RadioBanter - Fox News 2012: HD Radio one of "The Biggest CES Flops of All Time" LMFAO!!!!!!!!!

RadioBanter (https://www.radiobanter.com/)

- Shortwave (https://www.radiobanter.com/shortwave/)

- - Fox News 2012: HD Radio one of "The Biggest CES Flops of All Time" LMFAO!!!!!!!!! (https://www.radiobanter.com/shortwave/183621-fox-news-2012-hd-radio-one-biggest-ces-flops-all-time-lmfao.html)

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

On 1/16/2012 3:40 AM, RHF wrote:
On Jan 15, 9:33 am, 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-

It's not sad at all. IBOC was chosen in the U.S. for some very good reasons:

1. Expands content choices with no additional bandwidth
2. Improves audio quality (or at least perceived audio quality) to radio
listeners
3. Provides a clear path to all-digital while protecting existing
broadcasters.

Do you think that both broadcasters and the FCC was not aware of the
drawbacks of the IBOC approach during the transition to all digital FM?
In fact they clearly stated what the drawbacks were and decided that the
benefits were worth it.

Personally I think they might have just left AM alone and let AM
continue its slow decline rather than make another attempt to improve
it. We saw where "AM Stereo" went. However, to be fair, AM-HD is simply
piggybacking onto the success and desirability FM-HD, something that AM
Stereo did not have the advantage of doing.

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

On 1/16/2012 3:33 AM, RHF wrote:

The Only 'concern' was/is the continued
viability and profitability of the present
FM Radio Station [Business] Licensees.
-hence- IBOC 'In-Band'& 'On-Channel'
Same Station and Same Business Entity
-new-and-improved-but-yet-un-changed-:o)-

That's ignoring a lot. Yes, of course the present licensees did not want
to create a lot more supply that they would have felt compelled to bid
for or face new competition but that was not the only reason for the
IBOC solution.

Some of the other reasons IBOC was chosen over other digital options:

1. No available spectrum for a new band. Reallocating spectrum is very
difficult. A digital upgrade without changing frequencies was highly
desirable.

2. No transition plan of existing spectrum from analog to digital with
some other options.

3. Less consumer confusion when the frequencies don't change.

4. At the time is was selected, the only competition was DAB which was
very inefficient. DAB+ offers audio quality almost as good as HD, but a)
it wasn't available when HD was selected, and b) it wasn't IBOC.

While most people would not weep if Clear Channel or Cumulus faced new
competition from another radio band, a lot of radio stations are still
independently owned and the value of their licenses would be
significantly reduced by the creation of more stations.