-
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
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
HD Radio vs. Internet Radio - Which is Radio's Future?
- Thread starter vsa
- Start date
"Supercaster" writes:
Quote
HD radio benefits broadcasters and not the public.
LinoNYC asks:
"Care to 'splain that one big guy?
I and many others already have explained why "HD radio benefits broadcasters and not the public" many times, at length,all over this board, and elsewhere. It's all here for everyone to read. If you still can't figure out why that is true it is only from lack of trying.
"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink."
Chuck said:vsa said:I have actually just finished testing our first, to be available this October using the Reciva module. We have another model and a component tuner that should be available next spring.
Great news! I own a Roku Soundbridge and will probably also purchase one of your (Reciva-powered) Wi-Fi radio products when they become available. I've been a broadcaster for almost 40 years and I'm not interested in any HD radios.
I'd certainly consider buying one too.
Yes, WiFi and Wimax are exciting technologies and probably will be better able to deliver all that HD radio fails to deliver in spite of it's promises and promotional hype.
If aacPLUS is included then audio quality could easily equal or exceed HD radio, even at similar bitrates.
I'd be interested in buying one, also. Unlike HD radio, WiFi/WiMax radio is a product that has a future.
D
dbdigital
Guest
SUPERCASTER said:Chuck said:vsa said:I have actually just finished testing our first, to be available this October using the Reciva module. We have another model and a component tuner that should be available next spring.
Great news! I own a Roku Soundbridge and will probably also purchase one of your (Reciva-powered) Wi-Fi radio products when they become available. I've been a broadcaster for almost 40 years and I'm not interested in any HD radios.
I'd certainly consider buying one too.
Yes, WiFi and Wimax are exciting technologies and probably will be better able to deliver all that HD radio fails to deliver in spite of it's promises and promotional hype.
If aacPLUS is included then audio quality could easily equal or exceed HD radio, even at similar bitrates.
I'd be interested in buying one, also. Unlike HD radio, WiFi/WiMax radio is a product that has a future.
Just as a side note to this: Sprint has announced that it is branding WiMax as XOHM and plans to invest 5 billion dollars in the technology. So we should see a major build out of WiMax in a couple of years.
In addition, analysts at JP Morgan stated that Internet radio listening is growing at a rate of nearly 27% a year. The biggest gainers: terrestrial stations who web stream. Also, radio listening among young people 12+ is growing as a result of what some experts claim is "iPod fatigue."
So regardless of the eventuality of HD Radio, radio in all its forms appears to have a healthy future and terrestrial broadcasters will certainly have a major stake in it.
db
dbdigital said:So regardless of the eventuality of HD Radio, radio in all its forms appears to have a healthy future and terrestrial broadcasters will certainly have a major stake in it.
db
I think that is quite true, as long as broadcasters remember that they are content providers, and not exclusively owners of specific frequency assignments.
L
LinoNYC
Guest
The biggest gainers: terrestrial stations who web stream.
I consider that the most cogent statement in the whole thread.
The penetration capabilities of wifi/wimax are far greater than AM-iboc, this could allow local stations with poor coverage to even the field for the first time.
I often listen to foreign stations via the Net as well as some from other areas of this country when I do so I'am essentially wasting thier bandwidth if they are local stations. Advertisers aren't usually interested in someone listening outside of the area they "bought". When then will be the business model?
The clientele for this new 'radio" might well be the flood of immigrants who want to keep touch with their home country's. Even here the appeal is limited. Alot of my Mexican friends listen to stations from back home when they first get a computer. When you ask them a few months later about this, most are back to WPAT or "Que Buena".
Most people want to hear about what is going on in their current surroundings.
Lino
LinoNYC said:The biggest gainers: terrestrial stations who web stream.
The penetration capabilities of wifi/wimax are far greater than AM-iboc, this could allow local stations with poor coverage to even the field for the first time.
I'm in full agreement with you Lino. Stations will be able to decide their area of service based on whatever the business model they choose, not on the limitations of their AM or FM signals. Interesting times ahead for radio!
R
rbrucecarter5
Guest
I think a comparison to cable TV is very appropriate, here.
Back in the early 70's, WTBS, WGN, and WOR were hot items on every cable line-up. They were offering content that local TV stations were not - syndicated programs and movies. Today - only "TBS" remains, but its primary revenue comes not from its over the air signal in Atlanta, but from national advertising via cable. The Atlanta signal, at least when I lived there, was still over the air and free - but is probably largely irrelevant to the overall revenue stream of the station. The success of WTBS was about CONTENT, not enhancing the over the air signal.
HD TV local stations are largely a sideline to the analog broadcast. They exist because they are forced to exist by a cutoff date that may happen, but I predict will be met with massive consumer backlash. The backlash will be over CONTENT that is no longer available on conventional TV sets. Football games, whatever. Most people don't care about HD TV, they care whether or not they can see the game.
I just came back from another vacation. And was a victim of the lame 22 channel hotel cable that didn't have a single channel I cared to watch. Interestingly, the hotel sent out an extensive questionaire - and it was evident from the questions that they have been pummeled with complaints about having only 22 channels. Complaints based on CONTENT that people can't get in the room that they can get at home.
Content - over and over again. NOT necessarily quality - although quality does help. There is a threshold where something is ultimately enjoyable or not - some people may not be satified with anything but a 10 foot HD image. But they are relatively few in number. If the color is balanced correctly, the picture of reasonable resolution, people DO watch. People are even willing to watch a 2 inch screen on a video iPod - IF it is a movie they enjoy. I know personally - you could install a ten foot high definition screen and if it had a repulsive program, I wouldn't watch. That happened to me at a friends house - some Las Vegas show live with naked breasts flopping around everywhere - pornography is NOT to my taste and I did not watch no matter how sharp the image and true the colors.
Streaming internet radio is about CONTENT. The kids at my daughter's party were aghast when I didn't play the local top-40 station, but soon turned into big fans of the much superior top-40 station I located across the country in a major city. And they have been streaming that station since at home - more internet radio listeners.
What is going to happen - and broadcasters better get a clue from WTBS: Those with superior formats are going to gain a national audience as free wireless becomes much more prevalent. As some stations see significant listenership from the internet, their ad model will shift to a national focus instead of a local one. And "Guy Wire's" prediction of a "thinning of the herd" is absolutely going to happen. The herd will be thinned not by HD radio, but by interner radio listeners tuning OUT stations that do an inferior job at a format and tuning IN stations that present the format better. I would see an internet "dial" dominated by two or three hundred "heavy hitters" in a particular format - who have the DJ's, who have the right music mix / library / presence. There may be a couple of thousand niche type hitters who can make a go of it playing a niche format that wouldn't make it in just one city, but has enough listeners nationwide to make a comfortable living.
But - that will leave 80% of existing stations really struggling against the heavy hitters and niche specialists for listeners. Their best hope is localism and lots of it to program to the people in their area.
Where does HD fit in the mix? The wrong product, at the wrong time, pitched the wrong way, to the wrong people. I don't even see it being more than a curioscity in the internet radio world we are entering. If I owned a station, I would be fine tuning a format or a niche, something I passionately care about and can do in a way that is better than anybody else. Then invest in a vigorous national internet ad campaign to get people to stream my audio. I think the time has come for that sort of marketing, and stations not doing it are in danger of being left behind. Remember - WGN and WOR tried to become national cable networks, WGN is barely hanging on.
I would not be a bit surprised to see an iPod with streaming radio in the near future - scanning for free wireless hotspots. It is a perfect match with the iPod mentality: wanting what YOU want to hear, not what the stations and the records companies want you to hear.
Back in the early 70's, WTBS, WGN, and WOR were hot items on every cable line-up. They were offering content that local TV stations were not - syndicated programs and movies. Today - only "TBS" remains, but its primary revenue comes not from its over the air signal in Atlanta, but from national advertising via cable. The Atlanta signal, at least when I lived there, was still over the air and free - but is probably largely irrelevant to the overall revenue stream of the station. The success of WTBS was about CONTENT, not enhancing the over the air signal.
HD TV local stations are largely a sideline to the analog broadcast. They exist because they are forced to exist by a cutoff date that may happen, but I predict will be met with massive consumer backlash. The backlash will be over CONTENT that is no longer available on conventional TV sets. Football games, whatever. Most people don't care about HD TV, they care whether or not they can see the game.
I just came back from another vacation. And was a victim of the lame 22 channel hotel cable that didn't have a single channel I cared to watch. Interestingly, the hotel sent out an extensive questionaire - and it was evident from the questions that they have been pummeled with complaints about having only 22 channels. Complaints based on CONTENT that people can't get in the room that they can get at home.
Content - over and over again. NOT necessarily quality - although quality does help. There is a threshold where something is ultimately enjoyable or not - some people may not be satified with anything but a 10 foot HD image. But they are relatively few in number. If the color is balanced correctly, the picture of reasonable resolution, people DO watch. People are even willing to watch a 2 inch screen on a video iPod - IF it is a movie they enjoy. I know personally - you could install a ten foot high definition screen and if it had a repulsive program, I wouldn't watch. That happened to me at a friends house - some Las Vegas show live with naked breasts flopping around everywhere - pornography is NOT to my taste and I did not watch no matter how sharp the image and true the colors.
Streaming internet radio is about CONTENT. The kids at my daughter's party were aghast when I didn't play the local top-40 station, but soon turned into big fans of the much superior top-40 station I located across the country in a major city. And they have been streaming that station since at home - more internet radio listeners.
What is going to happen - and broadcasters better get a clue from WTBS: Those with superior formats are going to gain a national audience as free wireless becomes much more prevalent. As some stations see significant listenership from the internet, their ad model will shift to a national focus instead of a local one. And "Guy Wire's" prediction of a "thinning of the herd" is absolutely going to happen. The herd will be thinned not by HD radio, but by interner radio listeners tuning OUT stations that do an inferior job at a format and tuning IN stations that present the format better. I would see an internet "dial" dominated by two or three hundred "heavy hitters" in a particular format - who have the DJ's, who have the right music mix / library / presence. There may be a couple of thousand niche type hitters who can make a go of it playing a niche format that wouldn't make it in just one city, but has enough listeners nationwide to make a comfortable living.
But - that will leave 80% of existing stations really struggling against the heavy hitters and niche specialists for listeners. Their best hope is localism and lots of it to program to the people in their area.
Where does HD fit in the mix? The wrong product, at the wrong time, pitched the wrong way, to the wrong people. I don't even see it being more than a curioscity in the internet radio world we are entering. If I owned a station, I would be fine tuning a format or a niche, something I passionately care about and can do in a way that is better than anybody else. Then invest in a vigorous national internet ad campaign to get people to stream my audio. I think the time has come for that sort of marketing, and stations not doing it are in danger of being left behind. Remember - WGN and WOR tried to become national cable networks, WGN is barely hanging on.
I would not be a bit surprised to see an iPod with streaming radio in the near future - scanning for free wireless hotspots. It is a perfect match with the iPod mentality: wanting what YOU want to hear, not what the stations and the records companies want you to hear.
rbrucecarter5 said:I think a comparison to cable TV is very appropriate, here.
Back in the early 70's, WTBS, WGN, and WOR were hot items on every cable line-up. They were offering content that local TV stations were not - syndicated programs and movies. Today - only "TBS" remains, but its primary revenue comes not from its over the air signal in Atlanta, but from national advertising via cable. The Atlanta signal, at least when I lived there, was still over the air and free - but is probably largely irrelevant to the overall revenue stream of the station. The success of WTBS was about CONTENT, not enhancing the over the air signal.
HD TV local stations are largely a sideline to the analog broadcast. They exist because they are forced to exist by a cutoff date that may happen, but I predict will be met with massive consumer backlash. The backlash will be over CONTENT that is no longer available on conventional TV sets. Football games, whatever. Most people don't care about HD TV, they care whether or not they can see the game.
I just came back from another vacation. And was a victim of the lame 22 channel hotel cable that didn't have a single channel I cared to watch. Interestingly, the hotel sent out an extensive questionaire - and it was evident from the questions that they have been pummeled with complaints about having only 22 channels. Complaints based on CONTENT that people can't get in the room that they can get at home.
Content - over and over again. NOT necessarily quality - although quality does help. There is a threshold where something is ultimately enjoyable or not - some people may not be satified with anything but a 10 foot HD image. But they are relatively few in number. If the color is balanced correctly, the picture of reasonable resolution, people DO watch. People are even willing to watch a 2 inch screen on a video iPod - IF it is a movie they enjoy. I know personally - you could install a ten foot high definition screen and if it had a repulsive program, I wouldn't watch. That happened to me at a friends house - some Las Vegas show live with naked breasts flopping around everywhere - pornography is NOT to my taste and I did not watch no matter how sharp the image and true the colors.
Streaming internet radio is about CONTENT. The kids at my daughter's party were aghast when I didn't play the local top-40 station, but soon turned into big fans of the much superior top-40 station I located across the country in a major city. And they have been streaming that station since at home - more internet radio listeners.
What is going to happen - and broadcasters better get a clue from WTBS: Those with superior formats are going to gain a national audience as free wireless becomes much more prevalent. As some stations see significant listenership from the internet, their ad model will shift to a national focus instead of a local one. And "Guy Wire's" prediction of a "thinning of the herd" is absolutely going to happen. The herd will be thinned not by HD radio, but by interner radio listeners tuning OUT stations that do an inferior job at a format and tuning IN stations that present the format better. I would see an internet "dial" dominated by two or three hundred "heavy hitters" in a particular format - who have the DJ's, who have the right music mix / library / presence. There may be a couple of thousand niche type hitters who can make a go of it playing a niche format that wouldn't make it in just one city, but has enough listeners nationwide to make a comfortable living.
But - that will leave 80% of existing stations really struggling against the heavy hitters and niche specialists for listeners. Their best hope is localism and lots of it to program to the people in their area.
Where does HD fit in the mix? The wrong product, at the wrong time, pitched the wrong way, to the wrong people. I don't even see it being more than a curioscity in the internet radio world we are entering. If I owned a station, I would be fine tuning a format or a niche, something I passionately care about and can do in a way that is better than anybody else. Then invest in a vigorous national internet ad campaign to get people to stream my audio. I think the time has come for that sort of marketing, and stations not doing it are in danger of being left behind. Remember - WGN and WOR tried to become national cable networks, WGN is barely hanging on.
I would not be a bit surprised to see an iPod with streaming radio in the near future - scanning for free wireless hotspots. It is a perfect match with the iPod mentality: wanting what YOU want to hear, not what the stations and the records companies want you to hear.
I hate to say it, rbruce, but I "Basically" asgree with you.
I have another "Angle" on it though.
Local CAN beat national.
National has The Cheetah Girls saying how they like touring.
Local has how much they like playing downtown.
National has a weekend all expense paid trip to see them in New York as a prize.
Local will have the tickets your parents will actually let you use...
I do NOT have access to Neilson... Does "WTBS" rate well in Atlanta? It's been 10 years since I've seen an ad for "Scarlet O'Hara's in 'Underground Atlanta'". They have all but abandandoned the city. Do they even show an ID on "the net"?
Does that mean their SUPERSTATION idea was a bad one?
No way. But they might as well SELL WTBS-TV and just be a cable station like USA. They have a 0.0 with viewers looking for local news or info in Atlanta. (I would suspect)
The issue as I see it is...
Can TBS beat your local network affilaite at 8:00 PM?
Maybe...
Can TBS beat your network affiliate at newstime???
NEVER.
This is the new world. (Both TV AND Radio)
Clouseau
R
rbrucecarter5
Guest
clouseau said:Local CAN beat national.
Can TBS beat your network affiliate at newstime???
NEVER.
To a degree, I agree with you about localism, which is why I said it is the best hope for the 80% of stations that won't be a favorite streaming site. Unfortunately - consolidation has all but eliminated localism.
I can only speak about how I use localism: Traffic and weather. When I'm in a traffic jam, I tune to the NON-HD station in the area, WBAP, because the voices aren't muffled (just an aside) - they have traffic every few minutes, and it is usually quick enough to be relevant. I'm off the freeway at the next exit, and back on music stations as I cruise through quiet neighborhoods. Localism served me for the time it took to find out the problem and get off the freeway.
Another way I use localism - weather. Is there a tornado or hail headed my way? Usually the warning is too late or for another area. But sometimes I'll tune in and get weather info.
That is the extent of my use of localism. I do like a local DJ in the mornings, but that is more due to his world view and subject material. He could be in LA for all I care.
Now - does WTBS beat local TV news at 6 PM? Sure did with me as I could care less about yet another murder down in Oak Cliff (the bad part of Dallas 30 miles from me), or another squabble at city hall over potholes and how to fund repairs (its gonna cost me somehow), or a squabble over where a sports arena will be located (that I will never go to because ticket prices of $100 minimum are outrageous - I WON'T GO). The rest of the time it is warmed over national news I've heard already or read already. A couple of months ago - it was so much Britney and Paris it made me want to vomit. Bottom line - you bet I'd rather watch sitcom reruns in the "news" hour on WTBS. And I think most other people feel the same way. Local TV news? So much of a joke unless something is REALLY happening in your home town. Which isn't very often!
D
dbdigital
Guest
rbrucecarter5 said:clouseau said:Local CAN beat national.
Can TBS beat your network affiliate at newstime???
NEVER.
To a degree, I agree with you about localism, which is why I said it is the best hope for the 80% of stations that won't be a favorite streaming site. Unfortunately - consolidation has all but eliminated localism.
I can only speak about how I use localism: Traffic and weather. When I'm in a traffic jam, I tune to the NON-HD station in the area, WBAP, because the voices aren't muffled (just an aside) - they have traffic every few minutes, and it is usually quick enough to be relevant. I'm off the freeway at the next exit, and back on music stations as I cruise through quiet neighborhoods. Localism served me for the time it took to find out the problem and get off the freeway.
Another way I use localism - weather. Is there a tornado or hail headed my way? Usually the warning is too late or for another area. But sometimes I'll tune in and get weather info.
That is the extent of my use of localism. I do like a local DJ in the mornings, but that is more due to his world view and subject material. He could be in LA for all I care.
A couple of months ago - it was so much Britney and Paris it made me want to vomit. Bottom line - you bet I'd rather watch sitcom reruns in the "news" hour on WTBS. And I think most other people feel the same way. Local TV news? So much of a joke unless something is REALLY happening in your home town. Which isn't very often!
Unless you live in Los Angeles, than Britney and Paris IS local news. And for someone commuting through L.A. you better know where their trial/jail/rehabs are and avoid those areas as the streets are clogged with media trucks, fans and gawkers.
And soon we'll have Lindsey to deal with. Be glad you don't live here.
db
R
rbrucecarter5
Guest
dbdigital said:Unless you live in Los Angeles, than Britney and Paris IS local news. And for someone commuting through L.A. you better know where their trial/jail/rehabs are and avoid those areas as the streets are clogged with media trucks, fans and gawkers.
And soon we'll have Lindsey to deal with. Be glad you don't live here.
db
Actually, I do live there for large chunks of the summer when my daughter works the "extra" circuit. Brit and Lindsey's little sisters are sweethearts, don't look for them to follow in their older sibling's ways. As for Paris, I'm still waiting to see her halfway houses for prisoners getting out of jail to become a reality.
D
dbdigital
Guest
If you've read today's RAIN newsletter you can really come away with an even more conflicted sense of where the future is heading for HD vs. Internet radio.
For example, the newsletter cites an article in the Cincinnati Post about Internet-based WOXY.com now broadcasting on one of WVXU's HD channels and you think, 'well maybe there is a symbiotic future for Internet-only and HD radio, a partnership even.'
But then RAIN cites another article from the Wall Street Journal of how car makers, like Ford, are rapidly working to install wireless mobile devices in their products (Bluetooth, WiMax, etc.) and how consumers, according to a J.D. Powers poll, are very interested in having this feature in their next car. And then you think, 'but who needs HD Radio re-broadcasting an internet-only station if you can get the station directly through a mobile device?'
The Post article goes on to mention that, while it was hoped over a million HD Radios would be sold by the end of '07, a more realistic projected figure is only about 400,000. In contrast, it is estimated that over 100 million people will be using mobile wireless devices by the end of 2008.
The article said, "It's unclear if HD radio will ever provide something consumers can't find elsewhere."
http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070828/LIFE/708280343/1005
http://www.kurthanson.com/archive/news/082807/index.shtml
So, it may be that HD Radio, technical problems aside, just came on the scene too late. It is being overshadowed by other, more versatile, technologies.
db
For example, the newsletter cites an article in the Cincinnati Post about Internet-based WOXY.com now broadcasting on one of WVXU's HD channels and you think, 'well maybe there is a symbiotic future for Internet-only and HD radio, a partnership even.'
But then RAIN cites another article from the Wall Street Journal of how car makers, like Ford, are rapidly working to install wireless mobile devices in their products (Bluetooth, WiMax, etc.) and how consumers, according to a J.D. Powers poll, are very interested in having this feature in their next car. And then you think, 'but who needs HD Radio re-broadcasting an internet-only station if you can get the station directly through a mobile device?'
The Post article goes on to mention that, while it was hoped over a million HD Radios would be sold by the end of '07, a more realistic projected figure is only about 400,000. In contrast, it is estimated that over 100 million people will be using mobile wireless devices by the end of 2008.
The article said, "It's unclear if HD radio will ever provide something consumers can't find elsewhere."
http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070828/LIFE/708280343/1005
http://www.kurthanson.com/archive/news/082807/index.shtml
So, it may be that HD Radio, technical problems aside, just came on the scene too late. It is being overshadowed by other, more versatile, technologies.
db
dbdigital said:If you've read today's RAIN newsletter you can really come away with an even more conflicted sense of where the future is heading for HD vs. Internet radio.
For example, the newsletter cites an article in the Cincinnati Post about Internet-based WOXY.com now broadcasting on one of WVXU's HD channels and you think, 'well maybe there is a symbiotic future for Internet-only and HD radio, a partnership even.'
But then RAIN cites another article from the Wall Street Journal of how car makers, like Ford, are rapidly working to install wireless mobile devices in their products (Bluetooth, WiMax, etc.) and how consumers, according to a J.D. Powers poll, are very interested in having this feature in their next car. And then you think, 'but who needs HD Radio re-broadcasting an internet-only station if you can get the station directly through a mobile device?'
The Post article goes on to mention that, while it was hoped over a million HD Radios would be sold by the end of '07, a more realistic projected figure is only about 400,000. In contrast, it is estimated that over 100 million people will be using mobile wireless devices by the end of 2008.
The article said, "It's unclear if HD radio will ever provide something consumers can't find elsewhere."
http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070828/LIFE/708280343/1005
http://www.kurthanson.com/archive/news/082807/index.shtml
So, it may be that HD Radio, technical problems aside, just came on the scene too late. It is being overshadowed by other, more versatile, technologies.
db
I think iBiquity has been watching all of this carefully. Have you seen their latest press release?
http://www.ibiquity.com/press_room/news_releases/2007/iHD_Radio
HD Radio™ By iBiquity Digital Reinvented And Renamed iHD Radio™
Columbia, Maryland, August 28, 2007 - iBiquity Digital Corporation, the developer of digital AM/FM HD Radio™ technology, announced today that it has completely reinvented HD Radio™, renaming it iHD Radio™.
"We are tremendously excited about this revolutionary development by our team at iBiquity." said Robert Struble, President and Chief Executive Officer. "Our team has completely done away with the need for new transmitters and antennas. For broadcasters we also eliminated any need for an AM or FM broadcast license. For listeners, we completely did away with the need to buy an HD radio. This development is designed to guarantee HD radio's success years ahead of all earlier projections."
Mindful there has been an undercurrent of dissatisfaction with increased levels of interference created by iBiquity's technology, Struble was unusually candid when he elaborated further on the comany's new path, "Gone, will be any interference caused by HD radio digital sidebands. Gone, will be the need for any receiver antennas. Gone, will be limited signal coverage. Gone, will be the limitations of bandwidth and our HDC codec."
Effective immediately, iBiquity Digital Corporation will make iHD Radio™ available to all currently licensed HD Radio™ stations. Struble described the new iHD Radio™ simply, "Our partners will be shipping iHD Radio™ boxes which contain computers equipped with sound cards. Installed on the hard drive will be Windows Media Encoder 9. Optional encoders will be available at an extra charge. The new iHD Radio will be able to deliver audio in a variety of new codecs, including WMA, MP3, AAC, Real, and even OGG. All station engineers will have to do is connect a station's audio to our sound card, fire up an encoder, connect the box's network connection to a high-speed Internet connection, contract with a third party provider or run your own server, and iHD Radio™ will now reach a worldwide audience. And listeners will not need to buy a new radio."
Further details on iHD Radio™ will be available soon at the iBiquity Digital Corporation web site.
About iBiquity Digital
iBiquity Digital Corporation is the developer of the HD Radio system which is powering the AM/FM digital radio revolution. This transformational technology allows AM and FM stations to broadcast digital signals in tandem with their analog signals, providing broadcasters with a platform to deliver multiple channels of programming on the same frequency (HD2 multicasting); crystal-clear, CD-quality sound; advanced services such as traffic updates; and text and graphics content. More than 1,300 U.S. HD Radio stations are on the air, with more than 600 of those offering additional content via multicast channels. HD Radio technology is being or has been tested in many countries throughout the world, including Argentina, Australia, Bosnia, Brazil, Canada, Czech Republic, France, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Mexico, New Zealand, Philippines, Poland, Switzerland, Thailand and Ukraine. iBiquity’s investors are global leaders in the technology, broadcasting, manufacturing, media and financial industries.
D
dbdigital
Guest
vsa said:dbdigital said:If you've read today's RAIN newsletter you can really come away with an even more conflicted sense of where the future is heading for HD vs. Internet radio.
For example, the newsletter cites an article in the Cincinnati Post about Internet-based WOXY.com now broadcasting on one of WVXU's HD channels and you think, 'well maybe there is a symbiotic future for Internet-only and HD radio, a partnership even.'
But then RAIN cites another article from the Wall Street Journal of how car makers, like Ford, are rapidly working to install wireless mobile devices in their products (Bluetooth, WiMax, etc.) and how consumers, according to a J.D. Powers poll, are very interested in having this feature in their next car. And then you think, 'but who needs HD Radio re-broadcasting an internet-only station if you can get the station directly through a mobile device?'
The Post article goes on to mention that, while it was hoped over a million HD Radios would be sold by the end of '07, a more realistic projected figure is only about 400,000. In contrast, it is estimated that over 100 million people will be using mobile wireless devices by the end of 2008.
The article said, "It's unclear if HD radio will ever provide something consumers can't find elsewhere."
http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070828/LIFE/708280343/1005
http://www.kurthanson.com/archive/news/082807/index.shtml
So, it may be that HD Radio, technical problems aside, just came on the scene too late. It is being overshadowed by other, more versatile, technologies.
db
I think iBiquity has been watching all of this carefully. Have you seen their latest press release?
http://www.ibiquity.com/press_room/news_releases/2007/iHD_Radio
HD Radio™ By iBiquity Digital Reinvented And Renamed iHD Radio™
Columbia, Maryland, August 28, 2007 - iBiquity Digital Corporation, the developer of digital AM/FM HD Radio™ technology, announced today that it has completely reinvented HD Radio™, renaming it iHD Radio™.
"We are tremendously excited about this revolutionary development by our team at iBiquity." said Robert Struble, President and Chief Executive Officer. "Our team has completely done away with the need for new transmitters and antennas. For broadcasters we also eliminated any need for an AM or FM broadcast license. For listeners, we completely did away with the need to buy an HD radio. This development is designed to guarantee HD radio's success years ahead of all earlier projections."
Mindful there has been an undercurrent of dissatisfaction with increased levels of interference created by iBiquity's technology, Struble was unusually candid when he elaborated further on the comany's new path, "Gone, will be any interference caused by HD radio digital sidebands. Gone, will be the need for any receiver antennas. Gone, will be limited signal coverage. Gone, will be the limitations of bandwidth and our HDC codec."
Effective immediately, iBiquity Digital Corporation will make iHD Radio™ available to all currently licensed HD Radio™ stations. Struble described the new iHD Radio™ simply, "Our partners will be shipping iHD Radio™ boxes which contain computers equipped with sound cards. Installed on the hard drive will be Windows Media Encoder 9. Optional encoders will be available at an extra charge. The new iHD Radio will be able to deliver audio in a variety of new codecs, including WMA, MP3, AAC, Real, and even OGG. All station engineers will have to do is connect a station's audio to our sound card, fire up an encoder, connect the box's network connection to a high-speed Internet connection, contract with a third party provider or run your own server, and iHD Radio™ will now reach a worldwide audience. And listeners will not need to buy a new radio."
Further details on iHD Radio™ will be available soon at the iBiquity Digital Corporation web site.
About iBiquity Digital
iBiquity Digital Corporation is the developer of the HD Radio system which is powering the AM/FM digital radio revolution. This transformational technology allows AM and FM stations to broadcast digital signals in tandem with their analog signals, providing broadcasters with a platform to deliver multiple channels of programming on the same frequency (HD2 multicasting); crystal-clear, CD-quality sound; advanced services such as traffic updates; and text and graphics content. More than 1,300 U.S. HD Radio stations are on the air, with more than 600 of those offering additional content via multicast channels. HD Radio technology is being or has been tested in many countries throughout the world, including Argentina, Australia, Bosnia, Brazil, Canada, Czech Republic, France, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Mexico, New Zealand, Philippines, Poland, Switzerland, Thailand and Ukraine. iBiquity’s investors are global leaders in the technology, broadcasting, manufacturing, media and financial industries.
Well, that's weird (or maybe not). iBiquity deleted the above press release. Good thing you re-printed it here. The company is creating and branding an Internet radio solution, obviously an attempt to cover all the bases.
But, here again, unless iHD Radio is bringing something truly new to the table, it's a solution that's too late. We have it already.
db
D
dbdigital
Guest
Just to clarify a point on tomorrow's new iPod announcement. The Vnunet article headlined: "Radio iPods Expected on Wednesday" and says that, "the new iPods will be able to receive digital radio".
http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2197849/radio-ipods-expected-wednesday
But we're not talking HD Radio. According to Mac-Life, these will be Wi-Fi touchscreen iPods...basically an iPhone without the phone.
http://www.maclife.com/article/ipod...hone_competition_and_google_phone_speculation
Apple is much too forward-thinking to kluge on a terrestrial radio solution to one of their products.
db
http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2197849/radio-ipods-expected-wednesday
But we're not talking HD Radio. According to Mac-Life, these will be Wi-Fi touchscreen iPods...basically an iPhone without the phone.
http://www.maclife.com/article/ipod...hone_competition_and_google_phone_speculation
Apple is much too forward-thinking to kluge on a terrestrial radio solution to one of their products.
db
S
Shreddermanrulz
Guest
dbdigital said:Well, that's weird (or maybe not). iBiquity deleted the above press release. Good thing you re-printed it here. The company is creating and branding an Internet radio solution, obviously an attempt to cover all the bases.
But, here again, unless iHD Radio is bringing something truly new to the table, it's a solution that's too late. We have it already.
I disagree. Internet streaming radio is a hodge-podge of different streaming formats, complicated web addresses, sign-in's and other hassles. If iBiquity wants to streamline the process and make all streams easily accessible, more power to them. They are finally giving the public something they actually want and can use.
--- Shredderman
- Status
- This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.