Frank Dresser wrote:
"SFTV_troy" wrote in message

Wouldn't it be cool to have 5.1 surround from your radio?

Neither AM nor FM are currently broadcast close to thier technical fidelity
limits. Plenty of people are happy with the current mid-fi radio and
perfect audio reproduction, even if it were possible, would not bring in
more listeners.

I agree with that. What would attract people to HD Radio is seeing
their favorite stations (like mine: FM97) multiply into 3 or 4
channels..... thus giving more choices to the listener.


5.1 surround would drive listeners away. People use the radio for
backround sound. People listen in the car. A wide dynamic
range would go from lost in the ambient noise to the jarring. ...

Just because you have 5.1, doesn't mean you'd have a large dynamic
range. One does not imply the other.

And broadcast high fidelity has been tried several times. Wideband AM was
first tried in the 30s. FM radio took a generation to get going, despite
it's noise immunity. AM stereo failed after a good sincere attempt.


I would hardly call having 4 incompatible methods a "good attempt".
More like a "bass backwards" attempt. Had the FCC selected a single
standard, AM stereo would be as popular in the U.S., as it currently
is in Canada, Japan, and Australia. In those nations, virtually every
station is broadcast in AM Stereo.

As for FM, it was stifled by the AM corporations trying to crush it.
First they delayed its introduction by twenty years via regulatory
roadblocks (else we'd have it in the late 30s), and then they tried to
kill it by giving it inferior programs while saving the best stuff for
AM.

Point: FM and AM Stereo were stifled NOT by disinterest in high
fidelity, but because of poor handling.



your FM station suddenly multiply from 1 to 4

So? In most markets, most listeners are listening to a
few stations. The bulk of the stations get by with less.

Got a citation to back-up this opinion? You stated it as a fact, so
I'd like to see what study you are using to back up that fact.

Thank you.

wrote in message
oups.com...
Frank Dresser wrote:
"SFTV_troy" wrote in message

Wouldn't it be cool to have 5.1 surround from your radio?

Neither AM nor FM are currently broadcast close to thier technical
fidelity
limits. Plenty of people are happy with the current mid-fi radio and
perfect audio reproduction, even if it were possible, would not bring in
more listeners.

I agree with that. What would attract people to HD Radio is seeing
their favorite stations (like mine: FM97) multiply into 3 or 4
channels..... thus giving more choices to the listener.

For every additional channel a station adds in IBOC, their main channel
bitrate MUST suffer, as bandwidth is taken away from it, so it of necessity
MUST cut back the bitrate. DAB in the UK suffers greatly from this. Back
when they first started broadcasting, reports are that the Eureka system
sounded quite good, but as more streams were added, and the bandwidth and
bitrate of all stations had to be throttled back, complaints of artifacting
and poor audio reproduction started coming in.

On Sep 30, 5:46 am, "Brenda Ann" wrote:
wrote in message
Frank Dresser wrote:

Neither AM nor FM are currently broadcast close to thier
fidelity limits. Plenty are happy with the current mid-fi radio and
perfect audio reproduction would not bring in listeners.

I agree with that. What would attract people to HD Radio is seeing
their favorite stations (like mine: FM97) multiply into 3 or 4
channels..... thus giving more choices to the listener.

For every additional channel a station adds in IBOC, their main
channel bitrate MUST suffer, as bandwidth is taken away from
it, so it of necessity MUST cut back the bitrate.


Oh well. Somebody else in this forum just got done telling me,
"Listeners don't care about quality", so it shouldn't be an an issue.
People want variety, and lots of stations. And that's what IBOC-FM
provides.

BTW:

IBOC does have an advantage over DAB. DAB only has room for ~100 kbps
per station. IBOC provides each digital FM station with 300 kbps.

In article ,
"Brenda Ann" wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...
Frank Dresser wrote:
"SFTV_troy" wrote in message

Wouldn't it be cool to have 5.1 surround from your radio?

Neither AM nor FM are currently broadcast close to thier technical
fidelity
limits. Plenty of people are happy with the current mid-fi radio and
perfect audio reproduction, even if it were possible, would not bring in
more listeners.

I agree with that. What would attract people to HD Radio is seeing
their favorite stations (like mine: FM97) multiply into 3 or 4
channels..... thus giving more choices to the listener.

For every additional channel a station adds in IBOC, their main channel
bitrate MUST suffer, as bandwidth is taken away from it, so it of necessity
MUST cut back the bitrate. DAB in the UK suffers greatly from this. Back
when they first started broadcasting, reports are that the Eureka system
sounded quite good, but as more streams were added, and the bandwidth and
bitrate of all stations had to be throttled back, complaints of artifacting
and poor audio reproduction started coming in.

For God's sake the guy claims to be a digital engineer. Clearly he
should understand this elementary concept. You shouldn't have to explain
it to him.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

Telamon wrote:


For God's sake the guy claims to be a digital engineer. Clearly he
should understand this elementary concept. You shouldn't have to explain
it to him.

This guy is no engineer. That should be obvious.

wrote in message
oups.com...
Frank Dresser wrote:
"SFTV_troy" wrote in message

Wouldn't it be cool to have 5.1 surround from your radio?

Neither AM nor FM are currently broadcast close to thier technical
fidelity
limits. Plenty of people are happy with the current mid-fi radio and
perfect audio reproduction, even if it were possible, would not bring in
more listeners.

I agree with that. What would attract people to HD Radio is seeing
their favorite stations (like mine: FM97) multiply into 3 or 4
channels..... thus giving more choices to the listener.

And more expenses for the broadcaster.




5.1 surround would drive listeners away. People use the radio for
backround sound. People listen in the car. A wide dynamic
range would go from lost in the ambient noise to the jarring. ...

Just because you have 5.1, doesn't mean you'd have a large dynamic
range. One does not imply the other.

Certainly not. And just because the frequency respose of AM radio can go
from 20 to 15kHz, or better doesn't mean it does. And FM radio is also
capable of excellent fidelity but it doesn't really happen either.

5.1 would be compromised in similiar ways.



And broadcast high fidelity has been tried several times. Wideband AM
was
first tried in the 30s. FM radio took a generation to get going,
despite
it's noise immunity. AM stereo failed after a good sincere attempt.


I would hardly call having 4 incompatible methods a "good attempt".
More like a "bass backwards" attempt. Had the FCC selected a single
standard, AM stereo would be as popular in the U.S., as it currently
is in Canada, Japan, and Australia. In those nations, virtually every
station is broadcast in AM Stereo.


Sure it was. The radios were available, but people didn't buy them. People
didn't buy them when they had four choices. People didn't buy the
multidecoder radios. People didn't buy the AM stereo radios when there was
only one choice.

Lots of broadcasters transmitted AM stereo, and it worked pretty well. But
people didn't buy the radios.

I know plenty of people who never owned an AM stereo radio. I have no idea
how the FCC kept them from buying AM stereo.



As for FM, it was stifled by the AM corporations trying to crush it.
First they delayed its introduction by twenty years via regulatory
roadblocks (else we'd have it in the late 30s),

FM was on the air in the late 30s. I have a Stromberg Carlson AM-SW-FM
radio made in 1940. The FCC did change the FM band after WW2. Many people
blame the change for FM's slow restart, but again, the FCC wasn't keeping
people from buying new radios.


and then they tried to
kill it by giving it inferior programs while saving the best stuff for
AM.

The AM corporations didn't have any control over the FM stations they didn't
own. There were independant FM networks but they couldn't develop
competitive programming.



Point: FM and AM Stereo were stifled NOT by disinterest in high
fidelity, but because of poor handling.

If public had a robust interest in high fidelity radio, then presumed poor
handling would not be an issue.




your FM station suddenly multiply from 1 to 4

So? In most markets, most listeners are listening to a
few stations. The bulk of the stations get by with less.

Got a citation to back-up this opinion? You stated it as a fact, so
I'd like to see what study you are using to back up that fact.

Thank you.


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.

As far as I know, the story is about the same in every market. Here's where
to check it out:

http://www.arbitron.com/home/ratings.htm

Frank Dresser

Frank Dresser wrote:


I agree with that. What would attract people to HD Radio is seeing
their favorite stations (like mine: FM97) multiply into 3 or 4
channels..... thus giving more choices to the listener.

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.

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).



Just because you have 5.1, doesn't mean you'd have
a large dynamic range. One does not imply the other.

Certainly not. And just because the frequency response of AM radio can go
from 20 to 15kHz, or better doesn't mean it does. And FM radio is also
capable of excellent fidelity but it doesn't really happen either.
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.



I would hardly call having 4 incompatible methods a "good attempt".
More like a "bass backwards" attempt. Had the FCC selected a single
standard, AM stereo would be as popular in the U.S., as it currently
is in Canada, Japan, and Australia. In those nations, virtually every
station is broadcast in AM Stereo.


Sure it was. The radios were available, but people didn't buy them.


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.)

If the FCC had picked just ONE standard, then u.s. citizens would have
acted like canadians, japanese, and australians, and bought the radio
upgrade.

But with a 4-way race.... well u.s. citizens were left confused. And
it was the FCC's fault.

NOTE: This situation doesn't exist today. FCC has selected HDR, and
thus people know what they need to buy to get double or triple the #
of stations on the dial.



If public had a robust interest in high fidelity radio, then presumed poor
handling would not be an issue.

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 to
buy.



your FM station suddenly multiply from 1 to 4

So? In most markets, most listeners are listening to a
few stations. The bulk of the stations get by with less.

Got a citation to back-up this opinion? You stated it as a fact, so
I'd like to see what study you are using to back up that fact.

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.


Hmm, interesting. In my markets (Lancaster, York, Harrisburg,
Baltimore), the listeners are fairly evenly divided bwtween the
stations. They all get a piece of the pie. See:
http://www1.arbitron.com/tlr/public/report.do

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
- and that they would LOVE having 3-4 times more options on the FM
dial.

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?

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.

Typical grandpa.

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?

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.

Typical grandpa.


The average radio listener has three stations they regularly use, with very
few listening to only one (mostly evangelical stations) and many listening
to 4 or 5. In the People meter, the average listener has 5 to 7 stations
they sample at least once every two weeks. Having more local choices
increases use of terrestrial radio.

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

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?

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.

Typical grandpa.


The average radio listener has three stations they regularly use, with very
few listening to only one (mostly evangelical stations) and many listening
to 4 or 5. In the People meter, the average listener has 5 to 7 stations
they sample at least once every two weeks. Having more local choices
increases use of terrestrial radio.

Oh great! Now your talking to your sock puppet. Well, that should be
more enjoyable than conversing with other people.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California