More than Ten Lost Years: The Failure of HD Radio in a Brazil Still Without Digital Radio

I have a post on my old blog, https://rnradio.blogspot.com/2008/12/sistema-de-rdio-digital-brasileiro.html, from December 2008, where I already anticipated the failure of Brazil’s decision to bet on the HD Radio system as the solution for the country’s radio digitalization.

It is now 2025, and the subject hasn’t even been mentioned in years, as if there had been a tacit withdrawal by the government, the regulatory body, and the broadcasters themselves—especially those in São Paulo, who were the most enthusiastic and directly involved with the very expensive and technically controversial HD Radio.

Unlike other models adopted around the world, which rely on separate bands for digital and analog signals, HD Radio tried to force both to coexist on the same frequency, on a fine line between functioning and mutual interference. The result? The digital signal had to be severely attenuated to avoid destroying the analog one, which compromised coverage, quality, and the reliability of the new system.

With digital television—already a consolidated reality in Brazil, even though it is much more expensive—we did not face this problem, precisely because no one ever tried to overlap the signals. You may remember analog channel 11 and see that today there is still a digital channel 11. But in practice, the transmission frequency is completely different; only the “nickname” of the channel was kept.

In Europe, digital radio has been a reality for many years, without the traumas experienced by Americans with HD Radio. The difference in sound quality is striking. The total absence of static and the clarity of the audio make for an extremely pleasant experience, which would have been a huge differentiator for traditional radio—especially in an era where streaming already delivers very high fidelity in car systems, JBL speakers, and so many other “ear toys.”

Below is a summary of what I thought at the time

Post from December 2008

Title: Brazilian Digital Radio SystemLink: https://rnradio.blogspot.com/2008/12/sistema-de-rdio-digital-brasileiro.html

The digital radio system model I dreamed of!

Given the fog surrounding HD Radio—which the minister himself admitted existed—I dared to propose ideas for a Brazilian digital radio system.

Let’s start by attacking the myths!

Premise: Operation on the same frequency (IBOC)

The first correction I would make is to the fundamental directive that a station should operate in digital mode on the same frequency as the analog one.

Reason for this directive: to preserve the station’s identity and audience.

Observation: there is no true simultaneous operation of digital and analog on the same frequency. What exists is operation on adjacent sidebands, very close to the analog frequency in use (IBOC is more of an “optical illusion” of using the same frequency). In many stations, especially AMs, problems arose from the digital emission interfering with the analog one, in addition to destroying adjacent emissions from other stations. As a result, broadcasters were instructed to reduce the power of the digital signal.

What I had in mind was a mix of what I had seen in use worldwide: something from the Japanese model, a bit of DAB, and even other lesser-known experiences without heavy lobbying.

Alternative Proposal: Double Channel(For international branding, I’d have to call it DOUBLE CHANNEL.)

The idea was that stations would keep analog operation where it was but automatically be granted another frequency in a separate band—probably UHF—for digital broadcasting. This digital band would be exclusive, with equivalent power to analog (not reduced as in the hybrid model).

Stations could even run different programming between analog and digital channels (multicast), creating new audiences.

Then I raised possible questions (costs, receivers, tuning, etc.) and gave my answers—explaining why Double Channel would be cheaper, more stable, and technically honest compared to IBOC. I highlighted that in the U.S., after five years of adoption, only 10% of stations transmitted in HD Radio, and less than 1% of listeners used compatible receivers.

My conclusion back then: better a simple system, free from forced coexistence of signals. Consumers adapt quickly, and with time digital tuning would feel natural.

Back to 2025

In 2008 I wrote this text, “Brazilian Digital Radio System — the digital radio model I dreamed of.” Based on technical, cultural, and market observations, I already predicted that the hybrid HD Radio system was not suitable for Brazil.

Today, in 2025, I can only confirm—with regret but no surprise—that the system failed.

Brazil tried to push HD Radio as a viable solution for digitalization. It was an imported system, poorly adapted to Brazilian reality, built on the fragile premise that analog and digital signals could operate almost on the “same frequency.” In practice, what we saw were interference, severe technical limitations, and, above all, a total lack of popular adoption.

The promise was ambitious: quality sound, multimedia features, new channels. What was delivered was an expensive, restricted, elitist system with very few receivers on the market. Meanwhile, traditional radio survived with good old FM, and ironically, the “real digitalization” happened through the internet—via streaming, apps, and audio platforms.

In that 2008 text, I proposed an alternative: the Double Channel model. The idea was simple—keep analog where it was but open a separate band (for example, part of UHF) exclusively for digital radio. No forced coexistence. Each mode in its own space, with technical and editorial freedom.

It may have sounded utopian at the time, but it was far more realistic and honest than what was attempted. Technically solid, commercially viable, respectful of the audience’s transition.

HD Radio broadcasts in Brazil were experimental and then abandoned. The dream of a national, efficient, and popular digital system remains pending.

The lesson: technology cannot be imposed by decree, but only by real adoption. Radio, like culture, needs solutions that dialogue with local context, not imported packages backed by lobbies.

There is still time to rethink. Brazil can still develop a digital radio system that is simple, robust, fair, and open to the future. But for that, we need to abandon the fear of changing bands.

AM Band for Digital Radio

AM is a frequency band—not a limitation of sound quality. And yes, it is perfectly possible to operate digital radio there. This opens a concrete opportunity to start, in an organized and trauma-free way, the digitalization of the stations currently on the AM dial.

My proposal: FM broadcasters would continue operating normally but also gain the right to operate a digital channel in the AM band. The power of this digital channel would be proportional to the station’s FM power, with adjustments for AM propagation—especially at night, when signals travel farther and could cause international interference.

Brazil could even take a leadership role in AM digitalization, opening a new market for the national equipment industry. Neighboring countries like Argentina and Uruguay would inevitably feel pressure to follow once they saw the benefits.

This would be just the first step toward full digitalization. The AM band is an open avenue. Digital adoption there could happen organically and gain traction quickly.

And it doesn’t have to be DRM specifically—any technology that uses AM efficiently and with quality could serve. The important thing is to open the path for the future of radio.

Let’s Not Insist on the Hybrid Model

The hybrid HD Radio system never really took off in Brazil. It became a “technological zombie”: present in some tests and speeches, but absent from people’s daily lives.

• Low penetration of digital receivers: still expensive, scarce, and unpopular.

• Coexistence issues between digital and analog: interference and power limitations persist.

• Resistance from Brazilian industry: with no clear business model and high costs, digital radio was never a real priority.

• The flawed idea of keeping everything on the “same frequency”: IBOC still feels more like a sophisticated workaround than an efficient solution.

• Lack of government planning: there was never a clear, continuous, realistic public policy for transition.

A simple, parallel, more flexible model—Double Channel—would have been more technically honest and more intuitive for the public. Interestingly, something along those lines (dedicated bands for pure digital) has been discussed in technical forums in recent years, but always blocked by the IBOC/iBiquity lobby.