On 1/16/2012 3:40 AM, RHF wrote:
On Jan 15, 9:33 am, wrote:
On 1/15/2012 6:17 AM, J G Miller wrote:

On Sunday, January 15th, 2012, at 12:11:07h +0000, Richard Evans wrote:

Add to this the fact that most HD-Radio broadcasters, don't actually use
any bit rates higher than 40k. At 40k even aac+ sounds poor, and
presumably the HD-Radio codec will sound even worse.

And that is the sad reality of the situation.

Thankfully that is not the reality at all.

If you look at table 5.2.1 at
http://www.nrscstandards.org/DRB/Non-NRSC%20reports/NPRmultiple_bit_r...
you can actually learn where listeners begin to not like the audio quality.

The question listeners and radio stations should be asking is, what
digital system could be developed for future use, rather than
continuing with the present failures of DAB and HD(tm) radio.

- Only clueless listeners and radio stations
- would be asking that question. Those living
- in the real world know that the digital system
- in use in the U.S. is going to be around for
- a long time. And as HD continues to be deployed
- in other countries, there will be pressure for
- the ROW to go along with it as well.
- That's the actual reality of the situation.

OOPS! -sad-reality-:-but-very-true-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
...
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.

It was an advertising ploy. Not a study, per se.

I hope we can tell the difference.

"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.

http://hdradiofarce.blogsdpot.com/20...wide_9700.html

Is this that blog written by the guy with no credentials and no experience?

On 1/16/12 6:23 PM, SMS wrote:
DAB+ offers audio quality almost as good as HD, but a)
it wasn't available when HD was selected, and b) it wasn't IBOC.

DAB+ can deliver a lot better audio quality than HD, even if it is used
in digital-only mode.

gr, hwh

On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 08:07:05 -0800, sms88
wrote:

Do you think that both broadcasters and the FCC was not aware of the
drawbacks of the IBOC approach during the transition to all digital FM?

Of course they were. But money talks much more louder than
engineering with the present incarnation of my former employer.
---
Phil Kane
Beaverton, OR

On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 09:23:05 -0800, SMS
wrote:

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

Except for those of us spectrum managers who are sensitive to those
things, there is no consumer confusion when "WXXX" went from Channel
12 to Channel 44-DT but still IDs as "WXXX12".
---
Phil Kane
Beaverton, OR

On 1/16/12 11:35 , FarsWatch4 wrote:
"Phil wrote in message
...
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.

It was an advertising ploy. Not a study, per se.

I hope we can tell the difference.

Insult aside, it WAS indeed based on surveys.

"D. Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
On 1/16/12 11:35 , FarsWatch4 wrote:
"Phil wrote in message
...
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.

It was an advertising ploy. Not a study, per se.

I hope we can tell the difference.

Insult aside, it WAS indeed based on surveys.

A survey designed by an advertising company....again, I hope you can tell
the difference.