"dxAce" wrote in message
...


D Peter Maus wrote:

David Eduardo wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
What I'm seeing, is interest in HD-AM by users who are
interested in AM
content, and who regularly use AM anyway. But little or no
interest in
users who do not regularly use AM. Regardless of the audio
quality....if
there is no interest in the programming, there will be little
interest in
how good it may or may not sound.

Viscious circle there... until there is an audio quality that
under-45's can
tolerate, there will be no programming. And as the clock ticks,
the band
dies.

Well, of course it's a vicious circle. Most everything in Radio
is.
You remember how tough it is to get hired until you have
experience, but
you can't get experience until you get hired. Vicious circles in
Radio
aren't news. But the fact remains.

That said, it's content that drives listening. If the content
is of
no interest to the target, HD isn't going to help. What's not
happening, is there's no change in content to accompany HD
implementation. WGN didn't change content when HD was installed.
And I'm
sure that Ace will point out that WBBM's content is the same as
before
HD was installed. So, HD is only really benefitting those who are
already using AM. And those younger demos you wish to attract with
audio
quality, will be just as unintersted in the content after HD, as
the
stations themselves are in those who listen outside of the city
grade
contour.

I don't listen very much to WBBM, but on the occasions that I do,
you are correct
in that I have noted no change in their content.

What I do notice without fail is that when they have their HD/IBOC
up and running
is the total annihilation of at least two adjacent channels.

Such a wonderful system, it seems to me, will only force more
listeners away from
the MW bands.

The potential to drive those of us who tune around at night (or
currently during
the daytime) looking for alternative voices from outside our 'local'
market or
'area' off the band for good does not seem to be a productive use
of this
resource.

If all HD does is "improve" the sound but not
the programming, then there won't be much reason
to move to it. If the programming is generic and
formulaic (and the younger crowd has figured that
out), then why listen? So you can hear the same
stuff only with better sound?

People will migrate to a new radio format if there's
a promise of real change in what is being listened
to, not the same stuff only sounding better.

It's like purchasing a car. If the imports were simply
as good as the Big Three, then no one would buy
them except for non-practical reasons. However,
the imports were made better than the Big Three's
cars, and there then became a practical reason to
buy one. Personal example: I own a Ford Contour,
and in the first 5 years I owned it, it had a total of
something like $3000 worth of repairs to it. That's
repairs, not regular maintenance. By comparison,
we also own a Toyota Sienna, which in the 5 years
we've owned it we've had $0 worth of extraneous
repairs to it. While the Contour cost less than either
a similarly equipped Corolla or Camry, the extra money
spent on repairs makes either car look less expensive
by comparision. Especially since the Contour is
now 10 years old, and has had about $5000 worth of
repairs to it.

The moral is that you have to be getting more in a
practical sense for HD radio to be accepted by
the masses. Just saying "it sounds better" won't
do anything if that's the only thing that HD has
going for it.

--Mike L.