A branch of the 2009 thread

[clouseau]

This post is about KB's response to the 2009 thread. As I read and then RE-read it, it became more and more obvious where he is coming from to me.

First off, let me say I thought you spoke honestly and from the heart.

Without disagreeing with your beliefs, let me point out my beliefs as well....
You said...

I believe it is a scam for several simple reasons: it doesn't sound any better than analog,

Well the noise floor (or dead quiet) is much improved to me. And when playing an aircheck of stereo AM HD vs analog "ON THE RADIO", I almost ALWAYS get "The HD sounds a lot better". I know you don't agree. Understand that many do. I don't understand how you don't see this. I'll chalk it up to poor implementation fo the HD system. I have heard some that aren't all that great.

the range is terrible

The range is LESS. Many, Many people get reliable reception within their travel areas every day. Personally, I can receive all of our HD signals without dropouts whether I go from the driveway to the grocery store. In town to the mall or if I make the 10-20 mile trip into where ai used to work. It follows me to the beach or across town if I have business at the port. Is it the same as analog range? No way. Is it usable for many many people? Absolutely. to an average user with my life patterns, they problbly wouldn't notice it has less range. It stops working when you ttravel out of the city. So does FM. (Just not at the same point on the highway)

and it stomps on it's neighbors.

It may disturb neighbors on first adjacents. The closest thing we have to a first adjacent is a third. They're a rimshot with some city coverage. The second adjacent translator gives them more trouble than HD ever would. Again, I'm not telling you you are wrong. I'm showing you that your experience is limited. There's another side to the story. There is NO HD interference issues where I live. And I don't hear them in Houston or San Antonio either. So here, it doesn't "Stomp" on anything.

As I read what folks write, I understand where they are coming from. They jsut don't see there is any choice besides "Their way or the highway". Like this

I pay 20.00 every month for my Satellite and my Live 365 and can pick from more channels that I will ever listen to, why would I even want to turn on the toaster right next to me? I can get 4 maybe 5 HD stations with a grand total of maybe 12 (pushing it) channels. I have to turn it on, turn it to a station I know is in IBOC, then wait for it to maybe lock in and I dislike 75% of the junk I hear from those 4 or 5 stations.

So while you, who apparetnly has no problem paying for radio entertainment, are sitting around campaigning against an admittedly less than optimal system with more free choices, while listening to a pay service? I, along with MOST OTHER PEOPLE, do not pay for audio service directly. We do not WANT to subscribe. People like radio free. I would suggest as someone who has not one but TWO subscritions for pay audio, you've moved on from, radio. Fine. It's almost an oddity to read a post against HD radio that has any breadth which does not contain the obligatory "I don't like 75% of the junk I hear..." That's not HD radio's fault. No one is MAKING you buy an HD radio. However, if you have YOUR way, you would force "ME" to BUY a subscription to hear your jazz corner. I get a similar mix I like right now on KEDT-FM HD-2. Since your not a radio listener, does THAT seem fair?

I have Classic Jazz corner on right now, it plays the kind of music I like 24 hours a day, with no drop outs and no waiting for it to lock back in, if I want 50's I turn on Satellite at home and listen to The 50's on 5 complete with DJ's. When I am in the car I have without satellite I usually listen to two different oldies stations on AM, they don't play that kind of stuff on FM anymore and it sounds better on AM anyway, it was made for AM radio.

You are truly the first person I have even met who thinks that certain program content sounds better on AM than FM. You do know if you wanted to, an FM station owner could make his FM station sound like an AM station, right? Not surprisingly, I've never heard of that happening.

IBOC is a foreign entity trying to invade radio and it isn't working except in the minds of some radio executives who live in ivory towers.

Scott tells you how they are using it in Pubcasting... - DISMISSED.
I tell you how it works for me... - DISMISSED

I'm telling you , KB, it's "Pay $20 like you or hit the highway".. Why are you so concerned about the "invasion" of a medium you don't even want to listen to?

Clouseau

 

[TheBigA]

Using the same logic, satellite radio is a scam. 1) The ads say it's got "CD quality sound." Really? Maybe on some poorly recorded CDs. It actually sounds worse than analog. 2) You're stuck with the radio when you buy a new car, and if you don't subscribe, you've got a device that doesn't work in your brand new car. What's the up side of that? 3) Satellite radio repeaters interfere with terrestrial radio stations. It's a fact, for which they've been cited and fined by the FCC. 4) Sure you get lots of channels, but how many do you really listen to? You should pay for what you use, not subsidize lots of low interest channels. You might as well have ten channels of Home Shopping. Don't give Mel any ideas. 5) Refusal to stream satellite on the internet without a subscription. 6) Now with the merger, lots of those channels are disappearing. But you still pay the same monthly fee. 7) You must buy an XM or Sirius radio, where the company gets a kick-back on the purchase price. 8) XM & Sirius became the USFL of radio, overpaying by a factor of ten for Oprah and Stern. 9) Sirius had already diluted the value of its stock when Mel became CEO. So to inflate the price now, and save them from delisting, they are issuing even more of their worthless stock, and giving shareholders a reverse split as a thank you. How many of you remember when XM was trading at $36? It wasn't that long ago. 10) The music channels are automated and voice-tracked and, worst of all, sound like it.

It seems illogical to campaign against HD radio because it's a scam, and be a subscriber to satellite. You might as well send $100 a year to NPR. It also seems crazy to expend so much energy complaining about HD when it has a fraction of the listeners of satellite. If you're going to complain about a scam, make it a good one.

 

[audioguy]

I can't help but notice that these discussions invariably return at some point to comparisons of the audio quality of analog vs. HD vs. satellite radio. That's interesting from a technical perspective, but my friends and neighbors tell me they never listen to the radio-- any kind of radio-- for high quality audio. They listen for the programming. They listen because there's something on that they want to hear!

I actually do support local radio financially-- to the tune of a dollar a day-- because of the fact that my local classical station (WFMT) provides such an outstanding service that it is well worth supporting. And that is the primary reason why I am not a satellite subscriber. If I had to subscribe to satellite to get the programming I want, then I would do so.

I wish the industry could get past this "us vs. them" mentality with respect to satrad. What if terrestrial stations and networks could buy air time on the bird? I guess that would cool down some of this whining. Personally, I see satellite radio as an adjunct to terrestrial radio. Kind of a modern day version of AM skywave. Maybe the audio quality isn't as good as (some) terrestrial stations, but it's a heck of a lot better than skywave. And it's kind of cool to think of being able to drive all across the country while listening to your favorite station.

 

[almaniac27]

I can't help but notice that these discussions invariably return at some point to comparisons of the audio quality of analog vs. HD vs. satellite radio. That's interesting from a technical perspective, but my friends and neighbors tell me they never listen to the radio-- any kind of radio-- for high quality audio. They listen for the programming. They listen because there's something on that they want to hear!

I actually do support local radio financially-- to the tune of a dollar a day-- because of the fact that my local classical station (WFMT) provides such an outstanding service that it is well worth supporting. And that is the primary reason why I am not a satellite subscriber. If I had to subscribe to satellite to get the programming I want, then I would do so.

I wish the industry could get past this "us vs. them" mentality with respect to satrad. What if terrestrial stations and networks could buy air time on the bird? I guess that would cool down some of this whining. Personally, I see satellite radio as an adjunct to terrestrial radio. Kind of a modern day version of AM skywave. Maybe the audio quality isn't as good as (some) terrestrial stations, but it's a heck of a lot better than skywave. And it's kind of cool to think of being able to drive all across the country while listening to your favorite station.

I agree. I have a Sony XDR-S3HD tabletop radio and on FM I haven't been able to discern much improvement on SQ when a station locks into the HD signal. Most FM stations multicast, which reduces the bandwidth. Sure the noise floor may be better, but there's all sorts of digital compression artifacts, especially on high frequency sounds. On AM, HD sounds a bit better, but that's in part because the IBOC hiss is in the background on the analog signal. On my analog radios, when I tune in to WLW or WSAI, the only AM-HD stations in town, I can hear a hiss in the background, which is very annoying. I agree that satellite SQ isn't all that great either, but when I compare WLW-HD with XM 173, the XM channel sounds better.

The signal coverage is pretty lame. My Sony has excellent FM sensitivity, it can pick up weak analog FM signals with little to no static at all, but I still have plenty of problems with picking up the HD lock. I got the HD radio because a favorite internet station started broadcasting on a subchannel of a local public station. I quickly got fed up with it though. I would put the station on to go to sleep to, but the signal would drop out constantly. I haven't been in a car that has HD Radio (well, who has?) but I imagine that driving around, the station would drop out quite a bit, especially in the outer suburbs, where the money is. The station probably comes in fine in the inner city, but I don't know that people there could afford spending $150 plus on a radio. I know there are cheaper radios out there, but I also have a Radiosophy that is simply dreadful at locking into an HD signal for more than 10 seconds at a time.

 

[dumber than a box of hair]

The ads say it's got "CD quality sound."

No ad from either service makes such a claim. The XM site claims "digital quality sound"...a meaningless phrase, but certainly not anything that will be mistaken for "CD quality sound." The Sirius site makes no claims as to audio quality whatsoever.

Satellite radio repeaters interfere with terrestrial radio stations. It's a fact, for which they've been cited and fined by the FCC.

It is nothing of the kind. Satrad repeaters transmit on satellite frequencies, which aren't even close to terrestrial frequencies (i.e., the AM and FM bands). There is no interference between the two.

The satrad manufacturers were cited for RF-modulator FM-band emissions in excess of what's permitted under Part 15 of the FCC rules, which occasionally interfered with FM radios in vehicles which were physically close to the vehicles with the satellite radios. The manufacturers responded by sending every registered receiver owner a kit of ferrite cores which will attenuate the signal sufficiently to meet Part 15 requirements, a move which satisfied the FCC. The satrad companies were cited and fined for placing their repeaters in locations other than what was specified on their licenses. They caused no interference to any other services because no other service uses those frequencies.

You must buy an XM or Sirius radio, where the company gets a kick-back on the purchase price.

Since SiriusXM is the owner, developer and exclusive licensor of the chipsets and associated firmware used to receive the signals and permission the receivers, it's hardly a kick-back. The receiver manufacturers must lawfully pay for all of that, and that cost is passed along to the consumer...nothing new there.

The music channels are automated and voice-tracked and, worst of all, sound like it.

A over-arching generalization. In particular, many of the music channels that came over to the combined service from XM are very well done, and if they're VT'ed they don't sound like it. They are, however, automated, because there is no other way to provide that volume of music to so many music channels...and that's no different than any AM or FM station these days. And automation can run...easily...in "live assist" mode, with a live announcer. Done all the time.

 

[TheBigA]

OK...so you dispute four out of 10. Which still makes it a scam. And that was my point.

 

[KB1OKL]

I love radio over the air radio, listen to it all the time, I listened to both AM and FM just tonight at home along with Internet radio.
Satellite radio does not sound as good as analog FM, it is quieter and clearer, has fantastic range and has a great selection, I listen to it for CONTENT and CONVENIENCE. Satellite is not a scam it is well worth the money.
I sit right here and have 6 different sources for music, Satellite radio, Analog radio, HD radio, Internet radio, LP's and CD's, I don't mind paying for more choice.
The noise floor on IBOC is lower than analog, that doesn't make it sound better to me, it makes it quieter.
I don't dislike 75% of what I hear on radio, I dislike 75% of what I hear on the HD stations I can receive, no make that about 90%.
Yes Satellite has some interesting shows, it sounds more live than many over the air shows.
I have donated to NPR in the past, in fact have also donated to public radio but stopped donating to NPR when they became HD freeloaders although I will still listen, I'm not that principled ;D.

 

[dumber than a box of hair]

OK...so you dispute four out of 10. Which still makes it a scam. And that was my point.

No, that makes it your opinion. What OTA radio has forgotten about programming, satellite radio has stepped in and provided...not to the same extent, but at least they're making a stab at it. OTA radio would rather operate in protectionist mode and remain stagnant and uninteresting.

 

[TheBigA]

OK...so you dispute four out of 10. Which still makes it a scam. And that was my point.

No, that makes it your opinion. What OTA radio has forgotten about programming, satellite radio has stepped in and provided...not to the same extent, but at least they're making a stab at it. OTA radio would rather operate in protectionist mode and remain stagnant and uninteresting.

The business models are different. If satellite music channels were advertiser-supported, they would be very different.

Satellite radio is more like public radio, in that it depends on listeners for its income. Unfortunately, they have discovered the same thing public radio discovered, and that it's hard to exist when you depend on listener support.

 

[audioguy]

Satellite radio is more like public radio, in that it depends on listeners for its income. Unfortunately, they have discovered the same thing public radio discovered, and that it's hard to exist when you depend on listener support.

There are important differences between commercial and public radio, and satellite radio that are being overlooked here. Commercial radio depends on advertisers for its support; thus the advertisers have a primary role in determining the programming. Presumably there is some inefficiency because advertisers undoubtedly pay for some amount of listeners that they are not actually getting, plus there is no guarantee that listeners will actually buy the particular goods and services being advertised. Thus, advertisers pay for a service that they may not actually be getting.

By contrast, public radio depends on listeners for its support, and therefore the listeners have a primary role in determining the programming. The inefficiency in this case comes about because there are many listeners who consume the programming without paying for it. Thus, listeners can receive a service that they are not actually paying for.

Satellite radio is different in that listeners must pay for the service if they want to consume it. Listeners cannot "freeload" as they can in the case of public OTA radio. There is one similarity with public radio, in that listeners must support the service or it will fail. Thus, they have a primary role in determining the programming, like public radio.

 

[audioguy]

Quote from: TheBigA on Yesterday at 10:43:11 am
Satellite radio repeaters interfere with terrestrial radio stations. It's a fact, for which they've been cited and fined by the FCC.

Quote from: dumber than a box of hair on Yesterday at 08:48:11 pm
It is nothing of the kind. Satrad repeaters transmit on satellite frequencies, which aren't even close to terrestrial frequencies (i.e., the AM and FM bands). There is no interference between the two.

The satrad manufacturers were cited for RF-modulator FM-band emissions in excess of what's permitted under Part 15 of the FCC rules, which occasionally interfered with FM radios in vehicles which were physically close to the vehicles with the satellite radios. The manufacturers responded by sending every registered receiver owner a kit of ferrite cores which will attenuate the signal sufficiently to meet Part 15 requirements, a move which satisfied the FCC. The satrad companies were cited and fined for placing their repeaters in locations other than what was specified on their licenses. They caused no interference to any other services because no other service uses those frequencies.

Thanks to "dumber" for pointing this out. I would further add that many offending Part 15 FM transmitters are designed for use with an iPod or similar portable music player, and actually have nothing to do with satellite radio applications. You can read the NAB study here: http://www.nab.org/xert/corpcomm/NAB_Part15_Study.pdf