Talk:HD Radio

Radio C‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Radio, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Radio-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RadioWikipedia:WikiProject RadioTemplate:WikiProject RadioRadio articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

To-do List:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Create: Missing years and articles in radio, National Association of Radio Distress-Signalling and Infocommunications (Hungary)
Assess : Unassessed Radio articles; Unknown-importance Radio articles
Cleanup : Radio articles needing attention
Expand : Midweek Politics Bob Crane
Maintain : Portal:Radio
Stubs : Expand: Radio stubs
Verify : Unreferenced BLPs
Other : Collaboration of the Week:
Requests for Radio peer review:

Radio Stations C‑class Mid‑importance

	Radio portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Radio Stations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of radio stations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Radio StationsWikipedia:WikiProject Radio StationsTemplate:WikiProject Radio StationsRadio station articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

not sure about the statistics, may not be the netrual PV for worldview[edit]

"As of May 2009, there were more stations in the world on the air with HD Radio technology than any other digital radio technology."

Really? Even more so than broadcasting in the DAB? It comes to my attention that HDradio is a system thats mostly limmited to Unites States and a few European areas., And the statistics in that paregraph shows the stations that are only in United States, Theres alot of radio stations in the world, and a good majority is outside the united States, and The worlds a pretty big place you know.....

(I'm sorry my english is bad, I really speak Russiwn...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.5.158.162 (talk) 06:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Untitled[edit]

Is the link to http://www.hdradioreviews.com/ really necessary? It appears to have more Google AdSense ads then anything useful and I suspect it might have been stuck there for commercial gain.

Compare/contrast?[edit]

Q: How does this differ from satellite radio like Sirius and XM? I've never heard of HD Radio until I ran across this entry.

A. HD Radio will not be free for long, as RadioGuard will be installed this year, like anyone is going to pay for this junk programming, anyway: http://hdradiofarce.blogspot.com PocketRadio —Preceding unsigned comment added by PocketRadio (talk • contribs) 14:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stop scaring people with FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt). It's doubtful radioguard will ever be used, and if it is, it would be limited to just special events like concert passes. Nobody's going to take-away your favorite Top40, or Classical, or NPR station. Those will always be free. ---- Theaveng (talk) 16:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A: Unlike satellite radio, HD radio is a free service. There are no monthly fees; you only need an HD Radio receiver. It is also local radio, meaning that the station is, like a regular analog radio station, is broadcasting for your specific area.

Also, the sound quality of HD Radio is CD QUALITY, unlike satellite radio which is highly compressed and sounds more like analog AM stereo. Teamgoon 11:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I disagree. CD quality is far greater than HD radio. HD radio is very highly data compressed, and the lossy compression algorithm is audible, moreso on some audio than others, but still a compsomise. There is no free lunch, losing 90% of the data from a wave based format hurts audio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.203.214 (talk • contribs) 30 March 2007

HD Radio is anything but CD quality. A local AM station recently converted to HD Radio. Now their main analog signal has a lot of hash and a constant whine, like alternator noise in a poorly filtered automotive sound system. Moreover, the high frequencies are gone, making it difficult to understand what the speakers are saying. It's so bad that one wouldn't even want to listen to their talk show programming for more than 10 or 15 minutes at a time, let alone music. I'd rate the sound quality of HD radio over AM mediumwave considerably poorer than the 3 kHz bandwidth of land-line telephone. —Quicksilver^{T @} 23:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

`Now their main analog signal has a lot of hash and a constant whine, like alternator noise in a poorly filtered automotive sound system' <- that is probably not HD radio' fault, but instead some poorly shielded wiring. The missing high frequencies, that could be a result of the compression. But AM radio is also missing all high frequencies too -- with 10 KHz of bandwidth available, that means all frequencies over 5 KHz must be cut off. But human speech is perfectly understandable even if you cut off everything over 3 KHz, like as you mentioned telephones. This station probably has other issues. dougmc 14:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

>>>with 10 KHz of bandwidth available, that means all frequencies over 5 KHz must be cut off.<<< That statement is totally and completely wrong. Don't confuse analog performance with digital sampling rate; two different animals. I've heard AM Stereo broadcasts that rivaled FM broadcast in high-frequency components and said to myself, "This is AM?" because it sounded so rich in quality. Theaveng 22:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

>>>>>>AM stereo is a totally different beast. I was referring to standard AM -- if your (RF) bandwidth is 10 KHz, that means that all audio frequencies over 5 KHz must be removed. I'm not talking digital sampling rate at all -- I'm talking about (analog) amplitude modulation. He said nothing about AM stereo dougmc 16:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

>>>> You are confusing AM channel spacing with modulation bandwidth. Plenty of the higher quality stations transmit audio wider than 5KHz. It is routine for distant stations to slightly overlap. This is what causes "monkey chatter".

>>>Yes, channel spacing is 10 KHz, but that's not a bandwidth specification -- you'll never find 2 stations in the same market on adjacent channels. The AMAX specificaton says conforming AM stations must have response out to 7,500 Hz. Now let's talk about AM-HD's 30 KHz bandwidth -- the main channel, and the two adjacent channels which are blanketed with hash. Georget99 23:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you want significant proof that this hash exists, come to Salt Lake City and tune any where around the three local stations that currently use HD, those being KUTR, KWDZ, and the mother of all hashes, KSL. I can not hear anything from 1140-1180 during the day and night here in Salt Lake, the hash of the signal is too great. HD radio is still too young to make any significant claims of benefits, including audio quality. Milonica (talk) 02:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DAB uses COFDM - so to say "spread spectrum", is wrong. There is an extension that was introduced some years ago, DMB (not DMB-S). It allows for better compresseion codecs, and can even transmit video data. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.152.202.77 (talk) 14:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Citing vendor PR marketing about countries "evaluating"[edit]

The article should not contain only references to (vendor-authored) PR articles about what countries are testing it - the source should be a government agency or independent consortium. Indeed, one could factually state that *any* system has been *evaluated* (just by shipping a test system to them). The articles provided were here say without independent vouching.

Sony[edit]

Why does Sony is not making car stereos HD ready? MarioV 01:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would say that Sony is a transition of some given products. They were known for some excellent shortwave models but much of those have either been discontinued or mimiced by far cheaper models from china (see Kaito/Degen) Sony is pushing everything towards a PS 3 launch later this season and since HD radio would be simply a one time seller it's understandable why they aren't in it yet. Give them a year to year and a half and I'm sure they'll do something.

AM Radio[edit]

It seems that this article has more useful information on AM radio than the AM broadcasting article. --

In any discussion of HD Radio's merits, please try to seperate your attacks on HD's negative affects on AM radio from those about FM radio. As a broadcast engineer, I know that HD causes many more interference problems on AM than it does on FM. I use it on FM, but hate it on AM. When you don't qualify your "hash" and interference complaints about stations and situations with a discussion of what band you're hearing this trouble on, you give the public the impression HD Radio is as bad for FM as it is for AM, which it clearly isn't. - 128.61.18.2 (talk) 11:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AM digital interference[edit]

"The term "on channel" is a misnomer because the system actually broadcasts on the ordinarily unused channels adjacent to an existing radio station's allocation"

Am rather amused by this bald lie. It goes to show how dishonest the HDR proponents are.

On the AM BC band there are no vacant slots either side of an AM station. In fact the modulation bandwidth is as wide (or wider) than the channel spacing.

It might be true that local stations are well spaced, but more distant stations are at 10 KHz spacing, so there is no way to avoid the digital sidebands when listening to a distant station..

~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.207.18.233 (talk) 10:56, 9 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Title and should it be moved[edit]

Should there be a sentence explaining what the HD in the title stands for? I'm sure they intend for it to stand for High Definition, although that's probably just a way to cash in on the HDTV non-craze that's going down. Is there some official title for the HD portion of the name?

HD Radio does not stand for anything.--XMBRIAN 19:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The first paragraph of the text explains what HD stands for (Hybrid Digital).

Actually, the first paragraph does NOT explain what it stands for, merely what it does not stand for. Clarification should be added to make sure that if it doesn't mean anything, then it simply stands for nothing.Mattygabe (talk) 22:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is not the title syntax wrong and it should be HD radio?1archie99 (talk) 00:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Signal Strength Units ?[edit]

I believe that there is an error in the article, "It does not generally cause interference to any analog station within its 1mV/m² signal strength contour, the lowest limit to which the FCC protects most stations." The units of radio signal strength should be mV/m. See the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_strength .Bartonsmith 13:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

HD Speakers?[edit]

I understand the difference of the HD radio signal and the radio receiver. But what about the radio speakers? Is there a difference or are they just putting an improved signal through the same old speakers which will not maximize the new HD singal?

There is no such thing as "HD" or Digital speakers or even headphones. I laugh everytime I see digital in reference to sound waves. Ever listen to a modem... that's what digital sounds like. Also, don't ever think that the higher the wattage the better the speaker. Always look for efficiancy when buying speakers. A 1000 watt speaker just takes a 1000 watt amp to push it.

Ty —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.195.66.44 (talk) 14:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The real definition of HD[edit]

I changed the definition of what HD stands for at the end of the first paragraph. It originally said it stands for Hybrid technology, however according to Howstuffworks.com.

Yeah, it's a sloppy edit. :-(

Fontenot 1031 22:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It does stand for Hybrid Digital which was purposely chosen by iBiquity and abbreviated HD so consumers would be fooled into think that it stands for High Definition which is far from the truth.

Gata4001 02:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update: The representative of the HD Digital Radio Alliance has the following update on the question of what HD stands for: "HD Radio is a trademarked name that was chosen because it resonates with consumers to mean a better quality audio experience. It’s easy for consumers to understand that HD means higher quality. Although HD Radio uses a hybrid digital technology, that is not what HD Radio stands for. iBiquity is currently reaching out to Wikipedia and IBM to have those references changed."

That's kind of deceptive to call something "HD" expecting people to associate it with "High Definition" but then say that it really doesn't mean that, and it doesn't mean "Hybrid Digital" and that it really doesn't mean anything at all. Should we be more clear in the first paragraph about this strangeness?

--Rcronk (talk) 22:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just got the response back from HD Radio:

Thanks for getting in touch with us. Right "HD" is simply part of our trademark for In-Channel, On-Band digital radio technology. It doesn’t have a meaning on its own. - Vicki Stearn, Director, Corp. Com.

I'll tweak the first paragraph to be more clear on this.

--Rcronk (talk) 21:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More Criticisms[edit]

Adding digital content may create high-frequency spikes. Do these have any detrimental effect on health? For example, can they interfere with normal nerve axon and synaptic transmission characteristics in the human body? Or does their amplitude drop so greatly inside the body (the body is a wet conductor) that they have negligible effects?

The plan is eventually to eliminate the audio signal, to go all digital. Is this fair to owners of AM radios? I'm thinking, for example, of construction workers who rely on inexpensive AM radio to help get them through the day.

Perhaps a minor complaint: it used to be that crystal radio sets charmed youngsters and got them interested in science and technology. Are we losing this sort of thing by eliminating all simple technology in favor of silicon chips?

David 18:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How likely is it that a broadcast flag can and will be added to "HD Radio"?

When local stations started adding digital, I had a harder time tuning in the FM (analog) station and I had more static on my radio. Perhaps it's "wasting" signal on the digital portion so there's less available for the analog part.

72.87.188.9 07:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since the FCC controls the maximum power output, the addition of the Digital signal requires a corresponding decrease for the Analog. So if, for example, the limit was 100 watts total, that means the analog portion must be reduced from 100 watts to 99 watts to make room for the 1 watt digital portion. (Short answer: Yes.) ;-) Theaveng 22:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is already somewhat in the article but traditional FM radio does not suffer from the "hash" like noise that can be heard on good old fashioned AM radios, the hash being caused by the digital signal. FM, being VHF, has more bandwidth, and is not effected by digital as much as AM is. HD radio also reaks havoc on skywave, which I'm guessing was intentional, since the FCC and Ibiquity basically believe that no one in their right mind would listen to an AM radio at night time, god forbit that would happen. Sorry for ranting, but ignorance on behalf of major corporations pisses me off. Milonica (talk) 02:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First of all the fm analog signal is still the same, the hd sidebands were added which contain the data i.e. the four different sources: music, news, etc. However the hd signal is at a lower power level about half of the analog signal. The FCC allowed the stations that broadcast HD to increase the HD power to that of the stations analog signal. Which means that the HD signal will reach out further. My information is from a good friend who is a Chief Engineer at a large market radio station. Segars 15 Jun 2013 (est) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.244.157.167 (talk)

secret?[edit]

Are the complete, exact technical specifications of the digital format etc secret? If not, please give the basic info in the article, and link to complete info. If the specs are secret, how foolish and wrong to pick this as a "public" broadcast standard -- good thing the rest of the world seems smarter! What about decoding this digital signal with a computer? (howstuffworks seems like a valuable additional source: http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/hd-radio1.htm) -69.87.204.244 14:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

digital myths (96kbps HD radio is NOT 1400kbps CD quality)[edit]

HD radio is described as "CD quality", but it is not. Audio CDs supply 1411 Kb/s Red Book (audio CD standard), but HD radio has 96 Kb/s at the most to work with (less for multicasting). To make up the difference, lossy compression is used. There is a general misunderstanding these days that digital allows higher quality in less bandwidth compared to analog. The opposite is true. Digital allows using MORE bandwidth to achieve greater quality and error correction/perfection. (What computations are needed to convert this 96 Kb/s to MP3?) -69.87.204.244 14:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"CD quality" can mean different things to different people. While I agree no one can achieve full cd quality with 96 kbps, 99% of the population can't tell the difference between a CD and an MP3 encoded at 192 kbps. That, to me, means it is CD quality. It is not a misunderstanding that digital allows higher quality in less bandwidth, because lossy compression, if done right, will sound BETTER than a lower sampled non-compressed analog signal. Rm999 05:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It would be more accurate if people said PERCEIVED cd quality, meaning most people can not hear the difference (and some can). As for MP3, a 96 kbps HD Radio signal uses MPEG4 AAC which is about equal to a 128kbps MP3.

.

I've listened to HD radio and it's definitely NOT cd quality. It has digital artifacts galore, and sounds more like an Ipod or other Digital device. Definitely not cd quality. Theaveng 22:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The biggest myth is that "CD quality" has anything to do with human perception. I'm sure corporations who benefit from making people believe that crap think it does, but the true definition of "CD quality" has to do with specs. If the audio is up to spec with CD, it's CD quality -- if it doesn't, it's not. The term "CD quality" was originally intended to describe PCM audio that has the same sample rate, etc. as a CD, but is not actually in that physical form. 24.254.10.80 (talk) 05:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To be fair, they say it is "almost CD quality," not CD quality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.93.188 (talk) 17:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article says, 'the FM system has been described as "CD quality"'. Oh boy, that's rich! There is no form of radio anywhere that is remotely near CD quality in terms of S/N ratio, dynamic range, stereo imaging, or transient response. Considering the fundamental truth that the newer formats (satellite, etc.) sound even worse, I can go ahead and predict that there will never be any form of radio that is CD quality in terms of S/N ratio, dynamic range, stereo imaging, or transient response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.100.147 (talk) 00:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It sounds like the one dedicating to HD, with no analog FM or other HD channels gets 300k bit/s, so maybe not so far off. Other than that, yes, it isn't close to CD quality. Gah4 (talk) 09:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

HD not a generic trademark[edit]

The article says:

Other criticisms, particularly from the television broadcast industry, cite HD radio’s rather colloquial usage of the term HD, which has historically been used and reserved for television. Some have argued this usage may be a form of trademark infringement. However, most arguments are unsubstantiated—the HD networks and media conglomerates (Fox, ABC, etc) failed to secure the trademark initially, and hence lost the HD branding to the public domain (similar to “Hoover” for vacuums, “Kleenex” for tissues, “Ziplock” for plastic bags, among others).

Terms such as Hoover, Kleenex, Ziploc and others (thought that list is woefully incomplete, missing, for instance, "spam" and "google") are registered trademarks that have become "genericized" and are in danger of losing or have in fact lost their trademark registrations. They are, in effect, victims of their own popularity. In contrast, nobody registered the term HD as a trademark or, more appropriately, as a certification mark and, as a result, the term can be used by anybody except to the extent that the companies that have used the term HD in relation to television image quality have common law trademark rights.

The comparison to so-called genericized trademarks is not appropriate in the context of the term HD and should be removed by somebody who is responsible for this page.

Kaplanmyrth 03:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did it really say "Ziplock"? Because that's not how it is spelled. Also, all three named brands are still extant, valid trademarks. Huw Powell (talk) 03:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FCC Finalizing HD Radio Rules[edit]

There should be some words on the final rules for HD as the FCC has made the decision earlier this week, including allowing AM-HD broadcasting at night.TravKoolBreeze 04:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

--Nightime AM HD Broadcasts?--

How does that work with some of the 50,000 watt blowtorches that broadcast in HD? If you can pull in one of those stations such as WABC 770 AM in NY,NY do you pick up the HD signal or just the analog?

HD is supposed to be robust-enough to handle some interference, so you'd probably still hear the long-distance HD signal albeit in a reduced form (20 kbit/s) since the tertiary data carriers would probably be "lost" in the noise. Only the primary carrier would make it through. Anyway. We'll just have to wait and see what happens later this winter (when the nighttime broadcasts are allowed). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theaveng (talk • contribs) 14:44, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

OFDM system comparison table[edit]

Feel free to add a HD radio column to the OFDM#OFDM system comparison table. Mange01 11:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Too technical?[edit]

`This article may be too technical for a general audience' ... no way! If you want to add a less technical summary, fine, but don't remove all the technical bits. dougmc 14:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discrepancy in Bitrates (96 vs 99.3)???[edit]

Although most magazines refer to FM-HD radio as a "96 kbps standard", if you read the actual iBiquity white papers it says the nominal FM rate is "99.3" kbps (and higher with additional modes). What's with the discrepancy between the reported "96" and the actual standard's 99.3 data rate? Theaveng 23:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I guess the 96kbps is a familiar number to most people and fits nicely in serie 16,32,48,64,96,112, 128, 160, 192, 256, ... known from other computer things like bit rates for mp3 songs.

Otherwise you are completely right about the 99.3kbps (actually 98.4kbps + 0.9kbps). For all those who want to read more about available bit rates in FM HD-Radio I recommend The Structure and Generation of Robust Waveforms for FM In-Band On-Channel Digital Broadcasting [PDF, 330KB, pp.11]

24.81.130.107 10:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh god, I remember all the confusion where people encoded MP3s at 56kbps because they had 56K modems and figured that was the right setting. :P 24.254.10.80 (talk) 05:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Hdradiologo.jpg[edit]

Image:Hdradiologo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NPOV[edit]

This page seems to be heavily biased against HD radio, including lots of unsourced statements:

"in actual practice this is absolutely untrue unless you live within 10 miles of the transmitters and even then the fidelity is not as good as a good analog radio"
"this results in one station obliterating two others creating harmful interference which is against the FCC rules although these are not being enforced at all at this point anyway"
"HD Radio has been criticized for being incompatible with the standards selected by most other countries; hence overseas travel with an HD Radio, or the sale of radios to or from countries that don't use HD Radio is not possible. Manufacturers presently must design and build separate radios for the U.S. market which many find a waste of time as many other more realistic countries' broadcasting regulators can see this model is going absolutely nowhere except in a few engineers minds here in the US."
"Unlike regular car radios which come standard with every automobile, HD Radio requires you to buy a new radio or upgrade costing more than $1000 extra." (is this a serious criticism?)

The criticism section is large and criticism creeps into the other sections anyway. The whole article needs references and criticisms should be limited to those with sources. I'd make many of these edits myself, but I don't really know much about the subject. I've added several "attribution needed" tags where appropriate. Oren0 02:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why does 75% of this article read like it was written by one of iBiquity's shills who probably invests in the company? Why are things like high quality audio left in without qualification? The FCC has not mandated any analog shutdown for radio, not even any talk of it, why is that lie allowed in there, who wrote it, you purport to be an online encyclopedia, why are all these inaccuracies and iBiquity propagandas allowed in this article? The main sources seem to be iBiquity itself, is iBiquity an unbiased source on their own product which is failing miserably at this point? Gata4001 21:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Obviously you don't like HD radio, but in order for your edits to be taken seriously you need to conform to WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. If you can find reliable sources that make criticisms, then by all means add them. If you believe that statements in the article are inaccurate, mark them with {{fact}} tags and give editors time to fix them. But nobody will tolerate you turning this page into your own soapbox. You can't add facts (especially highly detailed ones about range and quality and such) unless they're sourced, end of story. Oren0 21:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"not even any talk of it" ----- False. False. False. FCC *did* in fact request that manufacturers develop BOTH analog and pure-digital modes, because the FCC plans to treat radio the same way they are treating television (with an analog shutdown in the future.) Thus if you review the white papers, you will see there are modes for Pure Digital operation. Those modes may never get used, but that doesn't change the fact that they are there, and that's why they are documented here. - Theaveng 15:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

P.S. As for quality, if you've ever listened to HE-ACC or AAC+ internet radio (on Shoutcast for example) at 40 kilobits/second then you already know how HD-AM sounds. HD Radio uses the same codec with the same quality as internet AAC+ radio. "Scientific testing by the European Broadcasting Union has indicated that HE-AAC at 48 kb/s was ranked as "Excellent" quality using the MUSHRA scale." Source wikipedia. AAC+ is also the same codec being used for European-DAB radio (starting 2008). - Theaveng 15:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gata, you claim that this article reads like an Ibiquity puff piece, yet do not really cite any particular parts of it. In your defense, I have seen nothing that says the FCC plans to eventually convert the FM dial to digital. In fact, I've been hearing exactly the opposite, yet I currently have no sources readily available for that. If there is a plan to turn off analog radio, then this needs a very strong cite (an FCC document, AP report, etc. - not from an opinion blog). Now Gata, just because this article is not a complete slam on HD Radio does not mean that it is propaganda. And I think it's pretty ironic in that, while criticizing it for being overtly POV, you added tons of unsubstantiated 'facts' and lots and lots of opinion (...'went over like a lead balloon'). Now tell me, is THAT WP:NPOV? That's why many are irritated by your recent actions on this article. It is not because you are right and everyone else is wrong, as you obviously seem to think. Overall, the article is good, and I can see that it is heavy in facts, even answering a few questions that I had about it. --Fightingirish 13:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Although the FCC many never discontinue analog radio, HD Radio *does* include Pure Digital modes as part of its standard, and I think they should be documented. - Theaveng 15:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is true, but it will be a long time, if ever, until the FCC will mandate all-digital like they did with TV. That distinction should be made, to avoid confusion.--Fightingirish 18:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The chances of the FCC mandating radio to go the same route as TV (pure digital) is ages away from now. There are too many analog radios still in use that and HD radio is still in its infancy, and still has a lot of kinks (I call em flaws) to work out. --Milonica (talk) 19:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm ______ at the vandalism[edit]

I'm an electrical engineer. I did a lot of research on HD Radio and how it works (or does not work), reviewing various white papers and FCC studies of the hardware. And what happens next? Along came 2 people who basically destroyed all my hard work. I was going to go back and try to restore all the facts I had added to article, but you know what? Forget it. There's no point in me wasting my time trying to "fix" the article, if people can so easily ERASE EVERYTHING I ADDED to the article. Why should I waste my time???

Yes I'm angry. The vandals erased some VALID information (both the pros and cons) along with my carefully researched citations. What did I waste my time for? - Theaveng 14:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What? Wikipedia isn't the Utopian ideal it's often touted as? Shock, horror! ;) 24.254.10.80 (talk) 05:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've reverted the entire article back to how it was BEFORE 68.184.38.79 and GATO (probably the same person) started making Barbarian Vandal Raids on the entry. I can understand their skepticism for HD Radio (after my research I decided NOT to buy HD; it's got some serious flaws), But that's no excuse for them to destroy/obliterate all the hard work I put into the article, trying to make it factual and informative. Stupid frak____. - Theaveng 14:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Banning Gata4001[edit]

What do we need to do to get rid of this guy? Reviewing the history I notice that, even after a change is reverted ("Please don't editorialize and don't have deceptive edit summaries"), he immediately goes back, ignores the advice just given, and puts back his hate-filled opinions ("is this high quality besides iBiquity's?"). He's clearly here to disrupt and destroy the encylopedia. I vote to ban him immediately. - Theaveng 14:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Disclaimer: I am not affiliated with iBiquity Corporation). Theaveng, thanks for all your painstaking work on the article. I vote with you, but am unsure how to proceed. Apparently, disruptive editing and stubborn, uncooperative behavior are not considered vandalism (WP:VAND), and action against disruptive editing (WP:DE) can involve a long, time-consuming process (WP:RFCC). Maybe you will see a simpler, quicker, better way than I do. I left a very civil (and evidently ineffective) message on User talk:Gata4001 that initiates the process. (I believe your msg. on User:Gata4001 belongs instead on the User talk page). One can also request page protection for HD Radio per WP:RFPP. Hertz1888 14:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think that he's done anything that would suggest a ban at this point. While his edits may seem POV, remember to assume good faith on behalf of other editors. If things get bad, keep an eye on the WP:3RR. If he violates that, you can let an administrator know and he'll likely get a 24-hour ban. But be careful not to get sucked into an edit war yourself. It's important to realize, as Hertz points out above, that what he's doing is not vandalism. Oren0 21:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Um. Okay. Look below. I just compiled this list of everything Gato has done to this article. How can you not call this vandalism? (1) He's deleting useful information. (2) He's wiping out whole paragraphs. (3) He's erasing references. (4) He's erasing the list of external HD links. (4) He's deleting positive phrases. (5) And replacing them with negative ones. (6) He doesn't back-up anything with an external citation. (7) He randomly creates questions right in the middle of the article. (8) He has accused *us*, the editors of this article, of being "iBiquity shills" and "creating BS" for the corporation. (9) He accused the people at the FCC of being "business lackeys" who "were obviously greased" with bribe money. (10) He engages in a revert war with the other editors. (11) He refuses to listen to the other editors' requests that he stop posting POV, opinions, non-substantiated claims, and/or deleting useful links, references, and sentences.

If that's not vandalism, then I think I'll go spray-paint my name on a couple bridges & buildings, since apparently it's okay to be destructive. (laughs) - I'm growing tired of having to "clean the paint off the wall" every time GATO makes a visit & trying to restore the article to encyclopedic standards. I've wasted ~7 hours over the last few days just undoing Gato's wreckage, and I'm sick of it.- Theaveng 12:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No question (in my opinion) the behavior is disruptive, and extremely frustrating to deal with. It is WP that makes a distinction between disruptive editing and vandalism. The actions of Gata (with an a, by the way) may have escalated into vandalism. They seem to closely match some of the descriptions of tendentious editing, and that may be grounds for blocking. I suggest you have a look at WP:TE. Hertz1888 13:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Documentation of Gata4001's Uncooperation/vandalism[edit]

If Gato4001 only did this once or twice, I wouldn't care, but he keeps making these same changes again-and-again-and-AGAIN, even though he has been instructed not to do so. He is a DISRUPTIVE editor, not a constructive one. He seeks to destroy the article, rather than create a better one. He seeks to create chaos, rather than harmony & cooperation.

DELETED positive-sounding phrases w/o cause:

(Note if a phrase repeats, it's because Gato deleted it multiple times in multiple revisions, despite being asked not to erase valid information.)
- Deleted external reference to www.mp3newswire.net/stories/7002/hd-radio2.html. Why? Who knows?
  - - (editor's note) (These phrases didn't need to be deleted; he's destroying useful information.)

Randomly inserting questions in the middle of articles:
- "(achieving quality equal to Analog AM Stereo) (in whose opionion and is this likely?)"
  - - (editor's note) (The questions are fine, but they belong in the TALK page, not the article. We've told Gato4001 this many, many times, but he refuses to listen. He just keeps inserting random questions into the middle of articles. He is disruptive, uncooperative, and creating chaos.)

ADDED negative-sounding phrases w/o citation:

(Note if a phrase repeats, it's because Gato posted it multiple time in multiple revisions, despite being asked not to include POV opinions in the article.)
- "Much of the following BS is iBiquities point of view and was most likely written by an IBOC shill, independent voices are not tolerated here obviously"
- "To Summarize, DO NOT BUY AN IBOC RADIO AS THEY ARE A WASTE OF MONEY AND WILL BE OBSOLETE VERY SOON, AM STEREO WAS A MUCH BETTER IDEA AND SOUNDED BETTER AND DIDN'T CREATE INTERFERENCE TO OTHER STATIONS AND IT DIDN'T WORK OUT EITHER."
  - - (editor's note) (Thus he's trying to twist the article from an informative piece, into an ANTI-HD propaganda piece.)

Yes I'm angry. I'm sick of seeing these Barbarian Vandal Raids destroying all my hard work (improving the article) over the last month. He's also destroying other people's hard work who originally created the article ~2 years ago. GATO4001 is disruptive, uncooperative, and creating chaos. - Theaveng 11:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Try to keep your emotions out of it. Getting angry is unlikely to help the encyclopedia improve. There have been two "final warnings" posted on User Talk:Gata4001. If you believe he violates NPOV/vandalism again, feel free to report him at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Try to remain civil though. Oren0 17:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What cars Don't come with old-style analog radios?[edit]

I notice some one changed the "regular radio comes with all cars" to "most cars". I'm curious to know: What car models do NOT come with a radio? I recently looked at the cheapest car I could buy (toyota yaris), and it came with a radio even with everything else stripped (no power brakes; no power steering; no a/c). ----- Point is: I am unaware of any car model that does not come with an analog radio; it's standard equipment. Isn't it? - Theaveng 14:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tata Motors announced a Tata Nano last year: the $2000 made-in-India car on which neither a broadcast radio nor an airbag are standard equipment. Odds are, it doesn't include IBOC either, though... --66.102.80.212 (talk) 08:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GATA's contributions[edit]

You can add these to the article AFTER you give us some citations. If you don't have citations, then they can not be added. (Because they are merely unsubstantiated opinions without validation. They are also not NPOV (neutral).)

"AM stations are hesitant to change fearing consumer and industry backlash at the interference which this system is beginning to generate country wide." - How do you know? Do you have a source for this information?
"www.hear2.com/2007/09/measuring-hd-ra.html#comments" - No this is NOT a valid citation. It is merely someone's opinion.
"(NDS, a maker of digital media encryption technology....)" - And this doesn't belong in the INTRODUCTION section, which is merely a brief summary, not a detailed analysis. It belongs where I put it; in the Overview section.

- Theaveng 17:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comparison with DRM completely wrong[edit]

I've come across these comparisons between HD-Radio and DRM already on the DRM page. I edited it and posted the reason what was wrong with it. Please, read it and fix especially the paragraph AM-HD vs. AM-DRM that is completely wrong.

BTW, there is nothing called AM-DRM. DRM is a standard for radio broadcasting on frequencies below 30MHz. That is what you may call AM. The standard for broadcasting on FM will be called DRM+. 24.81.130.107 09:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that's a trivial distinction, since various European Union nations have already started installing DRM in the same band where AM currently sits (hence AM-band-DRM, or just AM-DRM), but I will make the change just to keep you happy. :-) As for AM-HD Radio, it's pure digital mode is designed to fit inside 10 kilohertz, but you were partly correct. It's not 40 kbps, but only 20 kbps. - Theaveng 10:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You still got it wrong. Look at this line: "Hybrid mode (analog and digital) - 5 for AM, 5 for DRM at 10 kbits/sec - (HD Radio is 40-60)". Just admit it. You're comparing apples and oranges - 10kHz bandwidth for DRM (only 5kHz used for data) with 30kHz for HD-Radio (20kHz used only for data, other 10kHz used to broadcast data "under" analog signal). 24.81.130.107 11:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Just admit it." You make it sound as if I am deliberately lying. I assure you I am not. At the time I posted that paragraph, it seemed logical to compared the DRM hybrid mode to the HD hybrid mode. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theaveng (talk • contribs) 09:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm just glad we don't have DRM in the U.S. since it'd be a complete mess of confusion with the other DRM (Digital Rights Management). It's bad enough that iBiquity co-opted the HD moniker and freely admit it really means nothing. Just another way for corporations to mislead the public into handing over buckets of cash for something that isn't what it's made out to be. 24.254.10.80 (talk) 05:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comparison with HD TV[edit]

Why is the following comparison allowed which is both in both AM and FM: "If in the future the FCC decides to discontinue analog radio, as they have done with analog television, etc." This sentence insinuates that because the FCC mandated total conversion to digital in television, that this edict is also imminent in radio, this is a remore possiblity, and the two should not be linked at all. Gata4001 15:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Gata. The sentence insinuates nothing. It clearly says "if" and is equivalent to saying, "If the earth is hit by an asteroid, as happened 70 million years ago, then here's what would happen....." Just because I said an asteroid hit our planet millions of years ago, does not insinuate that we should all start looking up in the sky & building fallout shelters. It's entirely possible an asteroid will NEVER hit the earth again..... just as it's entirely possible HD Radio will fail, and there will never be analog shutdown. (That's what the word "if" means.)

The introductory phrase I used is merely a way to explain how HD Radio would operate *if* the analog radio no longer existed (pure digital mode). What do you want me to do? Pretend the HD Radio's Pure Digital mode does not exist??? That's not going to happen. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to document ALL the modes, not just the ones you like (and ignore the ones you dislike). - Theaveng 16:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since we're discussing Analog Shutdown, I thought you might find this interesting: "WORLDBEAT - UK: ANALONG MAY END IN 2015." commercial radio companies in the United Kingdom are looking to set a firm end date for analog radio." GERMANY is also targeting 2015 for a shutdown. That would put the shutdown at ~16 years after Digital Audio Broadcasting (DAB) was first introduced to the UK, and also make the UK & Germany the first nations to end FM radio. More here: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.info/browse_thread/thread/e4d202b113f98cfd - Theaveng 18:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Theaveng, Digital radio in Europe is different than the system they are using here and more importantly is also not a molopoly backed by the FCC or whatever sanctioning body they have over there for communications.

An asteroid falling is a purely random happening, but an analog shutdown would be a decision by the FCC, your comparison does not hold water, you are comparing apples and oranges. Saying "If the earth is hit by an asteroid, as happened 70 million years ago, then here's what would happen....." does not in anyway insinuate or give the sense that one could or will fall imminently as the last one that fell (in your sentence) was 70 million years ago. But the sentence "If in the future the FCC decides to discontinue analog radio, as they have done with analog television, etc." does give a sense of imminency as the TV shutdown is scheduled for about two years from now and the shutdown was dictated within the past few years and most people probably are aware of that (and many also do not like that) and will link the two in their minds whether conciously or unconciously. I do not agree that that sentence is as innocuous as you try to make it seem. - Gata4001 23:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you've read the article, you know that the E.U. standards are not really any better than IBOC HD Radio. They share many of the same flaws, so please don't hold-up the European Union as some kind of digital radio paradise. It is not.

The sentence insinuates nothing. It clearly says "if" and is equivalent to saying, "If President Bush decides to declare war on Japan, as President Roosevelt decided to do 50+ years ago, then here's what the U.S. Constitution requires....." ----- Just because I said the U.S. declared war on Japan half-a-century ago, does not insinuate that we should all start banging our plowshares into swords. It's entirely possible we will NEVER fight Japan again..... just as it's entirely possible HD Radio will fail, and there will never be analog shutdown. (That's what the word "if" means.)

Nevertheless HD Radio *does* have a pure digital mode, and it needs to be documented in the article. Furthermore, the phase "the FCC decided to shut-down analog television" is 100% factual. I can even provide citations if you insist (like dtv.gov/). There's absolutely NO justification for deleting it from the encyclopedia. - Theaveng 11:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One key difference in Europe is that frequencies for Digital Audio Broadcasting were allocated entirely *outside* the existing analogue FM radio broadcast band. That makes a huge difference in terms of avoiding interference to existing radio stations and also makes the system more accessible to new entrants who don't already have analogue stations on-air. Using existing analogue radio spectrum for IBOC and dumping much of the digital data on frequencies which are within bandpass for adjacent channels is causing much interference which could have been avoided were digital allocated its own independent spectrum. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 08:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why is what looks like the iBiquity HD radio logo allowed on top of the HD radio entry?[edit]

It makes the entry look very biased and is free advertising. Gata4001 15:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is standard practice for anything with a logo. For a few examples at random, see Google, Frosted Flakes, Xbox 360, and Blu-ray Disc. This article is about a registered trademark and therefore the logo is included right on top. Oren0 16:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clearly the Blu-ray article is biased. Give me VHS any day of the week. (Just joking.) - Theaveng 16:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Theaveng, You are right, I still do not agree with it, but I definitely lost this one, and actually I think 8 track cassettes had the best audio ever invented. - Gata4001 00:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When I was growing-up, I got to hear lots of my dad's 8-tracks, and they were okay except they had a serious flaw with speed (either going too fast or too slow). The absolute best sound quality (analog) came from Type IV Metal cassettes, with Type II store-bought chrome a close second. Cassetes run circles around 8-track. ----- (But Digital audio like CDs or SA-CDs blow them all away.) - Theaveng 11:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I always thought good quality vinyl LPs were the best as far as analog formats go. Digital sounds great, but the earlier ones sounded a bit cold compared to vinyl. 8-tracks were garbage, as were most cassettes. Commercial reel-to-reel wasn't bad (my dad actually had some prerecorded '60s stuff on R2R), but a pain to work with for just listening to music. Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs turned out some amazing vinyl product.--Fightingirish 01:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Type IV cassette can achieve 20-22,000 hertz with 80 db S/N. I don't think any vinyl can beat that (too much noise). - Theaveng 14:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just wanted to let you know Theaveng that the article looks a little more balanced to me now. I still hate IBOC and can't wait until it dies of apathy unless it is legislated into our faces like they (FCC, big money, etc.) did to TV (although with TV at least it makes some sense) but it does look and read better. Incidentally I was kidding about 8 tracks, I thought they were the worst form of music reproduction ever made. I also like LP's and still buy them especially new ones when I can. I have several MFSL LP's and they sound unbelievable. I think a good LP blows away any digital form of music reproduction. Gata4001 06:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"I still hate IBOC and can't wait until it dies". Really? I had no idea you felt that way. <wink> :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theaveng (talk • contribs) 13:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Way too technical[edit]

I've just read through this, and I have yet to figure out how exactly to listen to HD radio signals. Me thinks it's time to stop with the "I wish I was a high school electronics teacher" speech, and just get to the point. This is an encyclopedia, not an electronics manual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.183.121.32 (talk) 11:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On the other hand, I'm an electrical engineer, and I find this article EXTREMELY valuable in understanding how it works, why it sounds better than analog, and how it compares with other Digital Radio options (like DRM or DAB). ----- Oh and to answer your question: "How do I listen to HD radio signals?" Answer: You buy an HD radio; simple as that. :-) The article says that in the first few paragraphs, and even provides a list of manufacturers towards the end, so you know where to go to buy one. - Theaveng (talk) 12:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Analog shut off [?][edit]

I'm curious as to whether any future date for a switch-off of analog radio in the USA has been announced. Analog cell phones are being shut off in the USA in 2008, and analog television in 2009. Is it likely that analog radio may one day be shut off also, so as to free wireless spectrum for more data services? Pine (talk) 21:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No date set. Given that analog radios are installed in virtually every car ever made, and cars last 20-30 years, it will probably be 20 years until Analog radio shuts down. In Europe where DAB has existed for ten years, there's still no set date for eliminating analog radio, although various governments have suggested 2015 or 2020. ---- Theaveng (talk) 20:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I highly doubt they will completely shut of analog radio. HD radio is not going to be the end all be all of conventional radio. Too many people have (and they are still manufacturing) analog radios for them to set any date at this point. There are no really good sources that say Analog radio will be shut off at all. --Milonica (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Analog TV takes up a lot of spectrum space, a big reason for removing it. AM and FM radio are much smaller, so less reason to go. Many newer services are coming in at higher frequencies, easy with modern electronics. But you never know. Gah4 (talk) 07:23, 11 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

picky points[edit]

The correct terms are stereo AM and stereo FM, not AM stereo and FM stereo. "Stereo" modifies the transmission system, not the other way 'round. As a wag remarked some decades back, "FM stereo is stereo with flutter".

Kahn was not the inventor of stereo AM. There are several stereo AM systems, of which his is one.

WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 14:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Stereo modifies the transmission system, not the other way 'round." So does this mean John Ashcroft was wrong when he called himself Attorney General? Should it have been General Attorney, since "general" modifies the noun attorney? (I'm making a point here about how English doesn't follow hard-and-fast rules, and is actually a vary flexible language. i.e. FM Stereo and Attorney General is acceptable usage.) ---- Theaveng (talk) 14:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The first portable HD radio was produced by Coby in 2008, about 1 year before Best Buy's Insignia unit was released. The model is HDR-700. Also, the Coby unit has both AM HD and FM HD, however the Insignia unit is FM HD only. Therefore, the Coby HDR-700 is still the only portable AM HD and FM HD radio.

http://www.cobyusa.com/read_news.php?news_id=17

http://www.cobyusa.com/?p=prod&prod_num_id=194&pcat_id=3005 —Preceding unsigned comment added by NiklasE (talk • contribs) 05:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How to buy Hybrid Digital HD radio[edit]

a. HD radio
Around the Boston area what are the lowest cost Hybrid Digital HD radios, that do the job in a manner of speaking, for listening to music and listening to singing?...

b. Satellite radio
What are the lowest cost tabletop or boombox type radios or setups available around the Boston area for both sirius and xm satellite radio services?...

Among a few references checked so far
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hd_radio
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirius_Satellite_Radio
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM_Satellite_Radio
-- the zak 22:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Reduced quality concerns - NPOV?[edit]

Problem: at this time, this section's tone degenerates into future-predictive FUD by its end. Accuracy of the content notwithstanding, the tone seems far afield of Wikipedia standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PScooter63 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indeed is it quite poor now; iBiquity's product wasn't the subject of this article until recently. It looks like it's time for a huge revert. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 19:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Accept, HD Radio *is* a product of iBiquity.... same way VHS is a product of JVC. You can't discuss one without the other. ---- Theaveng (talk) 17:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not to mention, certain sections sound just like advertisements. --Milonica (talk) 19:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bot report : Found duplicate references ![edit]

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

"'Eda Geek'" :
- {{cite news | first= | last= | coauthors= | title=HD Rollout (author: iBiquity marketing) | date=2006-04-11 | publisher= | url =http://edageek.com/2006/04/11/ibiquity-rolls-out-certified-hdm1181-digital-hd-radio-reference-module/ | work = | pages = | accessdate = 2007-01-29 | language = }}
- {{cite news | first= | last= | coauthors= | title=HD Rollout | date=2006-04-11 | publisher= | url =http://edageek.com/2006/04/11/ibiquity-rolls-out-certified-hdm1181-digital-hd-radio-reference-module/ | work = | pages = | accessdate = 2007-01-29 | language = }}
"'Digital Radio News'" :
- {{cite news | first= | last= | coauthors= | title=Brazil Hosts HD Radio Rollout | date=2006-11-01 | publisher= | url =http://www.digital-radio-news.com/content/view/86/26/ | work = | pages = | accessdate = 2007-01-29 | language = }}
- {{cite news | first= | last= | coauthors= | title=Brazil Hosts HD Radio Rollout (author: iBiquity marketing) | date=2006-11-01 | publisher= | url =http://www.digital-radio-news.com/content/view/86/26/ | work = | pages = | accessdate = 2007-01-29 | language = }}

DumZiBoT (talk) 02:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AAC standard[edit]

Theaveng, rather than removing any reference that clarifies the HDC relationship to AAC, lets try this: you cite an article that show HDC IS compatible with the MPEG standard; if you cannot and it stands that the HDC bitstream is NOT compliant with the MPEG standard, then consumers have a right to know this, and we ask that you stop glossing this fact over by saying "AAC-derived". Incompatible is, incompatible, and proprietary is proprietary. Again you can disprove this by citing references.

You can also stop deleting references to fact: that second generation DAB stations are using AAC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ken2009 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

rm Advert template[edit]

I don't think the advert template is justified here. I did not see a justification in the edit summary or here. A short list of who makes technology available to consumers is I think always helpful in a article like this. patsw (talk) 17:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Misunderstanding[edit]

Extremely high cost[edit]

«FMeXtra is even less expensive, and—on the transmission side—requires no installation (and therefore no cost), other than plugging it into the transmitter. However, special radios are required for reception in most cases.»

I really find difficulty understanding this sentence!

Is it contradicting itself!

Can FMeXtra transmissions be received on an HD-radio-receiver? How?
Can FMeXtra transmissions be received on DAB-receivers? How?

Can FMeXtra transmissions be received on both of HD-radio-receivers & DAB-receivers? How?
Can ordinary analog-FM-receivers receive FMeXtra transmissions? How?

--Mahmudmasri (talk) 14:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References removed[edit]

Admittedly, I'm still very new here at Wikipedia, but I'm a fast learner. I'm wondering why the reference I included in a recent edit were removed by IP 76.84.142.26. Was it the quoted text, or the source reference? Argguy (talk) 05:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know why it was done, but can guess. I have restored the citation, but not the promotional press release hype, which I would deem inappropriate content. Hertz1888 (talk) 05:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, good to know, thanks. I quoted the text from the source and not from Microsoft, but I understand why it didn't belong. Argguy (talk) 06:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question concerning the Costs of HD[edit]

If HD is free on cable, why can Radio HD be free? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Munozonfuego (talk • contribs) 07:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bias[edit]

This article has several slams, some subtle, to HD radio and the radio broadcasting industry as a whole, placing the agenda and opinions of those who support LPFM above facts.

In the Bandwidth section:

Ironically, the National Association of Broadcasters claims this is not a problem, while at the same time using it as justification to keep LPFM stations (except its own members' translator stations) off the air.

Speculation, opinion, and a stance of those who support LPFM

The entire "Translators" section is all amateur analysis of the law and incorrect at that. The entire section can be summed up in two or three objective sentences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sraolive (talk • contribs) 19:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deficient audio quality of tabletop radios[edit]

What tabletop HD radios are the best?... Many tabletop radios with hybrid digital HD radio appear to be of deficient audio quality, for example the tabletop HD radios at Radio Shack stores.
-- the zak (talk) 08:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you're serious about buying an HD Radio, look into the Sony XDR-F1HD. This is perhaps the best HD radio in existence right now. Just my two cents. The only thing, you'll need to plug it into a regular sound system, as it is just a tuner, not a radio with speakers. --milonica (talk) 00:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Changed kbits/s to kB/s[edit]

I changed kilobit/s ( base 2) to kB/s (base 10 ) to keep in parallel with kHz which is a base 10 measurement. Also because the latter kilobit/s ( base 2) is not common knowledge nor in standard usage to date. Also because standard audio equipment is measured in the standard base 10 systems of kHz and kB/s etc --Anthony morgan peters (talk) 14:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

reverted back to above edit because kbits are in there infancy as a industry standard--Anthony morgan peters (talk) 19:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

undid all of the above edits.--Anthony morgan peters (talk) 19:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kilobit are base 10 (and implicit /s). kilobyte/s is traditional base 2. You convert between bits and bytes by dividing by 8. I think you are confusing bit with bytes and bytes with (ki)bibytes. Carewolf (talk) 20:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kilo (k) means ×10³. Kibi (ki) means ×2¹⁰. Lowercase b is the symbol for bit. Uppercase B is the symbol for byte. There are eight bits in a byte. The bit is the unit of data (hence the kilobit, kibibit, byte, kilobyte and kibibyte are also amounts of data). The bit per second (b/s) is the unit of data rate (hence kb/s, kib/s, B/s, kB/s and kiB/s are all measurements of data rate too, but they are not equal). The "per second" is by no means implicit. MegaPedant (talk) 01:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clearer reading[edit]

Rearanged and added the following to the intro for clearer reading and understanding "to transmit audio and data via a digital signal in conjunction with their analog signals. As a standared practice,the kilohertz signal rate is written next to its corresponding data transfer rate kilobits/s or kbits/s in Hd radio documentation."--Anthony morgan peters (talk) 19:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What does "kilohertz signal rate" mean? I read it in the introduction and I can't work out what you mean by it, so I think the casual reader will be confused too. MegaPedant (talk) 01:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think I just removed what was left of that line from where it had ended up for being relatively content- and context-free. Huw Powell (talk) 03:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ambiguity of the word bandwidth[edit]

I made a disambiguating edit for a link of the word bandwidth to the article bandwidth (signal processing). In the edit I made, it was clearly referring to an effective range of analog signal frequencies. However, there are other places where the same word is used to refer to bandwidth (computing), or perhaps equivalently, bit rate. This is not confusing to electrical engineers, but newcomers to the topic may want to know that there is a distinction. (I'm in the middle of looking for everywhere that links to the disambiguation page bandwidth, so I thought I would drop a note to see if anyone else wants to tackle this. If not, I may or may not come back in a few months and do it myself!) CosineKitty (talk) 20:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Engineers sometimes get confused, as they are often used in mixed situations. But yes, usually I know which one is which. I am not sure that there is a good way to do it. Gah4 (talk) 07:29, 11 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FCC Approves Power Increase: Order Released[edit]

The FCC has released an order dated January 28, 2010 that allows for a four-fold IBOC power increase, with some restrictions for a few stations, and ground rules for settling interference issues.

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-208A1.pdf

This order contains some technical inforamtion so someone with more technical knowledge will have to read it before anything is added to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.27.224.139 (talk) 23:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edits regarding WQXR, Mormon Channel, translators[edit]

Restored edits made 29 January 2010 as these contain information that is more current.

WQXR: See station website, station was sold and WNYC acquired the 105.9 frequency in a three-way deal with Univision, and put WQXR and Q2 on 105.9, and WQXR on the HD2 of WNYC, in a simultameous move on October 8, 2009.

Mormon Channel See radio.lds.org, which will confirm content, and unique nature of being a noncommerciial station on a commercial station's HD2, may not be the only one as there had been one in Ohio for at least a time broadcasting an NPR affiliate via a commercial station's HD2.

Translators: Red link is of call of translator that is one of a very small number of HD Radio broadcasters that are broadcating HD Radio in via translators (not putting HD2 on analog translator), the others are in Vermont and southern Nevada (KNPR translators). Verifiable in directory at hdradio.com, click the link to see more than just the major markets for this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.27.224.139 (talk) 00:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The reason I reverted the edits is that it seems a bit unnecessary to have examples of stations. Wouldn't saying there are stations that do what they do be enough. Why do we have to get specific? It makes it seem like these are the only translators carrying the HD streams when I know there are more doing this. --milonica (talk) 01:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks on that, maybe I am a little less clear on defining things, the KUER translator, the KNPR translators, and the Vermont translators all take the main signal as-is, and don't pick up the HD stream separately, unlike some others that simply rebroadcast one of the HD2 channels as an analog signal, so what you are really getting on the translators is the full station, with all HD signals included.

These are very few presently and they are hard to find on the listings at hdradio.com since you have to go to the clickable map to get all that is in one state and even then there are not that many so it's hit or miss on those, but there will be more, especially now that the power increase has been approved. See the link in the previous section for that. If you have a better way to say what I was really shooting for, by all means put it into the article as an edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.27.224.139 (talk) 21:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Conditional Access assertion untrue[edit]

Conditional Access is mentioned as being a requirement to offer Services such as reading for the blind. This is untrue. Previous generation of that service only required a received capable of decoding SCA signals, and Radio reading service were most definitely not 'illegal to receive', required no subscription, and no conditional access.

The Boston COMINS project operated at MIT in the mid 1980s is another example of using the SCA channel.

rhyre (talk) 20:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The citation attached to that statement made no mention of conditional access. It did mention a demo of radio reading services, which apparently did not require conditional access to work. I also have trouble understanding why a technology similar to closed captioning (as the reference describes it) would require conditional access, seeing as CC has worked on broadcast television signals for decades. If somebody can find a reference that doesn't contradict that statement, excellent, but for the time being it doesn't seem to belong here. --Aurochs (Talk | Block) 16:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comparison with DAB[edit]

The comparison with DAB does not seem to mention how it performs in mobile environment with the effects of multipath, DAB was designed specifically for use in cars and does not suffer from the distortion experienced with FM where there is multipath. HD Radio is based on an FM transmission so how does it compare?--jmb (talk) 23:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The whole comparison with DAB section is utterly biased and America-centic and sound like it was taken from HD Radio promotional material. The contemporary DAB+ is even ignored, comparing HD Radio with an old standard. If the WP section even reflects the sources, then the sourcer are not up to par. PizzaMan (♨♨) 00:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hd in 2011[edit]

Hd radio has now been around awhile. AM Hd is really cool when rolled out right but it rarely is done. News AM station in Dallas and College station sound well. A small AM Disney station in Houston, does sound really well. You could use the format to put old music back on the radio. The station in question sounds awesome. I have never Got am digital at home. Only on my mobile unit. I am the HD boy, I own 4 radios. Tuner, portable, table, and a great inexpensive car radio by JVC. They all vary in reception. All radio's do. Also how someone rolls out HD makes a huge difference on how it sound. Some HD ones sound great. I have heard some roll-outs with no back ground noise, no articulation and just great sound. Most twos sound a little articulated. If you read HD white papers, (I have) they talk about what files to encrypt and not to process. Wrong file, it will sound bad. Stations even mix them. The mask is a little small. You basically need to be in the target area of the station. The DXing at this point is just for those who live in the area of broadcast. Get a car unit. Oh lets talk mobile. My JVC is great. I can get great sound in target areas well. I just replaced a Honda radio with it and it works fine. Most two (HD-2) stations hold up well under bridges and buildings. Most DX sadly live, quiet retired lives out in the country, where you need a home antenna to even get analog FM. Big steel does work rurally and you can get a nearby market ok on HD. Where HD really is cool is the multi signals. Old formats are brought back, bad AM are FMed, and some other formats could go national. HD will rock win the stations figure out how to make money. The non profits are having all kinds of fun with it. San Antonio, Texas got an African American station back. Houston got Christian rock. The internet is also a boon two these two stations. As for the haters, these guys sound like early Americans who hated electricity and phones. They forget that when FM rolled out no one, no one cared. Am stations where given FM licenses for free and did nothing with them. Later it mattered. HD can be a good median to expand the band, but not turn the lights off on real band. And oh by the way, Radio is still free. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottradioman (talk • contribs) 02:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on HD Radio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article is weak on additional transmission benefits[edit]

I noticed there's nothing in the article about the emergency and traffic alert capabilities of HD, via scrolling text messages. There's a whole section on the Crutchfeld site called transmission of additional information [[1]] but it's not the most reliable source, since they sell the radios. Will keep looking for a better, neutral source.Timtempleton (talk) 18:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on HD Radio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Replaced archive link https://web.archive.org/web/20090815013815/http://www.codingtechnologies.com/products/sbr.htm with https://web.archive.org/web/20081216004340/http://www.codingtechnologies.com/products/sbr.htm on http://www.codingtechnologies.com/products/sbr.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:07, 11 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on HD Radio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:27, 27 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AM HD Radio coverage distance[edit]

I would like some answer on:

AM HD Radio coverage distance.

That is for example: Can I receive any American digital HD radio on AM antenna in Europe?

Is digital reception possible in Europe?

I do not really know what is even AM analog distance.

But I suppose it could be possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.221.231.106 (talk) 18:31, 26 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

there is no way for the receiver to recognize that there is no correlation between the two[edit]

Regarding receiving different digital and analog stations, it says: there is no way for the receiver to recognize that there is no correlation between the two. It seems to me that it can't be harder than Shazam. Gah4 (talk) 09:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should make clear what HD stands for[edit]

Many people mistakenly believe that HD radio is about high definition. I doubt the truth could be much further from that mistaken belief. In this case the HD is basically a trademark, and stands for "Hybrid Digital". I think the article should explictly call this out, to help prevent further spreading of the belief that HD Radio is in any way high definition. (In theory it could be, but when you spread the available bandwidth across 4 lossy sub channels, it's baredly "standard definition" let alone anything close to "high definition".)