PocketRadio said:
The Dude said:
PocketRadio said:
Just like the recent USA Today's article on HD Radio - another HD Radio shill spot ! What, is iBiquity paying major newspapers to run advertising for them ?
I wouldnt doubt it!
This is an excellent response to the NYT article from the Radio Blog:
New York Times Covers IB(A)C
http://theradioblog.blogspot.com/2007/03/new-york-times-covers-ibac.html
It is good to see, that HD Radio is being exposed for what it is - seems as though, analog is just fine with folks !
Hey, thanks for the mention! I haven't visited this section very often... I just might have to start checking in more often.
Mike, I'd challenge your statements on a number of things. Firstly, I may be wrong about manufacturers making the products, but they certainly aren't marketing them. I keep a pretty close eye on the industry, and if they're making HD radios and I haven't heard about it, that's saying something... most notably and
especially saying that the average consumer most certainly hasn't heard about it. In addition, even the CEO of iBiquity doesn't expect them to sell very well in a reasonable time frame (according to a recent interview... I'd have to search for the link, I'll post it later if I have time), and since he's made that statement, one must realize that
no one is listening, and no one
will be listening for quite some time, if ever.
Secondly, I
love traditional radio (I don't use the term "terrestrial" as it's come to be used because Internet radio is just as terrestrial as over-the-air broadcast radio is... perhaps
more when you figure that most of the lines the Internet runs over are buried under ground). But that comes with a caveat: I love traditional radio
when it's programmed well. The fact of the matter is that programming has become so boring and generic today that the majority of traditional radio stations across the country are dull and un-engaging. If I can't trust the people who program analogue traditional radio to bring me entertaining listening material, why in the world would I trust those
same people to bring me anything better on an HD stream? It's that simple. HD doesn't solve programming problems, it only presents
more.
Thirdly, HD
doesn't offer better quality. I've heard more samples than I can handle... none of them are up to par. And yes, I've heard the arguments about dueling codecs with online samples and all the arguments about processing and such... the fact of the matter is the technology just doesn't live up to what anyone expected of it. In addition, if the digital portion of a signal doesn't extend any further than around one-third of the distance the analogue signal reaches, what good is it? Only one-third of the analogue audience will be able to hear the digital transmissions... I
would not consider that to be better than analogue. And don't even try feeding me the "once we get out of hybrid mode" bullcrap. Interference and nature are interference and nature. It won't change for the better just because you're throwing
more digital hash into the airwaves. If anything, that will only make the problem
worse.
Fourth, the steps of the plan simply don't matter. You can go on quoting the plan and progress to me all day long... it doesn't mean a thing. What matters is public acceptance, and that simply isn't there, nor will it be. Given the problems that are inherent to the technology, consumers will simply form the opinion that the older, analogue technology worked better (and they'd be right); and that would be in
addition to the opinion they'll form about the programming (the same as what I laid out above). You're right, I ain't seen nothin' yet... nor will I. Nor will you. It just isn't going to happen. Not the way you expect it to. By the way, there are only about 1,200 stations broadcasting in HD. That's just over a thousand. That's hardly the "thousands" figure you claim.
When you say "vocal minority," just who are you referring to? The truth of the matter is that the radio industry and iBiquity are the minority. They're forcing this new technology on a listening audience who are, as you point out, quite content with what's out there
now (though I and TSL numbers beg to differ). The consumers, with literally
millions and millions of analogue radios already in their homes, are in the majority. You don't hear them yelling from the rooftops that HD is the wave of the future. They're more concerned with Internet radio (a technology which continuously boasts
increasing TSL
and cume numbers) and their iPods. I may be in the minority because I'm vocal, but I'm in the majority when it comes to people who see HD for what it is.
I don't dislike anything for being new, nor do I dislike anything for being digital. If it were some other form of digital broadcasting we were discussing, my opinion would likely be flipped 180 degrees. I'd love to see CAM-D and FMeXtra put in place instead of HD, as those technologies actually
work the way they're supposed to and don't cause the interference to adjacent stations that HD does. I also see Internet radio becoming the prominent digital radio medium (which is happening as we speak). Those are new technologies, they're digital, and I'm all for them. I'm not the average "older is better" proclaimer. However, I'm against anything that is as damaging and technologically unsound as HD is. That's both the engineer
and the radio lover in me.
I appreciate the insult to my intelligence. Makes me feel like the mature one in the argument.
