Fox News 2012: HD Radio one of "The Biggest CES Flops of AllTime" LMFAO!!!!!!!!!
 

On 1/14/2012 11:59 AM, Brenda Ann wrote:

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

It's amusing to see proclamations that since the digital radio system in
the U.S. is not of a quality that audiophiles would accept that somehow
it needs to be scrapped in favor of something with a much higher bit
rate so those listening to concerts in their car can do so from the
radio rather than from a CD. The reason that every double blind test of
audio quality has shown that listeners prefer digital radio over analog
has much more to do with interference resulting from impaired conditions
than from the raw bit rate. Every compression scheme is a compromise,
and the key is to find a scheme that is of acceptable quality, not one
that is lossless and that is as good as the original uncompressed
content (though of course CDs are also compressed content).

The question that digital radio answered was "what is a spectrally
efficient method of using existing bandwidth to increase content choices
and audio quality _and_ that has a clear path to an all digital system.
If there had been any competition, it would have been another IBOC system.

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 requirirng stations (ESPECIALLY HD2 and HD3 streams as well as
internet streams) to pay exhorbatant fees for content.

Broadcasters should be thrilled about the costs being incurred by
streaming companies like Pandora, as well as the costs incurred by
satellite radio, since terrestrial broadcasters are not paying content
royalty fees like streamers and satellite radio are. Unless of course
the station also streams, but they only pay the content royalties based
on the number of on-line listeners.

The Performance Rights Act (never passed) would have imposed content
royalty fees on radio stations but they are much lower fees than are
currently paid by satellite or streaming. There will probably be future
attempts to pass this sort of legislation. One problem is that there is
no way of knowing how many listeners are listening to a specific station
in order to charge royalties per listener. With Arbitron ratings so
inaccurate, broadcasters would not agree to paying royalties based on
those ratings, so royalties per song would be based on some other
metric, such as total station revenue (in order to avoid destroying
small stations).

It is true that HD Radio sub-channels are charged royalty fees to
artists (through SESAC, ASCAP, and BMI) because they are essentially
separate station. I don't know how the issue of HD1 versus analog is
handled. Since it's the same content on both, do the stations have to
pay only once? But HD sub-channels aren't charged content royalty fees
(unless of course they are also streaming, and then it's just for the
number of people streaming).

If you care about the financial health of a radio station, and have a
choice between streaming an OTA listening, choose OTA.

Fox News 2012: HD Radio one of "The Biggest CES Flops of AllTime" LMFAO!!!!!!!!!
 

On 15/01/2012 14:17, J G Miller wrote:


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.

Agreed.

We did have high hopes for DRM+, and what they developed was a pretty
good narrow band broadcasting standard, although not as good as it could
have been, mostly due to not using the best error correction. Also I
think they should have extended it's frequency range up to Band III.
That would allow one DAB channel to be used for many small local radio
stations.

For wider band multiplexes, we appear to have got exactly what we needed
with DVB-T2-Lite. The problem now is whether it ever actually gets used
for radio.

I'm also thinking, perhaps they ought to come out with a version of DVB
to rival DRM+. Basically a narrow band version of DVB-T2-Lite. Perhaps
they could call it DVB-TN or something like that. Basically use any
relevant techniques used for T2-Lite but designed for much narrower
channels. Perhaps a choice of 100Khz or 200Khz bandwidth. (The reason
why I included 200Khz is for situations where a broadcaster can not use
Qam64, in which case a wider bandwidth would be required to achieve a
good bit rate).

I would also suggest that a narrow band standard should also be designed
to be able work well in SFN mode. The problem here would be signals from
different TX sites being out of phase and so cancelling each other out.
I think this problem could be solved by allowing the phase of the
transmission to be changed randomly at regular intervals. Different TX
sites could then change their phase in different ways, so if the signal
cancels at one moment in time, the phases would soon change, and then it
would no longer cancel.

Richard E.

Fox News 2012: HD Radio one of "The Biggest CES Flops of AllTime" LMFAO!!!!!!!!!
 

On 12/01/2012 03:29, SMS wrote:


You have to look at the big picture
I've lost count of the number of times I've heard this line, wonder
where you keep copying it from :-o

and recognize the practical
considerations in moving from analog to digital, including the business
considerations. We've seen how well creating a new digital band
worked--it didn't.

If they did look at the big picture, and considered everything, then
they would have realized that broadcasting DRM+ in between the FM
stations would be a better solution than using HD-Radio.

Richard E.

Fox News 2012: HD Radio one of "The Biggest CES Flops of AllTime" LMFAO!!!!!!!!!
 

On 1/15/2012 6:17 AM, J G Miller wrote:
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.

Thankfully that is not the reality at all.

If you look at table 5.2.1 at
http://www.nrscstandards.org/DRB/Non-NRSC%20reports/NPRmultiple_bit_rate_report.pdf
you can actually learn where listeners begin to not like the audio quality.

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.

Only clueless listeners and radio stations would be asking that
question. Those living in the real world know that the digital system in
use in the U.S. is going to be around for a long time. And as HD
continues to be deployed in other countries, there will be pressure for
the ROW to go along with it as well. That's the actual reality of the
situation.

Fox News 2012: HD Radio one of "The Biggest CES Flops of AllTime" LMFAO!!!!!!!!!
 

On 15/01/2012 17:33, SMS wrote:
On 1/15/2012 6:17 AM, J G Miller wrote:
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.

Thankfully that is not the reality at all.

If you look at table 5.2.1 at
http://www.nrscstandards.org/DRB/Non-NRSC%20reports/NPRmultiple_bit_rate_report.pdf
you can actually learn where listeners begin to not like the audio quality.

To me that table seems to suggest that more than 1/2 the listeners could
tell the difference between a slightly lower it rate, and a slightly
higher bit rate.

Where is there a table showing how many people thought lower bit rates
sounded OK, or were comparable to CD quality, or even comparable to FM
quality.

Of did they conveniently not include things like this, as it did not
show what they wanted.



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.

Only clueless listeners and radio stations would be asking that
question. Those living in the real world know that the digital system in
use in the U.S. is going to be around for a long time.

It may well be around for a long time, but whether people actually want
to listen to it is another matter.

Here in the UK we've had DAB for about 15 years now, but still only a
minority of people actually listen to it.

And as HD
continues to be deployed in other countries, there will be pressure for
the ROW to go along with it as well. That's the actual reality of the
situation.

I think perhaps you accidentally added an "s" to the end of the word
country ;-)

But seriously. What other countries are actually seriously deploying
HD-Radio. I suspect the answer will be very few, if any.

Richard E.

Fox News 2012: HD Radio one of "The Biggest CES Flops of AllTime" LMFAO!!!!!!!!!
 

On 15/01/2012 17:33, SMS wrote:


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.

Only clueless listeners and radio stations would be asking that
question. Those living in the real world know that the digital system in
use in the U.S. is going to be around for a long time. And as HD
continues to be deployed in other countries, there will be pressure for
the ROW to go along with it as well. That's the actual reality of the
situation.

And what is so wrong with the idea of developing good modern digital
broadcast systems, instead of using old out dated system like DAB and
HD-Radio.

When I bought my new computer, I didn't buy a Sinclair ZX spectrum. I
bought a modern Laptop.

Richard E.

Fox News 2012: HD Radio one of "The Biggest CES Flops of AllTime" LMFAO!!!!!!!!!
 

On 15/01/2012 17:33, SMS wrote:


If you look at table 5.2.1 at
http://www.nrscstandards.org/DRB/Non-NRSC%20reports/NPRmultiple_bit_rate_report.pdf
you can actually learn where listeners begin to not like the audio quality.

Why don't you just record a sample of HD radio audio,
encode it into FLAC format, and the upload it for us,
so that we can judge the audio quality with our own ears.
Or are you worried that we will find out just how bad it sounds.

Richard E.

Fox News 2012: HD Radio one of "The Biggest CES Flops of AllTime" LMFAO!!!!!!!!!
 

On Jan 14, 1:53*pm, tony sayer wrote:
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

Who is talking about the UK -not-me-
The UK has 62M Radio Listeners -versus- 307M
American Radio Listeners [5X the market]

For the USA 76-88 MHz added to the current
FM Radio Band would add another 60 Channels
which would be required to be IBOC "HD" Radio
and have HD-2 sub-channels.

Presently there are around ~10,200 FM Radio
Stations across the USA which is about 100
per FM Channel spread across the Nation.
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Rele...C-311837A1.pdf

So with 60 more FM Channels there could be
~6000 more FM Radio Stations in the USA :
Which means that all the present AM Radio
Stations could be moved to the Expanded FM
Radio Band 76-88 MHz.
-say-bye-bye-to-the- AM Radio Band
-hello- Expanded "HD" Radio FM Band
+plus+ Added in the HD-2 sub-channels even
at 25% of the total that's ~4000 new HD-2
Radio Stations On-the-Air.

That in itself would generate Radio Listener
interest in Digital "HD" Radio and sell new
"HD" FM Radios. -all-made-in-china-;;-}}-

More FM Radio Channels and Digital 'HD' Sound !
-we-are-selling-the-'sizzle'-not-the-steak-

As always this is RHF and...
I'll leave the Radio 'On' ~ RHF
www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1jpxlEPHX8
-ps-:-turn-your-radio-'on'-&-just-listen-:o)-

Fox News 2012: HD Radio one of "The Biggest CES Flops of AllTime" LMFAO!!!!!!!!!
 

On Jan 14, 3:43*pm, "Brenda Ann"
wrote:
"tony sayer" *wrote in ...
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.

BAD -ok- Where is the Profit [$$$$$$] in that...?

The US Congress Edict To The FCC :
Monetize The Spectrum [The Must Be Profits !]
Increase Business Revenues & Expand The Tax Base !
-?-how-many-lobbyists-do-radio-pirates-
-have-on-'k'-street-in-washington-dc-?-

Where as, Expanding the FM Radio Band for 60
'new' FM "HD" Radio Channels could add ~ 6000
'new' {Commercial} FM Radio Stations with
'Local' Advertisers and Increased Business,
Profits and Taxes.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...0896f2d354a658
That in itself would generate Radio Listener
interest in Digital "HD" Radio and sell new
"HD" FM Radios. -all-made-in-china-;;-}}-

More FM Radio Channels and Digital 'HD' Sound !
-we-are-selling-the-'sizzle'-not-the-steak-

As always this is RHF and...
I'll leave the Radio 'On' ~ RHF
www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1jpxlEPHX8
-ps-:-turn-your-radio-'on'-&-just-listen-:o)-

Fox News 2012: HD Radio one of "The Biggest CES Flops of AllTime" LMFAO!!!!!!!!!
 

On Jan 15, 9:33*am, SMS wrote:
On 1/15/2012 6:17 AM, J G Miller wrote:

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.

Thankfully that is not the reality at all.

If you look at table 5.2.1 at
http://www.nrscstandards.org/DRB/Non-NRSC%20reports/NPRmultiple_bit_r...
you can actually learn where listeners begin to not like the audio quality.

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.

- Only clueless listeners and radio stations
- would be asking that question. Those living
- in the real world know that the digital system
- in use in the U.S. is going to be around for
- a long time. And as HD continues to be deployed
- in other countries, there will be pressure for
- the ROW to go along with it as well.
- That's the actual reality of the situation.

OOPS! -sad-reality-:-but-very-true-

Generating Radio Listener {Consumer} Interest
in Digital "HD" Radio and sell new "HD" FM Radios.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...0896f2d354a658
-by- Expanding the present FM Radio Band; and
making it an All Digital "HD" Radio FM Band

More FM Radio Channels and Digital 'HD' Sound !
-yes-we-are-selling-the-'sizzle'-not-the-steak-

As always this is RHF and...
I'll leave the Radio 'On' ~ RHF
www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1jpxlEPHX8
-ps-:-turn-your-radio-'on'-&-just-listen-:o)-