"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".

On Jan 14, 12:47*pm, "FarsWatch4" wrote:
"D. Peter Maus" wrote in ...





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".- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"Struble: Radio Is the Last Analog Medium Standing"

"Insignia HD — I think this will be a nice little interim step for
jogging or working out. It proves the viability of the technology and
hopefully we'll get sales; but no, this is not going to sell in the
hundreds of thousands... Radio alone — the sad reality of where it is
— as a standalone device, it just doesn't exist anymore as a category.
Nobody goes into Best Buy and says 'Where's the radio department?'"

http://www.rwonline.com/article/87370

None, according to Struble!
LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!
Yea, HD Radio is now "mainstream"!
LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Struble: Radio Is the Last Analog Medium Standing"

"Insignia HD — I think this will be a nice little interim step for
jogging or working out. It proves the viability of the technology and
hopefully we'll get sales; but no, this is not going to sell in the
hundreds of thousands... Radio alone — the sad reality of where it is
— as a standalone device, it just doesn't exist anymore as a category.
Nobody goes into Best Buy and says 'Where's the radio department?'"

http://www.rwonline.com/article/87370

None, according to Struble!

That's right. Nor are they asking for Shortwave, police scanners, etc.,
etc.

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".-

As was stated elsewhere..people only buy radios when they buy cars. ANd HD
is in more and more cars!

Yea, HD Radio is now "mainstream"!

Amen!

On 1/14/12 11:47 , FarsWatch4 wrote:
"D. Peter 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 what. Truth is not a consensus.




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.


Actually, it is. I've been part of several studies. Selecting
candidates. Testing. And evaluating results. In all of the studies
I've been part of, musicians, sound technicians, producers, and
audiophiles were specifically excluded.



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?)

Yes, I can. But the point that you removed from the quote was
that it was a survey. Of doctors. No different than the surveys used
to support the conclusions regarding HD radio. Same methodology.
Same intent.

And, as you conveniently ignored, the results, and the sources of
the survey material were to be found in the pages of Look. Or Life.

Your selective rebuttal is getting obvious, there, my friend.



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

However, people embrace the MP3 and accept it.

What people embrace and accept has nothing to do with audio
quality. That's why mp3 is not widely accepted in audiophilia. Nor
is it acceptable as source material in studios anymore.

My audio clients won't even accept an mp3 for audition, anymore.

MP3 may be on iPods from sea to shining sea, but its limits have
clearly defined where and under what circumstances mp3 is
applicable. Which returns to the point that it's the content that
drives listening. "People" put mp3's on their iPods so they can cram
more content onto a single drive.

Audiophiles using iPod, use .aif or .wav, or a lossless codec
rather than mp3, because the audio quality is not acceptable.



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

And for those who want to minipulate them.


"The problem with science is that it can be corrupted."

-- Number 6.

the prisoner, 1968

That data and facts can be manipulated is evidenced by the very
subject matter of this discussion.



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....

It's actually more fundamental than that. Satellite Radio
hasn't embraced many niche formats because there isn't ENOUGH money
to be made, compared to more 'mainstream' programming. It's about
the money. And the same people who ****ed up Radio, are programming
Sirius/XM.

Why? Because they see more money in that.



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...


I've been in broadcasting, specifically Radio and TV, since I was
6. And I'm currently actively involved in developing programming.

Yes, I do know what I'm talking about.



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".


If you think there are no sales goals, you are unaware of how
business works.

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

A whole lot of stuff about sales and IBOC (by the way, HD does NOT stand
for High Definition, as many here seem to believe. It stands for Hybrid
Digital)


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

I'm not sure why there is even a discussion about either quality or
selection, since the great masses of youth (the ones being marketed TO) are
sheep. They listen to what they are TOLD to by the PM's at the radio
stations, who, in turn, play what THEY are told to by the recording
industry. The few that actually WANT alternative programming do not
constitute (and never will) a sales pool that will be profitable.

With all the stupid new laws going (or that have gone) into effect regarding
pay for content, many stations' profit margin has dropped significantly. The
recording industry has bitten the hand that feeds it by requiring stations
(ESPECIALLY HD2 and HD3 streams as well as internet streams) to pay
exhorbatant fees for content.

On 1/14/12 13:59 , Brenda Ann wrote:


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

A whole lot of stuff about sales and IBOC (by the way, HD does NOT
stand for High Definition, as many here seem to believe. It stands
for Hybrid Digital)


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

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


I'm not sure why there is even a discussion about either quality or
selection, since the great masses of youth (the ones being marketed
TO) are sheep. They listen to what they are TOLD to by the PM's at
the radio stations, who, in turn, play what THEY are told to by the
recording industry.


LOL! Yeah, that's pretty much it.


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


Which is why it's called 'alternative.'



With all the stupid new laws going (or that have gone) into effect
regarding pay for content, many stations' profit margin has dropped
significantly. The recording industry has bitten the hand that feeds
it by requiring stations (ESPECIALLY HD2 and HD3 streams as well as
internet streams) to pay exhorbatant fees for content.

There will come a point, and it will be well too late, that the
recording industry recognizes this.

But the damage they do in the meantime will be significant.

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

I'm not sure why there is even a discussion about either quality or
selection, since the great masses of youth (the ones being marketed TO)
are sheep. They listen to what they are TOLD to by the PM's at the radio
stations, who, in turn, play what THEY are told to by the recording
industry. The few that actually WANT alternative programming do not
constitute (and never will) a sales pool that will be profitable.

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

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

With all the stupid new laws going (or that have gone) into effect
regarding pay for content, many stations' profit margin has dropped
significantly. The recording industry has bitten the hand that feeds it
by requirirng stations (ESPECIALLY HD2 and HD3 streams as well as
internet streams) to pay exhorbatant fees for content.

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

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

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

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

On 1/14/12 8:34 PM, D. Peter Maus wrote:
Apparently you do not know what you are talking about...


I've been in broadcasting, specifically Radio and TV, since I was 6.
And I'm currently actively involved in developing programming.

Yes, I do know what I'm talking about.

People working in digital radio always come up with the stale argument
that people who don't like it "do not know what they are talking about".
They have done so in Europe as well.

gr, hwh

On 1/14/12 14:03 , hwh wrote:
On 1/14/12 8:34 PM, D. Peter Maus wrote:
Apparently you do not know what you are talking about...


I've been in broadcasting, specifically Radio and TV, since I was 6.
And I'm currently actively involved in developing programming.

Yes, I do know what I'm talking about.

People working in digital radio always come up with the stale argument
that people who don't like it "do not know what they are talking about".
They have done so in Europe as well.


You make a good point.




gr, hwh

"hwh" wrote in message
...
On 1/14/12 8:34 PM, D. Peter Maus wrote:
Apparently you do not know what you are talking about...


I've been in broadcasting, specifically Radio and TV, since I was 6.
And I'm currently actively involved in developing programming.

Yes, I do know what I'm talking about.

People working in digital radio always come up with the stale argument
that people who don't like it "do not know what they are talking about".

When someone spouts something so off base....it's really the only response.