• 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

KYW-FM

Expecting any perspective but negative ones on boards such as these is difficult. But most either are now not in the business, never were or are simply too caught up in their own thing to research before they pontificate.
HD was in the works for over 10 years...with the delay being the NAB's lobby for IBOC( in band-on channel)so radio doesn't have a whole new tuning process like TV was faced with in their digital conversion.HD will simply come up as WXXX- HD 1 or WXXX HD-2 for the consumer to choose.Long before satellite was a reality IBOC was being developed. Despite whatever you may or may not think, the NAB had an HD demo in the early 90's ( '91?..not sure)that was available in a bus that they drove around Las Vegas for Broadcasters to hear and believe early , prior to the technology being engineered down to an affordable level on the station side.The delay was for IBOC and a single platform so it didn't end up like AM stereo, with several types( sort of like Beta vs VHS).
As to the eventual adaptation of HD into every day life, you sound like the AM giants of the 60's who laughed at FM, and in some cases sent back the licenses or sold them for a fraction of their AM's. How many of these visionaries made the transition into this era? Probably not too many. Or the TV guys who laughed at cable -only stations, saying with no transmitter how can they compete? CNN MTV and Fox News showed those ney-sayers.
The only constant is change. Broadcasters who pay attention to their listeners wants, serve their advertisers as best they can and adapt to the new technologies will survive, thrive and continue to provide a forum for the wannabe's or neverwere's to arm chair quarterback .
HD will be as prevalent in a few years as FM, then FM Stereo was in the not too distant past.You can take that to the bank.
 
I read the first three sentences and was only able to skim the rest (made me sick to my stomach). Thanks for the holier-than-thou stuff but don't pretend to know me when you apparently aren't even able to comprehend what I've said.

> Expecting any perspective but negative ones on boards such
> as these is difficult. But most either are now not in the
> business, never were or are simply too caught up in their
> own thing to research before they pontificate.
> HD was in the works for over 10 years...with the delay
> being the NAB's lobby for IBOC( in band-on channel)so radio
> doesn't have a whole new tuning process like TV was faced
> with in their digital conversion.HD will simply come up as
> WXXX- HD 1 or WXXX HD-2 for the consumer to choose.Long
> before satellite was a reality IBOC was being developed.
> Despite whatever you may or may not think, the NAB had an HD
> demo in the early 90's ( '91?..not sure)that was available
> in a bus that they drove around Las Vegas for Broadcasters
> to hear and believe early , prior to the technology being
> engineered down to an affordable level on the station
> side.The delay was for IBOC and a single platform so it
> didn't end up like AM stereo, with several types( sort of
> like Beta vs VHS).
> As to the eventual adaptation of HD into every day life,
> you sound like the AM giants of the 60's who laughed at FM,
> and in some cases sent back the licenses or sold them for a
> fraction of their AM's. How many of these visionaries made
> the transition into this era? Probably not too many. Or the
> TV guys who laughed at cable -only stations, saying with no
> transmitter how can they compete? CNN MTV and Fox News
> showed those ney-sayers.
> The only constant is change. Broadcasters who pay
> attention to their listeners wants, serve their advertisers
> as best they can and adapt to the new technologies will
> survive, thrive and continue to provide a forum for the
> wannabe's or neverwere's to arm chair quarterback .
> HD will be as prevalent in a few years as FM, then FM
> Stereo was in the not too distant past.You can take that to
> the bank.
>
 
Easy does it . I was responding to the negative ,jaded broadcasters or wannabe's that were planning a funeral for HD a few months after it's birth.
I stand by my post, HD will be a big deal, like FM was and Cable after it. I wasn't commenting on your post in particular , rather the collective gloom and doom-sayers on this emerging technology.
 
Thanks for clarifying! Sorry. The guy next to me at work is a complete jackass and he puts me in a bad mood sometimes. Ha ha.

I think HD is gonna be awesome once the prices come down. I think it'd be awesome already if they'd managed to get it introduced five years ago.

> Easy does it . I was responding to the negative ,jaded
> broadcasters or wannabe's that were planning a funeral for
> HD a few months after it's birth.
> I stand by my post, HD will be a big deal, like FM was and
> Cable after it. I wasn't commenting on your post in
> particular , rather the collective gloom and doom-sayers on
> this emerging technology.
>
 
> Easy does it . I was responding to the negative ,jaded
> broadcasters or wannabe's that were planning a funeral for
> HD a few months after it's birth.
> I stand by my post, HD will be a big deal, like FM was and
> Cable after it. I wasn't commenting on your post in
> particular , rather the collective gloom and doom-sayers on
> this emerging technology.<

vumeter raises many valid points. It seems to me that many people - on this board and many others - have taken positions on either side of this issue for political reasons. It's the old "I love the NFC so I hate the AFC" sort of argument. Whatever. Here's something you can count on: The cost of HD gear will fall dramatically as more of it comes to market - just as the cost of satellite radio gear is falling.

I personally subscribe to XM now - but it may very well be that satellite radio is an interim solution. It's great that I can get XM coast-to-coast. But there are limitations to reception inside a building. On the other hand, terrestrial HD signals could be a lot more robust. But the same could be said for early FM.

I can't say that I'll ever be listening to radio via my cellphone. Because, unless my airtime is totally free, the minutes will add up quickly - even if you have 1000 minutes a month. The same goes for radio via the Internet. The concept sounds great and it can be delivered via very small handheld devices (including cellphones). But unless and until Wi-Fi becomes free everywhere (not just at Starbucks or in certain public areas) and covers the entire country, the cost of access will mount quickly. I'm not saying these technologies won't work out - just that there are challenges for them as well as satellite and HD radio.

Those who point out that Wall Street has been a big factor behind the push for HD radio have a valid point. I'm not totally convinced that digital for its own sake is better. But the multicasting that digital signals allow may be the key to the eventual success of the technology. Because it creates the space for formats that are missing in many markets. But I am concerned that some broadcasters regard HD radio as a magic bullet; that listeners will come just because the signal is digital. People who believe that are fooling themselves.

In the end, it's all about the programming. If HD radio means most of the formats (at least the ones I listen to) on XM are available to me on terrestrial radio, fantastic. But if HD radio provides more of what we're hearing on the airwaves now, then who cares? The technology will have solved nothing. I didn't subscribe to XM to get digital audio. I didn't even subscribe to get away from commercials. I subscribed in order to hear programming that I can't get on commercial terrestrial radio. I don't think any of us knows what the radio landscape is going to look in a decade or two. But we can't count anything out.

And one final point of information: A lot of people often to HD radio as being separate from terrestrial radio. That's not true. HD radio is terrestrial radio because it's coming from earthbound transmitters and towers. If you want to refer to traditional broadcasting as "analog" or simply "traditional" you'd be more accurate. Just technical point, because I understood what you were talking about anyway.

Steve
KC2LDY
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom