On the bandwidth, the FM HD signal is capable, with
today’s algorithm, of supporting two full fidelity audio streams in “better
than CD quality” stereo plus quite a bit of messaging and text capacity. There
is no degradation of the digital stream that parallels the analog signal…
just a second channel that can be used for a separate format if desired.
On the receiver end, the unified design specs were
just released about 60 days ago, with a half dozen of the major Chinese fabs
reported to have signed agreements to go into production. Add this to already
announced radios in all the price points except the sub-$50 range, and we have
a start. It needs to be remembered that other innovations such as CDs and DVD
players and VHS devices started out very pricey until there was software and
demand. My first VHS cost over $900, and my first CD player over $1400! This is
not a short term project… a comparison would be to satellite radio, which
has taken over 4 years to get to 8 million units installed, against nearly 1
billion “regular” radios. Satellite will still be losing money 3 to
4 years from now if they can sustain the current growth rate.
To put it in perspective, at any given time of the
day, less than 0.3% of the US
radio listeners are using satellite. The real issue is that the satellite
technology and infrastructure is very expensive… and things like the next
generations of broadband may totally change the distribution of radio in the
future. I see a handheld that is a “radio” with on-demand content,
phone, messaging, mail, and camera all in one neat package. Such devices, in
early stages, are already appearing in Asia.
Humorously, when I first typed “bandwidth”
above, it came out “badwidth.” I hope that is not the truth of the
matter!
From:
irca-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:irca-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Kevin R. in Gilbert, AZ
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005
8:21 AM
To: Mailing
list for the International Radio Club of America
Subject: Re: [IRCA] SE FL IBOC Status
How did we survive without
HD?
I don’t know if HD is good or
not. There are no radios that are being sold other than a few terribly
overpriced car units.
That said, questions like this one, are just downright silly.
We just find them better than what came before. HD offers very improved audio
on AM, and better audio as well as a second channel of additional programming
on FM, opening the free radio programming choices by double!
I have never heard HD. I know you are
an corporate person who toes the line as a VP of a radio conglomerate. I
have to take your comments with a grain of salt, nonetheless, I do believe that
IBOC has the potential to be better for a local listener than analog. The
problem that I see is that in the beginning, David is that you said that the
difference would be improved by the additional bandwidth used for the signal.
Now you have changed your tune to say that the difference is that there can be
more signals per channel. This is a question out of ignorance but a little
knowledge. If you split the bandwidth, won’t that take the audio quality
to FM quality, negating any perceived improvement in sound?
What will this do about the programming?
HD simply sounds a lot better, and is competitive with other digital audio
distribution systems.
If there are any radios sold within my
lifetime, and I am 50 and I might have 30 years to go, my life could actually
end before any radios, other than the incredibly expensive ones used for cars
might ever be released, I plan to buy one to find out if they ever decide to
sell them.
However, while waiting for a decade of being told that IBOC radios were coming
out, I bought an XM receiver that I am intensely pleased with. I am making the
assumption that I am not the only one who has done this. It leads me to believe
that IBOC / HD has missed the train leaving the station. All of this should
have been done a long time ago and on a different band.
Whether HD / IBOC is great or not, HD appears to be a day late and a dollar short.
Kevin
|