• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Bob Struble in Radio Ink: 10 Reasons to Roll Out HD

dumber than a box of hair said:
Our favorite spin-meister is at it again:

http://www.radioink.com/Article.asp?id=2149836&spid=30800

As usual, the comments at the bottom of the page are the most telling feature of this article.
Click to expand...

Summed us thusly: "everyone HAS to do digital because, well because.....everything else is *digital* so it must be better. And, even if it's not, it sounds cool to claim that you're *digital* and doing so will put my kids through college. So that's the way radio has to go."

Struble is such a creep.
 
The Stroob recently Tweeted he was driving home under the influence of Ambien (see other thread on this board.) Apparently it's a regular thing.... ::)
 
dumber than a box of hair said:
Our favorite spin-meister is at it again:

http://www.radioink.com/Article.asp?id=2149836&spid=30800

As usual, the comments at the bottom of the page are the most telling feature of this article.
Click to expand...

Once again the entire article is all about Ibiquity's survival. "Visionary broadcasters" are implementing HD Radio (insinuation: only a rube or Luddite would question whether digital radio is necessary or not). Point #2-Get those side channels up and running (translation: we need those extra licensing dollars). Point #7-Get that power boosted ASAP (translation: the technology doesn't work too well without it and don't worry about what it costs or if it significantly improves reception or who gets interfered with because, ultimately, they have to prove it).

Although Bob's "thoughts" columns center on radio broadcasting there is really nothing in them for broadcasters beyond a 'how-to' on how to spend more money and keep his precious company afloat. This one is no exception.
 
It is mind-boggling: how smart do you have to be to go onto social media - as a high-profile and controversial executive - and admit in front of all the world you're DUI on controlled prescription drugs? The "Kennedy" reference indicates a cavalier and irresponsible attitude. Apparently The Stroob thinks driving under the influence of Ambien is.....funny.

A moron. Educated way beyond his intelligence. Thank God that at least in this instance he hasn't hurt anyone. Somebody should forward that Tweet to Maryland authorities.
 
Hear them speak: when critics point out the same-old-endless reasons why HD is failing - largely because it's stupid, pointless, doesn't work acceptably, does harm to quality reception and costs a ton and nobody wants it - the response is:

Attack the critics.

In all fairness, it IS hard and demoralizing to constantly have to try to defend the indefensible.

Which is why most of HD's historically ardent boosters have long ago climbed into lifeboats and rowed away to a safe distance from the engineering and marketing disaster, "HD Radio."
 
Just giving you something to do in your spare time, gooroo! ;) :D

(Isn't this the "HD Radio" discussion board? What would you like us to discuss instead of HD's real market status? The ongoing tidal wave of success for HD? If that's your preference you might find that discussion even MORE bizarrely boring.)

The salient issue is: this idea is bad for radio. It's a lose-lose-lose. It needs to be said, because inertia, stubbornness and idiocy are driving the agenda. HD is giving the industry a black eye.

HD's success/lack of success is the point. If it's going to stick around, radio needs to get it to work properly and market it successfully. If it isn't, it needs to stop. Otherwise we're all Ford Motor Company still promoting the 1958 Edsel in 1964, when we should be rolling out the Mustang.

Hence the discussion which you feel is so pointless.
 
radiogooroo said:
dumber than a box of hair said:
As usual, the comments at the bottom of the page are the most telling feature of this article.
Click to expand...

What? The usual sniping from the peanut gallery?

Didn't bother to read the article, but I did glance the snipes. Same crap, different day. Yawn.
Click to expand...

Any sniping and ridicule directed at Ibiquity is totally deserved. They have done nothing to make it easy or even desirable for broadcasters to go digital--or stay digital. Struble's suggestions on how stations can monetize HD Radio do little to inspire confidence in the system. ITunes tagging? Pennies per month. Leasing sub-channels? Maybe, but so far only Bonneville has made that idea work to some extent in a few major markets. Album cover art? Who really cares and how well can they see it on such a small screen?

If I were a broadcaster contemplating HD Radio here is the kind of hard information I would want to see: who in my neighborhood actually owns HDR receivers? How many are in my city/county? Who are they; what are the demographics? For stations who have implemented HD Radio, has it made a positive difference in their bottom line? How?

These are the kinds of stats and information I would need before I consider a conversion to HD Radio. I already know it's going to cost a boatload of money and requires continual tinkering but is it money and time well spent? For Ibiquity to simply highlight that 3 million units and/or chipsets have been sold is not enough.
 
radiogooroo said:
Savage said:
Just giving you something to do in your spare time, gooroo! ;) :D

(Isn't this the "HD Radio" discussion board? What would you like us to discuss instead of HD's real market status? The ongoing tidal wave of success for HD? If that's your preference you might find that discussion even MORE bizarrely boring.)

The salient issue is: this idea is bad for radio. It's a lose-lose-lose. It needs to be said, because inertia, stubbornness and idiocy are driving the agenda. HD is giving the industry a black eye.

HD's success/lack of success is the point. If it's going to stick around, radio needs to get it to work properly and market it successfully. If it isn't, it needs to stop. Otherwise we're all Ford Motor Company still promoting the 1958 Edsel in 1964, when we should be rolling out the Mustang.

Hence the discussion which you feel is so pointless.
Click to expand...

Yes, this is a discussion board. The countless places all over the web that have been spammed by you guys aren't a discussion board. The customer review section on BestBuy.com and countless other retail sites isn't a discussion board. I didn't bother reading Struble's piece, but I'm willing to bet the comments below it have little to nothing to do with the content of that particular article. Probably just more of the stuff that has been regurgitated all over the web. Am I wrong?
Click to expand...

You're right, but there's a whole world of judgements to view today...online.
If any particular product is notably lackluster, today's world is a bad time to be promoting it as a new standard.
I'm sure others have their own private understanding of why they must say what they do, and where.
I don't have time to spam anywhere, but I will continue to express engineering truth.
Especially here.

Let me spin it differently. HD: Great Idea! Fine codec when not bw impaired! Every station gets a co-channel x.x mhz "up" the dial on AM for instance, on AM. Radio tunes to 710 AM, looks for ( 710 + x.x ) and decodes HD, which then time syncs IN THE RADIO and
blends analog/digital according to user selectable controls.

What's the difference except the old "status quo" and "NO NEW BANDWIDTH" caveats?

As long as "aether" is unwilling to behave as wire or fiber-optic would, especially as frequency becomes lower,
why ask such frequencies (wavelenghts) to resolve data in a range where they are unsuited to do so?

You don't take to the slalom course in an old Lincoln Conntinental Town Car for the very same reason.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom