Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
where Ibiquity purposely controlled the audio chain to make the
analog sample sound bad. What others are there? Dave B. There have been many across the country. I've been involved in 8, I think. Maybe one more. If you were involved with EIGHT...maybe more? Then there was something wrong with the mthodology of this survey...and I highly doubt the subject, sponsors or the results. |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 1/20/12 15:26 , FarsWatch4 wrote:
where Ibiquity purposely controlled the audio chain to make the analog sample sound bad. What others are there? Dave B. There have been many across the country. I've been involved in 8, I think. Maybe one more. If you were involved with EIGHT...maybe more? Then there was something wrong with the mthodology of this survey Not at all. 6 were in other markets. 2 were followup studies. You're not familiar with the way this kind of survey is done. Rarely just one. Never in a single location. And about 1/3 of the time with a current followup to note trends in response, or changes in perceptuals. |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "D. Peter Maus" wrote in message ... On 1/20/12 15:26 , FarsWatch4 wrote: where Ibiquity purposely controlled the audio chain to make the analog sample sound bad. What others are there? Dave B. There have been many across the country. I've been involved in 8, I think. Maybe one more. If you were involved with EIGHT...maybe more? Then there was something wrong with the mthodology of this survey Not at all. 6 were in other markets. 2 were followup studies. Then the methodology is flawed....and as a reesult, I would be suspect of any conclusions. You're not familiar with the way this kind of survey is done. Rarely just one. Never in a single location. And about 1/3 of the time with a current followup to note trends in response, or changes in perceptuals. You're correct. In all my years in broadcasting, I have never heard of such a silly way to do a "survey". Don't draw any conclsuions from it. |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 1/23/12 13:26 , FarsWatch4 wrote:
"D. Peter wrote in message ... On 1/20/12 15:22 , FarsWatch4 wrote: What's also not being addressed, is that stations are also processing the dynamics on the HD streams. It's not being addressed because it's not true. Even yet another case where you're denying a simple truth. Stations ARE processing their HD streams. Sometimes as heavily as their baseband streams. And many are not processing them at all. Not nearly as many as your statement would imply. But the truth is, that they are not processing it just like they do on the broadcast band. Not with the same hardware. But in much the same way. Software based processing is still processing. There is seperate processing. SOme stations don't use virtually any processing at all on their HD streams. Most, however, do. I would say that MOST do not. (As someone currently working in the industry.) And you would be wrong. (As someone currently working in the industry.) So, manglement calls for more processing on the HD Streams. Yes, it does happen. It happens quite a lot, actually. This is a vast generalization. No, it doesn't happen "quite a lot". Every station I (as someone currently working in the industry) work with, running HD, processes their HD audio. Quite heavily, and often to the same level as the baseband audio. this, so that there isn't such a difference in the audio output when the receiver drops the IBOC stream in favor of the analog audio. Which happens quite a bit. |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "D. Peter Maus" wrote in message ... On 1/23/12 13:26 , FarsWatch4 wrote: "D. Peter wrote in message ... On 1/20/12 15:22 , FarsWatch4 wrote: What's also not being addressed, is that stations are also processing the dynamics on the HD streams. It's not being addressed because it's not true. Even yet another case where you're denying a simple truth. Stations ARE processing their HD streams. Sometimes as heavily as their baseband streams. And many are not processing them at all. Not nearly as many as your statement would imply. (And nowhere near the statement that they process them just like their broadcast signals.) If you have some authoritative statistics to back up your claim, let me know! But the truth is, that they are not processing it just like they do on the broadcast band. Not with the same hardware. But in much the same way. Incorrect. There is seperate processing. SOme stations don't use virtually any processing at all on their HD streams. Most, however, do. I would say that MOST do not. (As someone currently working in the industry.) And you would be wrong. (As someone currently working in the industry.) You are a VO guy....Whereas I run numerous stations. So, manglement calls for more processing on the HD Streams. Yes, it does happen. It happens quite a lot, actually. This is a vast generalization. No, it doesn't happen "quite a lot". Every station I (as someone currently working in the industry) work with, running HD, processes their HD audio. Most of the stations I work with started with no processing but a limiter. The Engineers I deal with are trying to maintain a clean sound....so, no, management is not calling for more processing. Quite heavily, and often to the same level as the baseband audio. Still not true...no matter how often you say it,. |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 1/23/12 14:59 , FarsWatch4 wrote:
"D. Peter wrote in message ... On 1/23/12 13:26 , FarsWatch4 wrote: "D. Peter wrote in message ... On 1/20/12 15:22 , FarsWatch4 wrote: What's also not being addressed, is that stations are also processing the dynamics on the HD streams. It's not being addressed because it's not true. Even yet another case where you're denying a simple truth. Stations ARE processing their HD streams. Sometimes as heavily as their baseband streams. And many are not processing them at all. Not nearly as many as your statement would imply. (And nowhere near the statement that they process them just like their broadcast signals.) If you have some authoritative statistics to back up your claim, let me know! But the truth is, that they are not processing it just like they do on the broadcast band. Not with the same hardware. But in much the same way. Incorrect. There is seperate processing. SOme stations don't use virtually any processing at all on their HD streams. Most, however, do. I would say that MOST do not. (As someone currently working in the industry.) And you would be wrong. (As someone currently working in the industry.) You are a VO guy....Whereas I run numerous stations. Ah...so this is discussion is now about me. Yes, I do VO's. I'm also a photographer. And an engineer. And a consultant drawing on more than 50 years of experience in Radio and TV. And I have two businesses, one that supply manpower and coordinative effort for the execution of research surveys, both focus group perceptuals and street level research. And the other that conceives, produces and excecutes advertising campaigns. So, before you talk out of your ass again, you may wish to consider what you don't know about your correspondent. |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 1/23/12 13:30 , FarsWatch4 wrote:
If you were involved with EIGHT...maybe more? Then there was something wrong with the mthodology of this survey Not at all. 6 were in other markets. 2 were followup studies. Then the methodology is flawed....and as a reesult, I would be suspect of any conclusions. The methodology is flawed? Because the survey was conducted in multiple markets? Hardly. That's like saying Arbitron's PPM is flawed because it's used in more than Chicago. Nonsense. You're suspect of any conclusions because they don't agree with your pre packaged claims. You're not familiar with the way this kind of survey is done. Rarely just one. Never in a single location. And about 1/3 of the time with a current followup to note trends in response, or changes in perceptuals. You're correct. In all my years in broadcasting, I have never heard of such a silly way to do a "survey". Which, then, says a lot about your experience. You should do some, sometime. It's pretty fascinating stuff. At CBS, we did perceptuals at least once a year. Sometimes twice. Just to keep track of trends, and to see how tastes were evolving. And music surveys are done with greater frequency. In different locations. I worked at one station that did callout music research every night. My company prepares music clips for callout surveys almost constantly for stations in markets across the country. What's interesting is the variation is responses, by market, to a given song. When taken in context with the wider picture, the local snapshot reveals even more about local tastes, public expectations, and public perceptions based on cultural norms all of which are locally shaped. In every market where 'HD radio listening test' surveys were conducted in which I was involved, the tests were conducted according to iBiquity's requirements, the participants selected according to iBiquity's criteria, and the results tabulated and interpreted by iBiquity's specifications. As was posted here...the tests were rigged in iBiquity's favor, sonically, and those with experience, trained ears, or musical abiltiy were eliminated from participation, and the results weighted in favor of HD radio. There is a reason that engineers at HD stations are contractually prohibited from criticizing HD radio, and HD radio performance. There is a reason why stations who discontinue HD broadcasting are pursued by iBiquity's legal department to force them to return to participating in the HD radio scam. And there is a reason why criticism of such an obviously flawed system produces this blizzard of fanboi responses quoting iBiquity pamphlets, memoes and newsletters. The truth requires none of these things. Only a promotional scam requires such tactics. In the same way only the Tobacco industry required an industry run Tobacco Institute to protect industry interests against the mountains of evidence against it. IBiquity's tactics amount to a kind of strongarming for which Sarnoff has been excoriated in this group for his treatment of inventions of other men, like Armstrong and Farnsworth. In time, there will be an accounting. Sadly, it will take too much time. And both the broadcasting industry and the FCC has too much invested here to see, or hear the truth about this system. But just like even the Tobacco industry, the truth will out, and there will be an accounting. What damage is wrought in the interim, will remain to be seen. But, as you, yourself have admitted, there is a waning of public interest in all things Radio....not just shortwave, that has not rallied even with DRM, but with AM and FM broadcasting...and the public has an eery ability to find, or create alternatives to things that they don't like, or things that they once loved, that have been screwed with until they no longer serve the needs of the pubic, or things that they've lost interest in. And Radio will be no different. Radio will find that it's relevance is reduced, as lighter, more responsive, and more personally customized sources for entertainment and information become available. And, in time, Radio will find that it's no longer the dominant medium. And that no one but Radio cares about that fact. Even today station content is available from multiple sources, all producing less than survivable revenue. Even as I write this, I'm listening to a station in Louisiana, while my wife, at her office listens to a station in Indianapolis. Neither of us are using radios. And we both can take these stations with us on our cell phones. With unlimited plans, or even the new larger data plans by AT&T and Verizon, there's no reason to fear streaming your favorite stations, now. And the stations themselves? Well, they'd better find ways to either monetize their streams, OR find a way to provide compelling listening content to draw listeners to their terrestrial transmitters. Or, like two stations here in Chicago....Radio will be moved to the internet, or another alternative, as an interim step to being moved out of the public ear entirely. And in none of these scenarios does HD radio play a part. It's just another one of all things Radio that even you agree, the public is losing interest in. D. Peter Maus. |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "D. Peter Maus" wrote in message ... On 1/23/12 13:30 , FarsWatch4 wrote: If you were involved with EIGHT...maybe more? Then there was something wrong with the mthodology of this survey Not at all. 6 were in other markets. 2 were followup studies. Then the methodology is flawed....and as a reesult, I would be suspect of any conclusions. The methodology is flawed? Because the survey was conducted in multiple markets? Hardly. That's like saying Arbitron's PPM is flawed because it's used in more than Chicago. Nonsense. No, the fact that you were invited to participate in 6 (or more) surveys. That's like saying you are registered to vote in additional palces other than CHicago. You're suspect of any conclusions because they don't agree with your pre packaged claims. No, I am suspect of any concluysions when I see flawed methodology. You're not familiar with the way this kind of survey is done. Rarely just one. Never in a single location. And about 1/3 of the time with a current followup to note trends in response, or changes in perceptuals. You're correct. In all my years in broadcasting, I have never heard of such a silly way to do a "survey". Which, then, says a lot about your experience. No, it says a lot about the "surveys" that you tout. You should do some, sometime. It's pretty fascinating stuff. At CBS, we did perceptuals at least once a year. Sometimes twice. Just to keep track of trends, and to see how tastes were evolving. I am involved with every perceptual survey done by every station in our chain. And music surveys are done with greater frequency. In different locations. I worked at one station that did callout music research every night. Did they call the same person 6 (or more times)? My company prepares music clips for callout surveys almost constantly for stations in markets across the country. Wow...making music clips? That makes you an expert? When taken in context with the wider picture, the local snapshot reveals even more about local tastes, public expectations, and public perceptions based on cultural norms all of which are locally shaped. Not when the methodology is flawed. In every market where 'HD radio listening test' surveys were conducted in which I was involved You mean the 6 (or more) that you were invited to participate in? And there is a reason why criticism of such an obviously flawed system produces this blizzard of fanboi responses quoting iBiquity pamphlets, memoes and newsletters. There is a reason for an army of HD Haterz. Most are old timers who have latched onto the past. I recall people who didn't want us to use Stereo....because "stereo degrades the signal". They are all gone now. ;-) The truth requires non of these things. The truth requires that people don't get shouted down by the HD Radio Haters" and their posse of hobbysists and DX-ers. IBiquity's tactics amount to a kind of strongarming for which Sarnoff has been excoriated in this group for his treatment of inventions of other men, like Armstrong and Farnsworth. No storngarming involved. DOn't like it? Don't use it. Like it? GO ahead. SImple as that. In time, there will be an accounting. Just ,like those guys who railed against FM and Stereo. But, as you, yourself have admitted, there is a waning of public interest in all things Radio....not just shortwave, that has not rallied even with DRM, but with AM and FM broadcasting...and the public has an eery ability to find, or create alternatives to things that they don't like, or things that they once loved, that have been screwed with until they no longer serve the needs of the pubic, or things that they've lost interest in. And Radio will be no different. Radio will find that it's relevance is reduced, as lighter, more responsive, and more personally customized sources for entertainment and information become available. I agree. And, in time, Radio will find that it's no longer the dominant medium. And that no one but Radio cares about that fact. Agreed. Even today station content is available from multiple sources, all producing less than survivable revenue. Even as I write this, I'm listening to a station in Louisiana, while my wife, at her office listens to a station in Indianapolis. Neither of us are using radios. And we both can take these stations with us on our cell phones. With unlimited plans, or even the new larger data plans by AT&T and Verizon, there's no reason to fear streaming your favorite stations, now. Agreed, this is the "new now"...with multiple platforms competing. Well, they'd better find ways to either monetize their streams, OR find a way to provide compelling listening content to draw listeners to their terrestrial transmitters. Agreed. And in none of these scenarios does HD radio play a part. HD is not a miracle. It simply adds some functuionality to the radio. It's not enough to turn back the disinterest in the AM band... |
#9
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 1/23/12 15:50 , FarsWatch4 wrote:
"D. Peter wrote in message ... On 1/23/12 13:30 , FarsWatch4 wrote: If you were involved with EIGHT...maybe more? Then there was something wrong with the mthodology of this survey Not at all. 6 were in other markets. 2 were followup studies. Then the methodology is flawed....and as a reesult, I would be suspect of any conclusions. The methodology is flawed? Because the survey was conducted in multiple markets? Hardly. That's like saying Arbitron's PPM is flawed because it's used in more than Chicago. Nonsense. No, the fact that you were invited to participate in 6 (or more) surveys. That's like saying you are registered to vote in additional palces other than CHicago. You're suspect of any conclusions because they don't agree with your pre packaged claims. No, I am suspect of any concluysions when I see flawed methodology. You're not familiar with the way this kind of survey is done. Rarely just one. Never in a single location. And about 1/3 of the time with a current followup to note trends in response, or changes in perceptuals. You're correct. In all my years in broadcasting, I have never heard of such a silly way to do a "survey". Which, then, says a lot about your experience. No, it says a lot about the "surveys" that you tout. You should do some, sometime. It's pretty fascinating stuff. At CBS, we did perceptuals at least once a year. Sometimes twice. Just to keep track of trends, and to see how tastes were evolving. I am involved with every perceptual survey done by every station in our chain. And music surveys are done with greater frequency. In different locations. I worked at one station that did callout music research every night. Did they call the same person 6 (or more times)? You misunderstand...I was helping with the execution of the surveys. Like you, I don't participate as a respondent, but as one conducting the tests, or managing the results. (But never both, btw.) My company prepares music clips for callout surveys almost constantly for stations in markets across the country. Wow...making music clips? That makes you an expert? LOL! That's only part of the involvement. We're also instrumental in the execution strategy of the survey process, itself. Again, not as a respondent. But the company has a lot of involvement in callout research. And the reason I got involved in research, is because, as a disc jockey, I was forever being told that 'research tells us...' usually why we COULDN't do something that was creative, or innovative. Or why we had to do something that made no sense, or conflicted with some other tenet of the format. Like going on 20 seconds every time we opened a mic about how we were the 'less talk leader.' So, I wanted to see for myself, how this 'research' was conducted and how the results were interpreted, and used. Probably a holdover from the form the interest I developed during the research I did in college. In the process, then and since, I got involved in a LOT of research. And watched a lot of methodolgies developed and executed. And got involved in a lot more. To date, I've not been invited, nor have I offered, to be a respondent in any research. I don't even answer callout surveys when they buzz my house, or answer exit poll questions on Election Day. Where I'm involved, like you, is in the execution of the research survey. And I've got a huge interest in watching how surveys, like the iBiquity sponsored HD surveys, were influenced, and managed to outcome. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Struble on Zune HD: "But in many ways, it did more for HD Radio thanhad been hoped." LMFAO!!! | Shortwave | |||
NRA Flip-Flops -FAUX plays the "brown note" & the Stupid buyguns? | Shortwave | |||
NRA Flip-Flops -FAUX plays the "brown note" & the Stupid buy guns? | Shortwave | |||
NRA Flip-Flops -FAUX plays the "brownnote" & the Stupid buy ... | Shortwave | |||
"Screw you HD radio" LMFAO! | Shortwave |