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 14:52 , FarsWatch4 wrote:

It doesn't offer the improvement in audio promised.

It does.


Actually, it doesn't.

Yes, it does. Have you listened to any AM stations in HD?

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,

This is not true.

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

Where is this study?

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,
Here, HD falls quite flat.

I have not seen a study where people can tell a difference in any of the
attributes mentioned above.

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

"People" aren't buy it at all. Comparatively speaking.

Well...people aren't buying RADIOS at all....so it's a non-starter.

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.

I didn't say "vastly sought after"...I would use the term alternative
programming. It's more niche.

I already addressed the fact that people are not moved by the argument of
quality.

Hard reality. Sales tells the story that marketing wants not to have
told.

Again, the whole story is that there is apathy about ALL radio, Ham, SWL,
Scanners, XM, HD, AM....

Does sales tell a story about that too?

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

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

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.

Thanks, for nothing.

Your welcome. Let me know if you need any more. ;-)

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

On Jan 12, 8:47*pm, SMS wrote:
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.

That is how the IBOC "HD" Radio Systems is
supposed to work Digial when possible and the
default is Analog.
In-Band On-Channel (IBOC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBOC

When you can not get KCBS-AM 740 kHz
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KCBS_%28AM%29
You either get the 'HD' Digital Signal or the Analog
Signal and if you are just getting the Analog Signal
then the Digital {Hash} Side-Bands don't matter
cause you are "On-Channel" between them.

Like it or not; for the Radio Listener who is listening
to his/her Favorite 'Local' Radio Station the IBOC Side
Bands are a non-issue : That's a problem for someone
else who is listing to some other Radio Station.

Think about it; did you care about what was happening
on all the other Radio Stations across the band; while
you were listening to your Favorite 'Local' Radio Station
10~20~30 Years Ago . . . NAH !

Mostly people listen to what they 'can' hear as mindless
background noise while they go about their daily lives
at home, work or driving.

The beauty of Radio is that it is often a secondary
{background} activity while you are focused on something
else : While TV Watching {Viewing} requires your full
{fool} involvement as a primary activity; and that usually
means that you have to sit down and 'Watch' IT[TV].

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 12, 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

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.

NAH - To the average Radio Listener the simply will
continue to listen to their Favorite 'Local' Radio Station.
To the 99% : Radio Listening It's About Your 'Station*'
not the entire Radio Band.

* Maybe 1~2~3 Favorite 'Local' Radio Stations.

- Those who don't know the difference between regular
- static and digital noise just turn off their radio.

NAH - They will continue to listen to their Favorite
'Local' Radio Station. -again- To the 99% : Radio
Listening It's About Your 'Station*' not the entire
Radio Band.

-*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.

"spectrum analyzer" ROTFL clearly you are one of
the 1%ers; and thus are NOT worthy of consideration
when it comes to the Income Stream, Broadcast
Revenue and Expenditures related to the operation
of one (1) Radio Station as a 'Local' Business Enterprise
versus Managing the Entire Radio Band for a Metro
Area.

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 13, 6:25*am, SMS wrote:
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.

Spoken/Written like a true disciple of D'Eduardo !
http://www.davidgleason.com/

Terrestrial Radio serving up Audio Content to The Masses
-radio-where-content-is-king-and-audio-quality-
-just-needs-to-be-good-enough-to-be-enjoyable-
-to-the-radio-listener-

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 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

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

On Jan 12, 7:25*am, "D. Peter Maus" wrote:
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_...nical_specific....

(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.


Oops These 'Perceptions' Are The Very Real "REALITY"
of the Masses of Radio Listeners {Audio Content
Customers} that Experience {Feel} them with their
own two ears. -we-like-sound-of-radio-:-
-we-know-what-we-like-and-that-is-good-enough-for-us-

And after all Radio is a Mass Media : A Radio Station
Serves the Masses Thousands & Millions of Radio
Listeners* : Not just the few hundreds of Audiophiles
and Radio Aficionados -it's-a-business-not-a-hobby-

* Radio Connecting Consumers and Advertisers in the
Mass Media Market Place of 'Local' Business Marketing.

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 1/14/12 24:55 , FarsWatch4 wrote:
"D. Peter wrote in message
...
On 1/13/12 14:52 , FarsWatch4 wrote:

It doesn't offer the improvement in audio promised.

It does.


Actually, it doesn't.

Yes, it does. Have you listened to any AM stations in HD?

Yes, I have. Digital artifacts. High noise. More distortion than
wideband AM.

I did a proof of performance on one AM HD system. It failed to meet
the audio performance requirements of NRSCII.

HD FM was better than HD AM, but failed to meet the noise and
distortion specs of FM

So, NO...HD radio doesn't offer the improvement in audio that's been
promised.

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,

This is not true.

It is. I was part of several of them.


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

Where is this study?


It was the advertising hook for marketing cigarettes post-war.
Based on a survey of physicians conducted by the Tobacco Institute. The
science, like your HD perceptuals, is somewhat questionable.

Pick up any copy of Look, or Life. It's there. Ronald Reagan was
a model in some of the ads.





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,
Here, HD falls quite flat.

I have not seen a study where people can tell a difference in any of the
attributes mentioned above.


Then read any article by Ken Pohlmann during the early days of CD.
He published dozens of them. If audible differences between the extant
technologies and CD were detectable, the audible differences between HD
Radio and FM are detectable.

Read the Fraunhofer studies about the audible differences between
MP3 and CD audio.

There's plenty of scientific data available for those who wish to
know the facts.

Quoting marketing perceptuals to rebut scientifically observed
facts is a logic failure common to iBiquity fanbois.

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

"People" aren't buy it at all. Comparatively speaking.

Well...people aren't buying RADIOS at all....so it's a non-starter.


Then, HD, being a Radio product, is also a non-starter, by your own
words.



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.

I didn't say "vastly sought after"...I would use the term alternative
programming. It's more niche.


Look at actual playlists. It's hardly niche. It's repackaged
programming that's found elsewhere on the dial. Read the actual
playlists. On 8 of the HD subchannels in Chicago, this so-called
alternative programming, played the exact same tunes as baseband FM
stations elsewhere on the dial. Only the order was different. And the
patter. But even the patter didn't differ by much.

And why is this? Because the content is being developed by the same
people who are programming the baseband. The same mentality, the same
research, the same business model with the same goals. Why would doing
things the same way by the same people produce anything that was
actually different?

It wouldn't.

It doesn't.

And where there is genuinely unique and alternative programming, it's
audience is vanishingly small.

Even in a market the size of Chicago, there's no viable market for
genuinely alternative programming. The lifegroup size is simply too
small to attract advertisers.

And in the US, broadcasting has always been about the money. Even HD
subchannels are about the money.

Satellite Radio, with its much broader reach has the potential to
monetize small lifegroup size by aggregating the niche across the entire
landscape of the population into salable numbers...but even Satellite
Radio has failed to do that. Why?...probably because the same people who
programmed the radio stations that satellite users subscribed to escape
from, were programming satellite radio.

Same ****, different fee structure. Subscriptions are not increasing
as expected.

And where there was real alternative programming on Satellite radio,
there wasn't enough of a market to support the cost of providing it. So,
those channels were removed to give way to the simulcast commercial
stations...with their own commercial load.

So, if you're taking the position that HD radio offers alternative
programming on the digital subchannels, you're again dispensing
misleading information. Urban, with a playlist expanded by one tier and
different disc jockeys isn't alternative programming, when you've got 4
or five other urban stations playing the same tunes. Simulcasting your
AM on an HD FM subchannel isn't alternative programming when the AM is
still on the air.

And the great Oldies 104 experiment in Chicago, when WJMK, Chicago,
went to Jack-FM and put the WJMK format on the HD subchannel, because of
the huge public outcry when Oldies 104 was removed from the dial,
produced insufficient revenue to support itself, and it's disc jockeys'
salaries, because no one was going out to buy an HD radio to hear Dick
Biondi and Fred Winston play the same music that could be heard could be
heard on the 'new' WLS-FM Oldies format.

Now, there's nothing to say that what you claim CAN'T happen with HD
Radio...it can. Provided someone is willing to make the commitment to
offer genuinely alternative programming, and stick with it, come what
may. But this is Radio. Research, corporate and local business goals,
and a headspace dominated by P&L statements, are going to erase the
intents of creatives, in order to monetize the product to meet revenue
goals.

That means more of the same.

Hell, at CBS, Hollander even went so far as to take the Free-For-All
alternative concept of Jack-FM, and put it on a computerized playlist.
Why? Because he needed it to fit into the corporate business model.

HD radio is no different than what's currently being offered, because
it's RADIO. Alternative in name, but not in content. Lower audio quality
claiming to be CD quality...all in the name of, God love 'em, profits. A
lot of marketing. A lot of license fees for iBiquity. Not a lot of
substance to the claims.

It's still a business, after all. And if alternative programming
could produce the revenue, it wouldn't be alternative.





I already addressed the fact that people are not moved by the argument of
quality.

Hard reality. Sales tells the story that marketing wants not to have
told.

Again, the whole story is that there is apathy about ALL radio, Ham, SWL,
Scanners, XM, HD, AM....

Does sales tell a story about that too?


You're making my point for me.



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.

HD Radio one of ways to get more content/choice
 

On 1/13/2012 10:55 AM, hwh wrote:

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

Historically, trying to constrain the supply to increase revenue has
failed when there are alternative products available. We're not talking
about crude oil here, we're talking about methods to deliver content.

If listeners don't find the content they want on terrestrial radio then
they switch to other sources, which of course is what has been
happening, with internet streaming, satellite radio (to a lesser
extent), or simply playing locally stored content).

Remember that for vehicles, until the 1980's tape decks and CD players
were not standard equipment, people listened to the radio in their car,
or they installed an after-market head unit, or if they had a lot of
money they got the dealer-installed or factory installed optional tape
deck.

The solution for terrestrial radio stations is to compete on content,
both quality and quantity, and many are doing exactly that. The FM
stations that threaten to hold their breath until they turn blue because
they believe that there are better digital radio alternatives to IBOC
will fail.

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

On 1/13/2012 8:58 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

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.

You're right, and ironically, at least for now, the HD sub-channels do a
wonderful job of solving that problem. There are sufficiently few HD
receivers that the stations can't or don't sell advertising on the
sub-channels.

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.

I can't speak for all receivers, but the ones I have don't work that
way. When you scan, it scans in sequence by frequency and then by
sub-channel. And of course you can preset and HD2 channel which is what
I do, and what I suspect most people do on car radios, whether it's an
analog or a digital channel.

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.

You're also right about reception. At 1% power, reception is poor
outside urban areas. That will be solved with power increases. Many head
units do allow you to go to analog only mode.

Installing an HD Radio is also not a trivial exercise.

On older vehicles, which have a standard single DIN or double DIN
opening, it's quite easy to change the head unit. You buy the harness
that matches your vehicle and attach it to the wires from the head unit,
and it all plugs right in. In most vehicles it's very straightforward.
On newer vehicles where the audio system is non-standard, you're right,
adding HD is more of a pain. You can usually find an adapter that plugs
in to a port on the back of the unit intended for a satellite tuner.

But the bottom line is that most people are not going to change their
vehicle's head unit unless it fails. The big increase in digital
receivers is coming from new cars where they are standard or optional
equipment from the factory.

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

On 1/14/2012 12:55 AM, RHF wrote:

Most Cable TV and Dish SAT-TV services offer
30~60 Channels of good quality "Non-stop music
in any flavor" along with all those TV Channels.

Alas, cable and Dish/DirecTV work poorly in vehicles.