HD radio means Half Dead radio
 

On Sep 25, 10:42 am, "David Eduardo" wrote:

We are headed towards a 4th generation chipset next year.

So, I take it the Radiosophy currently on the market is a "third
generation" set?

Reviews have been mixed on that one, although some say the tuner is
better than the HD-Recepter.

Stephanie Weil
New York City, USA

HD radio means Half Dead radio
 

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

Yes, but that wasn't the comparision. How much had been spent on HD radio
content compared to how much had been spent on IBOC hardware?

A lot of stations simply beileve having the manin analog channel content
available in digital is a good gain, which is why less than half the HD
staitons have inititiated HD2 broadcasts.

Those of us who have some HD2 content have spent lots more on content... our
Tejano network on HD2 in Texas speands more on talent in a month than the
cost of each conversion.

And, to get to the point, there would have been good promotional value if
the HD radio early adoptors had something special to listen to, and maybe
brag about.

In some areas, the digital ability to reduce multipath is worth a great
deal.

But people have to at least hear the radios to appreciate any difference.
The market for "crystal clear" simulcasts at high prices is obviously and
predictably small. Better radios at lower prices and worthwhile HD radio
programming would have sold plenty more radios.

Personally, I don't think the HD Alliance campaign is very good... it's
about the creative more than the content. There are plenty of opportunities
to find classical, jazz and other non-duplicated formats on HD2's... country
in NY being a good example.

Not to say that I have any idea if such a rollout would have been worth
it.
The idea of putting more channels on the air without a corresponding
increase in overall listenership and advertising revenues seems
problematical to me but I'm just some guy with a radio, hearing the damn
noise nobody listens to.

I think the justification is in avoiding erosion to other media... yes, it
will fragment the audience, but it the end result is to keep existing
listeners on terrestrial radio, the fragmentation is a small cost.

The ads were on the air and from the radio buying public's point of view,
it
doesn't matter how they were paid for.

Yes, we agree here. But the earlier comments indicated that money was
spent... it was not. And, again, I thought the campaigns have failed to do
anything to make HD appealing. But I am not in the HD Alliance, so my
opinion is worth about what it costs to read it....

HD radio means Half Dead radio
 

"IBOCcrock" wrote in message
ups.com...

No, there was no cash spent. Each member committed to giving a certain
VALUE
in ad time to HD promotion on its own stations. There is no out of pocket
cost in giving your own time to a particular purpose.

The promotions are being dropped by stations at end-of-year because
they were ineffectual because consumers don't give an ass's **** about
HD Radio:

The HD Alliance has NOTHING to do with iBiquity itself. It is a group of
broadcasters... like the RAB... that further a common goal. In this case,
the goal is to get people to notice something the member stations are doing.
The Alliance has nothing to do with receiver sales, receiver design,
encoders, licensing agreements, etc.

HD radio means Half Dead radio
 

"IBOCcrock" wrote in message
oups.com...

True - there are more than enough AM/FM stations without the need for
simulcasting.


You obviously do not know what "simulcasting" means.

HD radio means Half Dead radio
 

"Steve" wrote in message
ups.com...

No, there was no cash spent. Each member committed to giving a certain
VALUE
in ad time to HD promotion on its own stations. There is no out of pocket
cost in giving your own time to a particular purpose.


According to the HD Alliance, vast amounts of money were spent.


No, large amounts of ad time, with a specific value, was used. If I run a
promo for my station on my station, I do not bill myself.

HD radio means Half Dead radio
 

On Sep 25, 10:36 am, "David Eduardo" wrote:

It's not a portable.

It's a portable in the same sense that a 13" or 19" AC-powered
television sets have been called "portable" in sales literature and
advertisements. Maybe something you can carry from room to room, but
still have to plug into a light socket, as opposed to a console that
is placed in one spot in the room..

But I agree, David, that's not my definition of portable. More like
TRANSportable.

Stephanie Weil
New York City, USA

HD radio means Half Dead radio
 

David Eduardo wrote:

"IBOCcrock" wrote in message
oups.com...

True - there are more than enough AM/FM stations without the need for
simulcasting.


You obviously do not know what "simulcasting" means.

You know what "faux Hispanic" means, don't you, Edweenie?

HD radio means Half Dead radio
 

"Steve" wrote in message
ps.com...

1. Receptor is not a portable.He says it it.

iBiquity says it is.

Give me a break. It is one roughly 10" by 5" by 6" box, with a power cord,
connected to a half size box with the second speaker via a cable. The
battery in it is to hold memory on the clock and presets, and does not run
the radio. Together, the two boxes weigh about 4 to 5 lbs.

2. He lied about HD Alliance ad expenditure

Merely exposed your ignorance.

There was no expenditure... only contributed time by each Alliance station.

3. He is clueless about cost of going HD vs. normal engineering capital
items.

As are all the major proponents of HD, in that case.

For FMs, the cost of conversion in a top 100 market as a percentage of the
technical budget is small. For AMs that are viable, the same applies.

HD radio means Half Dead radio
 

"Steve" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Sep 25, 10:42 am, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Stephanie Weil" wrote in message

ps.com...

On Sep 25, 6:48 am, Steve wrote:

Not according to iBiquity, which maintains that the BA Receptor was
the best HD AM portable achievable.

Probably using the current chip design. Which is still not saying
much.

The receptor, of course, is not portable.

Explain that to iBiquity and report back.




Supposedly they're still working on a second generation design. Maybe
they should have waited a bit more till the receivers were perfected
before rolling this stuff out on the consumer market.

We are headed towards a 4th generation chipset next year.

Right. That's the one that Samsung says will be extremely expensive.

Everything released says that the chip will be lower cost, and nothing says
anything to the contrary.

HD radio means Half Dead radio
 

On Sep 25, 12:54 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Steve" wrote in message

ups.com...



No, there was no cash spent. Each member committed to giving a certain
VALUE
in ad time to HD promotion on its own stations. There is no out of pocket
cost in giving your own time to a particular purpose.

According to the HD Alliance, vast amounts of money were spent.

No, large amounts of ad time, with a specific value, was used. If I run a
promo for my station on my station, I do not bill myself.

You can fight this out yourself with the HD Alliance. Let us know how
you make out.

HD radio means Half Dead radio
 

On Sep 25, 1:01 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Steve" wrote in message

ps.com...



1. Receptor is not a portable.He says it it.

iBiquity says it is.

Give me a break. It is one roughly 10" by 5" by 6" box, with a power cord,
connected to a half size box with the second speaker via a cable. The
battery in it is to hold memory on the clock and presets, and does not run
the radio. Together, the two boxes weigh about 4 to 5 lbs.


Be sure to make this argument to iBiquity. I'm sure they'll be all
ears.




2. He lied about HD Alliance ad expenditure

Merely exposed your ignorance.

There was no expenditure... only contributed time by each Alliance station.


Oh, there were expenditures...vast ones.




3. He is clueless about cost of going HD vs. normal engineering capital
items.

As are all the major proponents of HD, in that case.

For FMs, the cost of conversion in a top 100 market as a percentage of the
technical budget is small. For AMs that are viable, the same applies.

You'd better tell that to the HD Alliance. Sounds like they're going
to learn a lot of surprising things from you.

HD radio means Half Dead radio
 

On Sep 24, 9:58 am, "Frank Dresser"
wrote:
"Eric F. Richards" wrote in messagenews:hlfff3hdip5ud5bkpdimau5qlmfm512c43@4ax .com...

I like this response:

Anonymous said...

Thank you for having the balls to challenge Ibiquity and the NAB.
They are doing serious damage to our once great industry.

Bring broadcasters back to broadcasting otherwise you may as well
sign the stations off.

September 21, 2007 3:04 PM

Hmmmmm...

That's IF the broadcasters want to stick exclusively with broadcasting, at
least free broadcasting. Consider that the broadcasters have spent millions
on IBOC radio interference transmitter equipment and only a pittance on HD
radio content. And they've spent millions more on advertising HD radio
before adaquate mass market radios were available.

HD radio might not have been designed to fail, but it sure doesn't look like
the smart guys have thought out the elements of success, either.

But now we have a FCC decision which will mark the latest first start date
in which very important things got fixed. Inexpensive low power consumption
chips are in the pipeline and I'll bet these new, improved chips are
subscription radio ready.

Frank Dresser

HD TV according to a recent article in Hearing Loss Magazine does not
support Closed Captioning very well. Even though the FCC has mandated
twice that all new televisions MUST run closed captioning. I think
the television manufacturers are more concerned with getting the
product out there than with making sure they meet FCC regulations.

HD radio means Half Dead radio
 

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Stephanie Weil" wrote in message
ps.com...
On Sep 25, 6:48 am, Steve wrote:


Not according to iBiquity, which maintains that the BA Receptor was
the best HD AM portable achievable.

Probably using the current chip design. Which is still not saying
much.

The receptor, of course, is not portable.

Supposedly they're still working on a second generation design. Maybe
they should have waited a bit more till the receivers were perfected
before rolling this stuff out on the consumer market.

We are headed towards a 4th generation chipset next year.

I see, so what you are saying is that it took them 4 freaking times to
get it right. That raises the question of just how good this 4th
generation is going to be.

iBiquity, with the nth generation HD chip set, which expires in six
months.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

HD radio means Half Dead radio
 

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Steve" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Sep 25, 10:42 am, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Stephanie Weil" wrote in message

ps.com...

On Sep 25, 6:48 am, Steve wrote:

Not according to iBiquity, which maintains that the BA Receptor was
the best HD AM portable achievable.

Probably using the current chip design. Which is still not saying
much.

The receptor, of course, is not portable.

Explain that to iBiquity and report back.




Supposedly they're still working on a second generation design. Maybe
they should have waited a bit more till the receivers were perfected
before rolling this stuff out on the consumer market.

We are headed towards a 4th generation chipset next year.

Right. That's the one that Samsung says will be extremely expensive.

Everything released says that the chip will be lower cost, and nothing says
anything to the contrary.

You don't understand the ASIC semiconductor industry at all do you.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

HD radio means Half Dead radio
 

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Steve" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Sep 24, 12:11 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Roadie" wrote in message

ups.com...



I have no idea who the self-proclaimed expert Jerry D.C. is, but his
and other claims about poor sales and high returns of HD radios are
unsupportable now. Such claims will either be verified or dismissed
in the next 9 months which includes the christmas selling season.

I don't think many receivers will be sold at Christmas, 2007. The ones
out
there still bite big time, and the first generation of really good ones
will
come sometime in mid-2008.

Not according to iBiquity, which maintains that the BA Receptor was
the best HD AM portable achievable.


It's not a portable.

What? Have you tired of dragging around that diehard car battery already?

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

HD radio means Half Dead radio
 

On Sep 25, 9:53 am, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"IBOCcrock" wrote in message

oups.com...



True - there are more than enough AM/FM stations without the need for
simulcasting.

You obviously do not know what "simulcasting" means.

d'Eduardo - Please spell it out for us . . .

on second thought i will do it for you : " s i m u l c a s t i n g "

oh boy - i'm helping ~ RHF

HD radio means Half Dead radio
 

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Stephanie Weil" wrote in message
ps.com...
On Sep 25, 6:48 am, Steve wrote:


Not according to iBiquity, which maintains that the BA Receptor was
the best HD AM portable achievable.

Probably using the current chip design. Which is still not saying
much.

The receptor, of course, is not portable.

Supposedly they're still working on a second generation design. Maybe
they should have waited a bit more till the receivers were perfected
before rolling this stuff out on the consumer market.

We are headed towards a 4th generation chipset next year.

I see, so what you are saying is that it took them 4 freaking times to
get it right. That raises the question of just how good this 4th
generation is going to be.

No, it took FCC approval of the system for the genuine developers to be
interested. The original chipsets were as close to a prototype as you can
get and still sell to the public.

HD radio means Half Dead radio
 

"Telamon" wrote in message
news:telamon_spamshield-.
Everything released says that the chip will be lower cost, and nothing
says
anything to the contrary.

You don't understand the ASIC semiconductor industry at all do you.

I do not need to understand the industry as a whole to understand the
reports that the investors in iBiquity receive regarding the developments in
chip development, receiver manufacturer interest, etc. Any individual in any
business at some point has to rely on trustworthy sources of data as it is
impossible to know all the details of every service, technology or process
we buy, hire, rent, use or are dependent on.

I doubt Jack Welch did GE's taxes while he was CEO and I am sure he did not
insert blades in jet turbines. His success was finding the best people to do
those things under his direction.

I've known some fine DXers who could not open a receiver ant tell if it was
hollow state or solid state; they trusted a good manufacturer and the advice
of fellow DXers... they had no need to know.

News Flash - d'Eduardo Admits - HD Radios "Bite Big Time" !
 

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Steve" wrote in message
ps.com...
On Sep 25, 10:43 am, "David Eduardo" wrote:

The worst thing you can do when debuting a new technology is give crap
to the early adopters (who tend to spread the word).

My first CD player was crap.... and cost $1400.

We're very sorry. This must have been a major blow to you.

No, it was just the cost of wanting new technology when it was in its
infancy....no oversampling, intolerance to surface errors, etc.

Early color TVs sucked and cost about $3000 2007 dollars. But as they
evolved, they got better... it took about 15 years, too.


Hey Eduardo, how about that link to the new chip set?

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

HD radio means Half Dead radio
 

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"IBOCcrock" wrote in message
oups.com...

True - there are more than enough AM/FM stations without the need for
simulcasting.


You obviously do not know what "simulcasting" means.

Hey Eduardo, how about that link to the new low power chip sets?

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

News Flash - d'Eduardo Admits - HD Radios "Bite Big Time" !
 

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Steve" wrote in message
ps.com...
On Sep 25, 10:43 am, "David Eduardo" wrote:

The worst thing you can do when debuting a new technology is give
crap
to the early adopters (who tend to spread the word).

My first CD player was crap.... and cost $1400.

We're very sorry. This must have been a major blow to you.

No, it was just the cost of wanting new technology when it was in its
infancy....no oversampling, intolerance to surface errors, etc.

Early color TVs sucked and cost about $3000 2007 dollars. But as they
evolved, they got better... it took about 15 years, too.


Hey Eduardo, how about that link to the new chip set?

There is plenty of data if you happen to be an investor in iBiquity. On the
other had, there is no data about a more expensive Samsung chip and
considerable data on it being smaller, having lower power consumption and
being much less expensive than the current short production run chips. I
don't think you need to be told to go Google it....

HD radio means Half Dead radio
 

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


Steve wrote:

On Sep 24, 12:11 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Roadie" wrote in message

ups.com...



I have no idea who the self-proclaimed expert Jerry D.C. is, but his
and other claims about poor sales and high returns of HD radios are
unsupportable now. Such claims will either be verified or dismissed
in the next 9 months which includes the christmas selling season.

I don't think many receivers will be sold at Christmas, 2007. The ones
out
there still bite big time, and the first generation of really good ones
will
come sometime in mid-2008.

Not according to iBiquity, which maintains that the BA Receptor was
the best HD AM portable achievable.

I predict another rough day for 'Eduardo'...

Nope, rough for Stevearino.

Snip

Hey Eduardo, what part of half dead do you not understand?

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

HD radio means Half Dead radio
 

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Stephanie Weil" wrote in message
ps.com...
On Sep 25, 6:48 am, Steve wrote:


Not according to iBiquity, which maintains that the BA Receptor was
the best HD AM portable achievable.

Probably using the current chip design. Which is still not saying
much.

The receptor, of course, is not portable.

Supposedly they're still working on a second generation design. Maybe
they should have waited a bit more till the receivers were perfected
before rolling this stuff out on the consumer market.

We are headed towards a 4th generation chipset next year.

I see, so what you are saying is that it took them 4 freaking times to
get it right. That raises the question of just how good this 4th
generation is going to be.

No, it took FCC approval of the system for the genuine developers to be
interested. The original chipsets were as close to a prototype as you can
get and still sell to the public.

OK then, it took them 4 times just to get FCC approval. It does not
sound like they are very interested to me or they would have got it
right the first time.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

HD radio means Half Dead radio
 

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
news:telamon_spamshield-.
Everything released says that the chip will be lower cost, and nothing
says
anything to the contrary.

You don't understand the ASIC semiconductor industry at all do you.

I do not need to understand the industry as a whole to understand the
reports that the investors in iBiquity receive regarding the developments in
chip development, receiver manufacturer interest, etc. Any individual in any
business at some point has to rely on trustworthy sources of data as it is
impossible to know all the details of every service, technology or process
we buy, hire, rent, use or are dependent on.

Snip

Great let me straighten you out then. It costs big bucks to develop the
ASIC. The more you sell of those ASICS the sooner you recover the costs
and start making a profit. If you don't sell many you have to charge a
higher price. That is a little over simplified but you should get the
drift of it.

So, the chips will start out expensive and HD will half to take off big
time for the price to drop... over time.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

News Flash - d'Eduardo Admits - HD Radios "Bite Big Time" !
 

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Steve" wrote in message
ps.com...
On Sep 25, 10:43 am, "David Eduardo" wrote:

The worst thing you can do when debuting a new technology is
give crap to the early adopters (who tend to spread the
word).

My first CD player was crap.... and cost $1400.

We're very sorry. This must have been a major blow to you.

No, it was just the cost of wanting new technology when it was in
its infancy....no oversampling, intolerance to surface errors,
etc.

Early color TVs sucked and cost about $3000 2007 dollars. But as
they evolved, they got better... it took about 15 years, too.


Hey Eduardo, how about that link to the new chip set?

There is plenty of data if you happen to be an investor in iBiquity.
On the other had, there is no data about a more expensive Samsung
chip and considerable data on it being smaller, having lower power
consumption and being much less expensive than the current short
production run chips. I don't think you need to be told to go Google
it....

Wow, you really know how to blow it out your butt.

I've been to and posted the link to the Semi manufacture press news
link. Semi manufactures usually don't keep progress on new product
development since they like to show off their new products. That's what
the link is for, press releases about new product development. No press
releases mean no development.

New product is expensive until large quantities are sold so the
development cost is amortized over larger numbers of the devices.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

HD radio means Half Dead radio
 

On Sep 25, 10:13 am, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Stephanie Weil" wrote in message

ups.com...

On Sep 25, 10:42 am, "David Eduardo" wrote:

We are headed towards a 4th generation chipset next year.

So, I take it the Radiosophy currently on the market is a "third
generation" set?

Second.


FWIW - IMHO,

The 'basis' Radi-Osophy HD-100 Radio's Analog AM/MW Tuner
is better then most of the present day Consumer Grade older
Analog "Only" AM/MW Tuners : Including the Bose and many
others; which sell for Hundreds of Dollars more.

at least that is what my eyes and ears tell me ~ RHF

I Ask Myself : What IBOC ?
All I See Is The Blinking Blue Light !
In the Distant Land Where IBOC Fears To Go :
Life Exists and Radio Listeners Live Beyond the 10mv/m Contour.

News Flash - d'Eduardo Admits - HD Radios "Bite Big Time" !
 

On Sep 25, 10:14 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Telamon" wrote in message

...





In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Steve" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Sep 25, 10:43 am, "David Eduardo" wrote:

The worst thing you can do when debuting a new technology is give
crap
to the early adopters (who tend to spread the word).

My first CD player was crap.... and cost $1400.

We're very sorry. This must have been a major blow to you.

No, it was just the cost of wanting new technology when it was in its
infancy....no oversampling, intolerance to surface errors, etc.

Early color TVs sucked and cost about $3000 2007 dollars. But as they
evolved, they got better... it took about 15 years, too.

Hey Eduardo, how about that link to the new chip set?

There is plenty of data if you happen to be an investor in iBiquity. On the
other had, there is no data about a more expensive Samsung chip and
considerable data on it being smaller, having lower power consumption and
being much less expensive than the current short production run chips. I
don't think you need to be told to go Google it....- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Actually, according to Samsung it's much more expensive.

HD radio means Half Dead radio
 

In article ,
Telamon wrote:

OK then, it took them 4 times just to get FCC approval. It does not
sound like they are very interested to me or they would have got it
right the first time.

The spectrum the shows up on my radio now is much different than that
described in the web sites a year or so back. From two sidebands,
10 kHz wide, at +/- 15-25 kHz, now reduced down to 5 kHz wide at
+/- 10-15 kHz.

If they're changing it that much, no manufacturer is going to commit to
loading firmware into a bunch of chips if they'll have to scrap them in
6 months.

I can just hear the marketing rep at the semi company.
"You changed it. AGAIN?".

Mark Zenier
Googleproofaddress(account:mzenier provider:eskimo domain:com)

News Flash - d'Eduardo Admits - HD Radios "Bite Big Time" !
 

On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 14:43:41 GMT, "David Eduardo"
wrote:



My first CD player was crap.... and cost $1400. I can say that about nearly
every totally new product. Early XM and Sirius receivers were vastly less
effective than current ones, too.

''Less effective''? My Pioneer 903 picked up XM as well as my Onkyo
home receiver does. My retro CB looking Jensen picked up Sirius as
well as the new unit in my pickup truck. True, they were klunky, but
they worked. My BA Recepter gets 1 station in AM, KSPN, only during
the day, when they are 50,000 Watts.

News Flash - d'Eduardo Admits - HD Radios "Bite Big Time" !
 

On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 10:06:39 -0700, "David Eduardo"
wrote:


"Steve" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Sep 25, 10:43 am, "David Eduardo" wrote:

The worst thing you can do when debuting a new technology is give crap
to the early adopters (who tend to spread the word).

My first CD player was crap.... and cost $1400.

We're very sorry. This must have been a major blow to you.

No, it was just the cost of wanting new technology when it was in its
infancy....no oversampling, intolerance to surface errors, etc.

Early color TVs sucked and cost about $3000 2007 dollars. But as they
evolved, they got better... it took about 15 years, too.


That was 50 years ago. We haven't gotten any better?

News Flash - d'Eduardo Admits - HD Radios "Bite Big Time" !
 

On Sep 25, 10:33 pm, Telamon
wrote:
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
news:telamon_spamshield-
New product is expensive until large quantities are sold so the
development cost is amortized over larger numbers of the devices.

Samsung itself plans to use the chips in various product lines, as well as
selling to third party manufacturers. The reason none of thebig fabs entered
the market earlier is that with fewer stations (now 1500 covering nearly
every viable top 100 market station) and no FCC approval, the volumes they
needed would not be met.

Small quantities mean the chips will remain expensive.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

I posted this at rec.audio. I'll crosspost it here, as my response is
still the same:

HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio


I hear a LOT of people complaining about Hybrid Digital Radio, but
from what I've heard from European listeners, HDR is no worse than DAB
(poor quality audio;worse than FM), or DRB (both poor quality &
interference w/ existing AM stations).

Thoughts?

Opinions?

Frankly I'm a bit surprised at the reaction. There's currently a
transition from analog to digital broadcasting (both in American and
the European Union), and there will be some growing pains, but it's
only temporary. In the LONG TERM, the digital radio will provide
better sound than the current analog (like squeezing 300 kilobit/
second 5.1 surround into the current FM bands).

News Flash - d'Eduardo Admits - HD Radios "Bite Big Time" !
 

SFTV_troy wrote:

On Sep 25, 10:33 pm, Telamon
wrote:
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
news:telamon_spamshield-
New product is expensive until large quantities are sold so the
development cost is amortized over larger numbers of the devices.

Samsung itself plans to use the chips in various product lines, as well as
selling to third party manufacturers. The reason none of thebig fabs entered
the market earlier is that with fewer stations (now 1500 covering nearly
every viable top 100 market station) and no FCC approval, the volumes they
needed would not be met.

Small quantities mean the chips will remain expensive.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

I posted this at rec.audio. I'll crosspost it here, as my response is
still the same:

HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio

I hear a LOT of people complaining about Hybrid Digital Radio, but
from what I've heard from European listeners, HDR is no worse than DAB
(poor quality audio;worse than FM), or DRB (both poor quality &
interference w/ existing AM stations).

Thoughts?

Opinions?

Frankly I'm a bit surprised at the reaction.

Why? IBOC sucks. DRM sucks.

They both cause unneeded QRM.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

News Flash - d'Eduardo Admits - HD Radios "Bite Big Time" !
 

On Sep 29, 7:52 am, SFTV_troy wrote:
On Sep 25, 10:33 pm, Telamon





wrote:
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
news:telamon_spamshield-
New product is expensive until large quantities are sold so the
development cost is amortized over larger numbers of the devices.

Samsung itself plans to use the chips in various product lines, as well as
selling to third party manufacturers. The reason none of thebig fabs entered
the market earlier is that with fewer stations (now 1500 covering nearly
every viable top 100 market station) and no FCC approval, the volumes they
needed would not be met.

Small quantities mean the chips will remain expensive.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

I posted this at rec.audio. I'll crosspost it here, as my response is
still the same:

HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio

I hear a LOT of people complaining about Hybrid Digital Radio, but
from what I've heard from European listeners, HDR is no worse than DAB
(poor quality audio;worse than FM), or DRB (both poor quality &
interference w/ existing AM stations).

Thoughts?

Opinions?

Frankly I'm a bit surprised at the reaction. There's currently a
transition from analog to digital broadcasting (both in American and
the European Union), and there will be some growing pains, but it's
only temporary. In the LONG TERM, the digital radio will provide
better sound than the current analog (like squeezing 300 kilobit/
second 5.1 surround into the current FM bands).- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The audio quality is only improved if you're very close to the
broadcasting station. If you're not very close to the broadcasting
station, there is NO audio, period. Doesn't sound like a very
appealing package.

News Flash - d'Eduardo Admits - HD Radios "Bite Big Time" !
 

In article . com,
SFTV_troy wrote:
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio


I hear a LOT of people complaining about Hybrid Digital Radio, but
from what I've heard from European listeners, HDR is no worse than DAB
(poor quality audio;worse than FM), or DRB (both poor quality &
interference w/ existing AM stations).

Thoughts?

Opinions?

Frankly I'm a bit surprised at the reaction. There's currently a
transition from analog to digital broadcasting (both in American and
the European Union), and there will be some growing pains, but it's
only temporary. In the LONG TERM, the digital radio will provide
better sound than the current analog (like squeezing 300 kilobit/
second 5.1 surround into the current FM bands).

Because you can't hear anything unless you've got hundred million
instructions per second running in your digital signal processor.

That means that radios will be
1)expensive (probably $50-90 minimum, compared with the $1.50 credit card
radio today)
2)relativly power hungry
3)use private/secret/obscure modulation (Nobody unliscened can build one)
4)enables digital rights management (nobody without a subscription can listen)

And sound like crap below 50-100 kBPS.

What a way to serve the public. What a way to control the public...

Mark Zenier
Googleproofaddress(account:mzenier provider:eskimo domain:com)

News Flash - d'Eduardo Admits - HD Radios "Bite Big Time" !
 

In article . com,
SFTV_troy wrote:

On Sep 25, 10:33 pm, Telamon
wrote:
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
news:telamon_spamshield-
New product is expensive until large quantities are sold so the
development cost is amortized over larger numbers of the
devices.

Samsung itself plans to use the chips in various product lines,
as well as selling to third party manufacturers. The reason none
of thebig fabs entered the market earlier is that with fewer
stations (now 1500 covering nearly every viable top 100 market
station) and no FCC approval, the volumes they needed would not
be met.

Small quantities mean the chips will remain expensive.


I posted this at rec.audio. I'll crosspost it here, as my response is
still the same:

HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio


I hear a LOT of people complaining about Hybrid Digital Radio, but
from what I've heard from European listeners, HDR is no worse than
DAB (poor quality audio;worse than FM), or DRB (both poor quality &
interference w/ existing AM stations).

Thoughts?

Opinions?

Frankly I'm a bit surprised at the reaction. There's currently a
transition from analog to digital broadcasting (both in American and
the European Union), and there will be some growing pains, but it's
only temporary. In the LONG TERM, the digital radio will provide
better sound than the current analog (like squeezing 300 kilobit/
second 5.1 surround into the current FM bands).

There is plenty to read in this news group on the subject of digital
transmission. Most people in the news group don't want it. The reason
are several but paramount is the fact that the implementations are old
technology and ideas that do not fit the propagation of the bands they
are implemented on.

The best match so far with the applied technology is FM because it most
closely emulates the conditions or transmission path for which those
outdated ideas were originally conceived. Daytime AMBCB comes in next
and nigh time AMBCB and short wave come in last.

Arguments that current digital broadcasts by proponents fall flat
because everyone has or now realizes that this type of transmission has
its own downfalls compared to analog.

Arguments of proposed improved digital broadcast by proponents are just
collections of insipid stupid ideas like using additional bandwidth or
more power or just reduce the coverage area of a transmitter. Just more
dumb-ass ideas on top of the current old and unsuitable concepts
currently applied that reverse the supposed benefits of going to
digital mode to begin with.

Old, inappropriately applied technology ideas currently trashing the
radio bands. Absolutely pathetic.

And just as bad as the poorly considered technology is the
implementation where the whole of the band is used instead of just a
part so a great deal of chaos ensues generally ****ing people off.

But don't worry digital mode proponents; the hilarious HD troll Eduardo
will be along soon with his rationalizations, misunderstandings, market
statistics, and his specially developed for the Internet hubris to
smooth over the pain of the reality of HD and DRM in this post.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

News Flash - d'Eduardo Admits - HD Radios "Bite Big Time" !
 

dxAce wrote:
SFTV_troy wrote:


Frankly I'm a bit surprised at the reaction.

Why? IBOC sucks. DRM sucks. They both cause QRM.



I don't know what QRM means - probably interference? In any case,
once the analog is turned off and the HD Radio is constrained to a
standard 10 kilohertz channel (mode 3), there will no longer be
overlapping stations.

News Flash - d'Eduardo Admits - HD Radios "Bite Big Time" !
 

Steve wrote:

The audio quality is only improved if you're very close to the
broadcasting station. If you're not very close to the broadcasting
station, there is NO audio, period. ...


Yeah I've heard that, but can't that be fixed simply by boosting more
power to the digital stream?

News Flash - d'Eduardo Admits - HD Radios "Bite Big Time" !
 

Steve wrote:

The audio quality is only improved if you're very close to the
broadcasting station. If you're not very close to the broadcasting
station, there is NO audio, period. ...


Yeah I've heard that, but can't that be fixed simply by boosting more
power to the digital stream?

News Flash - d'Eduardo Admits - HD Radios "Bite Big Time" !
 

Steve wrote:

The audio quality is only improved if you're very close to the
broadcasting station. If you're not very close to the broadcasting
station, there is NO audio, period. ...


Yeah I've heard that, but can't that be fixed simply by boosting more
power to the digital stream?

News Flash - d'Eduardo Admits - HD Radios "Bite Big Time" !
 

Telamon wrote:

There is plenty to read in this news group on the subject of digital
transmission. Most people in the news group don't want it. The reason
are several but paramount is the fact that the implementations are old
technology......

Old? Both HD Radio and DRM (and also DAB+) are using the latest MPEG4
HE-AAC+SRM codecs. That's the newest and most-advanced digital
compression standard currently available.

The modulation is COFDM - also one of the newest ideas available for
sending data via broadcast.


The best match so far with the applied technology is FM because it most
closely emulates the conditions or transmission path for which those
outdated ideas were originally conceived. Daytime AMBCB comes in next
and nigh time AMBCB and short wave come in last.

Interesting. First, what is AMBCB? Second, why do you rank AM lower
than FM? And why do you rank skywave transmission as last?



Arguments that current digital broadcasts by proponents fall flat
because everyone has or now realizes that this type of transmission has
its own downfalls compared to analog.

Such as? You keep telling me "digital has downfalls" but so far
you've not told me what they are. Please share that information,
because I'm curious to know.



Arguments of proposed improved digital broadcast by proponents are just
collections of insipid stupid ideas like using additional bandwidth or
more power or just reduce the coverage area of a transmitter. Just more
dumb-ass ideas on top of the current old and unsuitable concepts

Why are these idea "dumbass"? Please explain.



And just as bad as the poorly considered technology is the
implementation where the whole of the band is used instead of just a
part so a great deal of chaos ensues generally ****ing people off.

How would the FCC go about using "part" of the band in its transition
from AM to Digital, or FM to Digital?


But don't worry digital mode proponents; the hilarious HD troll Eduardo

I've not met him yet.