On 1/20/12 15:25 , FarsWatch4 wrote:
"Dave wrote in message
...
On 1/16/2012 11:03 PM, FarsWatch4 wrote:

The surveys I have seen were not designed nor sponsored by iBiquity...but
were seperate research projects done by stations themselves by hiring
outside research companies with no stake in the outcome.

You mention "surveys" in the plural. The only one I have seen is this:

Many surveys have been done by individual stations...not by iBiquity.

They are proprietary...and not used as "selling points" as the one you
mentioned is.

They most certainly are used as selling points. That's why they
go to the effort and expense of conducting them.

On 1/20/2012 1:39 PM, D. Peter Maus wrote:

They most certainly are used as selling points. That's why they go to
the effort and expense of conducting them.

Actually the purpose was to determine the minimum bit rate at which HD
could be broadcast where listeners still gave it high marks for audio
quality. They performed the bit-rate testing for different genres of
music, and for voice, so stations could determine optimal bit rates for
their HD sub-channels. Most stations chose to not go beyond HD2 (HD1
same as analog channel) and one HD2 music sub-channel. There are areas
where there is voice on the sub-channel (sports, religious broadcasts,
etc) where an HD3 sub-channel is acceptable. Once you get below the mid
40's then listeners perceive lower quality audio.

The mistake many people make is trying to claim that just because the
audio is perceived as near CD quality by listeners, that the compression
scheme actually results in audio that is not near CD quality. The fact
is that the broadcasters care about what their listeners perceive, not
what an audiophile might discern, and not what a techie with a spectrum
analyzer might figure out.

Every in-depth test of HD Radio, and every casual evaluation by testers
from publications like the WSJ and CR confirms that HD Radio audio is
perceived as being much higher quality than FM. Of course much of the
reason for this may be that so much FM sound so bad due to multipath.

On 1/21/12 12:59 AM, sms88 wrote:
The mistake many people make is trying to claim that just because the
audio is perceived as near CD quality by listeners

The mistake you make is to lie about the sound quality. All these
'tests' you are talking about are rigged by the industry, as has been
described in detail on the group recently.

gr, hwh

On 1/21/2012 1:46 AM, hwh wrote:
On 1/21/12 12:59 AM, sms88 wrote:
The mistake many people make is trying to claim that just because the
audio is perceived as near CD quality by listeners

The mistake you make is to lie about the sound quality. All these
'tests' you are talking about are rigged by the industry, as has been
described in detail on the group recently.

Sorry, no one has provided any evidence to show that to be the case. It
may be something that they desperately want to believe, since as you've
seen some people will fall for anything (witness the claims of HD
interference caused by a central valley AM station which does not even
broadcast in HD).

"SMS" wrote in message
...

(witness the claims of HD
interference caused by a central valley AM station which does not even
broadcast in HD).

Over and over again with that same bull****. This is why people don't like
you Steven

Mark

"D. Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
On 1/20/12 15:25 , FarsWatch4 wrote:
"Dave wrote in message
...
On 1/16/2012 11:03 PM, FarsWatch4 wrote:

The surveys I have seen were not designed nor sponsored by
iBiquity...but
were seperate research projects done by stations themselves by hiring
outside research companies with no stake in the outcome.

You mention "surveys" in the plural. The only one I have seen is this:

Many surveys have been done by individual stations...not by iBiquity.

They are proprietary...and not used as "selling points" as the one you
mentioned is.

They most certainly are used as selling points. That's why they go to
the effort and expense of conducting them.

No they are not. Most research indfividual station do is never released to
the public.

It is for internal strategic decision making.

On 1/23/12 13:28 , FarsWatch4 wrote:
"D. Peter wrote in message
...
On 1/20/12 15:25 , FarsWatch4 wrote:
"Dave wrote in message
...
On 1/16/2012 11:03 PM, FarsWatch4 wrote:

The surveys I have seen were not designed nor sponsored by
iBiquity...but
were seperate research projects done by stations themselves by hiring
outside research companies with no stake in the outcome.

You mention "surveys" in the plural. The only one I have seen is this:

Many surveys have been done by individual stations...not by iBiquity.

They are proprietary...and not used as "selling points" as the one you
mentioned is.

They most certainly are used as selling points. That's why they go to
the effort and expense of conducting them.

No they are not. Most research indfividual station do is never released to
the public.


Which must be why the phrase 'most people in listening tests
prefer...' has never appeared in any promotional material.

Research is never released. But that's a strawman argument.
Certainly no station releases raw Arbitron data, for instance, But
interpreted results are always used in promotional and sales. There
is no reason otherwise to spend the money to do them.


It is for internal strategic decision making.


Again, a strawman argument. Even material used for internal
decision making is eventually sold to the public.

Perceptuals find their results in promos stating "we asked and
you said..." "Playing YOUR favorites."

Perceptuals, and surveys find their way into sales pitches at ad
agencies.

Your attempts to derail responses to a fictitious followup belie
your intent to have a reasonable discussion.

The truth has no need of such trickery. Nor does it have need for
the gratuitous insults. Nor debate tactics based on strawman arguments.

You've exposed yourself as a fanboi. Nothing more.

Research is never released. But that's a strawman argument. Certainly no
station releases raw Arbitron data, for instance...

Of course we do. (an other thing you apparently know nothing about.)

We'll print out and hand over any arbitron info requested.

But interpreted results are always used in promotional and sales. There is
no reason otherwise to spend the money to do them.

There are plenty of reasons to do research that you don't release.

Mainly for strategic programming decisions. (Another thing you apparently
don't know much about.)

It is for internal strategic decision making.

Again, a strawman argument. Even material used for internal decision
making is eventually sold to the public.

Wrong.

Perceptuals find their results in promos stating "we asked and you
said..." "Playing YOUR favorites."

Again, can you tell the difference between an advertising campaign and
scientific research? Apparently not.

Perceptuals, and surveys find their way into sales pitches at ad
agencies.

If it's research into what agencies want...then yes.

But much reserach is never released to the public.

Your attempts to derail responses to a fictitious followup belie your
intent to have a reasonable discussion.

Your continued assumption and incorrect statements of fact have drailed a
reaonable discussion.

The truth has no need of such trickery. Nor does it have need for the
gratuitous insults. Nor debate tactics based on strawman arguments.

True...but you have stated little of truth. Maybe you have leanred thru
voiceovers that you can simply state something and people will accpt it as
fact. DOesn't happen in real life.

You've exposed yourself as a fanboi. Nothing more.

You've exposed yourself as a VO type...who makes authroitative statements an
d expects people to accept them.

On 1/23/12 14:55 , FarsWatch4 wrote:

True...but you have stated little of truth. Maybe you have leanred thru
voiceovers that you can simply state something and people will accpt it as
fact. DOesn't happen in real life.

You've exposed yourself as a fanboi. Nothing more.

You've exposed yourself as a VO type...who makes authroitative statements an
d expects people to accept them.



I do VO's as a part of my businesses. I'm also build studios, work
with Radio on audio, it's engineering, and one of my businesses is, in
fact, in providing the manpower for research efforts, and converting
those to real and useful results.

And you don't want to know my homeruns in advertising.

I do speak from experience, here. And the authorititative statements I
make are backed by decades of experience.

In markets starting with Chicago, and working my way outward.

But, I'm not the subject of this conversation. HD radio is, and the
fact that you have turned this into a discussion about me, underscores
my point that you really aren't interested in the discussion...only in
silencing dissent when your premises are flawed.

"D. Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
On 1/23/12 14:55 , FarsWatch4 wrote:

True...but you have stated little of truth. Maybe you have leanred thru
voiceovers that you can simply state something and people will accpt it
as
fact. DOesn't happen in real life.

You've exposed yourself as a fanboi. Nothing more.

You've exposed yourself as a VO type...who makes authroitative statements
an
d expects people to accept them.



I do VO's as a part of my businesses. I'm also build studios, work with
Radio on audio, it's engineering, and one of my businesses is, in fact, in
providing the manpower for research efforts, and converting those to real
and useful results.

In other words...a jack of all trades and a master of none.

And you don't want to know my homeruns in advertising.

I could care less.

I do speak from experience, here. And the authorititative statements I
make are backed by decades of experience.

Meh!

But, I'm not the subject of this conversation. HD radio is, and the fact
that you have turned this into a discussion about me, underscores my point
that you really aren't interested in the discussion...only in silencing
dissent when your premises are flawed.

I've exposed the flawed source, and your mis-statements.