David Eduardo wrote:
"Michael Lawson" wrote in message
...

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
om...

"Steve" wrote in message
oups.com...
The digital alternative may well be the doom of AM radio. No one
will
pay to listen to a slightly inferior version of FM.

Pay? there is no fee.

Buy the radio, no further fee. Get the radio, get far improved
quality.

I will bet you have not listened to HD AM either ever or recently,
especially with codec ver. 2.2.5.

No one has yet given me an argument why I should
replace the radios in my house with new radios to
cover the exact same bands that I have now.

You don't have to. All existing radios are backwards compatible.

While
the receiver I have covers AM/FM bands, I rarely
listen on it. Why? Not because of poor fidelity, but
rather because I listen to radio I'm actively doing
something: working, gardening, mowing the lawn,
eating, washing dishes, driving, etc. When I turn on the
receiver, it's because I'm going to watch a movie
or something on the television that I want to hear
in surround sound.

Casual listening is the greatest benefit of radio, not
the serious listening that HD AM/FM assumes.

The only difference is in the improved audio quality. There is no such thing
as "serious" radio listening... it is almost all done to accompany other
things, like working, driving, etc.

The people who listen to AM don't put a lot of priority on audio
quality.

People who do put a big priority on audio quality listen to FM.

You'll never lure any portion of the FM audience back to AM.