I restarted this based on my hijacked thoughts. Sorry everyone if your annoyed...
You know, Chuck, I have found this set of feelings to be the case overall in the industry. I'm not in love with the technology. However I HAVE seen many new ideas ignored until it's too late. It's my perception that MOST radio people are a little skeptical, but afraid to "Miss the Boat". I know that's "MY" thought. I have become MUCH more of a believer based on the riff raff in here and the absurdity of their analysis.
I can see the FM folks who love Multicast. The AM folks are... Well the AM folks. We've already been left behind, and now we're trying to find a place in this "Brave New Radio World." I see AM HD as better sound. But I see the FM multicast as a greater threat than our substandard AM sound NOW. With 3 times the stations on the air in a short while (HD-2 and HD-3) , how long before all AMs which are successful get an FM-HD competitor? I work at an independant "Four letter network" sports station. And I'm not real thrilled that my network is on satellite. And the internet. And they have Pod Center. Etc.. etc.. Still, not counting live sports, we produce 5 hours of local content every day. That, along with rights fees and local broadcast production, is what we can sell.
This sounds crazy, but in the future, I can see "US" (As a stand alone AM) going to straight HD music (VERY LOW COST) and our FM compadres doing sports on W-Sports, W-Sports HD-2 and W-Sports HD-3. With the pile of cash we make on live sports gone, we'll be spinning the oldies in HD. And we'll still be on the bottom of the pile.
What's it they say in Second City???? OOOOOh That's Scary.
Clouseau
Chuck said:<snip>
As I said, the group was fairly evenly divided. What struck me the most was the lack of religious fervor that I had detected in the past. The pro-HD group seemed mostly to be people who had something to sell. Even they were pretty quiet about it. The anti-HD group seemed more like "in the trenches" engineers, many of them from AM stations. The guys in the middle were currently running HD stations, and were doing whatever it took to get the job done. At least, they had the opportunity to upgrade their facilities as a result of HD, and that is not a bad thing.
You know, Chuck, I have found this set of feelings to be the case overall in the industry. I'm not in love with the technology. However I HAVE seen many new ideas ignored until it's too late. It's my perception that MOST radio people are a little skeptical, but afraid to "Miss the Boat". I know that's "MY" thought. I have become MUCH more of a believer based on the riff raff in here and the absurdity of their analysis.
I can see the FM folks who love Multicast. The AM folks are... Well the AM folks. We've already been left behind, and now we're trying to find a place in this "Brave New Radio World." I see AM HD as better sound. But I see the FM multicast as a greater threat than our substandard AM sound NOW. With 3 times the stations on the air in a short while (HD-2 and HD-3) , how long before all AMs which are successful get an FM-HD competitor? I work at an independant "Four letter network" sports station. And I'm not real thrilled that my network is on satellite. And the internet. And they have Pod Center. Etc.. etc.. Still, not counting live sports, we produce 5 hours of local content every day. That, along with rights fees and local broadcast production, is what we can sell.
This sounds crazy, but in the future, I can see "US" (As a stand alone AM) going to straight HD music (VERY LOW COST) and our FM compadres doing sports on W-Sports, W-Sports HD-2 and W-Sports HD-3. With the pile of cash we make on live sports gone, we'll be spinning the oldies in HD. And we'll still be on the bottom of the pile.
What's it they say in Second City???? OOOOOh That's Scary.
Clouseau