On Oct 12, 7:44*pm, KaitoWRX911 wrote:
On Oct 12, 7:38 pm, "Brenda Ann" wrote:

AM radio still retains some of the character we are all losing in this
so-called high tech society. To allow a for-profit company like
iBiquity steal it away is a crime. For a government agency to allow
this to happen is absolutely criminal.

Perhaps a class-action lawsuit against iBiquity and the FCC? After all,
what they are doing could be considered in violation of anti-trust law.
They're taking our publicly owned spectrum and selling it back to us.

Anti-trust law violations would also apply with trying to force HD
radios into Satrad receivers.

AM Hybrid Radio is akin to

giving out a mortgage to a guy with no job..

Setting up this house of cards will eventually come back &

Bite you in the ass..

Listening to " Apocalypse Financial Survival 2000 "N" on 7.415 , WBCQ

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.

Someone over on radio-info.com mentioned that WLS, I believe, used to
draw ratings in other states. I'm suspect some of the other old clears
used to do the same, before the FCC changed the rules in the 80s.

that was 25 years ago. those days are gone.

That's not the only argument. There are some pretty blatant examples
of real problems, such as WBZ affecting at least two stations inside
their protected contours, including KDKA.

Well since KDKA is owned by them, we'll see if they think it is enough of
an issue to do something about.

So far they haven't.

As far as the other station, it's a small 'rimshot' station that is trying
to reach a city it was not intended to do by design.

So don't twist my meaning.

Not sure what it is.

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.

Okay, let me be exactly precise. You mentioned most forms of reception
EXCEPT AM. And newer AM radios are generally not capable of revealing
the sound actually broadcast.

Nothing is capable of revealing the sound actually broadcast.

There are a multitude of limitations from point a to point b.

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

I'm not arguing for the status quo, nor am I against digital per se.

Thats a good start.

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.

... like right here. A decent AM tuner will equal or better an HD unit
for sound*. No, it won't receive the sidebands...

No secondary streams, no AM stereo, etc.

If you want to simply buy a "decent am tuner" without the functionality of
HD...then go ahead, no one is stopping you.

*I'm a fairly knowledgeable consumer. I've listened to HD and non-HD
radios, and my conclusion is HD doesn't offer better sound..

In multiple market studies, most consumers could tell the differnce between
a station's analog sound and their HD sound.

I also
don't get subchannels in my area compelling enough to keep me coming
back- yet.

Would you *like to have* some compelling formats offerred to you?

Maybe I will at some point.

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

How's that workin' for ya? Selling many HD radios?

I don't know and don't care. Sales figures for HD aren't the indicator of
sucess.

Some radio's are being sold....some cars will come with them stock for 2009.

There has been no effort to make the public aware of any of the formats
available on HD-2's.

Things like FM and stereo took time. THis will as well, like digital
TV....most people aren't trashing one set and buying another. They are
waiting until the first one goes and then buying a replacement one...and
guess what...it's digital!

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.

That's not my impression.

It's my experience. Most stations use little if any processing on the HD
feed. It can be anoying because sometimes levels are all over the map,
since the announcer/operator is used the the processor handling it.

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.

I guess that would depend on the market.

And it's just goingto get better, as we move into the smaller markets.

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?

Niche formats on stations largely hasn't worked, HD or main channel...

Well, we know they haven't worked on main channels, because the are not
competitive. But HD-2 channels don't have that same competitive
environment...and it's too soon to tell if it will work on HD....becuase
there aren't enough radios out there to judge.


if you're talking about shareholder demands. They don't want a
low-performing investment.

How many markets have 20-25 FM stations in HD?

How many non-HDs are planning to convert?

80-85% have converted already....and the rest would like to.

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

I find that hard to believe, with many radio companies' stock sub-$1.
The layoffs CBS just made (which will probably be mimicked by everyone
else) suggest things aren't too rosy.

CBS is still posting dividends per share. While profits have
slipped...there are still profits.

The stock price is not reflective of the profits. It's reflective how wall
street is giving up on older technology...and believe it is in for slower
growth.

Layoffs are an attempt to bring back a astock price. Typically, investors
love layoffs.

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. Most of the public are not 'purists'.

Not even a nice straw man.

It's the truth.

But to see any financial return on it?

One "sponsor announcement" per hour will cover the cost...and in some
situations make money.

Take a look at their crazy directional pattern and the city the aim to
serve.

They are licenced to Avon...and are trying to be a Rochester station.

Is there any wonder there is dissappointment?


and with a whole 500 watts! that will frustrrate anyone!

blitz wrote in message ...
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.

Stick to the point. HD tuners do not faithfully reproduce the original
sound. Prove it for yourself. Put a decent non-HD tuner next to an HD
unit (using the same decent antenna, amp, and speakers) and do an
honest comparison.

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

I won't argue either point - and haven't.


AM analog does suffer due to IBOC. And not just the bleedover of the
sidebands into first and second adjacent channels, which is significant. It
suffers additionally on the stations that are using IBOC because the
stations have had to back the bandwidth of the analog signal down to the
point it's barely better than a telephone line (about 4 KHz audio spectrum).
It's the stations' own fault that AM fidelity has gone to hell, and the
receiver manufacturing industry has only helped the decline by building
cheaper adn cheaper crap radios.

In the 70's, the FCC allowed an increase in bandwidth of the standard AM
signal in preparation for the coming of AM Stereo. At that time, you
absolutely could not tell a local AM signal from an FM signal on any decent
tuner (though it was getting hard to find a decent tuner!!).

When AM stereo came to Portland, I listened exclusively to AMS stations
(primarily KGW) because I didn't have to deal with the multipath and signal
dropouts of the FM stations around town, especially the downtown area, in
which FM is virtually unusable. KGW's AMS signal was noiseless, flawless,
and every bit as good as a solid FM signal.

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

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.

That's not clear, but I'm assuming you mean better stereo rather than stereo
capability.

And, since marketplace decisions have come up in this topic, it's clear that
radio buyers either think FM stereo is still superior to HD radio -- or
buyers don't care alot about 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.

True. And there are also AM NPR stations who have shared in NPR's success.



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.

Around 1990 or so, I heard a "World of Radio" episode in which Glenn Hauser
complimented the FM NPR stations which turned off the carrier for mono
programming, and he complained about the majority of stations which
needlessly left it on all the time.


Plus, NPR does not define policy at local stations.

Could be. I recall an explaination from WBEZ (Chicago NPR) that they liked
to keep the pilot off unless they were playing stereo programming. They
started running the pilot on mono programming because that's how it was
coming in from the network.

But it was sombody's policy or procedure or whatever.


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.


The best visual aid for analog dial FM tuning is the center channel
indicator, which most listeners manage to do just fine without. A signal
strength indicator is almost as good an aid, but not so common as the stereo
light which can be shining brightly even when a station is audibly mistuned.
And, while the stereo light is an inferior visual tuning aid, it is an
excellent indicator of a stereo pilot.

None of this actually matters, as most analog dial listeners have learned to
get tuning feedback by listening to the radio, rather than looking at the
radio.

Frank Dresser

Still won't admit you haven't compared HD and non-HD tuners
side-by-side...

I have...and I have seen research where the public has compared them.

Inevitably, they choose the HD tuner.

There has been no effort to make the public aware of any of the formats
available on HD-2's.

You can say there hasn't been any "effort to
make the public aware of the formats available on HD-2's" (which isn't
true, by the way), but there's been a hell of a lot of inventory used
to publicize HD itself.

They have publicized "HD"...but not anything that's on the HD-2 formats.

While the public is aware of something called "HD"...they have no reason to
embrace it.

The public has virtually no awareness of the formats or programmaming
avaialble on HD-2's

Things like FM and stereo took time.

You don't have the same kind of environment, or nearly the same amount
of time. The iPod killed HD radio...

Radio is not an Ipod. It does more than an Ipod can do. People use radio
differently.

THis will as well, like digital
TV....most people aren't trashing one set and buying another. They are
waiting until the first one goes and then buying a replacement one...and
guess what...it's digital!

More obfuscation. Of course new TVs are digital- analog is being
phased out.

But people haven't been replacing their sets simply to buy digital. They
are replacing sets when they need to, and finding digital sets are whats
available as replacements.

Same for radio.

Everything "messes with the sound", speakers, antennas, microphones,
recievers, room ambiance. Most of the public are not 'purists'.

Not even a nice straw man.

It's the truth.

it's not the point I was making. Typical devious HD shill. Go away.

Can't handle the truth, huh?

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

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

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.

That's not clear, but I'm assuming you mean better stereo rather than
stereo
capability.

AM HD is 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.

True. And there are also AM NPR stations who have shared in NPR's
success.

AM stations with NPR programming are marginally sucessful, if at all.

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.

Around 1990 or so, I heard a "World of Radio" episode in which Glenn
Hauser
complimented the FM NPR stations which turned off the carrier for mono
programming, and he complained about the majority of stations which
needlessly left it on all the time.

Glenn Hauser, another one living in the past. I can't think of one NPR
station that shut off it's stereo pilot for mono/talk programs

In article ,
Radio Ronn lq6dpvk02-at-sneakemail.com wrote:

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.

I'm not talking about DX.

Here's the suicide pact: A station goes for IBOC, and all the stations
adjacent to it get the outer fringes of their service area cropped off
because of the new interference. They can retaliate by turning on their
IBOC causing a reduction in service area for the first station.
Since the HD receivers are a flop, there's no gain in listeners, only
a possible reduction.

The big noise-talker in Sacramento (1540?) was ****ing on things up
here pretty good. And they've since quit.

Mark Zenier
Googleproofaddress(account:mzenier provider:eskimo domain:com)

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

While the public is aware of something called "HD"...they have no reason
to
embrace it.

Bingo.

Just like FM.

It wasn't until they were aware of programming that interested them.

And there's been no effort to market the HD-2's programming.