On 3/6/11 09:00 , SMS wrote:

The fact is that digital radio is all about content and a lack of
monthly fees.


The content on digital subchannels is no different than the
content on the baseband. A different shuffling of the records, but
the same records as are heard elsewhere.

And as for monthly fees....conditional access has been under test
for more than a year, now. And that IS the goal of digital radio.
It's been the holy grail of broadcast since KDKA. Digital doesn't
make it possible. But digital does make it practical.

Public interest is still waning for HD radio, and more stations
are turning off the IBOC transmitters across the country every
month. Audio quality is poor and coverage is spotty.

And no, it's not a philosophical difference that has most in
opposition to HD Radio, it's the interference, the lesser audio
quality for the addition of programming that's no different than
what's on the baseband that's got so many people opposed.

Your protests to the contrary not withstanding, HD Radio is not a
growth industry.

On Mar 6, 10:55*am, "D. Peter Maus" wrote:
On 3/6/11 09:00 , SMS wrote:

The fact is that digital radio is all about content and a lack of
monthly fees.

* *The content on digital subchannels is no different than the
content on the baseband. A different shuffling of the records, but
the same records as are heard elsewhere.

* *And as for monthly fees....conditional access has been under test
for more than a year, now. And that IS the goal of digital radio.
It's been the holy grail of broadcast since KDKA. Digital doesn't
make it possible. But digital does make it practical.

* *Public interest is still waning for HD radio, and more stations
are turning off the IBOC transmitters across the country every
month. Audio quality is poor and coverage is spotty.

* *And no, it's not a philosophical difference that has most in
opposition to HD Radio, it's the interference, the lesser audio
quality for the addition of programming that's no different than
what's on the baseband that's got so many people opposed.

* *Your protests to the contrary not withstanding, HD Radio is not a
growth industry.

With RadioGuard consumers would have to call 1-800-rip-poff Not going
to happen! LOL!

On Mar 6, 10:41*am, iBiquity Fraudsters
wrote:
On Mar 6, 10:00*am, SMS wrote:





On 3/6/2011 1:02 AM, RHF wrote:

snip

The Economic Tipping Point Has Passed
~translation~ YOU LOSE !

Well I'm sure that the 2000+ stations broadcasting in HD, the
multi-national automobile manufacturers, and the receiver manufacturers
are operating in fear of a hysterical blog by an anonymous and clueless
individual, and a page on a web site of a personal injury law firm in
New Jersey that complains that the range of digital radio signals is
insufficient because one of the principals purchased a vehicle with an
HD Radio and didn't realize that it was not the same as satellite radio..

If that's the best that those opposed to digital radio can do, then
digital radio has a very bright future indeed.

The fact is that digital radio is all about content and a lack of
monthly fees. The lack of multipath interference is a plus, but the same
thing that sells satellite radio and Pandora is what's driving adoption
of digital radio, except that digital radio doesn't have a recurring
monthly charge.

If you look at what radio stations are doing with their HD sub-channels
it's adding more content, especially content where the audience isn't
sufficient to warrant continuing the genre on the main station. Even if
the audio quality could technically be better on analog FM, in practice,
the sound quality and lack of interference, even at a lower bit rate on
the sub-channels, still provides a superior product in most cases than
analog FM.

"Well I'm sure that the 2000+ stations broadcasting in HD, the
multi-national automobile manufacturers, and the receiver
manufacturers
are operating in fear of a hysterical blog by an anonymous and
clueless
individual, and a page on a web site of a personal injury law firm in
New Jersey that complains that the range of digital radio signals is
insufficient because one of the principals purchased a vehicle with
an
HD Radio and didn't realize that it was not the same as satellite
radio."

You wouldn't be spending so much time bashing me and my blog, if you
weren't so worried. I see that you visit my blog obsessively from West
Virginia.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Now, it's two law firms working in concert. I talked with Keefe's
office about a month ago (we are in email contact with him, and I just
fed him information about Microsoft's and iBiquity's fraud to sell the
Zune HD in Canada where there are zero HD Radio stations), and they
indicated they were having a conference call with a bunch of
"experts". I wouldn't be surprised to see more specialized
communications law firms getting involved. Broadcasters are already
involved. There is so much iBiquity deception and fraud to investigate.

On 3/6/2011 7:55 AM, D. Peter Maus wrote:
On 3/6/11 09:00 , SMS wrote:

The fact is that digital radio is all about content and a lack of
monthly fees.


The content on digital subchannels is no different than the content on
the baseband. A different shuffling of the records, but the same records
as are heard elsewhere.

The HD2 (and HD3, 4 if they exist) content is very different than the
analog/HD1 content. In a great many locales, "niche" formats like jazz,
classical, R&B, oldies, etc., only exist anymore on HD2.

And as for monthly fees....conditional access has been under test for
more than a year, now. And that IS the goal of digital radio. It's been
the holy grail of broadcast since KDKA. Digital doesn't make it
possible. But digital does make it practical.

Yes, it's possible that stations could offer commercial-free paid
conditional access if the public would go along with it. I think it's
unlikely to happen considering the alternative paid services.

Public interest is still waning for HD radio, and more stations are
turning off the IBOC transmitters across the country every month. Audio
quality is poor and coverage is spotty.

Some AM is being turned off, but it's extremely rare for an FM IBOC
station to stop digital transmission. More and more FM stations are
adding HD, but since most major stations have already converted the rate
of increase of conversions is less than when it was brand new. Audio
quality is excellent, but coverage is definitely an issue at 1% of
analog power. The hope by everyone is that as receiver penetration
continues to increase that HD stations will increase their power levels.

And no, it's not a philosophical difference that has most in opposition
to HD Radio, it's the interference, the lesser audio quality for the
addition of programming that's no different than what's on the baseband
that's got so many people opposed.

LOL, no matter how many times you claim "lesser audio quality" it won't
make it true.

Your protests to the contrary not withstanding, HD Radio is not a growth
industry.

Apparently radio stations, receiver makers, auto makers, and broadcast
equipment manufacturers have a different view of things. But then
they're actually knowledgeable about the industry so clearly their view
isn't valid!

Where, oh where? is Eduardo to chime in on that.
cuhulin

In article ,
SMS wrote:

I have no dog in this fight. It does not affect me financially whether
or not digital radio succeeds or fails.

It may not affect you financially, but you clearly have a dog in this
fight in terms of your ego, because you keep saying the same wrong
things over and over again, apparently in a desperate attempt to have
people agree that you're right.


But it's disappointing to see so
many of the anti-digital radio folks rely on myths and lies rather than
on facts and logic.

Forget the out-and-out trolls (and it's disingenous of you to neglect
to mention the pro-IBOC ones); there are plenty of neither-pro-nor-
anti-IBOC folks who are simply trying to discuss the topic. (And btw,
note my change to "pro-IBOC" and "anti-IBOC"; it was awfully arrogant
of you to apply the sweeping term "anti-digital" to people who have
concerns about a single digital radio format, namely IBOC. Especially
when several of them have explicitly said that they would be perfectly
happy to see a *good* digital standard. So please, drop the sweeping
generalization, okay?)

A number of people here have attempted to have reasonable discussions
with you using facts and logic, yet you either completely ignore them
(such as John Higdon's postings) or you just toss back the same wrong
information again and again (such as that multipath is a major annoyance
to analog FM radio listeners).


Most of those so opposed to digital radio are not opposed to it for any
valid technical reason, they are opposed to it philosophically.

There you go again, equating concerns about IBOC with some kind of
sweeping unwillingness to accept any kind of digital platform.


With any debate it's important not to lump those that have valid
concerns in with people like our favorite anti-HD troll.

Or our favorite HD troll? Surely you aren't going to lose further
credibility (not that you have much at this point) by neglecting
to admit that there are pro-IBOC trolls on these groups, too?


It would be
nice if those that do have valid concerns about digital radio a) did
research rather than demanding that others do it for them, and b)
verified their statements prior to posting them.

Oh, you mean like actual working broadcasters who have hands-on
experience with digital radio that you don't want to hear about?

What sort of research have you done on digital radio besides reading
online articles? At how many stations have you implemented an IBOC
system and gotten firsthand knowledge of its benefits and challenges?
How have you dealt with its effects on the entire audio chain, or
with phone calls from CEs at other stations about interference within
their protected contours? Please, enlighten us about your real-world
research. As the old saying goes, it's time to put up or shut up.


Their consistent
reliance on suspect information undermines their credibility, causing
people not to take them seriously.

See that mirror over there? You might want to go look in it...


Patty

In article ,
SMS wrote:

On 3/6/2011 12:55 AM, RHF wrote:

snip

SMS,

It's the Domino Theory All Over and Over Again
First the USA [FCC] Adopts IBOC HD-Radio...
and then country after Country after COUNTRY
Adopts HD-Radio . . .
-truly-it's-a-nightmare-for the-hd-radio--haters-

Not Truly A HD-Radio Hater . . .
-or- A HD-Radio Lover . . .

but,, But... BUT ! ! ! Knowing . . .

That Generation Changes Take A Generation
Give IBOC& HD-Radio One Generation . . .

time will tell . . . ~ RHF

I have no dog in this fight. It does not affect me financially whether
or not digital radio succeeds or fails. But it's disappointing to see so
many of the anti-digital radio folks rely on myths and lies rather than
on facts and logic.

If there's one good reason to hope for the survival of terrestrial
radio, which everyone agrees depends on a digital transition, it's how
bad the alternatives are for the public and for broadcasters. Satellite
radio is up to $20 per month, plus taxes, and in the U.S. XM-Sirius has
been under a price cap since the merger which they are now attempting to
get lifted; satellite radio will never be mass-market at those kind of
rates. Streaming 3G/4G into the car works if a) that data has little or
no extra cost, b) you have 3G/4G coverage, and c) listeners are willing
to pay monthly fees (since the free model is not making the providers
any money). Everyone carrying their own content around on an iPod, SD
card, or USB stick, in order to get the content and quality they desire
may work for the listener, but it does not work too well for broadcasters.

I like radio because it's local, and because it's free. The commercials
can be an annoyance of course, but that's the price you have to pay. You
don't get the local component with satellite radio or streaming services
or on your iPod.

Most of those so opposed to digital radio are not opposed to it for any
valid technical reason, they are opposed to it philosophically. The
exception in the U.S. is the stations presently operating at relatively
low power. They are a) left out during the transition because even 10%
of 200 watts isn't going to help them (though full-power digital-only
would work for them) and b) most likely to be affected by interference
as digital power levels are allowed to rise.

With any debate it's important not to lump those that have valid
concerns in with people like our favorite anti-HD troll. It would be
nice if those that do have valid concerns about digital radio a) did
research rather than demanding that others do it for them, and b)
verified their statements prior to posting them. Their consistent
reliance on suspect information undermines their credibility, causing
people not to take them seriously.

I'm all for digital radio but Ibiquity will screw it up. According to
their specification, the removal of analog bandwidth does not increase
the bandwidth for audio. It goes to some other unspecified use that I
can only imagine isn't for free radio. The current encoding, which is
barely good enough for interim use, remains.
--
I will not see posts from Google or e-mails from Yahoo because I must
filter them as spam

Patty Winter wrote:

Their consistent
reliance on suspect information undermines their credibility, causing
people not to take them seriously.

See that mirror over there? You might want to go look in it...

Well said. I agreed with everything in your post. I didn't quote the
rest as there's not much point in just repeating everything.

From my point of view, when I first heard about digital radio (many
many years ago when DAB was still an aspiration for the future), I
thought great. CD quality radio in the car.

But oh what a huge disappointment it is today. Rather than good sound
quality, we have the opposite. Audio that is so bad I find it too
annoying to listen to it. I ended up on alt.radio.digital, because of
the poor sound quality issue. All the other stuff about codecs and
transmission systems are, to me, just part of the many reasons why
digital radio today sounds so sh*t. And now to add insult to injury,
there is talk of switching off FM in favour of these dreadful digital
radio systems. It's got to the point where I would be content to 'put
up' with digital radio, if only it sounded as good as FM.

A good modern digital radio system might not fix all the problems, but
it would at least make good sound quality a feasible option.

Richard E.

On Mar 6, 12:47*pm, Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
In article ,





*SMS wrote:
On 3/6/2011 12:55 AM, RHF wrote:

snip

SMS,

It's the Domino Theory All Over and Over Again
First the USA [FCC] Adopts IBOC HD-Radio...
and then country after Country after COUNTRY
Adopts HD-Radio . . .
-truly-it's-a-nightmare-for the-hd-radio--haters-

Not Truly A HD-Radio Hater . . .
-or- A HD-Radio Lover . . .

but,, But... *BUT ! ! ! Knowing . . .

That Generation Changes Take A Generation
Give IBOC& *HD-Radio One Generation . . .

time will tell . . . ~ RHF

I have no dog in this fight. It does not affect me financially whether
or not digital radio succeeds or fails. But it's disappointing to see so
many of the anti-digital radio folks rely on myths and lies rather than
on facts and logic.

If there's one good reason to hope for the survival of terrestrial
radio, which everyone agrees depends on a digital transition, it's how
bad the alternatives are for the public and for broadcasters. Satellite
radio is up to $20 per month, plus taxes, and in the U.S. XM-Sirius has
been under a price cap since the merger which they are now attempting to
get lifted; satellite radio will never be mass-market at those kind of
rates. Streaming 3G/4G into the car works if a) that data has little or
no extra cost, b) you have 3G/4G coverage, and c) listeners are willing
to pay monthly fees (since the free model is not making the providers
any money). Everyone carrying their own content around on an iPod, SD
card, or USB stick, in order to get the content and quality they desire
may work for the listener, but it does not work too well for broadcasters.

I like radio because it's local, and because it's free. The commercials
can be an annoyance of course, but that's the price you have to pay. You
don't get the local component with satellite radio or streaming services
or on your iPod.

Most of those so opposed to digital radio are not opposed to it for any
valid technical reason, they are opposed to it philosophically. The
exception in the U.S. is the stations presently operating at relatively
low power. They are a) left out during the transition because even 10%
of 200 watts isn't going to help them (though full-power digital-only
would work for them) and b) most likely to be affected by interference
as digital power levels are allowed to rise.

With any debate it's important not to lump those that have valid
concerns in with people like our favorite anti-HD troll. It would be
nice if those that do have valid concerns about digital radio a) did
research rather than demanding that others do it for them, and b)
verified their statements prior to posting them. Their consistent
reliance on suspect information undermines their credibility, causing
people not to take them seriously.

I'm all for digital radio but Ibiquity will screw it up. *According to
their specification, the removal of analog bandwidth does not increase
the bandwidth for audio. *It goes to some other unspecified use that I
can only imagine isn't for free radio. *The current encoding, which is
barely good enough for interim use, remains.
--
I will not see posts from Google or e-mails from Yahoo because I must
filter them as spam- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The all-digital mode has never been tested - it may not even work. The
only thing iBiquity is interested in is an IPO, which now will never
happen.

On 03/06/2011 06:45 AM, SMS wrote:
Everyone carrying their own content around on an iPod, SD
card, or USB stick, in order to get the content and quality they desire
may work for the listener, but it does not work too well for broadcasters.


News is the killer app for free radio.