|
Europe's digital radio sector is a not a happy place, as consumersvote with their wallets - LMFAO!!!
"EU czar stomps into digital radio"
Stone the Kroes By Andrew Orlowski • Get more from this author Posted in Music and Media, 3rd March 2011 16:30 GMT Free whitepaper – The Register Guide to Enterprise Virtualization Europe's digital radio sector is a not a happy place, as consumers vote with their wallets. It isn't just a DAB thing, which is a uniquely British disaster: the appetite for digital radio is similarly depressed all over the continent. And this is not good enough for Neelie Kroes, Europe's unelected digital czar. "Some people even question the fact that we really need digital radio or claim that radio is 'a special case' which could exist forever on a combination of analogue and online services," she has told the Association for European Radio's annual conference. Kroes reminds us that "it is not for us in Brussels to dictate the pace or the way change should happen in this diverse sector". Which is true. But that's not going to stop her chipping in. Why? "My job is to help content providers scale up their offer [sic] at least to the Single Market size – and that cannot be done with FM analogue radio alone," she says. There is hope then, for Alan Partridge – whose Mid Morning Matters may soon be heard in Latvia and Greece. Kroes does, to her credit, admit there's a problem, saying, "we need to understand why the EU-wide consensus in 1986 that led to the technically impressive DAB standard has drifted to today’s inertia. Is it because digital radio is the new 'betamax'?" She then goes on to cite the UK as an example of the potential of DAB. If only. "How can radio best participate in convergence?" she wants to know. "What incentives would encourage user and manufacturers to shift to the digital format? Kroes's intervention doesn't go much beyond exhorting her industry audience to do some creative thinking. Which really highlights the perils of top-down intervention: there's only so much you can do. Digital technology has fragmented the market for devices: digital radio is a variety of incompatible standards, while FM analog still works anywhere. But as she notes, the WorldDMB group is working on this. As she doesn't note, "harmonising" Europe's digital radio masts is too costly for Europe's radio industry to afford. And debt- encumbered governments don't see it as a priority. Kroes compares the digital radio migration path to dial-up to broadband, and the introduction of GSM. But in each case consumers didn't need to be prodded into action. GSM took off because the economies of scale made mobile telephony affordable to the masses. Broadband took off because it was faster. The problem with digital radio is that it doesn't really doesn't anything like as new or compelling. There are advantages, some are interesting, fun and useful. But there are costs, too. And the cost of paying for carriage over two infrastructures is crippling an industry that would be struggling to pay for one. Kroes's job is to promote anything with digital on the label. She forgets that many digital technologies end up in the fail bucket: digital audio tape, for example. And while our radio listening in the future most probably will be mostly digital one day, it may well be over IP, not purpose- built digital multiplexes. Expect an enquiry. Or something. ® http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03..._do_something/ Yup, you can throw Struble's hunk-of-junk into that too - LMFAO!!! Virtually no one gives a **** outside of the HD broadcasters, and they don't really care either, as most HD stations are not time-aligned and are just jukeboxes - LMFAO!!! |
Clearly Time-and-Time Again Demonstrating You Are A 'FAO' !
On Mar 4, 6:57*pm, iBiquity Fraudsters
wrote: "EU czar stomps into digital radio" Stone the Kroes By Andrew Orlowski • Get more from this author Posted in Music and Media, 3rd March 2011 16:30 GMT Free whitepaper – The Register Guide to Enterprise Virtualization Europe's digital radio sector is a not a happy place, as consumers vote with their wallets. It isn't just a DAB thing, which is a uniquely British disaster: the appetite for digital radio is similarly depressed all over the continent. And this is not good enough for Neelie Kroes, Europe's unelected digital czar. "Some people even question the fact that we really need digital radio or claim that radio is 'a special case' which could exist forever on a combination of analogue and online services," she has told the Association for European Radio's annual conference. Kroes reminds us that "it is not for us in Brussels to dictate the pace or the way change should happen in this diverse sector". Which is true. But that's not going to stop her chipping in. Why? "My job is to help content providers scale up their offer [sic] at least to the Single Market size – and that cannot be done with FM analogue radio alone," she says. There is hope then, for Alan Partridge – whose Mid Morning Matters may soon be heard in Latvia and Greece. Kroes does, to her credit, admit there's a problem, saying, "we need to understand why the EU-wide consensus in 1986 that led to the technically impressive DAB standard has drifted to today’s inertia. Is it because digital radio is the new 'betamax'?" She then goes on to cite the UK as an example of the potential of DAB. If only. "How can radio best participate in convergence?" she wants to know. "What incentives would encourage user and manufacturers to shift to the digital format? Kroes's intervention doesn't go much beyond exhorting her industry audience to do some creative thinking. Which really highlights the perils of top-down intervention: there's only so much you can do. Digital technology has fragmented the market for devices: digital radio is a variety of incompatible standards, while FM analog still works anywhere. But as she notes, the WorldDMB group is working on this. As she doesn't note, "harmonising" Europe's digital radio masts is too costly for Europe's radio industry to afford. And debt- encumbered governments don't see it as a priority. Kroes compares the digital radio migration path to dial-up to broadband, and the introduction of GSM. But in each case consumers didn't need to be prodded into action. GSM took off because the economies of scale made mobile telephony affordable to the masses. Broadband took off because it was faster. The problem with digital radio is that it doesn't really doesn't anything like as new or compelling. There are advantages, some are interesting, fun and useful. But there are costs, too. And the cost of paying for carriage over two infrastructures is crippling an industry that would be struggling to pay for one. Kroes's job is to promote anything with digital on the label. She forgets that many digital technologies end up in the fail bucket: digital audio tape, for example. And while our radio listening in the future most probably will be mostly digital one day, it may well be over IP, not purpose- built digital multiplexes. Expect an enquiry. Or something. ® http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03..._radio_do_some... Yup, you can throw Struble's hunk-of-junk into that too - LMFAO!!! Virtually no one gives a **** outside of the HD broadcasters, and they don't really care either, as most HD stations are not time-aligned and are just jukeboxes - LMFAO!!! Your Many Multiple {Spamming} Screen IDs All End-Up ~translating~to~ LAMFAO ! clearly time-and-time again demonstrating you are a 'fao' ~ RHF |
Who Will Remember 'Analog' Radio In 2020 . . .
On Mar 4, 6:57*pm, iBiquity Fraudsters
wrote: "EU czar stomps into digital radio" Stone the Kroes By Andrew Orlowski • Get more from this author Posted in Music and Media, 3rd March 2011 16:30 GMT Free whitepaper – The Register Guide to Enterprise Virtualization Europe's digital radio sector is a not a happy place, as consumers vote with their wallets. It isn't just a DAB thing, which is a uniquely British disaster: the appetite for digital radio is similarly depressed all over the continent. And this is not good enough for Neelie Kroes, Europe's unelected digital czar. "Some people even question the fact that we really need digital radio or claim that radio is 'a special case' which could exist forever on a combination of analogue and online services," she has told the Association for European Radio's annual conference. Kroes reminds us that "it is not for us in Brussels to dictate the pace or the way change should happen in this diverse sector". Which is true. But that's not going to stop her chipping in. Why? "My job is to help content providers scale up their offer [sic] at least to the Single Market size – and that cannot be done with FM analogue radio alone," she says. There is hope then, for Alan Partridge – whose Mid Morning Matters may soon be heard in Latvia and Greece. Kroes does, to her credit, admit there's a problem, saying, "we need to understand why the EU-wide consensus in 1986 that led to the technically impressive DAB standard has drifted to today’s inertia. Is it because digital radio is the new 'betamax'?" She then goes on to cite the UK as an example of the potential of DAB. If only. "How can radio best participate in convergence?" she wants to know. "What incentives would encourage user and manufacturers to shift to the digital format? Kroes's intervention doesn't go much beyond exhorting her industry audience to do some creative thinking. Which really highlights the perils of top-down intervention: there's only so much you can do. Digital technology has fragmented the market for devices: digital radio is a variety of incompatible standards, while FM analog still works anywhere. But as she notes, the WorldDMB group is working on this. As she doesn't note, "harmonising" Europe's digital radio masts is too costly for Europe's radio industry to afford. And debt- encumbered governments don't see it as a priority. Kroes compares the digital radio migration path to dial-up to broadband, and the introduction of GSM. But in each case consumers didn't need to be prodded into action. GSM took off because the economies of scale made mobile telephony affordable to the masses. Broadband took off because it was faster. The problem with digital radio is that it doesn't really doesn't anything like as new or compelling. There are advantages, some are interesting, fun and useful. But there are costs, too. And the cost of paying for carriage over two infrastructures is crippling an industry that would be struggling to pay for one. Kroes's job is to promote anything with digital on the label. She forgets that many digital technologies end up in the fail bucket: digital audio tape, for example. And while our radio listening in the future most probably will be mostly digital one day, it may well be over IP, not purpose- built digital multiplexes. Expect an enquiry. Or something. ® http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03..._radio_do_some... Yup, you can throw Struble's hunk-of-junk into that too - LMFAO!!! Virtually no one gives a **** outside of the HD broadcasters, and they don't really care either, as most HD stations are not time-aligned and - are just jukeboxes - LMFAO!!! What else is a Top 40 Radio Station {Be It Analog -or- Digital IBOC/DAB} To Be -or- Not To Be -but-a- JukeBox ! |
Who Will Remember 'Analog' Radio In 2020 . . .
On Mar 5, 4:02*am, SMS wrote:
On 3/5/2011 12:41 AM, RHF wrote: Within a Decade ~2016+ IBOC {HD-Radio} in the USA will reach the Tipping-Point and Analog Radio will be like 8-Tracks and BetaMaxs... a something that fewer and fewer remember with each passing year . . . I'd say more like 2020 to 2025 for analog terrestrial radio to disappear in the U.S. Because of the recession you're not going to see HD Radio in every new car for five to seven more years, and thus there will be too many relatively new vehicles with analog-only radios in "~2016+." Look how long it took every vehicle to have FM, after FM was invented, more than thirty years! I'd predict that by 2020, buying a vehicle with an analog FM radio will be like buying a vehicle with a cassette deck in 2011. I could be wrong of course, all of a sudden something so much better could come along that everyone abandoned digital radio. The big advantage in the U.S. and other HD countries, is that it's a more gradual transition than in Europe. This causes some problems in terms of co-existence of analog and digital on the same band, but it also makes the transition a lot easier. It's still possible that if DAB+ fails that the European countries will look to the success of HD Radio in the U.S. and realize that even though it's an American system that it's a better solution than DAB+. How long do you think that investors will continue to float iBiquity? iBiquity was supposed to go IPO by 2009, but now it is too late, especially since many investment firms out of NY, and some direct iBiquity investors, have repeatedly visited my blog and know about the car HD Radio investigations. |
Who Will Remember 'Analog' Radio In 2020 . . .
You can buy brand new little cheap Analog AM/FM radios for as little two
or three dollars in discount stores. cuhulin, the Analog |
Who Will Remember 'Analog' Radio In 2020 . . .
On Mar 5, 2:08*pm, wrote:
You can buy brand new little cheap Analog AM/FM radios for as little two or three dollars in discount stores. cuhulin, the Analog Are they in working condition ? Sounds a little too cheap for a regular product , or are they being dumped ... |
Clearly Time-and-Time Again Demonstrating You Are A 'FAO' !
On Mar 5, 3:58*am, SMS wrote:
On 3/4/2011 7:20 PM, RHF wrote: Your Many Multiple {Spamming} Screen IDs All End-Up ~translating~to~ LAMFAO ! clearly time-and-time again demonstrating you are a 'fao' ~ RHF It's a natural reaction. He's bitter and disappointed about the success digital radio has had in the marketplace. When Mexico adopted HD Radio last week he must have been in tears. I've seen a lot on Usenet over the years, and he and several of the anti-digital-radio shills are right up there with the best of the best in terms of trolls. But there actually is something to the article in The Register. If Europe wants to get serious about digital radio they need to adopt the system used in the U.S. which has gained acceptance by broadcasters, receiver manufacturers, automakers, and consumers. FM analog radio is one of the few technologies that's relatively the same throughout the world (the differences are small enough that receiver makers don't need completely different receivers for each market). It would be nice if FM digital followed the same path, and since HD is the furtherst ahead it makes sense for the rest of the world to use the HD system. If any post proves that SMS doesn't know what he's talking about, then this is it. FM channel spacing in Europe is 100kHz. How on earth would IBOC work with channels that close together? OK, the frequency planning ensures that stations 100kHz apart are geographically relatively distant but here there are many signals 200kHz apart that are relatively close to each other, enough so that the boundaries between them have usable signals. Oh, and trying to convince the public to adopt a new digital radio system that offers no advantages to DAB (which is struggling) would be another bad idea! |
IBOC : A Natural Evolution Requires Time and HD-Radio's Time Has NotYet Come . . .
On Mar 4, 7:58*pm, SMS wrote:
On 3/4/2011 7:20 PM, RHF wrote: Your Many Multiple {Spamming} Screen IDs All End-Up ~translating~to~ LAMFAO ! clearly time-and-time again demonstrating you are a 'fao' ~ RHF It's a natural reaction. He's bitter and disappointed about the success digital radio has had in the marketplace. When Mexico adopted HD Radio last week he must have been in tears. I've seen a lot on Usenet over the years, and he and several of the anti-digital-radio shills are right up there with the best of the best in terms of trolls. But there actually is something to the article in The Register. If Europe wants to get serious about digital radio they need to adopt the system used in the U.S. which has gained acceptance by broadcasters, receiver manufacturers, automakers, and consumers. FM analog radio is one of the few technologies that's relatively the same throughout the world (the differences are small enough that receiver makers don't need completely different receivers for each market). It would be nice if FM digital followed the same path, and since HD is the furtherst ahead it makes sense for the rest of the world to use the HD system. 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 |
IBOC : There Is A Real World There : Beyond Euro-Land !
On Mar 6, 12:21*am, Nick_G wrote:
On Mar 5, 3:58*am, SMS wrote: On 3/4/2011 7:20 PM, RHF wrote: Your Many Multiple {Spamming} Screen IDs All End-Up ~translating~to~ LAMFAO ! clearly time-and-time again demonstrating you are a 'fao' ~ RHF It's a natural reaction. He's bitter and disappointed about the success digital radio has had in the marketplace. When Mexico adopted HD Radio last week he must have been in tears. I've seen a lot on Usenet over the years, and he and several of the anti-digital-radio shills are right up there with the best of the best in terms of trolls. But there actually is something to the article in The Register. If Europe wants to get serious about digital radio they need to adopt the system used in the U.S. which has gained acceptance by broadcasters, receiver manufacturers, automakers, and consumers. FM analog radio is one of the few technologies that's relatively the same throughout the world (the differences are small enough that receiver makers don't need completely different receivers for each market). It would be nice if FM digital followed the same path, and since HD is the furtherst ahead it makes sense for the rest of the world to use the HD system. If any post proves that SMS doesn't know what he's talking about, then this is it. FM channel spacing in Europe is 100kHz. How on earth would IBOC work with channels that close together? OK, the frequency planning ensures that stations 100kHz apart are geographically relatively distant but here there are many signals 200kHz apart that are relatively close to each other, enough so that the boundaries between them have usable signals. Oh, and trying to convince the public to adopt a new digital radio system that offers no advantages to DAB (which is struggling) would be another bad idea! Let Me Think . . . HD-Radio is is the USA -and--not- 'Uber' Euro-Land -we-think-therefore-we-are-euro-landers- wow that is profound , , , ~ RHF |
Who Will Remember 'Analog' Radio In 2020 . . .
On Mar 5, 11:00*am, iBiquity Fraudsters
wrote: On Mar 5, 4:02*am, SMS wrote: On 3/5/2011 12:41 AM, RHF wrote: Within a Decade ~2016+ IBOC {HD-Radio} in the USA will reach the Tipping-Point and Analog Radio will be like 8-Tracks and BetaMaxs... a something that fewer and fewer remember with each passing year . . . I'd say more like 2020 to 2025 for analog terrestrial radio to disappear in the U.S. Because of the recession you're not going to see HD Radio in every new car for five to seven more years, and thus there will be too many relatively new vehicles with analog-only radios in "~2016+." Look how long it took every vehicle to have FM, after FM was invented, more than thirty years! I'd predict that by 2020, buying a vehicle with an analog FM radio will be like buying a vehicle with a cassette deck in 2011. I could be wrong of course, all of a sudden something so much better could come along that everyone abandoned digital radio. The big advantage in the U.S. and other HD countries, is that it's a more gradual transition than in Europe. This causes some problems in terms of co-existence of analog and digital on the same band, but it also makes the transition a lot easier. It's still possible that if DAB+ fails that the European countries will look to the success of HD Radio in the U.S. and realize that even though it's an American system that it's a better solution than DAB+. How long do you think that investors will continue to float iBiquity? iBiquity was supposed to go IPO by 2009, but now it is too late, especially since many investment firms out of NY, and some direct iBiquity investors, have repeatedly visited my blog and know about the car HD Radio investigations. The Economic Tipping Point Has Passed ~translation~ YOU LOSE ! |
Who Will Remember 'Analog' Radio In 2020 . . .
On Mar 5, 9:52*pm, wrote:
On Mar 5, 2:08*pm, wrote: - - You can buy brand new little cheap Analog - - AM/FM radios for as little two or three dollars - - in discount stores. - - cuhulin, the Analog - Are they in working condition ? * - Sounds a little too cheap for a - regular product , or are they being dumped ... and they . . . t u n e . . . from here... all-the-way-to-there . . . |
IBOC : A Natural Evolution Requires Time and HD-Radio's TimeHas Not Yet Come . . .
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. |
Who Will Remember 'Analog' Radio In 2020 . . .
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. |
IBOC : A Natural Evolution Requires Time and HD-Radio's TimeH...
If I see a HD-''radio'' at the Goodwill store, I will plug it into one
of the wall outlets there (just like I always do with plug em in the wall thingys to try them out) and see what happens.If the sales clerk says over a dollar, Forget It! cuhulin |
Clearly Time-and-Time Again Demonstrating You Are A 'FAO' !
On 3/6/2011 1:34 AM, Brenda Ann wrote:
The conversion of stations has slowed dramatically because of this, The conversion of stations has slowed because you can only convert once! The majority of major market stations have already converted. Smaller stations will take their time. since it's less than a 1% penetration of the market. Compare this with something over 500,000,000 analog radios currently in use. And those are not going away. The big increase in HD receivers will come as sales of vehicles with HD receivers takes off. Toyota just announced, and Ford is in production, along with a bunch of smaller manufacturers like VW and BMW. It's very similar to how FM radio evolved--once FM receivers became standard equipment, or a low cost option, FM radio took off. The one fear is that what happened to FM will happen to HD, when it becomes popular. I don't know how many people remember early FM radio, but it was a home to less top-40 genres and more alternative formats, and because of the low penetration of receivers there was not so much advertising. That's where we are today with HD. My favorite HD2 station runs no advertising at all, it's completely supported by the FM/HD1 station. Clearly the broadcasters would like to monetize HD, but that's several years out. The broadcasters that converted early did so with a long term view of the advantages of digital radio. It doesn't cost much to add digital at a 1% power level, so it's not like they were investing a huge amount of money in the technology. The big question for broadcasters now is this "what percentage of the listening public must have HD receivers in order for it to make sense for us to increase digital power to 10%?" A 10x power increase is going to cost some real money. As an aside, it was figured that as prices dropped on flat panel televisions that their market penetration would reach over 90% after analog was shut off. No, it was never expected that flat panels would quickly reach 90% of the installed base. Anyone with digital cable or satellite had no need to even get a converter. Flat panels did quickly reach nearly 100% of new sales. people I know personally, not those in some newgroup or another) I don't know anyone with a flatscreen TV that isn't still watching more than 2/3 of what they watch in analog or digital 480i, mostly because the cable companies are charging for anything HD that they make available, even the OTA local channels. I have Dish Network (much less expensive than cable or DirecTV) and they do not charge for HD ("for life") if you agree to paperless billing (or if you pay them a one-time $99 fee). http://www.dishnetwork.com/packages/free-hdtv/default.aspx. Those that are still on cable have more money than sense, or they want broadband internet from the cable company so they also get their TV from them. I did get a flat panel HDTV when my 1987 Toshiba 27" CRT television stopped working last year (on/off relay controlled by remote control stopped working). I could have repaired it (replaced the relay before myself once), but I thought 23 years was a reasonable expectation of service. |
IBOC : A Natural Evolution Requires Time and HD-Radio's Time HasNot Yet Come . . .
On Mar 6, 9:45*am, 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.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - "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." So glad that I bother you so much. Posting in newsgroups, as you and FarceWatch are forced to do, has zero affect with such a small audience. One has to have a site that sits on Google's Homepage for searches on "hd radio". Even then, there is very little interest in HD Radio. But, what counts are searches from the FCC, US Courts, Keefe Bartels, law firms, the FTC, the GAO, Congress, Congressonal Quartly, GM, Ford, Sanyo (daily regular), iBiquity investors, many foreign broadcasters, and on and on and on - LMFAO! |
Who Will Remember 'Analog' Radio In 2020 . . .
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. Now there's spin if ever I heard it. I don't remember hearing about any legal suits against Woolworth's stores here in the UK, so by your logic they also should have had a very bright future indeed. And yet they still went Bankrupt. Having no strong legal suits against a company, doesn't automatically make them a success, that it just pure spin. For digital radio to be a success, it needs to get the public interested in buying receivers and in using them. So far (judging from what I've ready here) the sales of HD-Radio receivers has been tiny. I accept that sales might increase (as I can't prove otherwise), but that hasn't happened yet. So you can't yet claim that digital radio has been a success, and you can not assume that it is going to be a success, and you can not claim that it has a bright future. At least not without some strong evidence to back it up, and so far I've not seen any such strong evidence, just a lot of spin from people like you. 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. They tried to see us DAB based upon content here in the UK, and that approach hasn't worked. The forecasts for DAB listening figures keep on having to be revised down, and it's actually got to the point where sales grown of often negative. The sales of DAB receivers seems to have levelled off, while only a small minority of people are listening to it. 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. Still more spin, but no sign of significant receiver sales. Richard E. |
Who Will Remember 'Analog' Radio In 2020 . . .
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. According to the FCC database only 1800+ stations have converted, not the 2100 iBiquity claims, and a number of them have turned off IBOC. |
Who Will Remember 'Analog' Radio In 2020 . . .
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. |
Who Will Remember 'Analog' Radio In 2020 . . .
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. "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." "HD Radio Increasing Format Diversity?" "From there, we can derive that 15% - or a whopping 130 multicast channels - exist right now that might actually offer up something new to a listener lucky enough to be in that innovative market (and equipped with the proper receiver, which in itself is an interesting story), as opposed to a derivation on the same-old." http://www.diymedia.net/archive/0809.htm#082509 Only 15% of HD channels, if they haven't been tuned off already, are offering anything new. |
Who Will Remember 'Analog' Radio In 2020 . . .
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. |
Who Will Remember 'Analog' Radio In 2020 . . .
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! |
Who Will Remember 'Analog' Radio In 2020 . . .
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. |
Who Will Remember 'Analog' Radio In 2020 . . .
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! |
Who Will Remember 'Analog' Radio In 2020 . . .
Where, oh where? is Eduardo to chime in on that.
cuhulin |
IBOC : A Natural Evolution Requires Time and HD-Radio's TimeHas Not Yet Come . . .
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 |
IBOC : A Natural Evolution Requires Time and HD-Radio's Time Has Not Yet Come . . .
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 |
IBOC : A Natural Evolution Requires Time and HD-Radio's TimeHas Not Yet Come . . .
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. |
IBOC : A Natural Evolution Requires Time and HD-Radio's Time HasNot Yet Come . . .
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. |
They can't carry the news around on a thumb drive
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. |
Who Will Remember 'Analog' Radio In 2020 . . .
|
Who Will Remember 'Analog' Radio In 2020 . . .
dave wrote: On 03/06/2011 08:46 AM, wrote: Where, oh where? is Eduardo to chime in on that. cuhulin "Dwardo's all over it. But you knew that. 'Eduardo' is a clown 'tard whose mommy sent him away because he was an embarrassment to the family. She also fronted him the $$ for his Ecuadorian adventures. Bet on it. |
Who Will Remember 'Analog' Radio In 2020 . . .
On 3/6/11 10:42 , SMS wrote:
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. Not so. Not by a long shot. If you look, as I stated above, the content on the digital subchannels is just a repackaging of the same crap that's on the baseband. What makes it so 'different' is the classic rock stations have R&B subchannels. While the R&B stations have 80's and classic rock subchannels. Not very different at all. 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. It's currently under development. 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, Not for the last 18 months, they haven't. And a good number of FM's have turned off their IBOC transmitters. This in direct conflict with the contracts with iBiquity. And they're have been threatened lawsuits. But so far, the only thing that's come of it have been a lot of threats. And more IBOC transmitters leaving the air. but since most major stations have already converted the rate of increase of conversions is less than when it was brand new. It's zero, going backward. 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. It's not my claim. Test after test, by broadcasters, by consultants, have been controverted by real double blind listening tests involving listeners. The audio quality simply doesn't measure up. Less processing, yes. But more digital artifacts. More than a low bit MP3. Deny all you want. Known and documented by iBiquity themselves. |
IBOC : A Natural Evolution Requires Time and HD-Radio's TimeHas Not Yet Come . . .
Richard Evans wrote:
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. Speaking of good digital radio systems, I just did a bit of searching for information on a standard called DVB-NGH. This is a intended to be a standard for broadcasting to hand held devices, most likely based upon the DVB-T2 standard. It's actually being developed as a mobile TV standard, but there is no reason why it couldn't carry digital radio. That should be very good as a digital radio standard. It seems that they plan to have it all standardised around about the year 2013. DVB-T2 has a mode that with a bandwidth of 1.7 Mhz, which ought to make it suitable for Band III channels designed for DAB/DAB+. Hopefully NGH will also have this option. Whether or not it is actually used, and whether it is actually used for digital radio is however another matter. I'm not especially optimistic about it as broadcasters don't seem to like introducing new standards. Richard E. |
IBOC : A Natural Evolution Requires Time and HD-Radio's TimeHas Not Yet Come . . .
On 3/6/2011 3:35 PM, Richard Evans wrote:
Richard Evans wrote: 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. Speaking of good digital radio systems, I just did a bit of searching for information on a standard called DVB-NGH. This is a intended to be a standard for broadcasting to hand held devices, most likely based upon the DVB-T2 standard. It's actually being developed as a mobile TV standard, but there is no reason why it couldn't carry digital radio. That should be very good as a digital radio standard. It seems that they plan to have it all standardised around about the year 2013. DVB-T2 has a mode that with a bandwidth of 1.7 Mhz, which ought to make it suitable for Band III channels designed for DAB/DAB+. Hopefully NGH will also have this option. Whether or not it is actually used, and whether it is actually used for digital radio is however another matter. I'm not especially optimistic about it as broadcasters don't seem to like introducing new standards. Richard E. Americans don't like open source and defacto standards. |
They can't carry the news around on a thumb drive
On 3/6/2011 11:17 AM, dave wrote:
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. That's true. And what many people don't appreciate is the local aspect of radio. Those that do appreciate it are the ones trying to move forward to improve terrestrial radio to make it relevant. One station that can offer a choice of different content has a big advantage over its competition. Ironically, one thing the web does really well is to deliver news, while one thing it does relatively poorly is to stream music. |
They can't carry the news around on a thumb drive
Watchin, but not really watchin, them thar Indiana Jones movies on the
USA channel, every once in a while there is a Walgreen's apps commercial, and Motorola Xoom commercials too.(Dude, You are getting 'Dell'!) Download them apps baby, y'all Zombies and Droids out there, drink your Koolaid. Nienty Nine point nienty nine point nienty percent of them apps, I couldn't care less about.Everywhere I go, I see them Zombies out there everywhere they go, pecking on those little screens of their gadgets with their fingers, (They are ready for the Dawn of No Return!) those MOFOs get Dumber by the minute! I Refuse to be turned into a Zombie MOFO! http://www.wallgreens.com/mobile cuhulin |
They can't carry the news around on a thumb drive
On 3/6/2011 7:41 PM, Brenda Ann wrote:
By far most stations have perhaps, at best, a morning and evening "drive time" program. Other than that, the only local content seems to be commercials. I can't say that I've heard a newscast on a (non-news/talk) commercial station in many years. Even our AFN stations have dropped all local content except for emergency command information. And figure that the FM band is starting to get really crowded with sports/talk/religious stations... and who needs to hear Rush, Jim Rome and sanctimonious self righteous preachers in digital? A lot of public radio stations have gone all news/commentary/talk on analog/HD1 and moved music to HD2, often classical and jazz. It doesn't make sense from an audio standpoint to have the music on HD2 and talk on analog/HD1, but the market for news/commentary/talk has expanded as listeners have switched to other ways of listening to music content. If everyone had an HD receiver then they'd be more likely to swap where talk and music reside. |
They can't carry the news around on a thumb drive
I get Real News from Paul Gallo's and JT's radio talk shows on Super
Talk Missy Sippy.And you can too, if you tune in via your computery. http://www.devilfinder.com/find.php?...tual+Keyboards Oh yeahhh, I wants me one of them. cuhulin, the Virtual |
IBOC : A Natural Evolution Requires Time and HD-Radio's TimeHas Not Yet Come . . .
On 3/6/2011 9:47 AM, Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
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. As I understand the HD-FM spec, the maximum bitrate for stereo audio is around 98kbps. Upper and Lower secondary channels replace the analog in all-digital, and it's about the same bps, but at lower power for the secondary channels. So all-digital does allow for more "virtual CD" quality audio channels, but no, you cannot combine multiple audio channels for even higher quality audio. The big advantage of all-digital is that raising power levels no longer will interfere with analog, presuming all stations do a complete digital switchover. This is many years in the future of course. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:05 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com