M
Mike Walker
Guest
"Mike W: relax, the site only addresses the HD-AM problem. We're not advocating the end of HD-FM."
LOL! Touche'
LOL! Touche'
-
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
NEW WEBSITE - WWW.STOPIBOC.COM
- Thread starter Savage
- Start date
L
LinoNYC
Guest
You are just digging yourself deeper into idiocy with this argument. Once again, the people who buy these antiques are gear fetichists. They are buying them to impress those of similar mindset. Not for practical use. You can get better performance for a tenth of the price of this old stuff and not have to bother with failing caps etc. Audiophiles have had little regard for radio over the last 40 years, once it became a true mass-medium and the processing boys stepped in, it was "over".
Do you think that WQXR gives a damn about listeners out-of-market?
BTW: They do stream
http://www.wqxr.com/cgi-bin/iowa/air/listen/index.html
The machinations you must go to for ota reception of NYC signals in PHilly must be something else.
Then we have this little gem:
I shoulda known. Nice meeting ya.
Lino
awj223 said:
KDND is owned by Entercom, the fourth largest radio group in the country and the largest that focuses solely on radio. You apparently have a rather peculiar definition of "corporate."
LinoNYC wrote;
“Idiocy,” Lino? Whatever happened to civil discourse?
If you change “radio” to “FM in that last sentence, you’d have a good point.
Collectors of antique audio gear are not “fetishists” (please watch your spelling!). They’re no different from antique auto collectors, or for that matter stamp or coin collectors.
Of course today, it’s only collectors who are buying those MR-78 tuners, because you can’t use that selectivity in the presence of IBOC. But many still do buy old amplifiers and pre-amps, especially tube models, for everyday use.
Tube amplifiers have their shortcomings, but so do solid state amps. And in the early days, solid state was were much worse. Russell O. Hamm’s 1973 article, “Tubes vs. Transistors: Is There an Audible Difference?” (http://milbert.com/tstxt.htm) detailed the different spectral content of the distortion generated by tube and solid state amplifiers. But harmonics weren’t the only factor.
By 1977 some researchers had discovered that slewing induced distortion (SID), particulary in the form of transient intermodulation distortion (TIM), contributed much to the “grainy” quality of early solid state amps. See http://waltjung.org/Classic_Articles.html (I’m not going to try to explain how solid state subsequently improved on this thread; check the links.)
Similarly, early digital sound was execrable, before the advent of dither. A few years ago, Sony released a boxed CD set of two recorded performances of Bach’s Goldberg Variations recorded by the late Glenn Gould, one from his days as a Fifties Wunderkind of the piano, the other recorded shortly before his death in the early Eighties.
They were planning to use the digital master from the Eighties. But when they played it, they found the same sound they had extolled as “perfect” two decades earlier was unlistenable by today’s standards, and instead used the back-up analog master tape (which was simultaneously recorded from the same mike feed, because digital was new and unproven).
Yes, early digital was that bad. The only thing that makes the sound of 16-bit digital tolerable today is the use of dither – a low-level noise added to an audio signal to randomize the quantization error that is an inherent part of the digital recording process. Counterintuitive as it sounds, dither actually improves the quality of digital sound dramatically. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dither)
But that’s uncompressed, linear quantization digital -- and it’s still inferior to state of the art analog in many ways. Compressed digital has more artifacts, and worse ones. And that brings me to my next point:
Yes, Lino, I know that. But while 64k streamed audio may be perfectly adequate for listening to NPR news and info segments, it’s not good enough for serious music listening (IM-not-so-HO). And as for whether WQXR, unlike the stations of the consolidators, cares about out-of-market listeners, I think they do. For them, it’s as much about prestige – and public service – as it is about profit. If it weren’t, the NYT would have flipped the station to something more commercial, or sold it, years ago!
So let’s can the condescension and keep it civil, eh?
“Idiocy,” Lino? Whatever happened to civil discourse?
If you change “radio” to “FM in that last sentence, you’d have a good point.
Collectors of antique audio gear are not “fetishists” (please watch your spelling!). They’re no different from antique auto collectors, or for that matter stamp or coin collectors.
Of course today, it’s only collectors who are buying those MR-78 tuners, because you can’t use that selectivity in the presence of IBOC. But many still do buy old amplifiers and pre-amps, especially tube models, for everyday use.
Tube amplifiers have their shortcomings, but so do solid state amps. And in the early days, solid state was were much worse. Russell O. Hamm’s 1973 article, “Tubes vs. Transistors: Is There an Audible Difference?” (http://milbert.com/tstxt.htm) detailed the different spectral content of the distortion generated by tube and solid state amplifiers. But harmonics weren’t the only factor.
By 1977 some researchers had discovered that slewing induced distortion (SID), particulary in the form of transient intermodulation distortion (TIM), contributed much to the “grainy” quality of early solid state amps. See http://waltjung.org/Classic_Articles.html (I’m not going to try to explain how solid state subsequently improved on this thread; check the links.)
Similarly, early digital sound was execrable, before the advent of dither. A few years ago, Sony released a boxed CD set of two recorded performances of Bach’s Goldberg Variations recorded by the late Glenn Gould, one from his days as a Fifties Wunderkind of the piano, the other recorded shortly before his death in the early Eighties.
They were planning to use the digital master from the Eighties. But when they played it, they found the same sound they had extolled as “perfect” two decades earlier was unlistenable by today’s standards, and instead used the back-up analog master tape (which was simultaneously recorded from the same mike feed, because digital was new and unproven).
Yes, early digital was that bad. The only thing that makes the sound of 16-bit digital tolerable today is the use of dither – a low-level noise added to an audio signal to randomize the quantization error that is an inherent part of the digital recording process. Counterintuitive as it sounds, dither actually improves the quality of digital sound dramatically. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dither)
But that’s uncompressed, linear quantization digital -- and it’s still inferior to state of the art analog in many ways. Compressed digital has more artifacts, and worse ones. And that brings me to my next point:
Yes, Lino, I know that. But while 64k streamed audio may be perfectly adequate for listening to NPR news and info segments, it’s not good enough for serious music listening (IM-not-so-HO). And as for whether WQXR, unlike the stations of the consolidators, cares about out-of-market listeners, I think they do. For them, it’s as much about prestige – and public service – as it is about profit. If it weren’t, the NYT would have flipped the station to something more commercial, or sold it, years ago!
So let’s can the condescension and keep it civil, eh?
R
Radioman100
Guest
radioskeptic said:
Check the other threads currently on the board. There are several devices priced under $150 that include HD Radio technology. Either way, compared to a McIntosh tuner, ANY HD Radio equipped product would have to be considered inexpensive.
radioskeptic said:
You "understand" that huh? How exactly would you quantify "inferior?" Everything I've ever heard about HDC leads me to believe it's based on aac technology, especially the fact that iBiquity has said AT&T was involved in the development of the codec. Wanna guess what else AT&T helped develop?
radioskeptic said:
Gotcha. Well, congratulations! You're offically eclectic. Personally, I could care less about the opinions of an anti-digital warrior such as yourself that's SO anti-digital that you've never bought a CD player and intend to stop watching TV just because it will be digital.
I hate to ruin your day, but the D in DSL stands for digital, and I'll personally guarantee you that every analog radio station you listen to is playing their music from at least some digital sources. Many of them are sending it from the studio to the transmitter digitally, and a good number are processing it digitally too.
A
awj223
Guest
You didn't read my entire post. I said corporate radio does not have a station in my market with the format I want to hear. KDND is a corporate station but it's in the Sacramento market, not in the SF/Oakland/San Jose market.dumber than a box of hair said:
KOHL does not count because it's a noncommercial and is part of Ohlone College. And for now, I am not counting HD2 channels because I cannot hear them.
From Radioman100:
Actually, I’ve already all but stopped watching TV because of the content. “Reality” shows? No thanks! As for CD’s, well, I’m not interested in any current “pop” music, whether rock, country or anything else. And I have a good collection of classical LP’s. So why do I need a CD player? Or a digital TV?
And of course I know what the D in DSL stands for. Digital technology is just fine for disseminating information on the web, but not so good for video, and definitely not so good for audio.
And as for radio, I know all about that too. That’s why all my tuners are in storage. I use my audio system exclusively for LP’s these days, and my radio listening is exclusively through portables, because neither the audio quality nor most of the content available to me merits anything better.
I listen almost exclusively to news and public affairs from NPR. And why do I ever sample the offerings on commercial radio at all? Just morbid curiosity, I guess, to see how bad it can get!
BTW, I’m not alone in recognizing the shortcomings of digital sound, particularly when data compression is used. Check out this link: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/05/technology/circuits/05warmth.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Actually, I’ve already all but stopped watching TV because of the content. “Reality” shows? No thanks! As for CD’s, well, I’m not interested in any current “pop” music, whether rock, country or anything else. And I have a good collection of classical LP’s. So why do I need a CD player? Or a digital TV?
And of course I know what the D in DSL stands for. Digital technology is just fine for disseminating information on the web, but not so good for video, and definitely not so good for audio.
And as for radio, I know all about that too. That’s why all my tuners are in storage. I use my audio system exclusively for LP’s these days, and my radio listening is exclusively through portables, because neither the audio quality nor most of the content available to me merits anything better.
I listen almost exclusively to news and public affairs from NPR. And why do I ever sample the offerings on commercial radio at all? Just morbid curiosity, I guess, to see how bad it can get!
BTW, I’m not alone in recognizing the shortcomings of digital sound, particularly when data compression is used. Check out this link: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/05/technology/circuits/05warmth.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
radioskeptic said:
I'm with Radioskeptic. I gave up on TV over content 25 years ago, commercial FM soon after.
I can't stand seeing the digital artifacting I see on peoples' digital cable TV. They pay for that?
I did not get CD capability until 4 years ago.
I wish there were something commercial that appeals to me.
I have a good choice of college stations, but as time goes by I am finding them less enjoyable.
I use solid state and tube equipment every day. My music is mostly heard through my pt 15 AM.
I less often listen to music on an old tube McIntosh 40s stereo amp I bought in NYC in 1989 to USE, not collect.
There is very little processing on a this hour of music recorded yesterday. Really only what I did encoding to digital from vinyl.
Well, I guess theres the AGC in Zara..
http://thomasjwells.podOmatic.com/entry/2007-10-21T15_47_30-07_00
AM 1620 21 October 2007
This was recorded off an unmodified Sony table radio with a microphone to a CD recorder then posted to 192k.
I can still hear it's not as crisp as live, but I find the digitizing OK here.
I find more fault with my own levels.
awj223 said:
Yes, I did read your entire post. So, let me see if I have this right: You use the perjorative "corporate radio," except when "corporate radio" happens to air something you like, and then it's OK. I see. Got it now.
A
awj223
Guest
Well, you didn't read the entire thread. Radioman100 saiddumber than a box of hair said:
My post was a response to this, and my point was that even in a market market like #4, corporate radio doesn't provide something as simple as CHR. Therefore, there is a reason to tune to adjacent out of market channels. It's not "the same corporate radio, just by a different name" in Sacramento compared to San Francisco.
M
Mike Walker
Guest
Yawn! Are we really debating digital vs. analog in 2007? Not Hd vs analog, but whether we should have digital audio and video at all? And they say all the dinosaurs died!
But (tick) you're (tick, tick) right (pop) that analog (hiss) sure does (splatted "s" because we're nearing disc center and there's no hf headroom) sound better-better-better-better-better-better-better ("HONEY FIX THAT, THE RECORD'S STUCK!")
But (tick) you're (tick, tick) right (pop) that analog (hiss) sure does (splatted "s" because we're nearing disc center and there's no hf headroom) sound better-better-better-better-better-better-better ("HONEY FIX THAT, THE RECORD'S STUCK!")
I’ve been enjoying this thread because I’m a Mac customer... I purchased an MR-80 [digital read-out/analog-tuned] in 1981 [along with a C-33 Pre-Amp and 120-watt/ch power amp]. WHY? To the latter—I liked them; they have served me well [‘still alive today]; and McIntosh was unparalleled in customer appreciation and support! To the MR-80: I was a fan of Rock-formatted 93.1 WXRT—Chicago; and AS MANY in northwest Indiana and southwest Michigan—a selective tuner WAS NECESSARY to avoid the effects of Top-40 92.9 WNDU [U-93] in South Bend. The latter was a Class B up 880-feet on the co-owned Notre Dame TV station... ‘XRT was “short-spaced”, on a west-suburban 500-foot tower, and unable [at that time] to secure a mast on the popular Sears Tower or Hancock skyscrapers. In those days, MANY barely-blinked at spending $1700 for superior FM reception—MY, HOW TIMES HAVE CHANGED! Corporate FM radio today offers NO SANE REASON for ANYONE to spend even a fraction on such FM finesse.
The MR-78 [and 80], along with the Sequerra, are routinely-accepted as THE BEST FM demodulators in the history of the medium. To downplay their “significance” is trite and in-line with the typical pro-HD logic and lack of cogent debating skills! BTW... To this day, Fine-Arts WFMT [98.7]—Chicago is THE ONLY full-power commercial station in that market that lacks IBOC in the rack. THEY REFUSE on “audio principal”—their “listener letter” details their logic. WFMT is a station that sold MANY an MR-78 in the day. IF radio only had such a following today!
Here’s what I DO agree with Lino on: There are indeed, customers [in need of counseling] that spend $65,000 on interconnect cables – BRAVO for the Boulevard audio salons that enjoy their 40-points on such.... BUT—I doubt that same class would consider $200 for the Sangean HDT-1 HD-capable tuner – there’s NOTHING for them to tune—HD-or-not!
The MR-78 [and 80], along with the Sequerra, are routinely-accepted as THE BEST FM demodulators in the history of the medium. To downplay their “significance” is trite and in-line with the typical pro-HD logic and lack of cogent debating skills! BTW... To this day, Fine-Arts WFMT [98.7]—Chicago is THE ONLY full-power commercial station in that market that lacks IBOC in the rack. THEY REFUSE on “audio principal”—their “listener letter” details their logic. WFMT is a station that sold MANY an MR-78 in the day. IF radio only had such a following today!
Here’s what I DO agree with Lino on: There are indeed, customers [in need of counseling] that spend $65,000 on interconnect cables – BRAVO for the Boulevard audio salons that enjoy their 40-points on such.... BUT—I doubt that same class would consider $200 for the Sangean HDT-1 HD-capable tuner – there’s NOTHING for them to tune—HD-or-not!
Tom Wells said:
How sad that "Survivor" has caused you to miss South Park, NCIS, The Sopranos and the plethora of variously slanted news reports on TV.
News to you... The "Vast Wasteland" has expanded. No matter how hard they seem to try, there's almost ALWAYs something entertaining or infomative on. Heck they have to pollute almost 100 channels to make it ALL suck. More choices requires work on our part. Maybe we should go back to just the 3 networks??? (I don't think so.) No More "Industry on Parade" for us....
Tom... I respect your position. I have your position on the radar. It's right here. After the Decimal point. Nothing new?? You are in the "Fossil" category. I get that. I don't care for a lot of what I hear today either. But I still remeber my parents telling me that
I want to be nice. And I will be. But you are a minority. Just like me. But "I" am a "Radio Guy". Someone who NO ONE programs to. Accept it. We (Who ever you are) are a minority. By DEFINITION, "Broad"casting is not for us. Accept it and move on. "I" have. Understand what radio today is and ACCEPT it. If there are 23 formats and you like #24 then you're screwed. That's what the "Broad" means in Broadcasting
I can see this. My SO tells me regularly that she likes "The AM sound" over "Digital".
My SO has other qualities besides "Radio Love"
Then in the most loving way possible.... SHUT UP. Me and my "Ilk" don't care about you.
I don't mean to be mean, but why are we having this "HDRADIO" discussion. You don't listen to radio. "all my tuners are in storage" = Programmers don't care about you. I respect your feelings, but "You ain't gonna be my audience". See ya - BYE. 90+% of the country is waiting for me tomorrow. Come back and try us someday.... Love ya
Good deal. Glad to see our taxes are getting a return. I ALSO believe in NPR.
Maybe worse than we can imagine. When you get your fellow listeners to raise their standards then you can bet we as programmers will raise ours. Untill then we will be programming to the average of your demo. And I guess if you think your demo is idiots...
Then stick a sock in it. Your gripe isn't HD radio. Your gripe is "MEDIA". I can understand that,, but it "AIN'T" HD RADIO.
Please in the most loving way possible... go piss and moan in the "Programming" boards of Radio-Info.
There's a TV board for this...
Welcome to the 1990's. No offense, but this isn't a phrase you should preface your "Why you should hire me to run you radio group" resume with...
I know you will hate me when you are finished reading this post but here's the reality. You, like me, are getting old. And it Ain't pretty. Long ago, my loving parents told me how "Those Beatle Boys are just noise" and "look at all those crazies at Woodstock". In retrospect this was history.
If you're asking... Will todays "Rap" be tomorrows "Elvis"? I'm way too old and fat to speculate. But if I declare todays music to be crap, am I any diffenrent than my parents? I willl never lose that perspective.
Now I'm pretty much a "Red State" guy, but I never forgot how much the folks that taught me everything I know were "Out of the loop". Perspective is the key... Here's a hint. If you are listening to everything on any form of AM you are not Mainstream. Worthy of respect = Yes. A Radio audience = No
Tom, Zara is a great free program. A "Placeholder" station I run uses it and it is the greatest. I use it over the Raduga 2.92 version I purchased years ago. Funny how this actually ended up on the air here....
I know you won't like this, but I really "DO" respect your passion. But it's not What "WE" like on the radio. It's about what "THEY" like on the radio.
This from a guy who can play his favorite song in 30 seconds via an Internet connection at home.
Love ya..
Clouseau
R
Radioman100
Guest
clouseau said:
Try the 80s! 1982 to be exact. Just think of all those big haired hipsters jamming out to that new tune "Eye Of The Tiger" on those shiny little discs!
Gotta say, I enjoyed your post. You had me rolling! Like you, I wonder why these guys are so obsessed with HD Radio, when they haven't managed to buy a CD player in the last quarter century.
I never ever bought a CD player. I bought a stand-alone CD recorder-player.
Last year my wife bought a player. I always played em over the pt 15.
The part of me that is fossil felt this way when I was 13, so at least I've been true to my positions for
33 yrs now. I AM open-minded, despite my stance on AM HD. And I've always known I was a minority.
I have seen some South Park, and some of the Sopranos. Very little else, since I honestly do not know
what NCIS is. I just haven't the time to see any more than I do.
Last year my wife bought a player. I always played em over the pt 15.
The part of me that is fossil felt this way when I was 13, so at least I've been true to my positions for
33 yrs now. I AM open-minded, despite my stance on AM HD. And I've always known I was a minority.
I have seen some South Park, and some of the Sopranos. Very little else, since I honestly do not know
what NCIS is. I just haven't the time to see any more than I do.
If you Ibiquity supporters think that commercial radio is in trouble only with “fossils” like Tom Wells and me, think again. Check out today’s entry on Jerry Del Colliano’s Inside Music Media blog, "NPR is Not Radio" (go to http://www.insidemusicmedia.blogspot.com ; and if you’re doing this days from now, just scroll down to today’s date: 10/23/07 – or if you’re looking it up months from now, older posts are available through links at the bottom of each page on the web site).
You might also want to check out Dana Hall’s latest “The Strategy Session” column, “What do real people think about radio today?” (http://www.radio-info.com/content/column.php/rcID/83).
Even if it were everything its supporters claim, “HD Radio,” as a mere technological “improvement,” would not solve the real problems that commercial terrestrial radio faces – problems of corporate radio’s own making!
You might also want to check out Dana Hall’s latest “The Strategy Session” column, “What do real people think about radio today?” (http://www.radio-info.com/content/column.php/rcID/83).
Even if it were everything its supporters claim, “HD Radio,” as a mere technological “improvement,” would not solve the real problems that commercial terrestrial radio faces – problems of corporate radio’s own making!
Having just read Jerry Del Colliano's column I am hoarse from Amen-ing.
These students of his today are no different than I was in 1981 with my fringe antenna listening to Chicago college stations
from NW Indiana for the content.
I only considered living in areas where my 2 favorite college stations are strong and clear.
I am ready to become a listener of any station that does what Jerry suggested, return radio to relevance through content
and its peculiarly advantaged delivery mode and real-time relevant information.
This morning I watched the Space Shuttle take off on AM WLS 890. It was a beautiful liftoff.
These students of his today are no different than I was in 1981 with my fringe antenna listening to Chicago college stations
from NW Indiana for the content.
I only considered living in areas where my 2 favorite college stations are strong and clear.
I am ready to become a listener of any station that does what Jerry suggested, return radio to relevance through content
and its peculiarly advantaged delivery mode and real-time relevant information.
This morning I watched the Space Shuttle take off on AM WLS 890. It was a beautiful liftoff.
D
dbdigital
Guest
I Noticed that Bob Savage's website got a mention in John Anderson's DIY media along with several other anti-IBOC sites.
http://www.diymedia.net/
In addition, Mr. Anderson also mentions the Digital Radio Co-ordinating Group report on implementing HD Radio in Canada and comparing Eureka on the L-Band with IBOC.
The group's conclusion was:
"Based on the evidence currently in hand, the DRCG considers that it would be risky for Canadian broadcasters to proceed at this time with an unrestricted roll-out of HD Radio services in the FM band, in the manner implemented in the US. There is no ground-swell of radio listener interest in this technology so far and the lack of inexpensive receivers, as well as unique new programming services, continues to make it difficult to market HD Radio to the public in the US."
Aside from what they perceive as a lack of interest from U.S. listeners, since Canada allocates its FM spectrum slightly differently from the U.S. (no 3rd adjacent protection), IBOC would be more difficult for Canada to implement.
It's a facinating report.
db
http://www.diymedia.net/
In addition, Mr. Anderson also mentions the Digital Radio Co-ordinating Group report on implementing HD Radio in Canada and comparing Eureka on the L-Band with IBOC.
The group's conclusion was:
"Based on the evidence currently in hand, the DRCG considers that it would be risky for Canadian broadcasters to proceed at this time with an unrestricted roll-out of HD Radio services in the FM band, in the manner implemented in the US. There is no ground-swell of radio listener interest in this technology so far and the lack of inexpensive receivers, as well as unique new programming services, continues to make it difficult to market HD Radio to the public in the US."
Aside from what they perceive as a lack of interest from U.S. listeners, since Canada allocates its FM spectrum slightly differently from the U.S. (no 3rd adjacent protection), IBOC would be more difficult for Canada to implement.
It's a facinating report.
db
dbdigital said:
A little postscript to the above: In addition to expressing reservations about FM IBOC, as explained in that report, the DRCG has concluded that there is no interest in Canada in implementing the AM IBOC system, and plans to field test that system have been shelved.
Barry
L
LinoNYC
Guest
dbdigital said:
It is interesting and I thank you for it. I dl'ed the PDF and there are some points in it that make the verdict reached on this board less relevant,
From the report:
The iBiquity HD Radio system for the FM band is tailored rather precisely to the operating
environment found in the United States, where interference-free service for many US stations is
achieved only within their 1 mV/m (60 dBμV/m) contours. Outside this area, any lack of digital
service from host stations, or interference to analog services from adjacent-channel IBOC
operations, would be considered acceptable. In Canada, FM service is generally protected within
each station’s 0.5 mV/m (54 dBμV/m) contour, which is substantially larger in area. Moreover,
it is not common practice in the US to assign regular FM stations within 800 kHz of each other
in the same area, whereas in Canada same-market assignments as close as 600 kHz are
permitted.
Meaning that only in same-market areas where stations are closely speced might this me a problem
The lab and field investigations conducted by the CBC suggest that most stations would be able
to implement HD Radio within their protected service areas without producing an unacceptable
impact on the quality of the host analog FM service. Providing a digital version of the analog
programming would be particularly beneficial in areas where the FM signal is prone to multipath
distortion.
I have relatives in both Montreal and Toronto, even in the latter case with most FM coming from the CN Tower, the recent surge in highrise construction has made multipath a problem. Both tv and fm were wonderful before all the lakefront condos went up.
Based on the evidence currently in hand, the DRCG considers that it would be risky for
Canadian broadcasters to proceed at this time with an unrestricted roll-out of HD Radio services
in the FM band, in the manner implemented in the US. There is no ground-swell of radio listener
interest in this technology so far and the lack of inexpensive receivers, as well as unique new
programming services, continues to make it difficult to market HD Radio to the public in the US.
Moreover, there is no evidence that Canadian digital radio listeners are being lost to the 10% of
US FM stations that have implemented HD Radio to date.
This is classic Canadian beaureaucratic hedging.
The way to read this is; If it catches-on down in America, we'll have to go along.
The very fact that the Canadians are investigating this system a decade after adopting Eureka 147 -and having it mostly ignored, tells you something.
Lino
- Status