"Steve" wrote in message
ups.com...

David Eduardo wrote:
"Steve" wrote in message
oups.com...

David Eduardo wrote:
"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 will be attracted to it under any circumstances if its chief
selling point is that it's "almost as good as the alternatives"

FM HD is better than any other current distribution system, plus it is
free.

AM HD is as good as any alternative system, and is free. It is much
better
than Analog AM.

"as good as" isn't what you've said previously, but it's also not good
enough to cut the mustard.

AM HD compares favorably to most online streams, to iPod audio, and the that
available currently from satellite. It is vastly better than analog AM.

David Frackelton Gleason, Univision Radio's only pompous poseur wrote:

"Steve" wrote in message
ups.com...

David Eduardo wrote:
"Steve" wrote in message
oups.com...

David Eduardo wrote:
"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 will be attracted to it under any circumstances if its chief
selling point is that it's "almost as good as the alternatives"

FM HD is better than any other current distribution system, plus it is
free.

AM HD is as good as any alternative system, and is free. It is much
better
than Analog AM.

"as good as" isn't what you've said previously, but it's also not good
enough to cut the mustard.

AM HD compares favorably to most online streams, to iPod audio, and the that
available currently from satellite. It is vastly better than analog AM.

Yeah, and it QRM's two additional channels to boot!

Wow!

A pox upon you and your spawn, Edweenie!

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


AM HD compares favorably to most online streams, to iPod audio, and the
that
available currently from satellite. It is vastly better than analog AM.

Yeah, and it QRM's two additional channels to boot!

Channels nobody is listening to.

David Eduardo wrote:
"Steve" wrote in message
ups.com...

David Eduardo wrote:
"Steve" wrote in message
oups.com...

David Eduardo wrote:
"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 will be attracted to it under any circumstances if its chief
selling point is that it's "almost as good as the alternatives"

FM HD is better than any other current distribution system, plus it is
free.

AM HD is as good as any alternative system, and is free. It is much
better
than Analog AM.

"as good as" isn't what you've said previously, but it's also not good
enough to cut the mustard.

AM HD compares favorably to most online streams, to iPod audio, and the that
available currently from satellite. It is vastly better than analog AM.

Unfortunately, that's completely irrelevant.

"Steve" wrote in message
oups.com...


AM HD compares favorably to most online streams, to iPod audio, and the
that
available currently from satellite. It is vastly better than analog AM.

Unfortunately, that's completely irrelevant.

Nope. It is relevant since the issue with radio usage has to do wtith usage
of other entertainment and audio sources.

David Eduardo wrote:
"Steve" wrote in message
oups.com...


AM HD compares favorably to most online streams, to iPod audio, and the
that
available currently from satellite. It is vastly better than analog AM.

Unfortunately, that's completely irrelevant.

Nope. It is relevant since the issue with radio usage has to do wtith usage
of other entertainment and audio sources.


Nope. We are discussing no such issue.

"Steve" wrote in message
oups.com...

David Eduardo wrote:
"Steve" wrote in message
oups.com...


AM HD compares favorably to most online streams, to iPod audio,
and the
that
available currently from satellite. It is vastly better than
analog AM.

Unfortunately, that's completely irrelevant.

Nope. It is relevant since the issue with radio usage has to do
wtith usage
of other entertainment and audio sources.


Nope. We are discussing no such issue.

It has to do with how people use radio now. If
other things are displacing radio in areas that
radio has traditionally dominated, maybe it has
something to do with what is put on the radio,
rather than the reception of the radio or the
quality of sound of the radio. For pete's sake,
128 MB MP3s are no better than cassette quality
(or from what I can judge), but because people
can mix their own playlists that they believe are
better than what you find on the radio (with less
commercials or inane chatter or bathroom jokes),
people will continue to use those 128 MB MP3's.

There are people (I am one) who used to mix
tapes for friends just because I liked doing it
(also did a stint at a college radio station as
a DJ, so I'm also well aware of how little input
I had in the playlist). It was usually a PITA,
and it would take a couple of hours to get a
tape together. Fast forward 15 years, and
right before we went on vacation this summer,
I spent 1/2 hour putting 3-4 CDs together of
a mix of music off of my personal collection
that I've ripped. I know I could have chosen
to listen to the radio on the trip (it was a two
day trip to a certain location in Orlando, FL),
but the kids outvoted me and wanted to listen
to their stuff.

--Mike L.

"Michael Lawson" wrote:

[...] For pete's sake,
128 MB MP3s are no better than cassette quality
(or from what I can judge), [...]


You can do a helluva lot better than cassette quality with 128 kBPS
MP3s, but it requires that you spend some effort in adjusting your MP3
ripper AND that you are willing to let it take some time to do the rip
instead of doing it quick (and dirty). My personal MP3 collection,
ripped from my own CDs, is something of an audio history of learning
how to do it properly.

--
Eric F. Richards,
"It's the Din of iBiquity." -- Frank Dresser