HD Radio

[jamesinclair]

I bought a home unit for my mom.

 

The best part is that most HD-2 stations dont have ads.

 

So she can listen to 2-3 stations with 24/7 music and a better selection than the FM channels.

 

The problem is that because its digital, it is very hard to optimize antenna placement. With a regular radio, you move the antenna around and can tell if it gets better or worse. You cant do that with HD, you have to move, scan, move, scan...

[lou99/maximus1987]

I bought a home unit for my mom.

 

The best part is that most HD-2 stations dont have ads.

 

So she can listen to 2-3 stations with 24/7 music and a better selection than the FM channels.

 

The problem is that because its digital, it is very hard to optimize antenna placement. With a regular radio, you move the antenna around and can tell if it gets better or worse. You cant do that with HD, you have to move, scan, move, scan...

How much?

On hd radio.com they are $50 to $4k

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[miguell2]

Its a hit and miss as far as reception goes. HD Radio actually stands for Hybrid Digital, so don't let the "HD" fool you. Hybrid Digital only has the bandwidth to have one CD quality stream, so when a station multicasts an HD1 and HD2 channel, the quality degrades to slightly better than FM.

 

Most major cities have FM radio stations broadcasting HD but because of the low availability of HD radios, most engineers don't bother to maintain their HD streams properly. For example in Houston, KBXX and KMJQ's HD main channels actually sound worse than their stereo analog counterparts. Also, KROI-FM spent an entire week once with a dead feed coming out of their HD carrier. Another big problem is engineers do not properly sync the audio from their analog feeds to their digital feeds. HD Radio by default delays the digital audio by (I think) 7.5 seconds, so engineers have to purposely delay their analog feed in order to have a radio sync smoothly from analog-to-HD (and vice versa). This leads to many stations suffering from audio lag when a receiver is in the fringe area of HD Radio coverage. Overall, nice concept when inside the -70 dBu contour of an FM radio station, but crap when outside of it.

 

As far as AM HD Radio, not many stations adopted it nationwide, and those that did turned it off soon after due to the main analog channel suffering from interference.

 

In all honesty, the only reason most companies are using HD Radio now is to skip through FCC loop holes. Since most companies have a limit of the # of stations they can own in every market, many of them are buying small translators and using the HD2 channel as the parent station in order to have more stations. One example is the Austin radio market. Most of the local translators rebroadcast a local HD subchannel rather than an actual FM station. This has resulted in Austin gaining 5 extra commercial FM radio stations.

 

 

Its slimy, but legal.

The delay used to be a problem back in the early days but the newer equipment makes the sync a whole lot easier. All stations that buy in to HD have to provide at least similar quality on the HD stream as their Analog stream by FCC mandate or face fines. The reception is purely based on the quality of the receiver. I bought one of the better (as far a sensitivity goes) in 2010 and I have few issues within 40 miles of the transmitting antenna which is somewhere in DC.

 

The quality is definitely improved when listening to music, definitely higher quality than satellite radio.

[miguell2]

Xm/Sirius is a pretty good alternative. The only time I bought subscriptions from them was when I would make a road trip throughout the U.S. or Mexico. Believe it or not, they can be heard all the way deep as Central Mexico (and maybe even farther south...didn't drive down that far to find out).

 

My problem with XM is that, just like traditional AM/FM radio, its only a one-way mean of communication. As customers, we are only receivers and have no say in the music selection.

 

But with internet, all of that changes. Of course, no company has a robust nationwide data network or spectrum to handle a full listener transition from FM/AM/XM radios to internet radios, but one can only hope that with technological advancements, we can get close to it.

SiriusXM Coverage

 

[WillM]

The one issue with HD I have in my area is it that you seem to have to be a lot closer, especially to be able to get the secondary channels. Could be the radios I've used but all the ones I've tried so far seem to struggle. I do live in an area of NJ where I am closer to the NY market but I often get better reception from the Philly stations so I'm probably on the extreme edge of coverage. 

[lou99/maximus1987]

The one issue with HD I have in my area is it that you seem to have to be a lot closer, especially to be able to get the secondary channels. Could be the radios I've used but all the ones I've tried so far seem to struggle. I do live in an area of NJ where I am closer to the NY market but I often get better reception from the Philly stations so I'm probably on the extreme edge of coverage.

The power of digital signal is greatly reduced compared to analog.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[joshnys8913]

MY biggest beef with HD radio is the coverage is not like the standard FM or AM signal, its a 10th of the signal (even with the 50K WATT stations), at least with CC (Confirmed in my area with the radio stations near me). Just like TV (even though TV is set up differently) its either there or its not, so if your near a metro and driving around great, if not it cuts in and out and can be annoying. Also if the radio station engineer sets up the station right MOST stations HD wont lag, if you hear a lag they didnt set it up right with timing. 

[joshnys8913]

The delay used to be a problem back in the early days but the newer equipment makes the sync a whole lot easier. All stations that buy in to HD have to provide at least similar quality on the HD stream as their Analog stream by FCC mandate or face fines. The reception is purely based on the quality of the receiver. I bought one of the better (as far a sensitivity goes) in 2010 and I have few issues within 40 miles of the transmitting antenna which is somewhere in DC.

 

The quality is definitely improved when listening to music, definitely higher quality than satellite radio.

Yes I agree you need a good sensitive receiver, and about 40 miles is pushing it your right. I think I got mine back in 2010 too, and get the best one you could get at that time, but I am sure they got better ones out by now, but I still like mine and I still listen to the sub channels from time to time for a change of music.

[greenbastard]

The power of digital signal is greatly reduced compared to analog.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You also have to factor in that HD Radio uses less power than that of its main analog feed. HD Radio was only allowed to use the ERP equivalent of 1% to the total effective radiated power the analog station was licensed. That meant that full Class C, 100 KW stations only broadcasted HD with 1,000 watts. I don't care how tall their antenna mast was, you're just not going to cover the ~50 miles a full class C station does with a measly little 1 KW.

 

Last I checked into HD Radio (which was a while back), the FCC was allowing testing on the use of 10% of ERP, but interference may have killed that proposal quickly.

[greenbastard]

The delay used to be a problem back in the early days but the newer equipment makes the sync a whole lot easier. All stations that buy in to HD have to provide at least similar quality on the HD stream as their Analog stream by FCC mandate or face fines. The reception is purely based on the quality of the receiver. I bought one of the better (as far a sensitivity goes) in 2010 and I have few issues within 40 miles of the transmitting antenna which is somewhere in DC.

 

The quality is definitely improved when listening to music, definitely higher quality than satellite radio.

The FCC office doesn't have the man power to mandate and enforce all of their rules. In Houston alone, there are 2 pirate radio stations that I know of which have been running for a very long time in the FM dial.

 

If they can't nip 2 little pirates, what makes you think the field officers are going to check into the sound quality of an HD main channel? And sync problems are still there believe it or not. Not every station has the budget to replace 1st generation HD Radio equipment, so the problems will continue since its not a priority.

[Trip]

I live in an area that has no good local AM or FM stations, a permanent subscription was the best choice for my sanity.

 

In the DC area, the radio is really awful (though WIYY in Baltimore has gotten a LOT better lately).  Whenever I go to the beach, I spend the entire time on WZBH in Georgetown, quite possibly one of my favorite radio stations anywhere.  I'm really hoping the new ownership doesn't ruin it.

 

Regarding "HD Radio," transitioning over to it full time would probably accomplish nothing except killing off radio for good.  It works poorly and doesn't live up to any of its promises, really.  The "HD Radio" name originally didn't mean anything; they came up with it to ride on the hype of HDTV.  (Only later did people figure out it could mean "Hybrid Digital.")  It was called "IBOC" before then, meaning "In Band On Channel" but in reality, it was more like "In Band Adjacent Channel."  For a station on 107.7, for example, the analog signal consumes roughly 200 kHz from 107.6 to 107.8.  The HD sidebands each eat another 200 kHz from 107.5 to 107.6 and from 107.8 to 107.9, meaning that if you have an adjacent channel FM, that station gets stepped on.  (In the DC area, there are quite a few of these.) 

 

In the event the analog is turned off, the IBOC spec essentially calls for the now-freed 200 kHz in the middle to become a secondary and much weaker expansion of the digital signal.  As best I can tell, the IBOC spec contains no way to take what are currently the two 100 kHz sidebands and turn them into a single 200 kHz carrier in the middle of the channel if the analog was killed off.

 

Ibiquity claimed the system would operate successfully at -20dBc (1% of analog), but in practice, that turned out to be way too weak.  They sought a power increase to -10 dBc (10% of analog) but that would have caused so much interference that the FCC only granted a power increase to -14 dBc (4% of analog) with a complex waiver process to go up to -10 dBc.  Of course, it means that they will have to rebuild and install new transmitters and other gear to make it happen--practically starting over from scratch to get that relatively small increase in power.

 

On top of all that, the delay on the transmit side is a huge issue.  One of the few places where radio seems to continue to be in decent shape is with sports broadcasts.  Well, if you're broadcasting live sports in-market, you have to turn the IBOC off because the delay is so bad that in a baseball game, by the time you heard the audio of the ball being hit on the radio, the play would be over.  A lot of people bring radios to sporting events to listen to the live broadcast while it's going on, and because you have to delay the analog audio to match the delay of the IBOC, you have to turn the IBOC off and kill the delay if you want it to be usable in that case. 

 

Can you tell I don't like it much?

 

- Trip

[lou99/maximus1987]

In the DC area, the radio is really awful (though WIYY in Baltimore has gotten a LOT better lately). Whenever I go to the beach, I spend the entire time on WZBH in Georgetown, quite possibly one of my favorite radio stations anywhere. I'm really hoping the new ownership doesn't ruin it.

 

Regarding "HD Radio," transitioning over to it full time would probably accomplish nothing except killing off radio for good. It works poorly and doesn't live up to any of its promises, really. The "HD Radio" name originally didn't mean anything; they came up with it to ride on the hype of HDTV. (Only later did people figure out it could mean "Hybrid Digital.") It was called "IBOC" before then, meaning "In Band On Channel" but in reality, it was more like "In Band Adjacent Channel." For a station on 107.7, for example, the analog signal consumes roughly 200 kHz from 107.6 to 107.8. The HD sidebands each eat another 200 kHz from 107.5 to 107.6 and from 107.8 to 107.9, meaning that if you have an adjacent channel FM, that station gets stepped on. (In the DC area, there are quite a few of these.)

 

In the event the analog is turned off, the IBOC spec essentially calls for the now-freed 200 kHz in the middle to become a secondary and much weaker expansion of the digital signal. As best I can tell, the IBOC spec contains no way to take what are currently the two 100 kHz sidebands and turn them into a single 200 kHz carrier in the middle of the channel if the analog was killed off.

 

Ibiquity claimed the system would operate successfully at -20dBc (1% of analog), but in practice, that turned out to be way too weak. They sought a power increase to -10 dBc (10% of analog) but that would have caused so much interference that the FCC only granted a power increase to -14 dBc (4% of analog) with a complex waiver process to go up to -10 dBc. Of course, it means that they will have to rebuild and install new transmitters and other gear to make it happen--practically starting over from scratch to get that relatively small increase in power.

 

On top of all that, the delay on the transmit side is a huge issue. One of the few places where radio seems to continue to be in decent shape is with sports broadcasts. Well, if you're broadcasting live sports in-market, you have to turn the IBOC off because the delay is so bad that in a baseball game, by the time you heard the audio of the ball being hit on the radio, the play would be over. A lot of people bring radios to sporting events to listen to the live broadcast while it's going on, and because you have to delay the analog audio to match the delay of the IBOC, you have to turn the IBOC off and kill the delay if you want it to be usable in that case.

 

Can you tell I don't like it much?

 

- Trip

Was this the best solution technically?

Why not use DAB, same as euros?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Trip]

Was this the best solution technically?

Why not use DAB, same as euros?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Depends on what problem you're trying to solve.  US radio stations liked IBOC because they held the patents and it prevented new competitors from being licensed.  DAB needed new frequencies.  Most of Europe cleared what is the upper-VHF TV band in the US (174-216 MHz) in going color or going digital, and so they used that frequency for digital radio.  In Canada, they used L-band which is reserved in the US for military uses and is of such a high frequency that in many of the rough terrain parts of the country it wouldn't work very well.

 

I haven't seen it first-hand, but everything I've read is that FMeXtra was probably the best option.  To heavily simplify, you'd basically replace the stereo part of an FM transmission with a digital carrier, so there would be no adjacent sidebands.  You'd give up the stereo in favor of mono on the analog side but have digital audio essentially anywhere you currently have stereo with similar throughput to IBOC.

 

On AM, which I forgot to mention earlier, IBOC basically just narrows the FM version and slaps it on the sides of the AM signal.  It works about as poorly as you might expect.  But unlike IBOC on FM, the bleed over is a lot worse, usually taking up two or three adjacent frequencies on each side, ruining the band at night.  They're talking about going all-digital on AM to try to help revitalize the band.  Of course, if you're going to do that, you might as well use DRM, which is used on shortwave with supposedly great results.  I have not seen DRM first-hand either, though I would definitely like to.

 

- Trip

[cdk]

In the DC area, the radio is really awful (though WIYY in Baltimore has gotten a LOT better lately).  Whenever I go to the beach, I spend the entire time on WZBH in Georgetown, quite possibly one of my favorite radio stations anywhere.  I'm really hoping the new ownership doesn't ruin it.

 

Ah, 93.5 The Beach.The Worst Show Ever.

 

I am just about out of range where I am at. Haven't been down there recently (and it would probably need to be in a work vehicle). Can't speak for D.C or Baltimore as I don't spend enough time there, but Philly has a few stations that are worth listening too. Again I am just about too far here to pick them up.

 

 

Can you tell I don't like it much?

 

- Trip

 

Even though the technical side is a bit foreign to me I did pick up on that. Even if that works though it still comes down to programming.

[greenbastard]

Ah, 93.5 The Beach.The Worst Show Ever.

 

I am just about out of range where I am at. Haven't been down there recently (and it would probably need to be in a work vehicle). Can't speak for D.C or Baltimore as I don't spend enough time there, but Philly has a few stations that are worth listening too. Again I am just about too far here to pick them up.

 

 

 

Even though the technical side is a bit foreign to me I did pick up on that. Even if that works though it still comes down to programming.

If a well programmed radio station is broadcasted in HD and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

 

HD Radio's real usefulness has come in the form of skipping through FCC loopholes and making FM Translators into full fledged radio stations (weaker, but still listenable in mid size markets). FM translators, by law, cannot produce original content and need a parent station feeding audio into it (different rules for commercials vs noncommercial, but the main point being it cannot have original programming). Since the FCC ruled that an HD subcarrier can be the parent station of an FM Translator, many companies have gotten creative in using this loophole to launch new stations that can be heard without an HD Radio. For example, KTTX 104.9-HD2 can also be heard in analog at 106.5 blaring christian music and KTTX 104.9-HD3 can be heard in analog at 97.1 blasting regional mexican music. Both repeaters are licensed at 250 watts, but since they sit atop a hill in Austin's tallest radio tower, they cover a good chunk of real estate. How too??? So good, that both translators travel farther out than KTTX 104.9's analog signal...ain't that something?!?

 

Both repeaters are pretty successful and show modest ratings on Arbitron's PPM. So in essence, the owner of KTTX took one single license and turned it into 3 radio stations after purchasing 2 translators for a fraction of the price of a licensed radio station.

 

Smart, but slimy.

[miguell2]

iHeartMedia is trying to be more Spotify like with thier streaming app so they will likely remain competitive for the next 5-10 years.

 

What is everyone's thoughts on XM - I love the channel variety but the sound quality is no good. Going from FM to XM I have to turn up the volume by 10 just to hear the music. I had read that XM compresses thier bit rate whenever there is a lot of congestion...but no matter what time of day I think it sounds muffled...like listening to a 28kpbs sound file downloaded off Napster.

SiriusXM is actually from 64kbps to 128kbps AAC encoded. The quality issue might be related to your receiver. The best way to connect an external receiver is to use an AUX cable. FM modulator is just FM quality.

[miguell2]

The FCC office doesn't have the man power to mandate and enforce all of their rules. In Houston alone, there are 2 pirate radio stations that I know of which have been running for a very long time in the FM dial.

 

If they can't nip 2 little pirates, what makes you think the field officers are going to check into the sound quality of an HD main channel? And sync problems are still there believe it or not. Not every station has the budget to replace 1st generation HD Radio equipment, so the problems will continue since its not a priority.

You have a recourse, call the radio station to complain, they usually will fix it, if they don't a call or letter to the FCC can do the trick. It does take time but it does get addressed.

[lou99/maximus1987]

iHeartMedia is trying to be more Spotify like with thier streaming app so they will likely remain competitive for the next 5-10 years.

 

What is everyone's thoughts on XM - I love the channel variety but the sound quality is no good. Going from FM to XM I have to turn up the volume by 10 just to hear the music. I had read that XM compresses thier bit rate whenever there is a lot of congestion...but no matter what time of day I think it sounds muffled...like listening to a 28kpbs sound file downloaded off Napster.

Your congestion statement makes no sense.

Radio is broadcast not unicast. Having more receivers tune in doesn't necessitate using more compression.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[miguell2]

In the DC area, the radio is really awful (though WIYY in Baltimore has gotten a LOT better lately).  Whenever I go to the beach, I spend the entire time on WZBH in Georgetown, quite possibly one of my favorite radio stations anywhere.  I'm really hoping the new ownership doesn't ruin it.

 

Regarding "HD Radio," transitioning over to it full time would probably accomplish nothing except killing off radio for good.  It works poorly and doesn't live up to any of its promises, really.  The "HD Radio" name originally didn't mean anything; they came up with it to ride on the hype of HDTV.  (Only later did people figure out it could mean "Hybrid Digital.")  It was called "IBOC" before then, meaning "In Band On Channel" but in reality, it was more like "In Band Adjacent Channel."  For a station on 107.7, for example, the analog signal consumes roughly 200 kHz from 107.6 to 107.8.  The HD sidebands each eat another 200 kHz from 107.5 to 107.6 and from 107.8 to 107.9, meaning that if you have an adjacent channel FM, that station gets stepped on.  (In the DC area, there are quite a few of these.) 

 

In the event the analog is turned off, the IBOC spec essentially calls for the now-freed 200 kHz in the middle to become a secondary and much weaker expansion of the digital signal.  As best I can tell, the IBOC spec contains no way to take what are currently the two 100 kHz sidebands and turn them into a single 200 kHz carrier in the middle of the channel if the analog was killed off.

 

Ibiquity claimed the system would operate successfully at -20dBc (1% of analog), but in practice, that turned out to be way too weak.  They sought a power increase to -10 dBc (10% of analog) but that would have caused so much interference that the FCC only granted a power increase to -14 dBc (4% of analog) with a complex waiver process to go up to -10 dBc.  Of course, it means that they will have to rebuild and install new transmitters and other gear to make it happen--practically starting over from scratch to get that relatively small increase in power.

 

On top of all that, the delay on the transmit side is a huge issue.  One of the few places where radio seems to continue to be in decent shape is with sports broadcasts.  Well, if you're broadcasting live sports in-market, you have to turn the IBOC off because the delay is so bad that in a baseball game, by the time you heard the audio of the ball being hit on the radio, the play would be over.  A lot of people bring radios to sporting events to listen to the live broadcast while it's going on, and because you have to delay the analog audio to match the delay of the IBOC, you have to turn the IBOC off and kill the delay if you want it to be usable in that case. 

 

Can you tell I don't like it much?

 

- Trip

I haven't experience bleeding, can give a station suffering from interference in DC?

[Trip]

I haven't experience bleeding, can give a station suffering from interference in DC?

 

In DC, with a good receiver, WWMX 106.5 in Baltimore should be receivable.  When WJFK turns off the IBOC for a sports game, it can be heard very clearly.  As soon as WJFK turns the IBOC back on, WWMX gets crushed under the noise.

 

Similarly, see WWWT on 107.7 and WLZL on 107.9, who in my neck of the woods anyway, have a nice battle over which one is usable on any given day (not that I listen to either one).

 

- Trip

[greenbastard]

In DC, with a good receiver, WWMX 106.5 in Baltimore should be receivable. When WJFK turns off the IBOC for a sports game, it can be heard very clearly. As soon as WJFK turns the IBOC back on, WWMX gets crushed under the noise.

 

Similarly, see WWWT on 107.7 and WLZL on 107.9, who in my neck of the woods anyway, have a nice battle over which one is usable on any given day (not that I listen to either one).

 

- Trip

Good old digital sideband bleeeover.

 

 

For many in the DX'ing hobby community, IBOC is their biggest enemy. In the days before IBOC, you could sometimes hear stations from as far as Mexico in Houston and Austin (under the right tropo conditions of course). Unfortunately, IBOC has killed that. Not even the best tuners can get rid of the digit noise heard on the adjacent channels of an HD station.

 

Even in major markets IBOC causes havoc. HD has killed off San Antonio's KXTN 107.5 chances of penetrating into the Austin market. In the days before HD, KXTN-FM used to show up in Austin's ratings in every cycle. But once 107.7 in Georgetown turned on IBOC, KXTN fell out of the ratings and can no longer be heard like it once used to. The funny part is that both 107.7 in Austin and 107.5 in San Antonio are owned by the same parent company.

[dedub]

I loved HDRadio when I had my Kia, it sounded much better than the regular FM station, and several of the extra channels in my area played better music with less or no commercials, so it was all win.

 

I thought the HD sounded even slightly better than xm with the same car/radio/speakers, and it still worked while going under bridges/garages.

 

That said, I agree with others that the signal range is less than the regular FM so it's possible depending on the station and your location to be in an area where the HD switches on/off, annoyingly.

 

I was pissed to learn too late that my current car, while better in most ways, lacked HD radio (and backup camera, ugh). I test drove with the radio off and just assumed falsely that all new cars with xm included HD radio.

 

IMO, if you spend a lot of time in the car and like good audio, you will want to make sure that any new car you buy has HD Radio. I know that any future cars I buy, it will be a mandatory feature for me.

[lou99/maximus1987]

I loved HDRadio when I had my Kia, it sounded much better than the regular FM station, and several of the extra channels in my area played better music with less or no commercials, so it was all win.

 

I thought the HD sounded even slightly better than xm with the same car/radio/speakers, and it still worked while going under bridges/garages.

 

That said, I agree with others that the signal range is less than the regular FM so it's possible depending on the station and your location to be in an area where the HD switches on/off, annoyingly.

 

I was pissed to learn too late that my current car, while better in most ways, lacked HD radio (and backup camera, ugh). I test drove with the radio off and just assumed falsely that all new cars with xm included HD radio.

 

IMO, if you spend a lot of time in the car and like good audio, you will want to make sure that any new car you buy has HD Radio. I know that any future cars I buy, it will be a mandatory feature for me.

 

Why not just get one from Car Tunes, etc?

[dedub]

Well,

 

1) I don't plan to keep this car long enough to spend money on a new head unit, which would be even more expensive because of:

2) the factory radio has everything except hdradio/backupcam and is integrated into the car dash display between the speedo/tach, for navigation/phone etc. I would have to get a top end head unit along with the extra accessories to integrate and keep the same features.

3) I suppose I could get an external add on tuner, but it would be unsightly and non-integrated (see #2) and there is no external input anyway.

4) If I'm not listening to xm, I'm usually streaming google music unlimited over bluetooth.

 

so, basically I screwed myself by assuming a newer more expensive car would have the same or better features as my older kia.

[jamesinclair]

How much?

On hd radio.com they are $50 to $4k

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I bought this unit

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/insignia-hd-radio-tabletop-radio-black/4635744.p?id=1218505477073

 

The speakers are crap, so I bought a standalone speaker set for it, and together it sounds fantastic.

 

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0027VT6V4/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o02_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

 

 

Reception is fine. It actually comes with two antennas, the attached rod, and a string version that actually works better.

 

 

Also, almost no cars come with HD Radio standard. You need to get the super expensive version of the line for them to make it standard. Its ridiculous