|
ibiquity AM hybrid digital radio provides little consumer benefits
The Ibiquity AM hybrid digital radio scheme provides little consumer
benefits. In fact, it destroys the character, versatility, variety and utility that has been associated with AM Broadcasting since its inception 100 years ago. In any part of the country and with an inexpensive radio and internal loop antenna you can find a variety of programming, local and national news, weather, ethnic music, financial shows, political talk shows of all types and tons of other stuff. It requires no more technology than what you have in your house or car right now. Standard AM radios easily pick up stations from nearby counties, cities, and towns making listening even more versatile. At night it gets even more interesting. Radio wave propagation through the ionosphere gives the listener a constant variety of programming from cities hundreds or even thousands of miles away all with the same inexpensive radio. Nothing wrong here. Now, along come some very dubious characters that call themselves iBiquity (whatever that’s supposed to represent). This nefarious, for profit, company convinces the Government and investors that they have a better system (which is licensed by them and only them I might add). This new system gives “FM quality” to AM radio they claim. But what they don’t say is that it will totally destroy existing AM radio as we know it. With strong-arm tactics and FCC blessing they go about trying to force the broadcasting world to convert to their for-profit system. With this conversion consumers start to lose and big business wins. Along with “FM quality” you lose the character and versatility that comes with the elegant simplicity of AM radio that has served people so well for so long. Gone will be the days of hearing stations the next city or state over. Gone will be the day of using an inexpensive radio to get local news and weather. What you will have is a relatively expensive clunky digital radio system that is lucky to receive stations 20 miles away with any consistency that is designed to eventually squeeze out any local stations. And forget about FM quality – it’s just not there in spite of what iBiquity claims. 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. |
ibiquity AM hybrid digital radio provides little consumer benefits
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. |
ibiquity AM hybrid digital radio provides little consumerbenefits
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. "Court Finds FCC Violated Administrative Procedure Act in BPL Decision" "After reading the decision, General Counsel Imlay observed, 'The decision of the Court of Appeals, though long in coming, was well worth the wait. It is obvious that the FCC was overzealous in its advocacy of BPL, and that resulted in a rather blatant cover-up of the technical facts surrounding its interference potential.'" http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2008/04/25/10064/?nc=1 The ARRL put a stop to the FCC and BPL interference to their radios - perhaps, non-HD broadcasters and the general public should file a class-action suit against iBiquity/NAB/HD Alliance/FCC. What the Hell are broadcasters waiting for? |
ibiquity AM hybrid digital radio provides little consumerbenefits
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. |
ibiquity AM hybrid digital radio provides little consumer benefits
In article
, 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. "Court Finds FCC Violated Administrative Procedure Act in BPL Decision" "After reading the decision, General Counsel Imlay observed, 'The decision of the Court of Appeals, though long in coming, was well worth the wait. It is obvious that the FCC was overzealous in its advocacy of BPL, and that resulted in a rather blatant cover-up of the technical facts surrounding its interference potential.'" http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2008/04/25/10064/?nc=1 That's an excellent example of being slapped upside the head with a giant clue stick. The ARRL put a stop to the FCC and BPL interference to their radios - perhaps, non-HD broadcasters and the general public should file a class-action suit against iBiquity/NAB/HD Alliance/FCC. What the Hell are broadcasters waiting for? Where do we sign up? -- Telamon Ventura, California |
ibiquity AM hybrid digital radio provides little consumer benefits
In article ,
Rfburns wrote: With this conversion consumers start to lose and big business wins. Along with “FM quality” you lose the character and versatility that comes with the elegant simplicity of AM radio that has served people so well for so long. Gone will be the days of hearing stations the next city or state over. Gone will be the day of using an inexpensive radio to get local news and weather. What you will have is a relatively expensive clunky digital radio system that is lucky to receive stations 20 miles away with any consistency that is designed to eventually squeeze out any local stations. And forget about FM quality – it’s just not there in spite of what iBiquity claims. 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). Looks like the West Coast AM broadcasters realize it's a suicide pact. *(That's what it sounds like, to me). Mark Zenier Googleproofaddress(account:mzenier provider:eskimo domain:com) |
ibiquity AM hybrid digital radio provides little consumer benefits
In article ,
Rfburns wrote: With this conversion consumers start to lose and big business wins. Along with “FM quality” you lose the character and versatility that comes with the elegant simplicity of AM radio that has served people so well for so long. Gone will be the days of hearing stations the next city or state over. Gone will be the day of using an inexpensive radio to get local news and weather. What you will have is a relatively expensive clunky digital radio system that is lucky to receive stations 20 miles away with any consistency that is designed to eventually squeeze out any local stations. And forget about FM quality – it’s just not there in spite of what iBiquity claims. 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). Looks like the West Coast AM broadcasters realize it's a suicide pact. *(That's what it sounds like, to me). Mark Zenier Googleproofaddress(account:mzenier provider:eskimo domain:com) |
ibiquity AM hybrid digital radio provides little consumerbenefits
On Oct 13, 9:54 pm, "A Browne" wrote:
The Ibiquity AM hybrid digital radio scheme provides little consumer benefits. In fact, it destroys the character, versatility, variety and utility that has been associated with AM Broadcasting since its inception 100 years ago Wrong. It increases the fidelity dramatically for AM broadcasts....and brings back AM stereo in a standardize format. Fidelity is given as one reason given when studies are done about why people are turned off by AM radio. Please, what "versatility, character, variety and utility" does it "destroy". (That is besides DX-ing, which the public does not care about, judging by research, arbitron, and sales figures.) 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. What good is "character" if no one is listening. You know - After thinking about it a little more I've concluded you're right. Thanks. I'm such-a jerk. |
ibiquity AM hybrid digital radio provides little consumer benefits
The Ibiquity AM hybrid digital radio scheme provides little consumer benefits. In fact, it destroys the character, versatility, variety and utility that has been associated with AM Broadcasting since its inception 100 years ago Wrong. It increases the fidelity dramatically for AM broadcasts.... Comparing what passes for a consumer-level analog AM radio to an HD radio, yeah. But even the hot new Sony dumbs down analog in comparison. Better fidelity is a plus. And listeners complain about (what they perceive as) fidelity issues. HD makes it better. No, any better tuner/receiver makes it better. No, HD offers better fidelity capability than analog. (The radio is a seperate story.) and brings back AM stereo in a standardize format. That's nice, but not many people care.. Now that cell phones have stereo speakers.....and internet streams are in stereo....the public expects nothing less. How much of the public at this moment cares or even knows that HD AM offers stereo (from those stations that broadcast it)? 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. How many that do broadcast stereo actually need it to 'improve' the sound (for talk radio? religious programming?)? It can make AM talk and news sound like NPR on FM. Thats an improvement. Why is NPR on FM stations mostly? ANd why are most NPR talk stations broadcasting in stereo? (because people expect it....) Well, they can upgrade their analog tuner/receiver... Sure, but they will not recieve any of the added "stations between the stations" that HD radio provides on FM if they simply upgrade their AM radio to a better analog one. A few NPR stations offer somewhat unique content on side channels, but most I've heard are just jukeboxes at present. Maybe, but people like jukeboxes, if the jukeboxes are playing songs they like. XM/Sirius has channels that are virtually jukeboxes. Again, if it's a jukebox that's playing a format you love....then it's OK. It may not matter to the majority of people, but the sound really isn't 'better' on HD. Of course it is....and it also contains much less processing that AM stations feel they need to do to modulate their analog signals. Are you talking to station engineers? HD AM does not sound better than decent analog equipment in my experience. "In your experience" is the key word....In my experience, in demonstration, listener tests, and technical parameters, it sounds better. |
ibiquity AM hybrid digital radio provides little consumerbenefits
Think of it as ANOTHER opportunity to listen to Brother Stair!
Hudley Pearse |
ibiquity AM hybrid digital radio provides little consumer benefits
"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). |
ibiquity AM hybrid digital radio provides little consumer benefits
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? |
ibiquity AM hybrid digital radio provides little consumer benefits
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. |
ibiquity AM hybrid digital radio provides little consumer benefits
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. |
ibiquity AM hybrid digital radio provides little consumer benefits
"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 |
ibiquity AM hybrid digital radio provides little consumer benefits
"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. |
ibiquity AM hybrid digital radio provides little consumer benefits
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. |
ibiquity AM hybrid digital radio provides little consumer benefits
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 |
ibiquity AM hybrid digital radio provides little consumer benefits
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. |
ibiquity AM hybrid digital radio provides little consumer benefits
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 |
ibiquity AM hybrid digital radio provides little consumerbenefits
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 |
ibiquity AM hybrid digital radio provides little consumer benefits
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. |
ibiquity AM hybrid digital radio provides little consumer benefits
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. |
ibiquity AM hybrid digital radio provides little consumer benefits
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! |
ibiquity AM hybrid digital radio provides little consumer benefits
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. |
ibiquity AM hybrid digital radio provides little consumer benefits
"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 |
ibiquity AM hybrid digital radio provides little consumer benefits
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? |
ibiquity AM hybrid digital radio provides little consumer benefits
"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 |
ibiquity AM hybrid digital radio provides little consumer benefits
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) |
ibiquity AM hybrid digital radio provides little consumer benefits
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. |
ibiquity AM hybrid digital radio provides little consumer benefits
"Radio Ronn" lq6dpvk02-at-sneakemail.com wrote in message . .. "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. AM had stereo first, way back in the past. It was so good, the FCC approved first one, then FOUR different methods for stereo modulation. Holy cats! The FCC actually thought there might be enough consumer demand to support four different AM stereo plans. The broadcasters and manufacturers all jumped in, as well. Everyone loves stereo, right? Problem was, people didn't like stereo enough to buy another radio. And it's not as if the radios were real expensive. They wouldn't buy four AM stereo standards. They wouldn't buy even one. Actually, people didn't care much about FM stereo, either. FM stereo didn't reach mass market appeal until it was almost a give-away with the radio. There might be a lesson there for HD radio. Give it away and maybe people will listen. But I really doubt ibiquity will give up licensing fees on their patents and copyrights. 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. Yet the AM NPR-istas trudge on, day in, day out, relentlessly, against all hope. At least, if the NPR AM operations fold, they are perfectly qualified to become IBOC shills! 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 Ah, living in the past. I can imagine in the future in which the endless topic of discussion will be the "if only"s. If only the people stuck with a mass media fractionalized into 100 pieces, rather than go with individualized media. If only the advertisers didn't wise up to the fact that the vast majority of mass media spending misses the target. If only the magic modulation had come 10 years earlier, it would have kept that internet thing from breaking up the party. Lucky for Glenn, if he ever does start living in the past, he can look back at a lifetime as an accomplished DXer and radio broadcaster. Frank Dresser |
ibiquity AM hybrid digital radio provides little consumer benefits
While the public is aware of something called "HD"...they have no reason to embrace it. Bingo. Just like FM. Not so much. Very much. Only the time line is different. It wasn't until they were aware of programming that interested them. It still hasn't changed since I last mentioned that you probably don't have time to wait as long. Why? Is there a finish line? It can take as long as it takes. And there's been no effort to market the HD-2's programming. By who? Maybe not on a national level, but I've heard individual stations do it (as I also mentioned before). (As was mentioned before) Individual stations have marketed HD as a whole...and have mentioned the new "stations between the stations"....but no effort ahs been made to tell the public "Hey if you like Jazz/Folk/70's, etc....then get an HD radio and you can get these all the time!" I know tons of Jazz and Classical fans who are unhappy their stations went away in recent years. If they knew that $100 would get them the format unlimited and without commercials, then they would certainly part with the $100. The problem is they don't know what formats are available. |
ibiquity AM hybrid digital radio provides little consumer benefits
AM HD is stereo. AM had stereo first, way back in the past. It was so good, the FCC approved first one, then FOUR different methods for stereo modulation. Holy cats! The FCC actually thought there might be enough consumer demand to support four different AM stereo plans. The broadcasters and manufacturers all jumped in, as well. Broadcaster's weren't "on board" with the marketplace aspect of picking a standard. The "let the marketplace decide the stereo standard" was one mistake that the FCC didn't make with HD. They named a standard, and all the brodcasters are on board with the same standard. With no standard chosen, there was no impetus for the public to buy one standard over another, nor impetus for manufacturers to start making one standard over another....in any real sense. Problem was, people didn't like stereo enough to buy another radio. And it's not as if the radios were real expensive. They wouldn't buy four AM stereo standards. They wouldn't buy even one. They WOULD buy one...IF they knew *which* of the four was the one to buy! So they waited....and did nothing. Actually, people didn't care much about FM stereo, either. FM stereo didn't reach mass market appeal until it was almost a give-away with the radio. That's what will happen with HD. Until it starts being included in the next radio people will purchase, or in the next car they buy. There might be a lesson there for HD radio. Give it away and maybe people will listen. But I really doubt ibiquity will give up licensing fees on their patents and copyrights. Well, Volvo is making all their 2009's include HD as standard equipment. Other manufacturers are including it as an option, and I'm sure some people will buy their cars off the lot with it included without them having to chose it specifically. Lucky for Glenn, if he ever does start living in the past, he can look back at a lifetime as an accomplished DXer and radio broadcaster. I'm sure his kids will be impressed. |
ibiquity AM hybrid digital radio provides little consumer benefits
"A Browne" wrote in message ... (As was mentioned before) Individual stations have marketed HD as a whole...and have mentioned the new "stations between the stations"....but no effort ahs been made to tell the public "Hey if you like Jazz/Folk/70's, etc....then get an HD radio and you can get these all the time!" Wanna good guess why they don't push those extra channels/formats? I will venture a damn good guess that it's because they don't want to lose the ad income from the people going to those other channels where there are no ads. |
ibiquity AM hybrid digital radio provides little consumer benefits
"A Browne" wrote in message ... Actually, people didn't care much about FM stereo, either. FM stereo didn't reach mass market appeal until it was almost a give-away with the radio. That's what will happen with HD. Until it starts being included in the next radio people will purchase, or in the next car they buy. That $50 licensing fee for each chipset will keep a lot of people from EVER buying an IBOC receiver. The average radio sells for less than $50 now. And only the most rabid of the early adopters will be willing to add $50 to the cost of a radio. |
ibiquity AM hybrid digital radio provides little consumer benefits
"Brenda Ann" wrote in message ... "A Browne" wrote in message ... Actually, people didn't care much about FM stereo, either. FM stereo didn't reach mass market appeal until it was almost a give-away with the radio. That's what will happen with HD. Until it starts being included in the next radio people will purchase, or in the next car they buy. That $50 licensing fee for each chipset will keep a lot of people from EVER buying an IBOC receiver. The average radio sells for less than $50 now. And only the most rabid of the early adopters will be willing to add $50 to the cost of a radio. The fee is not $50, and your statement is absurd since many receivers have been sold in the $50 to $100 price range, something that could not be done were the fee that high. |
ibiquity AM hybrid digital radio provides little consumer benefits
"Frank Dresser" wrote in message ... Problem was, people didn't like stereo enough to buy another radio. And it's not as if the radios were real expensive. They wouldn't buy four AM stereo standards. They wouldn't buy even one. By the time in the early 80's when a standard, CQuam, arrose, AM was no longer a music medium and had less than 40% of all listening. Actually, people didn't care much about FM stereo, either. FM stereo didn't reach mass market appeal until it was almost a give-away with the radio. Untrue. FM Stereo was introduced in about 1961, and the decade before had seen total FM stations go from over 1000 in 1950 to around 500 in 1960. What changed FM was not the technology, but the FCC's 1967 ban on FM simulcasts with a parent AM station. It was the diversity of formats that came out of this that sold FM. |
ibiquity AM hybrid digital radio provides little consumer benefits
"blitz" wrote in message ... Niche formats on stations largely hasn't worked, HD or main channel, if you're talking about shareholder demands. They don't want a low-performing investment. Every station today is a niche formatted station. When most markets seldom see shares above a 5 or 6 for the leading station, nobody is mass appeal. .. #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. The viable stations (meaning those which cover the market day and night) are almost always profitable. In a recession, revenues decline and stations retain profitability by cutting costs. They still make money. |
ibiquity AM hybrid digital radio provides little consumer benefits
"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. |
ibiquity AM hybrid digital radio provides little consumer benefits
"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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:42 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com