On 1/13/12 09:47 , SMS wrote:
On 1/13/2012 7:16 AM, hwh wrote:
On 1/13/12 3:25 PM, SMS wrote:
It's absolutely vital to the future of terrestrial radio to move to
digital broadcasting. It's the only way to remain a relevant choice.
We're not talking about radio enthusiasts, we're talking about the mass
market which matters to broadcasters.

Listeners are perfectly happy with the technical side of things. When FM
radio started, stations knew... it is content that the people are
going for.

Content is one component. With HD Radio you can deliver more content.
It's a mistake to not look at the big picture though. Audio quality
matters, and _every_ study has shown that digital radio's audio quality
is perceived as much higher than analog radio. Cost matters too.

If content were all that mattered then everyone would be on satellite
radio, which has relatively poor audio quality but an enormous selection
of content at a relatively high price. Yet satellite radio can barely
add enough new subscribers to make up for churn.

If cost didn't matter then everyone would have an unlimited data plan on
a smart phone and would buy all all the music they wanted.

Coverage also matters. Streaming is fine if you have an unlimited data
plan, but not on long trips outside wireless coverage areas.

If what you say were true, HD radios would be flying off the shelves.

They're not.

If what you say were true, HD stations would not be turning off the
digital transmitters.

They are.

Technology does NOT drive listening. Content and convenience of
availability do.

IBOC is a technological travesty. It does not live up to its claims.

HD radio programming suffers from the same ills as the baseband.
Because it's being developed by the same people through the same
research. Look at Chicago. The so called alternative offerings in HD are
in fact, repackaged playlists of what's elsewhere on the dial. Check the
actual songs. Same songs, different order.

HD radio programming has not lived up to its claims either.

If HD radio is to gain the traction it needs to drive listening, it
has to 1) Be vastly better in audio quality. Perceptuals show marginal
perceived improvements. And the numbers are not dramatic.

2) offer content that excites the listeners. So far, it doesn't.

3) offer that content in quickly, easily and reliably accessible
form. It's not doing that, either.

HD radio is not living up to its hype. The claims made for it are not
true.