Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
David, HD receivers are not selling because the public has no interest. Most
people already own 5 radios that work just fine. And judging by the lack of sales they see no reason to upgrade. It's not like all analog radio transmissions are going dark in 2009. And it's not like HD stations provide content that's so compelling listeners can't live without their HD radio fix. And it doesn't really sound that much better anyway. So far a few radio hobbyist have invested in HD radio. Why does this feel like Am stereo all over again. Another technology that listeners never asked for but could have been great.. but because of no interest and competing ideas simply died. And the next generation kids, 12-34 have very little interest in anything radio. Ipods, cell phones, the Internet and social networking groups are far more important and interesting to them. David ask any 12 year old kid if they listen to radio. you won't like the answer. |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() wrote in message ... David, HD receivers are not selling because the public has no interest. Most people already own 5 radios that work just fine. And judging by the lack of sales they see no reason to upgrade. It could take 10 years for most radios to contain HD technology...but that's OK. HD isn't going anywhere. Why does this feel like Am stereo all over again. Another technology that listeners never asked for but could have been great.. but because of no interest and competing ideas simply died. Why does this feel like FM all over again? (Lots of naysayers, but given time it becomes the accepted standard.) It's not like AM stereo at all. The FCC refused to endorse a standard for AM Stereo. Therefore car and radio manufacturers, radio station owners/operator and listeners were in charge of picking the technology standard. With that conundrum, no one did anything...and it took too long, and all music was gone from the band shortly. The HD radio technology is different. The FCC has set a standard, radio station owners/operators have endorsed one standard, and listeners do not have to make a choice of "which one?" when buying a radio. Cars are coming off the assembly line now with the one standard. Again, people who expected or thought that this technology has to take hold in 18 months are misinformed. |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "A Brown" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... David, HD receivers are not selling because the public has no interest. Most people already own 5 radios that work just fine. And judging by the lack of sales they see no reason to upgrade. It could take 10 years for most radios to contain HD technology...but that's OK. HD isn't going anywhere. Why does this feel like Am stereo all over again. Another technology that listeners never asked for but could have been great.. but because of no interest and competing ideas simply died. Why does this feel like FM all over again? (Lots of naysayers, but given time it becomes the accepted standard.) FM didn't take over the majority of listening until FM stations approached the same penetration as existing AM's. In many areas, this wasn't until large numbers of translators were installed to allow reception in distant and/or shadow areas (many of these are even within the stations' COL). IBOC does not have anywhere near the useful coverage area of existing analog. This is one of it's largest problems. The other big problems are that the upcoming and a lot of the current target market don't give a damn about radio in general, commercial radio in particular, and, for those that do, they are quite happy enough with the signal and quality they already have. FM offered a sharp increase in fidelity over AM. IBOC does not. It offers practically nothing on FM as far as increase in quality, and the tradeoff on AM is that IBOC, when you can use it at all, does decrease noise, but the sound is poor like a low bitrate mp3. |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() David, HD receivers are not selling because the public has no interest. Most people already own 5 radios that work just fine. And judging by the lack of sales they see no reason to upgrade. It could take 10 years for most radios to contain HD technology...but that's OK. HD isn't going anywhere. Why does this feel like Am stereo all over again. Another technology that listeners never asked for but could have been great.. but because of no interest and competing ideas simply died. Why does this feel like FM all over again? (Lots of naysayers, but given time it becomes the accepted standard.) FM didn't take over the majority of listening until FM stations approached the same penetration as existing AM's. Which occurred when Auto manufactures started installing them in cars (as standard equipment on many!). So, it took a while from the technology rolled out to public acceptance. IBOC does not have anywhere near the useful coverage area of existing analog. This is one of it's largest problems. It doesn't have to...it's not replacing analog. The other big problems are that the upcoming and a lot of the current target market don't give a damn about radio in general, commercial radio in particular, and, for those that do, they are quite happy enough with the signal and quality they already have. I remember my father telling me I didn't need to spend $35 to get my first new car equipped with FM Radio. People didn't really care about that either. FM offered a sharp increase in fidelity over AM. IBOC does not. AM IBOC *IS* a great increase in fidelity. Also offerrs stereo for AM. It offers practically nothing on FM as far as increase in quality... Quality won't be the selling point...but the additional stream choices will be. and the tradeoff on AM is that IBOC, when you can use it at all, does decrease noise, but the sound is poor like a low bitrate mp3. It's better than AM analog...so it's an improvement. |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Jul 30, 7:05*pm, "A Brown" wrote:
David, HD receivers are not selling because the public has no interest. |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
It will be interesting to hear the wailing from the TV broadcast industry
and its advertisers after a huge audience is eliminated by forcing the insane HDTV nonsense down our throats in 2009. I for one am telling every advertiser I do business with that I will not see any of their ads after that date. Jeez, Louise...hundreds of thousands of homes in foreclosure, the ****tiest economy in my life, $4 for a lousy gallon of gas, a trip to the grocery store is a painfully expensive process and every one I know has been layed off. AND THESE PRICKS THINK WE'RE GOING TO RUSH OUT A BUY EQUIPMENT TO RECEIVE THEIR ASSININE DIGITAL SYSTEM? The ones to blame are those in Washington but equally culpable are the sycophants in the TV industry to sat by and allowed it to happen. I'm glad I'm not spending any money on TV advertising that few people will see after 2009. |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Smokey wrote:
It will be interesting to hear the wailing from the TV broadcast industry and its advertisers after a huge audience is eliminated by forcing the insane HDTV nonsense down our throats in 2009. I for one am telling every advertiser I do business with that I will not see any of their ads after that date. Jeez, Louise...hundreds of thousands of homes in foreclosure, the ****tiest economy in my life, $4 for a lousy gallon of gas, a trip to the grocery store is a painfully expensive process and every one I know has been layed off. AND THESE PRICKS THINK WE'RE GOING TO RUSH OUT A BUY EQUIPMENT TO RECEIVE THEIR ASSININE DIGITAL SYSTEM? The ones to blame are those in Washington but equally culpable are the sycophants in the TV industry to sat by and allowed it to happen. I'm glad I'm not spending any money on TV advertising that few people will see after 2009. Well... a couple of things to consider...if you're on cable, it's not an issue. Cable will convert the ATSC signal to NTSC for you. Probably with a rate increase in 2009, but, well...that's cable. If you're on Satellite...it's not an issue, you're already digital. If you're receiving your TV over the air, converter boxes are available, with federal subsidies, and coupons for as little as $40. Full featured ATSC tv's are now available for as little as $500. Many made the conversion as early as three years ago. It's going to be, largely, a non-issue. |
#9
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
D Peter Maus wrote:
Smokey wrote: It will be interesting to hear the wailing from the TV broadcast industry and its advertisers after a huge audience is eliminated by forcing the insane HDTV nonsense down our throats in 2009. snip If you're receiving your TV over the air, converter boxes are available, with federal subsidies, and coupons for as little as $40. snip It's going to be, largely, a non-issue. I sympathize with the O.P.; say goodbye to reliable reception while in motion; say goodbye to _any_ reception in poor multipath areas; say goodbye to portable reception without using an insanely power-hungry approach (and so far no mfg. is addressing this market -- what with smartphones, etc. it isn't attractive) and say goodbye to reliable emergency television communications (you would need to do a site survey just to set up an emergency receiver). sarcasm This spectrum grab is a fiasco and it is sad that the general public hasn't revolted but the twenty percent or so who need OTA reception are just an inconsequential minority. /sarcasm Michael |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Leading Provider of HD Radio Products in Trouble | Shortwave | |||
EZ NEC trouble | Antenna | |||
trouble with hum | Scanner | |||
NG Trouble | CB | |||
DX 396 serious trouble? | Shortwave |