"Radio Ronn" lq6dpvk02-at-sneakemail.com wrote in message
. ..

Why is NPR on FM stations mostly? ANd why are most NPR talk stations
broadcasting in stereo?


I know very few people that actually can identify stereo content, or even
pay attention to whether it's stereo or not. It's just ubiquitous. So much
so that most radios that have stereo decoding don't even have an indicator
lamp anymore. It's been found in a number of studies that in the days when
every stereo radio/receiver had a stereo indicator that the user perceived a
'difference' when the lamp was on, regardless of the content, stereo or
mono. (all the study ever did was feed a 19 KHz pilot tone to light the
lamp).

Why is NPR on FM stations mostly? ANd why are most NPR talk stations
broadcasting in stereo?


I know very few people that actually can identify stereo content, or even
pay attention to whether it's stereo or not.

Doesn't matter...it still is in stereo. Why?

People expect the best quality?

No, HD offers better fidelity capability than analog. (The radio is a
seperate story.)

Capability is one thing, but the tuners don't use
it.

Well, let's not do away with the capability.

No one expects hifi on AM, so it's not as
noticeable.

People's expectations are increasing all the time. It would be nice to
attempt meet them...instead of leaving the status quo.

I dont think they care about stereo, by name...but they care that it's a
lesser quality than FM...and the stero helps it sound better.

The tiny percentage that knows or cares.

They know that FM = better quality...and yes, they care. That's why the
listeners are on FM.

make AM talk and news sound like NPR on FM.

Who cares? If it comes in clear on analog, it will *probably* do the
same on AM.

Wrong, in test with the public, people notice the differnece in fidelity
between the talk programming of NPR and the talk programming on analog AM.

It also removes some (all?) of thecomp[ression that was necessary for AM
analog....and adress listener fatique that occurrs with too much
processing/compression, etc.

Talk radio people aren't looking for FM sound.

NPR's audience numbers have exploded in the last 10 years...while AM's
numbers are decreasing.

Thats an improvement.
Why is NPR on FM stations mostly? ANd why are most NPR talk stations
broadcasting in stereo?
(because people expect it....)

I suppose after 20 years or more, yeah, they've come to expect NPR at
the low end of the FM dial. So?

Does the low end of the dial affect fidelity? Not that I know of.\

Maybe, but people like jukeboxes, if the jukeboxes are playing songs they
like.

Got any ratings on those jukeboxes?

No, we don't have any radio's...how would there be listeners?

Have you checked the ratings for XM/Sirius jukeboxes?

Yes. Less than 1% of all listening is done on satelite radio.....and that
1% is spread out over all the channels.

XM/Sirius has channels that are virtually jukeboxes.

And a bunch of niche formats that don't make it to broadcasting
towers.

That's what HD is doing, bringing formats that could not survive on their
own, back into the market.

HD will never be able to compete with satellite's diversity.

Whynot? If a market has 20-25 FM stations...and they are all offering an
extra channel or 2...why can't it match the diversity of satellite?

Even with all the formats, satellite is struggling to survive.

Are you on th e usenet proclaiming that a failure?

Again, if it's a jukebox that's playing a format you love....then it's OK.

OK being the operative word, vs. something like 'popular'.

I think the misnomer was when people like you expected the HD-2 signals to
become as popular as the main channels within 2 years.

HD FM tuners (under $5000) roll off the highs. The sound stage is
distorted. Maybe they'll straighten it out in time, but what
generation chip are we on now? Third? Fourth?

And getting better all the time.

Technical parameters suggest it's not better (and I believe you
already know that), and listening confirms it.

Technical measurements suggest it is better...andoffers more
functionality...and more choices. All pluses...and reason's why it's not
going away.

*Maybe* that's a station or setup issue, but if it is, lots of
stations aren't doing a good job.

Thats a whole differnet argument.

Well, a couple of nights ago, I did a band scan to see how badly
IBOC was ****ing* on the AM band. I only heard four signals, two of
which were local (Seattle).

DX-ing is something which adds no value to the broadcasts or broadcasters
and has never been a reliable source of listening outside of it's protected
contours.

If someone wants to try to retain the ability to DX....and will do so at the
expense of fidelity....then it's a losing battle.

99% of all listeneing is done within the stations protected contours and
those listeners will recieve the benefit of added fidelity and fuctionality.

They argument that it affects DX is not a valid point.

"Radio Ronn" lq6dpvk02-at-sneakemail.com wrote in message
. ..

[snip]


No, HD offers better fidelity capability than analog. (The radio is a
seperate story.)

What does "fidelity capability" mean? AM can have wide frequency response,
high dynamic range and vanishingly low distortion.

There have been several attempts to sell high fidelity AM. The most recent
was the AMAX standard. Nobody cared.

[snip]


Why is NPR on FM stations mostly? ANd why are most NPR talk stations
broadcasting in stereo?

(because people expect it....)


The people who could have expected most NPR stations to end up on FM were at
the FCC. When FM was kicked up to the 100 MHz band after WW2, the FCC
mandated that the low end of the band be reserved for educational stations.
Many of these stations were the ancestors of the NPR stations.

And I know our local NPR station was broadcasting mostly mono into the 90s.
I believe it was NPR network policy to broadcast with the stereo pilot off
unless the program was in stereo. An excellent policy, in my opinion, as FM
mono is capable of a much better signal to noise ratio than FM stereo.

However, I'm sure some dumbasses thought they were getting "less radio" if
the stereo bulb wasn't lit.

Frank Dresser

"Radio Ronn" lq6dpvk02-at-sneakemail.com wrote in message
. ..


It also removes some (all?) of thecomp[ression that was necessary for AM
analog....and adress listener fatique that occurrs with too much
processing/compression, etc.

Compression isn't and never has been "necessary" for AM analog (and btw,
it's also used on FM AND on IBOC). It's used to 'punch up' the audio so that
the station appears louder than it would without compression (can you say
6dB of dynamic range? Of course you can!). Compression is evil. The last
holdouts for un-compressed signals were the classical stations. This was
because classical listeners expected both pianissimo and crescendo, and
everything in between. The more plebian formats don't matter so much, since
average listeners only seem to care that they can hear something, not what
that something may contain.

blitz wrote in message ...
Radio Ronn writes...

No, HD offers better fidelity capability than analog. (The radio is a
seperate story.)

Capability is one thing, but the tuners don't use
it.

Well, let's not do away with the capability.

That's not what I said.

Whatever.

No one expects hifi on AM, so it's not as
noticeable.

People's expectations are increasing all the time. It would be nice to
attempt meet them...instead of leaving the status quo.

The status quo is (or was) that cheap AM tuners kept lowering people's
expectations.

Wrong, everything is better quality now, from Ipods, cell phones, cable tv,
FM, internet streaming.

People expect more better quality...why keep things at the status quo?

Not that good ones weren't/aren't out there, but who's
spending a hundred dollars (or five hundred for the new Polk!) for a
table radio?

Who will spend $100 for a radio? people who want to find a favorite format
that is not viable on the main channels.

Like folk music? A 1-time $100 purchase will get it for you for free.....

Like Jazz? $100 will get you the format endlessly. For that you get the
added benefit of increased AM fidelity and functionality.

It's not that simple. If a desired format only comes through two tin
cans and a string, people will buy them.

And that's why they will buy HD radio's if they are made aware of the
formats available.

make AM talk and news sound like NPR on FM.

Who cares? If it comes in clear on analog, it will *probably* do the
same on AM.

Wrong, in test with the public, people notice the differnece in fidelity
between the talk programming of NPR and the talk programming on analog AM.

Of course they can. FM generally sounds better than AM. That's not the
point.

The point is that the public notices the difference..and news and talk on FM
has exploded.

AM can sound just as good.

It also removes some (all?) of thecomp[ression that was necessary for AM
analog....and adress listener fatique that occurrs with too much
processing/compression, etc.

Name a station that doesn't use compression most of the time.

On their analog signal? They all use it almost all the time.

On their HD streams? Few do.

Talk radio people aren't looking for FM sound.

NPR's audience numbers have exploded in the last 10 years...while AM's
numbers are decreasing.

Well, yeah, I said that already.

Thats an improvement.
Why is NPR on FM stations mostly? ANd why are most NPR talk stations
broadcasting in stereo?
(because people expect it....)

I suppose after 20 years or more, yeah, they've come to expect NPR at
the low end of the FM dial. So?

Does the low end of the dial affect fidelity? Not that I know of.\

Of course it doesn't.

Then your "lower end of the dial" argument is invalid.

Maybe, but people like jukeboxes, if the jukeboxes are playing songs
they
like.

Got any ratings on those jukeboxes?

No, we don't have any radio's...how would there be listeners?

No HD radios? Most sales graphs do indeed look like none have been
sold, so, yeah, how would there be listeners?

Thanks for proving my point.

Have you checked the ratings for XM/Sirius jukeboxes?

Yes. Less than 1% of all listening is done on satelite radio.....and that
1% is spread out over all the channels.

I already said they're struggling.

Have you proclaimed them a faiilure?

XM/Sirius has channels that are virtually jukeboxes.

And a bunch of niche formats that don't make it to broadcasting
towers.

That's what HD is doing, bringing formats that could not survive on their
own, back into the market.

Not so much, besides NPR. Confirm it for yourself.

I have. Folk, Gay Pride, Jazz, 70's, ethnic music, extended talk, community
programming.....all available on HD.

HD will never be able to compete with satellite's diversity.

Why not? If a market has 20-25 FM stations...and they are all offering an
extra channel or 2...why can't it match the diversity of satellite?

It can, but it probably won't- largely because it hasn't worked in the
past.

Satelite radio hasn't "worked in the past"...does that mean it "probably
wont" work?

There's not enough ad money now to support the main channels. I
can't feature a station starting up a niche format guaranteed to draw
fewer ears.

#1.) Most stations in the major markets are making a profit. (Not as much as
they'd like, but definitely a profit.)

#2.) Very little ad money is needed to support the niche formats...they are
relatively cheap to operate.

I just want/wanted something interesting. Radio lost me in the 80s.

Is it any wonder that the offerings of HD radio don't interest you?

HD FM tuners (under $5000) roll off the highs. The sound stage is
distorted. Maybe they'll straighten it out in time, but what
generation chip are we on now? Third? Fourth?

And getting better all the time.

You simply can't concede that HD tuners mess with the sound, can you?

Everything "messes with the sound", speakers, antennas, microphones,
recievers, room ambiance.

Technical parameters suggest it's not better (and I believe you
already know that), and listening confirms it.

Technical measurements suggest it is better...andoffers more
functionality...and more choices. All pluses...and reason's why it's not
going away.

Consumers will decide that.

No, broadcasters will continue to use HD even if there are very few
listeners. It's simply "added value".

And you're clearly an industry shill if you can't admit the sound
doesn't faithfully reproduce the original.

No, far from it. I just am tired of all the DX geeks living in the momma's
basement who complain that they can't DX AM and are ready to proclaim HD a
failure.

Analog isn't going away, so that will be available for a long time ot
come...HD simply adds more funcitonality.

Do consumers care? Most don't, but that still doesn't clean up the
sound.

Most consumers are not aware of it...so it's hard to judge if they care.

*Maybe* that's a station or setup issue, but if it is, lots of
stations aren't doing a good job.

Thats a whole differnet argument.

Not if you're talking about better sound.

Well, there are thousands of stations across the country...each one can be
set up adjusted the way they want.

wrote in message
...
Think of it as ANOTHER opportunity to listen to Brother Stair!

Hudley Pearse

Yeah, it's too bad Doc Scott will miss out on the "Revolution in Radio".

Frank Dresser

No, HD offers better fidelity capability than analog. (The radio is a
seperate story.)

What does "fidelity capability" mean?

For one thing, it means stereo.

The people who could have expected most NPR stations to end up on FM were
at
the FCC.

But the people who have made it sucessful were listeners on their radios.

And I know our local NPR station was broadcasting mostly mono into the
90s.
I believe it was NPR network policy to broadcast with the stereo pilot off
unless the program was in stereo.

I know some did that in the 70's...I have nvever heard of a station doing so
after that.

Plus, NPR does not define policy at local stations.

An excellent policy, in my opinion, as FM
mono is capable of a much better signal to noise ratio than FM stereo.

If it was purely technical, but most listeners would tune especially analog
dials, with the stereo light.

It also removes some (all?) of thecomp[ression that was necessary for AM
analog....and adress listener fatique that occurrs with too much
processing/compression, etc.

Compression isn't and never has been "necessary" for AM analog

Compression isn't necessary for anything. Except it has become common use
expecially on AM where the mdoulation is the signal.

(and btw, it's also used on FM AND on IBOC).

It's used on almost all analog broadcasting. Very little on Iboc.

Compression is evil.

That's why you should welcome HD. ;0