|
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
Telamon wrote: In article , "David Eduardo" wrote: "Telamon" wrote in message ... You just don't like what you hear, so you make up your own definition of listening, of markets (today's post was a good example) and of the way radio is used. You have no data other than what your megaradio can pick up, and you are projecting your own misconceptions on all radio listeners and this newsgroup. You have a classic "shoot the messenger" mentality about anything you don't agree with. Oh no Eduardo! I have the statistics to backup what I say! No, you do not. You never have. Taking one example, that of "I can hear it so people must listen to it" you can see that you take one bit of personal, anecdotal data, your ability to pick up a station, and apply it to the general population. The facts betray you here, since hearing level is not listening level, and people around you do not listen to the stations you can hear. I've done the research. I have the statistics. You are just plain wrong. He's just plain fake, and a pathological liar as well. Proven fact! |
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
On Oct 6, 10:40 am, Telamon
wrote: In article om, Steve wrote: On Oct 6, 11:48 am, "David Eduardo" wrote: "Steve" wrote in message ups.com... On Oct 5, 3:54 am, RHF wrote: On Oct 4, 10:45 pm, Telamon wrote: In article , Robert Orban wrote: In article telamon_spamshield- , says... In article , "David Eduardo" wrote: "Telamon" wrote in message news:telamon_spamshield- ... That's funny, I just asked Bob if he 'found' this and he said no way, that you're basically just making **** up off the top of your head. Bob didn't test all the different model radios. He tested enough for a reliable sample of what Americans use. I'm guessing you don't know who Bob Orban is, so you might google him and the term Optimod or NRSC to learn a little bit about the man who reinvented audio processing. Yep, that where you got stuck somehow. Reality = Take some samples + apply statistics + shake vigorously Oops! It's not quite what you wanted. Try again. Reality = Makeup some samples + apply statistics + shake vigorously Looking good. This study, which was done under auspices of the NRSC (of which I am only one member) was done very carefully. Seehttp://www.nrscstandards.org/andclick "AM Bandwidth Study." Telamon Ventura, California By the way, "Telemon," to whom am I actually speaking? If you are implying that the above referenced study was corrupt, I would hope that you would at least back up your accusation by letting us know your real name and what evidence you have that the study was flawed. The only suggestion I have for you Mr. Orban is to work on your reading comprehension. The handle is Telamon. -- Telamon Ventura, California- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Now be nice Telamon, Mister Orban has posted under his own name and has asked you to reply to him : in kind. FWIW - Robert {Bob} Orban * A Short History of Transmission Audio Processing in the United States -by- Robert Orban, San Francisco, CAhttp://www.bext.com/histproc.htmhttp://www.261.gr/roberthistory.html * Optimod "Ask Bob" - Orban/CRL Systems, Inc.http://www.orban.com/support/orban/a...1.gr/robert.ht ml * Orban Audio Codec - "Opticodec Line"http://www.orban.com/products/codec/ it's nice to be nice ! RHF .- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - The fact is, it's pretty well impossible to know when someone is posting under "their own name" on the internet. The only thing you can really conclude is that someone is posting under a name which they intend for you to believe is their own! When it comes to content, nobody can duplicate one of Bob Orban's posts.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - And do you have any evidence to back up this assertion? I'm sure he can recite a number of Arbitron statistics to prove that assertion. See the problem with Eduardo is that all arguments begin and end with Arbitron since he supposedly has access to that data and we don't so he can't loose. Well I just re-ran the Usenet reader stats and Eduardo came out on the bottom of believability contour of all posters. The number of people that believe him is below 10% in the 25 to 54 age group or in other words his bombast signal level is not high enough for most to put up with. People will just tune out in favor of a more rational poster on Usenet. -- Telamon Ventura, California- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - d'Eduardo -aka- "El Arbitronaireo" the SuperHero of Mucho Numbers; Mágico Market Share and the El Estupendo {Factoid} Percentage ! and all i have is gut 'feeling' based on what i hear on the radio ~ RHF . |
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
In article ,
dxAce wrote: Telamon wrote: In article , "David Eduardo" wrote: "Telamon" wrote in message ... You just don't like what you hear, so you make up your own definition of listening, of markets (today's post was a good example) and of the way radio is used. You have no data other than what your megaradio can pick up, and you are projecting your own misconceptions on all radio listeners and this newsgroup. You have a classic "shoot the messenger" mentality about anything you don't agree with. Oh no Eduardo! I have the statistics to backup what I say! No, you do not. You never have. Taking one example, that of "I can hear it so people must listen to it" you can see that you take one bit of personal, anecdotal data, your ability to pick up a station, and apply it to the general population. The facts betray you here, since hearing level is not listening level, and people around you do not listen to the stations you can hear. I've done the research. I have the statistics. You are just plain wrong. He's just plain fake, and a pathological liar as well. Proven fact! I agree. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
"Telamon" wrote in message ... In article , "David Eduardo" wrote: "Telamon" wrote in message ... You just don't like what you hear, so you make up your own definition of listening, of markets (today's post was a good example) and of the way radio is used. You have no data other than what your megaradio can pick up, and you are projecting your own misconceptions on all radio listeners and this newsgroup. You have a classic "shoot the messenger" mentality about anything you don't agree with. Oh no Eduardo! I have the statistics to backup what I say! No, you do not. You never have. Taking one example, that of "I can hear it so people must listen to it" you can see that you take one bit of personal, anecdotal data, your ability to pick up a station, and apply it to the general population. The facts betray you here, since hearing level is not listening level, and people around you do not listen to the stations you can hear. I've done the research. I have the statistics. You are just plain wrong. It's all about what you think, not about what the other hundreds of thousands of people in your radio market do. You have done no research on the rest of them, and they out number you. In otherwords, your research method was looking in a mirror at yourself. BS. |
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
"dxAce" wrote in message ... Telamon wrote: He's just plain fake, and a pathological liar as well. Proven fact! Yes, we have seen that Telemons has no facts other than his own anecdotes, is fake and hides behind an egocentric screen name. |
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
On Oct 6, 10:20 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Telamon" wrote in message ... In article , "David Eduardo" wrote: "Telamon" wrote in message ... You just don't like what you hear, so you make up your own definition of listening, of markets (today's post was a good example) and of the way radio is used. You have no data other than what your megaradio can pick up, and you are projecting your own misconceptions on all radio listeners and this newsgroup. You have a classic "shoot the messenger" mentality about anything you don't agree with. Oh no Eduardo! I have the statistics to backup what I say! No, you do not. You never have. Taking one example, that of "I can hear it so people must listen to it" you can see that you take one bit of personal, anecdotal data, your ability to pick up a station, and apply it to the general population. The facts betray you here, since hearing level is not listening level, and people around you do not listen to the stations you can hear. I've done the research. I have the statistics. You are just plain wrong. It's all about what you think, not about what the other hundreds of thousands of people in your radio market do. You have done no research on the rest of them, and they out number you. In otherwords, your research method was looking in a mirror at yourself. BS It can't all be BS. If it were, you wouldn't keep coming back, and you certainly wouldn't be posting 30 times a day. |
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
On Oct 6, 10:21 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"dxAce" wrote in message ... Telamon wrote: He's just plain fake, and a pathological liar as well. Proven fact! Yes, we have seen that Telemons has no facts other than his own anecdotes, is fake and hides behind an egocentric screen name. Well at least he doesn't bore us with the certificate of completion he received upon finishing kindergarden. You're not fooling anyone, Tardo. If he were fake he wouldn't be so successful at getting your panties in a bunch. |
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
Telamon wrote:
In article , dxAce wrote: Telamon wrote: In article , "David Eduardo" wrote: "Telamon" wrote in message ... You just don't like what you hear, so you make up your own definition of listening, of markets (today's post was a good example) and of the way radio is used. You have no data other than what your megaradio can pick up, and you are projecting your own misconceptions on all radio listeners and this newsgroup. You have a classic "shoot the messenger" mentality about anything you don't agree with. Oh no Eduardo! I have the statistics to backup what I say! No, you do not. You never have. Taking one example, that of "I can hear it so people must listen to it" you can see that you take one bit of personal, anecdotal data, your ability to pick up a station, and apply it to the general population. The facts betray you here, since hearing level is not listening level, and people around you do not listen to the stations you can hear. I've done the research. I have the statistics. You are just plain wrong. He's just plain fake, and a pathological liar as well. Proven fact! I agree. I got a thought, here. During a recent discussion, you and Gleason got into things about IBOC chip technology, and in requesting for support of a claim about a manufacturer and low power chip production, you asked for a link to verify his claim. To my knowledge there hasn't been such a link presented. And in his own defense, Gleason said that such a link couldn't be posted as it would contain access to proprietary information. Seems reasonable. But two questions have been bothering me since that exchange. 1) if the information was proprietary and he was restricted from disseminating it, why would he even discuss it on a world wide forum like USENet? And 2) if the information is so proprietary, with industrial espionage such a highly refined artform, why would any company put such a thing on the Web in the first place? Or even send it out of house without some intense confidentiality agreement? In which case, he'd be forbidden to speak of the subject at all. When Mercury Marine was preparing for the introduction of Verado, I had to sign a confidentiality agreement before I was ever permitted to sit behind a microphone. Before I was ever permitted to see even a script in development. I had to read it in the presence of the agency rep, sign it in the presence of witnesses, and I had to verbally agree that nothing I was about to see, hear, read, or encounter would leave the studio. Hell, I wasn't even allowed to receive a copy of the spots and presentation for my own demo. And despite the fact that Verado has been on the market, now, for some years, and I've been the voice of Mercury for more than half a decade, I'm still not permitted to include the spots on my demo. I wasn't permitted even to tell my closest friends anything more than to go to the Miami Boat Show. I couldn't even tell them to see the Mercury display. Why? Because no one wanted to see Yamaha, OMC, or even Honda upstage the release of the all-new Verado with similar technology of their own. This is true of a number of projects I've worked on, and a number of sponsors I've worked with. If, in fact, Gleason has access to sensitive, proprietary information, why would they not sign him to a confidentiality agreement? If they did, why is he talking about it in a world wide public space? And if he's talking about it in a world wide public space, why is he not able to post your link? Definitely not the kind of behaviour one would expect of someone of some authority in a large multinational media conglomerate, where confidentiality is an essential tool of success. |
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message ... During a recent discussion, you and Gleason got into things about IBOC chip technology, and in requesting for support of a claim about a manufacturer and low power chip production, you asked for a link to verify his claim. To my knowledge there hasn't been such a link presented. And in his own defense, Gleason said that such a link couldn't be posted as it would contain access to proprietary information. Seems reasonable. But two questions have been bothering me since that exchange. 1) if the information was proprietary and he was restricted from disseminating it, why would he even discuss it on a world wide forum like USENet? There are press releases on the chips so far announced. Confirming that everything to now is on track, per iBiquity, is not a violation of any code or covenant. In fact, there are no non-disclosure agreements... simply, the data provided by iBiquity on such things is intended for internal guidance. On the other hand, press releases are issued for things like the Ford deal... the capacity of the press to use releases like ones about chips is limited in any case And 2) if the information is so proprietary, with industrial espionage such a highly refined artform, why would any company put such a thing on the Web in the first place? Or even send it out of house without some intense confidentiality agreement? In which case, he'd be forbidden to speak of the subject at all. Investor information is simply not all put in press releases, not necessarily being protected by non-disclosures. By proprietary, I use the same meaning of the term as used in the context of Arbitron data which is also proprietary... usable freely in some contexts, but highly protected in others. If, in fact, Gleason has access to sensitive, proprietary information, why would they not sign him to a confidentiality agreement? If they did, why is he talking about it in a world wide public space? And if he's talking about it in a world wide public space, why is he not able to post your link? Again, follow the Arbitron example. We are free to use the data for sales but can not release specific details to the press or public, although we actually may make much more public use than is first apparent. Definitely not the kind of behaviour one would expect of someone of some authority in a large multinational media conglomerate, I don't work for a multinational media conglomerate. You got that all wrong. where confidentiality is an essential tool of success. Confirming that a couple of chips are, as said in the press release, going to be cheaper and smaller and more energy efficient is hardly revealing a secret. In fact, it is something that should be divulged.. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:35 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com