• 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

FM Broadcasters Begin Digital Radio Multicasts in Bay Area

Re: Digital Radio Cost Issues

> Satellite radio easily beats anything regarding HD radio. I
> wish it weren't so, but it is...Look for your local stations
> on satellite within a decade.
>
> > Putting aside the programming merits of Satellite for a minute - I was talking about sound...fidelity. I've been told that the current sound quality of Satellite is not up to that of Digital broadcast radio...yet anyway. But I'm really not trying to start another Broadcast radio versus Satellite debate - I can see a future where both are successful. It was predicted in the early 1950s that TV would destroy radio AND movie theatres, then Cable TV would destroy "free" TV, VCRs would destroy commercial TV, TiVO would destroy commerical TV, etc., etc. But they all peacefully co-exist.
 
> I can't see myself paying 499.95 for that Boston Accoustic
> receiver or Bose just to pick up a higher quality like SCA
> channel when i get all those channels commercial free for
> 12.95. And to hear commercials later on....I think it will
> go down like AM stereo.

I'm sorry but I think your argument lacks here. As mentioned before, we're going to see the price of these HD radios fall through the floor. That's great that you enjoy your sat radio, but when push comes to shove you're paying over $150 a year for that content and only average sound quality (in my opinion).

If the radios (and mark my words, they will) come down in price to under $150, I'm buying (given that HD is in my market).

You're paying that $12.95 a month for the freedom of no commercials and a larger ammount of content and that's fine. I agree, as others do on this board, that they will co-exist for some time to come.

The future of Radio in my opinion: WiFi Radio - IP based radio. The choices for content are unlimited.

-Enginerd<P ID="signature">______________
If you put your mind to it, you can accomplish anything...</P>
 
Re: Digital Radio Cost Issues

> > I can't see myself paying 499.95 for that Boston Accoustic
>
> > receiver or Bose just to pick up a higher quality like SCA
>
> > channel when i get all those channels commercial free for
> > 12.95. And to hear commercials later on....I think it will
>
> > go down like AM stereo.
>
> You could be right about that. Though I would think the
> costs will come down, as they usually do in consumer
> electronics. Weren't satellite radio receivers really
> expensive at first? One of my cars needs a new stereo - the
> CD player is out - and I'll likely buy a new one that's both
> MP3 compatible, and digital. I take BART to work, so I
> mostly drive on the weekends. I'm not ready to pay that
> monthly fee for Satellite yet - not worth it. The analogy to
> AM stereo is not a good one, in my opinion. The bottom line
> on AM Stereo, even once all the kinks were worked out - was
> that - stereo or not, the fidelity sucked, and FM was much
> better. You can't make that argument about digital radio,
> since it has superior fidelity compared to regular FM, and
> even to Satellite, if I understand correctly.
>
> >
>

Actually the HD channels are severely compressed and inferior to FM analog, although a lot of the crappy audio processing being used on analog FM tends to obscure the inherent differences. The fidelity may be a little better than satellite, which is truly awful, but "HD" is certainly far, far inferior to "CD quality." The AM IBOC is even worse -- utterly unlistenable to my ears, plus it forces narrower bandwidth on the AM analog signal. Both systems generate adjacent channel interference -- again, the AM problem is far worse, but even FM IBOC causes interference problems (KALW is now wiping out KKUP in Cupertino in places where KKUP was once heard clearly, for example).

The problem with AM stereo was not fidelity so much as the vicious and destructive war over technical standards which the government failed to settle until it was too late. The fidelity was better than anything AM IBOC will ever hope to deliver, and in any case the problems were more in the receivers than the signal. The industry did learn from that by trying to settle on an IBOC standard early. But that standard locks in technology that is already outdated and the licensing arrangement favors the huge chains that own pieces of iBiquity.
 
Re: Digital Radio Cost Issues

> > > I can't see myself paying 499.95 for that Boston
> Accoustic
> >
> > > receiver or Bose just to pick up a higher quality like
> SCA
> >
> > > channel when i get all those channels commercial free
> for
> > > 12.95. And to hear commercials later on....I think it
> will
> >
> > > go down like AM stereo.
> >
> > You could be right about that. Though I would think the
> > costs will come down, as they usually do in consumer
> > electronics. Weren't satellite radio receivers really
> > expensive at first? One of my cars needs a new stereo -
> the
> > CD player is out - and I'll likely buy a new one that's
> both
> > MP3 compatible, and digital. I take BART to work, so I
> > mostly drive on the weekends. I'm not ready to pay that
> > monthly fee for Satellite yet - not worth it. The analogy
> to
> > AM stereo is not a good one, in my opinion. The bottom
> line
> > on AM Stereo, even once all the kinks were worked out -
> was
> > that - stereo or not, the fidelity sucked, and FM was much
>
> > better. You can't make that argument about digital radio,
> > since it has superior fidelity compared to regular FM, and
>
> > even to Satellite, if I understand correctly.
> >
> > >
> >
>
> Actually the HD channels are severely compressed and
> inferior to FM analog, although a lot of the crappy audio
> processing being used on analog FM tends to obscure the
> inherent differences. The fidelity may be a little better
> than satellite, which is truly awful, but "HD" is certainly
> far, far inferior to "CD quality." The AM IBOC is even
> worse -- utterly unlistenable to my ears, plus it forces
> narrower bandwidth on the AM analog signal. Both systems
> generate adjacent channel interference -- again, the AM
> problem is far worse, but even FM IBOC causes interference
> problems (KALW is now wiping out KKUP in Cupertino in places
> where KKUP was once heard clearly, for example).
>
> The problem with AM stereo was not fidelity so much as the
> vicious and destructive war over technical standards which
> the government failed to settle until it was too late. The
> fidelity was better than anything AM IBOC will ever hope to
> deliver, and in any case the problems were more in the
> receivers than the signal. The industry did learn from that
> by trying to settle on an IBOC standard early. But that
> standard locks in technology that is already outdated and
> the licensing arrangement favors the huge chains that own
> pieces of iBiquity.

Just curious: what model of HD radio have you been using?
>
 
I've got Dishnetwork Sat TV and they have Sirius music. It's good but it's not worth $12.95 per month. I'll wait for a cheap digital radio.






I can't see myself paying 499.95 for that Boston Accoustic
>
> > receiver or Bose just to pick up a higher quality like SCA
>
> > channel when i get all those channels commercial free for
> > 12.95. And to hear commercials later on....I think it will
>
> > go down like AM stereo.
>
> I'm sorry but I think your argument lacks here. As
> mentioned before, we're going to see the price of these HD
> radios fall through the floor. That's great that you enjoy
> your sat radio, but when push comes to shove you're paying
> over $150 a year for that content and only average sound
> quality (in my opinion).
>
> If the radios (and mark my words, they will) come down in
> price to under $150, I'm buying (given that HD is in my
> market).
>
> You're paying that $12.95 a month for the freedom of no
> commercials and a larger ammount of content and that's fine.
> I agree, as others do on this board, that they will
> co-exist for some time to come.
>
> The future of Radio in my opinion: WiFi Radio - IP based
> radio. The choices for content are unlimited.
>
> -Enginerd
>
 
Re: HD Radio vs. HDTV

> > No HD radio here. I'm too poor.. I need to get my teeth
> > fixed first. To heck with HDTV & radio.
>
>
> The difference: eventually you'll have to get an HDTV if you
> plan to keep watching television. As for radio, there are
> lots and lots (and lots) of options.
>
> Lots of 'em.
>
> Tons.
>
> DJ
>
You are wrong about that, over the air viewers will only have to buy an adaptor box and cable subscribers don't have to worry at all, the set top box does it all!!!
 
Re: HD Radio vs. HDTV

> I've got Dishnetwork so I don't have to worry until one of
> my TVS goes out, which are 6 years old. Eventuallly I'll get
> a digital or HD set. But not until 10 years down the road.
>
And then the price will be well under what they are now for a set!
>
>
> > > No HD radio here. I'm too poor.. I need to get my teeth
>
> > > fixed first. To heck with HDTV & radio.
> >
> >
> > The difference: eventually you'll have to get an HDTV if
> you
> > plan to keep watching television. As for radio, there are
> > lots and lots (and lots) of options.
> >
> > Lots of 'em.
> >
> > Tons.
> >
> > DJ
> >
>
 
Re: Why HD radio will die a painful death

To the point someone made about cable TV/Broadcast TV peacefully existing: Much bigger piece of the pie to carve up there. Also, the impact of more choice on TV has been tremendous for viewers...and very bad for the networks.

30 years ago, you could count on 26 minutes of content per half hour. Now, it's 21:30...Because the networks keep on trying to please investors...And that's why, even though they cornered the market years ago on supposedly "public" airwaves, ABC/NBC/CBS/Fox are all screaming about controlling content on Cable TV. Sorry guys, you can't put the genie back in the bottle. I have no sympathy for them.


Radio's audience has been and always will be smaller.

Companies like CC want HD to be successful because THEY want to control it. But, they are way too late...and too greedy.




> Well I'm not buying a radio fo $499.00, thats for sure! KGO
> was XM for a while when XM started. It probably cost too
> much.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Satellite radio easily beats anything regarding HD radio. I
>
> > wish it weren't so, but it is...Look for your local
> stations
> > on satellite within a decade.
> >
> > > > I can't see myself paying 499.95 for that Boston
> > Accoustic
> > >
> > > > receiver or Bose just to pick up a higher quality like
>
> > SCA
> > >
> > > > channel when i get all those channels commercial free
> > for
> > > > 12.95. And to hear commercials later on....I think it
> > will
> > >
> > > > go down like AM stereo.
> > >
> > > You could be right about that. Though I would think the
> > > costs will come down, as they usually do in consumer
> > > electronics. Weren't satellite radio receivers really
> > > expensive at first? One of my cars needs a new stereo -
> > the
> > > CD player is out - and I'll likely buy a new one that's
> > both
> > > MP3 compatible, and digital. I take BART to work, so I
> > > mostly drive on the weekends. I'm not ready to pay that
> > > monthly fee for Satellite yet - not worth it. The
> analogy
> > to
> > > AM stereo is not a good one, in my opinion. The bottom
> > line
> > > on AM Stereo, even once all the kinks were worked out -
> > was
> > > that - stereo or not, the fidelity sucked, and FM was
> much
> >
> > > better. You can't make that argument about digital
> radio,
> > > since it has superior fidelity compared to regular FM,
> and
> >
> > > even to Satellite, if I understand correctly.
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
 
Re: Digital Radio Cost Issues KGO

> Well I'm not buying a radio fo $499.00, thats for sure! KGO
> was XM for a while when XM started. It probably cost too
> much.

The industry has an actual plan. First, get content on the air in quantity and quality so as to offer options that many listeners will be attracted to. Second, start promoting it once the content is in place. Third, time this for when the Chinese manufacturers are ready to start shipping lower priced radios... sometime later this year. The design specs were only released to manufacturers last November... only about 65 days ago.

The preliminary step has been done. Nearly all competitive FMs in major markets have HD installed, and a significant number of viable AMs as well (most markets have only a couple of viable AMs).

I don't get your KGO comment. You mean KGO was carried on XM? A lot of stations were on XM at the start because they were struggling to get enough content. They carried many stations for free, and hired some outside broadcasters to produce content. Now that they can do most themselves, the outsiders have been reduced.
 
Re: Digital Radio Cost Issues KGO

> > Well I'm not buying a radio fo $499.00, thats for sure!
> KGO
> > was XM for a while when XM started. It probably cost too
> > much.
>
> The industry has an actual plan. First, get content on the
> air in quantity and quality so as to offer options that many
> listeners will be attracted to. Second, start promoting it
> once the content is in place. Third, time this for when the
> Chinese manufacturers are ready to start shipping lower
> priced radios... sometime later this year. The design specs
> were only released to manufacturers last November... only
> about 65 days ago.
>
> The preliminary step has been done. Nearly all competitive
> FMs in major markets have HD installed, and a significant
> number of viable AMs as well (most markets have only a
> couple of viable AMs).
>
> I don't get your KGO comment. You mean KGO was carried on
> XM? A lot of stations were on XM at the start because they
> were struggling to get enough content. They carried many
> stations for free, and hired some outside broadcasters to
> produce content. Now that they can do most themselves, the
> outsiders have been reduced.
>
David is right on the money about this. I would add that industry folks know it will be 2-5 years before there are receivers out in the world in any viable numbers (and the cost will drop like a rock, just like with all other electronic equipment. First portable computer I bought was almost 4 grand, and you can pick up one that can do 1000 times more now for the upper hundreds now.) Watch for commercials to show up when there are enough receivers out in the world, and bet on many of the HD-2 channels changing programming over the years. It is shaping up to be pretty similar to the early years of FM.

Re the sound quality mentioned above, I listened to a Boston Acoustics Receptor (the presently notorious $500 box mentioned earlier) on Friday. The audio was MUCH better than XM or analog FM, although arguable that it's better than CD. If you only run HD-1, it is, but with multicasting a second signal, the quality drops to just a tad better than FM quality. A 3rd multi, and you have AM on FM quality...doubt anyone will do that. The AM is a can of worms...quality is really no better than analog AM, and you can presently only operate it during daytime power/pattern hours. Not very useful until the nighttime situation is worked out.
 
> > I can't see myself paying 499.95 for that Boston Accoustic
>
> > receiver or Bose just to pick up a higher quality like SCA
>
> > channel when i get all those channels commercial free for
> > 12.95. And to hear commercials later on....I think it will
>
> > go down like AM stereo.
>
> I'm sorry but I think your argument lacks here. As
> mentioned before, we're going to see the price of these HD
> radios fall through the floor. That's great that you enjoy
> your sat radio, but when push comes to shove you're paying
> over $150 a year for that content and only average sound
> quality (in my opinion).
>
> If the radios (and mark my words, they will) come down in
> price to under $150, I'm buying (given that HD is in my
> market).
>

Your right as far as the price plunging, the same as satellite has become down to 29.99- 49.99 (depending on where your purchased), and if it becomes much more affordable, I will pick one up for myself as well.
But that questions me if myself and the average listener will depend on that as their primary entertainment.

> You're paying that $12.95 a month for the freedom of no
> commercials and a larger ammount of content and that's fine.
> I agree, as others do on this board, that they will
> co-exist for some time to come.
>

And that's enough to slow down the growth of HD. You will still get Clear Channel Communism programming, along with commercials from top agencies to the irritating Kevis, Build a Home Business commercials. And that does not want to make me be the first to buy like satellite did.
Even though these terestrials opened up an extra channel, they will never top the capacity of wide programming satellite offers. Plus you can get so many continous jukebox channels on your internet with WIFI or CCrane transmitter, that I am ready to be musiced out.
>

The future of Radio in my opinion: WiFi Radio - IP based
> radio. The choices for content are unlimited.

Agreed. I already have an automated station on the web picking up listeners gradually but surely. And I'm ready to put up a Rock hits one soon.
I have a selection of music for many mainstream genres as good as anybody.
There are already a few WIFI-IP based components for that out already, it's just not automobile compatable (yet).



>
> -Enginerd
>
 
> I've got Dishnetwork Sat TV and they have Sirius music.
> It's good but it's not worth $12.95 per month. I'll wait for
> a cheap digital radio.
>
>
> You'll be waiting for several years.
>
>
>
> I can't see myself paying 499.95 for that Boston Accoustic
> >
> > > receiver or Bose just to pick up a higher quality like
> SCA
> >
> > > channel when i get all those channels commercial free
> for
> > > 12.95. And to hear commercials later on....I think it
> will
> >
> > > go down like AM stereo.
> >
> > I'm sorry but I think your argument lacks here. As
> > mentioned before, we're going to see the price of these HD
>
> > radios fall through the floor. That's great that you
> enjoy
> > your sat radio, but when push comes to shove you're paying
>
> > over $150 a year for that content and only average sound
> > quality (in my opinion).
> >
> > If the radios (and mark my words, they will) come down in
> > price to under $150, I'm buying (given that HD is in my
> > market).
> >
> > You're paying that $12.95 a month for the freedom of no
> > commercials and a larger ammount of content and that's
> fine.
> > I agree, as others do on this board, that they will
> > co-exist for some time to come.
> >
> > The future of Radio in my opinion: WiFi Radio - IP based
> > radio. The choices for content are unlimited.
> >
> > -Enginerd
> >
>
 
Re: Digital Radio Cost Issues

> > > I can't see myself paying 499.95 for that Boston
> Accoustic
> >
> > > receiver or Bose just to pick up a higher quality like
> SCA
> >
> > > channel when i get all those channels commercial free
> for
> > > 12.95. And to hear commercials later on....I think it
> will
> >
> > > go down like AM stereo.
> >
> > You could be right about that. Though I would think the
> > costs will come down, as they usually do in consumer
> > electronics. Weren't satellite radio receivers really
> > expensive at first? One of my cars needs a new stereo -
> the
> > CD player is out - and I'll likely buy a new one that's
> both
> > MP3 compatible, and digital. I take BART to work, so I
> > mostly drive on the weekends. I'm not ready to pay that
> > monthly fee for Satellite yet - not worth it. The analogy
> to
> > AM stereo is not a good one, in my opinion. The bottom
> line
> > on AM Stereo, even once all the kinks were worked out -
> was
> > that - stereo or not, the fidelity sucked, and FM was much
>
> > better. You can't make that argument about digital radio,
> > since it has superior fidelity compared to regular FM, and
>
> > even to Satellite, if I understand correctly.
> >
> > >
> >
>
> Actually the HD channels are severely compressed and
> inferior to FM analog, although a lot of the crappy audio
> processing being used on analog FM tends to obscure the
> inherent differences. The fidelity may be a little better
> than satellite, which is truly awful, but "HD" is certainly
> far, far inferior to "CD quality." The AM IBOC is even
> worse -- utterly unlistenable to my ears, plus it forces
> narrower bandwidth on the AM analog signal. Both systems
> generate adjacent channel interference -- again, the AM
> problem is far worse, but even FM IBOC causes interference
> problems (KALW is now wiping out KKUP in Cupertino in places
> where KKUP was once heard clearly, for example).
>
> The problem with AM stereo was not fidelity so much as the
> vicious and destructive war over technical standards which
> the government failed to settle until it was too late. The
> fidelity was better than anything AM IBOC will ever hope to
> deliver, and in any case the problems were more in the
> receivers than the signal. The industry did learn from that
> by trying to settle on an IBOC standard early. But that
> standard locks in technology that is already outdated and
> the licensing arrangement favors the huge chains that own
> pieces of iBiquity.
>

Yes it's true. I once rented a car for a long vacation trip that had AM stereo. I was really surprised when I tuned in on KOMA (oldies mid 80's)and suprised how good AM stereo sounded. It was almost as good as FM. But if I was to listen on a walkman back then, it probably would be dissapointing.
But today as far as squeezing bandwidth, you'll get clear sound, but the sonics and seperation is never geared the way you want it. You'll eithier have to enhance the performance with expensive accessory gear hardware or software to make it sound better.
 
Re: Digital Radio Cost Issues

> > Satellite radio easily beats anything regarding HD radio.
> I
> > wish it weren't so, but it is...Look for your local
> stations
> > on satellite within a decade.
> >
> > > Putting aside the programming merits of Satellite for a
> minute - I was talking about sound...fidelity. I've been
> told that the current sound quality of Satellite is not up
> to that of Digital broadcast radio...yet anyway. But I'm
> really not trying to start another Broadcast radio versus
> Satellite debate - I can see a future where both are
> successful. It was predicted in the early 1950s that TV
> would destroy radio AND movie theatres, then Cable TV would
> destroy "free" TV, VCRs would destroy commercial TV, TiVO
> would destroy commerical TV, etc., etc. But they all
> peacefully co-exist.
>

That was a different time when you didn't have alternative entertainment. And I have mentioned this once or twice on the board before, that radio (AM) existed because their was several things that Television couldn't do back in 1955.
The word is "Contemporary".
The choices today are too overwhelming. Even gaming has an effect on this business. People's individual IPODS would show up on the arbitons if allowed.
And one day TV will be facing a direct crisis. It's called streaming. Stream when you want. Yes they'll still be a Screen, (plasma,blue ray,HD,) CRT?
 
Re: Digital Radio Cost Issues KGO

> > Well I'm not buying a radio fo $499.00, thats for sure!
> KGO
> > was XM for a while when XM started. It probably cost too
> > much.
>
> The industry has an actual plan. First, get content on the
> air in quantity and quality so as to offer options that many
> listeners will be attracted to. Second, start promoting it
> once the content is in place. Third, time this for when the
> Chinese manufacturers are ready to start shipping lower
> priced radios... sometime later this year. The design specs
> were only released to manufacturers last November... only
> about 65 days ago.
>
> The preliminary step has been done. Nearly all competitive
> FMs in major markets have HD installed, and a significant
> number of viable AMs as well (most markets have only a
> couple of viable AMs).
>
> I don't get your KGO comment. You mean KGO was carried on
> XM? A lot of stations were on XM at the start because they
> were struggling to get enough content. They carried many
> stations for free, and hired some outside broadcasters to
> produce content. Now that they can do most themselves, the
> outsiders have been reduced.
>
He probably means it cost an arm and a leg to build your crystal radio back in the 20's to pick up KGO. (LOL)
 
Re: Digital Radio Cost Issues KGO

> > > Well I'm not buying a radio fo $499.00, thats for sure!
>
> > KGO
> > > was XM for a while when XM started. It probably cost
> too
> > > much.
> >
> > The industry has an actual plan. First, get content on the
>
> > air in quantity and quality so as to offer options that
> many
> > listeners will be attracted to. Second, start promoting it
>
> > once the content is in place. Third, time this for when
> the
> > Chinese manufacturers are ready to start shipping lower
> > priced radios... sometime later this year. The design
> specs
> > were only released to manufacturers last November... only
> > about 65 days ago.
> >
> > The preliminary step has been done. Nearly all competitive
>
> > FMs in major markets have HD installed, and a significant
> > number of viable AMs as well (most markets have only a
> > couple of viable AMs).
> >
> > I don't get your KGO comment. You mean KGO was carried on
> > XM? A lot of stations were on XM at the start because they
>
> > were struggling to get enough content. They carried many
> > stations for free, and hired some outside broadcasters to
> > produce content. Now that they can do most themselves, the
>
> > outsiders have been reduced.
> >
> David is right on the money about this. I would add that
> industry folks know it will be 2-5 years before there are
> receivers out in the world in any viable numbers (and the
> cost will drop like a rock, just like with all other
> electronic equipment. First portable computer I bought was
> almost 4 grand, and you can pick up one that can do 1000
> times more now for the upper hundreds now.) Watch for
> commercials to show up when there are enough receivers out
> in the world, and bet on many of the HD-2 channels changing
> programming over the years. It is shaping up to be pretty
> similar to the early years of FM.
>
> Re the sound quality mentioned above, I listened to a Boston
> Acoustics Receptor (the presently notorious $500 box
> mentioned earlier) on Friday. The audio was MUCH better than
> XM or analog FM, although arguable that it's better than CD.
> If you only run HD-1, it is, but with multicasting a second
> signal, the quality drops to just a tad better than FM
> quality. A 3rd multi, and you have AM on FM quality...doubt
> anyone will do that. The AM is a can of worms...quality is
> really no better than analog AM, and you can presently only
> operate it during daytime power/pattern hours. Not very
> useful until the nighttime situation is worked out.
>


Still not impressed spending 500.00 bucks. I'll wait till their around 99.00.
And one thing I won't tolerate is 300 song playlist and poor CHR stations. I won't care how good it sounds under those conditions.
 
> > >With each seperate digital channel......wouldn't you
> think
> > > that the primary stations would be cuttnig their own
> > throat.
> > > Especially commercial free.
> > >
> > > Not at all - I'm assuming that the "2s" will initially
> be
> > commercial free because few people have digital tuners
> yet.
> > When a larger percentage of the population has purchased
> > them, commercials will begin. So I don't think they're
> > cutting their own throats - just establishing some
> > excitement that will encourage people to buy the equipment
>
> > and give them new channels (literally) for the
> advertising.
> > Remember that FM stations were almost commercial free, and
>
> > virtually profit free until the mid or late 1960s.
> >
>
>
> I can't see myself paying 499.95 for that Boston Accoustic
> receiver or Bose just to pick up a higher quality like SCA
> channel when i get all those channels commercial free for
> 12.95. And to hear commercials later on....I think it will
> go down like AM stereo.
>

HD Radios are already dropoping. JVC is putting a multicast receiver out for $299. SHould be shipping early February.
 
Re: Digital Radio Cost Issues

Huh,

Most of the engineers I have been talking to are using a very low compression setting. The HD signal is DEFINITELY better than analog. Even when running milticast.


>
> Actually the HD channels are severely compressed and
> inferior to FM analog, although a lot of the crappy audio
> processing being used on analog FM tends to obscure the
> inherent differences. The fidelity may be a little better
> than satellite, which is truly awful, but "HD" is certainly
> far, far inferior to "CD quality." The AM IBOC is even
> worse -- utterly unlistenable to my ears, plus it forces
> narrower bandwidth on the AM analog signal. Both systems
> generate adjacent channel interference -- again, the AM
> problem is far worse, but even FM IBOC causes interference
> problems (KALW is now wiping out KKUP in Cupertino in places
> where KKUP was once heard clearly, for example).
>
> The problem with AM stereo was not fidelity so much as the
> vicious and destructive war over technical standards which
> the government failed to settle until it was too late. The
> fidelity was better than anything AM IBOC will ever hope to
> deliver, and in any case the problems were more in the
> receivers than the signal. The industry did learn from that
> by trying to settle on an IBOC standard early. But that
> standard locks in technology that is already outdated and
> the licensing arrangement favors the huge chains that own
> pieces of iBiquity.
>
 
Moderator Warning

Guys, this is turning into another thread hijack.

Back to discussing Bay Area radio instead of satellite, please.<P ID="signature">______________


</P>
 
Re: HD Radio vs. HDTV

> > > No HD radio here. I'm too poor.. I need to get my teeth
>
> > > fixed first. To heck with HDTV & radio.
> >
> >
> > The difference: eventually you'll have to get an HDTV if
> you
> > plan to keep watching television. As for radio, there are
> > lots and lots (and lots) of options.
> >
> > Lots of 'em.
> >
> > Tons.
> >
> > DJ
> >
> You are wrong about that, over the air viewers will only
> have to buy an adaptor box and cable subscribers don't have
> to worry at all, the set top box does it all!!!

So does SAT TV.
>
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom