HD Radio : Truly a Failure

[Cameron]

Radio World 3/26/2008 - Bernie Wise - Energy-Onix


[quote]Bernie Wise, President of Energy-Onix reports that Energy-Onix shipped 255 broadcast transmitters in the year 2007. This number includes 205 FM and 50 AM transmitters.

Bernie noted that none of these customers had an interest in HD Radio. The most common reasons given for no interest were as follows:

FM Stations
a – Price – The equipment price for an HD Radio transmitter and antenna system is prohibitively expensive!! The average HD Radio package is a minimum of $100,000. and can be as high as $250,000.
b – Limited Coverage – The system has been promoted to have an acceptable signal as far as the 55db contour. We have found that the signal is useable in practice to the 75db contour.
c- No consumer incentive – Fifty percent of the digital spectrum is a repetition of the FM analog stereo channel. In a reasonably matched system the FM analog is comparable quality to the digital when the digital is within its limited range.

There is no incentive for the consumer to use “HD Radioâ€

[AmpedNow]

The biggest problem with HD radio is that it solves nothing.

Also, because of the huge equipment costs and the yearly license fee for a technology with virtually zero demand, HD will be a mostly major market technology for the foreseeable future.

HD is useless outside of major markets.

Then, there's the nighttime AM IBUZ, that has very much deteriorated the band. It's a wonder there's not international disputes over the interference created by clears using HD at night.

[Boss 97]

Bernie is 100% correct. We purchased a new FM 22 ECO in
2005 and we also purchased a new AM in 2003 from Energy Onix.
His DRE system uses the FM sidebands, normally used for SCA.
The DRE has an encoder which utilizes hundreds of subcarriers in the
SCA frequency range of 20 KHz to 100 KHz and 58 KHZ to 100 KHz.
These subcarriers are digitized and they permit the creation of
digital information.

At 64 KB you can have 2 stereo channels or 4 mono channels or
any combination.

At 164 KB you can have 16 mono or 5 stereo channels.

By connecting the output of the DRE encoder to the SCA input
of your stereo analog transmitter, you can gain 4 additional
digital channels or 2 stereo without any interference to your
existing broadcast.

Now for just a few $$$ thousand $$$, you can create more than IBOC.

Imagine that! So why is the FCC so out of it???

[Cameron]

Imagine that! So why is the FCC so out of it???

Bernie is a big proponent and reseller of DRE. It works. I have less tolerance than most for bit-reduced audio, so, even with AAC, lots of mono channels crammed-into 64kbps causes me aural pain. The reach of the subcarriers on DRE have been real-world tested unlike the snow-job IBOC presents.

Blend...dammit...blend. Back-and-forth. Analog to digital. Digital to analog. Do you think the consumer would tolerate a television blend from 1080 digital back to 525 analog? Maybe this annoyance was built-in in order to get "full-digital" passed sooner. DRE works in conjuction and independent of IBOC, so maybe if the commission decides against a mandated monopoly, there will be a software upgrade for the HD computer-exciters to incorporate DRE.

The 32kbps stereo AAC sounds better than IBOC, though.
Get the receivers out there. Hire some lobbyists to be photographed with commissioners in Aruba. Promise big paychecks and speaking-engagements to former-commisioners and keep Ibiquity from getting the commission to pass the "No digital on subcarriers" NPRM.