"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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

"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.

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

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