"RHF" wrote in message
m...
FD,

The 'majority' of the radio sttions "Owned" by Clear Channel are FM.

About 13,500 Total Radio Stations:
http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/totals/bt031231.html
AM RADIO = 4794
FM RADIO = 6217
FM EDUCATIONAL = 2552 {NPR&PRI}


Right. But I think there's less than 100 IBOC AM stations broadcasting now.
When Clear Channel IBOCs their hoard of AM'ers, it will change the
proportion of AM IBOC stations dramatically.


"High Quality Sound" {Fidelity} is a PRIORITY for 'current' FM
Music Listeners. IBOC FM Broadcasting has a natual and real
market potential to meet the 'needs' of FM Music Listeners.

But FM radio already has "High Quality Sound". Rarely does any station come
close to the excellent signal to noise and dynamic range that FM offers.
There's only one station here which does, a classical station. I'm not a
big classical fan, but the station is fun to listen to from time to time.
The music actually sounds musical, and the difference can be heard on even a
mediocre FM radio. A decent radio and speakers can put you right in the
concert hall.

However, nearly all stations compress their audio and I think for good
reason. Most people who have the radio on aren't actually listening to it,
but have it on for background. Music in the car, music while reading the
paper, music to drink beer by. I know I've oversimplified current FM
programming practices as "Muzak for Babyboomers" but I don't think it's too
far off the mark.

No attempt to get better radio fidelity has been immediately successful
since Columbia introduced the LP and RCA quickly followed up with the 45. I
think people who are in a mood to actually listen to music prefer
recordings. Of course, recordings are also just fine for background music,
but it may take more active involvement than a person who just wants some
background music is willing to bother with.



IMHO: Just like AM Stereo, IBOC FM Broadcasting has no natural
market. For that majority of AM Band "News and Information"
{Talk Radio} Listeners 'voice quality' is simply Good Enough.

~ RHF
.
.

Clear Channel doesn't need IBOC to offer audiophile quality sound on it's
FMers, and very good sound on it's AMers. The technology has been around,
and ignored for years. It's got me wondering why Clear Channel has reversed
their sensible opposition to IBOC. It occurs to me that there's no need for
the IBOC channel to carry the same programming as the analog channel. Maybe
Clear Channel will try to use all those new, free FCC accepted digital
channels as a backdoor way to introduce a terrestrial subscription digital
service.

Frank Dresser