"Consumers expect radio, they expect digital.."

[tomservo]

there is nothing wrong with analog am and fm radio.in fact when i think about digital tv it makes me hope a major shift to digital radio never happens.

Uh huh, because 1080i and 720p high definition television is soooo inferior to snowy analog NTSC color broadcasts. :

Yes, there have been some "growing pains" with the digital switchover (and I feel sorry for anyone whose local stations decided to go back to their VHF low allocations!) but by and large the digital signals perform noticeably better for all but the fringe viewers, who went from imperfect picture to no picture at all. It's a small price to pay for the much better picture quality -OR- the ability to multiplex several channels into the space one used to take up.

I actually wouldn't mind seeing a required digital switchover on FM only. It would eliminate a lot of the problems with saddling analog with digital sidebands. A narrower digital signal at much greater power would probably eliminate much of the dropout and sound quality issues we face today with the hybrid system.

 

[KB1OKL]

there is nothing wrong with analog am and fm radio.in fact when i think about digital tv it makes me hope a major shift to digital radio never happens.

but by and large the digital signals perform noticeably better for all but the fringe viewers, who went from imperfect picture to no picture at all, It's a small price to pay for the much better picture quality -OR- the ability to multiplex several channels into the space one used to take up.

Again, I don't think the growing number of fringe viewers who are starting to use antennas again would agree with you.

I actually wouldn't mind seeing a required digital switchover on FM only. It would eliminate a lot of the problems with saddling analog with digital sidebands. A narrower digital signal at much greater power would probably eliminate much of the dropout and sound quality issues we face today with the hybrid system.

I think the millions of people including me who own analog FM receivers and/or tuners would probably not like it too much.

 

[tomservo]

Horse and buggy whip manufacturers didn't like the car as much, either. Society was fine with horses and a 5 mph travel speed, so why embrace cars at all?

It's a shame that sometimes progress is rocky (god know I curse my electronics as much as I enjoy use them) but at some point the world needs to modernize.

Does radio need to modernize to digital? Nah, I don't think so. But I am saying that if it needs to be done, do it and get it over with; it won't be quite as bad as some make it seem.

There are digital to analog adapters for old TV sets. I got one right by me here and it works great. The same thing can be done for antique radios too, I'm sure.

 

[flashback]

the best picture on a tv set is no good when it goes in and out , if it comes in at all.thats how it is too often on tv with without cable now.

a superior radio signall that goes in and out and doesn`t come in is not better then the analog fm.

 

[radiotower40]

The problem I see with comparing DTV to "digital" radio is that TV is in most cases in a fixed position,
radio is used in cars and portable devices on the move, where I've yet to have consistent locked signal,

I have very little trouble with my DTV, now every once in a while, there is a dropout, for the most part
though a simple antenna adjustment fixes the problem, this is just my experience, others may have
different experiences,

(I apologize for the lack of periods in my post, my period key broke)

 

[landtuna]

Horse and buggy whip manufacturers didn't like the car as much, either. Society was fine with horses and a 5 mph travel speed, so why embrace cars at all?

I wasn't around then but I remember my grandparents talking about the introduction of cars. The earliest cars were very unreliable, expensive (although I don't know how they compared to horse care) and it was tough to find fuel where you needed to go. Roads were very rough and the open vehicles of the day got everyone dirty as there were practically no paved roads. They did provide speed over long distances though and riding in a car was generally easier and less hazardous than riding a horse. My grandfather was a doctor and he could get to his patient's house much faster in a car than in a buggy.

Both my grandparents said there was a lot of excitement about powered vehicles even with all their eccentricities so I wouldn't agree that society was satisfied with horse and buggy. People were used to horses though and had to learn a whole new technology with cars.

It's a shame that sometimes progress is rocky (god know I curse my electronics as much as I enjoy use them) but at some point the world needs to modernize.

For the world, especially the larger cities, the horse just couldn't keep up with the increasing population. Can you imagine the amount of horse manure in the streets if every citizen owned one horse and rode it daily? So yes, sometimes it is necessary to modernize but only if the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. In the case of horse vs car the answer is obvious.

Does radio need to modernize to digital? Nah, I don't think so. But I am saying that if it needs to be done, do it and get it over with; it won't be quite as bad as some make it seem.

I agree that radio does not need to go digital. The advantages are just not there and the disadvantages are still too numerous. I don't have to list them here as plenty of reasons are already on the board but the most evident problem is loss of signal as the receiver moves. No one will tolerate that.

DTV was not ready for prime time when it was foisted upon the viewing public. But as 85% of said public gets their signals from cable or satellite the noise level of those of us affected by the lousy digital signals is somewhat muted. But in-car radio has close to 100% of the total mobile audience and they are not going to be happy when their digital signals drop in and out as they drive. Should a digital radio conversion take place at the current level of technology a significant population of listeners will be up in arms because their "new" radio doesn't work as well as their "old". And this doesn't address the many radio station owners who see their audiences abandon digital radio for their iPods, MP3 players and CD's.

 

[TheBigA]

But in-car radio has close to 100% of the total mobile audience and they are not going to be happy when their digital signals drop in and out as they drive. Should a digital radio conversion take place at the current level of technology a significant population of listeners will be up in arms because their "new" radio doesn't work as well as their "old". And this doesn't address the many radio station owners who see their audiences abandon digital radio for their iPods, MP3 players and CD's.

And yet, their ipods, mp3 players, CDs, and cell phones all operate on digital technology. If we can get a man on the moon....

Here's the thing: Satellite radio subscribers currently experience the digital radio effect in cars. When it rains, their service is spotty, just like satellite TV. But I hear them say the benefits outweigh the negatives.

The future isn't going to be immediate. AM & FM went through several stages before they got to where we are now. I believe the internet, as we know it, is an intermediary technology right now that will change and adapt to the marketplace as we use it. Same with digital radio.

 

[landtuna]

And yet, their ipods, mp3 players, CDs, and cell phones all operate on digital technology.

I personally don't think people care whether their signal is digital OTA or analog. As long as it sounds "good" and is reliable they will come. The fact that they are listening to a digital device then "dumbing it down" with compression tells you pretty much all you need to know about listeners ability to differentiate.

Here's the thing: Satellite radio subscribers currently experience the digital radio effect in cars. When it rains, their service is spotty, just like satellite TV. But I hear them say the benefits outweigh the negatives.

Yes but extrapolate the minuscule number of sat listeners into the huge numbers of mobile listeners and you're going to have a whole lot of unhappy people. Remember that a significant number of sat listeners are in over-the-road trucks and there isn't any other choice for them once outside the city limits. But digital radio doesn't have the range of sat so that comparison is pretty much moot. Imagine listening to your favorite political slam-fest and missing every third sentence.

The future isn't going to be immediate. AM & FM went through several stages before they got to where we are now. I believe the internet, as we know it, is an intermediary technology right now that will change and adapt to the marketplace as we use it. Same with digital radio.

I was addressing the poster who said "get it over with now". It's not ready. Whether it will ever be ready is something that we will have to wait and see but I personally don't see how digital radio can ever overcome the laws of physics.

 

[TheBigA]

I personally don't think people care whether their signal is digital OTA or analog.

I think you're speaking for yourself. A simple visit to any electronics store will prove differently. The entire electronics industry is motivated around new technologies and devices. Twenty years ago, most people were perfectly satisfied with IBM Selectric typewriters. They certainly got the job done. Why would anyone want a computer?

Imagine listening to your favorite political slam-fest and missing every third sentence.

I think your objections are over how things are right now.

 

[Carmine5]

With the exception of the dreaded 'cliff effect' and that it doesn't work too well on the VHF band, there is little doubt that broadcast television has benefited greatly by going digital. The problem is that it took so long to develop and agree on a standard that that standard is now obsolete. There's already talk of dumping MPEG 2 and even ATSC.

What consumers expect most from radio is that it be reliable--not necessarily digital. That is a notion concocted by Ibiquity's sales department.

My Motorola Droid X phone has an analog FM radio that actually sounds pretty good, uses very little energy and is fairly sensitive. When I describe the phone to people and mention that it has a radio, most show an interest in that feature. What they don't ask is if the radio is digital.

 

[TheBigA]

What they don't ask is if the radio is digital.

They also don't ask if it's analog. But they like new features. That's what drives the sales of all products. Tide laudry detergent was in a sales slump, so someone suggested adding the words "new and impoved" to the box. The executive asked, "What did we do to improve it?" The marketing guy replied, "Nothing. It just helps sell stuff."

That's a problem now with radio. Radio is reliable. But it's not new. No motivation to buy a radio if the old one works fine. Same with cars. Why should I buy a new Volvo, if the old 1980 one still runs? Ten years ago, some folks in radio talked about this problem and it led to HD Radio. Nice idea, bad execution. Also very bad timing. But that doesn't mean that the problem they saw then doesn't still exist today. It does. And so maybe people aren't demanding digital radio. But they do need a reason to buy another radio, and programming isn't enough of a motivation, as we discovered with satellite radio. Combining a radio and a cell phone is a great idea, and yet there are lots of people who hate it because the NAB supports it. Or because they wouldn't use it. So prevent anyone else from trying it because a handful of opponants don't like it. Same argument is being used to oppose ditital radio.

The ideal situation would be to do both. Continue to current analog system, but provide a duplicate digital system with additional subchannels in another part of the spectrum. That's what should be done, but it won't because the FCC thinks it's in the business of selling, not regulating, spectrum.

 

[flashback]

^ people don`t need to buy new radios.not unless they need to replace an old one or they move in a bigger place or some reason like that.the manafacturers want people to buy new radios.

i don`t see radio being reliable but not new a problem.there was a time where a reliable product was consittered good.i would hope that is the case now.

if digital radio was an option and analog was still an option i would be foine with it.we all know it never stays that way.digital gets its foot in the door and its byer bye analog.

 

[local oscillator]

As an owner, I can tell you that I don't really care if folks buy new radios or not, as long as they have them and use the hell out of them -- which they do! My listeners want to be entertained and informed and my clients want their messages to be heard, and every day analog FM makes that a reality in spades because it works. It doesn't matter if our programming comes out of old car radios, boomboxes, walkmans, table models, consoles, component systems, or the latest Droid device. There are a billion of them out there, and they are being used. Satellite radio, internet radio, and HD Radio have all had the better part of a decade to improve on the analog model. Their results? Tiny, tiny, and non-existent listening rates. The inertia and equity that analog FM has will be hard to derail. I'm not saying that it can't happen someday, but it won't be by the likes of its three current "challengers."

 

[TheBigA]

As an owner, I can tell you that I don't really care if folks buy new radios or not, as long as they have them and use the hell out of them -- which they do!

I agree with that. However, there is a general mood of negativity towards radio as being old or obsolete. It gets back to the Tide Detergent story I talked about. Radio companies don't actually benefit from device sales, so technically it doesn't matter. But there is a residual benefit if you're an old company like CBS, and suddenly people are excited about their new 1080p plasma TVs. I think radio owners and content providers would benefit from some hot new radio device, if only in good PR. It doesn't exist yet, but I'm hopeful that someday it will.

 

[landtuna]

Uh huh, because 1080i and 720p high definition television is soooo inferior to snowy analog NTSC color broadcasts. :

I know you're stirring the pot here but....the vast majority of analog TV viewers didn't have "snowy NTSC color broadcasts". We had clear, uninterrupted reception - even in storms. The picture never faded. There was never any need to rotate the antenna and no outside antenna was needed. And it didn't take 5 full seconds to change channels. The digital video may be a touch cleaner but what value is that if every several minutes the video locks or pixelates?

And OTA HD? Sure, if the broadcaster doesn't load up his signal with multiple subs each of which takes a bite out of the HD. In fact, two major networks don't run at full HD because DTV can't keep up with full motion sports programs.

Sorry. I see one possible benefit and a whole hatload of deficiency.

 

[flashback]

^ i agree about the picture being clear in the analog days.

i had good reception without it breaking up.

no matter how people sell the benefits of digital tv i can tell by personal experence analog was better.i would do without the substations if we had analog tv again and dependable signal that won`t go in and out on me or just not come in at all.

we would be better off if radio just stayed analog to avoid problems.

 

[TheBigA]

we would be better off if radio just stayed analog to avoid problems.

No, we would be better if the problems were fixed.

 

[flashback]

we would be better off if radio just stayed analog to avoid problems.

No, we would be better if the problems were fixed.

and the problems are what?fm gets a clear signal.the voice quality and music quality are very good.the signal stays steady.analog tv was the same thing .now if one doesn`t pay for cable or get an expensive antena there are problems with the signal going in and out or having no signal at all.we don`t need that for radio.

 

[TheBigA]

we don`t need that for radio.

Don't be so afraid.

 

[flashback]

we would be better off if radio just stayed analog to avoid problems.

No, we would be better if the problems were fixed.

i`m still waiting for what the problems are.