• 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

HD Radio opponents-Not ignorant, just unbiased.

Say No, I have a little advice for you, don't take everything you read on the Internet as fact. Whereas you echo the anti-IBOC mantra, you really don't back it up with anything more than the same refrain. To begin with, show us in a link to the FCC where IBOC has been removed from any agenda.

So, let me ask you, how many times, and when did you perform actual field tests of FM or AM IBOC, including field strength, bit error rate, propagation, or any substantitave data other than how it messes with your DXing, or what a Doctor Conrad claims, (whomever he is)?

Also, David hit the nail on the head when he points out that radio broadcasting is a business, and in no way benefits from listening outside the market. I for one would far rather serve the market my stations are in with a superior signal, than be concerned about some DXer, that only is interested in getting a QSL card from me.
 
Kelly said:
The tested fact of the matter is IBOC on AM propapgates better than analog. As a matter of fact, the debate at the FCC is not about adjacent channel interference as detractors are concerned, but the fact that at night atmospheric conditions, the IBOC digital sidebands increase the coverage well outside of the protection contour.
Click to expand...

This would coincide with Barry McLarnon's report on AM IBOC, that the digital power level is 8 db higher than it is for FM.

It's been well recognized that a key problem with AM IBOC and adjacent channel interference is when it's broadcasting in hybrid mode. When broadcasting as digital only the signal stays within the 10 Khz bandwidth.

The dilemma is that, for now, backward compatibility with analog is a necessity. While IBOC promises that compatibility, there are other, competing, technologies that promise this as well and, reportedly, do it better. What I find frustrating is that the FCC will not even consider these competing technologies. It's as if the government is giving iBiquity a "leg up" (no dog comparisons, please) on the competition by shutting them out. To me any technology that needs help from the government to succeed isn't worth spit. Granted, Lucent has spent years and millions to research and perfect IBOC, but so what? If another technology has since been developed that is better, the FCC has an obligation to the public (not iBiquity and its investors) to look into it.

To be sure, AM does sound better in digital (judging from the audio files I've heard). But then, AM stereo done right also sounds very, very sweet (and I've heard that as well). I just think the FCC is doing everyone, including broadcasters, a disservice by locking us into IBOC with considering the alternatives.

On a different note, there was a consumer study done (the results are posted on Chris Hanson's website) which looked at the radio-buying habits of consumers. The study indicated that people rarely buy just radios but, instead, buy products with radios in them; a clock with a radio, a car with a radio, an MP3 player with a radio, etc. The conclusion being that any announcements about future standalone HD radios will be met with public apathy. Instead, HD radio will have to reach a level of penetration and ubiquity that it's in every CE appliance that might have radio as an added feature.

db
 
KELLY WROTE: "To begin with, show us in a link to the FCC where IBOC has been removed from any agenda."

Let me refer you to this item on the FCC's website:
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266383A1.doc

The following item has been deleted from the list of Agenda items scheduled for consideration at the Thursday, July 13, 2006, Open Meeting and previously listed in the Commission’s Notice of Thursday, July 6, 2006.

TITLE:  Digital Audio Broadcasting Systems and Their Impact on the Terrestrial Radio Broadcast Service
SUMMARY:  The Commission will consider a Second Report and Order, First Order on Reconsideration and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding digital audio broadcasting (MM Docket No. 99-325).

DAVID WROTE: "Satellie is the only viable competitive technology..."

You made some good points. However, terrestrial radio's fixation with XM and Sirius as its chief threats is a dangerous diversion.

DAVID WENT ON: "Streaming and phone audio depend on paid for connections, so there is an ongoing cost and, still, bandwidth issues. I would settle for a cell hone that did not drop out as I drive. Not my idea of a music delivery system. When a decent system for delivery comes, such as the much touted WiMax which will work once the infrastructure is adequate, radio will use such systems for the its content delivery."

Wireless Internet delivery will polish off any kind of miniscule market for HD Radio, don't you think? Internet delivery of radio is terrestrial radio's real problem. Everyone will have wired and/or wireless high speed access via Wimax and Wi-Fi. It'll be like the gas or electric bill and established Internet radio brands will be hard to overcome. Terrestrial radio has been much too slow to embrace this disruptive technology. Simulcasting a 20 or 32k wma stream AND with heavy spot loads does not cut it. Studies show most Internet listeners listen to something OTHER than stations within their own markets. The most popular ones don't even own a stick.

HD Radio is a day late and a dollar short as a viable alternative. As most markets have spread out, most AM stations need improved signal coverage BEFORE better audio quality can do them any good. The only AMers that pull any numbers have huge signals. HD AM interference to analog reception often makes this situation worse, particularly at night. At least the CAM-D system alternative addresses these needs/problems (even on analog radios) while NOT introducing new interference. On FM, many early HD adopters will be very disappointed with the weak signals. This has already happened. In short, HD Radio is at best a disappointment - not what had long been advertised.

I enjoyed my portable Sangean AM stereo radio until it eventually broke. I had high hopes for AM Stereo. Watching HD Radio looks so much like a re-run. I've heard HD Radio at NAB shows. It sounds no better than many Internet streams. The aacPlus codec (and its HDC codec variant) sounds great, but people who listen to most Internet stations will ask what's the big deal. HD Radio is just not on anyone's radar screen - unless you're in radio. HD Radio is a selfish system by and for the radio industry. It does not address any consumer needs or desires. That's why there has been, at best, a big yawn.
 
vsa said:
SNIIIPPPPPP

I enjoyed my portable Sangean AM stereo radio until it eventually broke. I had high hopes for AM Stereo. Watching HD Radio looks so much like a re-run. I've heard HD Radio at NAB shows. It sounds no better than many Internet streams. The aacPlus codec (and its HDC codec variant) sounds great, but people who listen to most Internet stations will ask what's the big deal. HD Radio is just not on anyone's radar screen - unless you're in radio. HD Radio is a selfish system by and for the radio industry. It does not address any consumer needs or desires. That's why there has been, at best, a big yawn.
Click to expand...

HD sounds like an internet stream??? WTF? What were you listening to? A properly processed HD station sounds very good. The high ends are cleaner and the noise floor is non existant. Perhaps you were listening the the HD3 stream? I have heard some pretty pathetic processed HD stations that did sound like an internet stream! It is all in the processing!

An HD doesnt address and consumer needs? How about more choices? Are you familiar with the traffic system that is now runnign over HD radio that will over lay trouble traffic areas onto an on board mapping system?

Of course HD isnt on anyones radar screen (why this is such a difficult thing to understand amazes me)....... they are still in the process of rolling it out. That being said, IMHO they shold be doing a better job in the markets that are fully rolled out.

Watch for the new Tivoli, Radiosophy (if it EVER comes out!) to hit the shelves soon.
 
It would be nice if we had access to IP addresses because many of these anti-iboc people use similar phrasing in their posts. I wonder if many of these comments are from the same person posting using different names.
 
autopaint-1,

I have never posted one insult, or name-called, and I am sorry, you are reaching the breaking point with me. But
as usual, when you have no response, you try to make emotional issues, out of posts. The FCC's concern, with nighttime AM HD/IBOC, is with adjacent-channel interference - why, do you think it hasn't been approved. Satellite radio is not HD Radio's only competitor - iPods, the Internet, CDs, cell phone downloads and Internet access, etc. And yes, I just read that Wi-Fi will be out the gates this year and will finish off HD/IBOC radio. I am sure you would like to think that all these anti-IBOC posts are coming from the same users, but sorry, there are more anti-IBOC folks, than you would like to admit !

With the FCC deleting HD/IBOC off its agenda, and with the RIAA/Congressional legislation, IOBC will be stalled, further.

iBiquity is sole-source for HD/IOBC, unlike DRM, which is open-source. iBiquity has lied, because HD/IBOC will line its pockets with gold:

http://rwonline.com/reference-room/commentary/2006.07.19-03_rw_hd_guest_barry_2.shtml

VSA, said it eloquently and completely - good job, you definately know what you are talking about !
 
I'll tell you why I get fed up debating this with you SayNo, because it is frustrating to provide facts based on actual listening experience over and over again, in a real world environment only to have you come back posting links to articles which support your opinions, which is fine. However, you yourself have no actual experience listening to or working with IBOC. You rely on the work of others and that is particularly disingenuous to form your opinions. I'll repeat here, You are so certain of everything you state about IBOC but have never actually heard an IBOC broadcast. That automatically make you a questionable source. Your comments are no better than those who are so sure that (You name it) is no good, because you read someone elses comments saying so. I have a HD Receptor and can hear first adjacents. That alone makes your hearsay comments suspect, yet you will come back with the tried and true, my experiences have no merrit because they aren't technical.
 
I just go on the experience of professionals, like Dr. Conrad - I don't need to hear it for myself. You are missing the point anyway - HD/IOBC only addresses old technology (poorly at that) and unlike satellite radio, will not offer new programming choices. And, there are no HD/IOBC radios to be tested - the sole one at Best Buy wasn't even hooked up !!!
 
1q2w3e WROTE: "HD sounds like an internet stream??? WTF? What were you listening to? A properly processed HD station sounds very good. The high ends are cleaner and the noise floor is non existant. Perhaps you were listening the the HD3 stream? I have heard some pretty pathetic processed HD stations that did sound like an internet stream! It is all in the processing!"

Bits are bits. HD Radio is limited in how many it can stream - 34k total on AM and 96k total on FM. There already are Internet radio stations that stream with the aacPlus codec at 64, 96 and even 128k. Internet radio delivery has no limits. HD Radio will not be able to keep up (a day late and a dollar short). Slice those FMs into HD2s, HD3s and HD4s and you have a bunch of also-rans at-best in terms of audio quality. If you haven't heard much beyond the 20 and 32k terrestrial Internet streams using wma, you haven't heard Internet radio. I suggest you install Winamp and go to http://www.tuner2.com/ . Wake up and smell the coffee.

AUTOPAINT-1 WROTE: "It would be nice if we had access to IP addresses because many of these anti-iboc people..."

Can't win on the merits, so you have to resort to intimidation? Some people value their privacy here. The business is owned by a relative handful of corporations - largely the same ones heavily invested in iBiquity. People like to keep their jobs.
 
Merits? You guys don't give a damn about merits. It's a game and obviously there are issues that you guys have with IBOC and you really aren't being honest because you refuse to saay what/. If you're a DXer say so. If you have other interests be honest but stop with the unfounded accusations. People are getting fed up with reading these same comments on every board.
 
"People are getting fed up with reading these same comments on every board."

Then, just ignore my posts, if you are getting, "fed up". Again, you have not responded, to the articles, that I have posted. Why are you getting emotional about my posts - don't you feel confident in your own convictions ? No one is, "putting a gun to your head", to force you to respond, to my posts - are they ?

Don't you think VSA, had an excellent rebuttal to David's post ?
 
AUTOPAINT-1 WROTE: "If you're a DXer say so."

It is now not uncommon in many markets for people to drive for two hours in each direction in order to get to work every day. Others drive long distances during the course of their work. I suppose you would consider these millions of regular radio listeners to be DXers just because they drive outside certain signal contours. You seem to use the term with such derision. These people are part of our bread and butter!

I care about the future of a business I dearly love. We in radio face great challenges and opportunities. Half-baked solutions and methods won't cut it.
 
To agree, I have heard over and over again, that broadcasters do not care about listeners, who depend on skywave propagation. When I was listening to Scott Sloan WLW and "Coast to Coast AM" last night, most of the commercials were for national brands (cars, etc.) and/or retail chains, as a matter of fact, I rarely hear any local commercials. Also shows, such as above, depend on a vast listener audience to call in - "Coast to Coast AM" has 800 numbers for both West and East of the Rockies and for international callers.

On another note, Channel 9 News in Washington, D.C. runs in HD (the picture seems more detailed, but I can see some sort of digital hashing), but I still watch Channel 4 News, because I have been loyal to them for years. Running in HD TV makes little difference, at least, to me - the same would apply to HD/IBOC radio, even if it sounded better. Who cares ! Also, when I go to work, every morning at 5:00 AM to Northern Virginia, I tune into 700 WLW, 770 WABC, and 1040 WHO - I guess I am AM DXing, but damned, if those stations aren't reaching out to a diverse audience, and they know it !
 
Young people no longer have radio listening habits.

Radio, as much as I love it, is antiquated. The listeners with radio habits (in the undesired demo) are being ignored while radio courts younger audiences, which probably could live WITHOUT radio as long as they had a computer, I-POD and cell phone (and most have at least 2 of 3).

The problem with comparing radio to TV's and 8-Tracks and CD's etc was the fact that these technologies had limitations to the quanitity of content. Who knew you could hold 10,000 songs in the palm of your hand? Or hear them over your cell phone? What do you think is going to happen in 10 years?

The I-Pod and cell phone connected to the internet offers unlimited possabilities. Need news, get it on your cell phone.

Satellite Radio will have its niche, but it's not a major player. Eventually the two will merge to survive and probably find that internet is a better delivery method for their content as America becomes Wi-Fi dependent.

The problem with radio is that radio is limited with its current the business model (needing to interrupt content to play commercials)... AM-HD is a problem tech that will never be on par with FM (the "killer app" being HD-2/HD-3 to offer extended content) and even that for FM is only available in limited range.

While HD tech will improve, most likely the horse is out of the barn already. Broadcasters need to adopt other ways to move forward with tech as HD will probably be the band-aid between analog transmission and delivering content for wi-fi users. Where radio has a head start is with brand recognition.. many stations are brand names and listeners will probably seek these out on the net. If you have a radio station, more than HD or anything else, you need to exist on the web.
 
SayNoToIBOC said:
To agree, I have heard over and over again, that broadcasters do not care about listeners, who depend on skywave propagation. When I was listening to Scott Sloan WLW and "Coast to Coast AM" last night, most of the commercials were for national brands (cars, etc.) and/or retail chains, as a matter of fact, I rarely hear any local commercials. Also shows, such as above, depend on a vast listener audience to call in - "Coast to Coast AM" has 800 numbers for both West and East of the Rockies and for international callers.

On another note, Channel 9 News in Washington, D.C. runs in HD (the picture seems more detailed, but I can see some sort of digital hashing), but I still watch Channel 4 News, because I have been loyal to them for years. Running in HD TV makes little difference, at least, to me - the same would apply to HD/IBOC radio, even if it sounded better. Who cares ! Also, when I go to work, every morning at 5:00 AM to Northern Virginia, I tune into 700 WLW, 770 WABC, and 1040 WHO - I guess I am AM DXing, but damned, if those stations aren't reaching out to a diverse audience, and they know it !
Click to expand...

Most "national brands" on local radio stations are buys for the local market. There is no measurement of overnight national audience, so the buyers are looking to sell the cars and stuff in the local metro.

Shows with toll frees are usually syndicated and on multiple stations. Coast to Coast is on several hundred stations, all across the US. It is not a local show. Ad buyers are getting 200 or so local markets, in a network.

Neither WABC nor WLW nor WHO make money on listeners in anyplace but the local market.

Forget skywave. It is irrelevant because so little listening is done to Am at night, and even less to stations that are not locals.
 
vsa said:
AUTOPAINT-1 WROTE: "If you're a DXer say so."

It is now not uncommon in many markets for people to drive for two hours in each direction in order to get to work every day. Others drive long distances during the course of their work. I suppose you would consider these millions of regular radio listeners to be DXers just because they drive outside certain signal contours. You seem to use the term with such derision. These people are part of our bread and butter!

I care about the future of a business I dearly love. We in radio face great challenges and opportunities. Half-baked solutions and methods won't cut it.
Click to expand...

Very few people drive 4 hours a day to work. If they do, they are living in one ratings market and working in another. The listening they do, if they are an Arbitron participant, accrues only to the market they live in, not where they may be. So the numbers do not help the staiton that is outside the metro the station is in, because very,very, very few time buys take into consideeration out of market listening. Only a couple of hundred stations nationally even get ratings outside their own metros, in fact.

Arbitron numbers are generated almost entirely in the primary coverage areas of each station. And that is the bankable audience they get. Occasional distant listenng makes no difference in revenues.
 
Absolutely disagree with you - almost all commercials are national, not local, from what I have heard. You do not have any facts, to back this up - people have different opinions on this. You seem to have an opposing answer for everything - how come you are know as, the iBiquity shill, on rec.radio.shortwave ? Guess what - vsa and wgliradio blew your posts away ! And I really disagree with you on the commute time - I live in Maryland and commute to Northern Virginia, and we have many people who commute large distances. While working at NSA Ft. Meade, Md. there were MANY people, who commuted from Southern Pennsylvania, a two hour trip each way. And I just heard a report on the news, that more and more people are commuting longer to work, because housing is cheaper the further out one goes. I know a woman, who commutes two hours each way, from Cumberland, Md., to Gaithersburg, Md. Skywave is not rrelevant, for listenening at night - there are many listeners, so back that claim up, but you can't. No wonder, you are met with such hostility on rec.radio.shortwave - you haven't convinced anyone over there ! Guess what - on my drive to work, every morning at 5:00 AM, I tune to 700 WLW, 770 WABC, and 1040 WHO !

It's funny, that no one ever countered these two articles:

http://www.rwonline.com/reference-room/iboc/03_rwrf_feb_16_part_2.shtml
http://www.rwonline.com/reference-room/commentary/2006.07.19-03_rw_hd_guest_barry_2.shtml
 
DAVID WROTE: "Very few people drive 4 hours a day to work. If they do, they are living in one ratings market and working in another. The listening they do, if they are an Arbitron participant, accrues only to the market they live in, not where they may be......very, very, very few time buys take into consideeration out of market listening."

They do in Southern California. Two hours in each direction in the AM and PM is not that unusual. Also, adjacent markets lose out on some buys or get smaller buys, such as the Oxnard-Ventura and Riverside-San Bernardino markets, because buys on some stations in the Los Angeles-Orange County metro get the job done well-enough in the adjacent markets. The majors do benefit at least indirectly in that sense from their regular "DXing" listeners. Anyway, my point was that protected contours for many stations, particularly many AMers, often fall far short of covering their entire markets. Therefore, normal commuters within any market would be defined by some people here as DXers.
 
vsa said:
DAVID WROTE: "Very few people drive 4 hours a day to work. If they do, they are living in one ratings market and working in another. The listening they do, if they are an Arbitron participant, accrues only to the market they live in, not where they may be......very, very, very few time buys take into consideeration out of market listening."

They do in Southern California. Two hours in each direction in the AM and PM is not that unusual. Also, adjacent markets lose out on some buys or get smaller buys, such as the Oxnard-Ventura and Riverside-San Bernardino markets, because buys on some stations in the Los Angeles-Orange County metro get the job done well-enough in the adjacent markets. The majors do benefit at least indirectly in that sense from their regular "DXing" listeners. Anyway, my point was that protected contours for many stations, particularly many AMers, often fall far short of covering their entire markets. Therefore, normal commuters within any market would be defined by some people here as DXers.
Click to expand...

Avderage commute in LA is 40 minutes. Very very few commute 2 hours each way. In any case, they would be living outside the LA metro and not in the LA book if they did, so irrelevant to LA stations.

Many of the LA Mt Wilson FMs have as good a signal in the IE market as in LA... it is just the back side of the site! But we do not get any revenue from it. For example, KSCA and KLVE are both consistently in top 10 out there, and sometimes top 5, and we can not base rates on that added (but small) additional audience. Sure, some advertisers feel they get enough overlap, but that is common in shadow markets where the big city stations city grade the shadow market... like Nassau Soffolk or San Jose, etc.

If you are in the primary coverage pattern, you are not DXing. Using my example, the KLVE city grade gets to beyond Redlands... right up to Calimesa, so it is a local in the IE market.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom