Comments on: Digital radio still hard to hear

Broadcasters eagerly jump on the digital-radio bandwagon. But radio releases are being delayed, and few people can listen today.
Photos: HD radios

[david.earl]

Chicken and egg doesn't apply in Britain

Though the article may be true in the US, it isn't in Britain. Digital Radio has been here in earnest for the last couple of years, most people can now receive it in principle, and costs are now down to 50 pounds or so for a receiver (about 90 dollars). Stations are also accessible through digital TV services (and of course the Internet, as in the US).

Nevertheless, take up has been slow because receivers still cost substantially more than FM radio, for minimal quality improvement. The chicken and egg argument doesn't apply here though. Unless the technology is different (sigh), it is hard to see why costs should be so much higher in the US (usually it is the other way round). Britain demonstrates that it is possible to overcome the chicken-and-egg situation.

Incidentally, UHF (analogue) TV is on its way out here too. Transmitters are being phased out over the next 5 years in favour of digital. Cost of additional receivers is also about 50 pounds, though new TVs will no doubt now begin to include them at no additional cost.

[MikeDson]

Not really Chicken & Egg issus in US

The Chicken & Egg analogy doesn't really apply. Many many broadcasters are indeed broadcasting in HD already (the capital investment isn't huge), they're not waiting for listeners. But they don't hardly promote it at all, and almost no one has an HD receiver. So we got the chicken, it's just not laying any eggs yet.

I'd say it's just as basic issue of the opportunity cost to listeners of upgrading to HD is too high. There's just much better things to spend that money on (Sat radio, wich UK doesn't have for example, or an iPod), and HD Radio delivers too little gain for the buck.

[robertgknight]

High Definition Radio Ads?

The music may sound better but so will the ads. No thanks, I will hold out for satellite.

So what about public radio?

No ads on public radio. Our public classical station just changed to digital radio last week. This has created a market for which there are no vendors, and the Web seems largely populated by incompetent geeks who use JavaVirus on their Web pages, which makes them unusable to anyone who cares about security.

[El Kabong]

Could be too little, too late..

Without marked improvement in listening quality, there's not much incentive to spend the money, for HD radio or even satellite for that matter. I'm holding on to my hard-earned bucks until WiMax Mobile shows up to deliver Live365's thousands (not hundreds, thousands) of quality stations to my car, home, or office, without a PC. I'll be an early adoptor then, but, in the meantime, I'm happy as a clam listening to my MP3 Player with a Belkin Tunecast FM Transmitter. It has great sound quality, is extremely portable, plays on any car radio or home stereo system, plays hours and hours of my own selections, there's no subscription fee, and, best of all, it has a low, low start-up price.

[karldahlquist]

I will stick with my XM Radio, thank you.

I keep wondering where all the digital radios are, and who would possibly buy them.

I am not going to be shelling out $500 for a digital tabletop AM/FM radio and still listen to 12 minutes of commercials every hour. I have had enough of those erectile disfuction ads.

With my XM subscription, I can listen to 100 different music channels on my regular stereo equipment, and via online at work. I can get the audio feeds of Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, BBC, CNBC, Bloomberg, ESPN, Fox Sports, Sporting News Radio all incuded.

[paulsecic]

xm

I'm sticking to regular radio. Paying bills is hard enough without XM, Ipods, cell phones, cable.

[Dead Soulman]

It's all about the cost of the unit

Nowadays you'd be lucky if you find a station that is not locked with ball and chain to format. Even the ones that claim to "play anything" still stick to a playlist that is basically the same thing.

Anyhow, in regards to radio stations broadcasting in HD the question is: Is it worth the expense? Why should I bother to pay this exorbitant amount of money for a receiver that:

1- more expensive than satellite radio.
2- I'd still have to deal with stale on-air chatter boxes.
3- Let's not forget the commercials
4- I have an iPod
5- I can stream stations off the internet.
6- I can already get the same content for free on my radio.

Although I still listen to radio just to break the routine, I wouldn't pay for it though. Especially with such steep prices.

[archaeopteryx]

What's a radio?

I stopped listening to radio about 5 years ago. It's not the sound that needs improving - it's the content!

[worldsupercaster]

HD DIGITAL RADIO IS A HOAX!

Find out why bubble will burst soon and listeners will get stuck with useless HD Radios.
HD Radio jams analog stations.
The Truth is here:
http://commonsensesolutions.blogspot.com
http://worldsupercaster.blogspot.com

[maniac42]

Loss of analog signal strength

I pretty much lost my favorite FM station when they switched to digital broadcasting. I'm about 50 miles from the transmitter in hilly terrain. Their analog signal used to be acceptable most of the time. Now their signal rarely gets this far, and when it does, it is scratchy and practically unlistenable. In effect, the station cut its audience in half to give its remaining audience a marginally better sound. Broadcasters should think this through carefully before making the commitment.