HD Radio Faces Rocky Road
     
print  rss 


It seems the radio industry had its share of mistakes and gaffes along the way. The indecisiveness with AM stereo back in the ’80s was one of the more notable episodes. Broadcasting’s latest dilemma, HD Radio, is a case of too little, too late, and to paraphrase a line from the Mamas & the Papas, “The only one getting fat is iBiquity.”

As far as I’m concerned, the first major misstep is that the wrong people developed the standard that comprises the heart of the HD system.

Companies like Apple — whose Quicktime media technology has been an online standard for many years — Microsoft, Real Networks and even Adobe have noteworthy streaming technologies that could have been adapted for HD Radio. My guess is that any royalty charges from these companies would have been vastly more reasonable for the broadcaster if you consider that the development efforts for HD Radio would have more than likely coexisted alongside their efforts to maintain their online coding technologies.

Imagine the possibilities for broadcast radio with a standards-based, bandwidth-efficient and fidelity-rich streaming platform, one that would have worked equally as well for both terrestrial use and online transmission.

This could have had the potential to help control expenses for the broadcaster if the encoding hardware could be utilized for both online and over-the-air HD. While broadcasters may view the Internet as “evil competition,” this actually could have given the terrestrial broadcaster with advantage.

How about a new generation of receiver designed to capture tuner data for station’s data stream, allowing the receiver to switch automatically from an off-air signal to a net-based signal via any available WiMax connection if reception conditions warranted?

Confusion

I often have the opportunity to speak young people thanks to my role in educational-based computer support. I’ve learned about their preferred entertainment choices.

It appears students aren’t consciously aware of what HD Radio really is, and many prefer other forms of entertainment. Young people lean toward online radio and portable music players, be it an iPod-like device or a music-playing cell phone. It stands to reason that these consumers aren’t going to shell out great sums of money for HD Radio receivers, if they even bother to consider an aftermarket radio instead of the one that comes in their automobile.

From my observation, it appears that content wins out over fidelity with many of these young consumers. Of course, this is the generation I see watching “television” on cell phones and iPods, too.

Confusion regarding HD Radio exists not only with consumers but also in the retail sales environment. It’s still common to come across sales associates who don’t understand what HD Radio is. Some still think regular radio is HD radio.

(“They say it all the time, right?” was the comment from one salesperson, talking about a station’s top-of-the-hour identification, which mentioned HD. I debated whether to attempt to educate the sales associate but I left the retailer in disgust.)

The way HD Radio has been implemented by the broadcaster has contributed to the confusion among consumers. Here we are with technology that allows for greater fidelity, yet many broadcasters (including some in the public radio arena) are processing the daylights out of their HD-1 audio.

A common explanation was along the lines of not wanting the listener in the automobile to have abrupt changes when the radio goes in and out of HD. While this may make a certain amount of sense, it certainly is not going to induce the public to spend money for yet another radio, especially when the one they have operates and appears “perfectly fine” to them.

Trying to sell HD Radio to the masses with the counterargument that “we offer some excellent content on our secondary HD channels” isn’t going to be enough to induce sales either.

There are Internet-based audio streams that beat the likes of many HD secondary streams. These Internet streams have one big advantage: They offer content that the terrestrial broadcaster would never touch, for reasons ranging from the inability to attract sufficient advertising to the narrow “niche” appeal of specialty programming.

Even with low-bitrate streams, online niche programming enjoys a loyal following. I proved that myself for the seven years I operated a deep oldies format webstream via Live365.

From all appearances it seems that HD Radio faces a rocky road. Public acceptance continues to be slow. What appears to be fire sale pricing on licensing isn’t necessarily going to get those smaller station operators or those with marginal cash flow to jump in or continue operating in HD.

I wonder if HD Radio will indeed become this decade’s unaccepted technology, its AM stereo. No matter what your view is, I’m sure it’s an expense that stations are evaluating carefully in light of today’s economy.

The author is former chief engineer of WMMM(AM)WCFS(AM) in Westport, Conn., and Webmaster of the site History of Westport Connecticut Radio at ctradiohistory.org/wmmm.

print  rss 

Rating People: 1   Average Rating:     
Comment List:

Bill DeFelice - Digital Radio IS this decade’s unaccepted technology -as you so aptly stated. For good reason too. First, it's not anything consumers care about which has been demonstrated for eight years now. Number two - the IBiquity/Joint Parties business model is one of greed and force feeding, not to mention iBiquitys incessant need to misinform and stretch the numbers always in their favor. Let's be honest, they look pretty dumb at this point. Consumer are slowly "wising up" to the greed factor which is rampant these days. Glad you're getting honest. Feels good doesn't it.
By Steve L. PE on 6/30/2010
Greg is a idiot, if its too late. explain why more stations add HD Radio to thier signals EVERYDAY?
By Steve Griffin on 7/2/2010
Steve Griffin: I don't speak against HD radio. I personally would like to see more content and opportunity for teresstrial radio. That said, I would like to know where you claim "more stations add HD Radio to their signals EVERYDAY." Because I don't see it where I live! In fact, the opposite has occurred. Stations that were broadcasting HD (whether just the main analog feed or a second HD-2 channel, have been pulled). And yes.. I live in Buffalo, NY area where the market is small and the economy is tough going. Please speak with facts and details... not blanket vague statements like this. The more time goes by, the more I believe HD Radio's future becomes very bleak. The only promoters and aqdvertisers of it... is the company that is pushing it hard (maybe desperately) to succeed. Ibiquity. And that's too bad.
By Mike F on 7/3/2010
I'm the HD Radio Farce guy and proud to put my name on this piece. Sure feels good to have trashed the Internet with my blog, speaking the truth. Word is out, worldwide, and it's too late for iBiquity spin.
By Greg Smith on 6/30/2010
I too would have preferred an open standard, one with some streaming audio commonality. Now, as for HD Radio... Back in the dim, dinosaur-ridden days of late 50's broadcasting, FM was a minority sport, engaged-in by Daddy Warbucks early-adopters and techno-geeks at home, and Muzak (TM) lovers with SCA decoders. Programming was mostly "beautiful muzik" and (gasp) FM's simulcasting sister AM's. How to improve the numbers, make FM more competitive with the other options (AM radio broadcasting or phonograph discs bought in a store and played at home)? Well, programming of the day was pretty much the same AM or FM, and the possible receiver market for FM was limited to home equipment, as the technology of the day made FM in the car an expensive proposition indeed...and made AM-in-the-car mostly affordable with the empty-state-devices and transistors then available. Just the higher audio quality alone was not enough to tip the balance. What to do? Why, go STEREO, that's what! Stereo records had become available as a program source...so, many experiments later, the Zenith-GE consortium developed a method which we all know as multiplex stereo...relatively simple to add at the transmitter, relatively simple to implement in the receiver (a one-tube decoder with a 6AR8 was developed, as an example), compatible with the mono signal, minimal degradation to SNR...and a definite improvement over AM, not just better quality like FM mono, but two channels like stereo records! And, no license fees (other than maybe patent royalties for the encoders and decoders). But even with all these advantages, it took FM 15 more years before it reached the "tipping point" in the US, and that took a combination of new programming options (AOR format for one), and widespread adoption of FM receivers in the car...and that took the technological and manufacturing revolutions of the 70's to enable decent performing sets to be built at an affordable price. S
By Crusty Old TV Tech on 8/2/2010

Post your comment

Your Name: Required
Your Mail:    Email is used only to display Gravatar
Your Site:   
Comment Info:         

Posts are reviewed before publication, typically the next business morning. Radio World encourages multiple viewpoints, though a post will be blocked if it contains abusive language, or is repetitive or spam. Thank you for commenting!