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.

"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.

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

"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

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.

Wrong. HD signals are processed (the right term) for consistency and a
stable dynamic range. They just are not processed the same way analog is
processed.

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

Wrong. HD signals are processed (the right term) for consistency and a
stable dynamic range.


Sorry to correct you Eduardo....most of the stations I have dealing with are
currently not (or barely) processing their IBOC signals.

"A Browne" wrote in message
...

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

Wrong. HD signals are processed (the right term) for consistency and a
stable dynamic range.


Sorry to correct you Eduardo....most of the stations I have dealing with
are currently not (or barely) processing their IBOC signals.

And all that I have seen have either the Omnia or Optimod digital versions.

First, the differing levels of different source materials demands that a
degree of leveling be applied just for consistency. Then, we have to
recognize that the listening environment, particularly in vehicles, is noisy
and the dynamic range has to be brought up to avoid lower level passages
becoming masked in ambient noise. While clipping and severe peak limiting
are not needed, avoidance of occasional high excursions also improves the
listening experience.

I'd love to know of any HD-1 signals that are not processed. Most of us know
that in-car listening is subject to dropouts beyond about the 64 dbu
contour, and having the analog and digital signals similarly processed is
important. Plus, lots of content was originally analog, and needs a degree
of control.

"Brenda Ann" wrote in message
...

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.


Every classical station I have known had peak limiting and some degree of
AGC leveling. First, the legal requirment to not overmodulate comes into
play. And then the fact that the dynamic range of much classical is not
enough on the low side to overcome ambient noise where radios are listened
to. So the dynamic range is reduced, while being greater than that of a CHR
station, it is still reduced significantly. I've owned a classical station
and managed another, and in the process visited many, ranging from KMZT to
WCLV.

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.

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.

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?