I vote we rename the HD Radio board "Webcasting/Internet Streaming"

[Radioman100]

Due to the streaming audio enthusiasts strong desire to continually make off-topic posts talking about streaming on the HD Radio board, I propose Radio-Info rename this board "Webcasting/Internet Streaming."

Since the streaming audio enthusiasts clearly can't find the "Webcasting/Internet Streaming" board, I also propose we move all HD Radio discussion there and rename it "HD Radio." It might be a wee bit confusing at first, but I'm confident the pro-HD people are smart enough to figure it out. Their reading skills have been proven time and time again as they correctly identify the forum to post their HD Radio comments in. There are amazingly few HD Radio comments on the "Webcasting/Internet Streaming" board, but then again, there's amazingly few posts there to begin with, so that's really not all that surprising.

Anyway, since it's pretty much vacant, and the streaming audio fans apparently have no use for it, I'd love to have the space to discuss HD Radio for a change.

Whaddya say Radio-Info?

 

[SUPERCASTER]

According to the foremost HD radio promoters the "HD" means nothing, later, some said might mean "High Definition" or "Hybrid Digital".
The term "HD" was admittedly lifted from HDTV to allude to "digital quality" and to piggyback on HDTV's promotion (in at least some cases, it may not actually be any "better" then analog).
The "HD quality" aacPlus codec of HD radio started out as a web audio codec, and was later licensed by iBiquity for "HD" radio.
Webcasting and internet streaming are now on the air (radio) via WiFi and increasingly, WiMax.
What we are seeing is the same inevitable multimedia convergence that has been taking place for over a decade.
If HD alludes to some digital "higher quality" method of delivery, then perhaps it applies to internet audio as well.
Does the term "radio" only apply to the USA AM and FM "broadcast" bands, or does it also apply to short wave, long wave, WiFi, WiMax, and all wireless radio frequency transmissions?

In any event, it is increasingly clear that the general public cares less about the delivery method then compelling content.

Stick owners should adjust to the idea that they no longer have a near monopoly on delivery method, and adjust to their roll as competing content providers. Competition generally benefits the public.

"Ain't America grand?"

 

[clouseau]

According to the foremost HD radio promoters the "HD" means nothing, later, some said might mean "High Definition" or "Hybrid Digital".
The term "HD" was admittedly lifted from HDTV to allude to "digital quality" and to piggyback on HDTV's promotion (in at least some cases, it may not actually be any "better" then analog).
The "HD quality" aacPlus codec of HD radio started out as a web audio codec, and was later licensed by iBiquity for "HD" radio.
Webcasting and internet streaming are now on the air (radio) via WiFi and increasingly, WiMax.
What we are seeing is the same inevitable multimedia convergence that has been taking place for over a decade.
If HD alludes to some digital "higher quality" method of delivery, then perhaps it applies to internet audio as well.
Does the term "radio" only apply to the USA AM and FM "broadcast" bands, or does it also apply to short wave, long wave, WiFi, WiMax, and all wireless radio frequency transmissions?

Wow! What an absolutely nonsensically twisted piece of fantasy ol Sup' just posted above. It shows a lot about some of these folks mindset, though.

http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=76428454

This is what HD Radio means. It is a trademarked phrase and design registered to Ibiquity which denotes their system of digital radio. No misguided spin doctoring from members of the Blogosphere changes that.

We now return you to the predictable rant about radio programming and internet streaming...

In any event, it is increasingly clear that the general public cares less about the delivery method then compelling content.

Stick owners should adjust to the idea that they no longer have a near monopoly on delivery method, and adjust to their roll as competing content providers. Competition generally benefits the public.

Almost 100 boards at this site alone deal with content issues and YOU come into the lone site about this particular delivery method and litter it with programming generalities?

"Ain't America grand?"

Finally something that makes sense.

Clouseau

 

[Radioman100]

According to the foremost HD radio promoters the "HD" means nothing, later, some said might mean "High Definition" or "Hybrid Digital".
The term "HD" was admittedly lifted from HDTV to allude to "digital quality" and to piggyback on HDTV's promotion (in at least some cases, it may not actually be any "better" then analog).
The "HD quality" aacPlus codec of HD radio started out as a web audio codec, and was later licensed by iBiquity for "HD" radio.
Webcasting and internet streaming are now on the air (radio) via WiFi and increasingly, WiMax.
What we are seeing is the same inevitable multimedia convergence that has been taking place for over a decade.
If HD alludes to some digital "higher quality" method of delivery, then perhaps it applies to internet audio as well.
Does the term "radio" only apply to the USA AM and FM "broadcast" bands, or does it also apply to short wave, long wave, WiFi, WiMax, and all wireless radio frequency transmissions?

In any event, it is increasingly clear that the general public cares less about the delivery method then compelling content.

Stick owners should adjust to the idea that they no longer have a near monopoly on delivery method, and adjust to their roll as competing content providers. Competition generally benefits the public.

"Ain't America grand?"

Well if that's all true, I suppose we can apply all the whacked out anti-HD rhetoric that litters your signature to internet radio as well?

It's clear from that alone that you know exactly what HD Radio is. Your assertions about it are far from correct, but it's unmistakable that you know HD applies to HD AM and FM broadcasts only, not all the nonsensical internet radio stuff you listed.

 

[clone]

It appears that the Pro-HD members are unhappy with the way the postings have been going. I can't say I disagree. I used to enjoy visiting this forum to keep up to date on the latest IBOC technical info, problems, and successes that IBOC broadcasters have to offer. Anymore, it's just "MY TEAM vs. YOUR TEAM", and that's not what this forum is supposed to be about. If we are all broadcasters, then we should act like professionals. Neither side seems to be doing that. I think we all need to take a step back and realize, when the day is done, that this is radio, and it is evolving, whether we like it or not.

However, Supercaster makes a point that I think is overlooked too often in our industry. We are no longer the sole distributors of audio content to the general public. IBOC is definitely a way to expand our delivery in new and interesting ways. HD FM is a great product which I believe, given enough time, will come to be as ubiquitous as FM Stereo is today. It allows us to serve audiences which are currently underserved by terrestrial analog. It does negligible damage (read: none) to adjacent channels. It has the potential, especially in larger markets, to increase cume with little cost expenditure over and above the cost of the equipment and licensing fees. Overall, a win-win. FM sound quality is not a concern to the average listener, and HD sounds just fine. AM sound quality, however, is a concern to the average listener.

There is a reason why FM Stereo has been the catalyst to the industry that it has been in the last three decades: it sounds great, has acceptable range of reception and (for the most part) provides a quality product, the content, which is in demand by a large segement of the listening audience. Analog AM, while providing a substantial improvement in the range of reception, does not provide the content that our 18-34 demos are looking for. And 18-34 would not stand for the terrible sound quality of analog AM compared to its FM counterpart.

HD AM provides a solution to this problem: the sound quality can be improved, therefore reeling in the ever-lucrative 18-34. In theory.

In production, HD AM does not provide an acceptable range of reception to the targeted demo. 18-34 demands the content that they want, when they want it, wherever they are. Why can we not accept this? There is no band-aid to fix that issue, now that the internet, Wi-Fi, and mobile data services are out of the bag. We have been replaced with a product which delivers what the lucrative target demos wants. From both a technical and programming standpoint, we cannot be everything to everyone, everywhere. While HD FM can be robust enough to be a viable product, HD AM just doesn't work!

But let us be honest, at least with each other, that HD is a marketing term for digital IBOC broadcasting. And, that a digital audio stream is exactly that, regardless of whether it is received by wire, or by air. Of course the trademark only applies to a digital IBOC broadcast (thats common sense to all of us), but the idea is the same. We need to be competitive with all our newfound competition. But when the product fails to deliver the quality of service that listeners are used to, there is no way it can supplant the traditional analog system. When (and if) it is possible to deliver HD FM to our many remote listeners (over 30 miles, talking about a full Class B FM) that currently receive the analog FM, we can start to develop the product. Until then, it will be another passing fancy.

I really do not have any interest in the IBOC system succeeding or failing, and while I would like to see our delivery options expanded, there are many limitations to a broadcast digital system. Now as broadcasters, as professionals, we must ask ourselves: will we rise to the challenge and work together to engineer solutions to these limitations, like our gurus did in the 60's with FM Stereo, or will we continue to behave like schoolyard children kicking sand in the eyes of one-another, solely for our own self-indulgence and self-gratitude?

 

[SUPERCASTER]

According to the foremost HD radio promoters the "HD" means nothing, later, some said might mean "High Definition" or "Hybrid Digital".
The term "HD" was admittedly lifted from HDTV to allude to "digital quality" and to piggyback on HDTV's promotion (in at least some cases, it may not actually be any "better" then analog).
The "HD quality" aacPlus codec of HD radio started out as a web audio codec, and was later licensed by iBiquity for "HD" radio.
Webcasting and internet streaming are now on the air (radio) via WiFi and increasingly, WiMax.
What we are seeing is the same inevitable multimedia convergence that has been taking place for over a decade.
If HD alludes to some digital "higher quality" method of delivery, then perhaps it applies to internet audio as well.
Does the term "radio" only apply to the USA AM and FM "broadcast" bands, or does it also apply to short wave, long wave, WiFi, WiMax, and all wireless radio frequency transmissions?

Wow! What an absolutely nonsensically twisted piece of fantasy ol Sup' just posted above. It shows a lot about some of these folks mindset, though.

http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=76428454

This is what HD Radio means. It is a trademarked phrase and design registered to Ibiquity which denotes their system of digital radio. No misguided spin doctoring from members of the Blogosphere changes that.

We now return you to the predictable rant about radio programming and internet streaming...

In any event, it is increasingly clear that the general public cares less about the delivery method then compelling content.

Stick owners should adjust to the idea that they no longer have a near monopoly on delivery method, and adjust to their roll as competing content providers. Competition generally benefits the public.

Almost 100 boards at this site alone deal with content issues and YOU come into the lone site about this particular delivery method and litter it with programming generalities?

"Ain't America grand?"

Finally something that makes sense.

Clouseau

The trade mark applies only to the HD Radio logo artwork and not to the words HD, Radio, or HD Radio.
Note that the heading of this board is standard text HD Radio and does not contain the trademarked logo artwork.

At the request of board member "clone" I will refrain from posting what I really want to say about Radioman100's personal attack, other then to say it is just more of the same HD promoter's propaganda, personal slurs, innuendo, and disinformation.

 

[dbdigital]

According to the foremost HD radio promoters the "HD" means nothing, later, some said might mean "High Definition" or "Hybrid Digital".
The term "HD" was admittedly lifted from HDTV to allude to "digital quality" and to piggyback on HDTV's promotion (in at least some cases, it may not actually be any "better" then analog).
The "HD quality" aacPlus codec of HD radio started out as a web audio codec, and was later licensed by iBiquity for "HD" radio.
Webcasting and internet streaming are now on the air (radio) via WiFi and increasingly, WiMax.
What we are seeing is the same inevitable multimedia convergence that has been taking place for over a decade.
If HD alludes to some digital "higher quality" method of delivery, then perhaps it applies to internet audio as well.
Does the term "radio" only apply to the USA AM and FM "broadcast" bands, or does it also apply to short wave, long wave, WiFi, WiMax, and all wireless radio frequency transmissions?

In any event, it is increasingly clear that the general public cares less about the delivery method then compelling content.

Stick owners should adjust to the idea that they no longer have a near monopoly on delivery method, and adjust to their roll as competing content providers. Competition generally benefits the public.

"Ain't America grand?"

Well if that's all true, I suppose we can apply all the whacked out anti-HD rhetoric that litters your signature to internet radio as well?

It's clear from that alone that you know exactly what HD Radio is. Your assertions about it are far from correct, but it's unmistakable that you know HD applies to HD AM and FM broadcasts only, not all the nonsensical internet radio stuff you listed.

What's "whacked out" is this whole thread you've begun. It's the most childish I've ever come across. No wonder people are leaving this board in droves.

db

 

[Radioman100]

What's "whacked out" is this whole thread you've begun. It's the most childish I've ever come across. No wonder people are leaving this board in droves.

db

Yup. Childish by design. It's called sarcasm.

As far as "leaving the board in droves" is concerned, I haven't really seen it, but if they were, that would probably have a lot more to do with the fact that some of us are now unwilling to just let any wild anti-HD claim go by unchecked, and when checked, most of those claims don't hold up.

 

[clouseau]

At the request of board member "clone" I will refrain from posting what I really want to say about Radioman100's personal attack,

....Blah Blah Blah...
Here's the only thing Radioman100 has written.

Well if that's all true, I suppose we can apply all the whacked out anti-HD rhetoric that litters your signature to internet radio as well?

Is that a personal attack?

It's clear from that alone that you know exactly what HD Radio is. Your assertions about it are far from correct, but it's unmistakable that you know HD applies to HD AM and FM broadcasts only, not all the nonsensical internet radio stuff you listed.

Or is it this?

What happened here, IMHO, is that you made a highly indefensible claim, you got called on it, and you cry "Personal attack".

When foolish things are posted, oftimes the poster is made to look foolish. It's happened to many of the people here from time to time including me. Enough with the politically correct "Personal Attack" garbage already.

Clouseau