First, I decided to move the continuing thread foward with a fresh post here. To address some of your other questions above, here goes…

First, don’t dismiss AM radio. It still has plenty of listeners, and works well in cars for non-musical content, which is most of public radio. KCLU did a wonderful thing here in Santa Barbara by supplementing their tiny (four watt) but popular FM signal (a translator) by buying a full-power AM station in town. This was especially helpful when a fire burned down the FM transmitter on a mountain peak overlooking the city.

Second, Manhattan (and other urban) apartment dwellers have it tough in any case. My wife’s business had two apartments in Manhattan in the 1980s and ’90s — one on W. 56th and another on W. 90th — neither with a view of the Empire State Building. All the New York FMs sounded like crap there. Only signals to the north (e.g. WFUV from the Bronx) sounded good. These days when we visit New York we stay with friends or in hotels. In every case the FM sounds awful. Either the signal is damaged by multipath or we’re so close to the ESB that some signals “blanket” others — a feature of modern FM tuners, which aren’t good at rejecting spurious effects of strong local signals. Another argument for using the Internet.

Bricks, concrete, rebar and other common structural elements are rough on radio and TV, period. You’re lucky to be within sight of your OTA HDTV transmitters. If you’re not, you’re out of luck. I’ve tested a lot of OTA HDTV signals, and you’re not getting them without unobstructed views. Simple as that.

Cellular telephony and breeds of wi-fi are meant to get around these problems by using many low-powered signals, some of which take advantage of reflections. This is another reason why, in the next ten years or so, most listening to radio will migrate from high-powered VHF and UHF transmitters to low-power wireless means, including cellular and wi-fi (or wi-fi-like) systems.

Look at it this way. AM is 1920s technology. FM is 1940s technology. HDTV is 1990s technology. Cellular data (3g and up) and wi-fi (802.11n) are 2000s technology.

I wouldn’t worry about the new WQXR in Manhattan. The big differences will be in the outer suburbs.

1) You or other readers might find this interesting:
http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/17/what-would-you-do-with-the-new-wqxr

Post #58, I can assure you, is representative of “input” from people who’ve given ANY thought to how the proposed changes will play out. (”Power to the people” has yielded to “power to the 24/7 classical music station, whatever its name!”)

2) AM radio? – interesting! … Only WNYC, he said snidely, would give that serious consideration, … but maybe it *IS* worth some thought.

3) You didn’t answer my question about your typical Manhattan apt. dweller. He or she most certainly can NOT (as a rule) see the E.S.B. from any window in his/her home.

I’m obviously no engineer, but since I get HD TV via OTA courtesy of a Terk or something on my terrace that DOES draw a bead on that tower, I’m wondering just how “forgiving” bricks, concrete, etc. are when it comes to radio signals.

In a previous “reply,” you said that cars have it all over most residences. I have to think that goes “double” for NYC apartments. My point is that if folks living near Lincoln Center are not covered or “marginally” covered by 105.9, WNYC will be in much hotter water than if they “merely” lose a comparable number of listeners in the wilds of NJ. (Remember what their call letters are!)

First, the move with television was mandated by the FCC, complete with sunset provisions. (For example, requiring that analog signals go off the air.) It took many years to complete, and the jury is still out on the results. It is different in many other respects as well. For example, on TV there was wholesale replacement of analog signals with digital ones, usually on other channels (none of channels 2-6 remained there, and few of the 7-13s did either) — even though they retained their old channel identifications. Meanwhile, nearly all TV viewing had moved to cable and satellite in any case. There is nothing of the sort for radio.

Without requiring that manufacturers make radios that pick up HD as well as analog signals, the best HD can do is fill niches. That’s just the way it’s gonna go.

As for commercial radio, I doubt any of them see much future in HD, but I could be wrong. If noncommercial radio pioneers it successfully, maybe the commercial players will follow. For the last 30 years or so, noncommercial stations and networks have done most of the pioneering.

While Comcast and others made a stink about “bandwidth hogs,” internet radio is not what they’re talking about. Even internet TV isn’t that big a deal. Right now we’re listening at our house to a 128kb stream from Classical South Florida, and our connection still tests out at 17Mb down and 3.7 Mb up. And it’s not for nothing that AT&T wireless allows unlimited data use with their data plan. They want users to listen to radio and otherwise indulge the system. It’s a competitive advantage.

As for older, more well-off listeners that comprise much (most?) of the classical audience, sure: they may be less net-savvy. But I’m not sure, given a choice, that they’d rather buy a $100 radio or spend a bit more to get better bandwidth. Still, at best it’s a niche for HD radio. Not a mass market. And that’s what they wanted in the first place.

For WMNR and its network of stations, click on the “Stations” link on the WMNR website. (I’d direct you to the page itself, but WMNR’s truly awful site design doesn’t allow that.) What you see there are two kinds of stations that “repeat” (live) WMNR’s audio. The ones with call letters are licensed stations. The ones with names like “W220CH” are “translators.” These are low-power transmitters meant to extend coverage in a confined area. W220CH for West Hartford is 8 watts, while W218AV in Warren, CT is 250 watts (though less in some directions). I’m guessing that the WMNR you’re hearing in Madison is WGRS in Guilford on 91.5. It’s 3100 watts at about 100 feet above the “average terrain.” I’m impressed with how many stations and translators WMNR has. That map of theirs shows a pretty ambitious effort on their part.

The rules regarding translators for noncommercial stations are much more open than those for commercial stations, which are limited to translators that fill in holes within the immediate coverage area. WNYC/QXR can put translators anywhere they please, basically. Provided there is room. Most of that room is already taken, but some horse-trading can be done, especially with religious broadcasters, which have been far more expert and aggressive about translators than have public radio stations.

And yes, all the channels affected in this deal — 93.9. 96.3 and 105.9 — are all radiating from transmitters atop the Empire State Building. WNYC had kicked around after the World Trade Center fell, because it was one of a handful of stations transmitting from there. All also have auxiliary backup transmitters elsewhere in town.

I can’t find the blog post you’re talking about, in respect to an appeal for more WNYC wattage. It’s already at the maximum, which is the same as that enjoyed by other full-power New York FM stations.

WNYC-AM might be able to squeeze out some more power, however. Rules for AM stations have opened up considerably in recent years. Right now WNYC-AM transmits from WMCA’s three-tower facility by the Turnpike in New Jersey, with a directional signal pointed at the city. The power is 10000 watts by day and 1000 watts by night. I have a feeling that can be improved considerably, but I’d have to spend more time looking into it.

Range for the new WQXR (and the current WCAA) is limted mostly by obstructions. If you’re on the backside of hills (say, on the far side of New Jersey’s low mountains — Watchung, for example), the 105.9 signal won’t do as well as the 96.3 signal. But again, if you within line-of-sight, you’ll be okay. In other words, Maplewood (which I believe has line-of-signt) would be fine with 105.9, while Madison or Morristown would not. Then, the latter won’t do all that well with 96.3 either. As I said, there are no truly high-power stations in the Northeast metro regions.

I mentioned the Shiller article, of course, in connection with HD radio. I won’t dispute your guess that it has had very limited success in terms of “penetration,” but (a) the move, nationwide, to HD TV just a month or 2 ago COULD be a game changer; and (b) the reason I referenced Shiller is that SOME of the flaws you mention in connection with HD radio as it *IS* COULD be remedied, I hope. (And then, maybe, it would go “mass.”)

I appreciate your mention of CPB, since I was wondering why HD radio seemed to have so many SMALL players. I think you should consider that since people in the (commercial) radio biz are more aware and more frightened about how the music biz self-destructed, they KNOW that “business as usual” for them is only a whisker away from “going out of business.” HD radio (in some form) gives them a shot at a time that they NEED a shot.

Next, my mention of bandwidth not being infinite has to do with the internet as a “utility.” I’m sure you are mindful of the fuss that Comcast or TW made about “piggies,” who download HD movies all day and all night. I know that innovation “always” seems to stay ahead of demand, but common sense says that THAT cannot be a certainty going forward. That’s another reason why the “archaic” little dedicated box (i.e., standalone radio) may (still) be worth a long, hard look.

Crucial point re older listeners and classical music – HD radio represents an INEXPENSIVE (on an ongoing basis) SOLUTION! for them, so I don’t know why you used the word “wealthier.” I’ll bet that the 70-80 generation – and even, speculatively, the 60-70 one – does not have broadband in their homes and apts. to the extent you might guess at. PLUS, they probably prefer speakers to headphones, and not just a little bit.

Without meaning to be abrasive, your mention of iPhones in this context makes me chuckle – I was at Tanglewood recently, and while I could be wrong, I’d guess that the number of iPhones in the “house” was more or less than what you’d find in an average single Starbucks. (I think that’s what the brouhaha about WQXR is all about – telling its “average listener” to “get with it” … is not likely to change his/her listening habits in a big way.)

Couple of questions – what are “repeaters” (or whatever makes it possible for tiny WMNR to be heard far, far from its home base, Monroe, courtesy of something in Madison, CT – as far away in that small state as you could be?)

I don’t know if there are maps showing the TRUE reach of a station, but you do well to bear in mind things like “effective” reach. (I don’t mean that as a dig – I have no doubt that WMNR’s listener numbers all told do not come to a big number.)

This, of course, is relevant re WQXR, because one hears that they DID reach portions of NY’s suburbs (and exurbs, if that’s a word) by this type of technology…. Does the FCC routinely grant stations an OK to expand in this fashion?

Last, do you know whether the 105.9 frequency DOES broadcast from the Empire State Building. On WNYC’s blog, everybody and his brother are saying that WNYC should ready its “we need some extra wattage very badly and very quickly” appeal to the FCC. I’m guessing that NY is pretty saturated and that that “augmentation” might not be in the cards. What do you see as viable (technically) if this whole business (dedicated classical broadcasting on 105.9) comes to pass? … That is, if WNYC hears from thousands of listeners that the new broadcasts are sub-acceptable, what COULD be done about that? … Oh yes, what’s your guess as to “will it come in”/”how well” for

a) someone 1-3 miles away from the Emp. St. Bldg with plenty of big buildings in between;
b) someone 5-10 miles away in Brooklyn, Queens or the Bronx; and
c) someone 10-20 miles away in NJ (Maplewood, say) or Westchester?

First, blog comment dialog is fine form. Thanks for joining in.

To give some perspective on HD acceptance, consider this fact: Nissan and Infiniti (same company) was said to have dropped AM stereo back in the mid-90s from its cars because it wanted to save money on a chip that cost the company just five cents.

How many car radios carry HD? BMW and some Ford makes offered it in 2008 car radios, according to Consumer Reports. But was it only as an option, and how long will they offer it for, now that all car companies are pushing hard to cheap out?

I dunno. Anybody have numbers for HD use?

As for Internet radio, the bandwidth of any one stream is not infinite, but the potential number of stations certainly has no limit, except on innovation here in the U.S., where the royalty costs of webcasting are quite high for streamers and through the roof for podcasters. Notice how many music podcasts there are? For all but “podsafe” (i.e. severly independent, non-mainstream) music, there are approximately none. That’s because podcasters are required to “clear rights” with every single rightsholder, individually, which is a near-impossibility.

Which brings us to the Robert Shiller essay in the Times, which you mentioned. In those opening paragraphs he tells how trial and error were required for discovering the full power of steam engines. Shiller is concerned that “consumer protection” by the Obama administration may make a collateral casualty of many innovations, for the sake of “simplicity” and “safety.” (I agree, by the way.) What we see in radio right now are many chilling effects, but unevenly distributed. The ownership structure, intellectual property burdens and licensing costs of HD radio — quite aside from its technical limitations (smaller coverage areas, graceless drop-outs under weak signal conditions, compromised analog signals, and so on) — make it unlikely ever to succeed as a mass market development. The main reason it has succeeded to a limited extent is that CPB has poured (and is still pouring) a pile of money into encouraging it on the transmission side among noncommercial stations. If it were up to commercial stations alone, it wouldn’t be nearly the limited success it is, so far.

I agree that a strong argument for HD radio is its appeal to older, wealthier, non-technical, non-Net-savvy listeners. I also think that the ease of use for Internet radio on hand-helds such as iPhones will also appeal to the same population.

For what it’s worth, I don’t think I ever suggested that the New York Times would itself maintain more than a minimal interest in WQXR. Or in streaming music either. They’re getting out of that game. I suspect that WNYC will put out a number of classical streams, including whatever they put on WQXR. The latter’s programming will be optimized to bring in listener support. I leave up to others guessing what that will be.

As for cars being giant antennas, no. They are, in radio terms, rolling ground systems. The best design for an FM antenna is a vertical whip antenna about 30″ long in the middle of the roof. Alas, car makers have been compromising for years, shortening antennas to stubs and turning them into thin wires in windows.

That said, your best AM and FM reception is usually in a car, because you’re outside the metal and (sheet) rock boxes that comprise most houses these days. Most houses are filled with reception obstructions and noise sources. Take WMNR/88.1 for example. I guarantee you’ll get it in many more cars than houses.

As for what Internet classical stations I listen to, here’s a small, partial list:

WCPE
WMNR
WGBH
WGBH Classical
WNYC Classical
KWAX
KDFC
KUSC
KUAT
WCRB
CBC Classical
WGUC
Classical Guitar on SKY.fm
WETA
WBJC
WDAV
WRTI
XLNC
KUHF
WKCP
Minnesota Classical

And that’s just off the top of my head. There are plenty of others.

As for WMNR, the station’s main problem over the air is a weak and somewhat compromised signal. The station is listed at 5000 watts at 404 feet above average terrain. But, as you see from the graphic here, that power level is only in one direction: northwest toward Danbury, from the transmitter near William Wolfe Park between Upper Stepney and Monroe, the city of license. There is a smaller lobe, peaking at about 2200 watts, pointed southeast toward Bridgeport. To the sides of those there are dents in the signal that bring it down as low as 900 watts. The result is coverage that looks like this on “paper,” but I suspect is worse. Directional FMs are like that. In my experience, anyway. Their online .mp3 stream is only 56kb, which is good for car listening over 3G connections, but sometimes sounds distorted (and/or monophonic) to me. But, with your spurring, I’ll give it more of a listen. I have it on now.

The best argument for HD radio in connection with classical music is that that genre appeals most to people LEAST in a position to deal with the much higher tech (not to mention cost) Int. radio alternative.

Last, I think you and others are mistaken as to the future of WQXR as a soon-to-be-former Times subsidiary. I seriously doubt that the NYT will be involved in a website streaming music – even if the costs are low, they’ve been burned and I think will exit the music/radio/sound “space” in toto.

That’s why, I think, interested people wonder what WNYC’s game plan (it’s ALL gonna be in their hands) turns out to be.

One last thing – almost off topic…. I think I read somewhere else that cars are like giant antennas as they roll around. The writer was essentially saying that – all other things being equal – you really do deal with reception problems by being in a vehicle.

True or false?

Oh yes – it’s clear to me (clearer than ever as a result of classical music being written about by its lovers a little more than usual) that just as Harry Potter has mostly ardent defenders and people who “don’t get it” at all, classical music has 30-50% “buffs” who could listen to Mozart et al to the exclusion of anything less than 50 or 100 years old, maybe longer. AND there’s 10-30%, I’m sure, who’ve had it up to here with the “old stuff.”

SO, … what internet “streams” (stations) (classical only or mostly) appeal to y’all and why?

I nominate WMNR.org, in good measure because I’ll bet it has less than 1% of the listeners that WNYC2 does.