Rfburns wrote:
Just finished having a little chat with a general manager for several
radio stations here in West Virginia. A few of them are transmitting
HD. This poor fellow is still under the illusion that HD radio is set
to take off like a rocket. He sites Ford's decision to make HD radio
an option for '08 and thinks that other auto manufacturers are on the
verge of announcing their introduction of HD radio as an option. I
informed him that the local Best Buy has had the same two RCA HD-100
radios on the self for several months with no takers and that the
local Ford deal was unaware of the HD radio option. How detached can
these people be? It's no wonder listeners are dropping like flies.

The interesting thing about all this is that one of the HD FM stations
has a very annoying buzz on the analog transmission side that I
suspect is being cuased by poor implementation of the Hybrid Digital
equipment and it's been there for months. This poor fellow informed
me that it's a defective microphone in one of the studios. Funny
thing, it occurrs during music and remote network news. Who does he
think he's fooling. It's obvious to me that he nor anyone else is
listening close enought to discover the wonders of HD radio.

jw


Typical Radio response: Deny, Deny, Deny. But then, in all fairness,
that's a typical response throughout the culture, these days.

They're still running heavy HD promos here in the Windy. What's not
happening is promotion based on content. They're selling all the things
that are secondary to listeners: Audio quality, digital clarity. And
some listeners have noted that in higher noise listening environments,
the HD stream is definitely not as easily appreciated as the more highly
processes analog stream. Further, after decades of highly processed,
loudness war audio, many listeners are finding the less processed sound
of the HD stream less appealing. And finally, as you've suggested, HD
isn't being uniformly well implemented. Resulting in poor first time
listener experiences. It's very hard to come back from that kind of
first contact deficit.

And the one thing that's rarely discussed, is that the public, in the
main, doesn't really understand the concept of audio quality on the same
level as the engineers who built this stuff. Look at the number of
half-baked, 'drug-store electronics' stereo systems being sold today.
Less than $100, but all have 5 band graphic equalizers on the panel. And
speakers that would make the engineers at Ten-Tec laugh. Talking 'audio
quality' to owners of such hardware creates an entirely different
expectation of performance than it does to guys like me with more
invested in the speakers in his living room than he does the SUV in the
garage.

Selling audio quality is, at best, a hit or miss
proposition...because so much of the perception depends on experience
exposure, and quite frankly the interest in knowing what sounds good, or
bad, and why. Most users of radio simply don't know. Nor do they care to
do the math to find out.

Instead, HD should be selling content. But they can't, because the
thrust of the effort is in producing the baseband audio in "HD Quality"
on the digital stream. Supplementary content is spotty at best. And
usually poor, because there is little or no budget to support it.
Advertising on the HD supplementary streams is insufficient, at this
stage to make the supplementary audio streams self supporting. So, at
best, the efforts that I've heard, are half-assed.

Here in Chicago, they're never mentioned. To date, no one but Roe
Conn on WLS has mentioned that WLS is carried on the WZZN secondary HD
stream. For guys up here who have trouble receiving WLS AM due to the
noise, having WLS on an HD stream of a station we CAN receive is a big
plus. WZZN hasn't mentioned it once. This is just one example. There are
dozens of others representing a sizable missed opportunity to sell this
system on content...which is where listening is rooted.

Until stations begin to sell based on CONTENT, most of HD's marketing
efforts are self-defeating.

There are signs that HD isn't entirely dead. And getting it in the
hands of listeners in the car will certainly help. Controlled
environment listening, newfangled-ness...all will help secure exposure.
But if it doesn't work as expected...it can work as promised, but the
EXPECTATION is often different, even when the promise is clearly
defined...if it doesn't work as expected, HD will have signed it's own
death certificate.

The first stumbling attempts to get HD in the ears of the public were
staggeringly disappointing. And those were the Innovators and Early
Adoptors. Burn them once and they move on. And without them, and their
buzz....Belongers and Late Adoptors will not make the move.

As presented, so far, HD is a solution in search of a problem. And
short of an FCC mandate, there's not a lot of reason to suggest that the
rate of uptake will improve.

Regardless of all the hype about improved audio quality and all the
other nonsense, this guy was unaware that this HD FM transmitter was
having problems (and for months I might add) and when confronted made
some lame excuse about a bad microphone.

Now I'm not an expert but it seems that if your going to tout the
benefits of HD radio why would you let a bad microphone spoil them for
you?

jw

Rfburns wrote:
Regardless of all the hype about improved audio quality and all the
other nonsense, this guy was unaware that this HD FM transmitter was
having problems (and for months I might add) and when confronted made
some lame excuse about a bad microphone.

Now I'm not an expert but it seems that if your going to tout the
benefits of HD radio why would you let a bad microphone spoil them for
you?



Well, see, now there you go making sense, again. Stop it.

He's trying to tell you it's a small matter that's creating the issue
you've described. That it's not a problem with his radio station, that
it's a problem with a manufacturer's microphone. Not his fault.

I know, I know....it doesn't make sense in the real world. But I've
heard arguments like this at radio stations across the country. He
doesn't understand what's going on...so he's trying to insure that you
don't either.

It's one of the huge problems facing this new technology.




jw

D Peter Maus wrote:
Rfburns wrote:
Regardless of all the hype about improved audio quality and all the
other nonsense, this guy was unaware that this HD FM transmitter was
having problems (and for months I might add) and when confronted made
some lame excuse about a bad microphone.

Now I'm not an expert but it seems that if your going to tout the
benefits of HD radio why would you let a bad microphone spoil them for
you?



Well, see, now there you go making sense, again. Stop it.

He's trying to tell you it's a small matter that's creating the issue
you've described. That it's not a problem with his radio station, that
it's a problem with a manufacturer's microphone. Not his fault.

I know, I know....it doesn't make sense in the real world. But I've
heard arguments like this at radio stations across the country. He
doesn't understand what's going on...so he's trying to insure that you
don't either.

It's one of the huge problems facing this new technology.




jw



Radio was better when they had engineers.

On Feb 4, 12:10�pm, Rfburns wrote:
Regardless of all the hype about improved audio quality and all the
other nonsense, this guy was unaware that this HD FM transmitter was
having problems (and for months I might add) and when confronted made
some lame excuse about a bad microphone.

Now I'm not an expert but it seems that if your going to tout the
benefits of HD radio why would you let a bad microphone spoil them for
you?

jw

"What Are We Doing to Ourselves, Exactly?"

"IBOC FM Interference Has Been Reported in Several Cases Where FCC
Contours Provide Inadequate Protection."

http://tinyurl.com/yt286v

"HD Interference: Not Just For AM Anymore"

"Radio World Engineering Extra dropped a bomb this month with a very
provocative cover story: 'What Are We Doing to Ourselves, Exactly?'
Written by Doug Vernier, the man who authored the technical
specifications for an ongoing Corporation for Public Broadcasting-
sponsored HD Radio interference analysis, the report is the first of
its kind to document interference between FM-HD stations around the
country. Using anecdotal reportage, some sophisticated contour-
mapping, and presumably 'early data' from the CPB study, Vernier's
article conclusively proves how stations running in hybrid HD/analog
mode can (and do) interfere somewhat significantly with not only
themselves, but their neighbors on the FM dial."

http://diymedia.net/archive/1207.htm#122307

Yup, HD Radio also jams itself and others on FM.

In article
,
IBOCcrock wrote:

On Feb 4, 12:10?pm, Rfburns wrote:
Regardless of all the hype about improved audio quality and all the
other nonsense, this guy was unaware that this HD FM transmitter was
having problems (and for months I might add) and when confronted made
some lame excuse about a bad microphone.

Now I'm not an expert but it seems that if your going to tout the
benefits of HD radio why would you let a bad microphone spoil them for
you?

jw

"What Are We Doing to Ourselves, Exactly?"

"IBOC FM Interference Has Been Reported in Several Cases Where FCC
Contours Provide Inadequate Protection."

http://tinyurl.com/yt286v

"HD Interference: Not Just For AM Anymore"

"Radio World Engineering Extra dropped a bomb this month with a very
provocative cover story: 'What Are We Doing to Ourselves, Exactly?'
Written by Doug Vernier, the man who authored the technical
specifications for an ongoing Corporation for Public Broadcasting-
sponsored HD Radio interference analysis, the report is the first of
its kind to document interference between FM-HD stations around the
country. Using anecdotal reportage, some sophisticated contour-
mapping, and presumably 'early data' from the CPB study, Vernier's
article conclusively proves how stations running in hybrid HD/analog
mode can (and do) interfere somewhat significantly with not only
themselves, but their neighbors on the FM dial."

http://diymedia.net/archive/1207.htm#122307

Yup, HD Radio also jams itself and others on FM.

I don't understand why a study is necessary to come to obvious
conclusions. This not a discovery. This was known from the start. You
see, facts never get in the way of an agenda. Why the emperor has no
clothes. What a huge surprise. What an amazing discovery.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

On Feb 4, 11:52 am, D Peter Maus wrote:
Rfburns wrote:
Just finished having a little chat with a general manager for several
radio stations here in West Virginia. A few of them are transmitting
HD. This poor fellow is still under the illusion that HD radio is set
to take off like a rocket. He sites Ford's decision to make HD radio
an option for '08 and thinks that other auto manufacturers are on the
verge of announcing their introduction of HD radio as an option. I
informed him that the local Best Buy has had the same two RCA HD-100
radios on the self for several months with no takers and that the
local Ford deal was unaware of the HD radio option. How detached can
these people be? It's no wonder listeners are dropping like flies.

The interesting thing about all this is that one of the HD FM stations
has a very annoying buzz on the analog transmission side that I
suspect is being cuased by poor implementation of the Hybrid Digital
equipment and it's been there for months. This poor fellow informed
me that it's a defective microphone in one of the studios. Funny
thing, it occurrs during music and remote network news. Who does he
think he's fooling. It's obvious to me that he nor anyone else is
listening close enought to discover the wonders of HD radio.

jw

Typical Radio response: Deny, Deny, Deny. But then, in all fairness,
that's a typical response throughout the culture, these days.

They're still running heavy HD promos here in the Windy. What's not
happening is promotion based on content. They're selling all the things
that are secondary to listeners: Audio quality, digital clarity. And
some listeners have noted that in higher noise listening environments,
the HD stream is definitely not as easily appreciated as the more highly
processes analog stream. Further, after decades of highly processed,
loudness war audio, many listeners are finding the less processed sound
of the HD stream less appealing. And finally, as you've suggested, HD
isn't being uniformly well implemented. Resulting in poor first time
listener experiences. It's very hard to come back from that kind of
first contact deficit.

And the one thing that's rarely discussed, is that the public, in the
main, doesn't really understand the concept of audio quality on the same
level as the engineers who built this stuff. Look at the number of
half-baked, 'drug-store electronics' stereo systems being sold today.
Less than $100, but all have 5 band graphic equalizers on the panel. And
speakers that would make the engineers at Ten-Tec laugh. Talking 'audio
quality' to owners of such hardware creates an entirely different
expectation of performance than it does to guys like me with more
invested in the speakers in his living room than he does the SUV in the
garage.

Selling audio quality is, at best, a hit or miss
proposition...because so much of the perception depends on experience
exposure, and quite frankly the interest in knowing what sounds good, or
bad, and why. Most users of radio simply don't know. Nor do they care to
do the math to find out.

Instead, HD should be selling content. But they can't, because the
thrust of the effort is in producing the baseband audio in "HD Quality"
on the digital stream. Supplementary content is spotty at best. And
usually poor, because there is little or no budget to support it.
Advertising on the HD supplementary streams is insufficient, at this
stage to make the supplementary audio streams self supporting. So, at
best, the efforts that I've heard, are half-assed.

Here in Chicago, they're never mentioned. To date, no one but Roe
Conn on WLS has mentioned that WLS is carried on the WZZN secondary HD
stream. For guys up here who have trouble receiving WLS AM due to the
noise, having WLS on an HD stream of a station we CAN receive is a big
plus. WZZN hasn't mentioned it once. This is just one example. There are
dozens of others representing a sizable missed opportunity to sell this
system on content...which is where listening is rooted.

Until stations begin to sell based on CONTENT, most of HD's marketing
efforts are self-defeating.

There are signs that HD isn't entirely dead. And getting it in the
hands of listeners in the car will certainly help. Controlled
environment listening, newfangled-ness...all will help secure exposure.
But if it doesn't work as expected...it can work as promised, but the
EXPECTATION is often different, even when the promise is clearly
defined...if it doesn't work as expected, HD will have signed it's own
death certificate.

The first stumbling attempts to get HD in the ears of the public were
staggeringly disappointing. And those were the Innovators and Early
Adoptors. Burn them once and they move on. And without them, and their
buzz....Belongers and Late Adoptors will not make the move.

As presented, so far, HD is a solution in search of a problem. And
short of an FCC mandate, there's not a lot of reason to suggest that the
rate of uptake will improve.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"And finally, as you've suggested, HD
isn't being uniformly well implemented. Resulting in poor first time
listener experiences. It's very hard to come back from that kind of
first contact deficit."

"Is HD Radio Toast?"

"There are serious issues of coverage. Early adopters who bought HD
radios report serious drop-outs, poor coverage, and interference. The
engineers of Ibiquity may argue otherwise and defend the system, but
the industry has a serious PR problem with the very people we need to
get the word out on HD... In other words, everything you can find on
the regular FM dial... The word has already gotten out about HD Radio.
People who have already bought an HD Radio are telling others of their
experience (mostly bad) and no amount of marketing will reverse this."

http://www.fmqb.com/article.asp?id=487772

You've got that right!

On Feb 4, 11:52�am, D Peter Maus wrote:
Rfburns wrote:
Just finished having a little chat with a general manager for several
radio stations here in West Virginia. A few of them are transmitting
HD. �This poor fellow is still under the illusion that HD radio is set
to take off like a rocket. �He sites Ford's decision to make HD radio
an option for '08 and thinks that other auto manufacturers are on the
verge of announcing their introduction of HD radio as an option. �I
informed him that the local Best Buy has had the same two RCA HD-100
radios on the self for several months with no takers and that the
local Ford deal was unaware of the HD radio option. �How detached can
these people be? �It's no wonder listeners are dropping like flies.

The interesting thing about all this is that one of the HD FM stations
has �a very annoying buzz on the analog transmission side that I
suspect is being cuased by poor implementation of the Hybrid Digital
equipment and it's been there for months. �This poor fellow informed
me that it's a defective microphone in one of the studios. �Funny
thing, it occurrs during music and remote network news. �Who does he
think he's fooling. �It's obvious to me that he nor anyone else is
listening close enought to discover the wonders of HD radio.

jw

� �Typical Radio response: Deny, Deny, Deny. But then, in all fairness,
that's a typical response throughout the culture, these days.

� �They're still running heavy HD promos here in the Windy.. What's not
happening is promotion based on content. They're selling all the things
that are secondary to listeners: Audio quality, digital clarity. And
some listeners have noted that in higher noise listening environments,
the HD stream is definitely not as easily appreciated as the more highly
processes analog stream. Further, after decades of highly processed,
loudness war audio, many listeners are finding the less processed sound
of the HD stream less appealing. And finally, as you've suggested, HD
isn't being uniformly well implemented. Resulting in poor first time
listener experiences. It's very hard to come back from that kind of
first contact deficit.

� �And the one thing that's rarely discussed, is that the public, in the
main, doesn't really understand the concept of audio quality on the same
level as the engineers who built this stuff. Look at the number of
half-baked, 'drug-store electronics' stereo systems being sold today.
Less than $100, but all have 5 band graphic equalizers on the panel. And
speakers that would make the engineers at Ten-Tec laugh. Talking 'audio
quality' to owners of such hardware creates an entirely different
expectation of performance than it does to guys like me with more
invested in the speakers in his living room than he does the SUV in the
garage.

� �Selling audio quality is, at best, a hit or miss
proposition...because so much of the perception depends on experience
exposure, and quite frankly the interest in knowing what sounds good, or
bad, and why. Most users of radio simply don't know. Nor do they care to
do the math to find out.

� �Instead, HD should be selling content. But they can't, because the
thrust of the effort is in producing the baseband audio in "HD Quality"
on the digital stream. Supplementary content is spotty at best. And
usually poor, because there is little or no budget to support it.
Advertising on the HD supplementary streams is insufficient, at this
stage to make the supplementary audio streams self supporting. So, at
best, the efforts that I've heard, are half-assed.

� �Here in Chicago, they're never mentioned. To date, no one but Roe
Conn on WLS has mentioned that WLS is carried on the WZZN secondary HD
stream. For guys up here who have trouble receiving WLS AM due to the
noise, having WLS on an HD stream of a station we CAN receive is a big
plus. WZZN hasn't mentioned it once. This is just one example. There are
dozens of others representing a sizable missed opportunity to sell this
system on content...which is where listening is rooted.

� �Until stations begin to sell based on CONTENT, most of HD's marketing
efforts are self-defeating.

� �There are signs that HD isn't entirely dead. And getting it in the
hands of listeners in the car will certainly help. Controlled
environment listening, newfangled-ness...all will help secure exposure.
But if it doesn't work as expected...it can work as promised, but the
EXPECTATION is often different, even when the promise is clearly
defined...if it doesn't work as expected, HD will have signed it's own
death certificate.

� �The first stumbling attempts to get HD in the ears of the public were
staggeringly disappointing. And those were the Innovators and Early
Adoptors. Burn them once and they move on. And without them, and their
buzz....Belongers and Late Adoptors will not make the move.

� �As presented, so far, HD is a solution in search of a problem. And
short of an FCC mandate, there's not a lot of reason to suggest that the
rate of uptake will improve.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

As presented, so far, HD is a solution in search of a problem. And
short of an FCC mandate, there's not a lot of reason to suggest that the
rate of uptake will improve.- Hide quoted text -

Doubtful, that there would ever be a mandate:

"Digital Audio Broadcasting Systems and Their Impact on the
Terrestrial Radio Broadcast Service"

15. We will not establish a deadline for radio stations to convert to
digital broadcasting. Stations may decide if, and when, they will
provide digital service to the public. Several reasons support this
decision. First, unlike television licensees, radio stations are under
no statutory mandate to convert to a digital format. Second, a hard
deadline is unnecessary given that DAB uses an in-band technology that
does not require the allocation of additional spectrum. Thus, the
spectrum reclamation needs that exist for DTV do not exist here.
Moreover, there is no evidence in the record that marketplace forces
cannot propel the DAB conversion forward, and effective markets tend
to provide better solutions than regulatory schemes.

16. iBiquity argues that in the early stages of the transition, the
Commission should favor and protect existing analog signals. It states
that this could be accomplished by limiting the power level and
bandwidth occupancy of the digital carriers in the hybrid mode. At
some point in the future, when the Commission determines there is
sufficient market penetration of digital receivers, iBiquity asserts
that the public interest will be best served by reversing this
presumption to favor digital operations. At that time, broadcasters
will no longer need to protect analog operations by limiting the
digital signal and stations should have the option to implement all-
digital broadcasts. We decline to adopt iBiquity's presumption policy
because it is too early in the DAB conversion process for us to
consider such a mechanism. We find that such a policy, if adopted now,
may have unknown and unintended consequences for a new technology that
has yet to be accepted by the public or widely adopted by the
broadcast industry.

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-IMPA...-15/i15922.htm

Your resident HD Radio expert:

http://hdradiofarce.blogspot.com/

IBOCcrock wrote:



Doubtful, that there would ever be a mandate:




Don't count it out. FCC also said there would no digital only mandate
for DTV, too. Have you heard about Feb 17th, 2009?

The ONE thing we've been able to count on from FCC for some years,
now, is that they will do whatever it takes to maximize the confusion,
inconvenience, and abandonment of the broadcast consuming public to the
benefit of special interests.

Sanity is no longer in FCC DNA and hasn't been since before they cut
the balls off the AM Stereo momentum.

"To serve in the public interest as a public trustee," isn't even
paid lip service anymore. It's about the broadcaster. Not the public
interest.

It has been the goal of iBiquity and broadcasters in general to make
this move to all digital service. There have been decades of
technological development. Billions in investment. If HD Radio does not
catch on with the listening public, there will be enormous pressures on
both the Congress and FCC to move forward with an all digital mandate.

Don't think it can't happen. Don't believe their denials. They've
denied before. And done it anyway. This is a political agency, beholden
to a Congress in turn beholden to very high dollar special interests. An
FCC promise is meaningless.

On Feb 4, 4:33�pm, D Peter Maus wrote:
IBOCcrock wrote:
Doubtful, that there would ever be a mandate:

� �Don't count it out. FCC also said there would no digital only mandate
for DTV, too. Have you heard about Feb 17th, 2009?

� �The ONE thing we've been able to count on from FCC for some years,
now, is that they will do whatever it takes to maximize the confusion,
inconvenience, and abandonment of the broadcast consuming public to the
benefit of special interests.

� �Sanity is no longer in FCC DNA and hasn't been since before they cut
the balls off the AM Stereo momentum.

� �"To serve in the public interest as a public trustee," isn't even
paid lip service anymore. It's about the broadcaster. Not the public
interest.

� �It has been the goal of iBiquity and broadcasters in general to make
this move to all digital service. There have been decades of
technological development. Billions in investment. If HD Radio does not
catch on with the listening public, there will be enormous pressures on
both the Congress and FCC to move forward with an all digital mandate.

� �Don't think it can't happen. Don't believe their denials. They've
denied before. And done it anyway. This is a political agency, beholden
to a Congress in turn beholden to very high dollar special interests. An
FCC promise is meaningless.

" Don't count it out. FCC also said there would no digital only
mandate
for DTV, too. Have you heard about Feb 17th, 2009?"

Several reasons support this
decision. First, unlike television licensees, radio stations are
under
no statutory mandate to convert to a digital format. Second, a hard
deadline is unnecessary given that DAB uses an in-band technology
that
does not require the allocation of additional spectrum. Thus, the
spectrum reclamation needs that exist for DTV do not exist here.

Yea, I do count it out, Grim Reaper!