On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 00:55:13 -0800 (PST), RHF
wrote:

?Why?Pay?Again?For?What?You?Already?Have?

I have several radio receivers around here - some mono, some stereo.

Case closed.
---
Phil Kane
Beaverton, OR

On 1/14/12 13:59 , Brenda Ann wrote:


"D. Peter Maus" wrote in message ...

A whole lot of stuff about sales and IBOC (by the way, HD does NOT
stand for High Definition, as many here seem to believe. It stands
for Hybrid Digital)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I'm not sure why there is even a discussion about either quality or
selection, since the great masses of youth (the ones being marketed
TO) are sheep. They listen to what they are TOLD to by the PM's at
the radio stations, who, in turn, play what THEY are told to by the
recording industry.


LOL! Yeah, that's pretty much it.


The few that actually WANT alternative
programming do not constitute (and never will) a sales pool that
will be profitable.


Which is why it's called 'alternative.'



With all the stupid new laws going (or that have gone) into effect
regarding pay for content, many stations' profit margin has dropped
significantly. The recording industry has bitten the hand that feeds
it by requiring stations (ESPECIALLY HD2 and HD3 streams as well as
internet streams) to pay exhorbatant fees for content.

There will come a point, and it will be well too late, that the
recording industry recognizes this.

But the damage they do in the meantime will be significant.

On 1/14/12 14:00 , Phil Kane wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 01:55:32 -0500, "FarsWatch4"
wrote:

9 out of 10 doctors also recommended cigarette smoking to aid and
improve digestion.

Where is this study?

This was highly touted in advertising during the 1940s.

As late as 1962.



---
Phil Kane
Beaverton, OR

On 1/14/12 14:03 , hwh wrote:
On 1/14/12 8:34 PM, D. Peter Maus wrote:
Apparently you do not know what you are talking about...


I've been in broadcasting, specifically Radio and TV, since I was 6.
And I'm currently actively involved in developing programming.

Yes, I do know what I'm talking about.

People working in digital radio always come up with the stale argument
that people who don't like it "do not know what they are talking about".
They have done so in Europe as well.


You make a good point.




gr, hwh

In article , hwh
scribeth thus
On 1/14/12 10:51 AM, RHF wrote:
Hello ! - Wake-Up FCC Expand The FM Radio Band
from 76 MHz to 88 MHz - Do It Now !

I have to say that using 76 - 88 MHz for digital radio sounds like a
good idea. ANy objections? ;-)

gr, hwh


Well it has Low Band PMR in the UK so you'd have to shift that, not that
it has many users now but its new receivers for everyone.....
--
Tony Sayer

snip

And sales demonstrate that the pubic isn't buying what iBiquity is
selling.

No, it doesn't. There is no "sales finish line"...

You're saying that there's a business model without goals?

Horse****.



As has been said before...content and programming is what people go to radio
for.

There has been no effort made by iBiquity or stations themselves to sell HD
based on the additional formats streams available.


And that, speaks louder than anything.

Most sensible comments hereon for quite some time;!.)...
--
Tony Sayer

Costa Concordia Call sign: IBHD

"tony sayer" wrote in message ...

I have to say that using 76 - 88 MHz for digital radio sounds like a
good idea. ANy objections? ;-)

gr, hwh


Well it has Low Band PMR in the UK so you'd have to shift that, not that
it has many users now but its new receivers for everyone.....
--
Tony Sayer


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's TV channel 6 in the US. This has been discussed to death, but there are
still many stations on channel 6, even after the shift to digital. Some are
also saying "use the low VHF TV band to expand cell phones, etc." but that
would be very problematic due to the physics of antenna construction. I
doubt that people want to go back to having whip antennas on their portable
phones. Personally, I think if they dropped the entire 54-88 MHz low VHF TV
band, they should give a section of it, maybe 2-4 MHz, over to a
license-free public "Free band" where amateur broadcasters (i.e. "pirates")
could legally broadcast. Sort of like what they did to the 11m Citizens
Band.

On 11/01/2012 16:03, J G Miller wrote:
On Wednesday, January 11th, 2012, at 07:09:26h -0800, SmS 88 declared:

The iBiquity codec is based upon the AAC+ (HE-AAC) codec. "Scientific
testing by the European Broadcasting Union has indicated that HE-AAC at
48 kbit/s was ranked as "Excellent" quality using the MUSHRA scale.[8]

Since the iBiquity codec is *based upon* but not *is* the AAC+ (HE-AAC)
codec, it is not valid to use tests on the original AAC+ (HE-AAC) codec
as evidence that the iBiquity codec its-self delivers quality.

This is a good point.

And I would also add that this claim about he-aac is used by Encoder
Technologies, who developed the codec (or at least the SBR part), and so
have a vested interest in making it sound as good as possible.

In reality aac+ can sound good at 48k, but not CD quality, as Encoder
Technologies would like you to believe. Also I suspect that many
broadcasters don't use it under ideal conditions. Previously when many
internet broadcasters used 64k aac+, it was not excellent. It did sound
acceptable, but not excellent, as there were some SBR artifacts.

Add to this the fact that most HD-Radio broadcasters, don't actually use
any bit rates higher than 40k. At 40k even aac+ sounds poor, and
presumably the HD-Radio codec will sound even worse.

If HD-Radio used the maximum bit rate of 96k, then it would probably
sound acceptable under every day listening conditions. But even at 96k
it would be lower quality than a good FM signal, and would rule out any
hi-fi listening via terrestrial radio. That is something that I just
don't feel right about.

Richard E.

On Sunday, January 15th, 2012, at 12:11:07h +0000, Richard Evans wrote:

Add to this the fact that most HD-Radio broadcasters, don't actually use
any bit rates higher than 40k. At 40k even aac+ sounds poor, and
presumably the HD-Radio codec will sound even worse.

And that is the sad reality of the situation.

And if the FM band is ever cleared of analog stations, by the time
that that happens, iBiquity HD radio will be a dinosaur in the
broadcasting world, like eight tracks cassettes are in the CD world.

The question listeners and radio stations should be asking is, what
digital system could be developed for future use, rather than
continuing with the present failures of DAB and HD(tm) radio.