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, in which I had already predicted the failure of Brazil’s decision to bet on the HD Radio system as the solution for the country’s digital radio transition.

It’s now 2025, and the topic hasn’t even been mentioned for years — as if there had been a tacit abandonment by the government, the regulatory agency, and the broadcasters themselves, especially those in São Paulo, which were the most enthusiastic and directly involved with the expensive and technically controversial HD Radio project.

Unlike other models adopted around the world, which use separate bands for digital and analog signals, HD Radio attempted to force both signals to coexist on the same frequency — a delicate balance between functionality and mutual interference. The result? The digital signal had to be severely attenuated so as not to destroy the analog one, which compromised coverage, quality, and the reliability of the new system.

In digital television — now a consolidated reality in Brazil, despite being much more expensive — this problem did not occur precisely because the signals were never stacked on top of each other. You might remember analog channel 11, which still exists today as digital channel 11. But in practice, the transmission frequency is completely different — only the “nickname” of the channel was preserved.

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 complete absence of static and the crystal-clear audio make the experience extremely pleasant — a huge advantage for traditional radio in an era when streaming services already deliver high-fidelity audio in car stereos, JBL speakers, and countless other “listening gadgets.”

A Look Back: My Thoughts from December 2008

Post Title: Brazilian Digital Radio SystemLink: https://rnradio.blogspot.com/2008/12/sistema-de-rdio-digital-brasileiro.htmlThe Digital Radio System I Dreamed Of!

Given the “fog” surrounding the future of HD Radio — something the minister himself admitted at the time — I dared to propose my own ideas for a digital radio system for Brazil.

Premise: Same-Frequency Operation (IBOC)The first thing I would change is the fundamental directive that a broadcaster must operate its digital signal on the same frequency as its analog signal.

Reason for this directive: To maintain the station’s identity and audience.

Comment: There is no such thing as true simultaneous analog and digital operation on the same frequency. What exists is operation in sidebands, very close to the analog frequency (IBOC is essentially an “optical illusion” of same-frequency operation). Many broadcasters — especially AM stations — experience interference from their own digital signals on their analog broadcasts, in addition to destroying adjacent-channel signals. As a result, they are often forced to reduce the digital power.

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

My Alternative Proposal: Double Channel

(To make it more marketable globally, I would have called it “Double Channel.”)

I believe that keeping the same frequency is essential — but only for analog broadcasting. As a solution, every station would automatically receive a second frequency in another band — most likely in UHF. TV channels occupying that spectrum would be moved up or down. This new band would be dedicated exclusively to digital transmission, with power equivalent to analog broadcasting (i.e., without the current power reduction required to avoid interference during hybrid operation).

Key advantages:

• Stations could run different programming on the digital and analog channels (multicasting, something the minister himself praised).

• Analog transmission would be prohibited in the digital band.

• Initially, digital radio would target wealthier listeners, creating a premium audience and encouraging adoption.

I also addressed common objections:

1. Wouldn’t two transmitters be more expensive?Continuous technical instability under IBOC — requiring specialized technicians, proprietary equipment from iBiquity-licensed manufacturers, and ongoing royalties — would be even more expensive.

2. Wouldn’t tuning digital channels be confusing?IBOC doesn’t solve this either — listeners would still need new receivers (about US$100 in 2008). Double Channel receivers, on the other hand, could offer organized channel navigation (e.g., Channel 01 = Universitária; Channel 02 = empty; Channel 03 = 89FM; etc.), while also including analog reception for stations that haven’t migrated yet.

3. I don’t want to switch bands!That’s not necessarily an advantage. Because analog and digital signals are neighbors under IBOC, the digital one must be far weaker — causing dropouts and constant quality changes. Switching bands isn’t hard — we already do it when switching between AM and FM.

4. Would digital signals on a separate band allow higher power?Exactly. Full power could be used with no risk of self-interference.

5. Isn’t it wasteful to have two bands for one station?What’s wasteful is having dozens of UHF channels broadcasting nothing but pink noise.

6. What about maintenance?Solving a problem on the digital side often creates a new one on the analog side under IBOC. Two separate transmitters mean easier control and diagnostics.

At the time, even in the U.S. — five years after adopting iBiquity’s HD Radio — only 10% of stations were broadcasting digitally, and just 0.5% of listeners owned compatible receivers. Given such disappointing results in the system’s “home country,” Brazil’s adoption deserved serious reconsideration.

2025: Prediction Confirmed

In 2008, I wrote “The Brazilian Digital Radio System — The Digital Model I Dreamed Of.” In it, I argued — based on technical, cultural, and market considerations — that the hybrid HD Radio system was unsuitable for Brazil. Today, in 2025, I observe with disappointment (but no surprise) that the system failed.

Brazil tried to force HD Radio as a viable solution for digital radio — an imported system poorly adapted to local realities and based on the fragile premise that analog and digital signals could coexist almost on the “same frequency.” In practice, we saw interference, severe technical limitations, and, most importantly, a complete lack of public adoption.

The promises were ambitious: high-quality audio, multimedia features, new channels. The reality: an expensive, restrictive, elitist system with very few receivers available. Meanwhile, traditional radio kept going strong with good old FM — and ironically, the real digitalization happened online, through streaming, apps, and audio platforms.

Back then, I proposed an alternative: the Double Channel model. The idea was simple — keep analog where it is, but allocate a separate band (like a piece of UHF) exclusively for digital radio. No forced coexistence. Each signal type in its own space, with technical and editorial freedom. Broadcasters could even offer distinct programming on digital and analog channels, creating new audiences and new formats.

The Listener in the Digital Era

Was it utopian? Maybe. But it was a more realistic and honest solution than what was attempted. It was technically sound, commercially viable, and respectful of the audience’s transition pace. It didn’t require “technological miracles” or assume listeners needed extensive education on how to tune their favorite digital station.

HD Radio broadcasts in Brazil remained experimental — and were eventually abandoned. The dream of a national, efficient, and popular digital radio system remains unfulfilled.

If there’s one lesson to be learned, it’s that technology cannot be imposed by decree — it must gain real traction. Radio, like culture, needs solutions that engage with local contexts — not imported packages supported by lobbying and short-term convenience.

It’s still not too late to rethink things. Brazil could still develop a digital radio system that is simple, robust, fair, and future-oriented.

But to do so, we must abandon our fear of changing bands. We’ve reached 2025, and look: my December 2008 prediction has come true. HD Radio never materialized — and we’ve made no real progress toward digital radio in Brazil.

The AM Band for Digital Radio

AM is a frequency band — not a limitation on sound quality. And yes, it’s entirely possible to run digital radio there. This opens a real opportunity to begin, in an organized and low-impact way, the digitalization of stations currently operating on the AM dial.

My proposal is simple: FM broadcasters would continue normal operations but would also gain the right to operate a digital channel on the AM band. The power of this digital channel would be proportional to their existing FM power — not identical, of course, since AM and FM have very different signal propagation characteristics.

A variable-power model might be necessary — with full power during the day and reduced power at night, due to AM’s greater nighttime range and the risk of interference with analog broadcasters in neighboring countries. A power-and-distance categorization system would be essential to avoid international conflicts.

Brazil could even take the lead in this transition to digital AM, opening a new and promising market for domestic equipment manufacturers. It’s hard to imagine that countries like Argentina, Uruguay, and others in the region wouldn’t feel pressure to follow suit once they saw the technical and commercial benefits.

This would be only the first step toward full radio digitalization. The AM band offers a wide-open path. Adopting a digital technology there could happen organically and gain traction quickly.

And it doesn’t have to be DRM — any technology that uses the AM band efficiently and with quality could play this role. The important thing is to pave the way for radio’s future.

Why We Should Abandon the Hybrid Model

The hybrid HD Radio system never truly took off in Brazil — it became a “technological zombie”: present in a few tests and speeches but absent from people’s daily lives.

• Low penetration of digital receivers: Even today, they are expensive, rare, and barely used.

• Interference problems: The coexistence of digital and analog signals still causes interference and limits digital power.

• Industry resistance: With high costs and no clear business model, digital radio has never been a real priority.

• The flawed “same-frequency” approach: IBOC still feels more like a sophisticated workaround than an efficient solution.

• Lack of government planning: There has never been a clear, consistent public policy with realistic goals for the transition.

A simple, parallel, and more flexible model — the Double Channel approach — would have been more technically honest and more intuitive for listeners. Interestingly, something along these lines (using separate bands for pure digital broadcasting) has been discussed in technical forums in recent years, but it always runs into the powerful lobbying of the IBOC/iBiquity model.