"HD an annoyance to some GMs and owners, just like FM was."

[RadeoEngineer]

Just to claify C5, that info is from The Communicator which is a newsletter/service provided by Bob Gonsett of Communications General Corp. in Fallbrook, CA. The archives are stored by Bext

 

[pocket-radio]

But the problem is: there are no listeners largely because the technology is so flawed.

The listeners don't care about the technology. The issue is requiring them to buy new radios, most of which are stupid table models that no one but grandparents buy. If HD was available for free on all radios, with no additional hoops to jump through, more people would listen, even if the programming sucked. While turning the channels over to independent programmers would make a nice press release, it wouldn't make a difference.

"The listeners don't care about the technology."
Oh but they do care very much, 2 million ipads were sold in 2 months! They care a whole lot.. They care if it's cool and captures their heart and imagination.

"Requiring them to buy new radios, most of which are stupid table models that no one but grandparents buy"

It makes no sense because you underestimate the power of marketing and a thing called desire. 2 million ipads were sold in 2 months! Buying a new gadget isn't a big deal for consumers who want the latest COOLEST THING. Wal-Mart sells affordable cars radios with HD. $50.00 buys a portable HD radio, so anyone can now own one! Anyone!! You can buy a HD radio on Ebay, cheap! Many have said we need portables that's the problem.. well we have them.. So what's the excuse now?

To be honest I'm a little tired of hearing the excuse they have to buy new radios, it's a lame weak excuse, for a lack of desire.

"If HD was available for free on all radios, with no additional hoops to jump through, more people would listen, even if the programming sucked."

More people would listen? 238 million already listen to AM/FM radio.
More people won't listen to radio, that's a fantasy, instead the audience we have will become fractured over countess format choices and stations. It's not good!

I'm in the business and that last time I checked ratings count a whole lot!
Programming that sucks, isn't what advertisers pay big bucks for!
The reason Big Boys pay big bucks for ratings, is so they can have confidence they'll be able to reach huge numbers of listeners.

Programing that sucks won't cut it! Here's the thing, we can hardly provide content for the stations we have. And top 40 radio only goes so far. Adding another 90 stations in HD is a nightmare on elm street.. go ahead fill them all up with great compelling content.. I think you'd find it's not that easy and yes they'd suck, as they already do. Ratings and money are the only two things that matter in radio today. People get fired for everything else.

"There are no listeners largely because the technology is so flawed"

Don't you remember DOS and Windows 95/98. That was flawed technology but Microsoft sold a bunch of software and CRAPPY computers..

HD has it's problems and it's not perfect technology, but that's not the problem..

There's no need.. HD doesn't solve any problems or improve lives.
I have radios and they work. They sound good and I have all the format choices I'd want..

If I don't like commercials I'd buy satellite radio..
If I don't like the music radio plays, I'd listen to my ipod or computer..

Where does HD fit in? it's doesn't.. It's doesn't because you can't program Classical or Jazz and get ratings or make money. Country? got enough.. Classic Rock? got enough?
Rock got that too.. AC, soft AC got those too? Alternative got it.. underground rock.. if that was hot, we'd have 2 in every market.

The HD radio concept of today serves no purpose..
Ibiquity is till tinkering with the device trying to find the magic bullet..

 

[TheBigA]

"The listeners don't care about the technology."
Oh but they do care very much, 2 million ipads were sold in 2 months! They care a whole lot.. They care if it's cool and captures their heart and imagination.

You're changing the subject. Savage says the reason why no one buys HD is because the technology is flawed. Then you bring up the iPad. There are lots of flawed aspects to the iPad, including the lack of Flash. Still people buy it. That's why I say the people don't care about technology, either in HD Radio OR the iPad.

It makes no sense because you underestimate the power of marketing and a thing called desire. 2 million ipads were sold in 2 months!

There you go again, bringing up the iPad. You're comparing a computer and a radio. Tell me about an AM/FM radio that people are rushing out to buy. That is comparing oranges to oranges.

You can't just bring up something unrelated that's selling, and use that as some kind of example why something else is not selling. That's ignoring the real issue.

"If HD was available for free on all radios, with no additional hoops to jump through, more people would listen, even if the programming sucked."

More people would listen? 238 million already listen to AM/FM radio.
More people won't listen to radio, that's a fantasy, instead the audience we have will become fractured over countess format choices and stations. It's not good!

Now you're just being dense. I said if it was just as accessible as AM/FM, then those 238 million would also listen to HD. They can't because HD isn't as accessible. It requires someone to buy a new radio. And people, for the most part, aren't buying new radios.

 

[Chuck]

Pocket still makes a good point. You do too, but HD is an answer to a question that nobody (with the exception of NPR) asked. The funny thing about NPR is they actually seem to be destined to compete with their own affiliates. Just today, one of their own people went on record saying, “The Internet will replace terrestrial radio.” NPR plans to be the distributor of that content, bypassing their affiliate stations. Maybe she is right, but I think that eventuality is a long way off. It doesn't work when a manufacturer decides to compete with their own dealer structure, so I doubt that this concept for broadcasting will have a happy ending either.

"Those who do not learn from history are destined to repeat it."

 

[TheBigA]

NPR plans to be the distributor of that content, bypassing their affiliate stations.

Two things about that. She specifically said that the stations are the "lifeblood" of NPR. The second thing (which relates to what she said) is that the stations pay for and therefore own NPR. They won't be bypassing their stations, because that's where their money comes from. That's why she kept talking about a partnership.

The stations also own the interconnect. So the stations control the distributor of the content. NPR is merely the content creator. They have to be careful how far they go in non-broadcast platforms.

By the way, the last time an NPR CEO said something like this, he was quickly replaced. One always needs to know who really is in charge. At NPR, it's not the CEO.

 

[mmnassour]

Just today, one of their own people went on record saying, “The Internet will replace terrestrial radio.”

That's one Hell of a partnership. :

If this person really thinks that local stations are going away, she doesn't have the foggiest idea what makes NPR work.

Two things about that. She specifically said that the stations are the "lifeblood" of NPR.

So how do both of these come out of the same interview? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???

 

[tomservo]

I dunno, I think NPR IS bypassing the affiliates. Look at all the audio on demand available from their website, and from NPR/PRI/APR/whoever else that produces the individual shows.

It's not just on the website, it's on mobile phones and iPhone and iPads.

And it's podcasting. Many public radio shows I enjoy, I enjoy by downloading them the day after they air. It's cut out 100% of local station weekend listening for me.

Why would people go out and buy an HD radio that may or may not get the extra channels off the NPR station when they can just listen on their own time, on their own devices?

Don't get me wrong, one of the reasons I dived into HD was for extra public radio content, but that is only true when traveling, and only true when an NPR station does HD (not all do, still).

 

[Chuck]

I dunno, I think NPR IS bypassing the affiliates. Look at all the audio on demand available from their website, and from NPR/PRI/APR/whoever else that produces the individual shows.

I'm probably not typical, but there are some shows on NPR that I absolutely love. Others I can take or leave. I don't stay tuned in all day, especially since music has more or less left the scene.

One of the problems is interrupting my day (or in this case, weekend) to actually tune into "Car Talk" or "Wait, Wait… Don't Tell Me," when they are actually aired. Instead, I can visit http://www.cartalk.com/ and listen when I want to. That's pretty convenient, but it takes the local affiliate out of the picture.

 

[pocket-radio]

"The listeners don't care about the technology."
Oh but they do care very much, 2 million ipads were sold in 2 months! They care a whole lot.. They care if it's cool and captures their heart and imagination.

You're changing the subject. Savage says the reason why no one buys HD is because the technology is flawed. Then you bring up the iPad. There are lots of flawed aspects to the iPad, including the lack of Flash. Still people buy it. That's why I say the people don't care about technology, either in HD Radio OR the iPad.

It makes no sense because you underestimate the power of marketing and a thing called desire. 2 million ipads were sold in 2 months!

There you go again, bringing up the iPad. You're comparing a computer and a radio. Tell me about an AM/FM radio that people are rushing out to buy. That is comparing oranges to oranges.

You can't just bring up something unrelated that's selling, and use that as some kind of example why something else is not selling. That's ignoring the real issue.

"If HD was available for free on all radios, with no additional hoops to jump through, more people would listen, even if the programming sucked."

More people would listen? 238 million already listen to AM/FM radio.
More people won't listen to radio, that's a fantasy, instead the audience we have will become fractured over countess format choices and stations. It's not good!

Now you're just being dense. I said if it was just as accessible as AM/FM, then those 238 million would also listen to HD. They can't because HD isn't as accessible. It requires someone to buy a new radio. And people, for the most part, aren't buying new radios.

You're sure are right people aren't buying new radios in mass, because everybody has a few and they work! Unless you come from Mars that is..

 

[davideduardo]

The fact of the matter is FM took off when new music was taking off, and we haven't had new music in decades. There simply isn't anything new or different to latch the HD wagon to like there was with FM. There is only offering existing formats to a wider (ha) audience.

FM took off, after nearly 30 years, when the FCC prohibited simulcasts.

 

[davideduardo]

FM was never considered an "annoyance" in the manner HD is today. True, until the late 60s some managers ignored FM co-owned properties - not unlike the way cluster-Veeps ignore their AM stations today - but they weren't regarded as "annoyances" in most cases.

In many, many cases FMs were kept so that nobody else could get them, although most owners could not figure out what to do with them. In fact, in an earlier decade, from 1948 to 1958, licensed FMs declined from nearly 1,100 to under 700.

Once WOR-FM and a handful of others launched mass-appeal formats on FM in 1966 - this was after the FCC ordered 100% simulcasting of AMs to cease - everyone saw the potential and started upgrading and developing their FMs.

The 1966 WOR-FM format was not successful, which is why it morphed and changed several times in its immediate post-1966 years. While progressive rock got headlines, the earliest successes were Beautiful Music and even ethnic stations (in places like DC, Cleveland, etc).

Seven or eight years later, most of the music formats had migrated to FM and the writing was on the wall.

It was not until 1978 that FM got parity shares with AM. And the two biggest formats, AOR and Beautiful Music, were either not AM formats or very limited in AM station counts.

 

[Tom Wells]

The fact of the matter is FM took off when new music was taking off, and we haven't had new music in decades. There simply isn't anything new or different to latch the HD wagon to like there was with FM. There is only offering existing formats to a wider (ha) audience.

FM took off, after nearly 30 years, when the FCC prohibited simulcasts.

AND when enough cars had been purchased with FM, and these became used cars, and/or FM converters were marketed.

I believe the only automotive "converter" for HD didn't last long, and the one use here who owned one said it ran as hot as a toaster oven 'till it died.

I like how the Delco car radios used to come with booklet to help explain FM's funny noises in automotive reception.
I still have one somewhere. The booklet, not a Delco radio.
Now they'd need to add a paragraph that the louder multipath noises do not mean anything is "wrong" with the radio,
even though the multipath noise is louder than "yesteryear".

 

[davideduardo]

FWIW - take it from somebody who was there in 1966-67 when FM stations weren't even included in ratings summaries (Arbitron, then called "ARB" for Audience Research Bureau, used to issue a supplemental pamphlet titled "FM Stations" to accompany their Ratings Estimates.)

1966 was Arbitron's first full year of doing radio ratings, and they only covered an incomplete selection of markets. The first Arbitron radio report was Detroit in 1965, and they added markets over the next 5 or 6 years...

The source referenced in ads to the media by radio stations in 1968 was, overwhelmingly, The Pulse. This was followed by C. E. Hooper. Arbitron did a marketing job on advertisers, not stations, and by getting acceptance well into the 70's made it useful to stations to subscribe to their service. What Arbitron did in 1966 is not really relevant.

 

[davideduardo]

AND when enough cars had been purchased with FM, and these became used cars, and/or FM converters were marketed.

Not really. There was and is not enough in-car listening to make that location cause for success or failure of a band.

 

[kc0ltv]

Mr. Rhodes states, "But many of the stations I'm listening to on HD are playing MP3s instead of higher-quality .WAV files, making the difference in sound less noticeable." Does he believe that the HD codecs are lossless? I would think that HD corrupts the signal much more than say a 192k mp3 compression ever would. Does anyone know how they compare?

Listening to my XDR-F1HD fed to a (temporarily) mono (one speaker doesn't work) audio output, I can make observations about HD...

1. HD Radio's HD1 is noticeable in its lack of noise compared to the analog channel, but suffers from semi-noticeable compression artifacts. I'm guessing, though, that most people today, who are used to lossy digital audio files and don't exactly have pristine ears, would notice no difference or very little difference as compared to the analog channel.

2. The quality of the HD-2 and HD-3 subchannels varies from station to station. Duluth doesn't have many HD subchannels, so I will use Minneapolis and surrounding area stations, which I receive on most summer nights, as examples. KQDS-HD2 sounds good, like a 64k MP3; KXXR-HD2 sounds like a 32k WMA stream (definitely a noticeable degradation from analog); when they were running both HD-2 and HD-3, WGMO's HD2 (The River 94.7 A/C) sounded like crap (in addition, there was analog noise on it, so probably a weak STL) and its HD3 (Talk Radio Network) sounded like a 24k or 32k WMA stream (not bad for talk); now that they just run HD2, The River's audio quality has improved; KTIS runs HD2 and HD3, and they both sound like 48k or even 64k MP3's; KSJN runs HD2, often parallel to their HD1, and it sounds decent; KDWB runs HD2, which sounds like a 64k MP3; WLTE runs WCCO-AM on its HD2, which sounds great; KZJK runs a Pure Jazz format on their HD2, which also sounds great, probably the best HD engineering job in the Cities; and KSJR runs The Current on their HD2, which again sounds great; not just like the original, but close.

 

[Play Freebird]

2. The quality of the HD-2 and HD-3 subchannels varies from station to station. Duluth doesn't have many HD subchannels, so I will use Minneapolis and surrounding area stations, which I receive on most summer nights, as examples. KQDS-HD2 sounds good, like a 64k MP3; KXXR-HD2 sounds like a 32k WMA stream (definitely a noticeable degradation from analog); when they were running both HD-2 and HD-3, WGMO's HD2 (The River 94.7 A/C) sounded like crap (in addition, there was analog noise on it, so probably a weak STL) and its HD3 (Talk Radio Network) sounded like a 24k or 32k WMA stream (not bad for talk); now that they just run HD2, The River's audio quality has improved; KTIS runs HD2 and HD3, and they both sound like 48k or even 64k MP3's;

I enjoyed reading your observations, but couldn't help thinking how a comparable discussion on digital TV might go if the quality were as bad. For example:

"I checked out Channel 4.2 yesterday and the picture quality was similar to playback from a misaligned quad VTR with a clogged head. Now over on Channel 17.3, their video was about the same quality as dusty 16 mm film (with hair stuck in the gate), while Channel 22.2's picture reminded me of NASA's images from the 1969 moon landing. But Channel 31.5's quality was pretty good, about the same as a VHS tape in EP mode, however Channel 41.2 looked like one of those instructional TV tapes we watched in high school on a black and white helical VTR."

 

[Tom Wells]

Hey! That's disrespectful to 16mm films.

 

[Play Freebird]

Hey! That's disrespectful to 16mm films.

Sorry, I was referring to 16 mm film without Piclear - the scratch-masking fluid which is probably "unobtainium" today.

 

[Savage]

But could you see the crooked PressTape splices? ;D

 

[Tom Wells]

Hey! That's disrespectful to 16mm films.

Sorry, I was referring to 16 mm film without Piclear - the scratch-masking fluid which is probably "unobtainium" today.

Baby oil on lint free cloth! There was also a product sold in camera stores for use in printing photos...can't remember the name, but
also recommended to photogs was....um...er....oil from facial skin.....uhhh, sorry to be indelicate ..nose oil.