HD DX

[R.F. Burns]

I have the Sangean HDT-1 and I enjoy it allot. So far I haven't heard much in to way of DX but I haven't had much time to devote to trying.

Let the nay sayers grumble. If this was 1950 they would probably be saying the same things about FM.

I agree. It took FM a long time to develop and it will be the same for HD radio.

Comparing the acceptance of HD-R to the beginnings of FM is ridiculous. Back then, FM only had to compete with AM. Today, terrestrial radio is competing with so many new technologies and methods of broadcasting, most of which are developing at the same time as HD-R: cell phone radio, web radio, satellite radio, etc.

Plus there is a different culture and mindset now then there was in the 50's. People, particularly young people, today are more tech savvy and more interested in controlling their listening experience. Why do you think the iPod is so popular and why CBS was so anxious to buy Last.FM? Evidence indicates that people want to control the playlist instead of having someone else control it. The only thing that hasn't changed is the desire to be entertained. But the "how" is changing.

Despite the digital technology associated with HD-Radio, the HD-R boosters are still longing for the "good old days" when the only way to get news and entertainment was through radio, TV, newspapers and magazines. That's why they denigrate and blow off anyone who reminds them that the media landscape is changing. They actually fear the change.

db

Have you heard HD or are you making assumptions? HD AM & FM when properly engineered do sound better than their analog equivalent. I don't know about cell phone radio but if it sounds anything like cell phone calls there's no compariso. My cel phone plays WMA files and they don't sound great without headphones by the way and I wouldn't want to rely on a cell phone for my entertainment and information. Both sat operators so far are failures. Not enough people want what they deliver and internet radio isn't mobile. Every technology you mention comes with a monthly fee. Lets see how willing you are to lay out another 20, 30, 50, 100 dollars a month when you have that 40 thousand dollar a year college bill for each of your children. You ought to try paying the monthly mortgauge in my neighborhood where the average home costs between 700,000 and 1,000,000 dollars and in my part of the country & that's a middle class home. Yea what's one more monthly bill.

 

[dbdigital]

I have the Sangean HDT-1 and I enjoy it allot. So far I haven't heard much in to way of DX but I haven't had much time to devote to trying.

Let the nay sayers grumble. If this was 1950 they would probably be saying the same things about FM.

I agree. It took FM a long time to develop and it will be the same for HD radio.

Comparing the acceptance of HD-R to the beginnings of FM is ridiculous. Back then, FM only had to compete with AM. Today, terrestrial radio is competing with so many new technologies and methods of broadcasting, most of which are developing at the same time as HD-R: cell phone radio, web radio, satellite radio, etc.

Plus there is a different culture and mindset now then there was in the 50's. People, particularly young people, today are more tech savvy and more interested in controlling their listening experience. Why do you think the iPod is so popular and why CBS was so anxious to buy Last.FM? Evidence indicates that people want to control the playlist instead of having someone else control it. The only thing that hasn't changed is the desire to be entertained. But the "how" is changing.

Despite the digital technology associated with HD-Radio, the HD-R boosters are still longing for the "good old days" when the only way to get news and entertainment was through radio, TV, newspapers and magazines. That's why they denigrate and blow off anyone who reminds them that the media landscape is changing. They actually fear the change.

db

Have you heard HD or are you making assumptions? HD AM & FM when properly engineered do sound better than their analog equivalent. I don't know about cell phone radio but if it sounds anything like cell phone calls there's no compariso. My cel phone plays WMA files and they don't sound great without headphones by the way and I wouldn't want to rely on a cell phone for my entertainment and information. Both sat operators so far are failures. Not enough people want what they deliver and internet radio isn't mobile. Every technology you mention comes with a monthly fee. Lets see how willing you are to lay out another 20, 30, 50, 100 dollars a month when you have that 40 thousand dollar a year college bill for each of your children. You ought to try paying the monthly mortgauge in my neighborhood where the average home costs between 700,000 and 1,000,000 dollars and in my part of the country & that's a middle class home. Yea what's one more monthly bill.

Yes, I have heard HD-FM, the last time being on an Accurian at a Radio Shack store. It sounded good but not enough to plunk down $200.00 for a tabletop radio, even with HD. Perhaps I would have been more impressed if the Accurian had better speakers and if there were more consumer electronics with HD-R, like a home stereo receiver. I really wanted to hear HD-AM but, unfortunately, the Accurian would not lock on to an HD-AM signal although we have plenty in the Los Angeles area.

I understand what you're saying about subscription services. That's why I don't have satellite radio. It's just one more thing tapping into my overstretched wallet. But the internet is a multi-purpose tool and, I'm sure you'll agree, is worth its modest monthly fee (for me it's 18.00 for Verizon DSL). Receiving internet radio is a nice extra and costs no more. Plus, as muni Wi-Fi expands it will bring free or very low cost internet service to low income families.

Regarding satellite radio, here's a thought. We know that they are trying desperately to merge and, in all likelihood, will not be successful. But what if the satcasters next try to get rid of the NAB-inspired FCC regulation that they be a subscription-only service? They actually could make a compelling argument for that. Imagine free satellite radio or satellite radio with some free channels and some with limited access (such as is being experimented now with HD-R)? It wouldn't surprise me if they try that.

I agree, cell phones don't sound that great now. But the iPhone is changing that. It is, essentially, an iPod with a phone. And it is predicted that the next generation of cell phones from all the manufacturers will have very good audio and with longer battery life. Again, a cell phone is a multi-use tool and, here again, I think we can agree that it's worth the monthly service charges. Playing one's music files or receiving some type of radio service is a nice extra.

Don't misunderstand me, terrestrial radio has it's place and, you're right, it is free. Once you buy it, that's it. But you can't dismiss what is on the horizon and giving terrestrial radio a run for its money. Certainly the new generation of media listeners haven't and they don't mind paying the monthly fees to get it. Just learn about it, embrace it and exploit it.

db

 

[SUPERCASTER]

R.F Burns said:

Lets see how willing you are to lay out another 20, 30, 50, 100 dollars a month when you have that 40 thousand dollar a year college bill for each of your children. You ought to try paying the monthly mortgauge in my neighborhood where the average home costs between 700,000 and 1,000,000 dollars and in my part of the country & that's a middle class home. Yea what's one more monthly bill.

Million dollar homeowners are so "house poor" that they can't afford a $13 monthly fee for entertainment?

I'm sure the cable/sat. TV bill they are already paying is much more then that, (so they must be able to afford it) and their is much music, news, talk, and entertainment on cable/dish as well as many other sources so perhaps HD radio is superfluous.

dbdigital said:

Imagine free satellite radio

Or just listen to some free XM stations here:
http://music.aol.com/radioguide/xm_radio_guide

 

[R.F. Burns]

Lets see how willing you are to lay out another 20, 30, 50, 100 dollars a month when you have that 40 thousand dollar a year college bill for each of your children. You ought to try paying the monthly mortgauge in my neighborhood where the average home costs between 700,000 and 1,000,000 dollars and in my part of the country & that's a middle class home. Yea what's one more monthly bill.

Million dollar homeowners are so "house poor" that they can't afford a $13 monthly fee for entertainment?"



There comes a point where you have to say no. My internet is 50$ a month and my TV is around 70$. I don't need another 13$ bill every month. Every person has a cut off point and with the free radio choices I have in my market (between 30 and 40 FM stations alone), who needs the extra bill.






"I'm sure the cable/sat. TV bill they are already paying is much more then that, (so they must be able to afford it) and their is much music, news, talk, and entertainment on cable/dish as well as many other sources so perhaps HD radio is superfluous."


No, Satellite is. they offer nothing that I can't find elsewhere. I work in radio but if I have to choose between cable TV and satellite radi guess which one I and 99.9% of the population would choose? To use your logic, if my home is worth nearly 1 million dollars that means i can afford to buy a Rolls Royce. Of course who wants to live in a car?

 

[w9wi]

No, Satellite is. they offer nothing that I can't find elsewhere. I work in radio but if I have to choose between cable TV and satellite radi guess which one I and 99.9% of the population would choose? To use your logic, if my home is worth nearly 1 million dollars that means i can afford to buy a Rolls Royce. Of course who wants to live in a car?

I'm in the television industry, and I used to believe that... Used to believe that urban dwellers who can get perfectly good signals from five stations with rabbit ears or a $50 rooftop antenna system would never be foolish enough to spend $250/year (then) for cable.

Today, there are 18 free channels (28 if you have DTV) - and most of those urban dwellers are (more or less) happily paying upwards of $900/year... for cable. People *will* pay for choice, and a $13/mo. ($156/yr) bill is trivial next to what they'll pay for a cellphone, cable, etc. without blinking.

Satellite doesn't offer anything I can't find on the Internet... but at least at this point I can't listen to Internet "radio" in the car, where most of my (and other listeners') listening is done. It certainly offers plenty that's not on the Nashville terrestrial radio dial. Not even if you count HD-2 channels. (I *do* have a HD radio) If every FM station in NYC ran a HD2, city listeners would have 71 radio choices. (25 FM stations xHD2, 21 AM stations) Satellite well exceeds that.

Terrestrial radio will ignore the lure of satellite only at its own risk. HD2 channels are unlikely to have much effect. (especially if management starts insisting on the same frequent radical format changes they're used to doing on the main channels!)

 

[R.F. Burns]

No, Satellite is. they offer nothing that I can't find elsewhere. I work in radio but if I have to choose between cable TV and satellite radi guess which one I and 99.9% of the population would choose? To use your logic, if my home is worth nearly 1 million dollars that means i can afford to buy a Rolls Royce. Of course who wants to live in a car?

I'm in the television industry, and I used to believe that... Used to believe that urban dwellers who can get perfectly good signals from five stations with rabbit ears or a $50 rooftop antenna system would never be foolish enough to spend $250/year (then) for cable.

Today, there are 18 free channels (28 if you have DTV) - and most of those urban dwellers are (more or less) happily paying upwards of $900/year... for cable. People *will* pay for choice, and a $13/mo. ($156/yr) bill is trivial next to what they'll pay for a cellphone, cable, etc. without blinking.

Satellite doesn't offer anything I can't find on the Internet... but at least at this point I can't listen to Internet "radio" in the car, where most of my (and other listeners') listening is done. It certainly offers plenty that's not on the Nashville terrestrial radio dial. Not even if you count HD-2 channels. (I *do* have a HD radio) If every FM station in NYC ran a HD2, city listeners would have 71 radio choices. (25 FM stations xHD2, 21 AM stations) Satellite well exceeds that.

Terrestrial radio will ignore the lure of satellite only at its own risk. HD2 channels are unlikely to have much effect. (especially if management starts insisting on the same frequent radical format changes they're used to doing on the main channels!)







[/quote


Ok, fair point, let me respond this way, In NYC we have 20 new music formats available to us thanks to HD radio, of those 20 new formats I listen to maybe 2 or 3. It doesn't matter to me that they don't have the 1962 hits of Slim Whitman channel. Most of those 100 plus channels would never be listened to by the average person. Most people find a particular format or station and stick with it. I get many of the XM channels already via Directv. I realize that cities like NY, LA & Chicago are not typical of the American radio landscape but that's where most people live. HD radio is brand new for 99% of the population. It even surprises me that so many people have at least heard about HD radio. Also, there is much more to radio then music formats. Only people with a very narrow outlook on the world view radio as a music/entertainment delivery source.

 

[w9wi]

Ok, fair point, let me respond this way, In NYC we have 20 new music formats available to us thanks to HD radio, of those 20 new formats I listen to maybe 2 or 3. It doesn't matter to me that they don't have the 1962 hits of Slim Whitman channel. Most of those 100 plus channels would never be listened to by the average person. Most people find a particular format or station and stick with it. I get many of the XM channels already via Directv. I realize that cities like NY, LA & Chicago are not typical of the American radio landscape but that's where most people live. HD radio is brand new for 99% of the population. It even surprises me that so many people have at least heard about HD radio.

True enough: any specific format on satellite will have a very small appeal.

For the individual listener who *likes* Slim Whitman - or punk rock - or as much baseball as possible - or progressive talk, outside the few markets that have it on terrestrial radio - that specific channel is very important. Since that listener isn't going to get a punk rock channel, or an all-baseball channel, or a progressive talk channel, from terrestrial radio (even on HD2), satellite may well be worth $13/month.

Take the sum of all of those listeners not served by terrestrial and you get something worth addressing.

In a nutshell, because of the greater number of possible channels, satellite stands a better chance of meeting an individual listener's tastes than terrestrial, even with HD2 and even in NYC. Of course, smaller markets have fewer terrestrial choices. Because there must be an analog assignment before there can be a HD2, HD does not change this equation. But a majority of the population lives in these smaller markets. Looking at TV figures, 55% of the population lives in TV markets 21+. Nashville, where I live, is near the top of the smaller markets list (30, IIRC). HD brings us all of *five* additional choices. (unless you consider that WRVW's HD2 format is indistinguishable from what they run on analog/HD1)

It's not too difficult to see where someone might think one or two of the 95+ channels they can get with satellite that they can't get with HD might be worth $13/month.