-
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
TheBigA said:
There were not a lot of FM radios around back then, only radios aimed at the older generation such as consoles or component stereo tuners. My first FM radio was a mono tuner I took out of an old tube console. Availability of FM radios grew with consumer demand which is not happening at all with HD. IF HD actually worked and we all know it doesn't it would need a catalyst like FM did back then to really get noticed.
One thing is for sure -- back then, there were no equivalents to iBiquity and the HD Radio Alliance frantically trying to foist a flawed technology onto an unsuspecting public. There was true market-driven demand for FM and its programming, demand that surely didn't need to be created by sister AM stations running incessant promos about the wonders of FM!
local oscillator said:
You underestimate the power of RCA that did everything it could to frustrate and intimidate the growth and development of FM as long as it could. Once people were able to sample FM, they liked it. They aren't getting that chance with HD. The general public has not been able to make a judgement about HD. And you can blame iBiquity for that.
TheBigA said:
If you're trying to insinuate that FM got big because of availability of the radios I don't agree with that at all, if it wasn't consumer demand what was it? The radios were not pawned off or given away, people bought them when they wanted them just as now, except no one wants nor cares about HD so it remains moribund. People had a reason to buy FM back then, it had great new programming besides the fact that FM has "no static at all".
A lot of this discussion misses the point. Take it from someone who was there and watched it happen: there was never any real debate or controversy over the merits of FM vs. AM, along the lines of today's debate about HD. The superiority of FM was always recognized. AM stations, even in the heyday of hit music radio, suffered from noise and nighttime interference and coverage holes due to necessary directional patterns. We all knew it then as we know it now. It was never a question of whether FM was going to eventually take over, but when. Nobody ever said, "gee, wonder if FM is still going to be around in six or seven years?"
HD's dwindling ranks of supporter(s) continue to try to flog the rationalization that HD really isn't stiffing because, "after all," it took FM from 1946 to 1976 to achieve dominance. It's a specious line of excuse-making that nobody is buying.
It's like trying to point to Henry Ford's Model T or the Mustang to predict universal mass acceptance of the Chevy Volt. The only thing the marketing efforts have in common is a product with a wheel on each corner.
HD's dwindling ranks of supporter(s) continue to try to flog the rationalization that HD really isn't stiffing because, "after all," it took FM from 1946 to 1976 to achieve dominance. It's a specious line of excuse-making that nobody is buying.
It's like trying to point to Henry Ford's Model T or the Mustang to predict universal mass acceptance of the Chevy Volt. The only thing the marketing efforts have in common is a product with a wheel on each corner.
KB1OKL said:
They got FM for free. When they bought a new radio, it usually contained FM. At least if it was foreign-made. Programming wasn't the motivation until it was discovered, and back then, people scanned the dial. They don't do that anymore.
KB1OKL said:
You can't make an EDUCATED judgement without sampling the product.
I have no idea what you're trying to say about "the public hasn't been able to make a judgement about HD," BigA. The product has been relentlessly hyped for four years now. By most estimates "HD Radio" has had the benefit of over a billion dollars' worth of radio promos. The system has gotten a dishonest green-light at the expense of other broadcasters by the FCC. It has gotten undeservedly heavy-handed support from its investor-owned radio groups and the NAB. If all this umlaut can't get the thing off the ground, nothing will work. Remember: "the best way to kill a bad product quickly is to advertise it heavily." Guess THAT's been confirmed again.
Whatever else anyone has to say about HD, its abject failure is certainly NOT due to public lack of awareness. The system simply offers insufficient benefits, it provides generally lackluster-to-lousy transmission and reception quality and it causes unacceptable interference and noise.
On the contrary, the public HAS made a "judgement" about HD. It has said no.
Whatever else anyone has to say about HD, its abject failure is certainly NOT due to public lack of awareness. The system simply offers insufficient benefits, it provides generally lackluster-to-lousy transmission and reception quality and it causes unacceptable interference and noise.
On the contrary, the public HAS made a "judgement" about HD. It has said no.
Savage said:
I said "EDUCATED judgement." I don't even own one, and I'm a huge fan of radio. That's why you don't see me talking about HD. Then again, I haven't bought a radio in 15 years. You give me one for free, make it standard in my car, and I'll listen. Then I can make a judgement. Until then, I'm just making my decision based on hearsay.
As I've said many times, internet radio is the biggest growth area in the industry. Yet sales of internet table radios are non-existant. This isn't a commentary on internet radio. It's that people simply aren;t buying radios.
By the way, if heavy advertising kills a product, why is GEICO so successful?
My father has never been a huge trendsetter 
and he bought a Panasonic AM-FM tube table top radio in 1963 which I have now. I doubt the FM section was ever used more than a handful of times prior to my discovering underground stations on FM in 1968. BTW underground passed as a moniker for radio etc in a very short time, probably less than two years.
BTW Big A, you ought to buy an IBOC radio to see just how lousy and cumbersome they really are.
and he bought a Panasonic AM-FM tube table top radio in 1963 which I have now. I doubt the FM section was ever used more than a handful of times prior to my discovering underground stations on FM in 1968. BTW underground passed as a moniker for radio etc in a very short time, probably less than two years.BTW Big A, you ought to buy an IBOC radio to see just how lousy and cumbersome they really are.
This is a little embarassing. I accidently posted the first of the following three Replies on a thread on "The business of Radio" message board. Th BigA didn't notice that mistake, probably because he, too, has the same two threads on different tabs at the same time. These should follow Reply # 98 on this thread (a couple of pages ago!)
radioskeptic
rimember
Re: Radio Ink royalty reversal
« Reply #36 on: Today at 01:53:40 PM » Quote
________________________________________
The first high-quality FM portable I ever heard of was the Dynaco, a relabeled Bang & Olufsen made in Denmark. That was early 1963, so the B&O European model must have been available in 1962. Grundig, Nordmende and others weren’t far behind when FM started gaining ground in Europe.
Of course, the first portable I knew of was the Matsushita I got for Christmas in 1961 (they weren’t using the Panasonic name yet).
Even the mediocre Matsushita was pretty pricey for that time ($60 or $70 from Lafayette Radio), and the B&O was a lot more ($150). They were hardly mass market items, and they were mono. It was the development of chips that eventually made stereo FM feasible in car radios and cheap portables.
One other thing:
I asked whether you could cite any cases. If you can’t cite cases that we can check out on the web, or at least in the law books, you’re not answering me. In effect, you’re just saying, “Because I said so!”
TheBigA
rimember
Re: Radio Ink royalty reversal
« Reply #37 on: Today at 01:59:53 PM » Quote
________________________________________
Quote from: radioskeptic on Today at 01:53:40 PM
Dana Raymond was the Armstrong attorney who filed all the lawsuits. Here is his obit. You'll see that the final lawsuit, against Motorola, ended in 1967.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=980CE2D81130F933A1575BC0A9659C8B63
radioskeptic
rimember
Re: Radio Ink royalty reversal
« Reply #38 on: Today at 02:14:05 PM » Quote Modify
________________________________________
Okay, so it was only Motorola. Everybody else settled in 1959. Motorola lost their separate case in 1963, as well as their appeal in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in 1967. Then the Supreme Court refused to hear their case, making the 1967 ruling the final one.
But even before that, royalties presented no financial obstacle to companies wanting to build FM equipment after 1950.
radioskeptic
rimember
Re: Radio Ink royalty reversal
« Reply #36 on: Today at 01:53:40 PM » Quote
________________________________________
The first high-quality FM portable I ever heard of was the Dynaco, a relabeled Bang & Olufsen made in Denmark. That was early 1963, so the B&O European model must have been available in 1962. Grundig, Nordmende and others weren’t far behind when FM started gaining ground in Europe.
Of course, the first portable I knew of was the Matsushita I got for Christmas in 1961 (they weren’t using the Panasonic name yet).
Even the mediocre Matsushita was pretty pricey for that time ($60 or $70 from Lafayette Radio), and the B&O was a lot more ($150). They were hardly mass market items, and they were mono. It was the development of chips that eventually made stereo FM feasible in car radios and cheap portables.
One other thing:
I asked whether you could cite any cases. If you can’t cite cases that we can check out on the web, or at least in the law books, you’re not answering me. In effect, you’re just saying, “Because I said so!”
TheBigA
rimember
Re: Radio Ink royalty reversal
« Reply #37 on: Today at 01:59:53 PM » Quote
________________________________________
Quote from: radioskeptic on Today at 01:53:40 PM
Dana Raymond was the Armstrong attorney who filed all the lawsuits. Here is his obit. You'll see that the final lawsuit, against Motorola, ended in 1967.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=980CE2D81130F933A1575BC0A9659C8B63
radioskeptic
rimember
Re: Radio Ink royalty reversal
« Reply #38 on: Today at 02:14:05 PM » Quote Modify
________________________________________
Okay, so it was only Motorola. Everybody else settled in 1959. Motorola lost their separate case in 1963, as well as their appeal in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in 1967. Then the Supreme Court refused to hear their case, making the 1967 ruling the final one.
But even before that, royalties presented no financial obstacle to companies wanting to build FM equipment after 1950.
You are not quite correct on that. For years, FM was an extra cost option. Usually, it nearly doubled the price of many stand alone table radios. In the automotive market it sometimes came at an even bigger premium than that. Even so, back in the 1960’s and 70’s, people were willing to pay a lot more just to get FM.TheBigA said:
In fact, price gouging for FM on the part of auto manufacturers in the 1960's and 1970's is what spawned the huge after market car stereo market. Until FM came along, most people just went along with the factory AM radio. When FM became popular, it wasn't unusual for dealers to charge $50 or so for the factory AM radio, but they wanted $150-200 for an AM-FM model. The public noticed they could get a better sounding AM-FM radio, usually with a tape deck, for well less than $100 or so. They came from companies like Pioneer, Lear, Sony, Clarion, etc. To be fair, the inclusion of a tape deck was a big attraction too, especially for those who were already hooked on FM listening. Just as today, the idea of “taking your music with you” was very appealing.
By the mid to late 1960's. it became very common to buy a new car and insist on "radio delete" in the negotiation process. The car dealers hated it when somebody refused the over-priced, poor quality radios. What's more, several foreign auto makers started making FM standard on their cars, which was a further incentive to buy their vehicles. It took a long time, but that message finally got back to Detroit, and FM eventually became standard equipment.
Today's factory auto radios are usually pretty good, although some are definitely better than others. They are also heavily integrated into other systems in the car, so you have to want to change out the radio very badly to get into that adventure. It is not as easy as it once was where every shade-tree mechanic could change out a radio and install some new speakers. Sure some people do it, but they are doing it because it is their hobby, more than any other reason. Most people are content with whatever comes with their car.
Way back in Reply # 97, TheBigA said:
No, the problem was that most American companies (who were already outsourcing their radios in the mid-Sixties) didn’t realize that there was a market. The Japanese makers (mainly Sony, Panasonic and JVC) offered FM only in their more expensive models. And the European FM portables were even more expensive than the Japanese models.
(And I assume you meant that RCA wasn’t adding FM to its portable radios, because radios, as well as TV’s with FM sound, were the issue in Armstrong’s suit against RCA.)
No, the problem was that most American companies (who were already outsourcing their radios in the mid-Sixties) didn’t realize that there was a market. The Japanese makers (mainly Sony, Panasonic and JVC) offered FM only in their more expensive models. And the European FM portables were even more expensive than the Japanese models.
(And I assume you meant that RCA wasn’t adding FM to its portable radios, because radios, as well as TV’s with FM sound, were the issue in Armstrong’s suit against RCA.)
TheBigA said:
This is what I've been trying to hammer home to the knuckleheads in iBiquity that refuse to see the truth: you can't expect people en masse to go out and buy a specific radio for radio's sake. People don't buy radios anymore. They buy other products with radios in them.
Thank you for helping to drive my point home.
If the HD people want an initiative, it should be to push HD as Sirius and XM have pushed satellite as standard. Except instead of car radios, they need to also focus on the home theater receiver market and clock radios. Places with stationary reception seem to do better than radios in motions, at least with our current pathetic power levels.
If it is just handed to the consumer as one more free bonus feature, it can be discovered and used at the owner's leisure. They're kind of doing this now, but only in high end products. I'm not talking about a $250 iPod docking station or high end Yamaha home theater receiver that costs $1000, I'm talking about a blitz, getting into lower and middle class devices, from entry level home theater systems to clock radios that don't cost $100 and more.
- Status