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.

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.

"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.

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.

"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. ;-)

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.

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

If you hear AM HD as worse...then you are in the minority.

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

Yes it does.

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.

No, it is not true.

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.

Yes, it was an advertising hook...not a study of any serious basis. (Can't
you tell the difference?)

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

However, people embrace the MP3 and accept it.

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

And for those who want to minipulate them.

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.

There is apathy about ALL radio. Getting anyone interested in anything
about radio is a challenge.


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.

I have looked at the playlists. No, it is not programming that is found
elsewhere on the dial.

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

As stated earlier. It's niche.

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

True.

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?...

Because (again) there is apathy about ALL radio....

So, if you're taking the position that HD radio offers alternative
programming on the digital subchannels, you're again dispensing misleading
information.

Apparently you do not know what you are talking about...

Youa re baisically repeating sound bites and things you've heard others
espouse without ahving any real understanding of reality.

However, you are entitled.

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?

Oh, there are goals, it is not "how many people go into best buy and
purchase an HD radio".

snip

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

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

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

Horse****.



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

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


And that, speaks louder than anything.

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

On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 01:55:32 -0500, "FarsWatch4"
wrote:

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

Where is this study?

This was highly touted in advertising during the 1940s.
---
Phil Kane
Beaverton, OR

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

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

Where is this study?

This was highly touted in advertising during the 1940s.

As late as 1962.



---
Phil Kane
Beaverton, OR