That's interesting. I haven't listened to HD radio, but I've read many complaints that it's not "HD" in the sense of how TV went from standard def to high def, with a huge increase in picture resolution. HD radio is just digital, and often compressed at that, so the "HD" in HD radio appears to be more of a coattail-riding marketing scam.
This.
The implementation that MOST broadcasters use (certainly not all) there is little difference between the transmitted quality on the main digital channel vs the analog channel. There MAY be a difference in the way the receiver treats the different signal paths. One "feature" of HD radio (if implemented in the station/receiver) is the ability to transition back to analog if the digital signal is lost. That's not universal, however. If it is implemented, there is good reason to keep the quality as close to the same as possible.
The other factor is "how much of the bit rate is dedicated to each channel". In other words, if the total bitstream is 100 kb/sec, either the entire bitstream can be dedicated to higher quality audio, or it can be divided (say, 60 KB/s for primary channel and 2- 20 KB/s secondary channels). That's at the choice of the station (which has to pay Ibiquity a royalty as a percentage of revenue from the secondary channels). Part of the incremental cost of a radio receiver is the royalty to Ibiquity from the receiver manufacturer.
The biggest audio improvement occurs on the AM side - moving from very narrow-band AM analog (driven by tight filters in receivers) to a much better digital signal. That doesn't come "free" as error correction goes only so far, and the signal can be subject to seriously reduced range and drop-outs (or reversions to analog). If you're in a place where you can get "HD" from the AM side, you'll find good audio.... just don't expect much range with it.
On the FM side, most broadcasters are opting for multiple channels rather than highest quality, so the quality improvement on a
good radio is not that significant. In areas where there's a lot of multipath, you'll probably find it to be better on HD unless the multipath is so bad that it wipes out the digital signal. Most of us folks over 40 don't hear frequencies about 10-12 KHz anyway (FM transmits up to 15 KHz)... so (draw your conclusion).
But the original question is whether or not there is enough content on HD (as compared to Pandora/other internet services) to compel the additional cost of an HD radio. In my opinion, and solely my opinion, there's not enough there in most markets to warrant more than $20-ish to $30-ish extra. Heck, in many markets broadcast radio is simply no longer compelling - there's really no difference between 50 radio stations in a state playing the same jukebox music that one can do themselves on Pandora. Radio has great
potential to be local, but in many markets it doesn't live up to that potential (in many markets it does - mostly big cities like NY, DC, Boston, LA, Cincinnati, Minneapolis, Chicago, etc).
