High Definition FM. What's the story with that? [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : High Definition FM. What's the story with that?



markw
12-09-2005, 01:06 PM
One of my favorite stations is adopting this and I just heard about this?

http://www.wbgo.org/ontheair/HD.asp

Was I asleep or what? I see where it's available in car stereos and some "table" radio sets but 'm surprised I don't see any home audio receivers/tuners offering this. I don't think I've even read where they plan to.

Is this another answer to a question that nobody asked, like AM stereo was?

Personally, I'm curious about this. In my area there's quit a bit of action on hte FM band and if they can get away from compression and start using decent sources t hen I see that as a good thing.

Of course, if they kill off the FM band it'll be a moot point.

Woochifer
12-09-2005, 01:46 PM
HD Radio is relatively new, but a surprising number of radio stations have already begun their HD broadcasts. The Yamaha RX-V4600 I know has a HD radio tuner (which is somewhat odd because the newer RX-V1600/2600 only include XM satellite radio tuners), and I've already seen the Boston Acoustics HD Receptor table top radio as well.

HD radio has totally flown under the radar with all the publicity that satellite radio and HDTV have gotten. But, some OTA broadcasters see HD radio as their ace-in-the-hole because it's a step up in sound quality and signal reliability, and I think that the FCC is allowing radio station owners to simulcast multiple feeds on the HD radio channels. For example, if you have a favorite radio station, you could have several different streams to choose from when you tune into that station.

Obviously, the eventual goal with HD radio, as with HDTV, is to eventually free up the broadcast spectrum currently used by AM and FM. But, I doubt that will happen for a very long time. There are just too many radio tuners out there, and unlike with TV where the majority of them are already connected to satellite or cable, almost all radio listeners use over-the-air tuners. If anything, the net effect just might be to make broadcast radio more competitive with satellite by increasing the signal quality and allowing for more listening options.

markw
12-09-2005, 02:02 PM
Of course, for that to happen the hardwarde mfgs will have to embrace this technology and start releasing products that will support it. They seem to be pushing (gasp!) satellite radio. I wonder if/when we'll see mass market HDFM components start appearing in the bigboxco stores of the world.

Being from NYC, I would invest in a popularly priced tuner just to seee how it is. WBGO, a local PBS station, does quite a credible job with their analog signal. It's gonna have to be quite an improvement to make me prick up my ears on this one.

I wonder if the BA recptor has line level outputs?

Woochifer
12-09-2005, 03:01 PM
Of course, for that to happen the hardwarde mfgs will have to embrace this technology and start releasing products that will support it. They seem to be pushing (gasp!) satellite radio. I wonder if/when we'll see mass market HDFM components start appearing in the bigboxco stores of the world.

Being from NYC, I would invest in a popularly priced tuner just to seee how it is. WBGO, a local PBS station, does quite a credible job with their analog signal. It's gonna have to be quite an improvement to make me prick up my ears on this one.

I wonder if the BA recptor has line level outputs?

I think it will eventually become standard issue on the hardware side, especially if hardware costs and backwards compatibility aren't huge issues. This isn't like AM stereo where you had four competing standards, and even with stereo sound, none of the usual shortcomings of AM got fixed.

But, it also seems that satellite radio hardware is marketed more heavily (makes sense because XM and Sirius make more of their money on the subscription side). I think that if the major radio stations start simulcasting multiple channels, then they might try to create demand for HD radio, since local multicasting is one way that they can try to keep listeners from defecting to satellite.

The size of the radio audience has been in continuous decline since the 1996 telecommunications reorganization, but conversely the value and profits from radio have skyrocketed as ownership consolidates (and quality of programming tanks). At some point, the station owners have to increase or at least maintain the size of the audience to maintain the profitability of those operations, especially with competition from satellite radio heating up. If they start promoting their HD radio broadcasts, then we might see some traction in the market.

I have a feeling that eventually, you'll start seeing tuners that can handle HD radio, XM, and Sirius at the same time. That would give listeners the most choices (I can easily see people subscribing to both XM and Sirius, since both networks have a lot of exclusive programming).

My hope is that with HD radio allowing for station owners to do multicasting, the airwaves can finally break out of the restrictive and repetitive formats that have been developed over the last decade. Or at the very least, some forum can open up that will allow for more adventurous and non-mainstream music (or just plain new music, rather than the same jukebox playlist over and over) to get airplay.

nightflier
12-09-2005, 05:01 PM
Some other respected players in the HD-radio camp:

- Arcam (Diva DT91)
- Cambridge Audio (Azur 640T)
- Rotel (RT-1084 HD)
- Day Sequerra (M2 & M4)

Of course, these aren't inexpensive, and if HD Radio is going to take off, they better start offering less expensive options, particularly for those who already have a complete sound system and just want to add HD radio. I just can't imagine anyone is going to spend $600+ just to add clearer FM reception. And to answer the other question, BA does not offer RCA in/out.

So either XM/Sirius are doing everything they can to keep manufacturers from adding HD Radio to their product lines (a good possibility), or Ibiquity, the company that's pushing HD Radio in N. America is sitting on its hands (they certainly haven't been working very hard the last two years). And I am a little skeptical of a single company like Ibiquity having sole control over what is still (and that could also change), a publicly owned medium.

What ever happened to competition in the market place? Have our politicians completely given up on fair market practices?

OK, I'll get off my soapbox now...

Woochifer
12-09-2005, 09:36 PM
Some other respected players in the HD-radio camp:

- Arcam (Diva DT91)
- Cambridge Audio (Azur 640T)
- Rotel (RT-1084 HD)
- Day Sequerra (M2 & M4)

Of course, these aren't inexpensive, and if HD Radio is going to take off, they better start offering less expensive options, particularly for those who already have a complete sound system and just want to add HD radio. I just can't imagine anyone is going to spend $600+ just to add clearer FM reception. And to answer the other question, BA does not offer RCA in/out.



I still think it's very early in the game to start making assessments about HD radio. The hardware has only been available since late-summer, but from what I understand, there are already several stations that have launched HD radio broadcasts. Look at how long it's taken XM and Sirius to start making inroads into the market. The HD radio hardware will go down in price as production ramps up.


So either XM/Sirius are doing everything they can to keep manufacturers from adding HD Radio to their product lines (a good possibility), or Ibiquity, the company that's pushing HD Radio in N. America is sitting on its hands (they certainly haven't been working very hard the last two years). And I am a little skeptical of a single company like Ibiquity having sole control over what is still (and that could also change), a publicly owned medium.

What ever happened to competition in the market place? Have our politicians completely given up on fair market practices?

OK, I'll get off my soapbox now...

I don't know. Like I said, at some point in time, I can see receivers featuring HD radio, XM and Sirius in one unit. It just makes too much sense for someone not to attempt it sometime in the future.

As far as competition goes, the last thing you want on the airwaves is competing incompatible standards. The way that I'm reading it, Ibiquity developed the HD radio standard, it got approved, and they're now licensing the format to hardware manufacturers and broadcasters. This is no different than when dbx and Zenith won federal approval for developing the broadcast stereo TV standard. Their MTS system won out over other proposals because it offered up the best audio performance and included the SAP secondary audio channel. They had the best proposal, and they've reaped the licensing revenues for stereo TV. If more than one format got approved, then TV makers would have had to license all of them, or force consumers to choose one over the other, with the risk that whatever format they go with could eventually die in the market thus making their hardware investment obsolete. Even though Betamax and VHS competed in the market for years in the U.S., they both used the same NTSC video standard.

Or more recently, the HDTV standards were adopted in 1992. Even with one unified broadcast standard, it's still taken this long for HDTV to almost reach mass acceptance. With more than one competing broadcast standard, just think about how messy a situation we'd have if all of the major networks each went with their own proprietary HDTV standard, and none of the hardware was compatible (different pixel and screen ratios, and levels of resolution).

The situation of AM stereo allowed for competition, by approving four different formats. Ultimately, it just created a mess in the market because hardware manufacturers had to license all four formats in order to guarantee that listeners could hear all available stereo AM broadcasts. Not all of them did. I remember that the OEM radios on Toyotas only included two of the four AM stereo formats. Ultimately, AM stereo failed because none of the formats overcame the inherent sound and interference problems with AM.

markw
12-09-2005, 11:26 PM
...to wait and sit this one out for a while. I don't see this as worthy of a major investment as of yet. I'm a firm believer in the trickle down theory in audio. I'll wait for the dust to settle and more hardware to become commonly available.

When the hardware becomes reasonably priced and available I'll look for a moderately priced tuner or radio (Tivoli?) that will allow me to sample this and jack it into my main systems.

In the meantime, I'm blessed with a few pretty good analog FM stations but, a LOT of dreck as well. I do welcome more choices but there's something in me that refuses to pay for OTA programming.

nightflier
12-14-2005, 08:12 PM
As far as competition goes, the last thing you want on the airwaves is competing incompatible standards. The way that I'm reading it, Ibiquity developed the HD radio standard, it got approved, and they're now licensing the format to hardware manufacturers and broadcasters. This is no different than when dbx and Zenith won federal approval for developing the broadcast stereo TV standard. Their MTS system won out over other proposals because it offered up the best audio performance and included the SAP secondary audio channel. They had the best proposal, and they've reaped the licensing revenues for stereo TV. If more than one format got approved, then TV makers would have had to license all of them, or force consumers to choose one over the other, with the risk that whatever format they go with could eventually die in the market thus making their hardware investment obsolete. Even though Betamax and VHS competed in the market for years in the U.S., they both used the same NTSC video standard.

Well, but with a single company like Ibiquity, we have the problem that they set the price too high. This is the reason the Boston Receptor is $149 regular and $500 with HD. The only difference between the units is the HD radio reception. While I suspect that the hardware involved only adds about $25, that means that the rest is licensing fees. That means that the licensing fees augment the price over 100%. Not even Microsoft gouges their customers that much.

I think we have lost sight of the way competition is supposed to work. Essentially, the competition-phase should occur early in the development, where companies put forth their technologies and then a governing body selects the best solution. If I remember right, Ibiquity had no competitors because at the time, HD radio was not considered viable. Ibiquity owned the rights to it, but just sat on it. Sort of like when Bill Gates purchases all future digital rights to famous art pieces. When demand for the technology finally arrived, Ibiquity said well, we have that in a vault somewhere, and here is what it'll cost ya. No one batted an eye, and those politicians who are supposed to protect the consumer? They were paid off with money that Ibiquity didn't have, but would be assured from being allowed to gouge consumers later by those same politicians. So here we are paying 8x as much for the license than the technology.

Ibiquity may own the license, but there ought to be a fair price it should be permitted to charge for it; especially if no one is allowed to compete against it now that the standard has been established. There should also be a reasonably timely expiration to this exclusive right to the license. But guess what? Our politicians were paid off to extend that too!

I don't think the price will come down much, and hence the future of the technology is not bright. Competition is initially an issue of technology, yes, but in the end it always becomes an issue of price. Ibiquity never competed in either technology or price so the consumer has to pay the difference.

Woochifer
12-15-2005, 01:05 PM
Well, but with a single company like Ibiquity, we have the problem that they set the price too high. This is the reason the Boston Receptor is $149 regular and $500 with HD. The only difference between the units is the HD radio reception. While I suspect that the hardware involved only adds about $25, that means that the rest is licensing fees. That means that the licensing fees augment the price over 100%. Not even Microsoft gouges their customers that much.

Like I said, it's way too early in the game to assess one way or another how the HD market will go. If you'll recall, when closed captioning and stereo broadcast TV first came out, the standalone decoders for those formats cost upwards of $200, and that was over 20 years ago. Costs obviously went down in a hurry once those formats got widely adopted by broadcasters and new products integrating those formats started flooding into the market. I don't see how HD radio won't be any different. No point in speculating about licensing fees at this point, especially with the format only going live a few months ago and hardware only beginning to trickle into stores.

The Boston Receptor is not the best example because the model that comes with HD radio has a lot of other differences from the regular Receptor model (one of which sits in our bedroom) aside from just HD radio reception. For example, the HD Receptor has stereo sound, comes with a remote, can accept external audio inputs, and has a stereo headphone jack. Not sure if that makes the radio worth $500, but that's the price of being an early adoptor for any new format.


I think we have lost sight of the way competition is supposed to work. Essentially, the competition-phase should occur early in the development, where companies put forth their technologies and then a governing body selects the best solution. If I remember right, Ibiquity had no competitors because at the time, HD radio was not considered viable. Ibiquity owned the rights to it, but just sat on it. Sort of like when Bill Gates purchases all future digital rights to famous art pieces. When demand for the technology finally arrived, Ibiquity said well, we have that in a vault somewhere, and here is what it'll cost ya. No one batted an eye, and those politicians who are supposed to protect the consumer? They were paid off with money that Ibiquity didn't have, but would be assured from being allowed to gouge consumers later by those same politicians. So here we are paying 8x as much for the license than the technology.

Well, the alternative would be approve any and all formats and let them duke it out in the market. End result of that process would potentially be more expensive products because the hardware would have to license every format, or general confusion that impedes market acceptance.

If Ibiquity developed the technology for HD radio (presumably holding some patents on it as well) and was waiting until market conditions warranted rolling the format out (i.e. when competition from satellite radio starts eating into the broadcasters' market share), then that's their right. And do you know for sure that they've been sitting on the technology rather than marketing the format and not finding a lot of takers? What if it was simply the case that broadcasters did not want to pay for the hardware and transmitter upgrades? Or that manufacturers did not want to license a technology that had yet to go live with any programming?

If Ibiquity is overcharging for the HD radio format and keeps on overcharging for it, then they'll only have themselves to blame when it fails in the market. Or if they're serious about ensuring the long-term success of the format and they indeed are overcharging, then they'll have to lower the fees at some point in order to stimulate demand. I don't see the price gouging argument here because the format is not essential to trade and commerce, it's not a finite commodity that's in short supply, and most importantly, there's limited consumer demand for it right now.


Ibiquity may own the license, but there ought to be a fair price it should be permitted to charge for it; especially if no one is allowed to compete against it now that the standard has been established. There should also be a reasonably timely expiration to this exclusive right to the license. But guess what? Our politicians were paid off to extend that too!

I don't think the price will come down much, and hence the future of the technology is not bright. Competition is initially an issue of technology, yes, but in the end it always becomes an issue of price. Ibiquity never competed in either technology or price so the consumer has to pay the difference.

But, again you're speculating here, especially about who got paid off and whether competition would have resulted in lower prices at the outset. Fair price is whatever the market will bear. Especially since HD Radio is not an essential commodity like energy or food, if the price ain't fair, consumers ain't buyin'. The pattern for any new technology time and time again has been for initial pricing points to be set very high, and then come down as it gains mass market acceptance. You're already sounding the death knell for the format, yet it hasn't even gone live yet on most radio stations and the hardware only first appeared on store shelves over the summer.

The competition will occur on the hardware side. Consider that XM and Sirius receivers cost over $200 when introduced five years ago, and now I can readily find them in stores for under $40 or included as standard equipment in OEM car stereos. If the price for HD radio does not ever reach a point where consumers feel compelled to purchase them, then it won't ever gain market acceptance. It's that simple, and whether or not the price ever reaches that mass market level is something that neither of us has an actual answer for at this early stage.

nightflier
12-15-2005, 06:25 PM
Like I said, it's way too early in the game to assess one way or another how the HD market will go. If you'll recall, when closed captioning and stereo broadcast TV first came out, the standalone decoders for those formats cost upwards of $200, and that was over 20 years ago. Costs obviously went down in a hurry once those formats got widely adopted by broadcasters and new products integrating those formats started flooding into the market. I don't see how HD radio won't be any different. No point in speculating about licensing fees at this point, especially with the format only going live a few months ago and hardware only beginning to trickle into stores.

Actually, I've been following the format for about three years now. Rotel and a few other manufacturers had products out about a year ago.


The Boston Receptor is not the best example because the model that comes with HD radio has a lot of other differences from the regular Receptor model (one of which sits in our bedroom) aside from just HD radio reception. For example, the HD Receptor has stereo sound, comes with a remote, can accept external audio inputs, and has a stereo headphone jack. Not sure if that makes the radio worth $500, but that's the price of being an early adoptor for any new format.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but how can the receptor have stereo sound with only one speaker? I thought that extra speaker was an additional-cost option like with the Tivoli. Even then the hardware extras that you describe are still about $50 extra, at their costs.


Well, the alternative would be approve any and all formats and let them duke it out in the market. End result of that process would potentially be more expensive products because the hardware would have to license every format, or general confusion that impedes market acceptance.

Well, only until a governing body would pick a single standard. After that, the industry would only have to license that format. I'm pulling from the software/internet industry for my example, but there is no reason this couldn't be applied to other industries.


If Ibiquity developed the technology for HD radio (presumably holding some patents on it as well) and was waiting until market conditions warranted rolling the format out (i.e. when competition from satellite radio starts eating into the broadcasters' market share), then that's their right.

Not when that technology uses public airwaves. Sort of like if you developped a new kind of car but it required two lanes of regular highway. Just because you waited until raods were wide enough does not mean you can use that portion of the highway for your own profit. If anything, the owners of that highway (i.e. the public) should have some say over how their highway is used and what expenses will be incurred. Just like the Bill Gates & art example, publicly owned and enjoyed things cannot suddenly be converted to for-profit just because it is profitable. This obviates the public ownership of it


And do you know for sure that they've been sitting on the technology rather than marketing the format and not finding a lot of takers? What if it was simply the case that broadcasters did not want to pay for the hardware and transmitter upgrades? Or that manufacturers did not want to license a technology that had yet to go live with any programming?

I don't know all the details, but I believe they were hashing out the licensing costs with the manufacturers, at least the last few years. Maybe someone else knows more about this and can post their info here.


If Ibiquity is overcharging for the HD radio format and keeps on overcharging for it, then they'll only have themselves to blame when it fails in the market. Or if they're serious about ensuring the long-term success of the format and they indeed are overcharging, then they'll have to lower the fees at some point in order to stimulate demand. I don't see the price gouging argument here because the format is not essential to trade and commerce, it's not a finite commodity that's in short supply, and most importantly, there's limited consumer demand for it right now.

The argument that overcharging will be a company's own doom, does not work. Tons of products have failed as a result of a lack of public/government involvement in the process: Betamax, OS/2 and SACD come to mind. These companies mismanaged a potential advancement in technology and the public is poorer for it. Sometimes a technology needs to be granted additional assistance by the government because it will benefit society as a whole. That companies are allowed to squander all that research and the subsequent benefit to society just because it is not profitable enough to the shareholders is the reason why so few new technologies, patents, and advances now originate in the US. A corporation-dominated economy is not one that benefits the public.


But, again you're speculating here, especially about who got paid off

Huh, how many pay-off scandals do we have to read about before we believe this is what the current political process is all about. What percentage of our elected officials has to be "under investigation" before we realize this isn't working anymore? Pretty soon, there won't be anybody left in Washington to do any "independent inquiries" because they will all be under investigation. I was referring to the ridiculous way that the RIAA paid off politicians to increase ownership to 99 years for recoded music and video. But there are tons of other examples in the oil, diamond, and software industries. Maybe they don't make it onto Fox news (big surprise) but that doesn't mean they aren't real.


Fair price is whatever the market will bear...The pattern for any new technology time and time again has been for initial pricing points to be set very high, and then come down as it gains mass market acceptance.

Sort of like CD's came down in price right? Or TV's? The fact is that the model does not apply "time and time again," I'm afraid.


You're already sounding the death knell for the format, yet it hasn't even gone live yet on most radio stations and the hardware only first appeared on store shelves over the summer.

Not exactly (see my first comment).


The competition will occur on the hardware side. Consider that XM and Sirius receivers cost over $200 when introduced five years ago, and now I can readily find them in stores for under $40 or included as standard equipment in OEM car stereos.

Actually XM and Sirius charged higher prices at the outset because they were not making it with subscription fees. Now that they are, the price to get in the door has come down to about $100 (not $40), but subscription fees have gone up and some services that used to be free extras are now also for a fee.


If the price for HD radio does not ever reach a point where consumers feel compelled to purchase them, then it won't ever gain market acceptance. It's that simple, and whether or not the price ever reaches that mass market level is something that neither of us has an actual answer for at this early stage.

Actually it's not that simple at all. What we loose if the product fails, is another advancement in technology. The ridiculous idea that only technologies that are profitable are worth pursuing is the reason that our quality of life is headed into the crapper. Sooner or later we'll all know that, but trying to climb out after the flush is an uphill battle up a slippery slope.

Woochifer
12-15-2005, 07:26 PM
Actually, I've been following the format for about three years now. Rotel and a few other manufacturers had products out about a year ago.

Well, that's still hardly enough time to start making assessments about a format's future. The DVD format's future was still very much in doubt after one year of existence, and hardware prices had not yet come down too far.


Maybe I'm missing something here, but how can the receptor have stereo sound with only one speaker? I thought that extra speaker was an additional-cost option like with the Tivoli. Even then the hardware extras that you describe are still about $50 extra, at their costs.

The HD version of the Receptor does come with two speakers, along with the aforementioned features. I've seen it at Best Buy. As priced at $500, it's up there in that rarified Bose pricing point, but I will say that the sound quality is quite good for .

http://www.bostonacoustics.com/home_product.aspx?product_id=325


Well, only until a governing body would pick a single standard. After that, the industry would only have to license that format. I'm pulling from the software/internet industry for my example, but there is no reason this couldn't be applied to other industries.

I used my example only because you wanted to see more competition, and IMO competing incompatible broadcast standards are exactly what you don't want. If you want competition at the proposal stage, then the validity of that argument would depend on what Ibiquity holds as proprietary and patented. Part of the reason why the dbx/Zenith MTS system won out for stereo broadcast TV is because of the patents that dbx had with its noise reduction system and the secondary audio carrier. Those exclusive technologies made their system far superior to the other proposals, and the MTS system was adopted with dbx and Zenith reeling in all of the licensing revenues since then.


Not when that technology uses public airwaves. Sort of like if you developped a new kind of car but it required two lanes of regular highway. Just because you waited until raods were wide enough does not mean you can use that portion of the highway for your own profit. If anything, the owners of that highway (i.e. the public) should have some say over how their highway is used and what expenses will be incurred. Just like the Bill Gates & art example, publicly owned and enjoyed things cannot suddenly be converted to for-profit just because it is profitable. This obviates the public ownership of it

But, if Ibiquity invented the format and the underlying technology, why should it be opened up to competition that would have to still license any proprietary technology anyway?


The argument that overcharging will be a company's own doom, does not work. Tons of products have failed as a result of a lack of public/government involvement in the process: Betamax, OS/2 and SACD come to mind. These companies mismanaged a potential advancement in technology and the public is poorer for it.

And you know why those products failed? Competition from other products that ended up winning out, or simply a buying public indifferent to the advantages that those products offered. Lots of technically superior platforms and formats have failed in the market, while inferior formats gain traction and make billions in the process. That's just how markets and a fickle buying public behave.

Plus, none of those products used the public airwaves (except the Betamax, which used the long-standing NTSC broadcast standard), so why should any of them be subject to government regulation in their development and deployment?


Huh, how many pay-off scandals do we have to read about before we believe this is what the current political process is all about. What percentage of our elected officials has to be "under investigation" before we realize this isn't working anymore? Pretty soon, there won't be anybody left in Washington to do any "independent inquiries" because they will all be under investigation. I was referring to the ridiculous way that the RIAA paid off politicians to increase ownership to 99 years for recoded music and video. But there are tons of other examples in the oil, diamond, and software industries. Maybe they don't make it onto Fox news (big surprise) but that doesn't mean they aren't real.

Just because it happens in other fields of endeavor does not mean that your speculation in this specific instance has any truth to it. There are plenty of potential reasons why HD Radio has yet to make an impact, and the political angle is one of the least tenable ones IMO.


Sort of like CD's came down in price right? Or TV's? The fact is that the model does not apply "time and time again," I'm afraid.

The CD price analogy is not applicable in this case. Consider what the average price of a CD player in 1983 versus what the hardware now costs. That's much more analogous to your contention about the perpetually high prices of HD Radio hardware, since HD Radio is not a software/disc-based format.

Name me one successful consumer product format where the prices have remained at the same price points as when they first came out. Indeed, time and time again, the hardware prices have gone down as the products gain mass market acceptance. I doubt that anybody would still pay $1,100 ($3,500 in today's dollars from 1977 date of introduction) for a VHS VCR, or $800 ($1,500 in today's dollars from 1983 date of introduction) for a CD player.

TV prices have continually gone down in real dollar terms since the beginning. Only with newer technologies such as HDTV, LCD, or plasma have you seen higher prices, but even then, they are no more expensive after adjusting for inflation than what a typical console TV (with far inferior picture and sound quality) cost back in the mid-70s.


Actually XM and Sirius charged higher prices at the outset because they were not making it with subscription fees. Now that they are, the price to get in the door has come down to about $100 (not $40), but subscription fees have gone up and some services that used to be free extras are now also for a fee.

Actually, I've seen the Sirius units selling for $50, and with rebates or other discounts, as low as $25. Subscription fees have gone up because they're now expanding the programming by signing into expensive new deals to try and expand the audience (i.e. the Howard Stern deal, live sports broadcasts, etc.).


Actually it's not that simple at all. What we loose if the product fails, is another advancement in technology. The ridiculous idea that only technologies that are profitable are worth pursuing is the reason that our quality of life is headed into the crapper. Sooner or later we'll all know that, but trying to climb out after the flush is an uphill battle up a slippery slope.

The problem is that if technology gets developed that nobody wants to use, then what good does it do for anybody in the end? Lots of wasted resources that could have gone into other more worthwhile areas.

Invader3k
12-17-2005, 07:34 AM
Personally, as someone who works in radio as a salesman, I think HD radio is going to succeed (eventually) based on the fact that the industry's major corporations are getting behind it (Infinity, ClearChannel, etc).

They are feeling some pressure from XM and Sirius, with their vaunted increased sound quality and more choices. I think part of it isn't that XM and Sirius are really cutting into the profits of terrestrial radio...it's that the satellite companies are getting so much attention. The media loves to talk up the new technology, and talk like regular AM and FM are going the way of 8-track tapes and vinyl (I know, I know...). Getting big stars like Howard Stern signed onto satellite is a big feather in their cap as well. Basically, satellite radio is the media's broadcast darling right now, and being able to offer HD radio is going to be a way for the broadcast radio stations to get some attention again.

The neat idea is that, say you have a big FM right now that plays classic rock. With HD radio, they may be able to provide three or four other feeds. So, on one "channel" they might have a modern rock feed. On another, heavy metal. On a third, maybe deep album cuts. The options for the regular terrestrial listener would be increased three or four times over what is available on the dial currently. The sound quality would be better, too (though I really don't think the average radio listener cares that much about this).

Ultimately, it's going to require radio stations to invest in the technology, which is starting to happen already.

Mike Anderson
12-17-2005, 09:21 AM
Is HD FM going to offer better reception?

I've totally given up on FM radio because of the crappy reception I've experience in the last two places I've lived. Both were in major urban areas, and in my present location I'm not even surrounded by tall buildings. Yet the reception is atrocious.

Now I only listen to radio on the Internet or through cable. I don't even have a tuner hooked up to my main rig.

And quite frankly, Internet radio is vastly superior. I can get 192kbps stations that blow away anything FM ever offered, in terms of both quality and selection. For the future, my money's on the Internet dominating radio completely, at least for anyone with broadband access.

markw
12-17-2005, 10:20 AM
Is HD FM going to offer better reception?

I've totally given up on FM radio because of the crappy reception I've experience in the last two places I've lived. Both were in major urban areas, and in my present location I'm not even surrounded by tall buildings. Yet the reception is atrocious.

Now I only listen to radio on the Internet or through cable. I don't even have a tuner hooked up to my main rig.

And quite frankly, Internet radio is vastly superior. I can get 192kbps stations that blow away anything FM ever offered, in terms of both quality and selection. For the future, my money's on the Internet dominating radio completely, at least for anyone with broadband access.I spent some time in a condo in the Noe Valley section several years ago and simply gave up on FM for that time.

I read that HDFM was supposed to increase range but I don't think it's immune to terrain deficiencies. IOW, I doubt it'll go through buildings and mountains.

nightflier
12-20-2005, 06:27 PM
The problem is that if technology gets developed that nobody wants to use, then what good does it do for anybody in the end? Lots of wasted resources that could have gone into other more worthwhile areas.[/QUOTE]

Wooch,

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. HD is not "technology that nobody wants to use," it's just too expensive. I've seen too many good technologies die just because they weren't profitable. HD radio is a technology that is being suffocated because it is not profitable. The technology faces several uphill battles:

- The growing irritation with commercialized radio
- The similarity with FM radio (i.e. showing a need for HD radio)
- An almost complete lack of advertisements for the technology
- Paid satellite radio (XM, Sirius)
- Internet radio
- Music over TV cable
- Excessive royalties for manufacturers
- A down economy and lack of consumer confidence
- Too few products that have HDR
- Increasing public interest for video over audio

And the list goes on....

However, if we considered HDR for it's numerous advantages and set this as a widely proclaimed universal technology standard w/o excessive royalties, it would have a fighting chance. Manufacturers would flock to the opportunity of providing something new in their bloated product lines. But the way I see it, as long as Ibiquity is the only venue to HDR, it will remain a niche technology. Give me a $150 HDR high-quality tuner like Polk's XM radio tuner, and it will take off simply because that would finally give me a viable alternative to satellite radio w/o the subscription fees. For $500, I will pass because there are so many other sources for entertainment that will keep me satisfied.

And yes, this is a tragedy because it will be another substantial leap forward in technology that we will have dismissed because a few stock holders needed to make a quick buck. The system isn't working, folks!

Woochifer
12-21-2005, 03:25 PM
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. HD is not "technology that nobody wants to use," it's just too expensive. I've seen too many good technologies die just because they weren't profitable. HD radio is a technology that is being suffocated because it is not profitable.

...

However, if we considered HDR for it's numerous advantages and set this as a widely proclaimed universal technology standard w/o excessive royalties, it would have a fighting chance. Manufacturers would flock to the opportunity of providing something new in their bloated product lines. But the way I see it, as long as Ibiquity is the only venue to HDR, it will remain a niche technology. Give me a $150 HDR high-quality tuner like Polk's XM radio tuner, and it will take off simply because that would finally give me a viable alternative to satellite radio w/o the subscription fees. For $500, I will pass because there are so many other sources for entertainment that will keep me satisfied.

And yes, this is a tragedy because it will be another substantial leap forward in technology that we will have dismissed because a few stock holders needed to make a quick buck. The system isn't working, folks!

Like I said before, I think you're writing the format's epitaph way before the market has taken its course. You keep harping on the cost, well that's what the radios cost RIGHT NOW. Are there any logical reasons or precedents that indicate that HD Radio will always stay at the current price points? I agree that $500 for a HD radio is way too expensive, but that certainly does not mean that the hardware will hold that same price point indefinitely. With every new consumer electronics format, the price goes after it's been out in the market for a while.

Were you one of the consumers who bought the $1,100 VCRs in 1977, or the $800 CD players in 1983, or the $800 DVD players in 1997, or the $1,200 SACD players in 1999? Or did you wait until the prices went down on those hardware formats before you made your purchase?

And when the first handful of TV stations went live with MTS stereo audio, did you rush out to the store to buy one of the first MTS decoders at $200 a pop (about $350 in today's dollars)? Or did you wait until the major networks began broadcasting in stereo and MTS decoders made their way into midlevel and entry level TVs before making your purchase?

I don't see any reason why HD Radio won't follow the same path that the MTS format took. Zenith and dbx were the sole licensers for stereo TV, yet the hardware costs went down in a hurry once the TV stations got on board, and TV manufacturers began trickling down the stereo decoders into their lower priced sets. On the radio side, you now have the big players like Clear Channel and Infinity starting to explore HD Radio, and the format beginning to make its way into more hardware. It's still very early in the game to make any predictions about the format's future.