On 1/14/12 11:47 , FarsWatch4 wrote:
"D. Peter wrote in message
...
On 1/14/12 24:55 , FarsWatch4 wrote:
"D. Peter wrote in message
...
On 1/13/12 14:52 , FarsWatch4 wrote:

It doesn't offer the improvement in audio promised.

It does.


Actually, it doesn't.

Yes, it does. Have you listened to any AM stations in HD?

Yes, I have. Digital artifacts. High noise. More distortion than
wideband AM.

If you hear AM HD as worse...then you are in the minority.


So what. Truth is not a consensus.




So, NO...HD radio doesn't offer the improvement in audio that's been
promised.

Yes it does.

A number of studies which have been conducted have specifically excluded
trained ears, musicians, and audiophiles, in favor of largely
uninvolved,
uninterested, and unhearing individuals,

This is not true.

It is. I was part of several of them.

No, it is not true.


Actually, it is. I've been part of several studies. Selecting
candidates. Testing. And evaluating results. In all of the studies
I've been part of, musicians, sound technicians, producers, and
audiophiles were specifically excluded.



9 out of 10 doctors also recommended cigarette smoking to aid and
improve digestion.

Where is this study?

It was the advertising hook for marketing cigarettes post-war.

Yes, it was an advertising hook...not a study of any serious basis. (Can't
you tell the difference?)

Yes, I can. But the point that you removed from the quote was
that it was a survey. Of doctors. No different than the surveys used
to support the conclusions regarding HD radio. Same methodology.
Same intent.

And, as you conveniently ignored, the results, and the sources of
the survey material were to be found in the pages of Look. Or Life.

Your selective rebuttal is getting obvious, there, my friend.



Read the Fraunhofer studies about the audible differences between MP3
and CD audio.

However, people embrace the MP3 and accept it.

What people embrace and accept has nothing to do with audio
quality. That's why mp3 is not widely accepted in audiophilia. Nor
is it acceptable as source material in studios anymore.

My audio clients won't even accept an mp3 for audition, anymore.

MP3 may be on iPods from sea to shining sea, but its limits have
clearly defined where and under what circumstances mp3 is
applicable. Which returns to the point that it's the content that
drives listening. "People" put mp3's on their iPods so they can cram
more content onto a single drive.

Audiophiles using iPod, use .aif or .wav, or a lossless codec
rather than mp3, because the audio quality is not acceptable.



There's plenty of scientific data available for those who wish to know
the facts.

And for those who want to minipulate them.


"The problem with science is that it can be corrupted."

-- Number 6.

the prisoner, 1968

That data and facts can be manipulated is evidenced by the very
subject matter of this discussion.



Quoting marketing perceptuals to rebut scientifically observed facts
is a logic failure common to iBiquity fanbois.

However, people are not buying it for "audio improvment".

"People" aren't buy it at all. Comparatively speaking.

Well...people aren't buying RADIOS at all....so it's a non-starter.


Then, HD, being a Radio product, is also a non-starter, by your own
words.

There is apathy about ALL radio. Getting anyone interested in anything
about radio is a challenge.


If HD Radio offered the vastly sought after programming you claim, and
the
audio quality is so superior, radios would be flying off the shelves.
They're not.

I didn't say "vastly sought after"...I would use the term alternative
programming. It's more niche.

Look at actual playlists. It's hardly niche. It's repackaged programming
that's found elsewhere on the dial.

I have looked at the playlists. No, it is not programming that is found
elsewhere on the dial.

And where there is genuinely unique and alternative programming, it's
audience is vanishingly small.

As stated earlier. It's niche.

And in the US, broadcasting has always been about the money. Even HD
subchannels are about the money.

True.

Satellite Radio, with its much broader reach has the potential to
monetize small lifegroup size by aggregating the niche across the entire
landscape of the population into salable numbers...but even Satellite
Radio has failed to do that. Why?...

Because (again) there is apathy about ALL radio....

It's actually more fundamental than that. Satellite Radio
hasn't embraced many niche formats because there isn't ENOUGH money
to be made, compared to more 'mainstream' programming. It's about
the money. And the same people who ****ed up Radio, are programming
Sirius/XM.

Why? Because they see more money in that.



So, if you're taking the position that HD radio offers alternative
programming on the digital subchannels, you're again dispensing misleading
information.

Apparently you do not know what you are talking about...


I've been in broadcasting, specifically Radio and TV, since I was
6. And I'm currently actively involved in developing programming.

Yes, I do know what I'm talking about.



And sales demonstrate that the pubic isn't buying what iBiquity is
selling.

No, it doesn't. There is no "sales finish line"...

You're saying that there's a business model without goals?

Oh, there are goals, it is not "how many people go into best buy and
purchase an HD radio".


If you think there are no sales goals, you are unaware of how
business works.