The Problem With Hybrid Digital
 

On Sep 22, 12:32*pm, Rfburns wrote:
The problem with hybrid digital is that there is nothing wrong with
standard AM and FM transmission modes. In fact, they have evolved to
the point where they sound quite good even with marginal signal
strengths. They are robust and have significant coverage areas with
simple receivers. What else could you want?

The public is completely satisfied with the current system and, in
fact, don't know or care about hybrid digital as a means of
transmission. *Don't believe it? Ask any person on the street who
listens to radio regularly. *They could care less even if they've
heard about "HD" radio.

HD is such a meaningless term anyway.

Could someone please explain to me what "digital ready" headphones
are? *Struble, maybe you could help me out here.

He's right. And I'll add the next generation, radio's future listeners
don't like radio in any form. Cell phones, ipods, the internet and
various forms of social networking have replaced and stolen time once
spent with radio. They listen as a last resort. The corporate hacks,
the Kool-Aid pushers, have ruined radio. FM radio has become a
wireless jukebox and other devices have come along, that server their
users in ways broadcasters cannot even begin to understand. And worst
of all, the corporate Kool-Aid pushers, failed to groom new talent for
their future, all the while still cutting existing talent and
resources to the bone.

HD radio failed, because the designers didn’t understand it’s users.
They thought free, and better sound would woo listeners to their side.
It’s like Sara saying she stopped the bridge to no where. That’s spin,
hype and a lie. It’s a script, a made for tv movie, a nice sound
bite, but not enough meat.

What nobody understands is HD was designed to compete against
satellite radio, and was never meant to replace AM/FM. Satellite is
nothing like what HD broadcasters threw together in the middle of the
night, from old and rusty spare parts.

The Problem With Hybrid Digital
 

On Sep 25, 11:04*am, Pocket-Radio wrote:
On Sep 22, 12:32*pm, Rfburns wrote:





The problem with hybrid digital is that there is nothing wrong with
standard AM and FM transmission modes. In fact, they have evolved to
the point where they sound quite good even with marginal signal
strengths. They are robust and have significant coverage areas with
simple receivers. What else could you want?

The public is completely satisfied with the current system and, in
fact, don't know or care about hybrid digital as a means of
transmission. *Don't believe it? Ask any person on the street who
listens to radio regularly. *They could care less even if they've
heard about "HD" radio.

HD is such a meaningless term anyway.

Could someone please explain to me what "digital ready" headphones
are? *Struble, maybe you could help me out here.

He's right. And I'll add the next generation, radio's future listeners
don't like radio in any form. Cell phones, ipods, the internet and
various forms of social networking have replaced and stolen time once
spent with radio. They listen as a last resort. The corporate hacks,
the Kool-Aid pushers, have ruined radio. FM radio has become a
wireless jukebox and other devices have come along, that server their
users in ways broadcasters cannot even begin to understand. And worst
of all, the corporate Kool-Aid pushers, failed to groom new talent for
their future, all the while still cutting existing talent and
resources to the bone.

HD radio failed, because the designers didn’t understand it’s users.
They thought free, and better sound would woo listeners to their side.
It’s like Sara saying she stopped the bridge to no where. That’s spin,
hype and a lie. *It’s a script, a made for tv movie, a nice sound
bite, but not enough meat.

What nobody understands is HD was designed to compete against
satellite radio, and was never meant to replace AM/FM. Satellite is
nothing like what HD broadcasters threw together in the middle of the
night, from old and rusty spare parts.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You were fine and it was a good post till you had to add (or you would
have felt the post was a waste which it wouldn't been) the shot at
Palin. sigh It is like some people just 'literally' can not help
themselves when they are talking about one thing and then think "I
know I am smart enough and everyones else is so stupid that I can
throw in my *opinion* and because what I was originally talking about
was spot on that they will believe in the other thing I
'strategically' placed in my post". rolling my eyes Good post other
than that IMO. Hope I didn't upset you - I just had to "call you on
it" so too speak. ;-)