iBiquity Collecting Retail Tales

[pocket-radio]

This was reported in Radio World

iBiquity wants to hear about retail experiences for HD Radio, both good and bad

Experiences like traveling between multiple stores in search of HD, only to find
unformed sales types, and radio’s that won’t play. So let them have it!

I’d say stage 4, search for the guilty is in effect.

The 6 Stages of a Project

The first week of my very first media job, a friend sent me a short list called ‘The 6 Stages of a Project’. It said that every project goes like this…
1. Enthusiasm
2. Disillusionment
3. Panic
4. Search for the Guilty
5. Punishment of the Innocent
6. Praise and Enthusiasm for the Uninvolved

It seemed funny at the time, yet over the years, the list seems almost too true - especially when a business initiative or ‘project’ doesn’t go smoothly or when it hits unexpected setbacks.

http://mediafix.wordpress.com/2008/09/10/the-6-stages-of-a-project/


iBiquity projects the number of retail units to increase from 80 to 100 by year-end. The typical price range is $100 to $149, for an average radio.

You’d think with the lack of demand price points would drop, but their
licensing scam eats into manufactures profits.

With so many people unemployed right now, $100.00 is food on the table..

http://www.radioworld.com/pages/s.0121/t.16269.html

 

[JH_Radio]

Hmm, okay so ware do I go to tell him that my local curcit city didn't have any for the home, and that what little was available was only for the car? that was as of september 2008
John
Bensalem, PA

 

[KB1OKL]

This was reported in Radio World

iBiquity wants to hear about retail experiences for HD Radio, both good and bad

Experiences like traveling between multiple stores in search of HD, only to find
unformed sales types, and radio’s that won’t play. So let them have it!

iBiquity projects the number of retail units to increase from 80 to 100 by year-end. The typical price range is $100 to $149, for an average radio.

You’d think with the lack of demand price points would drop, but their
licensing scam eats into manufactures profits.

With so many people unemployed right now, $100.00 is food on the table..

http://www.radioworld.com/pages/s.0121/t.16269.html

I'm wondering just how many more ploys Boob Strew-Bull is going come up with to keep getting press about this biggest flop of the first decade of the 21st century. Anyone that does any research at all arrives at the same story: They're not available and if by some small miracle they are, the salesman will try to steer you towards something a little more reliable so they don't get returns. You want one you have to go on line.

 

[Carmine5]

Well, what do you know? Bob Struble has come back for round four with his latest column: "Technological Innovation in Radio: It’s the Device, Stupid!"

It's long, his longest column yet, and rambling.

http://www.ibiquity.com/about_us/bobs_column_thoughts_on_radios_digital_future

As a side bar, Struble notes (somewhat bizarrely) how iBiquity has been a driving force in improving analog radio:

"iBiquity has been...improving analog AM/FM...many groups dusted off and fired up their RDS boxes and now its use is widespread. iBiquity developed iTunes Tagging which allows listeners to tag songs heard on an HD Radio station for later purchase. That led to ‘Buy from FM,’ a similar capability which works on analog broadcasts. Our focus on traffic updates over HD Radio infrastructure has led to development of similar (if a lot slower) capabilities over analog."

I'd almost buy his reasoning if it wasn't for all the hissing I'm hearing on my analog receiver.

C5

 

[pocket-radio]

Bob reads your ideas and thoughts here: So let him have it..

[email protected]

 

[Savage]

So, let's have a show of hands: how many of you agree that "over the past 40 years, AM/FM radio has just not embraced technological innovation?"

Just what I thought. What a dweeb. Strew-Bull's comments are such a "tell" - indicative of how much contempt he has for the industry which his idiotic system is currently in the process of trashing.

Reading between the lines: frustration and anger. He's ticked because the radio industry isn't beating a path to iBiquity to "embrace" his junk-engineering hybrid-digital disaster. The stations who are "embracing HD" are for the most part finding themselves "embracing" a poisonous porcupine.

Or an anti-personnel mine. (Attention CBS: hold it TIGHT!)

Hey, Strew-Bull: we haven't "embraced technological innovation?" How about FM? How about FM stereo? Radio was using multiplex FM stereo in 1958; it took network TV until the mid-1980s to catch up with stereo FM audio. Then there were FIVE different AM Stereo systems; seems like a LITTLE "innovation" went into those, notwithstanding the fact that none were ultimately successful in the marketplace. How about Quad Stereo? FMX? AMax? How about SCA? Maybe RDS?

How about synchronous fill-in transmitters? Directional antennas? Circular FM polarization?

Truth: radio has "embraced" all kinds of innovations. And until HD Radio came along, they almost all offered arguably genuine improvements. They were honestly developed and offered with equanimity. And while a number of them weren't ultimately successes, none could be called "junk engineering." You know: like HD Radio.

More dishonest, arrogant nonsense from....who else? The perpetrator of the radio industry's most notorious engineering blunder in 85 years of "true" innovation. Leave it to Strew-Bull to diss the people who have given him the stage from which he can proffer abject, hostile nonsense.

Go crawl back under your rock, Mr. iBiquity. (How's that fund-raising to float your tiny little loser company going on Wall Street these days??) :

 

[Carmine5]

So, let's have a show of hands: how many of you agree that "over the past 40 years, AM/FM radio has just not embraced technological innovation?"

Just what I thought. What a dweeb. Strew-Bull's comments are such a "tell" - indicative of how much contempt he has for the industry which his idiotic system is currently in the process of trashing.

Reading between the lines: frustration and anger. He's ticked because the radio industry isn't beating a path to iBiquity to "embrace" his junk-engineering hybrid-digital disaster. The stations who are "embracing HD" are for the most part finding themselves "embracing" a poisonous porcupine.

Or an anti-personnel mine. (Attention CBS: hold it TIGHT!)

Hey, Strew-Bull: we haven't "embraced technological innovation?" How about FM? How about FM stereo? Radio was using multiplex FM stereo in 1958; it took network TV until the mid-1980s to catch up with stereo FM audio. Then there were FIVE different AM Stereo systems; seems like a LITTLE "innovation" went into those, notwithstanding the fact that none were ultimately successful in the marketplace. How about Quad Stereo? FMX? AMax? How about SCA? Maybe RDS?

How about synchronous fill-in transmitters? Directional antennas? Circular FM polarization?

Truth: radio has "embraced" all kinds of innovations. And until HD Radio came along, they almost all offered arguably genuine improvements. They were honestly developed and offered with equanimity. And while a number of them weren't ultimately successes, none could be called "junk engineering." You know: like HD Radio.

More dishonest, arrogant nonsense from....who else? The perpetrator of the radio industry's most notorious engineering blunder in 85 years of "true" innovation. Leave it to Strew-Bull to diss the people who have given him the stage from which he can proffer abject, hostile nonsense.

Go crawl back under your rock, Mr. iBiquity. (How's that fund-raising to float your tiny little loser company going on Wall Street these days??) :

And of all the technological innovations Mr. Savage listed, which one of them caused destructive interference to another broadcaster's signal, with the potential for causing more once the FCC gives its stamp of approval for a 10 db increase?

When Struble says this:

"We simply must try new things, not all of which will succeed, to engage and serve audiences and advertisers and develop new revenue opportunities."

Is he including HD Radio in the 'not all of which will succeed' category? Ultimately, he may have to.

C5

 

[JH_Radio]

I was t thinkin when he said "All of which may not succeed", um. yeah, IBOC? NO reason to buy a jukebox, I already have one thank you. Seriously, I do....
How about Dolby-FM, DSP Cercetry?
John
Bensalem, PA

 

[TheBigA]

Truth: radio has "embraced" all kinds of innovations.

Well...most of them happened more than 25 years ago.

And it depends on who in radio you ask. The innovations that have come along in the last 25 years, such as Prophet Systems, various forms of computerized operations, and incorporating new media in traditional broadcast presentation have been embraced and encouraged by management, but not always by the rank & file. In fact, as passionate as you are about IBOC, they are against change in the control room or on-air presentation. That's a far more bitter battleground than IBOC. You can read it anywhere on this board. Change is seen as a bad thing.

And even if you dispute my view that the rank & file haven't embraced innovation, there seems to be a perception among consumers that radio hasn't advanced technically in a while. Especially on the AM side.

 

[Savage]

Fair enough. So: somebody come up with a digital system which (a) first, does no harm; (b) is available with equanimity to everyone; (c) offers a genuine, easily perceptible improvement over analog and (d) isn't priced and licensed according to an extortionate monopolistic business model.

Do that, and I think you won't have the problems and controversies bedeviling HD Radio and iBiquity. Under those circumstances radio people would assuredly "embrace" digital. There were no controversies or us-versus-them with FM, FM stereo, Dolby or circular polarization. These innovations, once proven, simply made their way into the engineering mainstream as proud facets of up-to-date facilities. And they never HURT anyone, so there was little debate about them.

It's amusing how IBOC-pushers are so quick to denigrate radio broadcasters as being obstructive, backwards and reactionary just because they're not rushing to buy into HD. Personally, it justifies my faith that radio people have common sense and a healthy self-preservation instinct. If they throw the HD fish back because it stinks and they think they'll wait for something better to bite, bully for them.

 

[RadeoEngineer]

FMeXtra

 

[SUPERCASTER]

FMeXtra

I totally agree. FMeXtra actually is virtually everything that HD radio claimed to be.

1- Non-proprietary
2- Coverage similar to stereo coverage
3- Same or better quality and performance then HD radio (same basic aac plus codec)
4- Simpler, easier, to incorporate
5- Much less expensive
6- No new transmission equipment other then the encoder
7- No additional power consumption other then a few watts for the encoder.
8- Much simpler and easier to maintain
9- No ongoing licensing fees
10- Simple one time, no fee licensing
and, perhaps most important-
11- No adjacent channel jamming.

For info on FMeXtra:
www.dreinc.com

Fortunately probably less then .03% of the radios in North America are HD Radio equipped, so there is little reason not to switch over to FMeXtra.

 

[TheBigA]

I totally agree. FMeXtra actually is virtually everything that HD radio claimed to be.

What does it do for AM?

 

[RadeoEngineer]

FMeXtra

I totally agree. FMeXtra actually is virtually everything that HD radio claimed to be.

1- Non-proprietary
2- Coverage similar to stereo coverage
3- Same or better quality and performance then HD radio (same basic aac plus codec)
4- Simpler, easier, to incorporate
5- Much less expensive
6- No new transmission equipment other then the encoder
7- No additional power consumption other then a few watts for the encoder.
8- Much simpler and easier to maintain
9- No ongoing licensing fees
10- Simple one time, no fee licensing
and, perhaps most important-
11- No adjacent channel jamming.

For info on FMeXtra:
www.dreinc.com

Fortunately probably less then .03% of the radios in North America are HD Radio equipped, so there is little reason not to switch over to FMeXtra.

One other thing, the receivers are addressable. You could actually sell a service and make a little dough.

 

[Savage]

Well, let's see now. Since it's "FMeXtra" I guess that means it doesn't do anything for AM.

Guess what? It doesn't trash AM either. Which is what HD Radio does.

 

[pqgeorge]

FMeXtra

I totally agree. FMeXtra actually is virtually everything that HD radio claimed to be.

1- Non-proprietary
2- Coverage similar to stereo coverage
3- Same or better quality and performance then HD radio (same basic aac plus codec)
4- Simpler, easier, to incorporate
5- Much less expensive
6- No new transmission equipment other then the encoder
7- No additional power consumption other then a few watts for the encoder.
8- Much simpler and easier to maintain
9- No ongoing licensing fees
10- Simple one time, no fee licensing
and, perhaps most important-
11- No adjacent channel jamming.

For info on FMeXtra:
www.dreinc.com

Fortunately probably less then .03% of the radios in North America are HD Radio equipped, so there is little reason not to switch over to FMeXtra.

I couldn't have said it better. IBOC just doesn't cut it. Once FMeXtra becomes a little more established in the market place, I hope to have all of my non-comm college stations equiped with FMeXtra. That is something they can actually afford and can be installed in a matter of minutes. No changes in the transmitter or the antenna are necessary. As long as we have an SCA input (and we all have it), an FMeXtra generator/server and another Optimod, were ready to go! The coverage is about the same as FM Stereo. It's a big no-brainer.

 

[KB1OKL]

I'll go for that, I received 5 more FM IBOC stations for a total of 6 (sometimes, but usually less) when as someone else pointed out, the leaves fell off the trees in my yard!
IBOC range is terrible.

 

[TheBigA]

Well, let's see now. Since it's "FMeXtra" I guess that means it doesn't do anything for AM.

I'm not convinced there's any need to improve the technical quality of FM.

 

[RadeoEngineer]

Well, let's see now. Since it's "FMeXtra" I guess that means it doesn't do anything for AM.

I'm not convinced there's any need to improve the technical quality of FM.

FMeXtra gives you the choice of digitizing your analog audio in one of the subcarrier channels, plus an additional full bandwidth channel of programming you choose, or you can split the entire subcarrier region into as many as nine narrower channels. The only thing AM needs is to have its bandwidth restored to 10 kHz and put AM stereo on it.

Other than this system is easily installed and readly available to everyone at a reasonable cost, I would tend to agree that analog FM probably needs no technical improvement other than getting some of the compression and clipping backed down.

 

[Savage]

Well now! Another point where I find myself in agreement with TheBigA. Neither, I would very strongly suspect, do most radio listeners demand the wonderfulness of "digital over analog." In fact all the anecdotal information I have is that garden-variety consumers mostly can't even tell the difference (on an average receiver) between analog and HD-FM.

And I was responding to your suggestion that FMeXtra doesn't do anything for AM - no, of course it doesn't because it's an FM encoding system. But I would counter with the familiar argument, HD does more harm than good when it comes to AM. On the one hand you have a fake-sounding tinny synthesized product from their codec, weighed against a massively increased noise floor and highly problematic skywave interference.
Not worth it IMO, and judging from receiver sales and non-conversions of most AM stations to HD, most others agree with me.