"David" wrote in message
...
David Eduardo wrote:
"David" wrote in message
...
David Eduardo wrote:
"IBOCcrock" wrote in message
...
"CLEAR CHANNEL PULLS THE PLUG ON SOME HD RADIO STATIONS"

"After conducting a survey of 340 HD2 stations to determine their
programming needs, the folks at Clear Channel have dumped a number of
their HD 'Format Lab' stations due to a lack of demand."

http://talentfilter.blogspot.com/200...n-some-hd.html

Yupper - there she goes!
Actually, no stations ceased HD broadcasting; a few have had different
formats put on the HD2 channels based on listener response.

There are no "Format Lab" stations.

The "Format Lab" is a development center in San Antonio where different
concepts are streamed and the ones with the most hits and longest
listening
spans get put on actual radio stations. The ones that don't attract
interest
are nuked and other ideas tried; it's an ongoing process. The idea is
to
create new content for HD that has not been found on radio up till now.


So they're just hoping people will find these stations by osmosis, or
what?

People find them the same way they find any web stream "station."

Most people use Shoutcast. Have you ever been there? Be sure you're
sitting down...

www.shoutcast.com

The shoutcast audience in any US metro area is not even large enough to
qualify for inclusion in the radio ratings.

David Eduardo wrote:
"David" wrote in message
...
David Eduardo wrote:
"David" wrote in message
...
David Eduardo wrote:
"IBOCcrock" wrote in message
...
"CLEAR CHANNEL PULLS THE PLUG ON SOME HD RADIO STATIONS"

"After conducting a survey of 340 HD2 stations to determine their
programming needs, the folks at Clear Channel have dumped a number of
their HD 'Format Lab' stations due to a lack of demand."

http://talentfilter.blogspot.com/200...n-some-hd.html

Yupper - there she goes!
Actually, no stations ceased HD broadcasting; a few have had different
formats put on the HD2 channels based on listener response.

There are no "Format Lab" stations.

The "Format Lab" is a development center in San Antonio where different
concepts are streamed and the ones with the most hits and longest
listening
spans get put on actual radio stations. The ones that don't attract
interest
are nuked and other ideas tried; it's an ongoing process. The idea is
to
create new content for HD that has not been found on radio up till now.


So they're just hoping people will find these stations by osmosis, or
what?
People find them the same way they find any web stream "station."
Most people use Shoutcast. Have you ever been there? Be sure you're
sitting down...

www.shoutcast.com

The shoutcast audience in any US metro area is not even large enough to
qualify for inclusion in the radio ratings.



There's no reason for them to be included in your so called "ratings"
which measure nothing but a dying medium's last gasp. Shoutcast (and
Icecast, Live 365, etc.) are where the top dollar demos are going for
good music radio and NPR/CommunityRadio. There is no reason to subject
one's self to the torture that is commercial radio in the 21st century.
It is painful to listen to sonically (and HD sounds worse on AM) and
only a complete loser would voluntarily absorb the content.

"David" wrote in message
...

There's no reason for them to be included in your so called "ratings"
which measure nothing but a dying medium's last gasp. Shoutcast (and
Icecast, Live 365, etc.) are where the top dollar demos are going for good
music radio and NPR/CommunityRadio. There is no reason to subject one's
self to the torture that is commercial radio in the 21st century. It is
painful to listen to sonically (and HD sounds worse on AM) and only a
complete loser would voluntarily absorb the content.

Streams, satellite, HD2 channels and analog or HD terrestrial stations are
all included in the Arbitron radio ratings. Additionally, there are audits
of streaming "stations" and, as I said, the listening level of Shoutcast
across the US would not qualify all its channels combined for the minimum
reporting standard for radio ratings. In other words, think of the worst
radio station in your market, and it has as many or more listeners than Live
365 or Shoutcast.

David Eduardo wrote:
"David" wrote in message
...
There's no reason for them to be included in your so called "ratings"
which measure nothing but a dying medium's last gasp. Shoutcast (and
Icecast, Live 365, etc.) are where the top dollar demos are going for good
music radio and NPR/CommunityRadio. There is no reason to subject one's
self to the torture that is commercial radio in the 21st century. It is
painful to listen to sonically (and HD sounds worse on AM) and only a
complete loser would voluntarily absorb the content.

Streams, satellite, HD2 channels and analog or HD terrestrial stations are
all included in the Arbitron radio ratings. Additionally, there are audits
of streaming "stations" and, as I said, the listening level of Shoutcast
across the US would not qualify all its channels combined for the minimum
reporting standard for radio ratings. In other words, think of the worst
radio station in your market, and it has as many or more listeners than Live
365 or Shoutcast.



I don't think you grasp the concept.

https://www.sky.fm/pro/order.php

David wrote:

David Eduardo wrote:
"David" wrote in message
...
There's no reason for them to be included in your so called "ratings"
which measure nothing but a dying medium's last gasp. Shoutcast (and
Icecast, Live 365, etc.) are where the top dollar demos are going for
good
music radio and NPR/CommunityRadio. There is no reason to subject one's
self to the torture that is commercial radio in the 21st century. It is
painful to listen to sonically (and HD sounds worse on AM) and only a
complete loser would voluntarily absorb the content.

Streams, satellite, HD2 channels and analog or HD terrestrial stations
are all included in the Arbitron radio ratings. Additionally, there are
audits of streaming "stations" and, as I said, the listening level of
Shoutcast across the US would not qualify all its channels combined for
the minimum reporting standard for radio ratings. In other words, think
of the worst radio station in your market, and it has as many or more
listeners than Live 365 or Shoutcast.
live365


I don't think you grasp the concept.

https://www.sky.fm/pro/order.php

If you go to the site, it says skyfm is currently serving 17117 users. That
is spread across 30 stations.

If you go to shoutcast, you'll see that many of the feeds support 1000 or
fewer connections.

Combine that with the low bitrates offered for many connections and I fail
to see how they seriously compete with a single station that may have
10,000+ listeners.

craigm wrote:
David wrote:

David Eduardo wrote:
"David" wrote in message
...
There's no reason for them to be included in your so called "ratings"
which measure nothing but a dying medium's last gasp. Shoutcast (and
Icecast, Live 365, etc.) are where the top dollar demos are going for
good
music radio and NPR/CommunityRadio. There is no reason to subject one's
self to the torture that is commercial radio in the 21st century. It is
painful to listen to sonically (and HD sounds worse on AM) and only a
complete loser would voluntarily absorb the content.
Streams, satellite, HD2 channels and analog or HD terrestrial stations
are all included in the Arbitron radio ratings. Additionally, there are
audits of streaming "stations" and, as I said, the listening level of
Shoutcast across the US would not qualify all its channels combined for
the minimum reporting standard for radio ratings. In other words, think
of the worst radio station in your market, and it has as many or more
listeners than Live 365 or Shoutcast.
live365

I don't think you grasp the concept.

https://www.sky.fm/pro/order.php

If you go to the site, it says skyfm is currently serving 17117 users. That
is spread across 30 stations.

If you go to shoutcast, you'll see that many of the feeds support 1000 or
fewer connections.

Combine that with the low bitrates offered for many connections and I fail
to see how they seriously compete with a single station that may have
10,000+ listeners.


You totally don't get it. There are thousands of web radio stations.
They are growing and you are bleeding.

You were partially right a few weeks ago; talk is going to FM. The
music is going to the web.

David wrote:

craigm wrote:
David wrote:

David Eduardo wrote:
"David" wrote in message
...
There's no reason for them to be included in your so called "ratings"
which measure nothing but a dying medium's last gasp. Shoutcast (and
Icecast, Live 365, etc.) are where the top dollar demos are going for
good
music radio and NPR/CommunityRadio. There is no reason to subject
one's self to the torture that is commercial radio in the 21st
century. It is painful to listen to sonically (and HD sounds worse on
AM) and only a complete loser would voluntarily absorb the content.
Streams, satellite, HD2 channels and analog or HD terrestrial stations
are all included in the Arbitron radio ratings. Additionally, there are
audits of streaming "stations" and, as I said, the listening level of
Shoutcast across the US would not qualify all its channels combined for
the minimum reporting standard for radio ratings. In other words, think
of the worst radio station in your market, and it has as many or more
listeners than Live 365 or Shoutcast.
live365

I don't think you grasp the concept.

https://www.sky.fm/pro/order.php

If you go to the site, it says skyfm is currently serving 17117 users.
That is spread across 30 stations.

If you go to shoutcast, you'll see that many of the feeds support 1000 or
fewer connections.

Combine that with the low bitrates offered for many connections and I
fail to see how they seriously compete with a single station that may
have 10,000+ listeners.


You totally don't get it. There are thousands of web radio stations.
They are growing and you are bleeding.

You were partially right a few weeks ago; talk is going to FM. The
music is going to the web.


You don't even know who you are replying to.