"Beware when any idea is promoted primarily because it is "bold, exciting, innovative, and new." There are many ideas that are "bold, exciting, innovative and new," but also foolish."
-Donald Rumsfeld
-Donald Rumsfeld
-
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.
INTERESTING QUOTE-DOES IT APPLY TO HD RADIO?
- Thread starter SuperSound
- Start date
This is getting old...
Ah Christ, here we go again.
Ah Christ, here we go again.
T
TXengineer
Guest
I agree... this is getting old and tired
> Ah Christ, here we go again.
>
I agree... this is getting old and tired.
> Ah Christ, here we go again.
>
I agree... this is getting old and tired.
Re: I agree... this is getting old and tired
> > Ah Christ, here we go again.
> >
> I agree... this is getting old and tired.
Unless all of us are willing to join the IBUZ cheerleaders here you'd better get used to some disagreement. Many of us can't be fired for expressing our opinions and many are not members of Jabba the HD's HD Dominion.
The majority of the industry are not members, so the cheerleaders have a tough road ahead and have to work extra hard to make this look like the Emperor has a spiffy wardrobe.
The programmers among us have serious concerns about how the technology is going to affect our ratings and how we're going to attract listeners to secondaries that are second thought voicetracked jukeboxes. No showbiz there.
I've had a very high quality IBUZ tuner supplied by Kenwood. Unfortunately, it was on loan. Personally the digital artifacts are fatiguing to me. While testing the tuner I found myself listening far longer to analog than to digital even in areas where the digital signal was as strong as the analog.
I wonder how the artifacts will affect TSL which, in turn, affects my AQH. If my AQH goes down, so do my sales.
Rich
> > Ah Christ, here we go again.
> >
> I agree... this is getting old and tired.
Unless all of us are willing to join the IBUZ cheerleaders here you'd better get used to some disagreement. Many of us can't be fired for expressing our opinions and many are not members of Jabba the HD's HD Dominion.
The majority of the industry are not members, so the cheerleaders have a tough road ahead and have to work extra hard to make this look like the Emperor has a spiffy wardrobe.
The programmers among us have serious concerns about how the technology is going to affect our ratings and how we're going to attract listeners to secondaries that are second thought voicetracked jukeboxes. No showbiz there.
I've had a very high quality IBUZ tuner supplied by Kenwood. Unfortunately, it was on loan. Personally the digital artifacts are fatiguing to me. While testing the tuner I found myself listening far longer to analog than to digital even in areas where the digital signal was as strong as the analog.
I wonder how the artifacts will affect TSL which, in turn, affects my AQH. If my AQH goes down, so do my sales.
Rich
R
RadioDoc
Guest
IT WOULD ALSO APPLY TO FMEXTRA THEN!!!
> "Beware when any idea is promoted primarily because it is
> "bold, exciting, innovative, and new." There are many ideas
> that are "bold, exciting, innovative and new," but also
> foolish."
> -Donald Rumsfeld
> <P ID="signature">______________
</P>
> "Beware when any idea is promoted primarily because it is
> "bold, exciting, innovative, and new." There are many ideas
> that are "bold, exciting, innovative and new," but also
> foolish."
> -Donald Rumsfeld
> <P ID="signature">______________
</P>
R
RadioDoc
Guest
Re: I agree... this is getting old and tired
> > > Ah Christ, here we go again.
> > >
> > I agree... this is getting old and tired.
>
> Unless all of us are willing to join the IBUZ cheerleaders
> here you'd better get used to some disagreement. Many of us
> can't be fired for expressing our opinions and many are not
> members of Jabba the HD's HD Dominion.
>
> The majority of the industry are not members, so the
> cheerleaders have a tough road ahead and have to work extra
> hard to make this look like the Emperor has a spiffy
> wardrobe.
>
> The programmers among us have serious concerns about how the
> technology is going to affect our ratings and how we're
> going to attract listeners to secondaries that are second
> thought voicetracked jukeboxes. No showbiz there.
>
> I've had a very high quality IBUZ tuner supplied by Kenwood.
> Unfortunately, it was on loan. Personally the digital
> artifacts are fatiguing to me. While testing the tuner I
> found myself listening far longer to analog than to digital
> even in areas where the digital signal was as strong as the
> analog.
>
> I wonder how the artifacts will affect TSL which, in turn,
> affects my AQH. If my AQH goes down, so do my sales.
>
> Rich
>
Right. The families of engineers are being held at gunpoint, while the worker bees are ordered so say nothing but nice things about HD radio.
Gotta be what it is, right?
So you are saying that I am not my own person? That if I was unemployed, or worked for a non-HD group, I would speak my mind and tell you how awful HD radio really is?
If that's what you think, you're a bigger nutjob that I originally though.
I like FM HD. Sounds good, and has lots of potential. AM HD sounds OK, but has, in my opinion, significant problems and shouldn't be used beyond experimentally at this point.
These are my opinions, and I express them freely. It is interesting to note, however, that this whole time you have not presented any scientific proof to support your claim other than this whole "Deep Throat" unidentified sources and the like. Basically you resort to name-calling and accusations to make your point.
To the members of this board: Take it for what it's worth. We've offered to provide proof that FM-HD works, and sounds good. Hard evidence.
Rich and "SuperSound" have provided nothing but a link or two, and a theory of black helicopters, a cartel, and a new name that is similar to something a 2nd grader would call a schoolmate, "IBUZ".
I'm sure you know who's fighting the losing battle here.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
> > > Ah Christ, here we go again.
> > >
> > I agree... this is getting old and tired.
>
> Unless all of us are willing to join the IBUZ cheerleaders
> here you'd better get used to some disagreement. Many of us
> can't be fired for expressing our opinions and many are not
> members of Jabba the HD's HD Dominion.
>
> The majority of the industry are not members, so the
> cheerleaders have a tough road ahead and have to work extra
> hard to make this look like the Emperor has a spiffy
> wardrobe.
>
> The programmers among us have serious concerns about how the
> technology is going to affect our ratings and how we're
> going to attract listeners to secondaries that are second
> thought voicetracked jukeboxes. No showbiz there.
>
> I've had a very high quality IBUZ tuner supplied by Kenwood.
> Unfortunately, it was on loan. Personally the digital
> artifacts are fatiguing to me. While testing the tuner I
> found myself listening far longer to analog than to digital
> even in areas where the digital signal was as strong as the
> analog.
>
> I wonder how the artifacts will affect TSL which, in turn,
> affects my AQH. If my AQH goes down, so do my sales.
>
> Rich
>
Right. The families of engineers are being held at gunpoint, while the worker bees are ordered so say nothing but nice things about HD radio.
Gotta be what it is, right?
So you are saying that I am not my own person? That if I was unemployed, or worked for a non-HD group, I would speak my mind and tell you how awful HD radio really is?
If that's what you think, you're a bigger nutjob that I originally though.
I like FM HD. Sounds good, and has lots of potential. AM HD sounds OK, but has, in my opinion, significant problems and shouldn't be used beyond experimentally at this point.
These are my opinions, and I express them freely. It is interesting to note, however, that this whole time you have not presented any scientific proof to support your claim other than this whole "Deep Throat" unidentified sources and the like. Basically you resort to name-calling and accusations to make your point.
To the members of this board: Take it for what it's worth. We've offered to provide proof that FM-HD works, and sounds good. Hard evidence.
Rich and "SuperSound" have provided nothing but a link or two, and a theory of black helicopters, a cartel, and a new name that is similar to something a 2nd grader would call a schoolmate, "IBUZ".
I'm sure you know who's fighting the losing battle here.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
You're one of them!
Ya know Rich, your comments are geting old as hell as well...IBUZ...what are you 2? Good God...you made the same cliche statements over and over and over and over...what was a good idea for a board has turned to (BLEEP)! Different sides of a certain point of view are great but the same stupid comments over and again are lame at best.
Guess what, Mr. everything, I am NOT a "cheerleader" for IBOC, just sick of the stupid comments...maybe I need a break from the lunacy and should stop reading this board until people can make more intelligent remarks.
Ya know Rich, your comments are geting old as hell as well...IBUZ...what are you 2? Good God...you made the same cliche statements over and over and over and over...what was a good idea for a board has turned to (BLEEP)! Different sides of a certain point of view are great but the same stupid comments over and again are lame at best.
Guess what, Mr. everything, I am NOT a "cheerleader" for IBOC, just sick of the stupid comments...maybe I need a break from the lunacy and should stop reading this board until people can make more intelligent remarks.
Re: I agree... this is getting old and tired
> I like FM HD. Sounds good, and has lots of potential. AM
> HD sounds OK, but has, in my opinion, significant problems
> and shouldn't be used beyond experimentally at this point.
>
> These are my opinions, and I express them freely. It is
> interesting to note, however, that this whole time you have
> not presented any scientific proof to support your claim
> other than this whole "Deep Throat" unidentified sources and
> the like. Basically you resort to name-calling and
> accusations to make your point.
>
> To the members of this board: Take it for what it's worth.
> We've offered to provide proof that FM-HD works, and sounds
> good. Hard evidence.
Hmm. I would think calling someone a nut job might be considered namecalling. If you're a cheerleader, I guess you can do that and not be considered a hypocrite for doing the same to others.
No one is going to get canned for cheerleading. I understand a box of pom poms is on the way. Do you really expect me to believe that a Clear Channel engineer could seriously criticize IBUZ and keep his job? If so, that's some mighty fine weed you're smoking.
What "hard evidence" has been supplied? The CD-Quality-HD Revolution HDRadio web site? That evidence is supect when others post messages about hearing hissing noises on FM. I haven't heard them and I've made that perfectly clear. My issues with FM regard programming and ratings. Since I post with my real name and "sign" each message I'm at a disadvantage to those who use phony ones. I have no idea what your programming background is.
There's no such thing as hard evidence that something "sounds good." That's purely subjective, especially when others question the effect artifacts might have on TSL. Since there's no data available on that there can be no "hard evidence." There is hard evidence on listener fatigue going all the way back to Jim Schulke and his research on processing fatigue as it affects female listening. Anyone who's ever done Easy Listening is painfully aware of that. Why are the cheerleaders so afraid of comparing a clean analog FM signal with a clean digital signal? Why must the analog signal be the worst you can find? It's like TV commercials where the woman using Brand X is badly groomed and cranky. The woman using the advertised brand is hardly breaking a sweat and wears pearls.
> Rich and "SuperSound" have provided nothing but a link or
> two, and a theory of black helicopters, a cartel, and a new
> name that is similar to something a 2nd grader would call a
> schoolmate, "IBUZ".
Where have I provided links? The HD Dominion is the closest thing to a cartel but I don't think they own black helicopters. They're more likely to be white with call letters on them doing traffic. That's hard to cloak. Since the manufacturer insists HD means nothing and IBOC appears to be inaccurate because the signal is on adjacent channels for AM, IBUZ seems to be the most accurate name for the system. It buzzes. I'm simply calling an ostrich an ostrich. I can't help that its head is deeply buried in the sand.
It's strange. Most cheerleaders have a sense of humor. One usually comes with rah rah rah. The cheerleaders here are so deadly serious. It must be frustrating to have someone disagree with you, especially when your company is an investor in the manufacturer.
> I'm sure you know who's fighting the losing battle here.
I'm sure everyone knows that the winners haven't been chosen, yet. That's decades away. There's certainly a winner system. Sort of like Saddam's last election. 100% of the vote. The only player.
The listeners will determine who wins the battle. If they buy receivers in huge numbers and terrestrial radio gains listeners the battle will be won.
As I'm typing this my newest Crutchfield catalog arrived. Page 6 is the shopping guide on how to pick "In-Dash Stereo." "What will I be listening to the most?" lists virtually every source but HD Radio. There's even a "Sat Ready" logo. In two pages of text HD Radio isn't mentioned once. No longer does HD Radio have its own section. On page 13 is a small blurb about the Kenwood Tuner at $399. On page 14 there's an integrated Kenwood HD Radio at $379, probably to compete with the JVC. There are "Sat Ready" and iPod Ready mentions everywhere. On page 23 is the JVC unit ($299 - no mention of a rebate) with HD Radio on the display and the Sat Ready logo. It went to press before the Boston Acoustics price reduction. It still lists $499.
In order to find headends for the Kenwood tuner (most have no reference to it except a tiny logo on the radio along with all the others) you have to consult a comparison chart.
It sure looks like one of the big promoters of IBUZ has scaled back in favor of concentrating on iPod and Sat Ready receivers. I suspect manufacturers pay for placement. I wonder why the HD Dominion didn't take some of the $200 million in funny money and pay the biggest distributor of IBUZ products for better representation. It's Keystone Kops marketing.
Until stations are willing to program their secondaries like real radio stations there won't be any incentive for non-geeks to buy into it. I wonder how many former listeners to WCBS-FM will pay for a stripped down version on HD2?
You can probably keep your shoes on to count them.
Rich <--- real name
> I like FM HD. Sounds good, and has lots of potential. AM
> HD sounds OK, but has, in my opinion, significant problems
> and shouldn't be used beyond experimentally at this point.
>
> These are my opinions, and I express them freely. It is
> interesting to note, however, that this whole time you have
> not presented any scientific proof to support your claim
> other than this whole "Deep Throat" unidentified sources and
> the like. Basically you resort to name-calling and
> accusations to make your point.
>
> To the members of this board: Take it for what it's worth.
> We've offered to provide proof that FM-HD works, and sounds
> good. Hard evidence.
Hmm. I would think calling someone a nut job might be considered namecalling. If you're a cheerleader, I guess you can do that and not be considered a hypocrite for doing the same to others.
No one is going to get canned for cheerleading. I understand a box of pom poms is on the way. Do you really expect me to believe that a Clear Channel engineer could seriously criticize IBUZ and keep his job? If so, that's some mighty fine weed you're smoking.
What "hard evidence" has been supplied? The CD-Quality-HD Revolution HDRadio web site? That evidence is supect when others post messages about hearing hissing noises on FM. I haven't heard them and I've made that perfectly clear. My issues with FM regard programming and ratings. Since I post with my real name and "sign" each message I'm at a disadvantage to those who use phony ones. I have no idea what your programming background is.
There's no such thing as hard evidence that something "sounds good." That's purely subjective, especially when others question the effect artifacts might have on TSL. Since there's no data available on that there can be no "hard evidence." There is hard evidence on listener fatigue going all the way back to Jim Schulke and his research on processing fatigue as it affects female listening. Anyone who's ever done Easy Listening is painfully aware of that. Why are the cheerleaders so afraid of comparing a clean analog FM signal with a clean digital signal? Why must the analog signal be the worst you can find? It's like TV commercials where the woman using Brand X is badly groomed and cranky. The woman using the advertised brand is hardly breaking a sweat and wears pearls.
> Rich and "SuperSound" have provided nothing but a link or
> two, and a theory of black helicopters, a cartel, and a new
> name that is similar to something a 2nd grader would call a
> schoolmate, "IBUZ".
Where have I provided links? The HD Dominion is the closest thing to a cartel but I don't think they own black helicopters. They're more likely to be white with call letters on them doing traffic. That's hard to cloak. Since the manufacturer insists HD means nothing and IBOC appears to be inaccurate because the signal is on adjacent channels for AM, IBUZ seems to be the most accurate name for the system. It buzzes. I'm simply calling an ostrich an ostrich. I can't help that its head is deeply buried in the sand.
It's strange. Most cheerleaders have a sense of humor. One usually comes with rah rah rah. The cheerleaders here are so deadly serious. It must be frustrating to have someone disagree with you, especially when your company is an investor in the manufacturer.
> I'm sure you know who's fighting the losing battle here.
I'm sure everyone knows that the winners haven't been chosen, yet. That's decades away. There's certainly a winner system. Sort of like Saddam's last election. 100% of the vote. The only player.
The listeners will determine who wins the battle. If they buy receivers in huge numbers and terrestrial radio gains listeners the battle will be won.
As I'm typing this my newest Crutchfield catalog arrived. Page 6 is the shopping guide on how to pick "In-Dash Stereo." "What will I be listening to the most?" lists virtually every source but HD Radio. There's even a "Sat Ready" logo. In two pages of text HD Radio isn't mentioned once. No longer does HD Radio have its own section. On page 13 is a small blurb about the Kenwood Tuner at $399. On page 14 there's an integrated Kenwood HD Radio at $379, probably to compete with the JVC. There are "Sat Ready" and iPod Ready mentions everywhere. On page 23 is the JVC unit ($299 - no mention of a rebate) with HD Radio on the display and the Sat Ready logo. It went to press before the Boston Acoustics price reduction. It still lists $499.
In order to find headends for the Kenwood tuner (most have no reference to it except a tiny logo on the radio along with all the others) you have to consult a comparison chart.
It sure looks like one of the big promoters of IBUZ has scaled back in favor of concentrating on iPod and Sat Ready receivers. I suspect manufacturers pay for placement. I wonder why the HD Dominion didn't take some of the $200 million in funny money and pay the biggest distributor of IBUZ products for better representation. It's Keystone Kops marketing.
Until stations are willing to program their secondaries like real radio stations there won't be any incentive for non-geeks to buy into it. I wonder how many former listeners to WCBS-FM will pay for a stripped down version on HD2?
You can probably keep your shoes on to count them.
Rich <--- real name
K
k9ez
Guest
Re: You're one of them!
> Ya know Rich, your comments are geting old as hell as
> well...IBUZ...what are you 2? Good God...you made the same
> cliche statements over and over and over and over...what was
> a good idea for a board has turned to (BLEEP)! Different
> sides of a certain point of view are great but the same
> stupid comments over and again are lame at best.
> Guess what, Mr. everything, I am NOT a "cheerleader" for
> IBOC, just sick of the stupid comments...maybe I need a
> break from the lunacy and should stop reading this board
> until people can make more intelligent remarks.
>
Rich and battle thsi out on another reflector. Guess he had to bring ths same "jokes" here now. As I said on the other reflector Rich, IT GETS OLD! Seems I am not the only one that thinks so either (sheesh did that sound like nanner nanner boo boo or what??? Sorry)
> Ya know Rich, your comments are geting old as hell as
> well...IBUZ...what are you 2? Good God...you made the same
> cliche statements over and over and over and over...what was
> a good idea for a board has turned to (BLEEP)! Different
> sides of a certain point of view are great but the same
> stupid comments over and again are lame at best.
> Guess what, Mr. everything, I am NOT a "cheerleader" for
> IBOC, just sick of the stupid comments...maybe I need a
> break from the lunacy and should stop reading this board
> until people can make more intelligent remarks.
>
Rich and battle thsi out on another reflector. Guess he had to bring ths same "jokes" here now. As I said on the other reflector Rich, IT GETS OLD! Seems I am not the only one that thinks so either (sheesh did that sound like nanner nanner boo boo or what??? Sorry)
R
RadioDoc
Guest
Re: I agree... this is getting old and tired
If you can beat 'em with facts, baffle them with BS!
-Chris <-real name, which if you've spent a lot of time on RI, you'd know.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
If you can beat 'em with facts, baffle them with BS!
-Chris <-real name, which if you've spent a lot of time on RI, you'd know.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
Re: You're one of them!
> Ya know Rich, your comments are geting old as hell as
> well...IBUZ...what are you 2? Good God...you made the same
> cliche statements over and over and over and over...what was
> a good idea for a board has turned to (BLEEP)!
At least you folks have settled on an age. Was it a conference call? When the cheerleaders repeatedly kiss each others butts over how wonderful this revolution is, that gets tiring, too. When they refuse to answer direct questions after making accusatory statements, that gets tiring.
I recall one cheerleader making fun of someone who mentioned the RIAA and the Radio Flag. Guess what. It's now being proposed in Congress. See the C/Net site. I asked him a series of questions. He's yet to answer. He was wrong. Didn't have the testicular fortitude to admit it.
> Different
> sides of a certain point of view are great but the same
> stupid comments over and again are lame at best.
> Guess what, Mr. everything, I am NOT a "cheerleader" for
> IBOC, just sick of the stupid comments...maybe I need a
> break from the lunacy and should stop reading this board
> until people can make more intelligent remarks.
That's possible. When you can't take opposition viewpoints it's probably time to take a break. I'm really amazed at the complete lack of senses of humor here. I wasn't aware this was supposed to be and IBUZ lovefest.
Maybe the repetition will ease when some of the questions are answered. Attacking individuals is always a good technique to avoid the issues raised.
Rich
> Ya know Rich, your comments are geting old as hell as
> well...IBUZ...what are you 2? Good God...you made the same
> cliche statements over and over and over and over...what was
> a good idea for a board has turned to (BLEEP)!
At least you folks have settled on an age. Was it a conference call? When the cheerleaders repeatedly kiss each others butts over how wonderful this revolution is, that gets tiring, too. When they refuse to answer direct questions after making accusatory statements, that gets tiring.
I recall one cheerleader making fun of someone who mentioned the RIAA and the Radio Flag. Guess what. It's now being proposed in Congress. See the C/Net site. I asked him a series of questions. He's yet to answer. He was wrong. Didn't have the testicular fortitude to admit it.
> Different
> sides of a certain point of view are great but the same
> stupid comments over and again are lame at best.
> Guess what, Mr. everything, I am NOT a "cheerleader" for
> IBOC, just sick of the stupid comments...maybe I need a
> break from the lunacy and should stop reading this board
> until people can make more intelligent remarks.
That's possible. When you can't take opposition viewpoints it's probably time to take a break. I'm really amazed at the complete lack of senses of humor here. I wasn't aware this was supposed to be and IBUZ lovefest.
Maybe the repetition will ease when some of the questions are answered. Attacking individuals is always a good technique to avoid the issues raised.
Rich
R
RadioDoc
Guest
Re: I agree... this is getting old and tired
> > If you can beat 'em with facts, baffle them with BS!
>
> If that isn't the truth. Have you seen the HDRadio web site.
>
>
> Rich
>
Yeah, and it's nothing compared to the BS slung around here by a couple of anti-"IBUZ" posters...<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
> > If you can beat 'em with facts, baffle them with BS!
>
> If that isn't the truth. Have you seen the HDRadio web site.
>
>
> Rich
>
Yeah, and it's nothing compared to the BS slung around here by a couple of anti-"IBUZ" posters...<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
R
RadioDoc
Guest
Re: You're one of them!
> Maybe the repetition will ease when some of the questions
> are answered. Attacking individuals is always a good
> technique to avoid the issues raised.
>
> Rich
>
Says the man who refers to anyone who says anything positive about IBOC as a "Cheerleader".
Some of the questions have been answered. You just didn't like what was said. There is a big difference there.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
> Maybe the repetition will ease when some of the questions
> are answered. Attacking individuals is always a good
> technique to avoid the issues raised.
>
> Rich
>
Says the man who refers to anyone who says anything positive about IBOC as a "Cheerleader".
Some of the questions have been answered. You just didn't like what was said. There is a big difference there.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
T
TXengineer
Guest
Re: I agree... this is getting old and tired
> No one is going to get canned for cheerleading. I understand
> a box of pom poms is on the way. Do you really expect me to
> believe that a Clear Channel engineer could seriously
> criticize IBUZ and keep his job? If so, that's some mighty
> fine weed you're smoking.
Hmm, I am friends with about a dozen Clear Channel engineers in several markets, and believe me, they do have their criticisim about it. In fact I've even seen posts on message boards about it. And guess what, they STILL HAVE THEIR JOBS. You seem to be the one smoking the silly weed there, Rudd.
(I'd call you Rick, but seeing that you think it's hillarious to call IBOC 'ibuz' for some unknown reason, I think I'll just call you 'Rudd' from now on.)
> The listeners will determine who wins the battle. If they
> buy receivers in huge numbers and terrestrial radio gains
> listeners the battle will be won.
Right, and you need to remember this Rudd. You can't call the system fault immediatley.
> As I'm typing this my newest Crutchfield catalog arrived.
> Page 6 is the shopping guide on how to pick "In-Dash
> Stereo." "What will I be listening to the most?" lists
> virtually every source but HD Radio. There's even a "Sat
> Ready" logo. In two pages of text HD Radio isn't mentioned
> once. No longer does HD Radio have its own section. On page
> 13 is a small blurb about the Kenwood Tuner at $399. On page
> 14 there's an integrated Kenwood HD Radio at $379, probably
> to compete with the JVC. There are "Sat Ready" and iPod
> Ready mentions everywhere. On page 23 is the JVC unit ($299
> - no mention of a rebate) with HD Radio on the display and
> the Sat Ready logo. It went to press before the Boston
> Acoustics price reduction. It still lists $499.
When you go to Crutchfield.com (who reads paper magazines anymore anyways?), and look at car stereos, two of the big selections are HD Radio, in black and white.
> It sure looks like one of the big promoters of IBUZ has
> scaled back in favor of concentrating on iPod and Sat Ready
> receivers. I suspect manufacturers pay for placement. I
> wonder why the HD Dominion didn't take some of the $200
> million in funny money and pay the biggest distributor of
> IBUZ products for better representation. It's Keystone Kops
> marketing.
Funny, I see it completley oppisite when you log onto their website.
However, I believe that more stores need to jump on the bandwagon.
> Until stations are willing to program their secondaries like
> real radio stations there won't be any incentive for
> non-geeks to buy into it. I wonder how many former listeners
> to WCBS-FM will pay for a stripped down version on HD2?
You mean the same thing as Satellite radio? Stripped down mainstream radio?
> No one is going to get canned for cheerleading. I understand
> a box of pom poms is on the way. Do you really expect me to
> believe that a Clear Channel engineer could seriously
> criticize IBUZ and keep his job? If so, that's some mighty
> fine weed you're smoking.
Hmm, I am friends with about a dozen Clear Channel engineers in several markets, and believe me, they do have their criticisim about it. In fact I've even seen posts on message boards about it. And guess what, they STILL HAVE THEIR JOBS. You seem to be the one smoking the silly weed there, Rudd.
(I'd call you Rick, but seeing that you think it's hillarious to call IBOC 'ibuz' for some unknown reason, I think I'll just call you 'Rudd' from now on.)
> The listeners will determine who wins the battle. If they
> buy receivers in huge numbers and terrestrial radio gains
> listeners the battle will be won.
Right, and you need to remember this Rudd. You can't call the system fault immediatley.
> As I'm typing this my newest Crutchfield catalog arrived.
> Page 6 is the shopping guide on how to pick "In-Dash
> Stereo." "What will I be listening to the most?" lists
> virtually every source but HD Radio. There's even a "Sat
> Ready" logo. In two pages of text HD Radio isn't mentioned
> once. No longer does HD Radio have its own section. On page
> 13 is a small blurb about the Kenwood Tuner at $399. On page
> 14 there's an integrated Kenwood HD Radio at $379, probably
> to compete with the JVC. There are "Sat Ready" and iPod
> Ready mentions everywhere. On page 23 is the JVC unit ($299
> - no mention of a rebate) with HD Radio on the display and
> the Sat Ready logo. It went to press before the Boston
> Acoustics price reduction. It still lists $499.
When you go to Crutchfield.com (who reads paper magazines anymore anyways?), and look at car stereos, two of the big selections are HD Radio, in black and white.
> It sure looks like one of the big promoters of IBUZ has
> scaled back in favor of concentrating on iPod and Sat Ready
> receivers. I suspect manufacturers pay for placement. I
> wonder why the HD Dominion didn't take some of the $200
> million in funny money and pay the biggest distributor of
> IBUZ products for better representation. It's Keystone Kops
> marketing.
Funny, I see it completley oppisite when you log onto their website.
However, I believe that more stores need to jump on the bandwagon.
> Until stations are willing to program their secondaries like
> real radio stations there won't be any incentive for
> non-geeks to buy into it. I wonder how many former listeners
> to WCBS-FM will pay for a stripped down version on HD2?
You mean the same thing as Satellite radio? Stripped down mainstream radio?
R
RadioEngineer
Guest
Re: I agree... this is getting old and tired
> > > If you can beat 'em with facts, baffle them with BS!
> >
> > If that isn't the truth. Have you seen the HDRadio web
> site.
> >
> >
> > Rich
> >
>
> Yeah, and it's nothing compared to the BS slung around here
> by a couple of anti-"IBUZ" posters...
>
I'm anti IBUZ because I don't believe it's the best we can do from an engineering standpoint (good engineering practice), but moreso because we are attempting to compete with what is better content by throwing in questionable technology. It isn't our analog technology (well, if the processing is out of control that's another issue) that has caused us to lose listenership, it's content. Even if a station has gone to jukeboxing, why can't it be a good jukebox instead of a stale, repetitive jukebox?
As to the engineering questions, there are indeed issues in making an HD system work properly, and certainly questions as to why we couldn't have found a better way to engage digital broadcasting.
One of my former stations went from playing CD's on a linear digital STL to playing the music from a very high quality, albeit compressed of course, computer live assist system. The difference to the serious golden ear jocks I had was readily apparent.
Now what is this that we're downsizing with all of this compression and jukeboxing in both the engineering and programming worlds?
Our product. Music. Audio.
Now add the lack of engaging content. As we take our product to the lowest level of content and quality, we find that listeners leave us for other services. And the enticement we present to them is "DA DA" a new whiz bang digital system that really doesn't have much audio quality to it and is another version of the boring jukebox they've already heard. But they can get this wonderful new service for somewhere around $350. Wow. Can I add a bridge to this order?
I am a former Clear Channel engineer that didn't dare say any of this for fear of losing my job. I did breathe a huge sigh of relief when I was told my market wouldn't go IBUZ before '07. I figured I had two free years to 1) not have to deal with this garbage, and 2) hope that in that time the whole thing would go down the tubes and I could use some of that capital for improving my studios and air chains.
By the way, here's a disclaimer. I know Rich Wood well. I worked with him in San Diego, and even though I loved to call him "Little Hitler" his intent has always been to get it right every time. He doesn't know engineering like I do, but he does know quality of product. If I was working with him to set up processing on a radio station, I would trust his ears like my mother's love. You may think he's an anti-IBUZ basher on a mission, and you're right, his mission is he cares about how our radio stations are failing from idiocy.
And I will sign this off with my real name.
John A. Buffaloe
> > > If you can beat 'em with facts, baffle them with BS!
> >
> > If that isn't the truth. Have you seen the HDRadio web
> site.
> >
> >
> > Rich
> >
>
> Yeah, and it's nothing compared to the BS slung around here
> by a couple of anti-"IBUZ" posters...
>
I'm anti IBUZ because I don't believe it's the best we can do from an engineering standpoint (good engineering practice), but moreso because we are attempting to compete with what is better content by throwing in questionable technology. It isn't our analog technology (well, if the processing is out of control that's another issue) that has caused us to lose listenership, it's content. Even if a station has gone to jukeboxing, why can't it be a good jukebox instead of a stale, repetitive jukebox?
As to the engineering questions, there are indeed issues in making an HD system work properly, and certainly questions as to why we couldn't have found a better way to engage digital broadcasting.
One of my former stations went from playing CD's on a linear digital STL to playing the music from a very high quality, albeit compressed of course, computer live assist system. The difference to the serious golden ear jocks I had was readily apparent.
Now what is this that we're downsizing with all of this compression and jukeboxing in both the engineering and programming worlds?
Our product. Music. Audio.
Now add the lack of engaging content. As we take our product to the lowest level of content and quality, we find that listeners leave us for other services. And the enticement we present to them is "DA DA" a new whiz bang digital system that really doesn't have much audio quality to it and is another version of the boring jukebox they've already heard. But they can get this wonderful new service for somewhere around $350. Wow. Can I add a bridge to this order?
I am a former Clear Channel engineer that didn't dare say any of this for fear of losing my job. I did breathe a huge sigh of relief when I was told my market wouldn't go IBUZ before '07. I figured I had two free years to 1) not have to deal with this garbage, and 2) hope that in that time the whole thing would go down the tubes and I could use some of that capital for improving my studios and air chains.
By the way, here's a disclaimer. I know Rich Wood well. I worked with him in San Diego, and even though I loved to call him "Little Hitler" his intent has always been to get it right every time. He doesn't know engineering like I do, but he does know quality of product. If I was working with him to set up processing on a radio station, I would trust his ears like my mother's love. You may think he's an anti-IBUZ basher on a mission, and you're right, his mission is he cares about how our radio stations are failing from idiocy.
And I will sign this off with my real name.
John A. Buffaloe
Re: I agree... this is getting old and tired
> > > If you can beat 'em with facts, baffle them with BS!
> >
> > If that isn't the truth. Have you seen the HDRadio web
> site.
>
> Yeah, and it's nothing compared to the BS slung around here
> by a couple of anti-"IBUZ" posters...
Give it time. It's only been up a short time. It's already mastered "CD Quality" and "Revolution." If that isn't BS then the definition has changed dramatically. Some of us think that kind of spin is pure deception. Maybe I'm being a little too picky expecting honesty in the midst of desperation.
Rich
> > > If you can beat 'em with facts, baffle them with BS!
> >
> > If that isn't the truth. Have you seen the HDRadio web
> site.
>
> Yeah, and it's nothing compared to the BS slung around here
> by a couple of anti-"IBUZ" posters...
Give it time. It's only been up a short time. It's already mastered "CD Quality" and "Revolution." If that isn't BS then the definition has changed dramatically. Some of us think that kind of spin is pure deception. Maybe I'm being a little too picky expecting honesty in the midst of desperation.
Rich
D
dbdigital
Guest
Re: I agree this is getting old...not so
> > > > If you can beat 'em with facts, baffle them with BS!
> > >
> > > If that isn't the truth. Have you seen the HDRadio web
> > site.
> > >
> > >
> > > Rich
> > >
> >
> > Yeah, and it's nothing compared to the BS slung around
> here
> > by a couple of anti-"IBUZ" posters...
> >
> I'm anti IBUZ because I don't believe it's the best we can
> do from an engineering standpoint (good engineering
> practice), but moreso because we are attempting to compete
> with what is better content by throwing in questionable
> technology. It isn't our analog technology (well, if the
> processing is out of control that's another issue) that has
> caused us to lose listenership, it's content. Even if a
> station has gone to jukeboxing, why can't it be a good
> jukebox instead of a stale, repetitive jukebox?
>
> As to the engineering questions, there are indeed issues in
> making an HD system work properly, and certainly questions
> as to why we couldn't have found a better way to engage
> digital broadcasting.
>
> One of my former stations went from playing CD's on a linear
> digital STL to playing the music from a very high quality,
> albeit compressed of course, computer live assist system.
> The difference to the serious golden ear jocks I had was
> readily apparent.
>
> Now what is this that we're downsizing with all of this
> compression and jukeboxing in both the engineering and
> programming worlds?
>
> Our product. Music. Audio.
>
> Now add the lack of engaging content. As we take our
> product to the lowest level of content and quality, we find
> that listeners leave us for other services. And the
> enticement we present to them is "DA DA" a new whiz bang
> digital system that really doesn't have much audio quality
> to it and is another version of the boring jukebox they've
> already heard. But they can get this wonderful new service
> for somewhere around $350. Wow. Can I add a bridge to this
> order?
>
> I am a former Clear Channel engineer that didn't dare say
> any of this for fear of losing my job. I did breathe a huge
> sigh of relief when I was told my market wouldn't go IBUZ
> before '07. I figured I had two free years to 1) not have
> to deal with this garbage, and 2) hope that in that time the
> whole thing would go down the tubes and I could use some of
> that capital for improving my studios and air chains.
>
> By the way, here's a disclaimer. I know Rich Wood well. I
> worked with him in San Diego, and even though I loved to
> call him "Little Hitler" his intent has always been to get
> it right every time. He doesn't know engineering like I do,
> but he does know quality of product. If I was working with
> him to set up processing on a radio station, I would trust
> his ears like my mother's love. You may think he's an
> anti-IBUZ basher on a mission, and you're right, his mission
> is he cares about how our radio stations are failing from
> idiocy.
>
> And I will sign this off with my real name.
>
> John A. Buffaloe
>
I think this HD radio board is a great idea. The bickering and ranting over IBOC was getting a bit messy on the Engineering board.
This is like clearing a space so that those who want to can duke it out and, as such, they should be free to do so. If that includes someone cheerleading IBOC or calling IBOC "IBUZZ", let 'em.
If nothing else, venting on this issue is a great stress reliever.
db
> > > > If you can beat 'em with facts, baffle them with BS!
> > >
> > > If that isn't the truth. Have you seen the HDRadio web
> > site.
> > >
> > >
> > > Rich
> > >
> >
> > Yeah, and it's nothing compared to the BS slung around
> here
> > by a couple of anti-"IBUZ" posters...
> >
> I'm anti IBUZ because I don't believe it's the best we can
> do from an engineering standpoint (good engineering
> practice), but moreso because we are attempting to compete
> with what is better content by throwing in questionable
> technology. It isn't our analog technology (well, if the
> processing is out of control that's another issue) that has
> caused us to lose listenership, it's content. Even if a
> station has gone to jukeboxing, why can't it be a good
> jukebox instead of a stale, repetitive jukebox?
>
> As to the engineering questions, there are indeed issues in
> making an HD system work properly, and certainly questions
> as to why we couldn't have found a better way to engage
> digital broadcasting.
>
> One of my former stations went from playing CD's on a linear
> digital STL to playing the music from a very high quality,
> albeit compressed of course, computer live assist system.
> The difference to the serious golden ear jocks I had was
> readily apparent.
>
> Now what is this that we're downsizing with all of this
> compression and jukeboxing in both the engineering and
> programming worlds?
>
> Our product. Music. Audio.
>
> Now add the lack of engaging content. As we take our
> product to the lowest level of content and quality, we find
> that listeners leave us for other services. And the
> enticement we present to them is "DA DA" a new whiz bang
> digital system that really doesn't have much audio quality
> to it and is another version of the boring jukebox they've
> already heard. But they can get this wonderful new service
> for somewhere around $350. Wow. Can I add a bridge to this
> order?
>
> I am a former Clear Channel engineer that didn't dare say
> any of this for fear of losing my job. I did breathe a huge
> sigh of relief when I was told my market wouldn't go IBUZ
> before '07. I figured I had two free years to 1) not have
> to deal with this garbage, and 2) hope that in that time the
> whole thing would go down the tubes and I could use some of
> that capital for improving my studios and air chains.
>
> By the way, here's a disclaimer. I know Rich Wood well. I
> worked with him in San Diego, and even though I loved to
> call him "Little Hitler" his intent has always been to get
> it right every time. He doesn't know engineering like I do,
> but he does know quality of product. If I was working with
> him to set up processing on a radio station, I would trust
> his ears like my mother's love. You may think he's an
> anti-IBUZ basher on a mission, and you're right, his mission
> is he cares about how our radio stations are failing from
> idiocy.
>
> And I will sign this off with my real name.
>
> John A. Buffaloe
>
I think this HD radio board is a great idea. The bickering and ranting over IBOC was getting a bit messy on the Engineering board.
This is like clearing a space so that those who want to can duke it out and, as such, they should be free to do so. If that includes someone cheerleading IBOC or calling IBOC "IBUZZ", let 'em.
If nothing else, venting on this issue is a great stress reliever.
db
Re: I agree... this is getting old and tired
> You seem to be the one smoking the silly weed there, Rudd.
> (I'd call you Rick, but seeing that you think it's
> hillarious to call IBOC 'ibuz' for some unknown reason, I
> think I'll just call you 'Rudd' from now on.)
>
> > The listeners will determine who wins the battle. If they
> > buy receivers in huge numbers and terrestrial radio gains
> > listeners the battle will be won.
>
> Right, and you need to remember this Rudd. You can't call
> the system fault immediatley.
Call me whatever you like. However, that excludes you from demanding a higher level of discussion. Go back over any of my posts and try to find one where I've ridiculed a person's name. An inanimate technology, yes. A personal attack like this, no. Even if you called me Rick it would be incorrect.
In true cheerleader fashion, you've elevated the tone of the discussion to an awesome new level downward. Truly a great accomplishment. You should be proud. Hiding behind a phony name and not signing your real one must give you such a sense of power born of a lack of accountability.
Rudd <-- another phony name.
> You seem to be the one smoking the silly weed there, Rudd.
> (I'd call you Rick, but seeing that you think it's
> hillarious to call IBOC 'ibuz' for some unknown reason, I
> think I'll just call you 'Rudd' from now on.)
>
> > The listeners will determine who wins the battle. If they
> > buy receivers in huge numbers and terrestrial radio gains
> > listeners the battle will be won.
>
> Right, and you need to remember this Rudd. You can't call
> the system fault immediatley.
Call me whatever you like. However, that excludes you from demanding a higher level of discussion. Go back over any of my posts and try to find one where I've ridiculed a person's name. An inanimate technology, yes. A personal attack like this, no. Even if you called me Rick it would be incorrect.
In true cheerleader fashion, you've elevated the tone of the discussion to an awesome new level downward. Truly a great accomplishment. You should be proud. Hiding behind a phony name and not signing your real one must give you such a sense of power born of a lack of accountability.
Rudd <-- another phony name.
Re: I agree... this is getting old and tired
> I am a former Clear Channel engineer that didn't dare say
> any of this for fear of losing my job.
Hmm. I've been told in this very forum that no one here fears risking his or her job by criticizing IBUZ.
> I did breathe a huge
> sigh of relief when I was told my market wouldn't go IBUZ
> before '07. I figured I had two free years to 1) not have
> to deal with this garbage, and 2) hope that in that time the
> whole thing would go down the tubes and I could use some of
> that capital for improving my studios and air chains.
>
> By the way, here's a disclaimer. I know Rich Wood well. I
> worked with him in San Diego, and even though I loved to
> call him "Little Hitler" his intent has always been to get
> it right every time. He doesn't know engineering like I do,
> but he does know quality of product. If I was working with
> him to set up processing on a radio station, I would trust
> his ears like my mother's love. You may think he's an
> anti-IBUZ basher on a mission, and you're right, his mission
> is he cares about how our radio stations are failing from
> idiocy.
Uh Oh. You'll never work in this town, again.
> And I will sign this off with my real name.
> John A. Buffaloe
Big mistake. I'll bet TXEngineer will stay up all night thinking of a personal attack, safe behind his anonymity.
Rudd
>
> I am a former Clear Channel engineer that didn't dare say
> any of this for fear of losing my job.
Hmm. I've been told in this very forum that no one here fears risking his or her job by criticizing IBUZ.
> I did breathe a huge
> sigh of relief when I was told my market wouldn't go IBUZ
> before '07. I figured I had two free years to 1) not have
> to deal with this garbage, and 2) hope that in that time the
> whole thing would go down the tubes and I could use some of
> that capital for improving my studios and air chains.
>
> By the way, here's a disclaimer. I know Rich Wood well. I
> worked with him in San Diego, and even though I loved to
> call him "Little Hitler" his intent has always been to get
> it right every time. He doesn't know engineering like I do,
> but he does know quality of product. If I was working with
> him to set up processing on a radio station, I would trust
> his ears like my mother's love. You may think he's an
> anti-IBUZ basher on a mission, and you're right, his mission
> is he cares about how our radio stations are failing from
> idiocy.
Uh Oh. You'll never work in this town, again.
> And I will sign this off with my real name.
> John A. Buffaloe
Big mistake. I'll bet TXEngineer will stay up all night thinking of a personal attack, safe behind his anonymity.
Rudd
>
- Status
- This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.