Radio stations nationwide are dumping analog antennas and upgrading to digital ones that will increase the sound quality of stations on both sides of the radio dial. At the same time, with ratings falling, they are planning to inject a bit more variety into the daily mix.

“Digital sound quality is better,” said Rick Sewell, chief engineer for KJSL and KSTL in St. Louis. “The FM stations will now have CD-quality sound, and the AM stations will have sound quality that FM stations currently have.”

Sound quality for AM broadcasts has been a problem for listeners for some time.

“AM sounds terrible,” said Leah Walker a sophomore marketing major. “FM sound quality is good but AM picks up a lot of interference and it’s always hissing and popping.”

Stephanie McConnell, a junior early childhood studies major agrees. “The sound on AM stations is OK to a certain extent, but the amount of static that comes through sometimes is very irritating.”

Not all stations are prepared to make the jump from analog to digital. Some small-market stations like WLBK 1360 in DeKalb don’t feel an upgrade is immediately necessary.

“There are a few major companies that have stepped out to embrace HD radio,” said Norm Miller, general manager of WLBK. “For the smaller market stations like DeKalb, making the switch is a ways off.”

But an upgrade from analog to digital would actually be more beneficial for a station like WLBK.

“For AM stations, purchasing digital antennas would significantly change the way they broadcast,” Sewell said. “It would double the radio bandwidth,” allowing for greater range.

In spite of advantages to broadcasting digitally, there’s also a down-side.

“The digital signal is better, but how that affects listeners at various locations is yet to be determined,” said Bill Drake, program director for Northern Public Radio.

Another problem exists in the coverage area digital antennas can reach.

“The digital signal is superior to the analog signal, but there are some coverage issues,” said Bob Fukuda, marketing director of engineering for Clear Channel. “Currently, the analog signal reaches farther than the digital signal, but there are plans to add digital repeaters that would allow digital antennas to reach the same distances.”

According to Fukuda, broadcasters take a $250,000 to $300,000 gamble investing in digital antennas, but he says the new technology should attract more listeners and advertisers.

“By offering more variety we are hoping that more listeners will give it a try,” he said. “And hopefully, a switch to digital will give advertisers more opportunities.”

Others don’t agree the appeal of digital broadcasts will draw more attention to stations.

“I don’t think that HD radio is going to draw more people in,” Drake said. “It’s the programming that will have to draw people in. Some people will listen to it just because it’s a new technology but the content has to be good.”

The HD radio revolution has moved to the forefront due to recent competition from Sirius and XM Radio. Although these stations stress convenience, they are still no match for traditional radio broadcasts.

“One big advantage of XM or Sirius is that you can hear the same station anywhere in the U.S.,” Sewell said.

But in the midst of a nationwide HD radio revolution, some listeners still aren’t buying into the notion that radio sound quality matters that much.

“Most people listen to a small radio on their desk or in their car,” Miller said. “They’re not really listening for super quality sound.”

Some large-market stations in Illinois and across the country already have made the switch to HD broadcasts. WNUA 95.5 and V103 in Chicago have been broadcasting digitally since September 2005.

“The weekly list of stations converting to HD radio is growing rapidly,” said Sewell. “I think one day all stations will be digital.”