HD radio Doomed for Failure?

Juan

Thread Starter
Supporting Founder
Supporting Founder
Sep 14, 2003
29,604
7,389
Moscow Russia
http://www.audiographics.com/agd/061206-1.htm

So what will be the appeal of HD? The answer is the additional programming channels on the HD2 and HD3 channels. However, there is a serious flaw. We were told back in the beginning that the HD coverage would be equal to the analog signal. Unfortunately, the industry is now finding out this is not the case, that the HD coverage is considerably less, something like 60% of the analog coverage. We've also found that even in a strong HD signal area, a dipole antenna is required.
 

VinceT3

SatelliteGuys Pro
Jun 12, 2006
2,101
5
Rainsalot Florida
I've been enjoying my HD radio at home. I flip between different substations everything is fine other than the odd choices they have for the substations.

One spanish station has oldies on the second channel, the country station fixed theirs so they have current, old, and weather on theirs.

Other than that I can't complain.
 

philhu

Supporting Founder
Supporting Founder
Sep 1, 2004
1,215
0
Cold Boston Area
The problem with radio is that most radio is listened to in a car. With a digital signal, it is all or nothing. No static, no stuff like that.

When you are driving, digital channels come and go. Even inside a city as you go between buildings. Analog is much more forgiving, and the same dead spot with cause a static burst or loss of volume or whatever but not downright loss of signal.

I think HD radio is a cool idea, but cannot see how it will make it.
 

charper1

Bourbon Tester
Supporting Founder
May 18, 2004
18,442
6
I'm Nationwide
The HD Radio itself may live on as long as the stations change their approach to how they dis-serve their listeners. Its the same exact problem they have now. OR if the companies that support it find some way to subsidise (give away) new receivers to promo the switch/upgrade. I would never drop more than $50 into a new terrestrial radio just to hear the same old crap better.
 
Last edited:

HDTVFanAtic

SatelliteGuys Pro
May 23, 2005
1,973
0
juan said:
http://www.audiographics.com/agd/061206-1.htm

So what will be the appeal of HD? The answer is the additional programming channels on the HD2 and HD3 channels. However, there is a serious flaw. We were told back in the beginning that the HD coverage would be equal to the analog signal. Unfortunately, the industry is now finding out this is not the case, that the HD coverage is considerably less, something like 60% of the analog coverage. We've also found that even in a strong HD signal area, a dipole antenna is required.


I have no idea who told them the HD Coverage would mirror the analog coverage (but then again, he probably got it from a well informed poster on the internet....that we see daily.... obviously they were clueless.)

I can state with without question right now being able to tune IBOC outside of the 70dbu isn't happening.

That's the reason for fallback to analog.

philhu said:
The problem with radio is that most radio is listened to in a car. With a digital signal, it is all or nothing. No static, no stuff like that.

When you are driving, digital channels come and go. Even inside a city as you go between buildings. Analog is much more forgiving, and the same dead spot with cause a static burst or loss of volume or whatever but not downright loss of signal.

I think HD radio is a cool idea, but cannot see how it will make it.


Again, that's why it blends back to analog when it looses the HD Signal.


vurbano said:
It will be much shorter lived than that.

Actually, this will be an idea who makes it and is forced upon the consumer whether its right or not....and considering the idiots running the plan now that have ignored the research, its got a long road ahead of it.
 
Last edited:

koolaide4321

Member
Jun 14, 2006
8
0
hd and analog synch

the hd signal benefits can only be a supplement with limited reception. It works fine for the station to come in out of digital....if the two streams are synched. Unfortunately many stations are still working on this issue. Stationary listening is the only way to truly get all the benefits right now.
 

HDTVFanAtic

SatelliteGuys Pro
May 23, 2005
1,973
0
koolaide4321 said:
the hd signal benefits can only be a supplement with limited reception. It works fine for the station to come in out of digital....if the two streams are synched. Unfortunately many stations are still working on this issue. Stationary listening is the only way to truly get all the benefits right now.

Interesting.....it takes all of about 30 minutes to get the 2 streams synched.

A lot of clueless Engineers out there.
 

dlsnyder

SatelliteGuys Pro
Sep 8, 2003
1,825
3
Moreno Valley, CA
I am hopeful that technological advances in HD Radio receivers over time will improve the reception range, much like what happened for 8VSB TV tuners. For now it seems that satellite radio is still the best way to get digital broadcasting into cars.

I bought one of the first Kenwood car stereos that was compatible with their HD Radio tuner module, intending to buy one when they became available. When I saw how much that tuner cost and how little HD Radio content there was out there I gave up on that idea. With all of the negative comments I am sure I made the right decision for now. I am sure that HD Radio will get better in the not-too-distant future though.
 

philhu

Supporting Founder
Supporting Founder
Sep 1, 2004
1,215
0
Cold Boston Area
HDTVFanAtic said:
That's the reason for fallback to analog.

Again, that's why it blends back to analog when it looses the HD Signal.

What if you are listening to HD2 or HD3 streams? There is no fallback in that case.
 
Last edited:

vurbano

On Double Secret Probation
Supporting Founder
Apr 1, 2004
23,813
104
Newport News, VA
koolaide4321 said:
the hd signal benefits can only be a supplement with limited reception. It works fine for the station to come in out of digital....if the two streams are synched. Unfortunately many stations are still working on this issue. Stationary listening is the only way to truly get all the benefits right now.
The idea that the two have to be synched for a fall back plan when the HD signal fails, because it will fail should be enough for consumers to run from this.Are you looking forward to driving around and hearing a song go low quality, high, low, high,low? I bet consumers are just itching to pay for new recievers for that bullsh$t. :rolleyes:
 

philhu

Supporting Founder
Supporting Founder
Sep 1, 2004
1,215
0
Cold Boston Area
HDTVFanAtic said:
100% correct. Although there is a 5 second buffer.

How do they do a 5-second buffer?

Does that mean you wait 5 seconds to hear anything when tuning a new hd channel? So it can load the buffer?

And what happens if you are in a city at a light or something in a dead zone for a few minutes.

No, this is too iffy for me. I have xm and sirius (Long story, car has sirius, my garmin has xm). And even they have blackouts under trees, leaves, in cities, tunnels etc. Some places have terrestrial digital broadcasts, but still, the blackouts are annoying.
 

HDTVFanAtic

SatelliteGuys Pro
May 23, 2005
1,973
0
vurbano said:
The idea that the two have to be synched for a fall back plan when the HD signal fails, because it will fail should be enough for consumers to run from this.Are you looking forward to driving around and hearing a song go low quality, high, low, high,low? I bet consumers are just itching to pay for new recievers for that bullsh$t. :rolleyes:

Recievers are in the $300 range - just like satellite radio when it came out - or HDTV for that matter. First Generation always costs more.

Quite frankly, the whole HD Radio thing to me was major BS in terms of sound quality as most are used to hearing road noise in a car - or audio through computer speakers - and have no idea what true quality is.

Bottom line, those who said Satellite Sounded better in most cases voted for OTA FM in blind listening tests when push came to shove. It's all marketing BS and most really cannot hear it switch between Analog and Digital. It's not like AM - where its a jaw dropping experience. And if you want to say that means its not that much better, again, look at the blind testing. Given the high end squeal of Satellite Radio that will send your dog, wife and teenagers howling, people mistakenly equate that with clarity in the very beginning.

And again, both signals are delayed 5 seconds and coded over set time base. It's very easy for both to remain in synch if the engineers at the local station have any competence to them.
 
Last edited:

HDTVFanAtic

SatelliteGuys Pro
May 23, 2005
1,973
0
philhu said:
How do they do a 5-second buffer?

Does that mean you wait 5 seconds to hear anything when tuning a new hd channel? So it can load the buffer?

And what happens if you are in a city at a light or something in a dead zone for a few minutes.

No, this is too iffy for me. I have xm and sirius (Long story, car has sirius, my garmin has xm). And even they have blackouts under trees, leaves, in cities, tunnels etc. Some places have terrestrial digital broadcasts, but still, the blackouts are annoying.


When you tune to a station, it buffers for 5 seconds - you get the analog audio instantly and then it "blends" to the HD Signal. Again, most people don't notice it - unless its the AM blend which is jaw dropping.

Quite frankly, I'd be comfortable without it - for reasons already stated, but its here and its here for good because of the 15 PR firms used by XM and Sirius to make people think that satellite radio sounded so much better - when in fact it sounds tinny so people think "wow its clean". Yes, its clean because you have no depth...but I digress.

If you can get the main channel in analog, the blend will work flawlessly and even on the best systems, most likely the road noise would cover up and sudden blend of the two.

Satellite radio is doing it all the time.

In all honesty, Satellite Radio really doesn't work. It's very good marketing. What you hear 90% of the time is the local repeater. Get into areas without the local repeater and you will find out how full of holes Satellite Radio really is.

It really doesn't work with the ground based repeaters and the abilitity to blend.
 

Trainnut

SatelliteGuys Family
Oct 14, 2005
86
0
HDTVFanAtic said:
In all honesty, Satellite Radio really doesn't work. It's very good marketing. What you hear 90% of the time is the local repeater. Get into areas without the local repeater and you will find out how full of holes Satellite Radio really is.

It really doesn't work with the ground based repeaters and the abilitity to blend.

WHAT?????? I drive some of the loneliest stretches of road in NW Pennsylvania where there is no radio or cellular coverage at all. The only thing that keeps me awake is my satellite radio. And without any radio/cell coverage XM hasn't put any local repeaters along US Route 6 in God's country.
 

mdovell

SatelliteGuys Pro
Jul 8, 2005
226
0
It's hard to really say how it can work in the long term.....for me there's still some good radio out there but it depends on where you are. College radio on fm (usually low power) plays far more independent music and is pretty good (granted the area is far smaller). AM I listen to higher power stations at night...hd am radio I hear is far better but I don't know if it's really worth it for the most part simply to hear usually talk stations....
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)

Latest posts

Top