
> be a purist all you want, but if "120.7" makes sense to the
> person trying to find your station, why would you want to
> keep a cumbersome system like "WXXX-2" instead?
>
> Also, note that under DTV there are going to be a lot of
> stations whose "channel number" is unrelated to their
> broadcast frequency.  
>
> > And what if a station has three or five multicasts?
>
> Perhaps you are not in the category below ("people who know
> what multicasts are") ... HD radio only allows for two
> streams.

I thought a third stream was technically possible, but that it would diminish the sound quality of all the streams significantly.  Haven't a few stations experimented with 3-stream multicasting?

>
> > Maybe they should have polled people who know what
> > multicasts are.
>
> No, I think it is far better to find out what the average
> radio listener thinks the easiest identification is than to
> poll a bunch of technogeek purists.
>
> > I'd say 100.7-A through 100.7-Z should be sufficient for a
>
> > long time.
>
> And I, who both know the technology and understand how
> listeners think, would say "120.7" is perfectly adequate and
> user-friendly.
>
I would think that using the even frequencies following the odd ones (as in 100.7-2 being displayed as 100.8, 88.1-2 as 88.2, etc.) would be even more user friendly since both streams of a single station would be next to one another, rather than requiring the user to scan through all the primary streams in order to get to the secondary streams.

[Nick]

Most people I know think that frequencies are "channels" or "numbers".  It sounds weird to me, such as when someone asked me what number my station is, and I think twice, until I realize he was asking for the frequency, and then I say that the *frequency* is 107.9 megahertz.

Imagine trying to explain how to find a secondary IBOC multicast channel.

Maybe if FM radio was presented as channels to the listeners instead of frequencies, it would be easier.  In fact, the FM band is officially numbered by the FCC with channels numbered 201-300.  I do find it more natural to say "you're listening to 107.9 FM" instead of "you're listening to Channel 300".

______________
17-year-old radio geek
Location: Princeton Junction, NJ
AIM: KewlDude471
WWPH 107.9 FM: http://wwph1079fm.no-ip.org

[Rocco]

Finally!  A company that is taking a thoughtful approach to implementation of advanced radio technology, and not jumping on board some knee-jerk, half-assed bandwagon whose approach could someday come back to haunt.

[Scott Fybush]

> Imagine trying to explain how to find a secondary IBOC
> multicast channel.

Under the Cox approach, there's nothing to it: "You tune to 109.5." Your radio doesn't go up that high? You need to get one of the new ones that does.

What's complicated about that? The fact that "109.5" isn't actually transmitting at 109.5 MHz is of no more importance than the fact that when my DTV box is tuned to "channel 13," it's not actually tuned to RF channel 13.

Like it or not, this is the era we're entering.

(Oh, and KM? There are indeed several broadcasters experimenting with more than two HD subchannels. There are a number of ways to slice up the 96 kbps stream that HD FM provides, and while they may not sound great, some broadcasters are - even at this very moment - playing with HD-3 and beyond. I believe Seattle's in the forefront on that. We just got our very first HD-2 here in Rochester last month.)

______________
Tower Site Calendar 2006 JUST RELEASED! - www.fybush.com

[KMRichards]

> (Oh, and KM? There are indeed several broadcasters
> experimenting with more than two HD subchannels. There are a
> number of ways to slice up the 96 kbps stream that HD FM
> provides, and while they may not sound great, some
> broadcasters are - even at this very moment - playing with
> HD-3 and beyond. I believe Seattle's in the forefront on
> that. We just got our very first HD-2 here in Rochester last
> month.)

Not having a HD radio myself, I have to operate on what I am told by others in terms of how receivers work.  What I have been told thus far is that the radios are only set up for analog plus two digital channels per FM broadcast frequency.  If, in light of the above, there are radios that have the capability of a third digital channel, please clue me (and the rest of the board) in.

It would seem to me that, if there is going to be a remapping scheme for HD radio's "non-primary" streams, the industry is going to have to agree on how many streams per frequency are going to be the standard.  And if -- as you say above -- going higher than two streams degrades the audio quality, we may be better off sticking with two.

______________