Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "none" wrote in message ... "HD Radio Not High Definition" HD radio parallels HDTV in that if you transmit more than one program stream on an RF channel the quality of each sub-channel lowers. HDTV advancements in MPEG2 encoding and a healthy 19MBits make multicasting bearable. FM-HD radio at best has 96kBits which is slightly better than average FM and much worse when you carve that pie up. And the fun part starts when your favorite stations multicasts and clean analog blends to cheap internet quality and you can't change back. AM-HD is a joke that reminds people how bad things were when the internet was only available via dial-up. Believe me, there is audio that sounds worse than analog AM. Not to mention your digital carriers can be jammed by first-adjacent stations (93.7 by 93.9 & 93.5 and 640 by 650 & 630) and DRM becomes a much better idea. There, I feel much better. The above is as was always IMHO so YMMV. |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
If they wanted to use the FM band, they may have been better off using DRM+.
Much more spectrally efficient. Likely to provide better sound quality. The only licensing requirement is for decoding of aac+. Better control of which frequencies to use, hence more chance of avoiding interference to FM services. |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sep 2, 4:05*pm, Richard Evans
wrote: If they wanted to use the FM band, they may have been better off using DRM+. Much more spectrally efficient. Likely to provide better sound quality. The only licensing requirement is for decoding of aac+. Better control of which frequencies to use, hence more chance of avoiding interference to FM services. No one is interested in buing digital radios. |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
DigitalRadioScams wrote:
On Sep 2, 4:05 pm, Richard Evans wrote: If they wanted to use the FM band, they may have been better off using DRM+. Much more spectrally efficient. Likely to provide better sound quality. The only licensing requirement is for decoding of aac+. Better control of which frequencies to use, hence more chance of avoiding interference to FM services. No one is interested in buing digital radios. Perhaps not. But if they are going to try and sell them to people, they could at least have tried selling then a descent system. |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 9/2/10 16:17 , Richard Evans wrote:
DigitalRadioScams wrote: On Sep 2, 4:05 pm, Richard Evans wrote: If they wanted to use the FM band, they may have been better off using DRM+. Much more spectrally efficient. Likely to provide better sound quality. The only licensing requirement is for decoding of aac+. Better control of which frequencies to use, hence more chance of avoiding interference to FM services. No one is interested in buing digital radios. Perhaps not. But if they are going to try and sell them to people, they could at least have tried selling then a descent system. A lot of the thinking in manufacturing, today, is to release what are effectively 'betas' and let the warranty program cover problems. Two advantages to doing it this way. One is that sales begin earlier than otherwise if a 'perfected' system be released on schedule. The other is that the beta test is real world, with warranty costs getting written off as R&D. Earliers sales, tax credits, earlier finished release product. Chrysler has been doing things this way for a decade and a half. Lotus has done it this way throughout most of its history. ATT (Bell Labs) did a very great deal of research into this thinking, and found that the public will not, en masse, respond to new technology anyway. So the complaints about failure to live up to expectations will not hurt long term sales. Immediate release purchases will be then left up to innovators and early adoptors, whose priorities are "newness", and "purchase as soon as released". They expect, and will work around, failures to perform as promised. It doesn't always work. And failures tend to be spectacular. But, the strategy works far more often than it doesn't. And even Apple uses it. In the meantime, the mass will not be making a purchase until the product is perfected, and matured. So, an unidentified beta release for sale makes good business sense. That said, the iBiquity system by design was fraught with liabilities. And while early adoptors and innovators did buy up early release receivers, the reasons for mass purchase by those interested in a mature product never did develop: ie, content. If the content were there that would sell, these radios would fly off the shelves. So, the current malaise of the Hybrid Digital system is two fold. One is that the system itself, technically speaking, fails to live up to its hype. The other is, that even when it does work there is no compelling reason fostering desire to use it. By contrast--and I know I'm going to Hell for saying this,--DRM had fewer liabilities (huge QRM being one,) and offered positive and specific technical advantages over the analogue SW transmit-receive complex. Even in that, its offerings were not sufficient to drive uptake of the technology, and again, the content wasn't there. What broadcasters and technology manufacturers fail to keep in mind, is that radio is about LISTENING. That means there has to be compelling CONTENT to drive a change in behaviour. Too often, they simply rely on a change of technology alone. |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sep 2, 5:48*pm, "D. Peter Maus" wrote:
On 9/2/10 16:17 , Richard Evans wrote: DigitalRadioScams wrote: On Sep 2, 4:05 pm, Richard Evans wrote: If they wanted to use the FM band, they may have been better off using DRM+. Much more spectrally efficient. Likely to provide better sound quality. The only licensing requirement is for decoding of aac+. Better control of which frequencies to use, hence more chance of avoiding interference to FM services. No one is interested in buing digital radios. Perhaps not. But if they are going to try and sell them to people, they could at least have tried selling then a descent system. * *A lot of the thinking in manufacturing, today, is to release what are effectively 'betas' and let the warranty program cover problems. Two advantages to doing it this way. One is that sales begin earlier than otherwise if a 'perfected' system be released on schedule. The other is that the beta test is real world, with warranty costs getting written off as R&D. Earliers sales, tax credits, earlier finished release product. * *Chrysler has been doing things this way for a decade and a half. * *Lotus has done it this way throughout most of its history. * *ATT (Bell Labs) did a very great deal of research into this thinking, and found that the public will not, en masse, respond to new technology anyway. So the complaints about failure to live up to expectations will not hurt long term sales. Immediate release purchases will be then left up to innovators and early adoptors, whose priorities are "newness", and "purchase as soon as released". They expect, and will work around, failures to perform as promised. * *It doesn't always work. And failures tend to be spectacular. * *But, the strategy works far more often than it doesn't. And even Apple uses it. * *In the meantime, the mass will not be making a purchase until the product is perfected, and matured. So, an unidentified beta release for sale makes good business sense. * *That said, the iBiquity system by design was fraught with liabilities. And while early adoptors and innovators did buy up early release receivers, the reasons for mass purchase by those interested in a mature product never did develop: ie, content. * *If the content were there that would sell, these radios would fly off the shelves. * *So, the current malaise of the Hybrid Digital system is two fold. One is that the system itself, technically speaking, fails to live up to its hype. The other is, that even when it does work there is no compelling reason fostering desire to use it. * *By contrast--and I know I'm going to Hell for saying this,--DRM had fewer liabilities (huge QRM being one,) and offered positive and specific technical advantages over the analogue SW transmit-receive complex. Even in that, its offerings were not sufficient to drive uptake of the technology, and again, the content wasn't there. * *What broadcasters and technology manufacturers fail to keep in mind, is that radio is about LISTENING. That means there has to be compelling CONTENT to drive a change in behaviour. * *Too often, they simply rely on a change of technology alone.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - RIP, iBiquity. These lawyers are going to tear Struble and the automakers new assholes. Broadcasters are already contacting the law firm, so this could potentially blow up into something much larger. No automaker will come near iBiquity, now. iBiquity has had no comment for once - LOL! |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 16:48:21 -0500, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote: A lot of the thinking in manufacturing, today, is to release what are effectively 'betas' and let the warranty program cover problems. A well-known story in the microwave field is that in the mid-1980s a major manufacturer (name withheld to protect the guilty) could not produce bandpass filters in time to meet the deadline of a military contract so they shipped identical cans filled with sand. Of course the system did not work and the filters were sent back (from Saudi Arabia, the story went) and exchanged for real filters which by that time had been manufactured. The warranty exchange cost, eaten by the manufacturer, was far less than the penalty payment would have been for missing the deadline. -- Phil Kane Beaverton, OR |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Richard Evans" wrote in message ... DigitalRadioScams wrote: On Sep 2, 4:05 pm, Richard Evans wrote: If they wanted to use the FM band, they may have been better off using DRM+. Much more spectrally efficient. Likely to provide better sound quality. The only licensing requirement is for decoding of aac+. Better control of which frequencies to use, hence more chance of avoiding interference to FM services. No one is interested in buing digital radios. Perhaps not. But if they are going to try and sell them to people, they could at least have tried selling then a descent system. I couldn't agree more especially since 76-88MHz may be opening up in the US for radio broadcasting due to these frequencies proving poor for HDTV. |
#9
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sep 2, 2:48*pm, "D. Peter Maus" wrote:
On 9/2/10 16:17 , Richard Evans wrote: DigitalRadioScams wrote: On Sep 2, 4:05 pm, Richard Evans wrote: If they wanted to use the FM band, they may have been better off using DRM+. Much more spectrally efficient. Likely to provide better sound quality. The only licensing requirement is for decoding of aac+. Better control of which frequencies to use, hence more chance of avoiding interference to FM services. No one is interested in buing digital radios. Perhaps not. But if they are going to try and sell them to people, they could at least have tried selling then a descent system. * *A lot of the thinking in manufacturing, today, is to release what are effectively 'betas' and let the warranty program cover problems. Two advantages to doing it this way. One is that sales begin earlier than otherwise if a 'perfected' system be released on schedule. The other is that the beta test is real world, with warranty costs getting written off as R&D. Earliers sales, tax credits, earlier finished release product. * *Chrysler has been doing things this way for a decade and a half. * *Lotus has done it this way throughout most of its history. * *ATT (Bell Labs) did a very great deal of research into this thinking, and found that the public will not, en masse, respond to new technology anyway. So the complaints about failure to live up to expectations will not hurt long term sales. Immediate release purchases will be then left up to innovators and early adoptors, whose priorities are "newness", and "purchase as soon as released". They expect, and will work around, failures to perform as promised. * *It doesn't always work. And failures tend to be spectacular. * *But, the strategy works far more often than it doesn't. And even Apple uses it. * *In the meantime, the mass will not be making a purchase until the product is perfected, and matured. So, an unidentified beta release for sale makes good business sense. * *That said, the iBiquity system by design was fraught with liabilities. And while early adoptors and innovators did buy up early release receivers, the reasons for mass purchase by those interested in a mature product never did develop: ie, content. * *If the content were there that would sell, these radios would fly off the shelves. * *So, the current malaise of the Hybrid Digital system is two fold. One is that the system itself, technically speaking, fails to live up to its hype. The other is, that even when it does work there is no compelling reason fostering desire to use it. * *By contrast--and I know I'm going to Hell for saying this,--DRM had fewer liabilities (huge QRM being one,) and offered positive and specific technical advantages over the analogue SW transmit-receive complex. Even in that, its offerings were not sufficient to drive uptake of the technology, and again, the content wasn't there. * *What broadcasters and technology manufacturers fail to keep in mind, is that radio is about LISTENING. That means there has to be compelling CONTENT to drive a change in behaviour. * *Too often, they simply rely on a change of technology alone. Beat the Competition to the Market Place and Define the Market : Becoming the Identified Market Leader ! - That's "APPLE !" ~ RHF |
#10
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sep 2, 1:05*pm, Richard Evans
wrote: If they wanted to use the FM band, they may have been better off using DRM+. Much more spectrally efficient. Likely to provide better sound quality. The only licensing requirement is for decoding of aac+. Better control of which frequencies to use, hence more chance of avoiding interference to FM services. IBOC is about 'morphing'* the existing FM Radio Band not replacing all at once with a new Technology or an new FM/UHF Band. * Creating a natural Analog to Digital transition over a Decade or two as both Radio Listeners and Radio's in-service migrate from the old mode to the new mode. IBOC - iBiquity Finally Under Investigation -ROTFL- ~ RHF Lawsuit Most Likely Going Nowhere http://groups.google.com/group/ba.br...b5d6149534c9ae |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
ETON CORP FINALLY UNDER INVESTIGATION - LMFAO!!!! | Shortwave | |||
IBIQUITY FINALLY UNDER INVESTIGATION - LMFAO!!!! | Shortwave | |||
BREAKING NEWS! iBiquity decalred bankruptcy in 2008! LMFAO!!! | Shortwave | |||
IBIQUITY TROLLS FOR VOLUNTEER POLICE FORCE - LMFAO! | Shortwave | |||
Ford, an investor in iBiquity, slams HD Radio! LMFAO!!! | Shortwave |