Digital vs. analog radio
Sept 3, 2016 2:27:32 GMT -6
Post by CAwasinNJ on Sept 3, 2016 2:27:32 GMT -6
Continuing the thoughts that started in the August ratings thread and several of the points that David touched on.
There are a lot of reasons that I think DAB in Europe/Asia is doing better than IBOC in America. For one thing, if I'm not mistaken they did the right thing and dedicated an entirely new band to the new broadcasts instead of the hybrid half-hearted effort the FCC adopted in America. Remember than a tiny percentage of radios in America can even understand the digital signal as anything but noise. Also, that digital noise creates problems for the analog stations that 99% of the public is listening to, especially on AM. Going digital only might help those that can actually here it, but remember that the physics of AM can't be just wished away. AM travels by skywave and running hash on 3 channels to either side of the assigned channel just creates a mess.
It doesn't matter though. AM stations are in enough trouble as it is with getting listeners and abandoning a 1% listenership in analog for a .01% listenership in digital (if you're lucky) would be suicide. The only possible thing that I see working woul dbe for the FCC to mandate all radios being able to decode the digital signals in a dedicated digital only band and then wait a decade or two for all the old radios to fall apart or get thrown out. But then you have another problem. The digital technology the FCC chose is covered under licensing from iBiquity. That would force radio manufacturers to buy a license from them in order to do business and that would be unprecedented as far as I know. I don't think that happened with AM analog, FM analog or analog or digital TV.
And then there's the question of worth. From what I've heard, there isn't much if any benefit in terms of sound quality with the IBOC signal. There isn't even the benefit of additional programs on AM. FM you might have a case but even that's sketchy because of the number of signals they're trying to cram in there. Definitely not AM in hybrid mode which as I said before is the only reasonable option for AM right now. It doesn't help that iBiquity intentionally misleads people into thinking "HD Radio" means High Definition just like TV is. Even they admit it's just marketing BS.
It isn't all doom and gloom for AM though. There ARE actually things that can be done. The first is a pie-in-the-sky answer that's already been deemed a flop, but I'll go over it anyway. There was a digital signal that not only didn't have any of IBOC's problems (like blowing away all the neighbors and a limited signal reach and all that) but actually improved reception even on ANALOG receivers. That was CAM-D, invented by Leonard Kahn who you may remember from the Kahn/Hazeltine AM stereo system back in the 80's. Again he came up with a better system that was passed over.
The only realistic answer would actually be very feasible and makes much more sense given where we are. Simply have the FCC mandate that AM radios have a decent frequency response. I've heard over and over how good AM stations on the air right now can sound with a good receiver that can pass through the full bandwidth that stations are transmitting. In theory, AM can actually broadcast up to the same 15kHz range that FM stations can. That was cut by regulation some time ago to 10kHz to try to reduce skywave interference, but that's still pretty good. The problem is that in a $200 receiver the manufacturer spends about 25 cents on the AM components and it sounds like crap. If the FCC were really serious about AM revitalization they would start there. We don't need the FCC though. The industry can take the initiative and do it themselves. An association like NAB could create an initiative to certify radios as being really good for AM quality. Like, I don't know, "AMHQ" maybe. Then cross-promote it on what few AM music stations are left (KSOP comes to mind) and everybody wins. Crazy thought right?
I've heard well engineered AM stations on good equipment. It works, and it doesn't have all the baggage of this digital nonsense. Digital isn't the end-all-be-all for everything. Would it be better? Probably. But let's be realistic. We can vastly improve what we have with little sacrifice. And I'm old enough to remember the introduction of digital phone answering machines (remember answering machines?) They touted that they were all digital ans therefore much better. No they weren't. They sounded like garbage. Eventually the technology caught up, but it took over a decade. Maybe we'll be able to create a digital radio revolution at some point, but how many stations will make it that long? We should do what we can now. And I could go off on another thread about how the number of stations needs to be thinned out which would also help go back to the full 15kHz bandwidth I mentioned before, but this post is already long enough.
There are a lot of reasons that I think DAB in Europe/Asia is doing better than IBOC in America. For one thing, if I'm not mistaken they did the right thing and dedicated an entirely new band to the new broadcasts instead of the hybrid half-hearted effort the FCC adopted in America. Remember than a tiny percentage of radios in America can even understand the digital signal as anything but noise. Also, that digital noise creates problems for the analog stations that 99% of the public is listening to, especially on AM. Going digital only might help those that can actually here it, but remember that the physics of AM can't be just wished away. AM travels by skywave and running hash on 3 channels to either side of the assigned channel just creates a mess.
It doesn't matter though. AM stations are in enough trouble as it is with getting listeners and abandoning a 1% listenership in analog for a .01% listenership in digital (if you're lucky) would be suicide. The only possible thing that I see working woul dbe for the FCC to mandate all radios being able to decode the digital signals in a dedicated digital only band and then wait a decade or two for all the old radios to fall apart or get thrown out. But then you have another problem. The digital technology the FCC chose is covered under licensing from iBiquity. That would force radio manufacturers to buy a license from them in order to do business and that would be unprecedented as far as I know. I don't think that happened with AM analog, FM analog or analog or digital TV.
And then there's the question of worth. From what I've heard, there isn't much if any benefit in terms of sound quality with the IBOC signal. There isn't even the benefit of additional programs on AM. FM you might have a case but even that's sketchy because of the number of signals they're trying to cram in there. Definitely not AM in hybrid mode which as I said before is the only reasonable option for AM right now. It doesn't help that iBiquity intentionally misleads people into thinking "HD Radio" means High Definition just like TV is. Even they admit it's just marketing BS.
It isn't all doom and gloom for AM though. There ARE actually things that can be done. The first is a pie-in-the-sky answer that's already been deemed a flop, but I'll go over it anyway. There was a digital signal that not only didn't have any of IBOC's problems (like blowing away all the neighbors and a limited signal reach and all that) but actually improved reception even on ANALOG receivers. That was CAM-D, invented by Leonard Kahn who you may remember from the Kahn/Hazeltine AM stereo system back in the 80's. Again he came up with a better system that was passed over.
The only realistic answer would actually be very feasible and makes much more sense given where we are. Simply have the FCC mandate that AM radios have a decent frequency response. I've heard over and over how good AM stations on the air right now can sound with a good receiver that can pass through the full bandwidth that stations are transmitting. In theory, AM can actually broadcast up to the same 15kHz range that FM stations can. That was cut by regulation some time ago to 10kHz to try to reduce skywave interference, but that's still pretty good. The problem is that in a $200 receiver the manufacturer spends about 25 cents on the AM components and it sounds like crap. If the FCC were really serious about AM revitalization they would start there. We don't need the FCC though. The industry can take the initiative and do it themselves. An association like NAB could create an initiative to certify radios as being really good for AM quality. Like, I don't know, "AMHQ" maybe. Then cross-promote it on what few AM music stations are left (KSOP comes to mind) and everybody wins. Crazy thought right?
I've heard well engineered AM stations on good equipment. It works, and it doesn't have all the baggage of this digital nonsense. Digital isn't the end-all-be-all for everything. Would it be better? Probably. But let's be realistic. We can vastly improve what we have with little sacrifice. And I'm old enough to remember the introduction of digital phone answering machines (remember answering machines?) They touted that they were all digital ans therefore much better. No they weren't. They sounded like garbage. Eventually the technology caught up, but it took over a decade. Maybe we'll be able to create a digital radio revolution at some point, but how many stations will make it that long? We should do what we can now. And I could go off on another thread about how the number of stations needs to be thinned out which would also help go back to the full 15kHz bandwidth I mentioned before, but this post is already long enough.
