wrote in message
ups.com...
On Sep 30, 9:15 am, wrote:
Frank Dresser wrote:

In my market, Chicago, the top 2 stations account for about 10% of the
listeners. The bottom 15 on the Arbitron list draw 1% or less. And
there
are a number of stations which don't even make the list.

Actually, I just looked at the Chicago market. The ratings don't
support your claim. Even in Chicago, the listeners are fairly evenly
divided amongst the top 20 stations. (ranging from approximately 2 to
5% of the listeners, per station).

That seems to suggest listeners do what I do:
- jump from station to station
- looking for variety across multiple channels
- they would LOVE having 3-4 times more options on the FM dial.


SILENCE?

Hey, I've got a life. I spend hours -- even days away from usenet.

It's pretty common. Get used to it. This isn't a chatroom.



Guess I caught you in a lie. The Arbitron ratings don't support your
claim, but you're not willing to admit you got caught in alie.

I overstated my arguement when I said:

"In most markets, most listeners are listening to a few stations."


I'm sure we can agree on:

"Many people listen to a few top rated stations, and a few people listen to
many bottom rated stations."

Is there really an important difference between the two statements?



Typical grandpa.


Oh, yeah I'm quite the old timer. Why, I remember when that Armstrong kid
was telling me about the high fidelity radio system he was working on which
would quickly obselete the old AM system.

Ah, the optimism of youth.

Frank Dresser

On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 16:42:37 -0700, SFTV_troy
wrote:


wrote:

Consumer interest in DAB in the UK is slowing (only 3.5 million DAB
radios have been sold in ten years), DAB stalled in Canada, and there
is almost zero consumer interest in HD Radio in the US - consumers
must realize that digital radio is a farce:

http://hdradiofarce.blogspot.com/


Do you have a similar website for DAB?

http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/

David Frackelton Gleason, still posing as 'Eduardo', wrote:

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

"Telamon" wrote in message
...

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.

Anyone who would question the objectivity or the ability of Bob Orban is
seriously sicko.

You mean mentally ill, like you are?

Frank Dresser wrote:
wrote in message

Guess I caught you in a lie. The Arbitron ratings don't support your
claim, but you're not willing to admit you got caught in alie.

I overstated my arguement when I said:
"In most markets most listeners are listening to a few stations."
I'm sure we can agree on:
"Many people listen to a few top rated stations, and a
few people listen to many bottom rated stations."
Is there really an important difference between the two statements?



Yeah it's false. The ratings show there are at least 20 channels with
near-identical numbers of listeners. That's more than a "few"

wrote in message
ups.com...

Frank Dresser wrote:
wrote in message

Guess I caught you in a lie. The Arbitron ratings don't support your
claim, but you're not willing to admit you got caught in alie.

I overstated my arguement when I said:
"In most markets most listeners are listening to a few stations."
I'm sure we can agree on:
"Many people listen to a few top rated stations, and a
few people listen to many bottom rated stations."
Is there really an important difference between the two statements?



Yeah it's false. The ratings show there are at least 20 channels with
near-identical numbers of listeners. That's more than a "few"



I thought I've heard every possible claim about the Arbitron numbers here,
but this is the first time I've heard that a 5.8 share is nearly identical
to a 1.9 share.

And that supports your arguement as well as it can be supported.

It's all a matter of semantics, I suppose. What do words such as many, top
rated, bottom rated and few mean?

By the way, Chicago's a big market. At least a few stations didn't make the
list. And those stations really do have "near identical numbers".

Frank Dresser

I don't believe HD radio is going much of anywhere.It's a dieing
Alligator.

y'all,,,,,,, www.devilfinder.com Hog Corn Mississippi

Enjoy!
cuhulin

One time, when I worked for Ingles Appliances store back in the 1960's,
I was driving a delivery truck, KBO449 Unit 6, where arrre
youuuuuuu,,,????) One of them Ingles Appliances dudes had a glfriend who
lived on Beechnut Street, about three (tree) miles from doggys couch.If
y'all get me driff?
cuhulin

Frank Dresser wrote:
wrote in message

Yeah it's false. The ratings show there are at least 20 channels with
near-identical numbers of listeners. That's more than a "few"



I thought I've heard every possible claim about the Arbitron numbers here,
but this is the first time I've heard that a 5.8 share is nearly identical
to a 1.9 share.

That's not a big difference. 6 months ago the 5.8 station had dropped
to 4-something, and the 1.9 station had almost 3. There really is not
a huge different between ~5% and ~2% of an audience.

Now contrast that with:

YOU stated that "the top 2 stations have 90% of the listeners" (or
something like that) which is so wrong, it's a borderline lie.

wrote in message
s.com...

Frank Dresser wrote:
wrote in message

Yeah it's false. The ratings show there are at least 20 channels with
near-identical numbers of listeners. That's more than a "few"



I thought I've heard every possible claim about the Arbitron numbers
here,
but this is the first time I've heard that a 5.8 share is nearly
identical
to a 1.9 share.

That's not a big difference. 6 months ago the 5.8 station had dropped
to 4-something, and the 1.9 station had almost 3. There really is not
a huge different between ~5% and ~2% of an audience.

A 5.8 that moves to a 4.0 has lost nearly a third of its audience. You
measure each station over time against itself, first. Like TV shows, some
radio stations go up, others bomb or go down.

In a market like Chicago, every share point is worth about $7 million on the
average. A 25-54 share is probably worth close to $9 million, so a
difference of a single share is huge.

YOU stated that "the top 2 stations have 90% of the listeners" (or
something like that) which is so wrong, it's a borderline lie.

He said the top two alone have 10%, which is absolutely true. Frank's point
here is totally valid.

Frank Dresser wrote:
wrote in message
Frank Dresser wrote:
And more expenses for the broadcaster.

They doesn't seem to be stopping them from adding second and third
channels Like WIYY in Baltimore, which has *voluntarily* added
Classic Rock and Indie Rock to their AOR primary station. Now
listeners of that style have three times as much content to enjoy.

But how is the extra programming being paid for?

Advertising of course. Plus the money they save because Digital does
not require as much power.



Plus: If a smaller station can't afford multiple program, then they
don't need to do anything. They can just limit themselves
to 1 high-quality channel (300 kbps).

Gee, maybe if some independant station can't afford multiple programming,
they'll have even have trouble justifying buying the IBOC hardware.

It's not that expensive. No more expensive than a mono to stereo
upgrade for an FM station.


5.1 would be compromised in similar ways.

And then the listeners of that Classic Music station would complain,
and the manager would have to decide between (a) increasing
bitrate or (b) losing customers.

Yeah, there's a few stations in which true high fidelity
sound would matter. Not many.

Agreed. But the advantage of the HE-AAC codec is you don't need a
high bitrate to get FM quality. Only 24 is sufficient. At 64kbit/s
you get near-CD quality. It's a VERY efficient compression standard.

So a station could divide itself into 300 / 4 channels == 64-96 kbit/s
per channel, and still have quality ranging from near-CD to CD.




People in Canada, Japan, and Australia bought AM Stereo radio in
droves. Why? Because there was a single standard, not the 4-way mess
the FCC left behind. (It's similar to today's HD DVD versus Blu-ray
battle; most people are just waiting to see who wins.)

Oh? A great many radios sold in the US are the same as the radios
sold in other countries and AM stereo still pretty rare here.

Because by the time the U.S. fixed on a standard (circa 1990), the AM
Stereo stations had largely disappeared. Thus there's no impetus for
customers to upgrade.

In contrast, Japan and Canada and Australia had a fixed standard in
the early 80s, thus giving consumers confidence that they were not
wasting money the next Betamax.


I already agreed with you that HQ is not going to motivate people to
upgrade. It will be seeing their favorite FM stations split into 3 or
4 programs, thus tripling their options, that will motive people.


Are they carrying commercials [on secondary channels]?
And I'm sure a fellow as clever and imaginative as you are can figure
how they might try to make money even if there aren't enough listeners
to sell commercial advertising. Hint: They won't call it "HD radio"

I have no idea what you have in mind as an alternative to commercial-
support.



In my markets (Lancaster, York, Harrisburg, Baltimore).....

Baltimore, huh? Got any friends at ibiquity?

Sorry. There are roughly 50 million people living in the Philly-
Wilmington-Baltimore-DC "megaopolis". The odds of me meeting someone
from iBiquity, by sheer random event, are about nil.





HD radio does little to aid the health of the radio industry in general, but
it may be harmful to those people who are trying to run a small time low
profit station.

My "smalltime" low-profit Christian station seems to be doing
alright. They happily embraced the new technology, streaming out 3
separate programs.