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

On Jan 11, 7:29*pm, SMS wrote:

IBOC is a temporary compromise. Eventually analog will be turned off and
HD Radio will be all digital.

That will never happen.

If broadcast radio ever goes all digital, it'll be a completely
different digital system then ibiquity's crapola.

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

On Jan 11, 9:11*pm, "Brenda Ann"
wrote:
"SMS" *wrote in t...

On 1/11/2012 6:12 PM, Kevin Alfred Strom wrote:

The truth is that IBOC is a pathetically poor excuse for digital radio
in the same sense that a plastic ring from a Crackerjack box is a poor
excuse for a precious gem. And that is the real issue here.

IBOC is a temporary compromise. Eventually analog will be turned off and
HD Radio will be all digital.

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

Ah, yes... yet another denial of service to rural users of the media, just
like HD(?*)TV has been. I guess if you don't live in a core city area, you
just don't count (sort of like if you're over 50).

Ah Yes Indeed :o) !

But Then "All Advertising Is Local" {Protecting the
Revenue Stream} and Rural {Local} AM/MW Radio
Stations will then have a 'captive' audience of rural
AM Radio Listeners who will only hear the IBOC
"Buzz" from the Urban Metros {non-locals}
-fits-the-'local'-radio-advertising-business-model-

IBOC the Future of Profitable AM Radio - imho ~ RHF

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

On Jan 11, 9:32*pm, Kimmi wrote:
On Jan 11, 7:29*pm, SMS wrote:



IBOC is a temporary compromise. Eventually analog will be turned off and
HD Radio will be all digital.

- That will never happen.

Oops Yes It Can 'Happen'
-follow-the-nab-&-fcc-2-decade-iboc-plan-

- If broadcast radio ever goes all digital,
- it'll be a completely different digital system
- then ibiquity's crapola.

Not for the next 1+ decades... -so- For Now
until ~2020 IBOC is what you got in the USA.

First 1% : Then 10% and At 20% the IBOC 'Digital'
Signal will in most cases be superior to the former
100% 'Analog' Signal of most FM Radio Stations in
their 'Defined' Service Areas. -game-over-

Followed by a IBOC "Digital' Signal Boost to ~40%
with the Analog Signal turned 'OFF' ~2020.
-follow-the-nab-&-fcc-2-decade-iboc-plan-

OBTW : IBOC is all about FM Radio Broadcasting
and AM/MW Radio will be on life-support or die
for the future with or with-out IBOC
-actually-ibco-will-drive-more-am/mw-radio-listeners-to-
-fm-radio-and-the-nab-&-fcc-see-that-as-a-good-thing-
*The*Future*of*Terrestrial*Radio*is*FM*Radio*

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

On 1/12/12 8:10 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Incidentally, there's another nightmare pending, that oddly involves
yet another potential source of GPS interference. In EU, the official
future all digital broadcast band is 1452 to 1492 MHz. There's no
hardware, and several countries are just sitting on the spectrum, but
that's the official ITU dictated direction for S-DAB.

No, the official EU digital (radio +) band is 174-240 MHz. The 'L-band'
you mentioned has been used for digital radio, but it is not suitable
for terrestrial distribution because the frequencies are too high. There
now remain a few transmissions from satellite and just a few thousand
receivers scattered around the continent. I wonder what will happen to
the frequency allocation in 2012.

gr, hwh

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

On 1/11/2012 9:11 PM, Brenda Ann wrote:

Ah, yes... yet another denial of service to rural users of the media,
just like HD(?*)TV has been. I guess if you don't live in a core city
area, you just don't count (sort of like if you're over 50).

Rural residents willingly give up certain services because the cost of
providing the services is prohibitive. No piped natural gas, often no
cable TV, often no sewers. There are workarounds at higher cost. For
radio there is satellite radio versus terrestrial radio.

Rural radio stations can provide digital service if they desire.

What's lost with digital AM is the ability to receive distant stations,
but that was never guaranteed to either the stations or the listeners.

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

On 1/11/12 09:09 , sms88 wrote:
On 1/10/2012 9:29 PM, MotoFox wrote:
And it came to pass that Richard Evans delivered the following
message
unto the people, saying~

Actually I'm not sure, but in the past there have been broadcasts in
foreign countries, at up to 320k, and never at any bit rate
higher than
that. Also I thought the limit for mp2 was 320k, but I might be
wrong
about that.

MP3 tops out at 320k. MP2 tops out at 384; sample rates,
32000-48000 Hz. I
don't believe MP3 is used over the air, but it is widely used for
Internet
audio streams.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG-1_...specifications


(Oh yeah, and MP3 can't claim to have won an Emmy....)

LOL.

In the real world of radio what matters in terms of audio quality is
what radio listeners perceive. There have been extensive tests
comparing perceived audio quality of the different digital sources.


And here's what you're missing. This is a survey of a general
population. Of which many will be audiophiles. Many will be audio
neutral. Many will be tone deaf. And many will simply not understand
what they're hearing well enough to give a meaninful answer.

Many of audiophiles have spent tens of thousands of dollars in
hardware, and can tell the difference between a high bit mp3 and a
full bandwidth CD reject out of hand the forced acceptance of low
bit audio simply because those who don't know, don't hear, and don't
care, accept the performance of HD radio as high quality, based on
untrained perception.

Low bit mp3s do not, will not and cannot be made to sound as
detailed, as clean, or as ear pleasing to those who know the
difference as what's currently in place, even when processed to
death. And there is no perceptual market place study of those who
don't know, don't hear, or don't care which will change that.

These perceptions are not reality.

And those of use who can hear the difference, take offense at the
reduction in audio quality that's being rammed down our throats by a
company that takes the perceptions of those without discriminating
ears as defacto proof that their marketing claims are truth.

The fact is that HD radio does NOT perform as claimed. And
there's no mass marketing perception that will change that reality.

HD radio is a fraud perpetrated on the public by a company
looking to make a killing on a technical claim that the public
doesn't understand, and is largely unaware of.

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

On Thursday, January 12th, 2012, at 14:11:52h +0900, Brenda Ann wrote:

Most don't use 1080p, opting for 720p with an additional channel or two.

The "standard" for North American terrestrial transmissions is
1080i not 1080p, or as you say 720p@60.

The bandwidth of the UHF channels (6 MHz) is inadequate for 1080p@60.

A possible compromise is 1080p@30, or for movies 1080p@24
but not terrestrial TV transmissions in North America use
this mode.
See the list of official ATSC modes at

http://www.hdtvprimer.COM/ISSUES/what_is_ATSC.html

In Europe where the mains frequency is 50 Hz as opposed to the
North American 60 Hz, the TV norm is similarly 50 Hz, and the
equivalent resolutions are 1080p@25 and 1080p@50.

Again because there is not sufficient bandwidth for 1080p@50,
broadcasters use either 720p@50 or 1080i. The BBC on terrestrial
transmissions has started dynamically switching the transmission mode
on their BBC HD station from 1080i to 1080p@25 and back when it is
appropriate for picture content (material recorded on location
as opposed to studio content).

http://www.reghardware.COM/2011/05/23/bbc_hd_1080p/

This caused a problem for some SONY televisions.

http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/23/bbc-hd-quietly-begins-broadcasting-in-1080p-but-not-all-sony-hd/

A check on Wikipedia reveals that some North American stations
on satellite do broadcast 1080p@24 or 1080p@30 as appropriate.

Please note that the maximum resolution supported by BluRay
is 1080p@24, or 1080i@50 or 1080i@60, bit *not* 1080p@50 or 1080p@60.

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

On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 09:52:47 +0100, hwh
wrote:

On 1/12/12 8:10 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Incidentally, there's another nightmare pending, that oddly involves
yet another potential source of GPS interference. In EU, the official
future all digital broadcast band is 1452 to 1492 MHz. There's no
hardware, and several countries are just sitting on the spectrum, but
that's the official ITU dictated direction for S-DAB.

No, the official EU digital (radio +) band is 174-240 MHz. The 'L-band'
you mentioned has been used for digital radio, but it is not suitable
for terrestrial distribution because the frequencies are too high. There
now remain a few transmissions from satellite and just a few thousand
receivers scattered around the continent. I wonder what will happen to
the frequency allocation in 2012.

gr, hwh

I can't predict what will happen in Europe, but in the US, I think
1.5Ghz would be a likely place to move digital radio. How it will be
organized and structured is beyond the abilities of my crystal ball.

As for being unsuitable for terrestrial, please note that Sirius is
using 2320 to 2332.5MHz and XM at 2332.5 to 2345MHz. While allegedly
a satellite based DAB system, much of the urban coverage is via
terrestrial repeaters, primarily to deal with "urban jungle" building
blockage. If 2.3Ghz works, certainly 1.5Ghz will also work.

Sirius repeater map:
http://www.dogstarradio.com/sirius_map.php

"Indoor" repeater:
http://www.uniquesys.com/DVB/DVB_Transmitters/50WRPTR-Indoor-Repeater.php

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

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

On Wednesday, January 11th, 2012, at 21:32:16h -0800, Kimmi wrote:

If broadcast radio ever goes all digital, it'll be a completely
different digital system then ibiquity's crapola.

Looking more and more like MP3 or AAC (or some future codec)
over Internet streams ...

Big businesses also favor this because it means that instead of
people listening for free to the public airwaves because they
can charge for every kilobyte received regardless of the content.

Remember, monetizing whatever was formerly available for free
is one of the central features of capitalism.

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

On 1/12/12 10:40 , J G Miller wrote:
On Wednesday, January 11th, 2012, at 21:32:16h -0800, Kimmi wrote:

If broadcast radio ever goes all digital, it'll be a completely
different digital system then ibiquity's crapola.

Looking more and more like MP3 or AAC (or some future codec)
over Internet streams ...

Big businesses also favor this because it means that instead of
people listening for free to the public airwaves because they
can charge for every kilobyte received regardless of the content.

Remember, monetizing whatever was formerly available for free
is one of the central features of capitalism.

Ironically, broadcasters are the most frequently guilty of attempting
not to pay for the products they use to make their money.

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

On 1/12/2012 8:40 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

As for being unsuitable for terrestrial, please note that Sirius is
using 2320 to 2332.5MHz and XM at 2332.5 to 2345MHz. While allegedly
a satellite based DAB system, much of the urban coverage is via
terrestrial repeaters, primarily to deal with "urban jungle" building
blockage. If 2.3Ghz works, certainly 1.5Ghz will also work.

I've only had a rental car with satellite radio once, but I was amazed
at how poor satellite radio performed. There apparently is little
buffering, so if I were under an overpass for more than a few seconds
the signal would be lost. The audio quality was mediocre. Maybe
satellite radio is good for Howard Stern, but not for music. I thought
that maybe the GM car I had simply had a sound system that didn't do
satellite radio justice. I see a lot of complaints about satellite radio
signal loss and audio quality, i.e. "their quality isn't even FM Quality."

What is the bit rate for XM/Sirius music channels? I've seen people say
that it's as low as 32 kb/s, but that their streaming is 128 kb/s. But
if you're streaming, you may as well get Pandora rather than satellite.

"I just thought I would give you guys the heads up for those who are
interested. The increased audio quality of XM in my car (via streaming
through my phone) has allowed me to re-discover and enjoy the music XM
offers. If only they could bump up the quality though their actual
satellite service..."

So now this person is paying for unlimited data on their phone PLUS an
XM subscription.

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

On 1/12/12 5:40 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 09:52:47 +0100, hwh
wrote:

On 1/12/12 8:10 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Incidentally, there's another nightmare pending, that oddly involves
yet another potential source of GPS interference. In EU, the official
future all digital broadcast band is 1452 to 1492 MHz. There's no
hardware, and several countries are just sitting on the spectrum, but
that's the official ITU dictated direction for S-DAB.

No, the official EU digital (radio +) band is 174-240 MHz. The 'L-band'
you mentioned has been used for digital radio, but it is not suitable
for terrestrial distribution because the frequencies are too high. There
now remain a few transmissions from satellite and just a few thousand
receivers scattered around the continent. I wonder what will happen to
the frequency allocation in 2012.

gr, hwh

I can't predict what will happen in Europe, but in the US, I think
1.5Ghz would be a likely place to move digital radio. How it will be
organized and structured is beyond the abilities of my crystal ball.

As for being unsuitable for terrestrial, please note that Sirius is
using 2320 to 2332.5MHz and XM at 2332.5 to 2345MHz. While allegedly
a satellite based DAB system, much of the urban coverage is via
terrestrial repeaters, primarily to deal with "urban jungle" building
blockage. If 2.3Ghz works, certainly 1.5Ghz will also work.

Sirius uses a dual distribution system, with satellite and terrestrial.
In Europe they tried to use L-Band for terrestrial-only and that doesn't
work. You simply needed too many repeaters, making the system too expensive.

Satellite broadcasting does not work in Europe because there are many
markets. They are too small to make them viable targets. Band III
systems need less transmitters and can easily be split into many
markets. The end of analog TV freed up significant portions of the band
for digital radio (and other services sharing the multiplexes). Digital
TV is moving to UHF-only in many countries, even in less airspace than
before because governments want to cash in on frequencies for mobile
internet. No significant use has been decided (yet) for Band I frequencies.

gr, hwh

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

On 1/12/12 6:49 PM, SMS wrote:
I've only had a rental car with satellite radio once, but I was amazed
at how poor satellite radio performed. There apparently is little
buffering, so if I were under an overpass for more than a few seconds
the signal would be lost. The audio quality was mediocre. Maybe
satellite radio is good for Howard Stern, but not for music. I thought
that maybe the GM car I had simply had a sound system that didn't do
satellite radio justice. I see a lot of complaints about satellite radio
signal loss and audio quality, i.e. "their quality isn't even FM Quality."

What is the bit rate for XM/Sirius music channels? I've seen people say
that it's as low as 32 kb/s, but that their streaming is 128 kb/s. But
if you're streaming, you may as well get Pandora rather than satellite.

Funny that you say that, because they use an average of about 46 kbps,
which is actually over the average used for HD radio. That this is not
adequate to match FM is what we are trying to tell you for some time now.

gr, hwh

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

On 1/12/2012 8:40 AM, J G Miller wrote:
On Wednesday, January 11th, 2012, at 21:32:16h -0800, Kimmi wrote:

If broadcast radio ever goes all digital, it'll be a completely
different digital system then ibiquity's crapola.

Looking more and more like MP3 or AAC (or some future codec)
over Internet streams ...

Broadcast radio station owners are living in a dream world if they think
listeners are going to put up with commercials and use their metered
smart phone data to listen to the radio.

If people pay for each kb of data then they'll subscribe to the paid
version of a Pandora-like service.

Remember, monetizing whatever was formerly available for free
is one of the central features of capitalism.

Well to be fair, radio isn't really free, it's paid for by advertising.
Nor has wireless bandwidth been free, it was just originally "too cheap
to meter" at least for what most users were able to consume.

Broadcast radio station owners should be thrilled that most of the
wireless companies are not offering unlimited data any more, and that
the ones that are prohibit streaming. This highlights broadcast radio's
value advantage.

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

On 1/12/12 12:01 , SMS wrote:
On 1/12/2012 8:40 AM, J G Miller wrote:
On Wednesday, January 11th, 2012, at 21:32:16h -0800, Kimmi wrote:

If broadcast radio ever goes all digital, it'll be a completely
different digital system then ibiquity's crapola.

Looking more and more like MP3 or AAC (or some future codec)
over Internet streams ...

Broadcast radio station owners are living in a dream world if they think
listeners are going to put up with commercials and use their metered
smart phone data to listen to the radio.


And yet, it happens every day. Not all data plans are as metered as
you think. And many smartphones have wi-fi provisions, so a local
network may be accessed. Couple that with spreading of community wi-fi
networks that are free for access, a good number of listeners do exactly
what you deny: they're putting up with commercials while listening on
their smartphones.



If people pay for each kb of data then they'll subscribe to the paid
version of a Pandora-like service.

Also, not true. For the reasons above.



Remember, monetizing whatever was formerly available for free
is one of the central features of capitalism.

Well to be fair, radio isn't really free, it's paid for by advertising.
Nor has wireless bandwidth been free, it was just originally "too cheap
to meter" at least for what most users were able to consume.

Broadcast radio station owners should be thrilled that most of the
wireless companies are not offering unlimited data any more, and that
the ones that are prohibit streaming


Also, not true. I can stream at will on my unlimited plan for my iPhone.

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

On 1/12/2012 9:53 AM, hwh wrote:

Funny that you say that, because they use an average of about 46 kbps,
which is actually over the average used for HD radio. That this is not
adequate to match FM is what we are trying to tell you for some time now.

Where did you get the idea that HD averages less than 46 kbps? If it's
HD1 only then it's 96 kbps. If there are sub-channels they divide that
up, but unless they have more than one sub-channel, the average could
not be less than 48 kbps.

Also remember that once analog is turned off there will be 300 kb/s to
be divided up among the channels.

In any case, there's no contest between the quality of audio on
satellite radio and HD Radio, HD Radio is far better. The difference is
in coverage. HD Radio coverage is very limited on stations that have not
taken advantage of the power increase.

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

On 1/12/12 7:20 PM, SMS wrote:
On 1/12/2012 9:53 AM, hwh wrote:

Funny that you say that, because they use an average of about 46 kbps,
which is actually over the average used for HD radio. That this is not
adequate to match FM is what we are trying to tell you for some time now.

Where did you get the idea that HD averages less than 46 kbps? If it's
HD1 only then it's 96 kbps. If there are sub-channels they divide that
up, but unless they have more than one sub-channel, the average could
not be less than 48 kbps.

Most stations use subchannels. There are very few stations using more
than 48 kbps. The difference between 46 and 48 kbps or something like
that will be hard to notice.
Of course the smart thing to do would be to use the digital for a second
service *only* and leave the first one on FM (for now). For instance an
owner of an AM and an FM station might simulcast the AM on the HD at 96
kbps to lure the audience over. The big saving would come when the AM
can be switched off. The FM would of course benefit when the FM goes as
well and the bandwidth goes up. A third station could be added then.


Also remember that once analog is turned off there will be 300 kb/s to
be divided up among the channels.

Of course, but that is of no use at all for now and many years to come.

In any case, there's no contest between the quality of audio on
satellite radio and HD Radio, HD Radio is far better.

Bitrates are similar, sound is similar. I tried both. There are a few
positive exceptions though, indeed some of the ones transmitting just
one service.

gr, hwh

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

On 1/12/2012 10:41 AM, hwh wrote:
On 1/12/12 7:20 PM, SMS wrote:
On 1/12/2012 9:53 AM, hwh wrote:

Funny that you say that, because they use an average of about 46 kbps,
which is actually over the average used for HD radio. That this is not
adequate to match FM is what we are trying to tell you for some time now.

Where did you get the idea that HD averages less than 46 kbps? If it's
HD1 only then it's 96 kbps. If there are sub-channels they divide that
up, but unless they have more than one sub-channel, the average could
not be less than 48 kbps.

Most stations use subchannels. There are very few stations using more
than 48 kbps. The difference between 46 and 48 kbps or something like
that will be hard to notice.
Of course the smart thing to do would be to use the digital for a second
service *only* and leave the first one on FM (for now). For instance an
owner of an AM and an FM station might simulcast the AM on the HD at 96
kbps to lure the audience over. The big saving would come when the AM
can be switched off. The FM would of course benefit when the FM goes as
well and the bandwidth goes up. A third station could be added then.


Also remember that once analog is turned off there will be 300 kb/s to
be divided up among the channels.

Of course, but that is of no use at all for now and many years to come.

In any case, there's no contest between the quality of audio on
satellite radio and HD Radio, HD Radio is far better.

Bitrates are similar, sound is similar. I tried both. There are a few
positive exceptions though, indeed some of the ones transmitting just
one service.

gr, hwh

48kbps is where listeners are react overwhelmingly favorable to HD. See
section 3.3.3 at
http://www.nrscstandards.org/DRB/Non-NRSC%20reports/NPRmultiple_bit_rate_report.pdf.
If you look at tables 5.2.1 and 5.2.2, you see that the big drop-off in
perceived quality is below 36 kbps.

Satellite radio is going well below 48kbps, down into the bit rates
where listeners are much more negative about digital audio. See
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=64686. Only
two music stations are at 64kbps, most are at 24, 32, and 40 kbps.

The endless complaints about the audio quality on satellite radio
apparently do have a basis in fact. You never see any complaints about
HD audio quality.

On HD Radio, the frame of reference for comparison is FM analog radio,
and HD sounds much better than analog FM under most circumstances,
whereas on satellite radio, apparently many subscribers expected it to
compare to CD quality, maybe because they are paying so much for it.

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

On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 09:49:15 -0800, SMS
wrote:

What is the bit rate for XM/Sirius music channels? I've seen people say
that it's as low as 32 kb/s, but that their streaming is 128 kb/s. But
if you're streaming, you may as well get Pandora rather than satellite.

It's ugly. There are 100 streams, each 8Kbits/sec. With two
channels, they're effectively 4Kbits/sec per channel. These are
conglomerated in the receiver into anything between 4 and 64Kbits/sec.
For music, it seems to hang around the upper end, but I'm not sure.
http://www.google.com/patents/US7075946?dq=7075946
I had XM in my car several years ago when they were giving away 30
days free trials. Coverage in the San Lorenzo Valley was horrible due
to trees, hills, and lack of terrestrial repeaters. The nearest are
two in San Jose.


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

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

On 1/12/2012 11:40 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 09:49:15 -0800,
wrote:

What is the bit rate for XM/Sirius music channels? I've seen people say
that it's as low as 32 kb/s, but that their streaming is 128 kb/s. But
if you're streaming, you may as well get Pandora rather than satellite.

It's ugly. There are 100 streams, each 8Kbits/sec.

I found a chart here http://www.xm411.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=33127.
It's nearly four years old, but since the satellite radio providers
obviously don't want to talk about bit rates, it'll have to do. It's
pretty clear where the complaints of audio quality on satellite are
coming from. Much lower than even free Pandora in most cases. I can only
imagine the kind of stuff we'd see posted here if digital terrestrial
radio tried to get away with some of those bit rates for music. I can
just imagine some of the radio conglomerates thinking about three 32
kbps digital music channels (or seven once analog is turned off).

What's amazing is that after coming close to failing, satellite radio in
the U.S. is now doing okay financially (not great, but the threat of
bankruptcy is over) so obviously there are many consumers for whom audio
quality is of minimal importance. They even raised prices recently. I
could buy a couple of hundred music CDs at garage sales for what it cost
for satellite radio for a year.

On long trips we like to listen to audio books, and most libraries have
a very good selection.

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

On 1/11/2012 7:09 AM, sms88 wrote:
Of course the big problem is that in impaired conditions, at 10% power,
it would be difficult to even receive the HD signal. That's why it's so
important for radio stations to increase their digital power.

So now they're saying that even 10% power is impaired, huh? Gee. Why
don't we just turn the entire FM band into a bunch of digital haystacks?

Dave B.

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

On 1/11/2012 7:29 PM, SMS wrote:
IBOC is a temporary compromise. Eventually analog will be turned off and
HD Radio will be all digital.

I still haven't heard how you plan to allocate 400 KHz worth of digital
signal into a 200 KHz assigned FM channel. How does that work again?

Dave B.

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

On 1/12/2012 3:43 PM, Dave Barnett wrote:
On 1/11/2012 7:09 AM, sms88 wrote:
Of course the big problem is that in impaired conditions, at 10% power,
it would be difficult to even receive the HD signal. That's why it's so
important for radio stations to increase their digital power.

So now they're saying that even 10% power is impaired, huh? Gee. Why
don't we just turn the entire FM band into a bunch of digital haystacks?

Dave B.

No, my mistake, I meant to say "at 1% power..."

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

On 1/12/2012 3:48 PM, Dave Barnett wrote:
On 1/11/2012 7:29 PM, SMS wrote:
IBOC is a temporary compromise. Eventually analog will be turned off and
HD Radio will be all digital.

I still haven't heard how you plan to allocate 400 KHz worth of digital
signal into a 200 KHz assigned FM channel. How does that work again?

Dave B.

I think you're well aware of the answer. Not every FM station will be
able to use 400 Khz. Some can have only one sideband at maximum power. A
small percentage can't use either sideband. Life is rough when you're
trying to maximize spectral efficiency.

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

On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 12:09:37 -0800, SMS
wrote:

It's nearly four years old, but since the satellite radio providers
obviously don't want to talk about bit rates, it'll have to do.

Actually, I'm not all that interested in bit rate. What methinks is a
problem is the error rate. You could be running the full 64Kbits/sec
per channel, but with a sufficiently high uncorrectable error rate,
the quality will suck. FEC helps, but isn't a cure all. Same problem
with HD Radio. It's difficult enough to find the data rate without
ripping open the receiver and probing the guts. Getting the error
rate is even more difficult.

It's
pretty clear where the complaints of audio quality on satellite are
coming from.

Ummm... the complaints are coming from listeners. Should they be
coming from elsewhere?

... obviously there are many consumers for whom audio
quality is of minimal importance.

I guess that includes me. You wouldn't believer the OTA FM noise I
have to tolerate. Driving through the hills, the stations alternately
appear and disappear. In between the radio just belches noise. Trying
to hear anything over the road noise, scanner, and 2way radio noise is
difficult. Meanwhile, the GPS mapping display is yelling at me to
turn here and there. At the same time, my Droid is mumbling something
about email and reminders. Even if the music were distortion free, I
probably wouldn't notice.

On long trips we like to listen to audio books, and most libraries have
a very good selection.

Well, they've passed laws against driving while talking on the phone.
Perhaps the next step is to pass a law against driving while listening
to audio books. It's too much of a distraction for the GUM (great
unwashed masses).

--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

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

On 1/12/2012 6:47 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 12:09:37 -0800,
wrote:

It's nearly four years old, but since the satellite radio providers
obviously don't want to talk about bit rates, it'll have to do.

Actually, I'm not all that interested in bit rate. What methinks is a
problem is the error rate. You could be running the full 64Kbits/sec
per channel, but with a sufficiently high uncorrectable error rate,
the quality will suck. FEC helps, but isn't a cure all. Same problem
with HD Radio. It's difficult enough to find the data rate without
ripping open the receiver and probing the guts. Getting the error
rate is even more difficult.

It's
pretty clear where the complaints of audio quality on satellite are
coming from.

Ummm... the complaints are coming from listeners. Should they be
coming from elsewhere?

... obviously there are many consumers for whom audio
quality is of minimal importance.

I guess that includes me. You wouldn't believer the OTA FM noise I
have to tolerate. Driving through the hills, the stations alternately
appear and disappear. In between the radio just belches noise. Trying
to hear anything over the road noise, scanner, and 2way radio noise is
difficult. Meanwhile, the GPS mapping display is yelling at me to
turn here and there. At the same time, my Droid is mumbling something
about email and reminders. Even if the music were distortion free, I
probably wouldn't notice.

On long trips we like to listen to audio books, and most libraries have
a very good selection.

Well, they've passed laws against driving while talking on the phone.
Perhaps the next step is to pass a law against driving while listening
to audio books. It's too much of a distraction for the GUM (great
unwashed masses).

With HD Radio if signal strength is too low (error rate too high) it
simply won't lock on to HD.

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

On 1/12/2012 5:26 PM, SMS wrote:

I think you're well aware of the answer. Not every FM station will be
able to use 400 Khz. Some can have only one sideband at maximum power. A
small percentage can't use either sideband. Life is rough when you're
trying to maximize spectral efficiency.

In fact a very small percentage will be able to use 400 KHz at their
assigned frequencies. We had this discussion once before, since the
Ibiquity spec posted he

http://www.nrscstandards.org/SG/NRSC-5-B/1026sE.pdf

shows double the occupied bandwidth for a digital signal.

You said that most stations are spaced far enough from their
adjacent-channel neighbors that this wouldn't be a problem, despite
numerous examples of adjacent-channel interference right here in the Bay
Area. The fact is that this would work somewhat in the plains of
Western Nebraska, but never in the Bay Area. Moving just one station
has a severe domino effect. Let me give you an example of one such
situation right here in the Bay Area:

The South Bay will soon have a full-power FM station on 93.7. Why?

93.7 KXZM in Felton will be increasing power. Why?

KXSM in Hollister is moving from 93.5 to 93.1 and increasing power. Why?

KOSO in Patterson moved from 93.1 to 92.9 and decreased power. Why?

So 93.1 KHLX in Pollock Pines could move their transmitter closer to
Sacramento.

How did Pollock Pines get a radio station? Somebody bought a radio
station in Susanville and moved it to Pollock Pines.

This is just one example of how tightly sandwiched signals are
throughout the US. A transaction in Susanville has an effect on the Bay
Area. Spacing is already so close that adjacent-channel HD interference
is very obvious to those who know what it is. Those who don't know the
difference between regular static and digital noise just turn off their
radio. That is why those of us who care about the real future of
broadcasting and know how to use a spectrum analyzer would like to see
the Ibiquity scheme just go away and be replaced with a truly viable
digital radio medium.

Dave B.

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

On 1/12/2012 10:49 PM, Dave Barnett wrote:
On 1/12/2012 5:26 PM, SMS wrote:

I think you're well aware of the answer. Not every FM station will be
able to use 400 Khz. Some can have only one sideband at maximum power. A
small percentage can't use either sideband. Life is rough when you're
trying to maximize spectral efficiency.

In fact a very small percentage will be able to use 400 KHz at their
assigned frequencies. We had this discussion once before, since the
Ibiquity spec posted he

That's why the industry is pushing for asymmetric sidebands. 200 KHz is
a compromise when 400 KHz isn't feasible.

It's absolutely vital to the future of terrestrial radio to move to
digital broadcasting. It's the only way to remain a relevant choice.
We're not talking about radio enthusiasts, we're talking about the mass
market which matters to broadcasters.

Fox News 2012: HD Radio one of "The Biggest CES Flops of All
 

On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 06:25:59 -0800
SMS wrote:
It's absolutely vital to the future of terrestrial radio to move to
digital broadcasting. It's the only way to remain a relevant choice.

Oh BS. The average radio listener doesn't give a rats arse what medium its
on so long as the content is good and it sounds reasonable. And for speech
radio AM is perfectly satisfactory.

If music radio stations want to know why they're slowly haemoraging listeners
perhaps they should listen to the computer generated playlist drivel they
pump out occasionally.

B2003

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

On 1/13/12 3:25 PM, SMS wrote:
It's absolutely vital to the future of terrestrial radio to move to
digital broadcasting. It's the only way to remain a relevant choice.
We're not talking about radio enthusiasts, we're talking about the mass
market which matters to broadcasters.

Listeners are perfectly happy with the technical side of things. When FM
radio started, stations knew... it is content that the people are going for.

So if stations worry about their future they should worry about content.

gr, hwh

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

On 1/13/2012 7:16 AM, hwh wrote:
On 1/13/12 3:25 PM, SMS wrote:
It's absolutely vital to the future of terrestrial radio to move to
digital broadcasting. It's the only way to remain a relevant choice.
We're not talking about radio enthusiasts, we're talking about the mass
market which matters to broadcasters.

Listeners are perfectly happy with the technical side of things. When FM
radio started, stations knew... it is content that the people are going for.

Content is one component. With HD Radio you can deliver more content.
It's a mistake to not look at the big picture though. Audio quality
matters, and _every_ study has shown that digital radio's audio quality
is perceived as much higher than analog radio. Cost matters too.

If content were all that mattered then everyone would be on satellite
radio, which has relatively poor audio quality but an enormous selection
of content at a relatively high price. Yet satellite radio can barely
add enough new subscribers to make up for churn.

If cost didn't matter then everyone would have an unlimited data plan on
a smart phone and would buy all all the music they wanted.

Coverage also matters. Streaming is fine if you have an unlimited data
plan, but not on long trips outside wireless coverage areas.

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

On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 07:47:24 -0800, SMS
wrote:

Content is one component. With HD Radio you can deliver more content.
It's a mistake to not look at the big picture though. Audio quality
matters, and _every_ study has shown that digital radio's audio quality
is perceived as much higher than analog radio. Cost matters too.

If content were all that mattered then everyone would be on satellite
radio, which has relatively poor audio quality but an enormous selection
of content at a relatively high price. Yet satellite radio can barely
add enough new subscribers to make up for churn.

If cost didn't matter then everyone would have an unlimited data plan on
a smart phone and would buy all all the music they wanted.

Coverage also matters. Streaming is fine if you have an unlimited data
plan, but not on long trips outside wireless coverage areas.

Methinks content is everything with one big catch. Polluted content
is a big problem. Having the correct content will attract listeners.
Interleaving the content with advertising, irritating announcers, and
worthless PSA's, will drive them away. I've noticed that I tend to
always change stations in the middle of commercials and announcements
and rarely in the middle of a song or tune. I'm sure there's a study
somewhere on WHEN listeners change stations, but I can't find it.

Another problem is convenience. I've only played with HD Radio in the
stores and in a friends vehicle. I forgot the exact ordeal process
required but one thing stood out. It was not possible to tune or scan
across the band, catching all the regular FM and HD stations in
sequence. You had to tune to the regular FM channel, and then switch
to HD1 or HD2. As long as HD1 and HD2 are the poor step child of the
regular FM station on the dial, people are not going to listen.

Incidentally, it was really irritating to listen to HD1 while moving.
Every time the error rate climbed to an unacceptable level, it would
switch to the regular FM audio. No provisions for locking it on HD1
or switching to dead air. I forgot the maker and model, but I can ask
the owner if necessary. I will admit that when the signal was strong
enough, HD1 sounded quite good.

Convenience is also a problem with the lack of genre selection. On
many computerized (PC based) radios, you don't just have a few
presets. You have the stations programmed into memory by the type of
music or talk they offer. I vaguely recall it can be rather fine
grain to include genre changes by the hour. For example, I've been
listening to KUFX lately. Repetitive "Classic rock" during the day,
with sports in the evenings. Ideally, you should be able to punch a
"60's rock" button and limit the selections to only those stations
doing classical. The radio and the station support RBDS, the PTY
(program type) data that allegedly accompanies the music or talk
should contain the necessary genre info.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Data_System

As for streaming, that's what I'm doing after my Subaru stock CD
player died (low output in the laser head) and my favorite classical
FM station changed format. I preload about 8 hours of music, audio
books, and TED talks onto a cheap MP3 player, which is hot-wired into
the car radio. The only reason I bother to listen to FM is when I
forget to preload the MP3 player or charge the player battery. I
could also rip streaming content from the internet, but haven't
bothered as it ties up my computers for too long a time.

HD Radio has been around long enough to make a determination if it's
going to live or die. I suspect it will die because there's no
compelling reason for Joe Sixpack to buy or install one. That's
because the content of HD1 and HD2 often is quite similar to the
regular FM channel. To the buyer, it's more of the same thing. Were
HD1 and HD2 to offer commercial free or subscription based commercial
free service, there might be an incentive, but those have been
proscribed by economic necessity and FCC rules.

Installing an HD Radio is also not a trivial exercise. There are few
plug in converters and those tend to be tied to specific high end
radios. At this time, installing and HD Radio consists of ripping out
the existing radio, and installing an upgraded radio. That's neither
cheap nor easy. Lacking a compelling reason to do this, Joe Sixpack
will probably install whatever the dealer has in stock. I checked
Best Buy in Capitola. One radio on the shelf has HD and nobody in the
store seemed to know anything about it. I asked a few questions and
got some bad guesses. As long as that situation persists, the
retrofit market is a lost cause.


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

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

On 1/13/12 4:47 PM, SMS wrote:
Content is one component. With HD Radio you can deliver more content.

Most markets are already fully loaded with stations. It's not more
content, it is content people want that matters.

Non-stop music in any flavor might as well be played from a personal
audio system, so I'm not surprised people won't pay a substantial
monthly fee to get them.

gr, hwh

HD Radio one of ways to get more content/choice
 

"hwh" wrote in message
...
On 1/13/12 4:47 PM, SMS wrote:
Content is one component. With HD Radio you can deliver more content.

Most markets are already fully loaded with stations.

The dial is fully loaded. That's doesn't mean the "menu" of choices is
fully loaded.

HD Radio one of ways to get more content/choice
 

On 1/13/12 7:50 PM, FarsWatch4 wrote:
"hwh" wrote in message
...
On 1/13/12 4:47 PM, SMS wrote:
Content is one component. With HD Radio you can deliver more content.

Most markets are already fully loaded with stations.

The dial is fully loaded. That's doesn't mean the "menu" of choices is
fully loaded.

How about the economic viability to get more stations in? Or does more
stations mean less money per station and therefore less interesting content?

gr, hwh

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

On 1/13/12 09:47 , SMS wrote:
On 1/13/2012 7:16 AM, hwh wrote:
On 1/13/12 3:25 PM, SMS wrote:
It's absolutely vital to the future of terrestrial radio to move to
digital broadcasting. It's the only way to remain a relevant choice.
We're not talking about radio enthusiasts, we're talking about the mass
market which matters to broadcasters.

Listeners are perfectly happy with the technical side of things. When FM
radio started, stations knew... it is content that the people are
going for.

Content is one component. With HD Radio you can deliver more content.
It's a mistake to not look at the big picture though. Audio quality
matters, and _every_ study has shown that digital radio's audio quality
is perceived as much higher than analog radio. Cost matters too.

If content were all that mattered then everyone would be on satellite
radio, which has relatively poor audio quality but an enormous selection
of content at a relatively high price. Yet satellite radio can barely
add enough new subscribers to make up for churn.

If cost didn't matter then everyone would have an unlimited data plan on
a smart phone and would buy all all the music they wanted.

Coverage also matters. Streaming is fine if you have an unlimited data
plan, but not on long trips outside wireless coverage areas.

If what you say were true, HD radios would be flying off the shelves.

They're not.

If what you say were true, HD stations would not be turning off the
digital transmitters.

They are.

Technology does NOT drive listening. Content and convenience of
availability do.

IBOC is a technological travesty. It does not live up to its claims.

HD radio programming suffers from the same ills as the baseband.
Because it's being developed by the same people through the same
research. Look at Chicago. The so called alternative offerings in HD are
in fact, repackaged playlists of what's elsewhere on the dial. Check the
actual songs. Same songs, different order.

HD radio programming has not lived up to its claims either.

If HD radio is to gain the traction it needs to drive listening, it
has to 1) Be vastly better in audio quality. Perceptuals show marginal
perceived improvements. And the numbers are not dramatic.

2) offer content that excites the listeners. So far, it doesn't.

3) offer that content in quickly, easily and reliably accessible
form. It's not doing that, either.

HD radio is not living up to its hype. The claims made for it are not
true.

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

IBOC is a technological travesty. It does not live up to its claims.

IBOC, HD...it will eventually end up with some form of digital broadcasting.

Analog is not long for this world.

HD radio is not living up to its hype. The claims made for it are not
true.

I don't know what "hype" you are referring to.

It's just some extra functionality added to the radio.

It's there....want to use it...go ahead.

No...just ignore it.

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

On 1/13/12 13:48 , FarsWatch4 wrote:
IBOC is a technological travesty. It does not live up to its claims.

IBOC, HD...it will eventually end up with some form of digital broadcasting.

Analog is not long for this world.


That may be true. But what we have, today, isn't the working
solution. It's the equivalent of hanging chrome on an AVEO and
calling it a Cadillac.

Conditional access, which is currently under test, won't be an
improvement, either. And when pay radio hits the marketplace, the
value of Sirius/XM will skyrocket with the public.


If you're going to have to pay for radio, why pay for just one
market contour? For similar money, you can have radio in the whole
country.

But this whole matter of broadcasting OTA may becoming moot,
anyway. Digital alternatives, condition access or not, are becoming
commonplace. More and more people are no longer using radios to
access the content of their choice. iPods are becoming as
upbiquitous in cars as vanity mirrors. PC listening is has replaced
OTA radio in many of the homes in my neighborhood, and I've met a
great number of teenagers (church group) who've never owned a radio.
Most of them have never used one.

In my brother-in-law's household, there are no radios. None. They
get they're music from Pandora, they listen to XM, or the iPod in
the car, and couldn't tell you the last time they've listened to
terrestrial radio.

One of my side businesses is building sound systems. Theatre
systems. Public address. And lots of variations on music
distribution in businesses and homes. In the last 5 years, I've not
installed one broadcast tuner. Satellite radio receivers, yes.
AM/FM, no. And when I ask my customers about HD, most have no idea
what it is, the rest have no interest. Why? Because they get all the
content they want off the net, off Satellite, or off...yes, it's
true...they're cell phones. A number of years ago, I built a sound
system for an airport. Distributed over a campus of a half dozen
buildings at the ramp, and though all the hangars. I installed AM,
FM and XM, with an airband radio in the administration building, and
two of the FBO's. Unicom for ordering fuel, and the like. One one of
my semi-annual routine maintenance calls, I noticed the AM/FM tuner
was not only turned off, but disconnected, and sitting off in a
corner. The administrator told me I could take it with me. They've
never used it. All content piped throughout the campus was either
XM, or it was a PC, plugged into the ports previously occupied by
the tuner.

Of the home systems I've installed over the years, only 5 still
use an FM Tuner. A fanfare, to be precise. The rest...entirely
internet connected. They listen to their favorite stations over the
internet. No radio reception involved. Or they listen to XM. Or
Pandora. Only 5 still listen OTA. And they're beginning to complain
about the increased noise floors and interferences from the
sidebands of "IBOC" digital transmissions.

HD radio, may be a technological solution in search of a problem.
It doesn't offer the improvement in audio promised. And programming
alternatives are merely repackages of the same content on other
stations. WLS-FM, for instance, broadcast it's baseband on HD-1, and
its AM on HD-2. With wildly apathetic results.

In the meantime, HD radio, IBOC is not the solution.

And the public has shown its disinterest in creating a market for
a product that does not live up to the claims made for it.















HD radio is not living up to its hype. The claims made for it are not
true.

I don't know what "hype" you are referring to.

I explained that in the previous post. It's a shame you ignored it.



It's just some extra functionality added to the radio.

Which, again, hasn't lived up to the claims made for it.

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

"D. Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
On 1/13/12 13:48 , FarsWatch4 wrote:
IBOC is a technological travesty. It does not live up to its claims.

IBOC, HD...it will eventually end up with some form of digital
broadcasting.

Analog is not long for this world.


That may be true. But what we have, today, isn't the working solution.
It's the equivalent of hanging chrome on an AVEO and calling it a
Cadillac.

If you are saying we need more development and improvment for digital radio
to be a primary platform...I would agree. Let's hope it only gets better.

Right now...this is what we got.


HD radio, may be a technological solution in search of a problem.

Gee, was this is a "sound bite" that is oft repeated from HD WHiners.

The problem is...not enough choices on the (free) broadcast band to keep up
with what the populace is expecting these days.

HD IBOC is one solution.

It doesn't offer the improvement in audio promised.

It does. However, people are not buying it for "audio improvment".

And programming alternatives are merely repackages of the same content on
other stations.

This is not true. There has been great efforts not to simply duplicate
programming available on analog.

In the meantime, HD radio, IBOC is not the solution.

Ity's not THE solution...it's A solution.

Don't like it...don't use it.

Want to take advantage of it? Go ahead.

Just another choice.

And the public has shown its disinterest in creating a market for a
product that does not live up to the claims made for it.

The public has shown disinterest in ALL radio.....hard to get anyone
interested in antyhing to do with radio these days.

It's just some extra functionality added to the radio.

Which, again, hasn't lived up to the claims made for it.

Works fine for me. I have it on all day in my office.

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

On 1/13/12 14:52 , FarsWatch4 wrote:

It doesn't offer the improvement in audio promised.

It does.


Actually, it doesn't. Perceptuals are not reality. A number of
studies which have been conducted have specifically excluded trained
ears, musicians, and audiophiles, in favor of largely uninvolved,
uninterested, and unhearing individuals, who detect a contrast
between two sources and declare improvement, by the way the question
is worded. Easy to do with passersby who have no interest in the
product, or who have neither experience nor expectation.


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

The only meaningful studies that will determine HD Radio's
technological solutions to improving audio quality will be studies
that measure noise, distortion, and precision of reproduction,
comparing one technology to another, against a control--source
material.

Here, HD falls quite flat.




However, people are not buying it for "audio improvment".

"People" aren't buy it at all. Comparatively speaking. If HD
Radio offered the vastly sought after programming you claim, and the
audio quality is so superior, radios would be flying off the
shelves. They're not.

Hard reality. Sales tells the story that marketing wants not to
have told. And sales demonstrate that the pubic isn't buying what
iBiquity is selling.




The public has shown disinterest in ALL radio.....hard to get anyone
interested in antyhing to do with radio these days.

Hence my comment: HD is a technological solution in search of a
problem. The public has shown little interest in the solutions IBOC
presents, just as they're showing little interest in broadcasting as
a whole. As I explained in the previous post.

It's just some extra functionality added to the radio.

Which, again, hasn't lived up to the claims made for it.

Works fine for me. I have it on all day in my office.


As I have FM on in my office, all day. My objection is that IBOC
not only doesn't produce the audio quality I'm getting now, but it's
also responsible for increased noise and distortion on my FM's,
reducing my available audio quality as a whole.

All based on the perceptuals of those who could care less about
audio quality.

Thanks, for nothing.