CCrane's new ACOUSTIC ENERGY WI-FI INTERNET RADIO

[SayNoToIBOC]

This is an impressive radio and impressive technology - all that is needed, is a wireless broadband Internet connection. Now, if I had to choose, between a table-top HD/IBOC radio and the WI-FI Internet radio, there is NO comparision. One's computer doesn't even need to be turn on. Heard this radio advertised on, "Coast to Coast AM", last night. This is exciting technology - hear radio stations, from all over the world ! Now, I know what Mark Ramsey was talking about, when he said, "HD/IBOC is already outfoxed, even before it gets out of the gate".

http://www.ccrane.com/radios/internet-radios/acoustic-energy-wi-fi-internet-radio.aspx

 

[SayNoToIBOC]

Here is a note, from their Recepter HD radio page:

"Note: The HD radio signal is only available within approximately 100 miles of HD broadcasts, but it will still pick up standard (analog) AM/FM signals as normal when the HD signal is out of range. You can be assured Crane is working on developing an antenna to increase this range".

Maybe, there is also a problem with the transmission coverage Compared to their Wi-Fi radio, what a frick'n joke !

AND, 55% of Americans have broadband Internet conections, at home, and/or at work:

http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/121/report_display.asp

 

[davideduardo]

This is an impressive radio and impressive technology - all that is needed, is a wireless broadband Internet connection. Now, if I had to choose, between a table-top HD/IBOC radio and the WI-FI Internet radio, there is NO comparision. One's computer doesn't even need to be turn on. Heard this radio advertised on, "Coast to Coast AM", last night. This is exciting technology - hear radio stations, from all over the world ! Now, I know what Mark Ramsey was talking about, when he said, "HD/IBOC is already outfoxed, even before it gets out of the gate".

You are thinking like a DXer. Most people do not want to listen to stations outside their market area, and do not really want to hear internet streams that have, for the most part, no local content, and are just someone's iPod on hold. FYI, internet streaming gest almost zero mentions in Arbitron diaries... you would think that with so manya millions of computers, it would show up. It doesn´t.

 

[davideduardo]

Here is a note, from their Recepter HD radio page:

"Note: The HD radio signal is only available within approximately 100 miles of HD broadcasts, but it will still pick up standard (analog) AM/FM signals as normal when the HD signal is out of range. You can be assured Crane is working on developing an antenna to increase this range".

Maybe, there is also a problem with the transmission coverage Compared to their Wi-Fi radio, what a frick'n joke !

AND, 55% of Americans have broadband Internet conections, at home, and/or at work:

99.9% of radio listening is well within 100 miles of a station. In fact, very few US stations cover a radius of 100 miles! What a crock.

Most of us bought computers to do work, not to use as a $1000 and up radio.

 

[SayNoToIBOC]

If the 100 mile radius wasn't true, then why is CCrane making modifications to the antenna !

"Most of us bought computers to do work, not to use as a $1000 and up radio"

This statment is TRULY laughable - this time you have out done yourself !

Looks like computers can be used for both, now - hey, studies have shown that the majority of the Internet is used for pornography purposes ! You are running out of steam !!! What's the matter - have nothing negative to say about Wi-Fi technology !

 

[SayNoToIBOC]

"You are thinking like a DXer. Most people do not want to listen to stations outside their market area, and do not really want to hear internet streams that have, for the most part, no local content, and are just someone's iPod on hold. FYI, internet streaming gest almost zero mentions in Arbitron diaries... you would think that with so manya millions of computers, it would show up. It doesn´t."

Your arguments are truly not holding water any more - why then are, and have been, so many shortwave listeners ? And, of course, you have NO facts to back up your statements. Mark Ramsey would certainly disagree with you. Your counter arguments are relly getting ridiculous !

 

[SayNoToIBOC]

Do you really think, that if listeners had an option of being able to hear news from around the world, such as the Middle East, in English through an easy to use menu system, they are going to be satisfied with an HD radio, stuck in just a local market ? Who are you kidding !

 

[Chuck]

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that there will be more of these Internet radios on the market. Right now, some wireless PDA's can download and play audio files from web streams. It won't be too long before an iPod like device is on the market that plays wi-fi or wi-max radio stations. Even small communities are adding these wireless services as a public utility, often with free access. In my rural neighborhood, even the local airport has free wireless Internet service.

It's probably easier to set up such utilities in small towns and rural areas, but I'll bet that it is coming to a big city near you. As long as there is money in it, someone will do it.

That's not to say that similar portable devices won't be available for HD Radio, but as these technologies proliferate, the competition for listeners will increase.

 

[arnoldevns]

You are thinking like a DXer. Most people do not want to listen to stations outside their market area, and do not really want to hear internet streams that have, for the most part, no local content, and are just someone's iPod on hold. FYI, internet streaming gest almost zero mentions in Arbitron diaries... you would think that with so manya millions of computers, it would show up. It doesn´t.

Arbitron reports online listening in a different report. They have an online radio listening report. April is the latest set of numbers released on their website:
http://www.arbitron.com/onlineradio/apr_ratings_2006.htm

This shows that during the day there are 1.2 million online radio listeners in an AQH. That seems like a pretty good number to me.

 

[autopaint-1]

Are those numbers national? International? Considering that in the NY market alon there are approx 15 million people, you're talking tiny numbers spread over a wide area and what percentage of those numbers come from terrrestrial rebroadcasts? 1 million people for a single internet stream would be impresive. 1 million for all the different streams provided by say a Clear Channel isn't that hot.

 

[dbdigital]

This is an impressive radio and impressive technology - all that is needed, is a wireless broadband Internet connection. Now, if I had to choose, between a table-top HD/IBOC radio and the WI-FI Internet radio, there is NO comparision. One's computer doesn't even need to be turn on. Heard this radio advertised on, "Coast to Coast AM", last night. This is exciting technology - hear radio stations, from all over the world ! Now, I know what Mark Ramsey was talking about, when he said, "HD/IBOC is already outfoxed, even before it gets out of the gate".

http://www.ccrane.com/radios/internet-radios/acoustic-energy-wi-fi-internet-radio.aspx

This is a win-win for everybody. Broadcasters can set up webstreaming for very little money and get their listeners during the day while they are at work, particularly where radios aren't allowed or there are reception problems. Community groups and others can begin broadcasting without hassling the FCC's constipated licensing process. All can broadcast digitally without interfering with anyone.

The downside, besides the royalty payment issue and possibly DRM, is still the lack of a ubiquitous infrastructure for WiMAX. That's slowly changing as far as cities go but is still problematic for rural areas. I wonder if WiFi or WiMAX can be distributed by satellite?

But, without a doubt, internet radio holds the greatest promise and as rapidly as advances in internet technology are occurring could surpass HD Radio in adoption by the public.

db

 

[sbe1]

Many large companies block the ports that carry this type of programming. They do not want their company bandwidth tied up with this kind of stuff. Companies are getting much more diligent about monitoring internet usage by employees for security and productivity reasons. So dont look at it as being the up and coming thing.

 

[SUPERCASTER]

You are thinking like a DXer. Most people do not want to listen to stations outside their market area, and do not really want to hear internet streams that have, for the most part, no local content, and are just someone's iPod on hold. FYI, internet streaming gest almost zero mentions in Arbitron diaries... you would think that with so manya millions of computers, it would show up. It doesn´t.

Arbitron reports online listening in a different report. They have an online radio listening report. April is the latest set of numbers released on their website:
http://www.arbitron.com/onlineradio/apr_ratings_2006.htm
This shows that during the day there are 1.2 million online radio listeners in an AQH. That seems like a pretty good number to me.

The Arbitron report only includes streaming stations from 6 sources. There are thousands more!
The report is incomplete, and therefore the numbers are only a small percentage of streaming listenership.

If radio depends on live local programming, then they had better get some. Most programming is recorded material from CD's, or from network shows. A little of the news on all news stations is local, live. Perhaps an occasional non-network talk show. Occasionally, a local station might broadcast a live high school ballgame. Occasionally a local announcer might title announce or do a weather report, but that is VERY small percentage of the broadcast day.

 

[dbdigital]

Many large companies block the ports that carry this type of programming. They do not want their company bandwidth tied up with this kind of stuff. Companies are getting much more diligent about monitoring internet usage by employees for security and productivity reasons. So dont look at it as being the up and coming thing.

Still many companies and organizations do allow workers to listen to radio via internet. Where I work, which is a county facility, they allow it as long as it doesn't disturb others or interfere with work. To them it's no different then having a portable radio or iPod at one's cubicle. The admins are still able to block sites deemed unsuitable.

So obviously some will and some won't. In any event, if someone has a portable wi-fi radio, and there are hot spots in the building, it's a non-issue.

db

 

[davideduardo]

Arbitron reports online listening in a different report. They have an online radio listening report. April is the latest set of numbers released on their website:
http://www.arbitron.com/onlineradio/apr_ratings_2006.htm
This shows that during the day there are 1.2 million online radio listeners in an AQH. That seems like a pretty good number to me.

The Arbitron report only includes streaming stations from 6 sources. There are thousands more!
The report is incomplete, and therefore the numbers are only a small percentage of streaming listenership.

If radio depends on live local programming, then they had better get some. Most programming is recorded material from CD's, or from network shows. A little of the news on all news stations is local, live. Perhaps an occasional non-network talk show. Occasionally, a local station might broadcast a live high school ballgame. Occasionally a local announcer might title announce or do a weather report, but that is VERY small percentage of the broadcast day.

The Arbitron radio survey, not the internet survey, picks up satellite and streaming if anyone is listening. It picks up very few Internet listeners.

1.2 million is tiny. It is the sum of the average listening of the top 10 stations in LA... JUST LA. that is it.

We KNOW that local content is made up of recorded sources such as music and such. However, most listening is to stations that do that, on the air, than on computers or satellite receivers. While there is some small erosion over the last few years in radio listening (10% since 1988 or less than 0.6% a year) 94% of Americans listen to radio weekly, and the average time spent with radio is over 19 hours.

Funny, but at our 70-some stations, the talent does everything from live mosring shows that are 80% talk, to AM talkers with local content to music formats with local contests, events and a music mix that is a result of asking local listeners what they want. No internet staiton can do that.

 

[autopaint-1]

Forgive me but why are we discussng Wi-Fi and satellites when this board is for the discussion of HD. Aren't there any moderators here? This board has gotten so far off track in my opinion due to a few people who do nothing but attack IBOC technology and ney say any facts they disagree with, using someone elses words to fight their battle. It would be interesting to discuss HD but we can't have a civil discussion in this environment.

 

[IBOCRocks]

Forgive me but why are we discussng Wi-Fi and satellites when this board is for the discussion of HD. Aren't there any moderators here? This board has gotten so far off track in my opinion due to a few people who do nothing but attack IBOC technology and ney say any facts they disagree with, using someone elses words to fight their battle. It would be interesting to discuss HD but we can't have a civil discussion in this environment.

I agree. It gets comical here at times. Someone asks for info on getting a tabletop HD radio, and they are given info on a WiFi radio. I guess if you want "fair and balanced" IBOC discussion, this ain't the place to be!

 

[dbdigital]

Forgive me but why are we discussng Wi-Fi and satellites when this board is for the discussion of HD. Aren't there any moderators here? This board has gotten so far off track in my opinion due to a few people who do nothing but attack IBOC technology and ney say any facts they disagree with, using someone elses words to fight their battle. It would be interesting to discuss HD but we can't have a civil discussion in this environment.

I agree. It gets comical here at times. Someone asks for info on getting a tabletop HD radio, and they are given info on a WiFi radio. I guess if you want "fair and balanced" IBOC discussion, this ain't the place to be!

Oh, chill out, people. I don't think this board or any of us are going to self-destruct because the discussion takes a kind of stream of consciousness route...especially when people like David Eduardo make silly, biased, unresearched generalizations about internet radio on the HD radio board. Are we suddenly supposed carry on this discussion on another forum?

If you don't like it, start a new topic. Simple.

db

 

[autopaint-1]

"Oh, chill out, people. I don't think this board or any of us are going to self-destruct because the discussion takes a kind of stream of consciousness route...especially when people like David Eduardo make silly, biased, unresearched generalizations about internet radio on the HD radio board. Are we suddenly supposed carry on this discussion on another forum?"

First of all these same Anti-Iboc people were hear doing nothing but attacking IBOC with the same linked arguments over and over before David appeared. It's not him, it's the adjenda of a few people who add nothig to our knowledge base. but who's purpose is to make discussion of IBOC impossible, for those of us who are truly interested in it's virtues and flaws.

"If you don't like it, start a new topic. Simple."

If it were that simple there wouldn't be any complaints. These same people post the same argumants on every thread. It seems they are determined to stop any discussion about IBOC. Actually, even though differnt names are being used, the writing style appears as if all these negative IBOC posts were coming from one or two people using different names. Eventually, they will get their wish and activity here will cease. Who wants to be verbally abused by a person'/people who claim to have no experience with the technology actually "spamming" the board with their propaganda any time someone makes a comment? Sometimes they even reply to themselves!!

 

[SayNoToIBOC]

autopaint-1 wrote: "Forgive me but why are we discussng Wi-Fi and satellites when this board is for the discussion of HD. Aren't there any moderators here? This board has gotten so far off track in my opinion due to a few people who do nothing but attack IBOC technology and ney say any facts they disagree with, using someone elses words to fight their battle. It would be interesting to discuss HD but we can't have a civil discussion in this environment."

I started this thread, because I heard this radio advertised on Coast To Coast AM, and since I am an AM DX'er, I would like to see HD Radio fail; Wi-Fi technology, along with Satellite Radio, are direct competitiors to HD Radio; besides, Wi-Fi technology is really amaizing !

autopaint-1 wrote: "If it were that simple there wouldn't be any complaints. These same people post the same argumants on every thread. It seems they are determined to stop any discussion about IBOC. Actually, even though differnt names are being used, the writing style appears as if all these negative IBOC posts were coming from one or two people using different names. Eventually, they will get their wish and activity here will cease. Who wants to be verbally abused by a person'/people who claim to have no experience with the technology actually "spamming" the board with their propaganda any time someone makes a comment? Sometimes they even reply to themselves!!"

Personally, I have not said one abusive thing, as a matter of facts, you are the one, along with David, that have gotten so hostile, shooting personal insults. As with rec.radio.shortwave, David keeps posting the same things, over and over again, and never backs it up with facts/links. He is a Univision executive, believe it or not, and is certainly very biased towards HD Radio. Attacking HD/IBOC - isn't that the point of message boards, in general, to have differing opinions. No one is using different names to post, there are just more anti-IBOC folks, than you would like to admit - gosh, doesn't that say something about this foolish technology. Somethimes I have to reply to myself, because the time expires on the original post, and then I have to post again - big deal ! I have to post the same links, over and over agin, because you all aren't obviously reading them, and especially David, make the same arguments, over and over again !

Don't get so upset ! If you don't like the posts, don't read them, and don't reply ! Yes, this is going to be a long, drawn out battle, but I am up to it - this is fun !